Comradely yes, and interesting too but as an attempt to come to grips with some "true" state of macro, both frustrating and ultimately hopeless on more levels than one. If the economy is an ongoing process in a state of becoming, static S-and-D (algebraic) analysis is garbage regardless of its "given" micro determinants. For the latter will always take macro to be a sum of determinate micro components, and thereby define away the possibility of the dynamic macro-condition _determining_ the value (and/or price) of those same micro components. Or in other words, all conventional economic approaches take it for granted that the economy exists _in_ time, rather than _over_ time.
As part of an overall process, s and d curves don't exist at the same time and thus cannot be made to cross in a coherent matter. All attempts to do so will encounter unsolvable aggregation problems, as well as incompletable theories of money and/or capital. Shelving any of those away for later consideration, no more than postpones the possibility of ever coming to understand what an economy is all about. Instead a radically different approach, one that explicitly differentiates between a territorial (physical) reality and a mapped (accounted-for) reality of the economy's field of investigation, is needed. My $.02 worth, John V On 20/01/2013 6:16 AM, Marv Gandall wrote: > On 2013-01-20, at 8:55 AM, Fred Moseley wrote: > >> Hi Julio, >> >> I too am a bit frustrated by this discussion, so maybe we should take a >> break. > FWIW, I think you both dealt with your differences in a model comradely way. > > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > > > !DSPAM:3411,50fbfc52201482307014237! > _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
