Oh and the Thirlwall work is a long run theory of growth.

But again... Non-ergodicity... Do we trust this? 

On Friday, 26 February 2016, Philip Pilkington <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
The Cambridge growth theory should be able to generate it... in theory. But I've never seen it done. I think that stuff was dropped after Robinson's "History vs Equilibrium" work when methodology overruled long-term modelling.

But it wouldn't be hard to plug in some distribution figures from Piketty/Saez into a Cambridge equation. But would we good non-ergodic folks accept the result? Especially with that full employment assumption built in...

Beyond that there's Baduri-Marglin but that's just export led stuff.

On Friday, 26 February 2016, Henry, John <[log in to unmask]');" target="_blank">[log in to unmask]> wrote:



I had a question from a Levy associate that I could not readily answer. Perhaps some of you can come to my assistance. Does anyone know of any heterodox types who work on non-neoclassical theories of growth from which long-term predictions can be generated? Most of the literature I know of in this area is either old or deals with sustainability. But, the issue addressed is to develop a reasonable counter to conventional theory(ies) that appears both more reasonable and also usable in forecasting.


Any takers? Many thanks in advance.




John F. Henry
Levy Economics Institute of Bard College
NY 12504

Philip Pilkington

Tel: 0044(0)7825371244

Philip Pilkington

Tel: 0044(0)7825371244