Pat Gunning wrote:  
> 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.  
  
> 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.   
  
But from a history of thought perspective, the primary proponents of MI were the   
members of the Austrian School, particularly Schumpeter (see his 1909 QJE   
article that I quote at the beginning of Chapter 2 of my 1982 and 2003 books). I   
cannot imagine one claiming that Austrians, Schumpeter in particular, were   
interventionist. Could you document your claim, please?  
  
> 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.   
  
No, Pat, I am not talking about model building. Exogenous variables in my last   
post merely refers to what one can take in any explanation as givens (because   
they are not being explained). One does not have to talk about models to make   
that point.  
  
  
Lawrence A. Boland