Re: Article in the Chronicle of Higher Education

["Gunnar Tomasson" <gunnar.tomasson@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Re. the following:

> So, essentially, you condemn PK economics on the
> basis of the Foundations of Economic Analysis
> approach that you rejected?

Comment:

No.

1.  I reject on grounds of LOGIC Samuelson's case for the admissibility of
partial derivative analysis in general equilibrium models.

2.  I know of NO grounds - nor can I conceive of any - for supposing that
partial derivative analysis is LOGICALLY admissible in non-general
equilibrium models.

3.  I submit that PK economists cannot have it both ways - claim to reject
GE analysis while using the GE analytical tool of partial derivate analysis
in their own non-GE models.

4.  I stand ready to withdraw that submission on any showing by PK
economists that partial derivative analysis is LOGICALLY admissible in
non-GE models.

Gunnar


----- Original Message -----
From: "Dr. Bruce R. McFarling" <Bruce.McFarling@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 9:33 PM
Subject: Re: Article in the Chronicle of Higher Education


> On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 13:29:58 -0500,
> "Gunnar Tomasson" <gunnar.tomasson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
>
> >I conclude - and so advised Samuelson in the late 1970s -
> >that the methodological pre-suppositions of his
> >'Foundations of Economic Analysis', as reflected in
> >the modus operandi of contemporary mainstream,
> >monetarist, and PKT economists, are invalid.
>
> So, essentially, you condemn PK economics on the
> basis of the Foundations of Economic Analysis
> approach that you rejected?
>
>
>
>