Re: Keynes's Cockamamy Economics

[Bruce McFarling <ecbm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Fri, 02 Nov 2001 13:24:20 -0500, Gunnar Tómasson
<gunnar.tomasson@xxxxxxxxxxx>

>At issue are (a) definitions, and (b) their implications -
>not assumptions.

Mistating the algebraic definition of A to omit the
entrepeneurial profit (which is within the definition
in the text) is entirely equivalent to assuming that
entrepreneurial profit is 0, except that leaving the
term out makes the assumption less explicit.

So the mistraslation of the definitions into algebra
was exactly the issue I was raising, along with the
implication  that follows from omitting the additive
term that you left out.

Virtually,

Bruce McFarling, Shortland, NSW
ecbm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx