Re: Article in the Chronicle of Higher Education

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

Re. the following;

Bruce asserted/asked:

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

I replied:

No.

And, after re-iterating the grounds for rejecting partial derivative
analysis as logically admissible tool in general equilibrium analysis,
explained my grounds for use thereof in 'PK economics' as follows:

> >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.

Agree - this is an answer to Bruce's question.

Next, to my comment:

> >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.

Bruce responds:

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

Bruce's question concerned 'PK economics'.

To the best of my knowledge, PK economists do not question the admissibility
of partial derivative analysis in GE models.

The answer to the query "whatever this phrase is actually referring to" was
presented up front through citation in my earlier posting of Paul
Samuelson's statement in 'Foundations of Economic Analysis' (pp. 10-11):

"The only sense in which the use of the term causation is admissible is in
respect to changes in external data or parameters.  AS A FIGURE OF SPEECH,
it may be said that changes in these *cause* changes in the variables of our
system.  An increase in demand, i.e., a shift in the demand function due to
a change in the data, tastes, may be said to cause an increased output to be
sold.  Even here, when several parameters change simultaneously, it is
impossible to speak of causation attributable to each except in respect to
limiting rates of change (PARTIAL DERIVATIVES)."

Next, Bruce comments:

> And the way that you use the phrase "non-GE models",
> its almost as if you are treating it as a coherent
> category.

In the context, the category of "non-GE models" comprises ALL models to
which PK economists apply PARTIAL DERIVATIVE analysis.

Bruce concludes:

> 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.

I object to the use of partial derivative analysis in ALL models to which PK
economists apply it.

I have already given "a brief account of the logical flaw" that I see in
partial derivative analysis in GE analysis, whence PK economists *borrowed*
it.

And, to reiterate my point # 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.

Absent such grounds, of course, use of partial derivative analysis in PK
economics is LOGICALLY on par with its use in Samuelsonian 'economics'.

Gunnar


----- Original Message -----
From: "Dr. Bruce R. McFarling" <Bruce.McFarling@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 7:50 PM
Subject: Re: Article in the Chronicle of Higher Education


> 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.
>
>
>
>