And btw, the whole paper was about limiting case check for both mainstream Keynesian and non-Keynesian models. Check the limit that econ theory allows one-by-one. (No defense by but thats only a possible case -> no. What youre saying is, my theory is bankrupt.) N bar is not limited, but Aj is limited under one circumstance. Aj should be independent of utility or any other components of the model Thus, unless you exclude the theoretical possibility, Aj is limtied. -> now calculate what happens using that Aj. (Actually even this does not make sense. What happens if you now set control variables again at t+1? No capital means no past-looking. Now with fixed Aj, what happens?) Now, again recourse to the chi variable is possible. But is this economically fundamental variable? No. Its not. (Thus G---s form.) And other things like that. It doesnt make sense to pre-restrict the mass of variety factor to something. After all, saying that n=1 doesnt make sense. You reach infinity of firms before n=1. So entry assumption is entirely unjustified unless you say that firms just came out of nothing. Again, this is basic limiting case check. ------------------------------------ So, why the title? Well, mainstream Keynesian assumptions aggravate the problem. See, we use alpha = 0 for some result. Linear assumption. If you have basic education or self-knowledge on non-mainstream Keynesian economics, you may immediately see where things are going to. (But really, here... I should say I am a bit special here. Not self-praise. Just saying that I have knowledge, or say I learned something, that not many people will ever have access to. So its learned ability, not really intelligence or something like that..)
Posted on: Thu, 08 Jan 2015 04:26:24 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015