Posted to Billy Mitchell’s Blog 11/19/2015

Posted by

0

Larry, “The possible solution to integrating what are presently two subdiscipliines of a single field doesn’t lie in the nature of the data, it lies at the theoretical level. It isn’t a matter of new, better, different data; the bar to your image of integration lies in the fact that the two paradigms are deeply incompatible with one another, and data can’t fix this.” I disagree. I think it is both data and theory. If data is not being perceived its missed. If it is looked at and then fit into a mistaken ideology as DSGE I believe interprets the data I refer to, its actual reality is misperceived/twisted. For instance the data on costs and incomes is misinterpreted within General Equilibrium. What the data actually tells us is that the system is in a continual/dynamic state of Disequilibrium. This implies adult, responsible action/policy to stabilize/equilibrate the system instead of treating the system/market as an unquestionable God. Paradigms are general ideas/philosophies. The current paradigms in economics are Debt and Stasis. The new paradigms need to be Grace as in Gifting and Process as in Dynamic Flow. It is no coincidence that the philosophical underpinnings of each of the cutting edge theoretics of MMT, Disequilibrium theory, Positive Money, Public Banking and Social Credit express aspects of the the natural concept of Grace and Flow. Having said all of this I wouldn’t disagree that the philosophical/theoretical conclusions are more important than merely then data, but that is because the integrative mindset….is thoroughly integrative and not mere in any sense…and the result of the integration of the data within a more realistic philosophical/theoretical interpretation is a third more unitary understanding of the whole of the discipline.

Leave a comment