======================== HES POSTING ================= 
 
In response to Dr. Mayhew: 
 
        (1) Neoclassical economics ASSERTS that most if not all human 
activity has a material aspect, and so a material opportunity cost, if not 
a direct material cost, and ususally both. [I, myself, think that I can 
give an example of a "costless activity", but I admit there are few, 
however important they may be.  Neoclassical economics has nothing to say 
about such costless activities.  And I may not be able to make my 
assertion stick.] 
 
        (2) Neoclassical economics makes no assertion about the 
materialistic or spiritual character of motives. 
 
        (3) Individuals are not calculating machines.  They make their 
choice, and after the fact it can be seen that certain material 
valuations were entailed, even though not directly reflected upon by the 
decision maker. 
 
        Neoclassical Economics was not refined under the criticisms of the 
Historical School [some of which you have repeated] until the 1930s.  
Thereafter, the Neoclassical stream of thought became confused with 
other, incompatible elements.  It may be that most teachers of 
intermediate micro theory - Neoclassical Economics in as pure a form as 
one is likely to find it - fail to make its limitations known, or, indeed, 
fail to understand the rigours of the subject themselves. Or, perhaps, 
sophomore students just dont grasp the idea that there are limits to 
knowledge.  
 
============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]