Re: Paul D's response

[FAC_BROSSER@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx id <01HOZJU0340W91VUIG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Wed, 05 Apr 1995 17:11:19 -0500 (EST)]

     Let me push Bill Mitchell's envelope a bit further.
If there really is "fundamental nonergodicity," then it
will apply fully to any government intervention.  The
result is total nihilism.  We know nothing and can do
nothing.  This certainly opens the door to New Classicals
who argue against the "nirvana fallacy" of Keynesians
who say government intervention might somehow make things
better.
     Of course, Keynes' own view of uncertainty, as has
been noted by several people on this net, is not nearly
as "fundamentally nonergodic" as what Paul D. pushes.  JMK
expressed it more in long-run terms, what will be the price
of copper or the state of assets decades from now? rather
like "in the long run we are all dead."
     So, Paul, which is it, long-run Keynesian uncertainty
which allows short-run ergodicity, or "fundamental"
Davidsonian non-ergodic implicit nihilism?
     BTW, my e-mail address will change on Friday April
7 to rosserjb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx  I shall have to go off-
net for a period of time during the changeover (by orders
of our local computer bosses).  My apologies in advance to
anybody whose messages/responses I might miss.  You might
send me a private message if you respond to one of my net
messages, as I may not receive the latter.
Barkley Rosser
James Madison University