Re: Economics


Chas wrote:
> "Ron Peterson" <ron@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1131840355.395933.113950@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

> > I was hoping to avoid circular definitions.

> I don't blame you. That's why I didn't attempt a definition. If I put
> together a quantitative definition that was inclusive, then the qualitative
> would be missing and vice versa. It is not possible at this time to put
> down a definition that would naturally lead from the quantitive frontier
> into the realm of the qualitative. There is no inconsistency here, it is
> quite possible that the quantitative and qualitative spheres of economics as
> a science do not mesh.

The qualitative description of an economy will depend on the type of
economy being developed. An agricultural economy will have a different
description than a manufactureing economy.

> > A primitive is something that doesn't need to be broken down or
> > described any further.

> > For instance, commodities (items that are exchanged) can be broken down
> > between services and tangible items. An economist might ignore that
> > distinction if there is nothing different about their treatment.

> Okay. The definition of the primitive is as good as any other. In fact,
> after spending 17 years teaching college economics, I find most definitions
> are acceptable as long as they are consistently and systematically followed.
> Definitions, like economic models, are limited to a certain level of
> abstraction and should be judged or evaluated relative to that level. If,
> however, I were to define money as a quantitative primitive and then attempt
> to explain it qualitatively, say, with respect to money utility, I would be
> mixing more that levels of abstraction, I would be mixing the qualitative
> with the quantitative and there is no way of doing this in a meaningful
> fashion at this point in economic science.

What are the qualitative aspects of a model that dictate that it is an
economic model?

> For example, many neo-Keynesian economists talk about the micro foundations
> of macroeconomics. These economists have spent decades trying to bridge
> these two areas by starting the bridge from the microeconomic primitives, if
> you will, and the results have been a total disaster for economics as a
> science and as a serious subject matter for teaching on the college level.
> Not only can the qualitative aspects NOT be brought into the foundation, but
> the quantitative aspects are contradictory.

I would think that if a model were reasonably simple, it wouldn't lead
to contradictory aspects.

--
Ron

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Evolutionism and perception
    ... Fear that science has shown us ... While the Creationists are a ... it seemed all cheap toys were made in Japan. ... look at how Japan's economy has grown over the past 40 years. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: what the USA needs to do to fix its present economic malaise
    ... Mises is outdated and irrelevant. ... more time on reading or watching Simpson than on reading real science. ... > Then the economy of the USA will not be ... And get a real name if you expect anyone to read your posts or even respond ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Ben Stein on OReilly Factor: Creationist Movie
    ... Religion persecuted science for centuries, ... the European Dark Ages were not a result of any such ... economy declined; it /changed/, and the results of the change increased ... The main change was the decline of the urban classes ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: What do we get for our money?
    ... causing inflation and is crippling the economy. ... What has science given us for our research money in ... know a lot about old bones and meteors hitting Jupiter. ... _all_ scientific development as merely learning "a lot about old bones ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Had enough capitalism?
    ... the economy and the financial crisis, ... Katrina, denial of science, the worst financial collapse in decades, et ... Economy - profiteering and protected by Dems and Obammy himself while ... Heh, heh. ...
    (rec.boats)