by From Dave Taylor . . . most heterodox critics of the mainstream are thinking “macro” – of the economy as a whole – whereas most mainstream economists are still thinking “micro”, assuming what is true of all is true of any, and confusedly suggesting the many different things true of any and at different times are always true of all. Consider the analogy of ships in an exogenously choppy sea. The equilibrists are right, the waves will even out; and the rationalists are right: the navigators will adjust the incidence of the ship so that the waves don’t swamp it; but that says nothing about what the ship is doing: where it is going and what gives them reasonable assurance (bar accidents) of getting there. In the case of a ship, that is the compass and Cartesian coordinates enabling the
Topics:
Editor considers the following as important: Uncategorized
This could be interesting, too:
Peter Radford writes Break Up Economics — continued
tom writes Varieties of capitalism and societal happiness: theory and empirics
Lars Pålsson Syll writes What is heterodox economics?
Peter Radford writes Rizzo goes for the guild
from Dave Taylor
. . . most heterodox critics of the mainstream are thinking “macro” – of the economy as a whole – whereas most mainstream economists are still thinking “micro”, assuming what is true of all is true of any, and confusedly suggesting the many different things true of any and at different times are always true of all.
Consider the analogy of ships in an exogenously choppy sea. The equilibrists are right, the waves will even out; and the rationalists are right: the navigators will adjust the incidence of the ship so that the waves don’t swamp it; but that says nothing about what the ship is doing: where it is going and what gives them reasonable assurance (bar accidents) of getting there.
In the case of a ship, that is the compass and Cartesian coordinates enabling the mapping of our world in the past, and navigators now using them being able to aim sufficiently precisely for whatever is at a specific latitude and longitude. In the case of an economy, it is how the “crews” cooperate to satisfy their differing and developing needs, capabilies and functions.What I’m suggesting is that the economy is [like] a sea full of ships carrying different crews and cargoes to different places; that “micro” economics should be addressing the map and the obstacles to be generally avoided when aiming in specific directions, and “macro” economics should be theorising the subject in terms of the crew’s needs and methods of navigation, i.e. the dynamic logic and structure of the PID servo: operative at once in our brains, aims of communication, organisation and [Robert’s] communal forms of government.
This is not about social science in terms of lies, damned lies and statistics. It is about how the same logic manifests in different contexts, as algorithmic adding does whether the units are one’s or millions.
https://rwer.wordpress.com/2019/03/17/uncertain/#comments