Re: Say's Law and Operationalism - Tobin Addendum

["Gunnar Tomasson" <tomasson@xxxxxxxx>]

Alan:

My statement is predicated on epistemological considerations, including
mathematical logic in the specific context of Samuelson's application of the
differential calculus in static analysis.

With respect to the latter, the point at issue concerns the admissibility in
the context of market "systems in "stable" equilibrium or motion" -
Foundations, p. 5 - of "displacements" of the conditions thereof.

ALL Samuelson's work in economics is predicated on an AFFIRMATIVE answer to
the question whether "vanishingly small displacements" of "the conditions of
static equilibrium" are admissible in static analysis.

My own NEGATIVE answer accords with (a) Walras' conclusion to the effect
that, in the strictly technical sense of the term, real-world market systems
are in general equilibrium at all points in time, and (b) Gustav Cassel's
conclusion - derided as "naive" by Samuelson - that ALL empirical supply and
demand data reduce to POINT observations that shed NO light on whatever
CURVES may be assumed to intersect at any such point.

In the context of Newtonian physics, Samuelson's contention to the contrary
is the logical equivalent of FIRST stipulating that all particles in the
universe interact gravitationally at all points in time and THEN reasoning
AS IF "vanishingly small deviations" from associated equilibrium paths were
logically admissible.

Gunnar


----- Original Message -----
From: Alan G. Isaac <aisaac@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Gunnar Tomasson <tomasson@xxxxxxxx>; Post Keynesian Theory
<pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2000 7:44 PM
Subject: Re: Say's Law and Operationalism - Tobin Addendum


> Gunnar,
>
> This still simply miscasts things.
> There is no direct link between
> Tobin's integration of stock and
> flow considerations in monetary
> theory and Samuelson's correspondence
> principle.
>
> As far as I can tell, you are making
> much ado about nothing.
>
> Alan Isaac
>
>
>
>
> Gunnar Tomasson wrote:
>
> > Tobin's work in monetary theory before the 1970s represents, as it were,
an
> > empirical test of Samuelson's "bridge...between static and dynamic
> > analysis" - was it real or imaginary?
>
>