Our Conclusions: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
=Our Conclusions= | |||
The classicals espouse both normative and positive views, even if they don't refer to them explicity as such, and it is our belief that this tradition of considering both positions strengthens each of the arguments and allows you to make predictions and suggestions about a wider range of things. It is lamentable that for much of the recent history of thought in economics that normative positions seem to have fallen by the wayside in favor of a more concrete positivist positions. However, more recently, authors like Sen, Peart, Levy, and others are now beginning to revive this tradition of the classicals. These authors have recognized the benefits of considering both what is and what should be while also appreciating the distinction between them and the value in making such a distinction. Although normative positions have always been present throughout economics it is our hope that economists who espouse positive views will take normative positions more seriously, and consider the merits of applying both traditions alongside one another. | |||
=Summary= | |||
To summarize, our conclusions are the following: | To summarize, our conclusions are the following: | ||
:* | :*There was a general shift from classical views to explicitly normative and positive ways of thinking in the early twentieth century. | ||
:*It is exteremely difficult to espouse very radical points of view, such as the logical positivists of the 1920s, without narrowing the quality of conclusions one can draw from conclusions. | |||
:*Modern orthodox economics emphasizes the positive tradition, although the profession's general views are slowly going back to center with input from economists such as Sen, Levy, and Peart. | |||
:*It is useful to at least consider both normative and positive economics rather than simply espousing neoclassical economics without first asserting what ought to be. | |||
Latest revision as of 06:33, 2 May 2007
Our Conclusions
The classicals espouse both normative and positive views, even if they don't refer to them explicity as such, and it is our belief that this tradition of considering both positions strengthens each of the arguments and allows you to make predictions and suggestions about a wider range of things. It is lamentable that for much of the recent history of thought in economics that normative positions seem to have fallen by the wayside in favor of a more concrete positivist positions. However, more recently, authors like Sen, Peart, Levy, and others are now beginning to revive this tradition of the classicals. These authors have recognized the benefits of considering both what is and what should be while also appreciating the distinction between them and the value in making such a distinction. Although normative positions have always been present throughout economics it is our hope that economists who espouse positive views will take normative positions more seriously, and consider the merits of applying both traditions alongside one another.
Summary
To summarize, our conclusions are the following:
- There was a general shift from classical views to explicitly normative and positive ways of thinking in the early twentieth century.
- It is exteremely difficult to espouse very radical points of view, such as the logical positivists of the 1920s, without narrowing the quality of conclusions one can draw from conclusions.
- Modern orthodox economics emphasizes the positive tradition, although the profession's general views are slowly going back to center with input from economists such as Sen, Levy, and Peart.
- It is useful to at least consider both normative and positive economics rather than simply espousing neoclassical economics without first asserting what ought to be.
