Re: Paul Davidson's piece

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

In a long but interesting, instructive, and valid discussion with
Steve Keen, Paul Davidson throws in the following parenthetical
point:
> (That may explain why I sometimes became
>frustrated with Devine's uncovering these old neoclassical chesnuts!)

For some reason, I finally  understand what Davidson is talking
about.  Getting beyond the fact that name-calling ("chestnut")
is not the same as a rational argument, Davidson seems  to have
been assuming that my point (sales-constraints on labor-markets)
was in some way a *substitute* for the postulate of non-ergodicity.
But that is not true. I never rejected non-ergodicity (or
accepted ergodicity) as describing the real world. Rather,
I saw sales-constraints in labor markets as potentially
*complementary* to non-ergodicity.

This reminds me: I have to reply to Skott's discussion,
which took sales constraints in labor markets seriously.

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
if bitnet address fails, try jndf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx