BTW, Davidson does make formal models, now and then, so he shouldn't be
ruled out of court by King Krugman. (See his model of the finance demand
for money in MONEY IN THE REAL WORLD, for example.)
At 10:54 AM 10/10/00 -0500, you wrote:
>I also believe that Davidson can overemphasize this. But, the critique of the
>assumptions of perfect information and perfect foresight in neoclassical is
>important and the distinctions between
>imperfect information and uncertainty and risk and uncertainty are important.
>Also, Davidson does say that not all decisions are in the context of
>non-ergodicity, some are and some aren't, and Keynes did say that many of the
>decisions concerning investment do fall under the category of uncertainty.
>Also,
>Davidson emphasizes that institutions can be designed that can help to
>deal with
>this, that is one of the important functions of government.
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Doug Henwood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 10:29 AM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: [PEN-L:2930] Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: A Krugman Klassic
>
>
>Michael Perelman wrote:
>
> >Yes. Davidson's early book on Keyenesian economics was the first to
> emphasize
> >Keynes's radical uncertainty as opposed to hydraulic Keynesianism.
>
>But that's in the GT, and expressed better. My sense is that Davidson
>gets so carried away with nonergodicity that you wonder how
>capitalism functions at all.
>
>Doug
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
