Re: Savings fallacy redux (was Re: Method)

["Dr. Bruce McFarling" <ecbm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

John Vertegaal <vertegaa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote,
on Fri, 06 Sep 2002 07:27:24 -0700 (PDT):

[quoth I]:

> > Why "true" value?  In the sense of "the one true faith"?
> > That is, why is this superior to the normal terminology for this
> > amount, which is the market value of goods and services for final
> > demand.


> The "market value of goods and services for final demand" in a free
> market society is elastic by necessity; it's an ex ante assertion
> of faith that a particular value will be realized.


Where in the devil does that particular misconception come from?
In the System of National Account, the market value of final
goods and services is neither ex ante nor ex post.  Its ex nuc.
It is the price at which the transaction takes place.  There
is not the slightest hint or shred of "ex ante" about it.

When the first premise stated in a line of argument is a
falsehood, an untruth, an unsupportable assertion (etc.), it
does not bode well for the remainder of the argument.  It
does not, of course, prove the conclusion wrong, but it does
mean that the argument presented provides no support for
the conclusion.