===================== HES POSTING ===================== 
 
    I find it very interesting that so far in this discussion no one has 
referred to the definition of neoclassical economics offered by Eatwell & 
Milgate (1983, Keynes's Economics and the Theory of Value and 
Distribution). 
They assert that the hallmark of neoclassical economics is that the theory 
of value and distribution is also a theory of output: prices, output, and 
distribution are determined simultaneously. One implication of this 
theoretical approach is that it justifies the emphasis on "getting prices 
right" that is so prevalent in mainstream orthodoxy. Eatwell and Milgate 
draw out the implications far more eloquently.  
 
  There is a core of neoclassical economics, and it has proven to be 
remarkably resistant to the challenges put forth by the "great 
orthodoxies." 
I would argue that this is partly because it serves very well as a 
justification for the institutions, processes, and consequences of 
corporate 
capitalism.  Even though, in my opinion, and the opinion of many heterodox 
economists, it does a lousy job of actually explaining economics.  
 
Drue Barker 
Department of Economics  
Hollins College                         [log in to unmask] 
 
============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]