Re: Sweden -- A few reactions on the N.Y. Times article

[Martin Watts <ecmjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Paul, Why not circulate your anti-Lindbeck article or get Ric to
organise a seminar.
Martin Watts

Paul Davidson wrote:
>
> At 04:42 PM 8/12/98 -0600, SVEN wrote:
> >First of all, let me say that as I read the NYT article I got a feeling of
> >hopelessness.
>
> Per and Sven tells a tale that emits dispair in al directions.  If you
> believe Per and Sven then Assar Lindbeck becomes the devil incarnate. Is
> here no hope? I do not know Lindbeck personally but I know what are the
> flaws in his analysis!
>
> I think there is a way of reducing the power of today's monotheistc
> mainstream economics --but only if the "heterdox" i.e., anti-mainstream
> ("non believers") explain why their analysis is (a) logically incompatible
> with the mainstream and libertarian views -- which are based on the same
> axioms-- i.e., the gross substitution axio and the ergodic axiom and
> therefore people know whats best for themselves in the future and the gross
> substition axiom therefore assures that the free market provides the
> Panglossian solution.   Unless you are willing to sign on to an analytical
> system that rejects both these hypotheses then your analysis is capable of
> being corrupted to support the free market conclusions that are th logical
> conclusion of the two classical axioms mentioned above.  (Therefore Barkley
> once you admit that a complex or chaotic system can have fundamentalist
> traders intoroduced -- you have given away the ball game.)
>  and (b) explain why the classical axioms are not applicable to the real
> world and the rejection of these axioms are!
>
> Now I have been trying to tell people on the pknet that they must unite
> undder the nonergodic banner -- to logically win the argument and be an
> effective countervailing force for the minds of young economists -- but if
> you insist that you can work with the classical axioms by introucing some
> nonlinearities -- or some monopoly (capiyalist) power into the argument --
> you have already lost the war!  The american Keynesians thought they could
> do this with the neoclassicl ynthesis -- and that is what dooomed
> Keynesianism not only in the US but in Sweden as well.
>
> Can we get rid of the Assar Lindbeck influence.  I think so. I have written
> an article entitled "Why Lindbck's Assessment of New Keynesianism is not
> compatible with Keynes's Principle of Effective Deexplaining why Lindbeck's
> Jan 1998 EJ article is wrong and even logically inconsistent within its own
> analysis.
>
> Paul Davidson
> Holly Chair of Excellence in Political Economy
> Economics Department -- 523 SMC
> University of Tennessee
> Knoxville, Tennesseee 37996-0550
> email: Pdavidson@xxxxxxx;   phone: (423)974-4221;    fax: (423) 974-1686

--
Department of Economics                   Phone (61)2 4921-5069 (Work)
University of Newcastle                   Fax (61)2 4921-6919 (Work)
NSW 2308                                  Phone (61)2 4982-9158 (Home)
Australia                                 Fax (61)2 4982-9611 (Home)