Category Archives: Science and Explanation

A Lonergan Sampler

This Sampler will be supplemented as time allows, but I want to publish now to a) demonstrate the breadth and depth of the knowledge that Lonergan brought to Macroeconomic Dynamics, and b) inspire readers to compare their perspective to his.  His thinking ranged over mathematics, natural science, method, history, philosophy, theology, and art.

CWL 3, Insight: A Study of Human Understanding

Now the principles and laws of a geometry are abstract and generally valid propositions. Continue reading

Theorems of “Continuity” in Macroeconomic Dynamics

Because he was so expert in math, science, and scientific method, Lonergan’s early thinking in Macroeconomics in CWL 21 was more abstract, more general, and more advanced even than the thinking found in the Macroeconomics textbooks of today.  His thinking continued to develop into the explanatory systematics of CWL 15.  Here, two brief excerpts from the earlier CWL 21. Continue reading

The Economist’s Need for Intellectual Conversion

Patrick H. Byrne has had some interesting things to say about the need of the economist for intellectual conversion.

Byrne, Patrick, Economic Transformations: The Role of Conversions and Culture in the Transformation of Economics; in Fallon, Timothy P., S.J. and Philip Boo Riley, Editors; Religion and Culture: Essays in Honor of Bernard Lonergan, S.J. (1987) Albany, State University of New York Press [Fallon and Riley, 1987, 327-48]

Byrne stated, Continue reading

Five Why’s

Why Macroeconomists Don’t Flock to Functional Macroeconomic Dynamics

Why Study Peter Burley’s Models?

Why and How the Basic Expansion Fails To Be Implemented

Why Analyze The Productive Process First?

Why Revise The National Income and Product Accounts?

 

Insight Into The “Baseball Diamond”: Discovery For Implementation

Thus, if we want to have a comprehensive grasp of everything in a unified whole, we shall have to construct a diagram in which are symbolically represented all the various elements along with all the connections between them. [McShane 2014, 11 (quoting CWL 7, 151)]

We wish here to suggest the insights the reader should have to fully appreciate all that is contained in the Diagram of Rates of Flow. (Continue reading).

A Burley Sampler

In our Thanks section we have emphasized our debt to Professor Peter Burley.  With a PhD in physics (Adelaide, 1965) and a PhD in Economics (Princeton, 1968) he was well qualified to understand the revolutionary nature of Lonergan’s Macroeconomic Field Theory. (Continue reading)

A Normative Dynamic Structure, Despite Maladaptive Errors by “Infielders”

Functional Macroeconomic Dynamics has a definite, normative, dynamic structure. Evidently, there is a high degree of indeterminacy to events within such a dynamic structure.  All one can say is the game can go all awry. But despite this almost baffling indeterminacy, it remains that there is a definite dynamic structure. [CWL 21, 211-12]

The velocities of correlated, interdependent payments must keep pace and be in balance. Payments of dummy money move at velocities in circuits; e.g. O = I = E = R (CWL 15, 54) and O’ + O” = I’ + I” = E’ + E” = R’ + R” (CWL 15, 54)  The arrows in the Diagram of Rates of Flow  represent channels containing analytically-distinguished, interdependent, functional velocities.  These dynamic functionings are defined by the functional relations in which they stand with one another.

The intelligibility of the concrete process consists of two components: an abstract primary relativity expressing the normative systematic structure, and a secondary  component of concrete determinations from the non-systematic manifold.  There is a normativity to the dynamic structure.  An analogy from baseball may help to make the point regarding interdependence and keeping pace.

 

A large and positive crossover difference uncompensated by action from the pitcher’s box will result sooner or later in depriving the groups at second and third bases of all their balls, or if the crossover difference is large and negative, it will result in depriving the groups at home and first of all their balls.  Continue reading

Lilley and Rogoff Recommending Negative Interest Rates

We are commenting with respect to Andrew Lilley and Kenneth Rogoff’s “conference draft” discussing the advisability of a FRB policy of negative interest rates:

 Lilley, Andrew and Kenneth Rogoff, April 24, 2019: “The Case for Implementing Effective Negative Interest Rate Policy” (Conference draft for presentation at Strategies For Monetary Policy: A Policy Conference, the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, May 4, 2019, 9:15 am PST) [Lilley and Rogoff, 2019]     (Continue reading)