[8/21 and 22/19]

[23] (**Click here ****for previous “Single Paragraphs”**)

Leave a reply

**The Functional Macroeconomic Dynamics Collaborative**

Website: Bernard Lonergan’s Functional Macroeconomic Dynamics

https://functionalmacroeconomics.com

functionalmacroeconomics@gmail.com

Brian C. Moyer, Director

Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)

4600 Silver Hill Road

Washington, DC 20233

Dear Mr. Moyer,

Presently the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) publishes three general versions of the National Income and Product Accounts (NIPA).

- Gross Domestic Product, Current $
- Gross Domestic Income by Type of Income; National Income by Type of Income; and, National Income by Sector …; Current $)
- Gross Value Added by Sector; Current $)

Would it be possible for the BEA staff to develop a fourth which would be * explanatory *of the production-and-exchange process? Continue reading

**Lonergan is alone** in advancing through the field of macroeconomics to **the level of system**. His analysis is a strictly functional, purely relational, **new paradigm** of macroeconomics. (Continue reading)

In this section, we are contrasting familiar textbook models of **macrostatic equilibrium**, with Lonergan’s **explanatory theory **of **macrodynamic equilibrium**. We are contrasting a macrostatic toolkit with a** purely relational field theory** of macroeconomic dynamics. Lonergan discovered a theory which is more fundamental than the traditional wisdom based upon human psychology and purported endogenous reactions to external forces. His Functional Macroeconomic Dynamics is a set of **relationships between n objects**, a set of intelligible relations linking what is

The **process** is always the current, purely dynamic process. The **analysis** is purely functional, purely relational and explanatory analysis. The **theory** is general and universally applicable to concrete determinations in any Instance; The theory is a **normative theory** having a condition of equilibrium.

Our subheadings in this treatment are as follows:

**Always the Current Process:****A Purely Dynamic Process Requiring a Dynamic Heuristic:****A Purely Functional Analysis:****A Purely Relational, Explanatory Analysis:****A Theory, General and Universally Applicable to Concrete Determinations in Any Instance:****A Normative Theory Having a Condition of Equilibrium:**

**Always the Current Process:** Continue reading

The **“formal cause” **of the economic process is its **immanent intelligibility. **The formal cause consists in the **primary relativities **or **general laws **of the process, which hold in any number of instances. In the formal cause we apprehend many things as **one**; we grasp **all in a unified view**. The formal cause contains the normative theory but explains both equilibria and disequilibria. Particular boundary conditions, such as past and future prices and quantities are relatively insignificant for the analysis; these boundary conditions are further determinations that are contingent from the very fact that they have to be obtained from a non-systematic manifold. (CWL 3, 491-6/) Continue reading

Lonergan, like Euclid, Newton, and Mendeleyev, moved through his field of inquiry to **the level of ****system**.

(Given the failure to implement the basic expansion,) the

systematic requirementof a rate of losses will result in a series of contractions and liquidations. … [CWL 15, 155]… a

science emergeswhen thinking in a given field moves tothe level of system. Prior to Euclid there were many geometrical theorems that had been established. The most notable example is Pythagoras’ theorem on the hypotenuse of the right-angled triangle, which occurs at the end of book 1 of Euclid’sElements. Euclid’s achievement was to bring together all these scattered theorems by setting up aunitary basisthat would handle all of them and a great number of others as well. … Similarly,mechanics became a systemwith Newton. Prior to Newton, Galileo’s law of the free fall and Kepler’s three laws of planetary motion were known. But these were isolated laws. Galileo’s prescription was that the system was to be a geometry’; so there was somethingfunctioning as a system. But thesystem really emerged with Newton. This is what gave Newton his tremendous influence upon the enlightenment. He laid down a set of basic, definitions, and axioms, and proceeded to demonstrate and conclude from general principles and laws that had been established empirically by his predecessors. Mechanics became a science in the full sense at that point where itbecame an organized system. … Again, a great deal of chemistry was known prior to Mendeleev. But his discovery of the periodic table selected a set of basic chemical elements and selected them in such a way that further additions could be made to the basic elements. Since that time chemistry has been one single organized subject with a basic set of elements accounting for incredibly vast numbers of compounds. In other words, there is a point in the history of any science when it comes of age, when it hasa determinate systematic structureto which corresponds a determinate field. [CWL 14, Method, 1971, 241-42]