alt.politics.economics

On Oct 6, 8:06 pm, "lysan...@ "
wrote:
> ...@ wrote:

Let me turn to an aspect of John's babble I have been putting off.

> > ... I think we can
> > add Frank Hahn to the long list of eminent economists of which
> > John is ignorant.
>
> I am rather aware of Hahn. I do know the difference between Frank Hahn
> and Han Solo. [Babble about irrelevancies - deleted ]

I still cannot tell whether John is aware that Hahn, in the
context of arguing with Sraffians, thinks of the Arrow-Debreu
general equilibrium model as exemplifying neoclassical
economics.

> Hahn's definition does not fit anything I do nor any work I
> have seen from my former academic colleagues or my current consulting
> colleagues. [caveat - deleted. ]

The above statement is totally irrelevant to the truth value of:

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

A person retains his name even after he dies.

Earlier on this thread (3 Oct, 11:58 am), John babbled:

> Rob likes to argue about how neo-classical economics is
> wrong and therefore mainstream economics is wrong.

Whether or not I approve of neoclassical or mainstream
economics is irrelevant to the truth value of:

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

It is trivial to find usages of the term "neoclassical" by economists.
I turn to David Colander's "The Death of Neoclassical Economics"
(Journal of the History of Economic Thought", V. 22, N. 2,
(2000)). Colander argues that what economists currently do is
sufficiently different from what has come before that one should
not use the term "neoclassical" to describe both. In making this
argument, he uses the term "neoclassical", and he describes how
other economists have used the term. For example,

"The term neoclassical was initially used by Thorstein Veblen (1900)
in his 'Preconceptions of Economic Science'... Hicks (1932, 1934)
and Stigler (1941) extended the meaning of neoclassical
to encompass all marginalists writers, including Menger, Jevons,
and J. B. Clark. Most writers after John Hicks and George Stigler
used the term inclusively."

Later Colander mentions the term "neoclassical synthesis". And
Colander states some common elements of the neoclassical
economics of the 1870s to the 1930s.

In another good quality journal, I find an usage that perhaps
Colander would not approve. On my blog, I quote from Duncan
Foley's "Value, Distribution and Capital: A Review Essay"
(Review of Political Economy, V. 13, N. 3 (2001)). See:

/2006/08/

And Foley uses the term "neoclassical". He also notes:

"There is, of course, vigorous debate in all schools of
economic thought over how well the assumptions of
a cost-minimizing firm facing market prices for inputs
fits the behavior of real capitalist firms."

I don't think imperfect competition is enough to make
a model non-neoclassical. Stiglitz's study of
information asymmetries arguably is non-neoclassical.

As another example, consider this 20 August 2006 blog
entry from Brad Delong:

/sdj/2006/08/

DeLong writes:

"To a good neoclassical economist, the statement that
the relative price of a factor of production--like the labor
of the elite top 1% of America's wage and salary
distribution--has risen is the same thing as the statement
that the relative productivity of that factor of production
has risen."

I think Colander, DeLong, Foley, Hahn, Hicks, Stigler, and Veblen
are all economists. And their usage demonstrates that the
following statement is incorrect (that is, false):

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