me: > "...while never examining the units used to measure its > ingredients..."
Tom Walker wrote: > ... It's not a big deal? That supposes that > the "real flaw" is elsewhere and therefore the unit fallacy is subsidiary. > Although that is one possible interpretation, the other possibility is that > the will to express relations in non-existent units that is at the bottom of > all the rest of the hocus-pocus, in which case the unit fallacy is > foundational and not ornamental. I'd say instead that the willingness to use non-existent units is a matter of sloppiness resulting from the insulation that many or even most macroeconomists have from serious criticism. Of course, that insulation is often created by economists themselves when they use unnecessary mathematics in the first place. It's a definite flaw, but it seems less important than various other macroeconomics sins, including (in no particular order of importance): - the very common failure to see the distinction between macro and micro (preferring to reduce the former to the latter, even while teaching students about the fallacy of composition); - the use of a timeless model (with no true uncertainty) having no role for money (beyond being a means of exchange), so that Say's "law" applies; - the use of an aggregate neoclassical production function; - ignorance of how the existence and persistence of unemployment feeds back to transform micro-level results; - obsession with equilibrium as somehow describing a real-world state; - the assumption that the difference between idealized models and the messy real world is unimportant; - deliberate ignorance of class relations; etc. -- Jim Devine / If you're going to support the lesser of two evils, you should at least know the nature of that evil. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
