Now, the question is whether the 1970 graph can be interpreted in some reasonable way that wouldn’t imply a revision of the claim about the 1960 GNP ratio in the 1961 book. (Not a revision of the prediction for the 1960s, mind you, but a revision of the 1960 figure that was already in the past when the 1961 edition was being prepared.) I would say that the answer to this question is no, though I can imagine that reasonable people might disagree.
In any case, what I find really scary is the anti-epistemology that makes people believe that these numbers have any sensible meaning in the first place.
Now, the question is whether the 1970 graph can be interpreted in some reasonable way that wouldn’t imply a revision of the claim about the 1960 GNP ratio in the 1961 book. (Not a revision of the prediction for the 1960s, mind you, but a revision of the 1960 figure that was already in the past when the 1961 edition was being prepared.) I would say that the answer to this question is no, though I can imagine that reasonable people might disagree.
Fair enough. My point is only that, until we know more information than sam0345′s link provides, we cannot give a confident answer to this question. (Namely, we need to know the method by which Samuelson converted data into graphs.)
You can find the graphs from Samuelson’s book along with excerpts from his commentary in this paper (starting on page 8):
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1517983
Now, the question is whether the 1970 graph can be interpreted in some reasonable way that wouldn’t imply a revision of the claim about the 1960 GNP ratio in the 1961 book. (Not a revision of the prediction for the 1960s, mind you, but a revision of the 1960 figure that was already in the past when the 1961 edition was being prepared.) I would say that the answer to this question is no, though I can imagine that reasonable people might disagree.
In any case, what I find really scary is the anti-epistemology that makes people believe that these numbers have any sensible meaning in the first place.
Fair enough. My point is only that, until we know more information than sam0345′s link provides, we cannot give a confident answer to this question. (Namely, we need to know the method by which Samuelson converted data into graphs.)