In a message dated 2/15/2001 7:37:29 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
A great number of economists, sociologists, and political scientists are
attempting to do something approximating what you suggest. I presume you
are aware of the world-system school represented by Immanuel
At 01:29 AM 2/14/01 EST, John Landon wrote:
As we isolate an 'economy', even if we succeeded in the fundamentals of an
analysis we would still have to look at its interaction with a host of other
factors, including the option to invalidate the model by non-deterministic
deciding to deequilibr
This was an interesting thread on mathematical economics, I learned a lot,
and got some good leads. Thanks. I think Hahn's book is a good one to look
at, along with the reference to Cottrell's recent book. I think we should
commit on the price allocating computer in a bunker.
Does anyone know
Justin writes:
>"I like the book, but I _do_ buy the old Austrian take on the calculation
problem, no "almost" about it. -jks"
me:
the socialist "calculation" debate was not about socialism versus capitalism,
it was about whether or not neoclassical economics could apply to a "socialist"
econ
I like the book, but I _do_ buy the old Austrian take on the calculation
problem, no "almost" about it. --jks
>
>I was very disappointed in Hodgson's book on this topic. Hodgson almost
>buys
>the old Austrian take on the calculation debate and seems to support the
>view
>that only markets ca
eswitching.
-Original Message-
From: J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 12:02 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:7864] Re: RE: Re: RE: Critique of mathematical economics
Well, of course one kind of mathematical
economics can be used t
PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 11:58 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:7851] Re: Re: RE: Re: RE: Critique of mathematical economics
On 7 Feb 01, at 8:44, Jim Devine wrote:
>
> I believe Debreu doesn't care enough about reality to d
ones) can be overexploited to the point of
collapse.
Barkley Rosser
-Original Message-
From: Forstater, Mathew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 11:11 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:7845] RE: Re: RE: Critique of mathematic
The most recent effort
to pose the possibility of
supercomputers doing decent
central planning is
presented in the book _Towards a New Socialism_
by W. Paul Cockshott and Allin Cottrell, 1993,
Nottingham: Spokesman.
Not long after that there were
debates about the
arguments in t
supply some references offlist to anybody
who is curious about this.
Barkley Rosser
-Original Message-
From: Forstater, Mathew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tuesday, February 06, 2001 7:43 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:7830] RE: Re: RE: Critique of
ginal ways.
...
Michael Pugliese
-Original Message-
From: Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 8:48 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:7849] Re: RE: Re: RE: Critique of mathematical economics
>Mat wrote:
>>M
o:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 11:09 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:7851] Re: Re: RE: Re: RE: Critique of mathematical
economics
On 7 Feb 01, at 8:44, Jim Devine wrote:
>
> I believe Debreu doesn't care enough about reality to deal with such issues.
>
On 7 Feb 01, at 8:44, Jim Devine wrote:
>
> I believe Debreu doesn't care enough about reality to deal with such issues.
>
> Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
>
Jim,
Didn't I hear somewhere that Debreu when he accepted his Nobel
(sic) he said that he developed
Mat wrote:
>Many of the key contributors to the gen eq. theory, e.g. Arrow and Hahn,
>have stated that the most important function of these models is to show
>how impossible it would be for it to hold in the real world, since the
>assumptions that are required for the solution would likely neve
I was very disappointed in Hodgson's book on this topic. Hodgson almost buys
the old Austrian take on the calculation debate and seems to support the view
that only markets can evoke the 'tacit' knowledge underpinning discovery. Tacit
knowledge and discovery can also play a role in policy formul
, Cambridge U.
Press.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2001 11:48 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:7837] Re: RE: Critique of mathematical economics
In a message dated 2/6/2001 12:28:31 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTE
At 12:56 PM 02/07/2001 +0200, you wrote:
>In terms of American educated
>middle-class behavior, there was nothing at all 'rational' about the actions
>of the Chechen fighters I met in 1994-6, or of the Somalis who immolated
>themselves during the U.S. intervention.
obviously they're rational, sin
At 12:47 AM 02/07/2001 -0500, you wrote:
>I recall a Fortune
>article once claiming the Arrow-Debreu work was somehow the great proof of
>capitalist allocation. Did they really prove their thesis of optimal
>allocation?
the claim is that the model proved the so-called "invisible hand thesis,"
i
In a message dated 2/6/2001 12:28:31 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Check out Bruno Ingrao and Giorgio Israel, The invisible hand: economic
equilibrium in the history of science, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1990.
Ingrao and Israel's book is a fine introduction to the Arro
Matt F. >>
>
> I have seen two or three chapt. of Mirowski's new one, and it will create an
> even bigger stir than his previous work, and that created quite a stir.
***
Will it rattle Greenspan's neuron's or help Congress consider restructuring the
Fed and the Treasury dept.??
Ian
the math or the assumptions or the way questions are asked or
what questions are asked or not asked and so on that are the problems, not the
math itself...
-Original Message-
From: Michael Perelman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2001 11:30 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED
At 01:38 PM 2/6/01 -0500, you wrote:
> I happen to enjoy Mirowski's' books and
>think he makes a lot of valid and useful points.
>But, I also think that he overdoes it.
>Mathematics is strictly abstract.
while reality involves both abstraction and concreteness.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PRO
position of the post-autistic group and also
Mirowski, although sometimes it does not seem like it).
Barkley Rosser
-Original Message-
From: Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tuesday, February 06, 2001 12:33 PM
Subject: [PE
Mirowski's More Light than Heat is terrific -- except for his anti-Marx part;
His new book, Machine Dreams, is magnificent, based on the single chapter I
have read. It will appear in july.
"Forstater, Mathew" wrote:
> Check out Bruno Ingrao and Giorgio Israel, The invisible hand: economic
> equ
Check out Bruno Ingrao and Giorgio Israel, The invisible hand: economic
equilibrium in the history of science, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1990.
-Original Message-
From: Charles Brown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2001 9:48 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN
25 matches
Mail list logo
