Re: General Theory Seminar --Savings and Investment

["Harry Veeder" <veed0001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

----------
>From: "°ë×¾ºí HenryC.K.Liu  ºò?lÄô" <hliu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>To: POST-KEYNESIAN THOUGHT <pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: General Theory Seminar --Savings and Investment
>Date: Fri, Feb 18, 2000, 10:22 pm
>

>
>
>Harry Veeder wrote:
>
>> Strictly speaking this is more a civil engineering view of equilibrium.
>> Physicists also employ thermodynamic theories of equilibrium which use
>> probablistic laws to explain the distribution of system states at certain
>> energies. This is very different from an equilibrium of deterministic forces in
>> balance.
>>
>
>Perhaps particle physical is more applicable to the "new economy" of virtual money
>(hybrid financial products, Greenspan calls them) in which equity and debt are both
>sides of the same coin, not only in every coin mint but will ever be mint; and
>Newtonian physics to the "old economy" of traditional stocks and bonds.

I think non-equilbrium thermodynamics and "cool" physics
(low temperature in relative terms) like condensed matter physics are
more applicable. In fact, they are applicable to the past as well.
High energy, Big Bang (an ongoing "disequilibrium"!) particle physics
are Keynesian in nature.

The bit about equity and debt is partially true. It has an exact
analogue with the "duality" of waves and particles in qantum physics. Debt
is local or particle like because it is agreement between particluar
individuals and banks. Equity, on the other hand, is non-local like a wave
where the wave's form is regulated by our shared values.



>> Classical economists and Keynesians confuse physical wealth with
>> material wealth. This confusion drives all the airy-fairy debates about "real"
>> wealth vs "paper" wealth.
>>
>> Physical wealth can be any form of information.
>> Some information requires a great deal of energy to produce and is
>> materially substantial while other information requires very little energy, is
>> materially insubstantial but is cognitively, psychologically and socially taxing
>> to produce.
>>
>
>Harry, this is very insightful.  You should push it further and write a paper to
>apply to the current debate on TRIP (Trade Rleated Intellectual Property Rights) in
>WTO.
>
>The satifactory and just resloution of this issue is crucial to the future
>of global
>trade.  Right now, the economics governing it is at the stone age phase.
>

Henry,thanks.
You should write the paper. The connection to TRIP isn't apparent to me
like it seems to be to you.

Harry Veeder