----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- 
 
[Response to Barkley Rosser.] 
 
I was not making these claims or defending the use of inter-temporal GE theory but was
drawing attention to a set of arguments that, as far as I know, were not discussed as
fully as I think they deserved to be.
 
One aspect of Bliss's treatment is particularly important when anyone asks about the
"relevance" of reswitching. In the two-Cambridges controversy, reswitching was a
proposition derived from comparisons of constant-interest-rate, steady-state growth paths.
This is a different exercise from saying what will happen to interest rates and choice of
technique over time.
 
My History of Modern Economic Analysis (1985) presents a greatly-simplified account of one
of Bliss's arguments - about steady states with non-constant interest rates. However, it
neglects the very important argument about dynamics versus comparative statics in his
chapter on "Investment". Lest anyone look this up, note that (despite endorsing Bliss's
technical argument) I did not defend GE theory. My main interest was in why the two sides
in the controversy reacted as they did to claims made by the other side.
 
Roger Backhouse 
 
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]