Re: The conflict at Notre Dame

[Clifford Poirot <cpoirot@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Just to clarify my meaning: irrespective of the problems or potential
applications of BS, my point was that the profession has not really gained
all that much from mathemetization. I would be more clear perhaps, if I
stressed my objection is not to mathemetization and quantification
necessarily. Indeed, some degree of mathemetization and quantification is
necessary. That is why I arged that Marshall's use of graphical analysis at
a partial equilibrium level was a brilliant and appropriate use of
mathematics to elucidate general principles.

My protest is in regards to the hypermathemetization of the profession, in
which the greatest accomplishment is viewed in the use of high level
mathematics to explain general equilibrium processes. Or, the valuing of
endogenous growth theory **over and above** the original contributions of
Schumpeter, Marx, Veblen and Rostow. Indeed, I would argue that while I am
sympathetic to the endogenous growth theorists on some levels, there is a
dimension even in Rostow that is lost in endogenous growth theory.

Someone once suggested that the profession values:

1. General Equlibrium, mathematical analysis;
2. Partial Equilibrium, new institutionalist analysis;
3. Old Institutional Economics with its focus on anthropological and
sociological analysis.

I would reverse that order. So I am not opposed to people doing mathematical
research and certainly am not out to deligitimize that venue (as if we few
remaining qualitatively focused economists even had remotely that
power!)-but rather, challenging;

1. the normative valuing scheme of the economics profession;
2. the view that hypermathemetization and this excessive focus on it has led
to any really stunning and major policy breakthroughs.

-----Original Message-----
From: J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. [mailto:rosserjb@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 10:35 AM
To: Clifford Poirot; 'Roger Koppl'; pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: The conflict at Notre Dame


Chip,
      I think that many of us see the bond traders story as a
mixed bag, can smooth things out in the short run and much
of the time, but threatens greater systemic uncertainty.  This
would appear to be the view of Henry C.K. Liu, although I
should not presume to speak for him.
Barkley Rosser
----- Original Message -----
From: "Clifford Poirot" <cpoirot@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "'Roger Koppl'" <koppl@xxxxxxx>; "Clifford Poirot"
<cpoirot@xxxxxxxxxxx>; <pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 3:52 PM
Subject: Re: The conflict at Notre Dame


> Clearly, I have no power to censor any idea on this forum. I am sorry I
gave
> offense.
>
> I simply cannot see a theory that leads bond traders down the primrose
path
> to bankruptcy as an example of a mathematical advance.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roger Koppl [mailto:koppl@xxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 2:43 PM
> To: Clifford Poirot; pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: The conflict at Notre Dame
>
>
> I came back from a short trip to find Clifford Poirot's note to the effect
> that my comments on Black & Scholes were fit for, using his word,
> "ridicule."  Thanks, Cliff, for setting me straight.  Here I had thought
> differing opinions could be had on the topic.  (Hence my comment, "Of
course
> you might not agree that these applications have been beneficial.")  Silly
> me.
>
> Who can recall Abbie Hoffman's comment on what is, sometimes, the
> intellectuall correct response?  It's always a pleasure to escape from the
> stiffling dogmatism of orthodoxy to the fresh air of PKT, where hubris is
> abandoned in favor of open-minded discourse.
>
> Roger
>
> -------------------------------------------
> Roger Koppl
> Professor of Economics and Finance
> Fairleigh Dickinson University
> Madison, NJ 07940
> USA
>
> World Wide Web: http://inside.fdu.edu/pt/koppl.html
> Internet: koppl@xxxxxxx
> Phone: (973) 443-8846
> Fax: (973) 443-8377
> -------------------------------------------
>
>