No equilibrium is very different from multiple equilibria. I think the Hayekian position is more likely to be that of a uniquely existing equilibrium, but it is changing so fast and that you are never in it so that it is effectively irrelevant. From the Marshallian position, which certainly accepts changing equilibria, this is one of those quantitative changes that becomes a qualitative change, to be Hegelian without necessarily being Butlerian, :-).
Speaking of whom, I personally suffer all the time from lesbian phallus envy when I'm not suffering from het male womb envy...
smooches. Snitguuuuuuy! [aka Barkley Rosser] -----Original Message----- From: Greg Nowell <GN842 at CNSVAX.Albany.Edu> To: lbo talk <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Date: Friday, February 26, 1999 5:37 PM Subject: more for Rosser
>Thanks for your reply on the neo-Hayekians. Is there
>a difference between the multiple equilibrium position
>and a no-equilibrium position?
>
>I mean, from the Keynesian point of view there are a
>number of possible employment levels which can be
>thought of as equilibrium positions that follow from
>the factors which influence aggregate demand and
>investment. Logically this would mean that total
>output would be continuously adjusting to the various
>fluxes in investment and consumption.
>
>But even if we get to marshall, his partial equilibrium
>position leaves a lot of flux depending on the time
>period under consideration. In other words, it seems
>that the Hayekians are trying to "pin" static concepts
>on something which in fact is not entirely static, even
>as originally presented. I'm not sure I want to
>venture off into the Hayekian universe, though. I've
>got my hands full learning about the Keynesian. -gn
>
>--
>Gregory P. Nowell
>Associate Professor
>Department of Political Science, Milne 100
>State University of New York
>135 Western Ave.
>Albany, New York 12222
>
>Fax 518-442-5298
>
>
>