Category Archives: Uncategorized

Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Einstein, Planck, Mendeleyev, et seq.; The Single Paragraph for Consideration Today [#57]

[11/21/19] There is a further type of insight that arises immediately from the data.  Such is the grasp (insight, or act of understanding) that precedes and grounds the definition of the circle.  Such was Galileo’s insight formulated in the law of falling bodies.  Such was Kepler’s insight formulated in the laws of planetary motion.  Such was Newton’s insight formulated in the theory of universal gravitation.  Such has been the point in the now well established technique of measuring and correlating measurements.  Such is the goal of classical heuristic structure that seeks to determine some unknown function by working out the differential equations, of which the unknown function will be a solution, and by imposing by postulation such principles as invariance and equivalence …Fourthly, it notes that this intelligibility, immanent in the immediate data of sense, resides in the relations of things, not to our senses, but to one another.  Thus, mechanics studies the relations of masses, not to our senses, but to one another.  Chemistry defines its elements, not by their relations to our senses, but by their places in the pattern of relationships named the periodic table.  Biology has become an explanatory science by viewing all living forms as related to one another in that complex and comprehensive fashion that is summarily denoted by the single word, evolution. [CWL 3, 77-78/100-102] [#57] (Click here for previous “Single Paragraphs”)

 

The Two Components of Concrete Relations

One cannot help but think that Bernard Lonergan had functional macroeconomic dynamics clearly in mind as he treated the intelligibility of world process in CWL 3, Insight: …, which is very much an implementation of the act of understanding of mathematicians and natural scientists.  In his understanding of mathematics, the natural sciences, and the science of macroeconomics in particular, he grasped that the explanation of the dynamic concrete process is expressed by a mathematical conjunction of component abstract primary relativities with component concrete secondary determinations from the non-systematic manifold.  And these secondary determinations, such as particular prices and quantities, are to be interpreted in the light of the significant, abstract, explanatory variables rather than in the obscurity of the IS-LM, and AD-AS models. (Continue reading)

The Significance of Burley’s And Csapo’s Characteristic Equation And Its Root Solution

Our references in this section are [Burley, 1992-2] and [Burley and Csapo, 1992-1].

Burley, Peter and Csapo, Laszlo, (1992) Money Information in Lonergan-von Neumann Systems, Economic Systems Research, Vol 4, No. 2, 1992 [Burley and Csapo, 1992-1]

Burley, Peter (1992) Evolutionary von Neumann Models, Journal of Evolutionary Economics 2 , 269-80 [Burley, 1992-2]

We consider a game-theoretic, von Neumann model of the transitional process from an initial stationary state to a more abundant stationary state, with matrix A of inputs and matrix B of outputs containing explanatory functional variables.  (continue reading)

The Role of Philanthropy to Achieve the Good of Economic Order: Notes Towards a Normative Model

Philanthropy: Anyone familiar with the medical and cultural institutions of Metropolitan Boston – upon which institutions the regional economy rides piggyback – cannot help but admire the beneficence, wisdom, and benefit of philanthropy:  the Connors Center for Women’s Health and Gender Biology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital; the Connors Family Learning Center and the Clough Center for the Study of Constitutional Democracy at Boston College; the Yawkey Center for Outpatient Care and the Wang Building at Mass General; The Rosenberg Building at Beth Israel Hospital; the Salvation Army Kroc Center on Dudley St.; the Harry V. Keefe Library and the Clough Center for Global Understanding at Boston Latin School; the John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences at Harvard; the Carl J. and Ruth Shapiro Cardiovascular Center at Brigham and Women’s Hospital; museums, endowed scholarship funds, hundreds of endowed chairs, stained glass windows, etc. (Continue reading)

Gennaioli and Shleifer’s Recent Book: “A Crisis of Beliefs”

Andrei Shleifer is a professor of economics at Harvard University.  Nicola Gennaioli is a professor in the Department of Finance at Bocconi University, Milan.

A Crisis of Beliefs is well worth reading as either a treatise on psychology or as an application of a model of psychology to people’s mistaken thinking and acting in certain economic circumstances.

But Gennaioli and Shleifer must ask, How would the human participants act if, instead of being a bundle of desires, fears, cognitive biases, and ignorance regarding the abstract primary relativities of the economic process, they understood the laws of the process and the precepts for adaptation yielded by the laws? That is to ask, Is there a set of laws independent of human psychology and above intellectual ignorance to which human participants would enlightenedly adapt if they understood them? And, if so, is not the primary responsibility of professors of macroeconomics to educate and enlighten participants as to the laws they are violating so as, thus, to curb automatically their irrational psychological tendencies? Continue reading

The Simple Move to Two Explanatory Circuits; New Foundations of a Scientific Dynamics; NIPA’s GDP Replaced by FMD’s GDFF

Lonergan’s two-circuit diagram (below) represents a theoretical breakthrough.  It replaces the single-circuit diagram common to the textbooks of macroeconomics.

Lonergan started with a dominant one-flow economic analysis –  think in terms of the household-firm diagram  –  and separated it into two flows “to form a more basic concept and develop a more general theory.” 21 …The distinction was never built scientifically (by other economists) into a systematics of dynamic economics [McShane, 2017, viii; ftnt 22]

Continue reading

Precise Analytical Distinctions and Concepts

To reach a theory of macroeconomic dynamics we need, in the first place, a scientific and dynamic heuristic guiding us to a scientific explanation of the current, purely dynamic, concrete, economic process.

(Ragnar) Frisch’s failure to develop a significant theory typifies the failure of economists who search for a dynamic heuristic.  As well as a fundamental disorientation of approach there is also a tendency to shift to an inadequate level of abstraction with a premature introduction of boundary conditions in a determinate set of differential and difference equations. [McShane, 1980, 114]

Continue reading