RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: A Krugman Klassic

["Forstater, Mathew" <ForstaterM@xxxxxxxx>]

I also believe that Davidson can overemphasize this. But, the critique of the
assumptions of perfect information and perfect foresight in neoclassical is
important and the distinctions between
imperfect information and uncertainty and risk and uncertainty are important.
Also, Davidson does say that not all decisions are in the context of
non-ergodicity, some are and some aren't, and Keynes did say that many of the
decisions concerning investment do fall under the category of uncertainty. Also,
Davidson emphasizes that institutions can be designed that can help to deal with
this, that is one of the important functions of government.


-----Original Message-----
From: Doug Henwood [mailto:dhenwood@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 10:29 AM
To: pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: [PEN-L:2930] Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: A Krugman Klassic


Michael Perelman wrote:

>Yes.  Davidson's early book on Keyenesian economics was the first to emphasize
>Keynes's radical uncertainty as opposed to hydraulic Keynesianism.

But that's in the GT, and expressed better. My sense is that Davidson
gets so carried away with nonergodicity that you wonder how
capitalism functions at all.

Doug