|
Paul:
Re. James Galbraith's comments:
"The notion of supply and demand as the organizing principle for everything is a few decades more than a century old. (It was not so for Smith, Ricardo, Malthus, Marx, or Mill.) The key player in the Anglo-Saxon tradition is Alfred Marshall; in the continental tradition, no doubt, Leon Walras. In the twentieth century, great economists including Keynes, Joseph Schumpeter, and John Kenneth Galbraith have tried to break the grip of this notion on the professional imagination. But they have not succeeded." As (a) long-time student of classical economic thought, and (b) new subscriber to the PKT list, I submit that "the notion of supply and demand as the organizing principle" is central not only to mainstream and monetarist economics but also to PKT economics as exemplified by recent exchanges on the PKT list. In this respect, I take as my point of departure Schumpeter's remark to the effect that, by completing the Classical Research Agenda in the field of Value Theory in mid-nineteenth century, John Stuart Mill brought economic theory to a "half-way house". As I see it, all subsequent attempts by theorists to advance beyond this "half-way house" are ultimately predicated on the notion that economic theory is properly regarded as a branch of mathematics rather than logic. In his memorial article on Schumpeter, Samuelson expressed surprise that the newly-departed (a) had so stated and, after some dallying therewith, (b) had turned thumbs down on econometrics as the wave of the future. This is how John Maynard Keynes summarized the Say-Mill-Keynes-Schumpeter view of economics as branch of logic in 1922: "The Theory of Economics does not furnish a body of settled conclusions immediately applicable to a policy. It is a method rather than a doctrine, an apparatus of the mind, a technique of thinking, which helps its possessor to draw correct conclusions." Gunnar
|
- Re: Japan, (continued)
- Galbraith and The American Prospect, paul davidson Thu 24 Feb 2000, 16:20 GMT
- Re: Galbraith and The American Prospect, Gunnar Tomasson Thu 24 Feb 2000, 18:59 GMT
- RE: Galbraith and The American Prospect, John M. Legge Fri 25 Feb 2000, 03:29 GMT
- Re: Galbraith and The American Prospect, Gunnar Tomasson Fri 25 Feb 2000, 17:41 GMT
- Re: Gen. Theo. Sem. response to Basil Moore, Basil Moore Thu 24 Feb 2000, 05:58 GMT
- Re: Gen. Theo. Sem. response to Basil Moore, Warren Mosler Thu 24 Feb 2000, 17:12 GMT