From: John Conover <john@email.johncon.com>
Subject: Re: Why are economists reviled?
Date: 23 Aug 1999 19:19:39 -0000
William F. Hummel writes:
> On Mon, 23 Aug 1999 09:34:06 -0400, Edward Flaherty
> <flahertye@cofc.edu> wrote:
> >
> >Contrary to some public perceptions, these and other beliefs
> >are widely held by economists not because they fit into
> >economists' preconceptions, and not even because they are convenient,
> >but because the evidence supports the beliefs. In other words,
> >quite a lot of standard economic theory does a darn good
> >job of explaining the world.
> >
>
> Micro appears to be on much firmer ground then mainstream macro.
> No doubt many macro principles can stand up to empirical tests.
> But some fundamental axioms of macro cannot, in my opinion. One
> of them is the axiom of the 'reals', that money is neutral as it
> affects the economy in the "long run", not meaning forever but
> for long enough to really matter.
>
Like you say, William, "just because macro principles can stand up to
empirical tests" does not mean they are a fundamental truth.
Are the macro principles a stable logic/axiomatic system?
Although there is reasonable consensus that if everyone believed macro
principles were a fundamental truth, they would be. However, would
macro principles still prevail, if everyone believed the converse?
Are macro principles the self-fulfilling prophesy of a
self-referential system?
Anyone formally proved it?
John
BTW, the entropic/fractalist POV might have something going for the
epistemology. *_IF_* the characteristics of an economy were fractal,
then the characteristics would be stable whether everyone, (or no
one,) believed it.
--
John Conover, john@email.johncon.com, http://www.johncon.com/