The economic process always is “the current process” constituted by interdependent velocitous flows of so-much or so-many every so often.
The productive process is, then, the (current)aggregate of activities proceeding from the potentialities of nature and terminating in a standard of living. Always it is the current process, and so it is distinguished both from the natural resources, which it presupposes, and from the durable effects of past production. [CWL 15, 20]
The object of scientific analysis in order to explain the objective economic process is that immanent intelligibility which is applicable to any configuration in any instance, thus universally valid. (Continue reading)
This weekend’s Bloomberg Wall Street Week features Larry Summers of Harvard and Bob Prince of Bridgewater Associates. It is worth listening to the cogent arguments of both re a) the adequacy of the current money supply and present liquidity, b) the dynamics of fiscal borrowing and the Fed’s accommodative printing of money, and c) the intrinsically inflationary nature of current fiscal and monetary operations. Both do a good job. And, as usual, David Westin is a good moderator asking good questions. Kudos and thanks to all three.
The Wall Street Journal of 10/6/2021 featured Paul H. Rubin’s article, “The Woke Left’s Primitive Economics”. Rubin makes several valid points in a) criticizing The Woke’s and the Marxist’s simple-minded, psycho-political, self-damaging, hate-and-envy macroeconomics, and b) recognizing that new and better human and material capital benefit the entire society. We wish Rubin had explicitly and clearly a) legitimized by nuanced theory the practical balance of taxation and spending for responsible waste-free activities, which only we, in our governmental form as We-The-People, can perform, and b) stated specifically that the level of taxation and the incidence of stratified taxation depend upon the requirements of the current phase of an economic expansion – Is it an initial non-expanding static economy, a proportionate expansion, a surplus expansion, a basic expansion, or a higher non-expanding static economy? Continue reading →
On Friday, October 8, N. Gregory Mankiw’s Blog featured Nick Romeo’s interesting article entitled “Is It Time For a New Economics Curriculum?” Greg provided a quote from Romeo’s paragraph re Jonathan Gruber’s take on CORE.
Jonathan Gruber, who teaches introductory economics at M.I.T., felt that CORE might introduce too much complexity for a foundational course. He worried that so much emphasis on the ethical and political dimensions of economics might make the subject feel like a different discipline altogether. “The question is, do you want the students to feel like they’re coming out of, you know, to be blunt, a sociology class or an economics class?” Gruber said.
On the hundredth anniversary of Pope Leo XIII’s Encyclical, Rerum novarum, Pope John Paul II issued the Encyclical, Centesimus Annus, treating The Good of Order, the dignity of humans, the dignity of work, the right to private property, the right to freedom, the evils of Marxist totalitarianism, and the foundation of society in truth..
John Paul II (1991), Centesimus annus, (Encyclical Letter on the hundredth anniversary of Rerum novarum), Vatican
Centesimus Annus should be read by all economists who seek to be open-minded thinkers having broad perspectives, a hierarchy of values, and thus an understanding of the difference between the concepts of liberty and totalitarianism, morality and immorality, right and wrong. (Continue reading)
How’s she cuttin’? This phrase comes from farmers asking about the conditions for hay or crop cutting during the harvest season and has since been adopted across Ireland to be a way to ask how you are. (Google)
Macroeconomists should be scientists seeking better explanations of the economic process of production and exchange.
By “scientific development” I mean development in mathematics or natural science. The scientific horizon recedes, expands when there occurs a crisis in existing methods, procedures, theories, assumptions which are seen to fail. They cannot handle known results, known observations or data, known conclusions. … Thus we have the triple revolution of Copernicus, Darwin, and Freud; the revolutions effected by Galileo, Newton, Einstein, quantum theory; the revolution in mathematics that began with analytic geometry and the calculus, went on to Riemannian geometry, and then to the developments in algebra due to Galois and to later developments In these cases there was a radical revision in concepts. (CWL 10, 92-3)
In the following passage, substitute “macroeconomists” for “scientists; and substitute “scientific macroeconomics” for “science.” Continue reading →
A sound theory is a good thing to keep around. Clerk-Maxwell’s electromagnetic theory and Kirchoff’s lawsof electric circuits are good systematics to consult when one is designing a system to deliver electricity. Similarly, when one is seeking to understand, affirm, and manage the economic process, a reliable, scientific macroeconomics, which both explains how the process actually works and yields norms for adaptation by human participants, is a good thing to have around.
Common sense is different from science. Common sense describes; science explains. Common sense relates things to us; science relates things to one another. And scientificMacroeconomic Field Theory, also called Functional Macroeconomic Dynamics, is different from the mere commonsense compilation of descriptive accounting aggregates called Gross Domestic Product. Continue reading →