Re: Article in the Chronicle of Higher Education

["Dr. Bruce R. McFarling" <Bruce.McFarling@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 12:11 PM 31/01/03 -0500, Gunnar wrote:
>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.

So partial derivative analysis is not a valid general
equilibrium technique.

>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.

This is not a critique, so I will pass it by.

>
>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.

But you have already established in (1) that
partial derivative analysis, whatever this
phrase is actually referring to, is NOT a GE
analytical tool.

And the way that you use the phrase "non-GE models",
its almost as if you are treating it as a coherent
category.  Non-GE models are each an every model
that is not a General Equilibrium model.  A GT
income-expenditure model is not a GE model.  A
Living Systems Theory model is not a GE model.
The Physiocratic model is not a GE model.
Marshall's model is not a GE model.  Luhman's
social autopoiesis is not a GE model.  Marx's
model is not a GE model.  GE is a very special
model of social order, and two models can be
opposed to each other at every main critical
point on any issue regarding society or the
economy while still agreeing that the GE model
"is not it".

>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.

Give some references to the "use of partial
derivative analysis" that you object to, that
are readily available, and a brief account
of the logical flaw that you see.