LikeLike

]]>LikeLike

]]>ðŸ™„

LikeLike

]]>“A budget constraint is also a tautolgy.”

I don’t want to stir it up again but the budget constraint is not a tautology or identity but a genuine equality when it comes to an optimization algorithm.

Just have the wine and cheese then. However, given your Walrasian predilections, I expect you will want French wine (or may be not given your other predilections regarding the French gold hoarding in the 1920s. LOL!)

LikeLike

]]>The last time I ate a Salami sandwich I was 10 years old and got sick to my stomach. I haven’t touched salami since and have no intention of doing so ever again. But I do appreciate your thoughtfulness.

LikeLike

]]>“I now know exactly what President Biden must feeling at this moment, and I feel his pain. ”

Could I suggest a nice glass of Italian wine and a salami and cheese sandwich?

LikeLike

]]>Henry, I never said that Walras’s law was anything but a tautology. A budget constraint is also a tautolgy. Walras did not invoke tatonnement to define an equilibrium. The definition of an equilibrium has nothing to do with the determination of an equilibrium. The determination of an equilibrium is a solution to a system of equations of which the budget constraint (AKA Walras’s Law) is one. Tatonnement was invoked as an imaginary method by which the equilibrium that can be found analytically by solving the system of equations could be found by a method trial and error. So you are completely confused about what it means to define an equilibrium or to determine an equilibrium analytically or to find an equilibrium solution by a “practical” method without solving the system of equations.

Having expended hours of effort to try to dispell your comprehensive confusion, I now announce that I am overwhelmed and defeated by that confusion and I hereby abjectly announce my surrender to it and withdrawal from this discussion. I now know exactly what President Biden must feeling at this moment, and I feel his pain.

LikeLike

]]>I’ve decided to stick to my guns.

Walras’ Law is essentially based on a simple tautology, the value of what is bought is equal to the value of what is sold. This is true whether in equilibrium or not. To define equilibrium, Walras invoked tatonnement. Without tatonnement, equilibrium can only be defined with indifference curves and a budget constraint. (See pages 3 and 4 of Levin.)

Pareto and Hicks do not invoke tatonnement. For them, equilibrium is dependent on choice theoretic considerations where a budget constraint is central.

LikeLike

]]>LikeLike

]]>Well, your grasp of it still seems somewhat tenuous.

Here’s a link to an overview that I found on the web. The first three sections address some of the points we have been discussing.

Click to access General%20Equilibrium.pdf

LikeLike

]]>