----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- 
   The mathematization of economics has been well explained by Gerard Debreu in his 1990
presidential address to the AEA (see Debreu, G. (1991), [1]American Economic Review Vol.
81 No. 1, p.1-7.).  Seemingly, Americans favored mathematization rather ardently. One
wonders if the mass production of economics graduates was much helped by the introduction
of the engine of mediocrity otherwise known as the semester system, coupled with
objective-typetest  questions, and hurried  presentations using  mathematical tricks
regardless of their appropriateness. I wonder if the American educational factories try to
turn out quick graduates with superficial learning. (I studied at NYU.)
 
I wonder if the American passion for mass production and disregard of 
quality, whether in the production of economics graduates or cars, has 
really cultivated mediocrity (and democracy). Consider the Englishmen 
DavidRicardo, William Jevons, Alfred Marshall, John Maynard Keynes, and 
John Hicks. All of them used mathematics, but only to the extent necessary 
to make the presentation crisp and clear, and not as a mindless engine of 
mass producing theorems (but for scholarly elitism!). Alfred Marshall 
actually did advise people not to employ mathematics as an engine of 
inquiry, but to use it as a rhetorical device of presentation. 
 
Then consider the contributions of Americans Paul Samuelson, Kenneth Arrow, 
Gerard Debreu, Gary Becker, and Robert Lucas. Mathematics has become the 
end for them. These second group is extremely shallow compared to the first 
group. I am sure I can learn a lot more about money from Jevons,though his 
book was written in 1875, than from Lucas, whose theorem on money appeared 
in 1972. Has anybody noticed how mediocre is the idea that an increase in 
employment can occur only with a rise in real wage rate? A shift of the 
supply curve means that at the same real wage rate, a larger labor force is 
employed, and this shift is possible with an increased supply of means of 
payment to sustain the higher wage bill. Rational people cannot expect that 
a rise in the supply of money will raise the nominal prices alone, because 
they know that more money allows hitherto unused resources to be put to 
work. There is no reality to which Lucasian 
math applies. Empty math is not deep. 
 
Has anybody noticed that Gary Becker (see Becker, G. S; and Lewis, H. G. 
1973, On the interaction between the quantity and quality of children, 
Journal of Political Economy, Vol 81, Part 2, pp S279-S288) made a mistake 
(of not using the product rule of derivative properly), and could not set 
up the budget properly, ending with strange theorems (such as the price of 
quality is higher because it has to apply to a larger quantity of children, 
while the whole issue is to prove that the rise in quality comes with a 
fall in the quantity).  Likewise, in a later paper with Barro (see Barro, 
R.J. & Becker,G. S., 1988. "[2]Fertility Choice in a Model of Economic 
Growth," [3]University of Chicago - Economics Research Center 88-8), Becker 
sets up a model of dynastic fertility behavior, in which a man can borrow 
from his unborn progeny to finance his own education.  His argument would 
mean that since Egypt invented literacy long before England, the Egyptians 
would become richer and more educated in a virtuous cycle while the 
originally illiterate Englishmen would forever remain poor and illiterate 
in a vicious cycle. Math allows one to propose anything, but economics 
should have facts for them. Why formulate a model of altruism (investing in 
the children’s education at the same time as preventing the birth of other 
children), if the goal is to borrow from the unborn? 
 
I see evidence of mindless math everywhere in American economics. Excessive 
mathematization has gravely harmed economics. 
 
Mohammad Gani 
 
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]