The geometry of Concordian economics is better evaluated when put in relationship with the geometry of classical and neoclassical economics, which as seen in the following Slide 1 (after page break) is built on points and lines, lines resulting from the disconnected measurements of comparative statics.
by Rick Davis, Consumer Metrics Institute
In their second estimate of the US GDP for the first quarter of 2016, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) revised the growth rate upward to +0.82%, up 0.28% from their previous estimate but still down -0.56% from from the +1.38% rate recorded for the fourth quarter of 2015.
May 27th, 2016
by Philip Pilkington
In the recent issue of the Real World Economics Review there was a rather interesting, if somewhat dense, article by Judea Pearl and Bryant Chen entitled Regression and Causation: A Critical Examination of Six Econometrics Textbooks. Lars Syll, who was earlier sent the paper, has weighed in here. It is a heavy and technical paper, but I think that the underlying results are of great interest to anyone concerned with applying econometrics to economics — or, conversely, to anyone who is, as I am, skeptical of such applications.
Everything takes time. In 1991, an anonymous referee of the Journal of Economic Theory pointed out that what later was to be called Concordian economics contains “a new analytic engine” and that this engine ought to be “put through its paces” (Anon., 1991). All the work researched and published in the meantime (see, esp. Gorga, 2008) confirms the validity of this insight. The present paper is meant to achieve that goal.