Re: 1911 Reference Book Defines Georgism

Rob.Vienneau@xxxxxxx wrote:
On Oct 3, 10:06 pm, "lysan...@xxxxxxxxxxx" <lysan...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

http://books.google.com/books?id=4nd6alor2goC&pg=PA81&lpg=PA81&dq=ela...

This book [Blaug, 5th edition] is actually a very good text on
economic history.

No, it is not. It is a textbook on the history of economic thought.


Roy forgets that I sometimes use sloppy language because technical language is not understood by him or by other readers.

Given its size, it is not surprising that it contains erroneous
statements. I suspect that somebody like Roy Weintraub
would not use it except as an example of the Whig theory of
history.

By the way, is John now willing to retract his equally
uninformed statement of 26 September:

"The only reference that economist make to a neoclassical
model is to Robert Solow's model of economic growth."

Contrast, for example, Blaug's Chapter 15 title.


Are you willing to withdraw the claim that Solow's prediction are not similar to the classical predictions of growth.

And no I am not willing to retract the claim. Here is why. Neo-classical economics is virtually dead at least by Hahn's definition. Modern economics deals with imperfect information and imperfect competition. Hahn list using perfect competition as a necessity to be Neo-Classical. So yes the only reference that, I will add, modern economist make to a neoclassical model to Robert Solow's model of economic growth.

In modern economist you find little that would fit the definition of neoclassical. I really believe Rob wants to argue 1960's economics was flawed. I will agree with him but has no bearing on mainstream economics. We have tractable ways to measure imperfect competition. Digitz-Stiglitz was a major breakthrough and economist today are not shackled to models of imperfect competition which we know are not likely to exist. We can no explain things Solow couldn't like what drives technological change.

Neoclassical economics is virtually dead so I don't understand why so many people are whining about it today. Nor do I understand why they want to apply modern economics to Hahn's definition. Oh yeah according to Rob that definition is contextual and can change. So neoclassical is whatever Rob and other people who argue neoclassical economics is wrong want it to be.



.