> The   
> implied argument is that if people are not raving  
> loonies, then they   
> must be neoclassical agents.  
  
Well, I think I was pretty clear about my reservations  
regarding neoclassical economics. I think you might  
have also missed the remark about limited, bounded, or  
partial rationality. I implied no such thing.   
  
I do not see the point in worrying about how rational  
or intelligent people are. These are not things that  
we can change, short of some kind of genetic  
engineering. It is far more important to identify the  
types of institutional arrangements that enable us to  
make the best use of what intelligence and rationality  
we do in fact have. Institutions are something we  
change. Lets examine them given the way people are.   
  
> 2. The implicit ontological individualism, that is  
> the assumption that a   
> theory of society *must* begin with a theory of  
> individual action.  
  
  
This was an email post on a specific issue, not a  
treatise on methodology, so yes there are going to be  
some implicit assumptions. I do think that individual  
action is a good starting point, though I was not  
arguing that point and do not want to, at least not on  
this list at this specific time.  
  
  
> I don't think anyone is arguing that people are  
> silly or that they don't   
> formulate and pursue projects, thoughtfully and  
> reflectively.   
  
Fred and Gary made blanket statements about how  
rational choice does not fit the real world- I saw no  
mention of bounded or any kind of partial rationality  
in their posts. Gary indicates that we are not too far  
apart, but that my notion of rationality is rather  
weak. People make the best esimates of costs and  
benefits that our minds allow. There are varying  
degrees to which people do thins, and some do some  
things that at least appear to be irrational or  
stupid- especially if your set the bar for rationality  
very high. So what? As long as we recognize the limits  
of human reason while analyzing real institutions and  
events there is no problem, and I dont think that  
recognizing the limits of human reason implies a weak  
notion of rationality- weak as compared to what? What  
standard do you have for judging human reason and what  
can we do about our apparent failure to meet your  
standard?  
  
  
> What food has the lowest price these days where you   
> live, Doug? Do you eat it all the time?   
  
As a grad student I sure did. Now quality factors in  
more- I did not think that I had to spell this out,  
but yes, there is product differentiation, and guess  
what- I look for better prices on the more expensive  
things that I want. Do you know anyone who tries to  
pay more for whatever it is they want? Surely someone  
somewhere in the world does, but this is not at all  
normal. Even those who buy status goods look to pay  
less when trying to appear to have spent more, with  
the possible exception of multi billionaires. I have  
never come across anyone who actually tries to pay  
more for the things they want. Have you?  
  
I picked up on another remark about rugged  
individualism and Austrian/Post Keynesian economics. I  
will not speak for PKE, but Austrians clearly reject  
rugged individualism and focus on the market and  
division of labor as means of social cooperation.  
Mises and Hayek clearly rejected rugged indivudualism.  
You may disagree with the idea that market relations  
represent social cooperation, but it is clearly the  
case that Mises and Hayek rejected rugged individualism.  
  
Doug Mackenzie