Elsewhere

Gualra has a blog, titled "Controversias Del Capital". It seems like the kind of thing I would read if I were able to read spanish. Gualra kindly alerts me to aspects of Kaldor's thought I neglected.

I don't understand Matthew Mueller. One reason I expect professors can know more than most students is that typically students have simply not lived enough years to have been able to read as much. But this does not seem to apply to Matthew. I think this post from Matthew agrees with my previous post on the same topic. But, as I recall, I was alerted to Horwitz's controversy with Post Keynesianism by Matthew's comments on some post over at the Austrian Economics. (Here's a short recommendation of both Matthew's and my blog.)

I laugh at Paul Walker's display of ignorance, to put it kindly. Gabriel Mihalache already points out some major problems with Paul's statements. General Equilibrium does not address a research problem in which Adam Smith was interested; tâtonnement decribes a centralized - not decentralized - process for setting prices; and general results do not show the tâtonnement process converging to a stable equilibrium. In his last comment, Paul makes mistaken claims about Walras. He does not seem to realize that Walras's system is mathematically contradictory. Walras takes endowments of all goods, including individual capital goods, as givens in solving for steady-state prices.

By the way, the email discussion list for the Societies for the History of Economics (SHOE) has replaced the list for the History of Economics Societies (HES).