Re: Response to Gonzalo

[Steve.Keen@xxxxxxxxxxx (PMDF V4.3-13 #6323) id <01HPSGF8C9DC8X49PZ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Wed, 26 Apr 1995 09:37:30 +1000]

In a reply to Gonzalo, Paul Davidson made a familiar statement:

|"The question bears down on the axiomatic structure of each."
|My god, Gonzalo, what have I been saying for 1-1/2 years on the net now.
|A general theory involves less axioms to explain more. The more specific
|cases requires more axioms...

|if you ... accept all the fundamental axioms of Keynes and
|reject the neoclassical axioms of gross substitution, neutral money, and
|ergodicity, the Keynes-Davidson general theory of why there can exist
|unemployment equilibrium requires one less assumption ...
| 1. Do you agree that your axiomatic structure does not require the
|classical axioms of (a) gross substitution, (b) long-run (and/or
|short-run) neutral money, and (c) a nonergodic system, i.e., a system
|where the future reality is ontologically uncertain?
|
|2. If you disagree on 1, which of these classical axioms do you
|incorporate into your mathematical model? If you agree with 1, is the
|only other axiom that you require that is absent from Keynes's GT and my
|writing is that ONE OR MORE of the logical relationships in your
|equational system MUST be nonlinear?

Implicit in Paul's statement that Keynes's theory is more general
than the neoclassical because it has *less* axioms is the proposition
that the "true" Keynesian general theory can be derived by using
some but not all of the axioms that underpin neoclassical economics.

Is this what you believe, Paul?

Cheers,
Steve Keen