================= HES POSTING ================= 
 
Yes. Yes. 
 
There is a conjecture that Neill is extracting a Marxian point from a 
Neoclassical exercise. 
 
It was part of Neill's conjecture that Mrs. Robinson had made a Marxian 
point in a Neoclassical exercise. 
 
Consider other hypothetical conjectures.  (1)  Someone, while engaged in a 
Marxian exercise, uncovers an interesting stylized fact and construes it 
into the exercise to make a Marxian point.  (2) Someone else, seeing the 
truth value of the construed stylized fact, reconstrues it in a 
Neoclassical exercise to make a Neoclassical point.  
 
There are Marxian exercises and Marxian points, Neoclassical exercises and 
Neoclassical points.  Exercises and points can be mixed and matched for 
purposes of persuasion. 
 
We have the Harry Johnson approach, holding that theory can be used to 
prove anything, and the Stigler approach, holding that theory biases 
conclusions.  The one seems to say that the points are everything, and the 
other seems to say that the exercises are everything. 
 
My conjecture was [and is] that in the mix and match of points and 
exercises, which is one of the ways in which the history of economics 
unfolds, the citation process includes some interesting gaps. 
 
Of course, the conjectured mix and match process is an over 
simplification, but it does exhibit at small set of tractable tools for 
dealing with economic thought.  I am trading off reality for tractability, 
but if it makes for a beginning of understanding, whereas, without it 
there is not even a beginning, then, perhaps it is worth the trade. 
 
I rest my case. 
 
Robin Neill. 
 
============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]