Category Archives: Solidarity

The Einsteinian Context: Curvature and Relativity

Leave a reply

Albert Einstein, Steven Weinberg, Lillian Lieber, Douglas Giancoli, Raymond A. Serway, Bernard Lonergan, Philip McShane, Peter Burley,

.1. Introductory

Graduate students seeking a thesis topic may expand this treatment of the Einsteinian context of Functional Macroeconomic Dynamics.  It should be of special interest to those having a strong background in theoretical physics and, thus, able to appreciate the analogies from physics.  “Similars are similarly understood.” (CWL 3, 288/313)

Philip McShane alerted us to the resemblances between Lonergan’s context of general macroeconomic dynamics and Einstein’s context of general relativity.

(Part Two entitled Fragments) belongs almost entirely in what I call the Einsteinian context of Part Three, in contrast to the Newtonian achievement of Part One; … [CWL 21, Index, 325]

A new science has emerged.  Lonergan has elevated conventional macrostatics to a macrodynamics explaining economic accelerations. (Continue reading)

The Significance of Zero in Functional Macroeconomic Dynamics: Dynamic Equilibrium, Implicit Definitions, Concomitance, Turning Points

Leave a reply

It will be informative and thought-provoking to regard various instances of zero –  expressed or implied – and each zero’s significance in the normative theory of Functional Macroeconomic Dynamics.  We may say that zeroes are “normatively forceful”, or, speaking metaphorically, “quasi-gravitational”;  They signify a systematic exigence for a “normative pull” on all interdependent pretio-quantital flows into their proper concomitance and solidarity, so as to provide a tightly knit framework and general explanation of the whole, intelligible, unitary, dynamic functioning.  

First, we simply list, without context or backup, 12 instances of zero; then second, we relist and add substantiation regarding each instance. We hope the reader will consult the context of the zeroes and their substantiation on the pages referenced at the end of the excerpts. Continue reading →

Connecting the Notions of “Concomitance,” “Solidarity,” “Implicit Definition,” “Functional Relations,” and “Unification”

Leave a reply

Concomitance is, I would claim, the key word in Lonergan’s economic thinking. (Philip McShane, Fusion 1, p. 4, ftnt 10)

“Concomitance,” “solidarity,” “implicit definition,” “functional interdependence,” and “unification” are the key principles foundational to the equation(s) providing the scientific general explanation of the organic economic process. Proper adherence to the principles ensures a unification of all explanatory conjugates and relations of the unitary system. The patterns in the terms and relations of the explanatory equation(s) would be isomorphic with the actual patterns constituting the process of velocitous (dynamic) production and exchange. (Also click here)

Consider the theoretical significance and, thus, the explanatory significance of the following:

There is a sense in which one may speak of the fraction of basic outlay that moves to basic income as the “costs” of basic production. … the greater the fraction that basic income is of total income (or total outlay), the less the remainder which constitutes the aggregate possibility of profit.  But what limits profit may be termed costs.  Hence we propose ….to speak of c’O’ and c”O” as costs of production, having warned the reader that the costs in question are aggregate and functional costs…. [CWL 15 156-57]  

Thus, we have basic Outlays-Incomes, c’O’ +c”O” = I’, explanatorily conjugate with – i.e. functionally related to – basic expenditures, E’ = P’Q’, which are implicitly defined in the following implicit equation: 

P’Q’ = p’a’Q’ + p”a”Q”  [CWL 15,156-62].

As was pointed out regarding Einstein’s general relativity equation – Gab = 8πTab – in our treatment The Einsteinian Context: Curvature and Relativity (click here and here): Continue reading →

Key Concepts of CWL 15, Section 26: The Cycle of Basic Income

Leave a reply

There is sufficient content in this Section 26 to serve as the basis of an impressive graduate thesis featuring explanatory first- and second-order differentiations of interdependent functional activities implicitly defined by their functional relations to one anther.  The set of equations would constitute a significant part of a complete explanatory theory.

  • Part I: Introductory

  • Part II – Divergent Flows of Products and Money; Consequent Inflation or Deflation

    • Case A: The problem of an inadequate rate of saving in a surplus expansion; I”/(I’+I”)

    • A note re stagflation stifling a full surplus expansion

    • Case B: The problem of an excessive rate of saving in a basic expansion

  • Part III – Outline of Traditional Theory’s Lack of Understanding re Artificially Manipulating Interest Rates

  • Part IV – Selected Excerpts and Comments Relevant to CWL 15, Section 26, “The Cycle of Basic Income,”  pages 133-44

Continue reading →

The Notion of Organic Unity; Macroeconomic Field theory as a Unified, Systematic Whole

Leave a reply

.1. Introduction

Lonergan’s treatment of the intelligibility of the plane circle provides to us a clue.  In the basic insight defining the plane circle, – that all radii are equal – all the interrelated concepts tumble out together in an intelligible unity.  The all-together intelligibility points to a template for explanation in the macroeconomic field; it fore-casts a singular unified intelligibility of the dynamic, organic economic process.  In the sweeping comprehensive act of understanding, all the abstract explanatory conjugates explaining the dynamic economic process are “yoked” together by their functional relations to one another.  The interdependencies of the flows which constitute the whole dynamic system are grasped in a solidary whole.  And the patterns of the formulation are isomorphic with the patterns in the objective, unitary economic process.  The principle of unity and wholeness is a single, comprehensive intelligibility. (Continue reading)

The Economic Process Is The Current Process, Grasped In A Unified Whole, Requiring The Contribution of Academics, Control Theorists, And System Dynamicists

Leave a reply

The economic process always is “the current process” constituted by current  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 goal of scientific analysis is explanation of the objective economic process, i.e. to discover the abstract immanent intelligibility which explains any particular configuration of flows of products and money in any instance.  Such immanent intelligibility would be always relevant and universally valid. (Continue reading)

 

Conflicting Ways Of “Viewing” The Objective Economic Process

Leave a reply

Click on the topic desired.

.1. Lonergan’s “Macroeconomic Field Theory” (MFT), AKA “Functional Macroeconomic Dynamics” (FMD)

.2. Marxism

.3. Modern Monetary Theory Quackery (MMQ)

.3.1. Stephanie Kelton’s “The Deficit Myth”

.4. Establishment Economics

.5. Commonsense Economics vs. Scientific Economics