In defense of Paul D

["John Gelles" <jjgelles@xxxxxxxx>]

            The following comment in defense of Paul Davidson's
            effort to ground an open minded critique of classical
            economic failure, (to move policy to fairer human
            outcomes,) on a theoretical argument that relies on
            the least number of axioms, is offered for its clarity
            and force.  (I shall reply to it at a later time).


"What I think [some] miss is that the very point of the nonergodicity
'axiom' is that we can expect no single formula to describe what goes on
in any particular economic system.  Paul's fight with the defenders of
ergodicity just IS your fight with people who believe in substantive,
universal, invariant algorithms for prediction and explanation.  He's
trying to give a justification for a more ad hoc approach in a way that
uses the theorists' language and gains their respect with its technical
proficiency.  So, it serves a purpose as a rhetorical strategy directed
at methodological ends very similar to yours (at least compared to most
neoclassicals).

( ... You are free to post this to PKT list.)

best,

Jonathan Halvorson
Department of Philosophy
Columbia University"

----- above comment from Halvorson referred -----
----- to my message as stated below                -----


From: Jonathan Halvorson <jdh11@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: John Gelles

John,

... [You fail to present fairly] one of the things that I think
is most interesting about Davidson's take on economics.

You write:

            "I fear for economic instruction that succumbs
            to a similar fate. Professor Paul Davidson is
            NOT the target of this concern.  He is more
            open to ad hoc and inferential rules than most
            advisors to the body politic. But he does
            spend time on texts that, if the whole world
            learned them by heart, would make no
            difference.

            The problems the "new economy" faces,
            such as bubbles and disparity in wealth,
            are not in need of agreement on the non-
            ergodic axiom (or its relevance).  These
            problems, together with the major
            problems of poverty, pollution, and wars
            (economic and/or bloody), require
            Keynesian money if the bubbles burst,
            tax reform for effective political action,
            and enormous study and effort in such
            fields as conflict resolution and detente.

            There will be little by way of a closed
            axiomatic foundation to help us. The open
            use of common language, common sense
            and common courtesy, are called for in all
            matters of political economy above the
            level of the competitive firm chasing
            private gain."