Re: Article in the Chronicle of Higher Education

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

Re. the following:

> >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.

Comment:

Take it as you please - it is your intellectual capital that is at stake.

Gunnar




----- Original Message -----
From: "Dr. Bruce R. McFarling" <Bruce.McFarling@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, February 01, 2003 9:06 PM
Subject: Re: Article in the Chronicle of Higher Education


> 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.
>
>
>