PKT message, Re: Case solved, at last!

I take it that neither Bruce nor Colin have read Baumol's article on Say's Law - or else have forgotten Say's opening words in Ch. 5 of 'Traité' cited by Baumol:

"The magnitude of the demand for factors of production in general does not depend on the magnitude of consumption as all too many persons have imagined. Consumption is not at all a cause, it is an effect. In order to consume it is necessary to purchase; now, one can make purchases only with what one has produced."

Later, in his Principles, John Stuart Mill captioned a section on related issues with the statement: "Demand for commodities is not demand for labour."

In the section itself, Mill wrote of this analytical proposition to the effect that to grasp its meaning was to understand economics.

Gunnar

----- Original Message -----

From: "Bruce McFarling" <ecbm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

To: <pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Sent: Monday, December 24, 2001 2:51 AM

Subject: Re: Case solved, at last!

> 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
>
>