🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Jan14.054415.12922@oracle.us.oracle.com> kwee@oracle.uucp (Karl Wee) writes:
>From: serhody@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Stephen e. Rhody)
>These are the kind of conflicts of ideas that any natural scientist would
>be scrambling day and night to resolve or EXPLICITLY give up on as too
>chaotic.  But no, you guys keep doing the two things you do best: 1.
>studying unrealistic imaginary systems with mathematical rigor so as to
>give economics a "scientific" facade.

 [discussion of Adam Smith's free market deleted]

>I guess this is what I really meant.
>There's no virtue in complexity per se.

You can't argue this one both ways.  The most unrealistic quality of most
economic models is there simplicity.

>>If you want an example of a real, working system that requires an
>>economists understanding, try the United States.  Remember, you said
>>working, not working well :).  
>
>The whole idea was that you guys DON'T understand it in a useful way.

There are those who would argue that there's no virtue in understanding the
U.S. economy in 1993.  What we do want is to find those regularities
("laws") which apply to all economies.

>How about something USEFUL?  You roughly have the economic equivalent of, say,
>F=ma.

MV=PT
Y = C + I + G + X - M

>My idea is: don't try to describe how people DO behave.  It's a losing
>battle.  TELL THEM how to behave.

I thought the Soviet Union was no more.

Paul Gomme
--
gomme@sfu.ca                                   paul_gomme@sfu.ca