http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0871544881/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o06_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1: Marginalism and Discontinuity: Tools for the Crafts of Knowledge and Decision
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0231071531/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o07_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1: The Rise of the Marginal Utility School, 1870-1889
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/04/economists-still-think-economics-is-the-best/390063/: Economists Still Think Economics Is the Best
Despite failing to foresee the largest financial crisis since the Great Depression, leaders in the field still fail to look for wisdom beyond its bounds.
Top above are two books at Amazon: I have the first. It reveals in stark public view an unwitting and clear confession of the original impulse/secret of marginalism in terms of differentials.
Economics challenged to defend their subject need to grasp the origins of marginalism and whether the differential calculus adapted to ‘marginal’ entities really works.
I claimed they didn’t in Last and First Men, but I should check through the literature here some more, because I am not sure all of a sudden. I think the verdict stands given the fact that calculus style economics is unable to produce the kind of secondary derivations that make calculus in physics so amazing. Many results of mathematical economics are just ‘conceits’. But am I correct and how to judge when a google/gaggle of economists swear by the method?
In the final analysis my WHEE shows why causality in history models fails, and therefore I suspect they fail in economics models. That is the distinction of ‘system action’ and ‘free action’ in the model. You can’t apply differential equations to history because it is created by free agents, however determined, who can change the course of history at any moment by reading this paragraph and deciding to defy historical determinism. You could carry a random number generator and turn left/right according to the result. That can’t happen with dead matter in physics, and so differential equations can deal with the ‘future’ of the material in principle with exactness.
In a human sphere the future can’t be determined exactly. Economists seems to think this doesn’t matter and that an aggregate ‘law’ will work. I can’t be sure, but technically economics can’t use differentials (or marginals) and the results could never automate the example above, given the almost identical situation in consumer choice economics… Free agency doesn’t have to be free will. Simply that something that happens in an economic agent’s head will shift the causal track in a way the derivation of ‘laws’ can’t handle.