Subject: | |
From: | |
Date: | Fri Mar 31 17:19:18 2006 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
=================== HES POSTING =====================
I would like to second Brewer's remarks, to some extent. Neoclassical
Economics has its limits. As an explanation of the evolution of economies
it fails badly. Still, when it comes to designing policies to meet
specifit problems, some strategic suspension of disbelief is in order. If
we admit to the existence of a Heraclitean flux, we are doomed to
paralysis. To take rational action at some point we have to make a
proposal "as if" certain ceteris paribus condition held, "as if" there
were certain known principles governing human motivation. For this reason
there are economists who bemoan the inablity of Neoclassical Economics to
represent reality, while, at the same time, they proceed with the use of
that theory to make policy proposals. Brewer has a point. One has to
look at the nature of the criticism, not just the fact that there is
criticism, before listing the critic among those who disparage
Neoclassical theory.
Robin Neill
============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]
|
|
|