Samuelson vs. Keynes on "theory"

["Gunnar Tomasson" <gunnar.tomasson@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Paul A. Samuelson suggested in his Econometrica (July 1946) memorial piece on Keynes that the newly departed had never been much interested in economic "theory".  The suggestion was not meant as a compliment.

 

In the following Gang8 exchange of today's date, I outline an alternative construction of Keynes's lack of interest in "theory".

 

 

Gunnar

 

 

********

 

Re. the following:

 

Without a concept of surplus, there's not much economic theory.

 

Comment:

 

When, at age of 16 or so, I decided to study economics, a classmate asked what I found so interesting about the subject matter.

 

My answer, "It is a matter of common sense," strikes me as valid now as it did some 46 years ago.

 

For, surely, economics is not "theory" in the sense of, say, the "theory" of Newtonian Mechanics whereby NASA sends satellites into orbit around the earth and other solar system bodies and men to the moon, or Quantum Mechanics which have revolutionized the technological aspects of life since the 1920s.

 

Nor is economics "theory" in the sense of speculative physics - Big Bang, Black Holes, String Theory etc. - where "theorists" work out to the nth degree the mathematical implications of some small set of axiomatic pre-suppositions which may or may not accord with whatever attributes physical reality may be hiding up its sleeves.

 

And, last but not least, when used to denote whatever economic "theorists" happen to be doing, the concept of "theory" reduces to mere PR label.

 

So, for the nth time, I revert back to what, in essence, is the Mill-Keynes concept of the "theory" of economics as refined common sense - that is to say, "an apparatus of the mind, a technique of thinking" which, when germane, is superior to non-thinking insofar as addressing real-world problems is concerned.

 

Indeed, if one agrees with Mill's final word on value "theory", namely - in my paraphrase - that economic "value" is a function of Time, Space, and Circumstance, then it is self-evident that the concept of economic "theory" is a delusionary misnomer.

 

 

Gunnar