Re: S=I, an old debate.

[Chas Anderson <chasna@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 04:02 PM 8/19/98 +1000, you wrote:
>At 11:23 AM 18/08/1998 -0700, Chas Anderson wrote:
>
>>In either case, purchases of financial assets have increase, without any
>>fallacy of composition and with total consistency in an aggregative
>>sense. In many ways, this definition opens avenues to understanding
>>economics where the value of unconsumed output concept will not
>>let us go.
>
>        But you are atill double counting, because sales of financial
>assets have increased along with increased purchases.  NET saving is
>unchanged unless the financial assets were newly created.
>
>        As to whether I am using undefined terms, I am (in keeping
>with the expressed purpose of the list) attempting to use the
>definitions in the GT.  If your reading of the GT definitions and
>mine are at odds, that may or may not be another topic for discussion.
>
>Virtually,
>
>Bruce McFarling, Ourimbah, NSW
>ecbm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Evidently, you're not following my point at all. If you're going to use GT
definitions, then you have defined the problem away by making S always
equal to I, so there is nothing to discuss. By the way, I'm not using GT
definitions. The GT is one book, by one man, who also happened to write
other books over his lifetime. I have a scientific interest in economics, not
a religious one.

Chas