Re: Keynes Economics (not that its the be all and end all!)

[Bruce McFarling <ecbm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

All I am doing is pointing that the quote:

>"We can then define the *income* of the entrepreneur as being the excess of
>the value of his finished output sold during the period over his prime cost.
>The entrepreneur's income, that is to say, is taken as being equal to the
>quantity, depending on his scale of production, which he endeavours to
>maximise, i.e. to his gross profit in the ordinary sense of the term; -
>which agrees with common sense.  Hence, since the income of the rest of the
>community is equal to the entrepreneur's factor cost, aggregate income is
>equal to A - U [where A - U = A]."

Directly contradicts the conclusion:

>In other words, "aggregate income" is "equal to the entrepreneur's factor
>cost"

The quote specifies:
 -- the income of the entreprenuer (excess of A over prime cost)
 -- the income to the rest of the community (= factor cost F)
And therefore when the term aggregate income is used, it is
necessarily the sum of the two.

Equating income to factor cost F may be what you wish to do,
and without raising the question of whether entrepreneurial
income *is* necessarily zero, it is quite clearly and
obviously not what the quote says, so the "in other words"
is in fact incorrect.

The fact that Keynes did not give a letter to entrepeneurial
income in the quote at hand does not mean anything.  The
language is extremely clear (especially for the General
Theory ;) and therefore its the job of someone who wishes
to translate it algebraically to do so without leaving out
income flows that the statement includes.

Virtually,

Bruce McFarling, Shortland, NSW
ecbm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx