Re: Heterodoxers are crackpots

[Paul Davidson <pdavidson@xxxxxxx>]

At 11:11 AM 8/27/02 -0400, you wrote:
> .
> I could not agree more Andrew. My fear with the ideas of a single and
> unique axiomatic foundation is that you may rely simply on general
> categories that are so general that they rob the theory altogether of its
> d

If you need additional axioms to cover "particular situations" then why not
specify the ADDITIONAL specific axioms so the reader can tell whether this
is a better representation of reality.  For example, Debreu requires the
neutral money axiom, the gross substitution axiom and the ergodic (or
ordering axiom) for his specific case for "descriptive relevance" of an
efficient market system. Nevertheless he still accepts the basic
assumptions of  Keynes, GT  as specified on page 245 of the GENERAL
THEORY.  Accordingly those of us who think the future can not be know with
perfect certainty (the ordering axiom) or even reliable statistical
predictability (the ergodic axiom) aand also believe that liquid assets
including money has certain essential properties including the fact that
liquid assets are not gross substitutes for the products of industry -- can
readily explain why we believe the Debreu analysis is not a "descriptive
relevance"  for the market economy of our experience.

Now do you want to suggest that the generality of Debreu's general
equilibrium is of "descriptive relevance" and if not -- why not??

Once you answer that question we can get on to whether it is possible to
develop "descriptive relevance in particular situations and context"
without "the ideas of a single and
unique axiomatic foundation is that you may rely simply on general
categories".

After all if you are going to argue in methodological terms, in any
scientific endeavor, the first step is to develop a unique taxonomy based
on the most general theory available.  Without a crisp, clear and
unambiguous taxonomy-- we are truly in a tower of Babel!!

Quite rigth again...methodological awareness would allow us to make
> significant progress. Heterodox economics is easier to conceive in
> methodological terms.

Perhaps we best first find out what your taxonomy means by
methodological!   Does "methological terms" involve some form of taxonomy
--- and if so what?

Paul
Paul Davidson
Editor, Journal of Post Keynesian Economics
Economics Department - 523 SMC
University of Tennessee
Knoxville, Tennessee 37996-0550
phone # (865) 974-4221
fax # (865) 974-1686
home phone  (865) 692-0802
http://econ.bus.utk.edu/davidsonextra/Davidson.html