From: Andrew Brown (A.Brown@LUBS.LEEDS.AC.UK)
Date: Thu Mar 24 2005 - 05:11:22 EST
Hi Jerry, It is worth clarifying that the paper we are discussing is at the draft stage. The bulk of the paper can currently be read as an immanent critique of general equilibroium -- and this is clearly how Paul C. views it. However, the conclusion of the paper, obviuosly written by Ajit, claims more than this -- much more. It talks about fundametal limitations to economic science as such. Now, having read and been intrigued by some of Ajit's previous work on Sraffa, where this claim about limitations on economic science as such is argued in detail, I have taken the opportunuity to discuss this latter claim. As far as the paper goes, then a redraft could just avoid the claim. However, I am sympathetic to your second paragraph below. Why show a theory is wrong 'on its own terms' when one can show it is wrong on everyones terms, viz. in terms of reality? Many thanks Andy -----Original Message----- From: OPE-L on behalf of Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM Sent: Wed 23/03/2005 19:58 To: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU Cc: Subject: Re: [OPE-L] standard commodity > [Ajit wrote:] Our paper deals with numeraire, > which has a well defined meaning in economic theory, > particularly in the theory that our paper is designed > to critique. How about if I say that poverty is the > most serious economic problem and your theory says > nothing about how to measure poverty or reduce > poverty. So, there! That's my criticism of your > theory. You will be legitimately allowed to say, > "bull"! Ajit and Andy: This is the issue that I inquired about yesterday. If the paper _only_ represents an immanent critique of marginalism, then is an ontological dispute relevant? In such cases logical consistency claims, such as those raised by Ian, have more relevance. If, OTOH, what is being interrogated is a theory of capitalism, then ontological issues come into play. But, there is an ontological critique of marginalism as well which claims that neo-neoclassical theory can not adequately describe the essential character of a capitalist economy. Unless we are talking merely about formal logical systems which are unconnected to reality and history and mere figments of the fanciful imagination of logicians, then ontological issues must be addressed. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Mar 25 2005 - 00:00:02 EST