Re: Economic Science [Was: Re: The Widow's Cruse

[Gunnar Tómasson <gunnar.tomasson@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Bill:

Re. the following:

I object to your characterization of critical
comments from myself and others as being "thoughtless
knee-jerk reaction to unfamiliar viewpoints."
Firstly, the viewpoints you have expressed are
definitely not "unfamiliar" but retreads of banal
stuff long ago discredited, like Marx's M->C->M'
where M' minus M is taken to be the definition of
profit.  It was already discredited even before Marx
by those familiar with the rules of double entry
accounting.

Comment:

1.  This is how Paul Davidson expresses the M->C->M' relation:

"It has nothing to do with final demand inflation -- only that the present
value of a future stream of quasi-rents associated with a new piece of real
investment [M'] exceed the present cost of producing that piece of
investment [M]."

2.  This is how I express the M->C->M' relation:

Enterpreneurial Profit is the product of Final Demand Inflation.

3.  This is how you react to the M->C->M' relation:

"...the viewpoints you have expressed are definitely not "unfamiliar" but
retreads of banal stuff long ago discredited, like Marx's M->C->M'  where M'
minus M is taken to be the definition of profit.  It was already discredited
even before Marx by those familiar with the rules of double entry
accounting."

You have yet to show how the Bill Ryan rejection of "the banal stuff" of

(a) Karl Marx.;

(b) Paul Davidson; and

(c) Yours truly

is something OTHER than a "knee-jerk reaction" to elementary LOGIC.

Gunnar


----- Original Message -----
From: "William B. Ryan" <william_b_ryan@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <gunnar.tomasson@xxxxxxxxxxx>; <rosserjb@xxxxxxx>;
<ChrisOfDulwich@xxxxxxx>; <geoffrey.gardiner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
<pdavidso@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2003 5:43 PM
Subject: Re: Economic Science [Was: Re: The Widow's Cruse


> ***|
> The above concept of knowledge accords perfectly with
> the definition offered in 1922 by Keynes [my working
> paper continued]:
>
> "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."
> |***
>
> Not when you interpret what he means by this in light
> of his 1938 letter.  By "branch of logic" he clearly
> states that what he means by this is the "progressive
> improvement in the choice of models" tested against
> phenomena observed in the real world.  See the full
> text of Keynes's letter at
> http://www.geocities.com/new_economics/keynes-1938.txt
>
> ***|
> The concept of Economics as Science mirrors the
> classical (Humean) concept of "knowledge" - in a
> working paper from the 1980s, I summarized it as
> follows:  1.  All knowledge is axiomatic.  2.  Hence,
> knowledge relates to a state of mind...
> |***
>
> I thought Hume departed from classical concepts of
> knowledge.  Moreover, this does not even appear to be
> Humean who I always thought was a radical empiricist.
> I believe I remember that he divided knowledge into
> two categories--what we would call *a priori* and *a
> posteriori*.  Your 1 and 2 above would fall into the
> *a priori* category, wouldn't it?  Or am I mistaken?
> Isn't that what is meant by "axiomatic" being derived
> through the rules of formal logic from facts assumed
> to be true *a priori*?  I believe Hume questioned the
> necessary validity of *a priori* knowledge (or
> anything derived from it) because we have no way of
> knowing the validity of the impressions in the minds
> of our remote ancestors who imparted them to us
> through the generations.  *A posteriori* knowledge is
> therefore more reliable than knowledge gained *a
> priori*.  We may conclude from our observations that
> the sun has risen today.  We cannot justifiably
> conclude from that the certainty it will rise
> tomorrow because that is information not yet observed
> by us.  Knowledge *a priori* is knowledge that was
> never observed by us.
>
> ***|
> For some time now (close to thirty years!), I have
> maintained an epistemological point of view with
> respect to what Lionel Robbins termed 'the nature and
> significance of economic science' which, first, Paul
> A. Samuelson plus a handful of orthodox mainstream
> economists and, next, PKTers have judged to be off
> the wall - that is, if thoughtless knee-jerk reaction
> to unfamiliar viewpoints may be said to constitute
> 'judgment'.
> |***
>
> I object to your characterization of critical
> comments from myself and others as being "thoughtless
> knee-jerk reaction to unfamiliar viewpoints."
> Firstly, the viewpoints you have expressed are
> definitely not "unfamiliar" but retreads of banal
> stuff long ago discredited, like Marx's M->C->M'
> where M' minus M is taken to be the definition of
> profit.  It was already discredited even before Marx
> by those familiar with the rules of double entry
> accounting.  Those rules were integral to the
> development of capitalism.  Profit is the operational
> increment to capital (or "net worth") not money.
> It is enabled by mechanisms of credit that are human
> constructs, which do not automatically flow from
> natural forces (the "hidden hand") through the
> market.
>
> But we've gone through this all before.  Your
> argument appears to be caught in a time warp from the
> 1970s.  No matter what is said to you in terms of
> informed response, it never changes.  You never
> counter the informed response with reasoned reply,
> but continue to chatter the same words and phrases in
> your vocabulary like a parrot.
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> Get advanced SPAM filtering on Webmail or POP Mail ... Get Lycos Mail!
> http://login.mail.lycos.com/r/referral?aid=27005

----- Original Message -----
From: "William B. Ryan" <william_b_ryan@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <gunnar.tomasson@xxxxxxxxxxx>; <rosserjb@xxxxxxx>;
<ChrisOfDulwich@xxxxxxx>; <geoffrey.gardiner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
<pdavidso@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2003 5:43 PM
Subject: Re: Economic Science [Was: Re: The Widow's Cruse


> ***|
> The above concept of knowledge accords perfectly with
> the definition offered in 1922 by Keynes [my working
> paper continued]:
>
> "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."
> |***
>
> Not when you interpret what he means by this in light
> of his 1938 letter.  By "branch of logic" he clearly
> states that what he means by this is the "progressive
> improvement in the choice of models" tested against
> phenomena observed in the real world.  See the full
> text of Keynes's letter at
> http://www.geocities.com/new_economics/keynes-1938.txt
>
> ***|
> The concept of Economics as Science mirrors the
> classical (Humean) concept of "knowledge" - in a
> working paper from the 1980s, I summarized it as
> follows:  1.  All knowledge is axiomatic.  2.  Hence,
> knowledge relates to a state of mind...
> |***
>
> I thought Hume departed from classical concepts of
> knowledge.  Moreover, this does not even appear to be
> Humean who I always thought was a radical empiricist.
> I believe I remember that he divided knowledge into
> two categories--what we would call *a priori* and *a
> posteriori*.  Your 1 and 2 above would fall into the
> *a priori* category, wouldn't it?  Or am I mistaken?
> Isn't that what is meant by "axiomatic" being derived
> through the rules of formal logic from facts assumed
> to be true *a priori*?  I believe Hume questioned the
> necessary validity of *a priori* knowledge (or
> anything derived from it) because we have no way of
> knowing the validity of the impressions in the minds
> of our remote ancestors who imparted them to us
> through the generations.  *A posteriori* knowledge is
> therefore more reliable than knowledge gained *a
> priori*.  We may conclude from our observations that
> the sun has risen today.  We cannot justifiably
> conclude from that the certainty it will rise
> tomorrow because that is information not yet observed
> by us.  Knowledge *a priori* is knowledge that was
> never observed by us.
>
> ***|
> For some time now (close to thirty years!), I have
> maintained an epistemological point of view with
> respect to what Lionel Robbins termed 'the nature and
> significance of economic science' which, first, Paul
> A. Samuelson plus a handful of orthodox mainstream
> economists and, next, PKTers have judged to be off
> the wall - that is, if thoughtless knee-jerk reaction
> to unfamiliar viewpoints may be said to constitute
> 'judgment'.
> |***
>
> I object to your characterization of critical
> comments from myself and others as being "thoughtless
> knee-jerk reaction to unfamiliar viewpoints."
> Firstly, the viewpoints you have expressed are
> definitely not "unfamiliar" but retreads of banal
> stuff long ago discredited, like Marx's M->C->M'
> where M' minus M is taken to be the definition of
> profit.  It was already discredited even before Marx
> by those familiar with the rules of double entry
> accounting.  Those rules were integral to the
> development of capitalism.  Profit is the operational
> increment to capital (or "net worth") not money.
> It is enabled by mechanisms of credit that are human
> constructs, which do not automatically flow from
> natural forces (the "hidden hand") through the
> market.
>
> But we've gone through this all before.  Your
> argument appears to be caught in a time warp from the
> 1970s.  No matter what is said to you in terms of
> informed response, it never changes.  You never
> counter the informed response with reasoned reply,
> but continue to chatter the same words and phrases in
> your vocabulary like a parrot.
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> Get advanced SPAM filtering on Webmail or POP Mail ... Get Lycos Mail!
> http://login.mail.lycos.com/r/referral?aid=27005