Re: The Widow's Cruse

["Barkley Rosser" <rosserjb@xxxxxxx>]

     If I am interested in Keynes' theory
as a part of economic science, I do not
need to worry very much about the
philosophical aspects of his ideology.
However, I might have to worry about
the philosophical aspects of his methodology.
Barkley Rosser
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brett Haselton" <haselton@xxxxxxxx>
To: "'pdavidso'" <pdavidso@xxxxxxx>; "'Gunnar Tómasson'"
<gunnar.tomasson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 10:48 AM
Subject: Re: The Widow's Cruse


> Can anyone out there ever get past the empirical absurdities of trying
> to analyze Keynes without even taking a moment to understand the
> Philosophical aspects of the Keynesian ideology.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pkt-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:pkt-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of pdavidso
> Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 8:27 AM
> To: Gunnar Tómasson
> Cc: pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: The Widow's Cruse
>
>
> >===== Original Message From Gunnar Tómasson
> ><gunnar.tomasson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> =====
> >On October 2, I posted the below message to PKT.
> >
> >Paul Davidson responded off-list as follows:
> >
> >Gunnar did you ever note that Keynes specifically changed his
> >definition in the GT from that used in the TM?
> >
> >To which I replied:
> >
> >Yes.
> >
> >There, the Widow's Cruse is embedded in Y = C + I.
> >
> >****
> >
> >Paul has yet to respond.
>
>
> I have not responded because we are not communicaating -- and your
> succinct
> statements are unintelligible to me. Sorry but it is not likely that any
>
> further discussion between us will be fruitful.
>
>
> >
> >At issue is the distinction between analytical and empirical economics
> >as
> practiced Keynes and PKT economists, respectively.
> >
> >In one case, the precursor of the Y = C + I proposition entails a
> >logical
> absurdity, which is disregarded in the other case.
> >
> >Isn't that so, Paul?
>
> It am not even sure what you mean  -- so I can't agree or disagree.
>
> It would appear to me that you do not recognize that in the treatise on
> money
> Keynes is analyzing changes in demand with no change in employment or
> output--
> namely the market period of Marshallian analysis -- so that a change in
> demand
> leads to a change in the  spot (market period) price relative to the
> forward
> (short-run) supply price (or cost of production).  Thus an increase in
> demand
> raises spot prices relative to cost of production and leads to what
> Keynes
> called windfall profits on liquid consumption goods in the mmarket
> period.
>
> Paul
>
>
>
>