Re: addendum: Income = Output?

[Gunnar Tómasson <gunnar.tomasson@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Bill:

There is NO question about Schumpeter's views on the point at issue.

For example, his long-time Harvard colleague Gottfried Haberler took note
thereof in a memorial article as did Paul Samuelson in a paper commemorating
Schumpeter's centennial.

Gunnar

----- Original Message -----
From: "William B. Ryan" <william_b_ryan@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <gunnar.tomasson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 2:07 PM
Subject: addendum: Income = Output?


> In context it appears to me that Schumpeter's
> statement is in the logical form of rhetorical
> question, not an assertion necessarily ascribed to by
> Schumpeter, as you have interpreted it. Whether or
> not he personally believed it is irrelevant to
> the profound significance of the question. The
> question within its context is logical paradox, which
> means that it contains within its terms
> contradiction, omission or false assumption that begs
> resolution.
>
> You take the tack that it automatically demonstrates
> the *omission* of the assumption of "final demand
> inflation."  But it could just as easily demonstrate
> through reductio ad absurdum the *falsification* of
> the asserted premise.  That is through the method of
> logic alone.  The model's actual utility can only be
> determined by testing it against facts in the real
> world, for it might be that we will find that its
> applicability is limited to some universe parallel to
> our own.
>
> No assumption should be taken to be immutable fact
> even though it may seem to be self-evident.  So you
> do not always resolve problems by inserting axioms ad
> hoc.  Sometimes the best route is to delete those
> previously assumed.
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> Get advanced SPAM filtering on Webmail or POP Mail ... Get Lycos Mail!
> http://login.mail.lycos.com/r/referral?aid=27005
>