You have no idea how hard and frustrating it is to read anything you write when it contains the misuse of commas and periods. You could have at least revised what you wrote on Amazon for when you transferred it onto this forum.
Or, you can do as I said. Or can’t you? Perhaps you can only speak in mathematics? Frankly I don’t have the time or the inclination to read all the garbage you’ve posted on amazon. So, get to it.
MichaelEmmettBrady:
I have seen no criticisms of this so far how would you respond to this
Keynes defined P to be expected economic profit.The second line from the bottom of this footnote reads as " = delta P “, which is the same as” = dP".That should actually be " = delta P w subscript" due to either (a) a typographical error made by the printer in the GT or (b) because Keynes felt that it was obvious,since he divided D=Z through by w,to get Dw subscript = Zw subscript,which means that you must divide P by w.P is AUTOMATICALLY DEFINED IN TERMS OF WAGE UNITS.Pw subscript is equal to Dw subscript-N.Thus dP(or dPw subscript)=d(Dw subscript - N) =dDw subscript -dN.Simple integration gives the following result- Pw subscript=Dw subscript-N .Divide through by w and you obtain P=D-wN.Add wN to both sides.You get P+wN=D=pO or Z =D.Z=P+wN.w is the money wage.N is aggregate employment.p is the expected price level.O is real output,which is a function of N.D,the expected aggregate demand function,is thus equal to expected total revenue.Z,the expected aggregate supply function,is equal to total variable cost plus expected economic profit.
The same analysis and result is contained in footnote 2 on pp.55-56 of the GT.Keynes defines the derivative dZw subscript/dN=dphi(N)/dN =phi’(N)=1,where you use “d” instead of " delta " notation used by Keynes.Integrate to obtain Z=wN + C,where C is a constant of integration,after you divide through by w.We know that D=Z by definition and that D=pO from chapter 20.We get wN +C=pO or C=pO-wN once we subtract wN from both sides.By definition,C must be equal to actual profit if p is an actual price and expected profit if p is an expected price.Of course,if P=0,then you get Z=wN= total variable cost.(This is the case of constant returns to labor.Note that Keynes covered this case explicitly at the top of p.284, as well as on p.306 of the GT ,in chapter 21.)This,of course is the mistake that Don Patinkin made continuously from 1976-1989 in 3 books and 5 articles-failing to consider that Z is linear in both the diminishing returns and constant returns to labor cases.Of course,in the case of constant returns to labor,you would get a linear 45 degree cross representing the aggregate supply curve.The same mistake is made by all Post Keynesian economists like Sydney Weintraub, Paul Davidson,Douglas Vickers,Jan Kregel, Victoria Chick,Nevile,Skott and Dutt,etc.They fail to consider that Keynes worked with both cases, diminishing returns to labor as well as constant returns to labor,in his microeconomic analysis contained in chapters 20 and 21 of the GT.It is not surprising that the Post Keynesians can not deal with the technical analysis contained in chapters 20 and 21 of the GT and expressed by Keynes in the form of elasticities.Instead,they build their analysis on the claims of a mathematically illiterate economist named Dennis Robertson.It was Robertson who claimed that Keynes’s theory of effective demand(D-Z analysis)was contained in chapter 3 of the GT.All Post Keynesians base their work on the assumption that Robertson was correct.Post Keynesians also confuse the D=Z locus,the aggregate supply curve,with Z,the aggregate supply function.All of these errors can be traced back to the original errors made by Dennis Robertson in correspondence with Keynes in Feb.-Mar.,1935 about the first 17 chapters of the GT.Keynes told Robertson very clearly that the anaysis of his D-Z model was in a chapter called the Employment Function.Chapter 20 of the GT is titled," The Employment Function ".After seventy years it is time for economists to read this chapter upon which KEYNES SAID EVERYTHING DEPENDS.
Nobody here cares about obscure mathematical errors in theories that we hold to be entirely illegitimate in the first place. Your formatting is atrocious. Your false sense of superiority for understanding introductory calculus is made even more ridiculous by your inability to use a space bar properly. Who let you on the internet?
Why not be intellectually honest and not talk over people’s heads? As for being illiterature of math, you can put together any formula that is mathematically true, but rarely can one tie it to reality in a cogent fashion.