Re: Post Keynesian Axioms versus Real Economies

["Gunnar Tomasson" <tomasson@xxxxxxxx>]

Re. the following:

>
>             There will be great and profound discussions of
>             values and tools. There will be little to suggest
>             that a closed logical system can yield by deduction
>             the kernel of what we need to know.
>

Algebra and analytic geometry exemplify "closed logical systems".

A would-be mathematical scholar would never get to first base without
mastering the essentials of whatever "closed logical system" pertains to his
field of interest.

By 1911, when he published 'Theory of Economic Development', Schumpeter had
come to the like conclusion with respect to the sine qua non of would-be
economic scholars.

Ditto for Keynes in his 1922 definition of "the theory of economics" as
"apparatus of the mind" and, earlier, for Marshall who defined theoretical
economics as "an engine of analysis".

In the 1840s, John Stuart Mill wrote that economics science would NOT be
completed until its would-be practitioners had arrived at a satisfactory
"theory of mind".

John, on what "theory of mind" - if any - do you predicate your proposition?

Gunnar