Re: Mirowski and critiques

[BMOORE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

> Received: from eagle.wesleyan.edu by pacnet.pac.wesleyan.edu (Mercury 1.1);
>     Mon, 24 Oct 94 20:14:59 GMT-0500
> Received: from csf.Colorado.EDU by EAGLE.WESLEYAN.EDU (PMDF V4.2-11 #5526) id
>  <01HIO14AJJJ48Y5VM0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Mon, 24 Oct 1994 20:16:53 EST
> Received: from  (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by csf.Colorado.EDU
>  (8.6.9/8.6.9/CNS-3.5) with SMTP id SAA06990; Mon, 24 Oct 1994 18:08:53 -0600
> Date: Mon, 24 Oct 1994 18:08:53 -0600
> From: kl811af@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Mirowski and critiques
> Sender: pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> To: Multiple recipients of list <pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Reply-to: pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Message-id: <Pine.3.89.9410250014.A16282-0100000@sun1>
> Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
> Originator: pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Precedence: bulk
> X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
> X-Comment:  POST-KEYNESIAN THOUGHT
>
>
>
> On Mon, 24 Oct 1994, Mayo Toruno wrote:
>
> > Just read Gintis's comments on Mirowski.  I aggree.  I too am tired of
> > criticism and would much rather see the development of a full blown
> > alternative that does not feel obligated to justify itself by attacking
> > the mainstream.  It's easy to poke holes in the existing framework.  Much
> > harder to come up with a worthwile alternative.
>
> Here things really become interesting to me. Anybody bold enough to
> propose his favourite candidate for "a full blown alternative"? Or at
> least the basic lines of what could be (one day) this alternative?
>
> Andreas Goesele
> Mannheimer Str. 12
> 80803 Muenchen
>
> >
> > Mayo C. Toruno
> > Department of Economics
> > California State University, San Bernardino
> > 909-880-5517
> > mtoruno@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >

Andreas
    My candidate would be a nonequilibrium theory, that is modelled
along Kaldor's "stylized facts". One can tell many of the existing
stories omitting the concept "equilibrium". It does imply that if
there is no general equilibrium toward which the system is heading,
we (economists) cannot make precise quantitative forecasts. But that
makes us like e.g. meteorology. The goal of science is not to predict
( nonlinear systems have no closed form solution), but rather to
explain (understand) . It is better to be roughly right than
precisely wrong.
    Comments?   Basil Moore