tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post5573769553976424262..comments2021-04-09T01:19:04.947-04:00Comments on EconoSpeak: The Mystery of Economic IdentitiesUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-6212935511426191512014-01-29T01:31:16.181-05:002014-01-29T01:31:16.181-05:00We have the identity,
(S – I) + (T – G) ≡ CA
At ...We have the identity,<br /><br />(S – I) + (T – G) ≡ CA<br /><br />At time T0 we can write that as<br /><br />(S0 – I0) + (T0 – G0) ≡ CA0<br /><br />and at time T1 we can write<br /><br />(S1 – I1) + (T1 – G1) ≡ CA1<br /><br />We can also write<br /><br />(S1 – I1) + (T1 – G1) - (S0 – I0) + (T0 – G0) ≡ CA1 - CA0<br /><br />or<br /><br />(ΔS – ΔI) + (ΔT – ΔG) ≡ ΔCA<br /><br />Now, apparently Lawrence claims first that the domestic US oil "boom" will have little effect on S and I. That is, ΔS ≃ 0, ΔI ≃ 0, and ΔS - ΔI ≃ 0. Second, he claims that therefore ΔCA ≃ 0.<br /><br />Even granting his first claim, his second claim is silly.<br /><br />Dean Baker disputes his first claim. As for invoking causality to show how S, I, T and G may change, Baker does not use the identity to do so.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com