Re: Modern Economics [sic] - Concepts and Methods

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

On Sat, 1 Feb 2003 13:38:09 -0500,
"Gunnar Tomasson" <gunnar.tomasson@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>Thus, Samuelson's Foundations of Economic Analysis has
>an elegant mathematical representation of the model of
>the General Theory, its "inconsistent hotch-potch"
>character notwithstanding.

However, nothing in the previous argued that
Samuelson's FEA is capable of incorporating
uncertainty in the role that it plays in the
GT, which is certainly necessary (even if not
sufficient) if Samuelson's FEA is to be an
elegant mathematical representation OF the GT,
as opposed to an elegant mathematical representation
of an alternative theory to the GT, with some
aspects borrowed from it.

Again, one has to wonder WHY a school of thought
that rejects the FEA approach is tarred with
the brush of critiques that apply to the FEA.
You are talking about the people who labelled
Samuelsonian economics "bastard Keynesian
economics".  The people who agreed with the
neoclassical critics of the Samuelson's
"neoclassical-Keynesian synthesis" that the
two are incompatible, but disagreed with them
as to which of the two should be discarded.