MP: >>I should have added that chaos theory invalidates the tidy proofs of
>>neoclassical economics. So the Hayek people have a double reason to like
>>it: Chaos theory denigrates their enemies (the left) and their
>>competitors (neo-classical economics).
>
DD: >Have to add that in my experience, the "love" of the neoHayekian crowd
>for chaos theory has never been so profound as to motivate them to actually
>do any hard time with gaining a mathematical understanding of it (as opposed
>to windy babble about biological systems). All the rightist chaos theory
>apologetics along the lines Michael has descrbied (or at least, all of it
>that I've seen) has been at a very shallow level of udnerstanding indeed.
None shallower than mine, Daniel. But Cambel introduces his *The Almighty Chance* (Singapore:World Scientific 1990) with some propositions that come out of this chaos thingy:
"1. Complexity can occur in natural and man-made systems, as well as in social structures and human beings.
2. Complex dynamical systems may be very large or very small, indeed, in some complex systems, large and small components live cooperatively.
3. The system is neither completely deterministic nor completely random, and exhibits both characteristics.
4. The causes and effects of the events that the system experiences are not proportional.
5. The different parts of complex systems are linked and affect one another in a synergistic manner.
6. There is positive and negative feedback. The level of complexity depends on the character of the system, its environment, and the nature of the interactions between them."
I can see how this undoes neoclassical 'thinking', but can't see how Hayekian prices=only-way-to-produce-information-optimally-to-allocate-resources thinking can elicit particular joy from this news. 'Seems to me stuff that's in their dynamo-chao-plexic social system ('the market') is more prone to random-price-driven destructive gales than stuff that's outside it. Which seems like a beaut infrastructure-under-public-control argument. I mean, if the market is essentially unpredictable and volatile, wouldn't it be better to keep the infrastructure through and upon which it does its thing out of the tumult?
BTW, I see nothing that denies systemic tendencies to crisis, volatile boom'n'bust trajectories, contradictory unities / dynamic mutual constitution, and the interesting idea that you get different values for different ways of assessing value (whereas neoclassicals, most unfractally, allow for but one value to go with but one unit of measure).
Cheers, Rob.