Talk:Cambridge capital controversy

message: This place is essentially horrid (most maths and science pages excepted), but this is just a fantastic piece. It has style.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.89.169.22 (talk) 13:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  By gum, this is a good article. 

message: Thank you for the article. One of the better ones I have ever read here in Wikipedia. 
--Uncertain (talk) 15:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with what is already said, and I am an economics PhD student  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.118.26.49 (talk) 01:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: To the unknown author: 

message: Some of the language in this article is unnecessarily one-sided in favor of Neo-Kaynesianism, such as this passage:  "Most practically-minded neoclassical economists reacted to this problem by simply clinging to the simple model that they had inherited from Solow and Swan."
* Same goes for the language in the conclusion section. "Sweeping it under the rug", etc. 141.30.25.56 (talk) 09:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: One-sided

message: of the lede because it's essentially original research. The "aggregation problem" is not particular to neo-classical economics but is present in any kind of "macro" theory. Different schools just circumvent it in different ways (neoclassicals by assuming rep. agent models, neo-Ricardians by fetishizing linear production models). The idea of representative agents is only superficially related to the ccc - the controversy took place way way before anyone anywhere was doing rep. agent models and the "US" Cambridge side was essentially defending their version of aggregate Keynesian models. That's anachronistically imposing some modern controversies - at best - on an old debate. Don't confuse an already confusing debate any more than it needs to be confusing. Volunteer Marek  07:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Took this out 

message: I don't see that this is anything other than the author's opinion:
"But despite ostensible efforts to separate normative from positive economics, the normative tone appears in many economic works anyway. This is especially true of the Chicago School of Economics, the so-called Austrian school, and similar "free market" thinkers."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icantbelieveits (talk • contribs) 19:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinion / Neutrality 

message: this is a one-sided presentation of a technical problem with little or no relevance . the last paragraph is a biased account of the issue. There is a reason why phd students are not presented with the controversy: it is irrelevant to economics, and this is the point of view recongnized by 99% of the professions' scholars.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.59.250.178 (talk) 16:16, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is not one-sided. Most economists are trained to be ignorant of the neoclassical side of the controversy. Thus, they have nothing effective to say, as the above comment demonstrates. 128.132.1.10 (talk) 13:18, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Non neutral pov 

message: This article seems clearly biased and ignores the actual response of neoclassical economists (erroneously claiming that the latter simply ignore the Cambridge critique). It also ignores the assumptions of the Cambridge critique (which I mentioned in my other comment above) such as the invariance of saving/investment with respect to the rate of profit; assuming invariance of the market price of capital goods with respect to demand for finished goods for which they are inputs. Indeed, the very final quote by Burmeister (the author of the article say neoclassical economists usually ignore the Cambridge critique) is self-contradictory: it notes the specific changes Samuelson even made to his textbook in refining his models after the dispute; moreover, the shift away from ‘fixed saving’ models noted earlier in the article also flatly contradicts this conclusion. I've made some edits accordingly, including the final Burmeister quote, which is presented, incorrectly, as an objective summation of the debate.SomeBiologist (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 05:28, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I might as well mention that the above claims about the assumptions of the Cambridge critique are simply incorrect. 128.132.1.132 (talk) 17:36, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added changes 

message: This page currently has mistaken ideas by Austrians. For all their pretense, they do not have a good response to the CCC. And some have found more commonality between Marx and Sraffa than is apparent in Steedman's 1970s book. For example, consider the work of Riccardo Bellofiore. 216.171.191.62 (talk) 12:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreliable on Austrian and Marxian Views