Re: The economic whole equals the sum of its parts.

[John Vertegaal <vertegaa@xxxxxxxxx>]

John O'Donnell wrote in response:

>>The macro economy is not as simple as you make it out to be.

>No, it is not a simple as you ASSUME I make it out to be,
>not "not as simple as I make it out to be."

Don't agree, see below


>>It is a dynamic circular flow system that moreover is complex,
>>because of overlapping horizontally flowing components (profits).
>>And at no time can it be represented by a single equation as the
>>sum of its parts, because complexity results in the values of all
>>those parts not being determinate at the same time.

>Not "at no time" but only at very limited times, such as the
>simple statement that the whole consists of the sum of all
>its parts.

Determinate quantities are a sine qua non for doing a meaningful
summation.  Your approach is simplistic, as in truly not getting it
why you cannot jump to macro conclusions from your micro reasoning,
and/or sophistic.


>>If you try to build a system integrally, from what are
>>essentially "elastic" components, then the outcome is either
>>meaningless or contradictory EVERY TIME.

>Not "EVERY TIME" but perhaps MOST times and in any case that
>is NOT what I have done. I have demonstrated that a few
>particular macro policies affect micro decision making and
>that those affected decisions will lead to beneficial macro
>outcomes.

When you reason about the benefit of taxing capital instead of
taxing remuneration at the micro level, you have to assume
determinate capital values.  It's the path you have chosen to take,
and there is no way around that.  As far as I've gathered from your
numerous posts - taxing capital means higher output, lower prices
and thus greater demand.  And I'm simply not interested in such a
bootstrap approach.


>>You presuppose microeconomic values before they are
>>systematically ascertained,

>Where? be specific.

See above


>>and your model asserts that by manipulating micro
>>supply-side components, macroeconomic demand can be determined.

>Not "determined", AFFECTED.

Your approach is entirely deterministic and supply-side to boot, by
assuming causality where there isn't any.


>>As a deduced conclusion this is fallacious, because there is no
>>way to independently determine the value of microeconomic
>>components in terms of the systematic outcome.

>True, but the outcome based on a set of assumptions does
>determine the direction of the impetus for change and use of
>a particular set of assumptions only provides the vehicle to
>demonstrate that impetus.

Your set of assumptions is too profuse for me to even become the
slightest bit interested.


>>The values of the system's micro elements, as depicted from
>>elementary axioms governing the system as a whole, are determined
>>by demand only.

>Nonsense. Supply must be available to meet demand at some
>point along the demand curve and the demand curve itself is
>undoubtedly affected by the supply curve however imaginative
>each of these curves may be.

Again you are reasoning microeconomically as if this were a valid
response. I'm sorry John, but I just don't find it very interesting
to argue with you.  You jump from the representative firm case to
the macro condition because of the "simple fact" that the whole
consists of the sum of all its parts.  Then, when it is pointed out
to you that there is no way to measure any of the parts, all of a
sudden it always was "superfluous" to your argument anyway.  And
now you are right back at it again.  Good luck in getting someone
else interested in your programme.

John V