I am not sure if they are relevant to the questions asked, but the
following by Samuelson (about Schumpeter and Sraffa) may be helpful
also:


Paul A. Samuelson, “Reflections on the Schumpeter I knew well” Journal
of Evolutionary Economics (2003) 13: 463–467

Paul A. Samuelson, “Report card on Sraffa at 100”, The European
Journal of the Histoy ofEcmomic Thought 5:3 458-467 Autumn 1998

Paul A. Samuelson T, Erkko M. Etul, “Testing to confirm that
Leontief–Sraffa matrix equations for input/output must obey constancy
of returns to scale”  Economics Letters ,90 (2006) 183–188

Best,

Hüseyin Özel

On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 4:02 AM, D. Wade Hands <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I think some sense of how Samuelson felt about Schumpeter as a theorist is
> in Samuelson’s 1983 Distinguished Lecture for the Eastern Economic
> Association “Marx, Keynes, and Schumpeter” (Ch. 304 of Vol. 5 of the
> collected papers). The vast majority of the lecture was spent on Marx, but
> what he said about Schumpeter is interesting. The ambivalence is clear. He
> praises Schumpeter for 1) the theory of entrepreneurship, 2) history of
> economic thought, and 3) Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, but
> criticizes him for 1) his early support of the “Kondratieff moonshine,” 2)
> his narrow definition of capitalism and broad definition of socialism, and
> 3) his praise of Marx as a great economic theorist. These things are
> interesting, but I think the big issue is Schumpeter’s view of Keynes.
> Samuelson says: “Schumpeter never discerned any scientific merit in Keynes’
> paradigm. Yet economists all over the world, including some of Schumpeter’s
> own best pupils, praised Keynes and followed him. How to account for this if
> no scientific merit was involved?” (p. 272 of reprint). It seems that
> Samuelson took Schumpeter’s criticism of Keynes quite personally. This is
> nothing definitive of course, but something to think about.
>
> Wade
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Alan Freeman <[log in to unmask]>
> Reply-To: Societies for the History of Economics <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2012 10:28:54 -0700
> To: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
> Conversation: [SHOE] Schumpeter: another Samuelson question
> Subject: [SHOE] Schumpeter: another Samuelson question
>
> 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
>
>
>