I was in a hurry before, but can answer you with a little more care now.

You start out agreeing that there is no non-quantitative mathematics, that it is all about quantities. So where are the quantities in economics?

You talk about abstractions from them. But that is to presume the quantities to be abstracted from. Where are they?

Next, you say that mathematics is a superior language. Is that just in economics or in everything? Why in economics any more than anything else, or, if in everything, why don’t we drop English altogether, and speak only in mathematics?

You say that mathematics is innocent, and it makes no sense for me to blame it for its misuse.

Mathematics: I find you guilty of short-cuts, and sentence you to five years of hard labor on the rock pile, counting the rocks, one by one.

You said, “To complain THAT he laid it out mathematically is as meaningless as claiming that he laid it out in Latvian.”

And as meaningful.

You said, “You must find the misidentified concepts in his assumptions, or confess that you don’t really know why or if he is wrong.”

He has confused mathematical with logical concepts.

You asked, “Can your English descriptions come up with actual numbers? If not, then why would you hold a mathematical description to a different standard?”

I wouldn’t. I wouldn’t expect any language or method of description to come up with examples of something that didn’t exist.

You asked, “Isn’t it useful to understand the abstract relationship between quantities?”

Yes.

And then you asked, “If not, then what exactly do your English-described concepts tell us that is useful?”

Would you like an example?

You conclude: “Errors of thought and sophistry are false thinking–regardless of how those thoughts are expressed.”

You ought to know.

I don’t think you understand how I really feel about you, so tell me how to say I love you in mathematics. And, while you’re at it, can’t stand you.

I sure can’t understand you in English, so why didn’t you try explaining all that to me in mathematics, if it’s such a superior language?

And why don’t we dispense with English altogether, and speak mathematics in everything, not just economics?

Jeff, above, wrote:

“Many maths do not study quantity at all, and indeed were created precisely to avoid quantities.”

And that’s what Daniel’s mathematical economics always came down to, and what mathematical economics must always come down to, counting without numbers and measuring without magnitudes. For the mathematical economists can never give you any actual examples of their alleged mathematical economics, ecconomics with actual numbers. All they can ever give you are symbolic allusions to actual numbers, or some isolated number, such as the number of dollars in circulation at a given point in time. But mathematics implies at least two numbers yielding a third, and that they cannot give you. Hence, “non-quantititative mathematics,” and a new priestcraft, with a new priesthood, in academic rather than ecclesiastical robes, and chanting in mathematics rather than Latin.

By the way, couldn’t get that reply function to accept this reply.

http://cms.bsu.edu/Academics/CollegesandDepartments/MCOB/Programs/Depts/Economics/ResearchandCommunityImpact/FacultyResearch/~/media/DepartmentalContent/MillerCollegeofBusiness/Econ/research/FacultyPapers/coelho2005sej.ashx

http://cms.bsu.edu/Academics/CollegesandDepartments/MCOB/Programs/Depts/Economics/ResearchandCommunityImpact/FacultyResearch/~/media/DepartmentalContent/MillerCollegeofBusiness/Econ/research/FacultyPapers/coelho2005sej.ashx

In case the links don’t work, the first is from the Southern Economic Journal, 71(3), 556-565.

The second was published in Econ Journal Watch, 5(1), 78-90.

Which is ironic, given how sweeping dg’s declarations always are on this subject!!

Aggregation always presents obstacles – but I think ultimately if you approach something empirically the obstacles are much more surmountable. So let’s say you’re modeling at the sub-sector level. That gets pretty refined: “women’s apparel”, “auto mechanics”, etc. You obviously still have an aggregation problem because even within those subsectors there is heterogeneity. But if you let the data speak for itself and observe how each subsector differentially reacts to something like a change in the interest rate, then you’ve essentially figured out how that heterogeneity impacts your result, even if you can’t actually model all the heterogeneous firms.

Models are never perfect – but they’re not as dumbed down as anti-Keynesians like to imagine they are. And they certainly are more accomodative to the problems associated with aggregation than vikingvista’s proposed solution.

But if you conceded that point to me, you’d also have to concede that the people who use his econ to decrease freedoms aren’t really using his econ at all – they’re using a distortion of his econ. I’m not obligated to apologize for those sorts of mistakes.

I noted different ways that the government could destroy wealth. That doesn’t mean I think it always does. I would disagree with vikingvista’s a priori assumption that whatever government spends on is “nonproductive”. That’s ideology, not economics. Obviously anyone looking at issues of government spending needs to understand the efficiency problems associated with the government. But understanding that those problems exist is different from assuming government destroys wealth from the outset.

“Please Dear DG. Please correct my logic.”

It is illogical to lump non-quantitative relations into the same category with quantitative relations, and nullify the distinction between them.

And to those who cannot see the difference, I can only say that I see it, and regret that I cannot give sight to the blind.