Anyone here read this? Haven't gotten round to it yet but I've been getting into some economic history of thought and I started reading "The Legacy of Piero Sraffa Volume 1". As a former Marxist economist I'm slightly intrigued by a revisitation to the Classicals, most notably Ricardo, because I understand the general thrust of the labour theory of value, however I am also partial to the Austrian criticisms - the criticism I think it most valid is the heterogeneity of labour argument from Bohm-Bewark. However, it seems the same problem can be applied to Neoclassical economists who take the homogeneity of capital to be given (and indeed this seems to be the main thrust of Sraffa's critique during the Cambridge Capital Controversies).Anyway, let's have an econ thread with some more high level ideas than the 50th Marxism post
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpuuRS6mkx8more finance than econ but this video rly makes u think
>>24119184Dumb video. We all know the Fed captures inflation expectations by looking at market signals themselves, although it's also true that those same markets will be predicting the Fed's rate cuts. But anyone sensible is under no illusion that the Fed can unilaterally set market rates. He doesn't even do an econometric analysis, he does a shitty Excel table. Yes, market rates can change somewhat with demand, but in general banks are charging a mark-up over the FFR and in general the mark-up depends on credit default risk. Of course, credit default risk changes so changes in the FFR will not always 1-to-1 correlate with market rates, but genuinely how does he explain inflation targeting? How else can the Fed target interest rates than by changing the market interest rate?>There is "no evidence that Fed rates affect market rates or treasury yields" 14:14>simply retarded
>>24119178I studied undergraduate level microeconomics and macroeconomics, but I know very little about this history of economic thought or "political economy" (in my country, "studying political economy" is equivalent to "being a Marxist").I skimmed through E. K. Hunt. I think it's a legit history of economic thought book, but I also think it's a mary sue Sraffa fanfic. This book was the first time I learned about Sraffa, but I'm not entirely sure if it's accurate.I don't understand the last part. He suggested that post-Sraffa economists has developed "by simply ignoring the crucial problems raised by Sraffa", is this true?
I’ve tried to dive into economics multiple times but it always turns into dry dead ends. Will this book allow me to finally get into it?
>>24119538Fml image didn’t upload
