|
Re. the following:
The problem is the system - the
framework of political and economic institutions that is our political economy-
and unless we understand it, how it works and what makes it like it is, we can't
fix it.
Agree.
But that is precisely why we need
"economic theory and methodology" - or, more generally, since the former is
inconceivable without the latter, we need "economic theory" of the kind of which
Keynes wrote (1922):
"The Theory of Economics does not
furnish a body of settled conclusions immediately applicable to a policy.
It is a method rather than a doctrine, an apparatus of the mind, a technique of
thinking, which helps its possessor to draw correct conclusions."
Absent such theory, there is no way the system can
be fixed except by trial and error.
In the context of Paul Davidson's
point the other day, "deductive logic" is of the essence for working out the
inner structure of such "doctrine" or "apparatus of the mind."
But, since theory so construed "does
not furnish a body of settled conclusions immediately applicable to a policy",
fixing the system is essentially dependent on "plain common sense".
Gunnar
|
- Income distribution, Harry L. Cook Fri 30 Aug 2002, 20:07 GMT
- Re: Income distribution, Gunnar Tomasson Fri 30 Aug 2002, 21:47 GMT
- Re: Income distribution, Mason Clark Sat 31 Aug 2002, 15:57 GMT
- Re: Income distribution, John O'Donnell Sat 31 Aug 2002, 16:33 GMT
- Re: Income distribution, Harry L. Cook Sat 31 Aug 2002, 15:59 GMT
- Re: Income distribution, John O'Donnell Sat 31 Aug 2002, 15:57 GMT