Re: Why Heterodox are subject to be losers.

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

Paul:

Re. the following:

> >This IS the kind of "theory" sought by Samuelson and like-minded economic
> >scholars, as indicated by Samuelson's statement that ergodicity is a sine
> >qua non for any would-be "science" in the field of real-world economic
> >phenomena.
> >
>
>
> This is not true-- for example the "theory" of evolution can not predict
what
> future forms of life will evolve from present circumstances.  You -- and
> Samuelson-- confuse ergodicity with "theory".

Comment:

Not so - your concept of "theory" - and that of Evolutionary Theorists - is
NOT that of physical science.

There is nothing wrong with that so long as Economic Theorists follow the
logical implication of such "theory" and abstain from any and all
predictions about the future course of economic events.

In which case, of course, the question arises:

What is Economic Theory good for?

Re. the following:

> If you just appeal to "common sense" and not to an axiomatic logical
general
> theory -- then anything goes and we are back to a Tower of Babel.

Comment:

Here, the Samuelson/Tomasson concept of "theory" is one up on your own - for
"an axiomatic logical general theory" relating to real-world economic
phenomena cannot possibly exist UNLESS such phenomena are ergodic.

Or, to put it differently, any such "axiomatic logical general theory" would
be "operationally meaningless".

Gunnar

----- Original Message -----
From: "pdavidso" <pdavidso@xxxxxxx>
To: "Gunnar Tomasson" <gunnar.tomasson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 10:39 AM
Subject: RE: Why Heterodox are subject to be losers.


> >===== Original Message From Gunnar Tomasson <gunnar.tomasson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> =====
> >Comment:
> >
> >It all depends on what economists mean by "theory" in the first place.
> >
> >In physical science, "theory" is short-hand for prediction of future
> >empirical observations based on past such observations, as in the case of
> >Newton's "theory" of orbital motion within the Earth-Moon System.
> >
>
>
> >This IS the kind of "theory" sought by Samuelson and like-minded economic
> >scholars, as indicated by Samuelson's statement that ergodicity is a sine
> >qua non for any would-be "science" in the field of real-world economic
> >phenomena.
> >
>
>
> This is not true-- for example the "theory" of evolution can not predict
what
> future forms of life will evolve from present circumstances.  You -- and
> Samuelson-- confuse ergodicity with "theory".
>
> Ergodicity is merely a restrictive axiom -- and Keynes's "general thoery"
does
> not require it.  Also see my book POST KEYNESIAN MACROECONOMIC THEORY
where I
> expand Keynes's general theory to modern circumstances and institutions.
>
>
>
>
> >By the same token, this is NOT the kind of "theory" behind which
heterodox
> >economists might "unite", considering the self-evident fact that
real-world
> >economies are non-ergodic.
>
> There is the Keynes-Poast Keynesian general theory -- and then those
heterodox
> economists who want to emphasize something else -- can make their theories
> special cases of a general theory -- by explicitly indicating the axioms
> necessary to develop their analytical structure. Then any fair minded
reader
> can use his/her "common sense" to decide whether these EXPLICIT additional
> resatrictive axioms is applicable to the real world!!
>
> That is how theory should evolve -- and not youe claim below:
>
> >
> >My own view is that economic "theory" in the Newtonian sense is possible
> >ONLY with respect to a purely ANALYTICAL conceptualization of monetary
> >relations between economic agents cooperating in the production process.
> >
> >And that is no small thing - for, insofar as economic scholars are
concerned
> >with the architecture of real-world monetary systems whose primary task
is
> >to serve the production process under conditions of near-full factor
> >employment and price stability, such "theory" is an essential point of
> >departure.
> >
> >With respect to everything else, I submit that economic "theory" is
common
> >sense applied to whatever circumstances the non-ergodicity of real-world
> >economies may generate at any given point in time and space.
> >
>
>
> If you just appeal to "common sense" and not to an axiomatic logical
general
> theory -- then anything goes and we are back to a Tower of Babel.
>
> Paul
>
> Paul Davidson
> Editor, Journal of Post Keynesian Economics
> University of Tennessee
> SMC 503
> Knoxville, Tennessee 37996-0550
> phone # (561)369-1951; fax #(561)369-1951;
> email pdavidson@xxxxxxx
> http://econ.bus.utk.edu/davidsonextra/Davidson.html
>
>