Re: Case solved, at last!

[Gunnar Tómasson <gunnar.tomasson@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Re. the following:

> >Comment:
> >What is your non-anachronistic construction of Say's Law?
>
> Uhhh ... you are joking, aren't you?  Or you really cannot
> see what in the following is the anachronistic projection
> from post-1870's neoclassical thought into pre-1870's
> classical thought?

Comment:

I take you non sequitur response to mean that, while you claim to know what
Say's Law IS NOT, you do not know what Say's Law IS.

On what grounds, then, did you predicate your original - now repeated -
assertion?

Gunnar




----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce McFarling" <ecbm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 2:35 AM
Subject: Re: Case solved, at last!


> On Tue, 11 Dec 2001 11:33:13 -0500, Gunnar Tómasson
> <gunnar.tomasson@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >Re. the following:
>
> >> See: anachronistic introduction of the core neoclassical
> >> concept into classical economic theory and the General
> >> Theory.
>
> >Comment:
> >What is your non-anachronistic construction of Say's Law?
>
> Uhhh ... you are joking, aren't you?  Or you really cannot
> see what in the following is the anachronistic projection
> from post-1870's neoclassical thought into pre-1870's
> classical thought?
>
> > >In fact, there is nothing mysterious about Say's Law - it
> > >restates in terms of Supply in the Factor Market and Demand
> > >in the Market for Final Ouput the logical implications of
> > >the maximizing attributes of Homo Economicus which underlies
> > >all of Economic Science.
>
>
> Virtually,
>
> Bruce McFarling, Shortland, NSW
> ecbm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>