More equilibrium, stasis and death

[bcox@xxxxxxx (Brad Cox @ GMU/PSOL)]

Paul Cockshott wrote:

>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.

I know. That's why I mentioned the paradigm shifts of astronomy, physics
and chemistry. Fields like astronomy also played an ideological function in
their infancy, justifying man's place at the center of the universe. But
they grew out of this in the course of major revolutions during which they
won their stripes as true sciences.

Stepping far beyond my training into the realm of ill-informed opinion,
didn't Economics pass up the opportunity to escape its equilibrium-bound
traditions when it went with Keynes and Wahlras (sp?) instead of embracing
the Copernican role Hayek and Mises attempted to play?

Pass a friendly hi to Douglas MacGregor for me, willya?

        Brad

--
Brad Cox; bcox@xxxxxxx; 703 968 8229 Voice 703 968 8798 Fax
George Mason Program on Social and Organizational Learning