[Lonergan_l] two firms and theory of macroeconomic functions
Jaray...@aol.com
octavi...@gmail.com writes:
The critic-realist approach of BL puts things upside down. Begining by the
maximum level of generality (the systematic relationships between
macroeconomic functions) he then goes downwards, to the more specific
conditions in the micro level.
Phil, Octavio
Phil you begin with the two-firms approach. It seems to me that this
differs from the above quoted from Octavio. Or is the two-firm approach to be
taken as leading into marcroeconomics rather than being based on a "utility
function", the constraints, and an optimization technique"? Put in another
way would you say that the two-firm approach is not at the micro level as
such?
John
Philip McShane
I didn't want to get into this while I was on the
trail of some simpler contributions, but that stuff is now in the works and
these questions need attention. They raise huge historical and cultural
questions. I certainly cannot do them justice here, but some leads may help
us to think out the answers and their significance. Perhaps, indeed, I
should space out my searchings over this Hallow e'en and day time so that we
can converse our way to light.
I begin by giving the recent e-mail from John, which includes
Octavio's point.
"In a message dated 10/25/2011 7:24:56 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
octavi...@gmail.com writes:
The critical-realist approach of BL puts things upside down. Begining by
the maximum level of generality (the systematic relationships between
macroeconomic functions) he then goes downwards, to the more specific
conditions in the micro level.
Octavio
Phil you begin with the two-firms approach. It seems to me that this
differs from the above quoted from Octavio. Or is the two-firm approach to
be taken as leading into marcroeconomics rather than being based on a
"utility function", the constraints, and an optimization technique"? Put in
another way would you say that the two-firm approach is not at the micro
level as such?
John"
SO:
Briefly, both of you are right on. Lonergan in the 1944 typescript - to
which Octavio's comments especially apply - was dodging confrontations and
coming in from his spontaneous
critical realism [it was still just simmering in the late thirties and the
early forties], a spontaneity that placed him in a sound scientific mode. He
had battled amazingly with the data and now in 1944 he was ready to lay out
his hypothesis and fly, literally fly, to his wholesome verification,
which takes off in section15 [p.301 of FNPE]. His analysis of aggregate
basic price spread leads him triumphantly to account for [VERIFICATION!] the
Crumb and Kitchin 3-year cycles, the 9-year cycle, and he neatly points out
to the Kondratief long cycle as involving cultural elements. This is
powerful stuff. I recall in the 1970s talking to Fred Lawrence thus about
this "He went from Tycho Brahe to Laplace in ten years!!" I we could come
back to that later as a strange achievement in history, but best first to
invite discussion.
So, John, to your point. Yes, the approach is different, but it is coming at
the stuff pedagogically in a way that hopes to establish a new scientific
tradition, one I was familiar with from teaching undergrad and grad physics.
And yes, my approach dodges those other twists, which Lonergan also dodged.
Yes, it is micro-level, and the great thing about it is that it is a
straight road to the macro. What needs to be done .... and this looks to the
future of real economics ... is the analyses of meso-economics: city sectors
and national provinces. Information for this is going to take time to bubble
forth.
The road to macro?
This brings us to undegrad economics in this next generation.
I mentioned Feynman in that connection recently, but the point may not have
been taken. For me, he is top of the mid-20th century physics, but his texts
just did not get undergrads going properly. You don't get to be a great
physicist without dirty hands... Feynman knew that and was brilliant at it
.... recall the Challenger mess. But the point is that we need teachers to
tackle the meso-zones in undergraduate economics, AND use local stuff.
Your points and Octavio's open up further topics that in fact Lonergan
opened up in his Logic lectures, but I had best leave this for the moment.
Perhaps enough said to get us talking more about Lonergan's approach, which
so many of us found strange.
Phil
_______________________________________________
You are subscribed to the Lonergan_l mailing list
Loner...@box297.bluehost.com
Archives on skipperweb:
http://box297.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/lonergan_l_skipperweb.org
List Moderators: John Raymaker and Adrial Fitzgerald
List Owner: Robert Boyd Skipper
St. Mary's University
San Antonio, Texas
For conversations or topics not directly related to Lonergan or to
the GEM (Generalized Empirical Method) please use the sister list, Eureka:
http://skipperweb.org/mailman/listinfo/eureka_skipperweb.org
Lonergan_L archives (from June 5, 2007):
http://groups.google.com/group/lonergan_l
Mike Albertson
David Brooks, the conservative columnist at the New York Times, has given an open invitation to those persons over the age of 70 to share the important lessons that they have experienced in life. It seems like an effective way for some on this site to share their insights into economics. Here is the link to the column. Mike Albertson
Readers over 70, have you taken stock of your life so far? Well, please write it down and tell us what you’ve learned so it can be shared with younger generations. http://nyti.ms/vPs4aX
Philip McShane
A good lead ....
And some of us qualify!
It would seem useful, certainly,
For me to put something together
Relating to the economics
And the present crises.
But might there not be a group interest in this?
Philip McShane
Hello all,
I followed up Mike Albertson's suggestion:
"Phil and others,
David Brooks, the conservative columnist at the New York Times, has given an
open invitation to those persons over the age of 70 to share the important
lessons that they have experienced in life. It seems like an effective way
for some on this site to share their insights into economics. Here is the
link to the column. Mike Albertson
Readers over 70, have you taken stock of your life so far? Well, please
write it down and tell us what you've learned so it can be shared with
younger generations. <http://nyti.ms/vPs4aX> http://nyti.ms/vPs4aX "
Others might like to add their 70+ view, generating a group thing. So I add
here my ramble, which is of course geared for Brooks and his audience.
A Stand on Economic Sanity
Philip McShane M.Sc.,
D.Phil. (Oxon.) 1932- .
The title points to a very definite zone of my oddly diverse life as a
physicist and philosopher. The title also points, not to a search, but to a
stand on the existence of a neglected understanding of economic
collaboration, one that has been, so to speak, waiting in the wings since
1942.
But I had best briefly identify myself: Irish, but a Canadian citizen, a
Jesuit for twenty years (1952-1973), but now married to a Protestant
Minister, Reverend Sally McShane, and with a lecturing background in a range
of areas, starting with mathematical physics (my original training) and
continuing in engineering, theology, aesthetics, economics, but mainly in
the philosophy of science. My Oxford doctorate, published in enlarged form
as Randomness, Statistics and Emergence, (Gill-Macmillan and Notre Dame,
1970), gives the color of my original and continued interest, focused now on
the present economic protest-ferment, "What might emerge out of this
randomness?"
I mentioned a neglected understanding, which brings me to the focus of my
essay. In 1968 I had a postcard from the Canadian thinker, Bernard Lonergan,
whom I had known from 1960, and whose writings I had been studying since the
completion of my M.Sc. in 1956. His works - some twenty volumes - have been
published since then, though he is, as yet, not well-known. I am quite
convinced that he will be, which view leads us back to that postcard. He
wrote briefly, "I wonder could you find an economist for me? I have a 1944
typescript in my files" relevant to contemporary issues in economics and
theology.
That communication gave rise to a reorientation of my thinking life: I
worked through the 130 typed pages of Lonergan through the 1970s, a massive
challenge of a decade of my thinking, and a challenge that, in my view, we
must face together in global collaboration.
But I failed to find an economist who could break forward to this new view,
a view that might be identified as a blossoming of the work of Schumpeter,
Kalecki and Joan Robinson. At one stage I conversed with a retired Finance
Minister of Canada, Eric Kierans, about Lonergan's giving him various
versions of his economic theory in the 1940s. Kierans in fact only read the
economics later, got some sense of it, but not enough to follow up on it.
In 1977 Lonergan was teaching in Boston College, and he decided that he
would have a shot at teaching his economics in the spring semester of 1978.
He was seventy three at the time. He sought my collaboration, and I did help
him - book-hunting etc - through the autumn of 1977, but my help began that
summer when I lectured twice in Boston College, two ten-hour sessions, on
the 1944 typescript, titled "Circulation Analysis". He considered the effort
a success and asked me to come to his spring seminar - a weekly flight from
Halifax - to back up his efforts. He followed the pattern of my
presentations - a total coverage - but with some additions that I
recommended to him. He continued those presentations until 1982.
Now the key point here is that neither of us found an effective economist,
one who would or could grasp the theory sufficiently to share it with
colleagues and so shake the economic establishment.
But what is this about shaking the establishment? In my struggles of the
1970s I spoke occasionally about Lonergan's achievement. Think in terms of
Kepler and his ten-year struggle to get from Brahe to his few planetary
laws: it gives you a way of glimpsing my astonished enthusiasm expressed in
my repeated report to friends during the 1970s, "Lonergan, in economics,
went from Tycho Brahe to Laplace in a decade".
How might I enlarge on that impression for you? As it happens, I have been
nudged in these past weeks to write something brief and popular regarding
Lonergan's economics as his view relates to present protests. I yielded to
the nudging in October, and it seems that my effort makes sense to those who
have read it, so I add it here. It neatly points to possibilities, but it
also neatly sums up my searching efforts, a center of my life work since
1968. So I quote myself:
"Income Dissentings.
In any economy there are two flows of money, concomitant with new goods and
services. They are distinguishable and measurable, but this is not done
effectively in contemporary economics. One flow buys into society what are
call consumer goods; the other flow buys what are called capital goods. The
success of the economy requires that the measurements of these be built,
systematically and statistically, into economic practice, so that credit be
intelligently given to factors in the economy, especially to innovative
factors. This is not at present possible, since the measurements are not
done. Further, the original meaning of "credit" - "giving credit for
insightful contributions to well-being" - has been battered to death in the
past fifty years. Institutions of financial operations have emerged which
separate the flow and creation of money from its fundamental meanings of
promise and credit. The result is a commoditization of money which, detached
from needed industrial flows, has a massively destructive effect on
production, purchases, and well-being. In particular the related secondhand
trade, symbolized by Wall St. - not part of the productive process - has
been taken nevertheless to be an indicator of economic success. So, we are
mainly in the hands of detached gamblers in our efforts to bring forth the
good society.
What might be done?
In the short-term there are the processes of protesting pointing to these
economic follies, sensing their effects but without understanding their
nature. These demonstrations could and should lead to an effective
re-assessment of financial operations as well as a displacement of
secondhand trading from center-stage. Under this public pressure,
government and somewhat enlightened economists and bankers must merge in a
push against those living, and living financially obscenely well, off the
gross error of the commoditization of money.
In the long-term somewhat enlightened economists etc just won't do. The
problem here is an absence of historical sense. A science of economics has
as yet to emerge: what is present now is equivalent to alchemy and
phlogiston-theory chemistry. Establishment economics just cannot accept or
believe that. At its root there is the simple error of not facing the
empirical significance of the two flows, or making an effort to arrive at
their measures and related measures of two flows of taxes, of imports and
exports etc.
Without that effort government - again not intrinsic to the two flows -
continue to intervene in haphazard fashions related to party politics and
elections. Patchwork solutions will be put in place but only appear to
work, and establishment economics and gamesters of finance will continue to
feast on our hearts."
This, I'm sure you would agree, is a very bold stand. It has been a quite
solitary stand since I came to understand the extraordinary leap of Lonergan
named recently with accuracy by Professor Michael Shute: Lonergan's
Discovery of the Science of Economics (University of Toronto Press, 2010). I
am not now, therefore, alone in my conviction: Shute is one of an
international group. But there seems to be no effective impact on
establishment economics or politics or government. In recent times, through
experiments in lecturing in South America, Mexico, India, Korea, Australia,
Europe and North America, I have come to see the flaw in my early
presentations, and those of Lonergan, and those of others inviting broad
interest in Lonergan's view. We were and are, to a large extent, yielding to
a cultural pressure towards haute vulgarization, a mood and trend fermented
by Fontenelle in the seventeenth century. It is a mood alien to serious
scientific understanding and the efforts to acquire it, and in these past
years it has become clear to me that what I did while teaching physics or
engineering has to be done in the present crises of economics. There was a
great turn in my life in 2005, when I found myself doing this in a grade
twelve class in economics: I was in Sydney Australia, in St.Ignatius
College, and, for the first time of my life, I taught at school level. The
class got the point in a single session, the point mentioned above: there
are two types of firm, and if you leave that out of your economic
calculations you will end in an inhuman global muddle. The point has so far
had no public impact, a sad fact of the present situation.
As I move into my ninth decade I continue to search for an effective
hearing, but I do it in the context of other enterprises, such as a series
of 25 e-seminars in which I am developing the heuristics of global
collaboration, each seminar being three months length, the seminars
finishing in 2017. The effort aims at bringing forth in the next millennium
a global community of collaborators that will face - sublating the economic
reorientation of Lonergan - the massive ecological challenges of our time.
Perhaps by the age of 85 I may have found my economist?
It is as well to conclude with a reference to available accounts of that
ongoing work. So: the seminars are paralleled by an ongoing series of 80
essays - titled Fuse - on my website <http://www.philipmcshane.ca>
www.philipmcshane.ca. The website also contains an earlier related
enterprise, undertaken in my seventieth year (2002), of paralleling Ezra
Pound's 117 Cantos with a fuller search for a dawning of humanity in my 117
Cantowers: "waiting the golden rain" (Canto 4, 16). I finished that 10
year, 10 volume, 1,500,000 word project two years ago. I am optimistic that
it will slowly blossom, quite beyond Pound's concluding sadness in Canto
117, "that I lost my center / fighting the world. / The dreams clash / and
are shattered. / And that I tried to make a paradise terrestre".
Eileen De Neeve
I am just using this email to wonder whether there are two kinds of firm or
two kinds of production or flows. The two flows or production could take
place in a single firm or so Lonergan says (FNPE 236-237; MDA 26-27) and
that would fit with his notion of a functional distinction in production not
a proprietary one. Thank you for keeping me in the loop. Eileen deN.
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Philip McShane" <pmcs...@shaw.ca>
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2011 6:28 PM
To: <Jaray...@aol.com>; <loner...@skipperweb.org>; "'Lowell Cochrane'"
<lowell....@gmail.com>; <hwil...@nbnet.nb.ca>
Subject: RE: [Lonergan_l] two firms and theory of macroeconomic functions
Philip McShane
Some good questions from Jim and Richard with my helpful hints
Phil
From: Jim Asher [mailto:jas...@datashepherd.com]
In The Future of Economics paper circulated to us earlier the text states
that after the simple diagram relating a firm (Type 1) and the household
which it supplies, "There is an easy way to add the second type of firm,
which supplies not consumer goods, but stuff for the first type of firm:
maintenance and innovative stuff". This is why I regarded the second type of
firm as providing the fist type of firm with goods and services. I still
don't see the import of this distinction.
However, if the second type of firm is a firm providing financial services
to the market generally, i.e., to households/consumers as well as to
businesses and other organizations including governments, then the
importance of the distinction becomes plausible. For instance, I could see
an argument based on using the often- and casually-made distinction between
firms in the "real" economy and those in financial services (including
stocks, bonds, commodities futures, banking, insurance, etc.). This would
likely lead to an analysis of the life blood of the second type of firm,
i.e., trade in money and its derivatives: what it is, what it provides, its
uses and regulation, and so forth. If this is the distinction, much changes.
So I agree, it would help to have this clarified.
On 31-Oct-11, at 3:28 PM, Richard Renshaw wrote:
Please answer this one for me too. I am confused.
I thought the two "firms" referred to (a) those that produce goods and
services and (b) those that engage in financing, investing, speculating,
etc. Am I wrong? If not, the importance of separating them out is obvious
and crucial.
Richard
O.K. : here, from Phil, what I hope is a help.
Think of Robinson Crusoe, penniless and alone. He has two type of activity.
He can either pick berries or he can get the bright idea of cleaning out a
coconut shell for the picking.
This give a primitive idea of the two activities that ground the
distinction. Notice that he has to have enough berries picked to give him
the time to make his new collecting apparatus.
You can shift the reflections now to a community on the island . then one of
the berry-pickers can be thought of as getting the bright idea of a
collecting apparatus. Then there has to be agreement about division of
labour, AND promises .. But I leave all that to your imagination.
But Jim is right about the difficulty of seeing the import of the
distinction . it comes out when you follow up the creativities, new tools,
etc . and the trouble shows up when the community's promises get messier,
and some Italian sitting on a bench - BANK - speaks to a friend about the
need to MAKE A NOTE OF THIS!!!
Does my ramble help?
Richard Renshaw
Richard
From: Philip McShane [mailto:pmcs...@shaw.ca]
Sent: November-01-11 7:43 AM
To: 'Jim Asher'; 'Richard Renshaw'; loner...@skipperweb.org; 'Lowell
Cochrane'; 172...@gmail.com; alam...@mac.com; bianchi...@yahoo.ca;
bill_d...@rmipl.com.au; brenda...@rogers.com; brlov...@gmail.com;
bro...@seattleu.edu; bruce.a...@smu.ca; c.do...@wrc-research.ie;
cha...@sogang.ac.kr; cmol...@mun.ca; CO'Don...@riverview.nsw.edu.au;
con...@eircom.net; ctt...@gmail.com; david....@aexp.com;
DCOG...@tcd.ie; donovan...@gmail.com; ede...@videotron.ca;
frank...@optonline.net; fsi...@javeriana.edu.co;
galan.f...@gmail.com; hwil...@nbnet.nb.ca; ian_b...@cbu.ca;
ivo.c...@gmail.com; james...@itesm.mx; jandhc...@gmail.com;
janna....@gmail.com; Jaray...@aol.com; jbar...@uniandes.edu.co;
jb...@sympatico.ca; jean...@earthlink.net; joannes...@gmail.com;
jwi...@stthom.edu; laco...@mts.net; lance...@uleth.ca;
mge...@stthomasu.ca; mjb...@eircom.net; mou...@uw.edu; msh...@mun.ca;
octavi...@gmail.com; peter...@bigpond.com; prayf...@hotmail.com;
rohen...@hotmail.com; ross...@gmail.com; sandy....@telus.net;
scott...@mail.mcgill.ca; smcn...@fastmail.com.au; tfi...@innerland.ca;
thost...@eastlink.ca; tjcq...@gmail.com; t...@polymedia.com.au;
wmcf...@telus.net
Cc: 'Hugh & Stephanie Williams'; 'Walter Hughes'; 'Peter and Jean
Burgess-DeMarsh'; 'Mark Jobin'; 'Frank Cronin'; 'Ellen Helmuth'; 'vince
Zelazny'
Subject: RE: [Lonergan_l] two firms and theory of macroeconomic functions
Hello all,
David W Oyler
David
From: Richard Renshaw [mailto:rwre...@sympatico.ca]
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 5:48 AM
To: 'Philip McShane'; 'Jim Asher'; loner...@skipperweb.org; 'Lowell Cochrane'; 172...@gmail.com; alam...@mac.com; bianchi...@yahoo.ca; bill_d...@rmipl.com.au; brenda...@rogers.com; brlov...@gmail.com; bro...@seattleu.edu; bruce.a...@smu.ca; c.do...@wrc-research.ie; cha...@sogang.ac.kr; cmol...@mun.ca; CO'Don...@riverview.nsw.edu.au; con...@eircom.net; ctt...@gmail.com; David W Oyler; DCOG...@tcd.ie; donovan...@gmail.com; ede...@videotron.ca; frank...@optonline.net; fsi...@javeriana.edu.co; galan.f...@gmail.com; hwil...@nbnet.nb.ca; ian_b...@cbu.ca; ivo.c...@gmail.com; james...@itesm.mx; jandhc...@gmail.com; janna....@gmail.com; Jaray...@aol.com; jbar...@uniandes.edu.co; jb...@sympatico.ca; jean...@earthlink.net; joannes...@gmail.com; jwi...@stthom.edu; laco...@mts.net; lance...@uleth.ca; mge...@stthomasu.ca; mjb...@eircom.net; mou...@uw.edu; msh...@mun.ca; octavi...@gmail.com; peter...@bigpond.com; prayf...@hotmail.com; rohen...@hotmail.com; ross...@gmail.com; sandy....@telus.net; scott...@mail.mcgill.ca; smcn...@fastmail.com.au; tfi...@innerland.ca; thost...@eastlink.ca; tjcq...@gmail.com; t...@polymedia.com.au; wmcf...@telus.net
Cc: 'Hugh & Stephanie Williams'; 'Walter Hughes'; 'Peter and Jean Burgess-DeMarsh'; 'Mark Jobin'; 'Frank Cronin'; 'Ellen Helmuth'; 'vince Zelazny'
Subject: RE: [Lonergan_l] two firms and theory of macroeconomic functions
I need to chew on that one. Interesting !
Richard
From: Philip McShane [mailto:pmcs...@shaw.ca]
Sent: November-01-11 7:43 AM
To: 'Jim Asher'; 'Richard Renshaw'; loner...@skipperweb.org; 'Lowell Cochrane'; 172...@gmail.com; alam...@mac.com; bianchi...@yahoo.ca; bill_d...@rmipl.com.au; brenda...@rogers.com; brlov...@gmail.com; bro...@seattleu.edu; bruce.a...@smu.ca; c.do...@wrc-research.ie; cha...@sogang.ac.kr; cmol...@mun.ca; CO'Don...@riverview.nsw.edu.au; con...@eircom.net; ctt...@gmail.com; david....@aexp.com; DCOG...@tcd.ie; donovan...@gmail.com; ede...@videotron.ca; frank...@optonline.net; fsi...@javeriana.edu.co; galan.f...@gmail.com; hwil...@nbnet.nb.ca; ian_b...@cbu.ca; ivo.c...@gmail.com; james...@itesm.mx; jandhc...@gmail.com; janna....@gmail.com; Jaray...@aol.com; jbar...@uniandes.edu.co; jb...@sympatico.ca; jean...@earthlink.net; joannes...@gmail.com; jwi...@stthom.edu; laco...@mts.net; lance...@uleth.ca; mge...@stthomasu.ca; mjb...@eircom.net; mou...@uw.edu; msh...@mun.ca; octavi...@gmail.com; peter...@bigpond.com; prayf...@hotmail.com; rohen...@hotmail.com; ross...@gmail.com; sandy....@telus.net; scott...@mail.mcgill.ca; smcn...@fastmail.com.au; tfi...@innerland.ca; thost...@eastlink.ca; tjcq...@gmail.com; t...@polymedia.com.au; wmcf...@telus.net
Cc: 'Hugh & Stephanie Williams'; 'Walter Hughes'; 'Peter and Jean Burgess-DeMarsh'; 'Mark Jobin'; 'Frank Cronin'; 'Ellen Helmuth'; 'vince Zelazny'
Subject: RE: [Lonergan_l] two firms and theory of macroeconomic functions
Hello all,
Some good questions from Jim and Richard with my helpful hints
Phil
From: Jim Asher [mailto:jas...@datashepherd.com]<mailto:[mailto:jas...@datashepherd.com]>
In The Future of Economics paper circulated to us earlier the text states that after the simple diagram relating a firm (Type 1) and the household which it supplies, "There is an easy way to add the second type of firm, which supplies not consumer goods, but stuff for the first type of firm: maintenance and innovative stuff". This is why I regarded the second type of firm as providing the fist type of firm with goods and services. I still don't see the import of this distinction.
However, if the second type of firm is a firm providing financial services to the market generally, i.e., to households/consumers as well as to businesses and other organizations including governments, then the importance of the distinction becomes plausible. For instance, I could see an argument based on using the often- and casually-made distinction between firms in the "real" economy and those in financial services (including stocks, bonds, commodities futures, banking, insurance, etc.). This would likely lead to an analysis of the life blood of the second type of firm, i.e., trade in money and its derivatives: what it is, what it provides, its uses and regulation, and so forth. If this is the distinction, much changes.
So I agree, it would help to have this clarified.
On 31-Oct-11, at 3:28 PM, Richard Renshaw wrote:
Please answer this one for me too. I am confused.
I thought the two "firms" referred to (a) those that produce goods and services and (b) those that engage in financing, investing, speculating, etc. Am I wrong? If not, the importance of separating them out is obvious and crucial.
Richard
O.K. : here, from Phil, what I hope is a help.
Think of Robinson Crusoe, penniless and alone. He has two type of activity. He can either pick berries or he can get the bright idea of cleaning out a coconut shell for the picking.
This give a primitive idea of the two activities that ground the distinction. Notice that he has to have enough berries picked to give him the time to make his new collecting apparatus.
You can shift the reflections now to a community on the island ... then one of the berry-pickers can be thought of as getting the bright idea of a collecting apparatus. Then there has to be agreement about division of labour, AND promises .... But I leave all that to your imagination.
But Jim is right about the difficulty of seeing the import of the distinction ... it comes out when you follow up the creativities, new tools, etc ... and the trouble shows up when the community's promises get messier, and some Italian sitting on a bench - BANK - speaks to a friend about the need to MAKE A NOTE OF THIS!!!
Does my ramble help?
Phil
American Express made the following annotations on Tue Nov 01 2011 09:21:55
******************************************************************************
"This message and any attachments are solely for the intended recipient and may contain confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, use, or distribution of the information included in this message and any attachments is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and immediately and permanently delete this message and any attachments. Thank you."
American Express a ajouté le commentaire suivant le Tue Nov 01 2011 09:21:55
Ce courrier et toute pièce jointe qu'il contient sont réservés au seul destinataire indiqué et peuvent renfermer des renseignements confidentiels et privilégiés. Si vous n'êtes pas le destinataire prévu, toute divulgation, duplication, utilisation ou distribution du courrier ou de toute pièce jointe est interdite. Si vous avez reçu cette communication par erreur, veuillez nous en aviser par courrier et détruire immédiatement le courrier et les pièces jointes. Merci.
******************************************************************************
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David W Oyler
From: Lowell Cochrane [mailto:lowell....@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 9:54 AM
To: David W Oyler
Cc: Richard Renshaw; 'Philip McShane'; 'Jim Asher'; loner...@skipperweb.org; 172...@gmail.com; alam...@mac.com; bianchi...@yahoo.ca; bill_d...@rmipl.com.au; brenda...@rogers.com; brlov...@gmail.com; bro...@seattleu.edu; bruce.a...@smu.ca; c.do...@wrc-research.ie; cha...@sogang.ac.kr; cmol...@mun.ca; CO'Don...@riverview.nsw.edu.au; con...@eircom.net; ctt...@gmail.com; DCOG...@tcd.ie; donovan...@gmail.com; ede...@videotron.ca; frank...@optonline.net; fsi...@javeriana.edu.co; galan.f...@gmail.com; hwil...@nbnet.nb.ca; ian_b...@cbu.ca; ivo.c...@gmail.com; james...@itesm.mx; jandhc...@gmail.com; janna....@gmail.com; Jaray...@aol.com; jbar...@uniandes.edu.co; jb...@sympatico.ca; jean...@earthlink.net; joannes...@gmail.com; jwi...@stthom.edu; laco...@mts.net; lance...@uleth.ca; mge...@stthomasu.ca; mjb...@eircom.net; mou...@uw.edu; msh...@mun.ca; octavi...@gmail.com; peter...@bigpond.com; prayf...@hotmail.com; rohen...@hotmail.com; ross...@gmail.com; sandy....@telus.net; scott...@mail.mcgill.ca; smcn...@fastmail.com.au; tfi...@innerland.ca; thost...@eastlink.ca; tjcq...@gmail.com; t...@polymedia.com.au; wmcf...@telus.net; 'Walter Hughes'; 'Peter and Jean Burgess-DeMarsh'; 'Mark Jobin'; 'Frank Cronin'; 'Ellen Helmuth'; 'vince Zelazny'
Subject: Re: [Lonergan_l] two firms and theory of macroeconomic functions
Hi David,
This is my understanding as well.
However, in the light of Eileen De Neuve's note earlier, are there two firms, or are there two types of economic activities? Some firms may engage in both manufacturing of products for consumer and products for other manufacturers.
The activity of Applied Materials would be solidly in the one category as providers to other business (unless we start buying IC chips in shopping malls!). Apple is clearly focused on consumer products, although they do run some divisions that supply parts to themselves. And IBM might make the control systems for many manufacturers as well as PC computers for consumers (at least they did at one time). So, as "firms" it is never very cut and dry.
So, I wonder what the best way to talk about is as types of activities. This seems to fit with Lonergan's overall idea of looking at flows of economic activities.
____________________________
Lowell Cochrane
Chief Creative Officer
Show Communications
613. 331. 5609
low...@showcommunications.com<mailto:low...@showcommunications.com>
David
Richard
Richard
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
American Express made the following annotations on Tue Nov 01 2011 10:25:14
******************************************************************************
"This message and any attachments are solely for the intended recipient and may contain confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, use, or distribution of the information included in this message and any attachments is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and immediately and permanently delete this message and any attachments. Thank you."
American Express a ajouté le commentaire suivant le Tue Nov 01 2011 10:25:14
Ce courrier et toute pièce jointe qu'il contient sont réservés au seul destinataire indiqué et peuvent renfermer des renseignements confidentiels et privilégiés. Si vous n'êtes pas le destinataire prévu, toute divulgation, duplication, utilisation ou distribution du courrier ou de toute pièce jointe est interdite. Si vous avez reçu cette communication par erreur, veuillez nous en aviser par courrier et détruire immédiatement le courrier et les pièces jointes. Merci.
******************************************************************************
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Tom Halloran
My developing grasp of what Lonergan calls the "pure process" includes making a real (relational) distinction between two types of "activities" within the "pure process". Getting there, it seems to me, involves several steps.
First, the exchange process is one of many ways to "manage" the productive process with which it is normatively concomitant. (Phil mentions concomitance too often for it not to be significant!).
Secondly, (in accord with concomitance, I would think) economic activities regard new goods and services.
Thirdly, the standard of living is dynamic and can therefor be understood as a flow or rate "so much every so often".
Fourthly, while every economic activity has transitional and final products, the key question is how the new good or service relate to the standard of living. In other words, some activities can be understood as "rates" contributing immediately; other activities can be understood as "accelerators" (maintaining, increasing, decreasing rates), contributing mediately to the standard of living.
This is how I understand what is very compactly stated in Phil's letter to the editor: "In any economy there are two flows of money, concomitant with new goods and services."
Cheers
Tom
Tom Halloran
2 Buncle Place
Dunlop ACT 2615
ph: +61 2 6166 3372
mo: +61 4 10643913
email: t...@polymedia.com.au
Skype: ds3016
Lowell Cochrane
This is my understanding as well.
However, in the light of Eileen De Neuve's note earlier, are there two firms, or are there two types of economic activities? Some firms may engage in both manufacturing of products for consumer and products for other manufacturers.
The activity of Applied Materials would be solidly in the one category as providers to other business (unless we start buying IC chips in shopping malls!). Apple is clearly focused on consumer products, although they do run some divisions that supply parts to themselves. And IBM might make the control systems for many manufacturers as well as PC computers for consumers (at least they did at one time). So, as "firms" it is never very cut and dry.
So, I wonder what the best way to talk about is as types of activities. This seems to fit with Lonergan's overall idea of looking at flows of economic activities.
____________________________
Lowell Cochrane
Chief Creative Officer
Show Communications
613. 331. 5609
low...@showcommunications.com
On 2011-11-01, at 12:20 PM, David W Oyler wrote:
> My simple take on the two types of firms is that one provides the means of production for the other which provides consumer goods and services. It may require financing if it does not have its own “savings” (i.e. cash) but the finance industry’s role is primarily to move funds where needed (or at least it should be). There also are firms that provide the means of production for firms that are providing the means of production for other firms. An example here is Applied Materials that provides chip making equipment to Intel and other semi-conductor companies. From here we could move to a functional classification of industries and their respective markets. Lonergan simplifies the analysis by treating all of the “supplier” firms as an aggregate. But once the cycles are understood, companies could do their own strategic planning based on the functional analysis of their suppliers, competitors and markets with the statistics provided via the proper categorization of companies and consumers and the expectations of future flows (which needs to consider current flows, the political situation, etc.).
>
> David
>
> From: Richard Renshaw [mailto:rwre...@sympatico.ca]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 5:48 AM
> To: 'Philip McShane'; 'Jim Asher'; loner...@skipperweb.org; 'Lowell Cochrane'; 172...@gmail.com; alam...@mac.com;bianchi...@yahoo.ca; bill_d...@rmipl.com.au; brenda...@rogers.com; brlov...@gmail.com; bro...@seattleu.edu;bruce.a...@smu.ca; c.do...@wrc-research.ie; cha...@sogang.ac.kr; cmol...@mun.ca; CO'Don...@riverview.nsw.edu.au;con...@eircom.net; ctt...@gmail.com; David W Oyler; DCOG...@tcd.ie; donovan...@gmail.com; ede...@videotron.ca;frank...@optonline.net; fsi...@javeriana.edu.co; galan.f...@gmail.com; hwil...@nbnet.nb.ca; ian_b...@cbu.ca;ivo.c...@gmail.com; james...@itesm.mx; jandhc...@gmail.com; janna....@gmail.com; Jaray...@aol.com;jbar...@uniandes.edu.co; jb...@sympatico.ca; jean...@earthlink.net; joannes...@gmail.com; jwi...@stthom.edu; laco...@mts.net;lance...@uleth.ca; mge...@stthomasu.ca; mjb...@eircom.net; mou...@uw.edu; msh...@mun.ca; octavi...@gmail.com;peter...@bigpond.com; prayf...@hotmail.com; rohen...@hotmail.com; ross...@gmail.com; sandy....@telus.net;scott...@mail.mcgill.ca; smcn...@fastmail.com.au; tfi...@innerland.ca; thost...@eastlink.ca; tjcq...@gmail.com;t...@polymedia.com.au; wmcf...@telus.net
> Cc: 'Hugh & Stephanie Williams'; 'Walter Hughes'; 'Peter and Jean Burgess-DeMarsh'; 'Mark Jobin'; 'Frank Cronin'; 'Ellen Helmuth'; 'vince Zelazny'
> Subject: RE: [Lonergan_l] two firms and theory of macroeconomic functions
>
> I need to chew on that one. Interesting !
>
> Richard
>
> From: Philip McShane [mailto:pmcs...@shaw.ca]
> Sent: November-01-11 7:43 AM
> To: 'Jim Asher'; 'Richard Renshaw'; loner...@skipperweb.org; 'Lowell Cochrane'; 172...@gmail.com; alam...@mac.com;bianchi...@yahoo.ca; bill_d...@rmipl.com.au; brenda...@rogers.com; brlov...@gmail.com; bro...@seattleu.edu;bruce.a...@smu.ca; c.do...@wrc-research.ie; cha...@sogang.ac.kr; cmol...@mun.ca; CO'Don...@riverview.nsw.edu.au;con...@eircom.net; ctt...@gmail.com; david....@aexp.com; DCOG...@tcd.ie; donovan...@gmail.com;ede...@videotron.ca; frank...@optonline.net; fsi...@javeriana.edu.co; galan.f...@gmail.com; hwil...@nbnet.nb.ca;ian_b...@cbu.ca; ivo.c...@gmail.com; james...@itesm.mx; jandhc...@gmail.com; janna....@gmail.com;Jaray...@aol.com; jbar...@uniandes.edu.co; jb...@sympatico.ca; jean...@earthlink.net; joannes...@gmail.com;jwi...@stthom.edu; laco...@mts.net; lance...@uleth.ca; mge...@stthomasu.ca; mjb...@eircom.net; mou...@uw.edu;msh...@mun.ca; octavi...@gmail.com; peter...@bigpond.com; prayf...@hotmail.com; rohen...@hotmail.com;ross...@gmail.com; sandy....@telus.net; scott...@mail.mcgill.ca; smcn...@fastmail.com.au; tfi...@innerland.ca;thost...@eastlink.ca; tjcq...@gmail.com; t...@polymedia.com.au; wmcf...@telus.net
> Cc: 'Hugh & Stephanie Williams'; 'Walter Hughes'; 'Peter and Jean Burgess-DeMarsh'; 'Mark Jobin'; 'Frank Cronin'; 'Ellen Helmuth'; 'vince Zelazny'
> Subject: RE: [Lonergan_l] two firms and theory of macroeconomic functions
>
> Hello all,
> Some good questions from Jim and Richard with my helpful hints
> Phil
>
> From: Jim Asher [mailto:jas...@datashepherd.com]
>
>
>
> In The Future of Economics paper circulated to us earlier the text states that after the simple diagram relating a firm (Type 1) and the household which it supplies, "There is an easy way to add the second type of firm, which supplies not consumer goods, but stuff for the first type of firm: maintenance and innovative stuff". This is why I regarded the second type of firm as providing the fist type of firm with goods and services. I still don't see the import of this distinction.
>
> However, if the second type of firm is a firm providing financial services to the market generally, i.e., to households/consumers as well as to businesses and other organizations including governments, then the importance of the distinction becomes plausible. For instance, I could see an argument based on using the often- and casually-made distinction between firms in the "real" economy and those in financial services (including stocks, bonds, commodities futures, banking, insurance, etc.). This would likely lead to an analysis of the life blood of the second type of firm, i.e., trade in money and its derivatives: what it is, what it provides, its uses and regulation, and so forth. If this is the distinction, much changes.
> So I agree, it would help to have this clarified.
> On 31-Oct-11, at 3:28 PM, Richard Renshaw wrote:
>
>
> Please answer this one for me too. I am confused.
>
> I thought the two “firms” referred to (a) those that produce goods and services and (b) those that engage in financing, investing, speculating, etc. Am I wrong? If not, the importance of separating them out is obvious and crucial.
>
> Richard
>
> O.K. : here, from Phil, what I hope is a help.
>
> Think of Robinson Crusoe, penniless and alone. He has two type of activity. He can either pick berries or he can get the bright idea of cleaning out a coconut shell for the picking.
> This give a primitive idea of the two activities that ground the distinction. Notice that he has to have enough berries picked to give him the time to make his new collecting apparatus.
> You can shift the reflections now to a community on the island … then one of the berry-pickers can be thought of as getting the bright idea of a collecting apparatus. Then there has to be agreement about division of labour, AND promises …. But I leave all that to your imagination.
> But Jim is right about the difficulty of seeing the import of the distinction … it comes out when you follow up the creativities, new tools, etc … and the trouble shows up when the community’s promises get messier, and some Italian sitting on a bench – BANK - speaks to a friend about the need to MAKE A NOTE OF THIS!!!
> Does my ramble help?
> Phil
>
> American Express made the following annotations on Tue Nov 01 2011 09:21:55
> ******************************************************************************
> "This message and any attachments are solely for the intended recipient and may contain confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, use, or distribution of the information included in this message and any attachments is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and immediately and permanently delete this message and any attachments. Thank you."
> American Express a ajouté le commentaire suivant le Tue Nov 01 2011 09:21:55
> Ce courrier et toute pièce jointe qu'il contient sont réservés au seul destinataire indiqué et peuvent renfermer des renseignements confidentiels et privilégiés. Si vous n'êtes pas le destinataire prévu, toute divulgation, duplication, utilisation ou distribution du courrier ou de toute pièce jointe est interdite. Si vous avez reçu cette communication par erreur, veuillez nous en aviser par courrier et détruire immédiatement le courrier et les pièces jointes. Merci.
> ******************************************************************************
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Tom Halloran
Further to my earlier email. It seems to me that once one understands the distinction between activities as either a "rate" or an "accelerator" with regard to the standard of living, then the "point to line, point to area, etc," character of the accelerator does not require a distinct circuit for each type of accelerator.
Tom
Tom Halloran
2 Buncle Place
Dunlop ACT 2615
ph: +61 2 6166 3372
mo: +61 4 10643913
email: t...@polymedia.com.au
Skype: ds3016
Octavio Groppa
I agree with you all. In fact, take into account that the distinction
between circuits is FUNCTIONAL, that is, the categorization of an item
(good or service) into the surplus or basic circuit does not depend on who
or what type of firm did it but on its USE. Think, what type of firm is a
car factory? We cannot say. So, to what circuit should we attribute the
purchases of new cars? Again, it depends on the destination of the car. If
it is going to be used by a family, then it should be accounted into the
basic circuit. If it is going to be used as a taxi, then it should be
accounted into the surplus circuit, because it will accelarate other
activities with lower transportation time.
Re marxist approach, as Phil said, "surplus dividend" is not other thing
but marxist plus-value with the BIG DIFFERENCE that, as Marx departs from a
objectivist-biased theory of value, he thinks that the basic variables of
the economic system are social classes, while they are not. So he gets
stuck to the problem of the property of the surplus, and then he goes
astray. This is but the reverse of capitalist approach, which says that the
surplus should be appropiated by capitalists. In BL's approach, instead,
you don't mind about the property of the surplus. You just analyze which
should be its proper use, conditioned to the state of innovations that are
being developed. Thus he related a Schumpeterian, innovation-centered,
historic, approach, with macroeconomic analysis (growth, cycles, and all
that stuff).
Marx does a mishmash between a sociological discurse and an economical one.
He lacks a theory of knowledge which founds correctly the relationship
between sociology and economics. In contrast, BL's approach permits us to
do an inverse insight re marxian approach: in my opinion, the theory of
value is like the problem of ether in 19th century Physics. The unknown of
the problem is bad formulated.
Regards,
Octavio
2011/11/2 Eileen De Neeve <ede...@videotron.ca>
> **
> Hello again, I would agree with Tom Halloran's four points and the quote
> from Phil. Lonergan mentions that the flows of activity are monetary.
> Otherwise they cannot be measured. (Ch. 16,FNPE; MDA pp 16, 38, 106)
> Lonergan also notes that there is a lag between the production of the
> "accelerator" (or surplus goods & services) and its use in the production
> of basic goods and services for the standard of living. That makes the
> cycle. (MDA pp 33-35, 128; FNPE pp 244-245, 81-82). Cheers, Eileen deN.
>
> *From:* Tom Halloran <t...@polymedia.com.au>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 01, 2011 5:49 PM
> *To:* David W Oyler <david....@aexp.com>
> *Cc:* Lowell Cochrane <lowell....@gmail.com> ; Richard Renshaw<rwre...@sympatico.ca>; McShane
> Philip <pmcs...@shaw.ca> ; Jim Asher <jas...@datashepherd.com> ;
> loner...@skipperweb.org ; Joe F <172...@gmail.com> ; Ángel Lamuño
> González <alam...@mac.com> ; Derek Bianchi Melchin<bianchi...@yahoo.ca>; Danaher
> Bill & Dympna <bill_d...@rmipl.com.au> ; brenda...@rogers.com ; Brendan
> Lovett <brlov...@gmail.com> ; Brown Pat <bro...@seattleu.edu> ; Anderson
> Bruce <bruce.a...@smu.ca> ; Ciaran Dolphin <c.do...@wrc-research.ie>; Kim
> Chae <cha...@sogang.ac.kr> ; Cecilia Moloney <cmol...@mun.ca> ; O'Donovan
> Conn <CO%27Do...@riverview.nsw.edu.au> ; Connie Masterson<con...@eircom.net>; Charles
> Tackney <ctt...@gmail.com> ; David Coghlan <DCOG...@tcd.ie> ; Fiona
> McShane <donovan...@gmail.com> ; Eileen de Neeve<ede...@videotron.ca>; Frank
> Braio <frank...@optonline.net> ; fsi...@javeriana.edu.co ; Francisco
> Galan <galan.f...@gmail.com> ; Hugh & Stephanie Williams<hwil...@nbnet.nb.ca>; Ian
> Brodie <ian_b...@cbu.ca> ; Coelho Ivo <ivo.c...@gmail.com> ; Duffy
> James <james...@itesm.mx> ; Heather and Jonathan Carraher<jandhc...@gmail.com>; Janna
> Rosales <janna....@gmail.com> ; Raymaker John <Jaray...@aol.com> ;
> jbar...@uniandes.edu.co ; John Benton <jb...@sympatico.ca> ; Soto Jean<jean...@earthlink.net>; joanne
> sherrard <joannes...@gmail.com> ; Jeremy Wilkins <jwi...@stthom.edu>; Larry
> Cooley <laco...@mts.net> ; Lance Grigg <lance...@uleth.ca> ; Michael
> George <mge...@stthomasu.ca> ; Margaret Ryan <mjb...@eircom.net> ; Doug
> Mounce <mou...@uw.edu> ; Shute Michael <msh...@mun.ca> ; Octavio Groppa<octavi...@gmail.com>; Beer
> Peter <peter...@bigpond.com> ; patricia rayfield<prayf...@hotmail.com>; Henman
> Robert <rohen...@hotmail.com> ; Dick Ross <ross...@gmail.com> ; Gillis
> Sandy <sandy....@telus.net> ; scott...@mail.mcgill.ca ; McNelis Sean<smcn...@fastmail.com.au>; Tania
> Fierro <tfi...@innerland.ca> ; Timothy C Hosterman<thost...@eastlink.ca>; Quinn
> Terry <tjcq...@gmail.com> ; wendy mcfeely <wmcf...@telus.net> ; Walter
> Hughes <walta...@hotmail.com> ; Peter and Jean Burgess-DeMarsh<gran...@nbnet.nb.ca>; Mark
> Jobin <mark...@yahoo.com> ; Frank Cronin <frank...@dudels.com> ; Ellen
> Helmuth <ekhe...@mindspring.com> ; vince Zelazny<vince....@gmail.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [Lonergan_l] two firms and theory of macroeconomic
> functions
>
> G'day David et al
>
> My developing grasp of what Lonergan calls the "pure process" includes
> making a real (relational) distinction between two types of "activities" *
> within* the "pure process". Getting there, it seems to me, involves
> several steps.
> First, the exchange process is one of many ways to "manage" the productive
> process with which it is normatively concomitant. (Phil mentions
> concomitance too often for it not to be significant!).
> Secondly, (in accord with concomitance, I would think) economic activities
> regard *new* goods and services.
> Thirdly, the standard of living is dynamic and can therefor be understood
> as a flow or rate "so much every so often".
> Fourthly, while every economic activity has transitional and final
> products, the key question is how the new good or service relate to the
> standard of living. In other words, some activities can be understood as
> "rates" contributing immediately; other activities can be understood as
> "accelerators" (maintaining, increasing, decreasing rates), contributing
> mediately to the standard of living.
>
> This is how I understand what is very compactly stated in Phil's letter to
> the editor: * *"In any economy there are *two flows of money*, *
> concomitant* with *new* goods and services."
mou...@uw.edu
I notice that model-testing seems to regularly highlight interesting
features. I've been imagining one based on Robinson Crusoe and a simple
government, but this current conversation reminds me of how we think
about intellectual property.
Locke's idea is that labor improves the value of property, but he also
respects his neighbors in social responsibility.
Hegel's idea links the nature of a person to the control of resources.
Self-expression is achieved through property, but acquisition for its own
sake is the opposite of life. Hence, life is expressive acquisition but not
acquisitive expression.
van Gogh is creative, right? On the other hand, how come the little plastic
clip that replaces a twist tie on a loaf of break is such an incredibly
lucrative invention?
Locke's theory cannot account for the easy idea, and Hegel's personality
theory cannot account for impersonal ideas.
The case against IP rights begins with Marx. In the US, the principle is
a utilitarianism of the greatest good for the greatest number, but the
problem with utilitarianism is the lack of empirical data that defines social
welfare.
Hence, we might expect Lonergan can contribute a reasonable sense at least
in terms of his dynamic knowing.
Richard Renshaw
I am still munching on the two firms. How does this relate to "value" and
"plus-value" in Marxist economic theory? They sound very similar.
Also, just in passing, there is an interesting interview with David Korten
at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hhzwgIxqOc0
It is mainly about the "occupy" movement and he underlines that the root of
the problem lies in the financial sector (wall street). Last night the
director of Le Monde Diplomatique spoke here in Montreal and said about the
same thing: Everyone, on every side of the spectrum, is still working within
the capitalist framework and unwilling to step outside its economic rules.
Richard
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Halloran [mailto:t...@polymedia.com.au]
Sent: November-01-11 5:58 PM
To: David W Oyler
Cc: Lowell Cochrane; Richard Renshaw; 'Philip McShane'; 'Jim Asher';
loner...@skipperweb.org; 172...@gmail.com; alam...@mac.com;
bianchi...@yahoo.ca; bill_d...@rmipl.com.au;
brenda...@rogers.com; brlov...@gmail.com; bro...@seattleu.edu;
bruce.a...@smu.ca; c.do...@wrc-research.ie; cha...@sogang.ac.kr;
cmol...@mun.ca; CO'Don...@riverview.nsw.edu.au; con...@eircom.net;
ctt...@gmail.com; DCOG...@tcd.ie; donovan...@gmail.com;
ede...@videotron.ca; frank...@optonline.net; fsi...@javeriana.edu.co;
galan.f...@gmail.com; hwil...@nbnet.nb.ca; ian_b...@cbu.ca;
ivo.c...@gmail.com; james...@itesm.mx; jandhc...@gmail.com;
janna....@gmail.com; Jaray...@aol.com; jbar...@uniandes.edu.co;
jb...@sympatico.ca; jean...@earthlink.net; joannes...@gmail.com;
jwi...@stthom.edu; laco...@mts.net; lance...@uleth.ca;
mge...@stthomasu.ca; mjb...@eircom.net; mou...@uw.edu; msh...@mun.ca;
octavi...@gmail.com; peter...@bigpond.com; prayf...@hotmail.com;
rohen...@hotmail.com; ross...@gmail.com; sandy....@telus.net;
scott...@mail.mcgill.ca; smcn...@fastmail.com.au; tfi...@innerland.ca;
thost...@eastlink.ca; tjcq...@gmail.com; wmcf...@telus.net; 'Walter
Hughes'; 'Peter and Jean Burgess-DeMarsh'; 'Mark Jobin'; 'Frank Cronin';
'Ellen Helmuth'; 'vince Zelazny'
Subject: Re: [Lonergan_l] two firms and theory of macroeconomic functions
G'day again
Philip McShane
Both re the connection with Marxism and with the mood re the financial
section: the issue is an emergence of correct oscillations of what Lonergan
calls pure surplus income.
BUT the problem is the tough theoretic or scientific climb to the precise
answer which is hidden in the index entry under CONCOMITANCE in For A New
Political Economy.
Here we are up against a huge cultural crisis. The climb in the new
economics is like the climb in physics towards Maxwell's equations. Neither
present nor past economists really believe that. The answers are way beyond
the common sense. The task is for a community to emerge that can generate a
new culture, a new view of credit, a quite precise measure and morality of
quarterly profits, a decommoditization of money, etc etc. All this resting
on equations of concomitance which are a parallel to Maxwell's equations for
electromagnetic phenomena.
We have tough times ahead, but identifying the root problem of the financial
sector is a start!
Phil
Eileen De Neeve
From: Tom Halloran
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 5:49 PM
To: David W Oyler
Cc: Lowell Cochrane ; Richard Renshaw ; McShane Philip ; Jim Asher ; loner...@skipperweb.org ; Joe F ; Ángel Lamuño González ; Derek Bianchi Melchin ; Danaher Bill & Dympna ; brenda...@rogers.com ; Brendan Lovett ; Brown Pat ; Anderson Bruce ; Ciaran Dolphin ; Kim Chae ; Cecilia Moloney ; O'Donovan Conn ; Connie Masterson ; Charles Tackney ; David Coghlan ; Fiona McShane ; Eileen de Neeve ; Frank Braio ; fsi...@javeriana.edu.co ; Francisco Galan ; Hugh & Stephanie Williams ; Ian Brodie ; Coelho Ivo ; Duffy James ; Heather and Jonathan Carraher ; Janna Rosales ; Raymaker John ; jbar...@uniandes.edu.co ; John Benton ; Soto Jean ; joanne sherrard ; Jeremy Wilkins ; Larry Cooley ; Lance Grigg ; Michael George ; Margaret Ryan ; Doug Mounce ; Shute Michael ; Octavio Groppa ; Beer Peter ; patricia rayfield ; Henman Robert ; Dick Ross ; Gillis Sandy ; scott...@mail.mcgill.ca ; McNelis Sean ; Tania Fierro ; Timothy C Hosterman ; Quinn Terry ; wendy mcfeely ; Walter Hughes ; Peter and Jean Burgess-DeMarsh ; Mark Jobin ; Frank Cronin ; Ellen Helmuth ; vince Zelazny
Subject: Re: [Lonergan_l] two firms and theory of macroeconomic functions