Re: equilibrium

[MOSS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

I agree with Prof. Davidson about the importance of distinguishing
comparative statics from market process analysis.  I think this tension is
evident throughout many of the leading debates involving Pkers and
Austrians and the like.

Still I cannot help but notice that over the entire span of historical
discussion about economic problems, "thought experiments" have played what
seems to be a major role in giving shape to our discussions of institutions
etc., etc.

ll

I wonder if the comparative static method of analysis is nothing more than
a "thought experiment" (TE) and that TEs are indeed a method of obtaining
knowledge about the economy.  This position is likely to drive philsophers
of science nuts since it has long been catachism that "thought experiments"
are more stories and parable than engines of truth.

I wonder if Prof. Davidson or any others see any greater uses for "thought experiments"
in economics than "stories" and if so what?

Best wishes

Laurence S. Moss