alt.politics.economics

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

> "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.

Rob is still not understanding that is my argument. With the exception
of people who study the history of economic thought, a modern economist
does not use the word neoclassical. We are not neoclassical economist
nor do we have much interest in debating the history of thought. So
outside of papers about history of economic thought modern economist do
not use the term neoclassical except to refer Solow-Swan and its
extensions.

Within the study of the history of economic thought it is very different
because these people want to study the movements and do work that in my
opinion is closer to the work of my undergrad political theory
professors than to most economist. Not saying that studying the history
of economic thought is not economics it is just done by a few people.

Agree with it or not, economics today has moved quite a distance from
its history and that history is often not taught. A very good friend of
mine went through the same program as I did and started 2 years later.
By the time she started, my micro II professor was getting closer to
retirement and a younger professor who specialized in experimental
economics took over micro II. My professor educated in the 1960's taught
Ricardo's theory of rent, he taught Cournot, Bretrand, and had a
distaste for Stackleberg. Her prof. did none of that and substituted the
history of economic thought lessons with game theory. My prof had a high
value on being able to explain economics in words. In a sense I had an
easier time since we were both undergrad econ majors and that my prof
asked essay type questions in some cases where no equations were
expected and some problem solving. Her prof's exams were all problem
solving. Another prof that was the contemporary of my prof also tended
to add a question about why a decreasing cost industry would need no
regulation on the comps. That was gone when he stop participating in comps.


I am not saying one is better than the other. Simply that those educated
before 1980 have a very different view on what is economics than those
educated later. As time has gone on to the modern economist Ricardo,
Smith, Mill etc. have become interest side notes in the history of
thought and the education has moved more to modern modeling and problem
solving than to the basis of what the problem is about. Both approaches
have their merits. I am part of the last class at the university I
graduated from to even be exposed to classical literature in a graduate
course. None since my class, the last class my prof taught have even
heard anything of Ricardian rents or even Marshal in a graduate course.


> 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.
>

However, the definition you posted states that the assumption of perfect
competition is part of the definition of neo-classical economics. So are
we shifting the definition again? That is the problem with trying to
classify things into certain categories of thought. They don't always
fit well.

The quotation above this statement just notes that economist ask the
question if perfect competition really exist. "a cost-minimizing firm
facing market prices for inputs
> fits the behavior of real capitalist firms" is assuming there is a
perfectly competitive input market where the buyers and sellers are
price takers.


> 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."
>

Note "But we need to distinguish between these statements in order to
make sense of the ongoing argument between Andrew Samwick on the one
hand and Paul Krugman and Mark Thoma on the other. In a nutshell: Is the
statement that there is a higher return to education today merely an
assertion that the rich today earn more in relative terms than their
counterparts in the past? Or is it also a statement that the rich today
are more productive in relative terms than their counterparts in the past?"

Again Delong is making an appeal to history of economic thought. Not a
statement about current economics nor is using the term to describe
anything being currently done. He is showing how limited the economics
of the past was.