ld read lambda3 + 4lambda2 + 3.4lambda + 13.2 = 0 instead of lambda3 + 4lambda2 + 2.6lambda + 13.2 = 0 and in the first (correct) cubic the Routh conditions are satisfied]. But a slight adjustment to his counterexample can nevertheless demonstrate his point. If, for example, speeds are chosen so that, in his terminology, kl = k3 = 1, giving the cubic lambda3 + (2 + k2)lambda2 + (1+ 1.2k2) lambda + 6.6k2 = 0, the Routh conditions will not be satisfied for values of k2 somewhat less than 1.
7 In this connection Samuelson writes (, p. 554): "In principle the Hicks procedure is clearly wrong, although in some empirical cases it may be useful to make the hypothesis that the equilibrium is stable even without the 'equilibrating action' of some variable which may be arbitrarily held constant." Samuelson provides an example in connection with the Keynesian system later in his paper.
8 See, for example, Mundell  and the references there to the principle of effective market classification.
9 See page 111 for a list of economists who signed the petition.
10 This is perhaps apparent immediately, since the Hicks conditions can be expressed in terms of the commodity chosen as numéraire, the excess demand for which is never allowed to go to zero. On this point (but without apparent recognition of its implications) see Lange (, p. 92).
11 More compactly, we can state the conditions as requiring that every first minor of B be "Hicksian." Not all the conditions are independent, however, since B00 = B11 = Bnn in view of the characteristics of B.
12 One might think that Hicks really intended his conditions to extend over the entire range of excess demand coefficients (including the numéraire), this would be incorrect since the last (augmented) determinant is singular. Alternatively, it might be thought that Hicks intended the conditions to apply no matter what commodity were taken as numéraire. The latter interpretation seems to be fortified by a footnote which states ( p. 75): " [this] can be seen at once if we adopt the device of 