From: John Conover <email@example.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 > <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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, email@example.com, http://www.johncon.com/