[From Fred Nickols (2006.06.26.1204 EDT)]
It seems to me that any discussion of "the economy" (and even more so any
"modeling" of it) has to proceed from some conceptual and linguistic
foundations. For example, what do we mean by "the economy"? What is
included in it and what is excluded from it? Any failure to define our
terms seems bound to produce a pronounced lack of communication. Further,
"modeling" has always seemed to me to imply a grasp of what I learned as
"structure" - i.e., some set of variables or elements, their connections
(e.g., immediate or delayed) and their relationships (e.g., direct or
inverse). So, we need labels, as identifiers, definitions as clarifiers,
diagrams of structural arrangements as additional clarifiers and, I assume,
mathematical expressions of the relationships between and among all the many
variables making up our "model" of the "economy."
My guess is that many members on this list already possess much of what I've
just enumerated. I'd also wager that they differ in many important ways.
And, I happen to believe that PCT might indeed make a contribution to better
understanding "the economy" (or at least matters economic).
What, then, are the basic elements of the economy? Would a textbook on
basic economics answer that question?
"Assistance at a Distance"