Date: Mon Mar 14 2005 - 08:11:12 EST
> are these thoughts/models formulated mathematically as difference or > differential equations, i.e. a real dynamic model, or is this traditional > curve-shift analysis? > The latter is IMHO inadequate for real analysis of stability, robustness > of results etc. > So if static - did you check stability etc. with a "larger" dynamic model? Hi Anders: I think I can answer that question. The method employed is that of comparative statics. Recall again (and read below) the purpose of DL's paper. So long as that is all one wants to do, what's wrong with using comparative statics? I.e. so long as one _only_ wishes to provide a critique of a theory using the methods employed by that theory (rather than, for example, to make a claim about capitalist macro dynamics which would need to be more rigorous, make different assumptions and use different definitions, etc., and have an empirical/historical component) then I see nothing wrong with that. Do you? In solidarity, Jerry . > > Second, OPE folks need to be clear: this is an attempt at *immanent > > critique* of mainstream macroeconomics -- to get under their skin, in > > their own terms, and upset the dogma of policy ineffectiveness -- the > > main conclusion of the free-market hegemony. For this purpose, I use > > *their* tools. I use, yes, diagrams. You need to answer one > > diagrammatic argument with another one, not with something that could be > > taken to be a mooshy evasion. I simply assume, in this paper, the usual > > downward sloping AD curve. *Of course* all of this needs to be > > questioned in the full light of Marxist categories. But the limited > > purpose of this one paper needs to be borne in mind. If we can provide a > > simple, compelling case that makes the AS curve not vertical after all, > > and opens up a discussion of the wider social effects of fiscal and > > monetary policy, is that not something worth doing?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Mar 15 2005 - 00:00:01 EST