Re: Debunking Holy Writ

[Bruce McFarling <ecbm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 28 Nov 2001 17:40:59 -0500, Gunnar Tómasson
<gunnar.tomasson@xxxxxxxxxxx>

>First.  IF the "fundamental ideas" of the General Theory are
>unsound, THEN the great majority of Bank of Sweden Prize Laureates
>and their intellectual peers must be held to be perpetuating unsound
>ideas in the name of economic 'science' - the question is HOW can
>such scholars be knocked off their pedestals in order that the dead
>hand of Holy Writ ideas may be lifted from economics education in
>our universities and economic policy formulation (The Washington
>Consensus)?

I have trouble following this, since the Washington Consensus
is *based* on the process that knocked the General Theory out
of economics education in the US, starting with Samuelson,
and accelerating in the eighties and nineties.

Indeed, part of this process does involve treating the General
Theory as Holy Writ rather than as a work of theory ... that
is, as a work to be cited rather than understood, while
working on a different line of reasoning altogether.  This is
the same kind of reasoning that was capable of taking "thou
shalt not kill" and cranking out the Medieval doctrine of
the just war.

The practice of lifting passage willy nilly and using them as
rhetorical ammunication without regard for the theory that the
passages are attempting to express is part of the process of
treating the General Theory as Holy Writ ... whether it is used
by supporters of the General Theory _qua_ religion, or by
proponents of another economic theory _qua_ religion who are
attempting to undermine "the opposition's holy writ" by
selective reading and tortured interpretations of verses from
the GT.

Far better to treat it as a work of theory.  As y'all know,
I think its a pretty decent theory within its chosen scope,
and think that the most serious mistake was post-WWII in
trying to transform it into a growth theory, pushing it down
the time dimension before working out the disaggregation of
the general theory along industrial dimensions that was more
or less ruled out by the Samuelsonian truce, conceding "micro"
issues to neoclassical economics.


--
Dr. Bruce R. McFarling, PhD
Bus. Office 1.72 -- (02) 4348-4078
School of Business
Faculty of the Central Coast
Newcastle University, Ourimbah