Re: Case solved, at last!

[Bruce McFarling <ecbm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 21 Dec 2001 16:27:49 -0800, you (Colin Danby
<danbyc@xxxxxxx>) wrote:

>Bruce:  It's no use!  Gunnar's earlier assertion about
>"the maximizing attributes of Homo Economicus which
>underlies all of Economic Science" gave the game away.
>If you accept this silly premise about the basis for
>*all* economics, then you're justified in going back
>and fixing up the work of predecessor economists.
>There's no way to jog Gunnar out of this tautological
>thinking, and I think for everyone else the issues are
>clear.

And then Gunnar wrote (among other stuff):

>Considering that "J. S. Mill, Marshall, Edgeworth, and Prof.
>Pigou", whom Keynes included among "the classical economists",
>routinely used the maximizing attributes of Homo Economicus
>as point of departure in their theoretical reasoning, it is
>self-evident that Say's Law could not possibly have served
>as foundation for "the whole classical theory" unless such
>maximizing attributes were part and parcel thereof.

Given the dramatic analytical leap of finding that
Says Law is founded on Homo Economicus reasoning since
Keynes argued that Homo Ecnoomicus reasoning as a "whole
economics" approach was implicitly founded on IT ...
yeah, the argument condemns itself.  Every time there
is no way to get from point A to point B without
explicitly invoking a false premise, simple say that
the leap is Self-Evident!

I was especially amused by the red herring of:

>Of course, if one defines theoretical economics to exclude
>the maximizing attributes of Homo Economicus, then one is
>mistaking apples for oranges insofar as the point at issue
>is concerned.

Either its all maximising, or you are denying room for
maximising.  Fallacy of dichotomy, plain and simple.




Virtually,

Bruce McFarling, Shortland, NSW
ecbm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx