Dear Lawrence (and John and Roy):  
  
We seem to be talking past each other. Or the thread  
seems to be moving in different directions. Of course,  
I agree that neoclassical economics can be challenged  
on the points you described and on many others. But  
this is a history of thought list. We study history of  
thought as it is, not the thought that could have been  
or that might be if things happened to be different.  
We study other thought besides neoclassical economics  
but that is not the issue here.  
  
I think that Robin and I are on the same wavelength,  
although she does not mention neoclassical economics  
by name.  
  
I have already given an answer to the question of why  
"neoclassical economists insist on...methodological  
individualism." It is mainly because they are  
interested in interventionist arguments. From the  
viewpoint of those who make the arguments,  
intervention is designed to affect individual  
incentives. There is a second, related answer that I  
have given. Let me restate this also. The neoclassical  
economists attribute economic growth and well being to  
the actions of individuals. They believe that  
interaction under Smith's system of natural liberty  
provides incentives to practically everyone to  
participate in the specialization and the division of  
labor that causes economic growth under normal  
circumstances. They also refer to an extra  
contribution of human imagination, creativity, and  
inventiveness of particular individuals, who do more  
than merely respond to incentives. Those who make an  
interventionist argument must demonstrate an  
appreciation for the way the system works before one  
can take their argument seriously.  
  
In the above quote from your email, I omitted the  
phrase "the extreme version" because I don't think  
that neoclassical economics insists on the extreme  
version of methodological individualism. What you seem  
to have in mind is neoclassical modeling. It is  
simpler to model interaction if one assumes  
independence of individuals. But the best of the  
neoclassicals do not disregard culture, religion and  
biology. They realize that culture, etc. are relevant  
to the economic growth claim and to the assumption  
that intervention affects incentives. So there is a  
place for these "non-economic" factors in the  
evaluation of interventionist arguments. But that is  
not relevant to your statements.  
  
Pat Gunning