Andrew Lainton's suggestion for development of a consensus-based new axiomatic paradigm using Post Keynesianism, after the crash discredited the neoclassical axiomatic paradigm.
But is an axiomatic approach a suitable methodology for economics?
Decisions, Decisions, Decisions
Towards a Formally Defined New Economics
Decisions, Decisions, Decisions
Towards a Formally Defined New Economics
Andrew Lainton
1 comment:
The approach in Wynne & Godley's "Monetary Economics" is given in terms of mathematical models, and hence is formal. Any mathematical system has to be defined with a set of assumptions.
"Axioms" is just a high-brow (Greek) way of saying "assumption". My feeling is that mathematicians reserve the use of the term for axioms underlying the mathematics, such as the various plane geometry axioms of Euclid's Elements, or else the properties of the real numbers. For mundane analysis of the properties of a class of dynamic systems, where we take the properties of the real numbers and functions as given in undergraduate textbooks, we typically use the term "assumption".
Using "axiomatic" to describe the properties of a mathematical model for an economic system is an example of economists taking themselves too seriously. If anything, it is a sign that they have a hard time distinguishing between a mathematical model versus reality.
Post a Comment