Re: Article in the Chronicle of Higher Education

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

On Sat, 1 Feb 2003 10:47:55 -0500,
"Gunnar Tomasson" <gunnar.tomasson@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>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.

It is not a critique because it merely explains
why you yourself do not accept articles in
which this practice occurs.  It is not an argument
as to why anyone else ought not accept them.


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

Why should theorists who reject GE models
altogether worry themselves with the question
of admissability of partial derivative analysis
in GE models?

The phrase "partial derivative analysis" is
purported to be explained by:

>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)."

Yes, Samuelson inherits the impoverished causality of
a GE framework, and then boxes himself into a corner
as a result.  What does this have to do with PK
economics?  Citation?

>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 take this to mean that while you are willing to
speak in sweeping terms about PK economics _sui
generis_, you can' be bothered to give a specific
example.  Given that, never mind.