Despite his association with the Econometric Society, Schumpeter did
not uses models and theorems; besides, Samuelson's work was not
amenable to models and theorems.

Richard Goodwin, another modeler was also very close with Schumpeter.

I cannot see how Samuelson could benefit much from Schumpeter's work,
even if he appreciated it intellectually.

On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 10:28 AM, Alan Freeman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I have a further question about Samuelson, in connection with an article I
> am writing. This deals with Schumpeter’s influence on economists. My perhaps
> superficial reading of a selection of some 50 of Samuelson’s best-known
> articles yields surprisingly few references to Schumpeter.
>
>
>
> Samuelson was clearly fond of Schumpeter, and acknowledged his debt to a
> ‘master’. Yet he seems diffident to extremes about making any rounded
> assessment of Schumpeter’s contribution to economic theory. I have found no
> assessment that compares, for example, with his extended dismissal of Marx.
>
>
>
> Does anyone know of a place where Samuelson makes a systematic attempt to
> consider Schumpeter’s ideas – particularly on Business Cycles, but also on
> technology and the entrepreneur, not to mention the history of thought or
> the large number of other areas in which Schumpeter considered he had
> something to say?
>
>
>
> Alan
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Societies for the History of Economics [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of M.E.G.M.Rol
> Sent: June-03-12 2:21 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [SHOE] Two Samuelson Questions
>
>
>
> As to Michael's point 1: Should it not be 'Sraffans'?
>
>
>
> I have seen it quoted too, once, but I do not recall when or where. Nor what
> he wanted to say with it.
>
>
>
> The obvious place to look for such a quote would be the very last section of
> his 'Foundations', in the enlarged edition of 1983, because, there,
> Samuelson tries to weigh the several criticisms of Marx's assessment of the
> development of the rate of profit. Among other things, Sraffa's
> neokeynesianism is compared with von Böhm-Bawerk's marginalist orientation
> in anti-marxist critique. The section is called 'Leontief-Sraffa-Marx
> input-output systems' and, although it is part of the mathematical appendix,
> it gives a lot of verbal assessment of the schools of thought.
>
> (Samuelson warns not to approach the merit of economic schools ideologically
> but merely follow the logic of the economics involved. This is indeed what
> Samuelson did. Perhaps this is what makes us Sraff(i)ans? )
>
>
>
> Anyways, if he ever came to this conviction before 1983 he would have
> written it here.
>
> So I checked but did not see it. If he ever said it, I would guess it was
> after 1983.
>
>
>
> Menno Rol.
>
>
>
> On 03-06-12, michael perelman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> 1. Did Samuelson ever  say "We are all Sraffians Now"?  I have my
> doubts but have seen it quoted.
> 2. Where can I learn what Samuelson and Solow did at MIT's Rad Lab?
>
> --
> Michael Perelman
>
>



-- 
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA
95929

530 898 5321
fax 530 898 5901
http://michaelperelman.wordpress.com