Re: Equilibrium, stasis and death 19 Jan 1994 04:11:56 -0700 from <wpc@cs.strath.ac.uk>

[Jim Devine <JNDF%LMUACAD.BITNET@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 19 Jan 1994 04:11:56 -0700 <wpc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> said:
>In reply to Brad Cox, I would suggest that the centrality of
>equilibria in economic theory has two origins:
>1) The economy like an organism is at first approximation a
>self reproducing system. Hence from the physiocrats in the 1700s
>one concern has been to show how self reproduction is possible.
>Now of course self reproduction is only a first approximation
>of either an organism or an economy, in practice they change
>and evolve over time, and it should in principle be possible to
>extend a reproduction model to handle this. I suspect that
>the computational complexity of doing this will have put people
>off until recently.

To my mind, what we need are such reproduction conditions (as in
Marx or the Physiocrats) as measures of the relative health of
the capitalist system. I'd then see macroeconomics as the study
of the endogenously-driven breaking and restoration of these
"harmony conditions."

>2) The second reason is that economics unlike physics has a
>primarilly ideological function, and only secondarily a practical
>function. Its purpose is to justify or criticise existing social
>relations. It is easier to claim that all is for the best in
>the best of all possible worlds if you restrict your set of
>the possible to models in static equilibrium.
>
Amen!

sincerely,

Jim Devine   BITNET: jndf@lmuacad    INTERNET: jdevine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ., Los Angeles, CA 90045-2699 USA
310/338-2948 (off); 310/202-6546 (hm); FAX: 310/338-1950