Re [5128] and [5130]: Comparative statics or what? It seems to me that there is a lot more talk about dynamic (and chaotic) theories and models than actual dynamic (and chaotic) models: it is easy to say that one needs dynamic analysis, it is harder to do it. I asked a related question in [OPE-L:4960] on "dynamic and chaotic systems": namely, I asked anyone to specify the *formal characteristics* of dynamic systems and chaotic systems. Since nobody answered that question it was hard to move on to what would have been my next question: which (if any) Marxist theories and models could be said to be truly dynamic models and which could be said to be chaotic models? Let me be clear here. I am not asking whether a theory is consistent with the *possibility* of dynamic and chaotic modeling. I think that begs the question. I am asking whether a theory is actually *in a formal sense* dynamic, etc. Until one can answer that, then all the talk against comparative statics is just talk, imo. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Apr 02 2001 - 09:57:28 EDT