Re: A Future Economics

[Gunnar Tómasson <gunnar.tomasson@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Re. the following:

> If Say's law refers to a closed (ideal) system, then isn't about time to
> draft the laws of an open (real) system?

Comment:

Economists have tried to do just that since the 1930s - so far without
success.

Past failure has not persuaded the two Pauls - Samuelson and Davidson -
that, in principle, the task is impossible.

In this respect, the Ergodicity vs. Non-Ergodicity aspect of their
respective research agendas mirrors the NKS distinction between
Computational Reducibility (as in an ideal system exemplified by Say's Law)
and Irreducibility (as in real-world non-Say's Law systems).

Keynes, in (a) attempting the task with _The General Theory_ and (b) selling
the result to his peers, fudged the distinction between the two in Chapter I
as follows:

"I shall argue that the postulates of the classical theory are applicable to
a special case only [one characterized by Computational Reducibility -
insert] and not to the general case [characterized by Computational
Irreducibility - insert], the situation which it assumes being a limiting
point of the possible positions of equilibrium [the very concept of which is
meaningless for a system characterized by Computational Irreducibility -
insert]."

Gunnar



----- Original Message -----
From: "Harry Veeder" <eo200@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "post keynesian thought" <pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 5:48 PM
Subject: Re: A Future Economics


> Gunnar wrote:
>
> > The most egregious example of such failure remains the construction of
the
> > Closed-System Say's Law of Markets as an Open-System proposition,
whereby a
> > strictly axiomatic or Analytical conclusion is incongruously held to
have been
> > 'refuted' by Common Sense appeal to the Empirical phenomenon of
non-clearing
> > markets.
>
> If Say's law refers to a closed (ideal) system, then isn't about time to
> draft the laws of an open (real) system?
>
> Harry
>
>
>