Re: Fundamentals

[John Vertegaal <vertegaa@xxxxxxxxx>]

John,
I appreciate you going through the trouble and even though
there are a few open questions, I basically have no quarrel
with your exposition, except that it isn't "fundamental".

For it to be fundamental you would have to show, from a set
of empirically non-contradictory axioms, not only why a
geometric random walk is equivalent to the comings and goings
of our economy, but also and more importantly that any chosen
point of departure is a _determinate_ one.
  Just asserting it is, as you've done in the past about the
latter, isn't good enough.

As it stands, all you can claim is that: _given_ a certain
set of circumstances, this is what rational managers in a
microeconomic world would do.  I sympathize with that view
and as far as it goes you're probably right.
  But from that position you have no way to ascertain the
_certainty_ of that set of circumstances with respect to what
is going on in the macro world as a whole; and so it cannot
serve as fundament to build a theory upon.
  At least until it is either shown to be erroneous, or
irrelevant to solving real economic problems; my logic, built
on just a couple of very basic axioms, shows that the macro-
economic world is indeterminate at any given time, thus there
can be no micro fundamentals.

John V