SHOE Archives

Societies for the History of Economics

SHOE@YORKU.CA

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
[log in to unmask] (Samuel Bostaph)
Date:
Tue Sep 18 11:21:33 2007
In-Reply-To:
<000e01c7f962$4133bf10$1a5cb382@MADRIGAL>
Message-ID:
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (4 lines)
Although I agree with Anthony Waterman concerning the importance of drawing a difference between HET as IA and HET as HEA--with the latter of definite importance to economists--I still don't regard Samuelson's Canonical Classical Model as a contribution to anything.  I'm a bit pressed for time right now and can't dig up my copy; however, as I recall, the most startling omission from Samuelson's reinterpretation was that of the productivity-enhancing effects of the division of labor.  I guess it messed up the math.
   
  Sam Bostaph

ATOM RSS1 RSS2