Re: PKT Daily Digest, #767

[Harry Veeder <eo200@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> From: Bruce McFarling <ecbm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 10:58:50 +1000
> To: pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: PKT Daily Digest, #767
>
> On Sat, 13 Apr 2002 12:38:48 +0100, Harry Veeder
> <eo200@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> The chain the reasoning assumes the legitimacy of the
>> composition i.e. that individual decisions can be "added
>> up". If the composition is not justified then the chain
>> reasoning is irrelevant, even if it is logical sound.
>
> Which chain of reasoning.  The GT chain of reasoning
> certainly does not ASSUME the legitimacy of the
> composition.  It explicitly argues which transactions
> enter into the total, which fall out, and why the
> total includes only those transactions.

The chain of reasoning is the summation: transaction1 + t2 + t3 +...

The chain of reasoning assumes certain discrete transactions
can be added together to arrive at a total.  That is why I placed
"added up" in quotation marks.


> This response
> sounds like a confusion between Keynes' GT argument
> and a neo-"Keynesian" or new-"Keynesian" argument that
> accepts neoclassical theory for flawed microfoundations
> and then tries to build a more or less plausible
> macro-economics on a foundation of sand.

It only sounds like it. I am not defending neo-classical
theory with this criticism.

Harry Veeder