According to my father, Goodwin struck a deal with Schumpeter in which he
undertook to teach Schumpeter math, if Schumpeter taught him economics. This
is an anecdotal story though confirmation would be interesting. I can see no
evidence of the exchange in Schumpeter's work, but I get the impression that
Schumpeter was more inclined towards teaching than learning.

A


-----Original Message-----
From: Societies for the History of Economics [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of michael perelman
Sent: June-03-12 6:05 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [SHOE] Schumpeter: another Samuelson question

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