RATHER PUT A LIMIT IN YOUR ECONOMETRIC MODELS Marxist predicative econometrics are impossible, because the main marxist equation is wrong at the macroeconomic scale. Refer to the courageous but unsuccessfull Gillman's attempts on rate of profit. Keynesian predicative econometrics are impossible, because, among others, the so-called <<multiplier>> isn't explicit. Refer to PK authors and politicians who are splitted between their conviction about the necessity of a boosting policy, and their resignation in vew of the supposed jamming action of inflation. <<Neoclassical>> predicative econometrics are impossible, because this <<thought>> is unable to establish a difference between the <<by the costs>> inflation and the <<shortage on goods>> one at which the former is always reduced. Refer to Friedman, according to who raises in prices invariably are the result of an only cause : the excess of money, even in the cases of overproduction regarding to the demand! That is to say no predicative econometrics are presently possible. There are only pages of equations in the thread of whose, as Keynes already said (preface of GT), their authors forget, at the begining of each page, the hypothesis of the previous ones, most of these hypothesis being ad hoc ones. Nevertheless, I think predicative econometrics on macro policy intervention are possible. My certitude is founded on a double observation that everybody can do in macroeconomics. Firstly, the matter is the trend of both growth and inflation, tending simultaneously towards zero by the positive values. Secondly, this trend is nothing but the opposite sign one of the previous positive trend of both growth and inflation we've known in the sixties. Such an observation reveals the mathematical reflection of a limit. A limit which is totally independent of the macro policy paradigm. The moneytarist one, purchasing the stability of money, spoils economy and society. The keynesian one succeeds to establish growth and social stability, but to the detriment of the value and its owners. It was not always so, but it is the reality now. That is that authenticates the <<limit>>. No one of the known models is able to identify a limit, because all of them postulate the human economy as an intrinsic equilibrium without its having to enter in an exchange with an external environment : that is natural constraints are systematically ignored. Because, too, all of them postulate the capitalist space as an isotrop (non oriented) one : that is the resultant of all geographical and sociological trajectories of capital movements is implicitly supposed to be null or random. I have been working on that <<theory of the limit>> for years, and I think I have identified the entropic factors of the limit. They are the strict trend of productivity, and the transformation of the increasing productivity in an accumulation of value. And what about social components ? They exist in an other investigation referential than the strictly economic one. I think this last principle is the only way for getting out of the hodgepodge. Do I succeed in picking the collective brain ? R.K. (I apologize for the syntaxic faults : writing in English is a task I'm just begining to complete)
