I would like to again raise a topic that continues to underlie the discussion
on GE Theory. Sensibly rising to some bait, Gil contended in response to
one of my postings that the Roemer type models actually produce rather than
merely "simulate" radical results. I think this is worth pursuing. I remember
an analogy from grad micro defending utility theory in the following manner.
Imagine a sealed clock. One can observe the movement of the clock's hands in
front of its dial. One cannot see the mechanism which drives the hands.
The observer hypothesizes a mechanism inside the clock which is capable of
producing the observed movements. The observer has now explained the
movement of the clock's hands for all practical purposes. It may still be
possible to present alternative mechanisms for driving the clock's hands
but one cannot contend that they are any more correct than the first mechanism.
This metaphor stands as long as the clock remains sealed. However, if we
extend the metaphor in the following way, the matter changes drastically.
Suppose you wanted to alter the way the clock's hands moved. The observer
would then have to intervene in the working of the clock's mechanism. It
would then be crucial to have not just a model of the hands' movements, but
the correct model of these movements. Having somehow ascertained the
working of the clock's mechanism, it would become clear that only one model
produced the movements. The other model(s) merely simulated the mechanism
driving the hands. Pen-llers will have seen where this argument is driving.
The point is not merely to explain the world, the point is to change it.
This is what gives urgency to the discussions surrounding bastard Marxism.
Terry McDonough
