Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id UAA22236 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Tue, 17 Oct 2000 20:15:18 +0100 Message-Id: <200010171915.UAA22236@alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk> Errors-To: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org To: CAMREC list members <email@example.com> From: the Campaign for Real Economics <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 15:09:28 -0500 Subject: Re: CAMREC: The 'no supply-demand curve' sign
At 04:41 PM 10/17/00 +0100, you wrote:
>.....Consequently, supply and demand curves have no relationship
>whatsoever to real economies.
>The point is not just that the real world is more complex than indicated by
>supply and demand curves (though that is certainly true) but, far more
>importantly, that the particular simplifications of conventional economics
>(typified by the supply and demand diagram) constitute a conceptual barrier
>between conventional economics and the economics of the real world.
Has anyone published a paper that follows the above logic?
>Besides, as Bruce said, it was amusing to devise the CAMREC logo.
It looks like you and Bruce were having fun. Aside from making me chuckle,
I wondered if the curve is the point of departure. Based on you comments,
the problem is acceptance of a vague 'unmodeled process.' I would modify
that to read 'an unmodeled Gaussian process'.
On the subject of models, have you seen Levy, Levy and Solomon's
'Microscopic Simulation of Financial Markets' book?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 17 2000 - 20:15:19 BST