Student Inquiry in re Some Large Theoretical Issues

Hello,

I have just joined your forum in search of a discussion on
what I presently understand to be a peculiar, and perhaps unwelcome pattern of
dissent from economic orthodoxy.

I accept what I take to be the central orthodox premise that
economic order is held together by a search for the General Economic Optimum
GEO; but I dissent from what I take to be economics’ universal (hetero- and
ortho-) acceptance of the premise that the GEO is complex beyond the
possibility of quantification.

I am aware of one, almost certainly unique, method for
quantifying the GEO. Moreover, I observe practical embodiments of this
technology generating all the numerically specific,
disordered economic states and disequilibrium prices by which a generalized
international I/O framework proceeds from chaos to a unique, materially
balanced, stable, and optimal steady-state.

These private sector models
provide me with things I find altogether missing from academic economics, viz.:
an adequate accounting for economic order, as such might proceed from
self-evident generalities; an operative definition of value; and an abstraction
of technical parameters suitable to the macro level of economic analysis.

My questions are:

1. Is heterodox economics open to demonstrations that the
GEO is quantifiable, irrespective of standard, a priori objections following
from the Polynomial Factoring Problem. (I find orthodoxy religiously opposed to
such demonstrations; and hope to discover that heterodoxy’s more scientific
stance accepts disproof by counterexample.)

2. If general quantification is adequately demonstrated, would
heterodoxy then be open to empirical studies whereby the objective counterpart of
“utility” is computed and examined as the parametric substrate of macroeconomic
order?

3. Is heterodoxy now committed to the expression of economic
dynamics within the limits of what might be sanctioned by the MIT System
Dynamics Group? Or can you allow that an objective process of optimization can
exist in reality, and can therefore be expressed in a valid engineering dynamic
model?

In sum, might not the most productive response to the neoclassical
computational impasse be one of fighting through it, rather than just going off
to address problems other than those of value, macroeconomic stability, and the
abstraction of productive technology?

Very truly yours,

Mabel

_______________________________________________
SHE_Forum mailing list
SHE_Forum_at_mail.itk.ntnu.no
http://mail.itk.ntnu.no/mailman/listinfo/she_forum
Received on 03-11-06