Letter to W.B. Simpson

Title

Recipient

Simpson, W.B.

Organisation

The Econometric Society

Language

English

City

Chicago, IL

Date

1950

Date in document

yes

Formulas or calculations

no

Inventory number

NL-RtEUR_TBCOR01_014S015

1438

Storage location

Specifiek Magazijn

DOI

http://dx.doi.org/10.15133/ul/tinbergen_sent/1438

Filename

CDM1438_NL-RtEUR_TBCOR01_014S015.pdf

Provenance

Jan Tinbergen

Accrual Method

donation

Rights

CC BY 4.0 - Attribution 4.0 International

Revised transcript

en PROF. DR J. TINBERGEN THE HAGUE, 10 October 1950
Sijzenlaan 41
Mr William B. Simpson, Managing Editor of "Econometrica" University of Chicago (37) Ill.
Dear Mr Simpson,
Please, find below a few remarks on Lui's article for Econometrica. Since one of my collaborators, my friend dr Stuvel, just published a book on the same subject, I wonder whether it would not be useful to ask his opinion too. Since mr Stuvel is absent for a week I propose that the manuscript is sent back after he has had a chance to see it. Please, let me know if you are in urgent need of it.
Yours very sincerely,
NOTICE ON MR LUI'S ARTICLE
I think the article is highly interesting and certainly deserves to be published. The following remarks may, however, perhaps lead to some slight improvement. They are made in haphazard order.
1. The wording used in the table is somewhat suggestive of "optimism" since mr Lui always speaks of conditions under which improvement is certain. It might in a number of the cases have been formulated in a more neutral way by adding conditions under which deterioration is certain.
2. It is a small lack of elegance that the symbols for country 2 have a subscript 1, whereas there also exists a country 1. Why not speak of country 0 and 1?
3. Is it correct on p.10 to speak of the solution of any of the variables in terms of another?
4. It is a pity that the numbering of the "steps" do not correspond with the numbering of the equations.
5. The true character of equation 10 would seem to me to be a supply equation; the wording in which it is announced suggests that it is a demand equation, but if so it would duplicate equation 4 and 6. If it is the intention that it be a demand equation I would oppose; I think it would be better to have a supply equation here instead of [?y] to use [the] elasticity of y with respect to P.
6. Why are no K and [?] mentioned in the list of parameters, and why is [?] mentioned as an independent parameter?

extracted text

Mr William B. Simpson,
Managing E^ditor of"Fcononetrica"
University of Chicago (37$> 111.
Dear Mr Simpson,
Please, find i^belQW: . a few remarks on Lui's
article for Econometrlea. Since one of my collaborators, my
friend dr Stuvel, just published a book on the saresubject, I
wonder whether it would not be useful to ask his opinion too.
Since mr Stuvel is absent for a week I propose that the 'nanuscript is sent back after he has had a chance to see it. Please,
let me Stnow if you are in urgent need of it.
Yours very sincerely.
NOTICE ON MR LUI'S ARTICLE
I think the article is highly interesting and certainly deserves
to be published. The following remarks nay, however, perhaps lead
to some slight improvement. They are Tna(te in haphazard order.
1.

The wording used in the table is somewhat suggestive of
"optimism" since mr Lui alv/ays speaks of conditions under which
improvement is certain. It might in a number of the cases have
'"een formulated in a more neutral way by adding conditions under
..nich deterioration is certain.

2.

It is a small lack of elegance that the syi|ibols for countiy^
have a subscript J., whereas there also exists a country J,. ¥i/hy
not speak of country Q and J. ?

3»

Is it correct on p.10 to speak of the solution of any of the
variables^ in terms of another ?

h.

It is a pity thèt the numbering of the "steps" do not
correspond with the numbering of the equations.
5.
The true character of equation 10 would seem to me to be
a supply equation; the wording in which it is announced suggests
that it is a demand equation, but if so it would duplicate equation
k and 6. If it is the intention that it be a demand equation
I would oppos^ei, I think it would b^^ be tier to have a supplg
equation here^'^instead of £ to use^ elastici^sfffof x with repect
:> P,
^

6.

Why are no K and rr mentioned in the list of parameters,
and why is ^u. mentioned as an independent parameter ?

rflO«<

{3! ;'j^T<}ie'iö(fjsiM^-' - ^ ';^'^Mt' öQiiiW" .«lltï^'WiiOf\ w .-J •—' XKJ s.

lü-JX

•:sb

^

•i|>#«.»i:'i

' Jiüt£: 'ii«^: iöi<3ww!<KP:«p1t; m

njr

J. o t i

U ó- > i

/^' i

\J

o, r -^

owori ,Yfi"" a^liBfflei a n l w o l l o l erfï
,berizïLduq
iBblo b'LBS.BiiqBsi nt éiBtf' s i r x^riT .ctnemevoiqr^l Wgtlfe ^ffioa Oil:

..-. ^vïiBB^sU?. :ïB[iwemos ai sXdect srii at besu gnltnow erlT
.r
cioitiY! lebnu Baoï:ïïhaoo l o Balseqe B^BWIB I J J J om sonia "rsJtcTid-qo"
9v,sri esaBo erfd- ïo ledmun B n l ;tr{§ln: ;tl .nlf.it'ieo nï Jneirrevoiq^nl
iBbnu ?.r?of.-t,ffcaon •3nlF:)be x<^ "^Jsvj iBicfusn eion .^nl- bB:fBlumio1 fte*'
, n l s : t i 9 0 8l nold-BioJ:ie:teb rfo'
£-^-J-njJoo 10I Blockp^c .-.
vffkv . 1 viitnöOp'* 4i^^
•~iii l o YHB l o aoïiuLoe

yonjcgslö l o JIOBI XI.
al ;tl
^. .5
oalB sisri* aBeisriw ^X ;tqlioRdü8 . * ^ ^ B ^
? I bnB S XT.tnr-- •^" ^'~"-- -^-edi l o T^Beaa o:f Of.q no SOBIIOO J-J: ^/J
fJ;X:i«V

d-on ob " a q s ^ s " srfit l o gnlisdmun ©rivt ^jfirfd- x^-f^r B S± .tl
,2nold-Bijp9 9ri^ l o anJtisdnijjn &!^,i ' " '
'

<+'

9d o* 9£fi o* mssR blüow or nol^Bups l o iQ;^oBniido 9Ui& erlï
bsonjjoniie a l .+1 riolrfw nl anlbiow 9Ü& \£iot&Bups xLqQUP.
. n o l l q u b biüox! :tl oa 11 .tud ,nol*Bjjpe bnsr-e,'^ n al i l cffixf.
nol.-teupe bnsmeb B ©d &ï d-prl;! nol:tn©*nl srf* •
il . 0 bnB'+^
HXqqua s svBri o.t isd-tsd ^d bluow d'l jinl.id- ï ;fi3oqao blüovr I
-h^r1•;•r;.,.•, rn?-,;> V '>öl^jjltol ''" - T^^"«^JJ oj"

, l o bspl-p.nl «lorf fiolrf-Bfj^ V

jaiejemBiBq l o i t a l l 9ri;t n l benolv-fnem n bas /. on 9 1 B X*'^'
''^
' .
? iscterrtBiBq d'nsbnsqebni ns ss benoliJnsm
al x*-' ^^^^