Comment on Lars Syll on ‘On the irrelevance of general equilibrium theory’
Blog-Reference
Ezra Davar says about the Post-Walrasians: “In fact, each of them, when carefully examined, was trying to create his own general equilibrium theory — which formally resembles Walras’s approach — but actually is no more than a distortion of Walras’s theory.”
I agree with you. The Post-Walras approaches of 'Pareto, Cassel, Schlesinger, Wald, von Neumann, Hicks, Keynes, Lange, Patinkin as well as Arrow, Debreu, Friedman, Samuelson, Solow, and others' are defective and unacceptable.
From this, however, does not follow that Walras suddenly becomes acceptable.
The common denominator of all these approaches is that they are based on the notion of equilibrium. My post of 26th states: “Because equilibrium is a NONENTITY all equilibrium models are methodologically unacceptable. This includes Walras’s original model.”
In addition, this includes Marshallian, Keynesian, Post Keynesian, New Keynesian, and New Classical equilibrium models. What could be unclear about all?
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke