Re: gross substitution

["William B. Ryan" <william_b_ryan@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Professor Davidson:

Thanks for the detailed reply.

You write: http://csf.colorado.edu/mail/pkt/spring99/msg00212.html

"Now all of this is in my POST KEYNESIAN MACROECONOMIC THEORY book--
and I would hope that before people raise these same issues over
and over on the pktnet-- they would read something of the POST
KEYNESIAN literature-- after all this is the Post Keynesian net and
one would hope that participants were at least somewhat familiar with
the PK literature."

I have in fact read most of it, including all of your books and many
of your papers--which is not to say I understand it.

You write, "Why do we need to reject other axioms as well?  Mainly
because we want a logically consistent system..."

So the ergodic axiom must be rejected for the sake of logical
consistency.

Perhaps I don't understand what is meant by the ergodic axiom--the
word is not in common usage.  If it means that we generalize from
knowledge to make predictions, it would seem that if we reject this
axiom and accept its negation, we are saying that the formulation of
testable hypotheses is a meaningless endeavor.  Science would become
an illusion.

Will you please clarify?

Bill Ryan: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/7018

_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com