> The > implied argument is that if people are not raving > loonies, then they > must be neoclassical agents. Well, I think I was pretty clear about my reservations regarding neoclassical economics. I think you might have also missed the remark about limited, bounded, or partial rationality. I implied no such thing. I do not see the point in worrying about how rational or intelligent people are. These are not things that we can change, short of some kind of genetic engineering. It is far more important to identify the types of institutional arrangements that enable us to make the best use of what intelligence and rationality we do in fact have. Institutions are something we change. Lets examine them given the way people are. > 2. The implicit ontological individualism, that is > the assumption that a > theory of society *must* begin with a theory of > individual action. This was an email post on a specific issue, not a treatise on methodology, so yes there are going to be some implicit assumptions. I do think that individual action is a good starting point, though I was not arguing that point and do not want to, at least not on this list at this specific time. > I don't think anyone is arguing that people are > silly or that they don't > formulate and pursue projects, thoughtfully and > reflectively. Fred and Gary made blanket statements about how rational choice does not fit the real world- I saw no mention of bounded or any kind of partial rationality in their posts. Gary indicates that we are not too far apart, but that my notion of rationality is rather weak. People make the best esimates of costs and benefits that our minds allow. There are varying degrees to which people do thins, and some do some things that at least appear to be irrational or stupid- especially if your set the bar for rationality very high. So what? As long as we recognize the limits of human reason while analyzing real institutions and events there is no problem, and I dont think that recognizing the limits of human reason implies a weak notion of rationality- weak as compared to what? What standard do you have for judging human reason and what can we do about our apparent failure to meet your standard? > What food has the lowest price these days where you > live, Doug? Do you eat it all the time? As a grad student I sure did. Now quality factors in more- I did not think that I had to spell this out, but yes, there is product differentiation, and guess what- I look for better prices on the more expensive things that I want. Do you know anyone who tries to pay more for whatever it is they want? Surely someone somewhere in the world does, but this is not at all normal. Even those who buy status goods look to pay less when trying to appear to have spent more, with the possible exception of multi billionaires. I have never come across anyone who actually tries to pay more for the things they want. Have you? I picked up on another remark about rugged individualism and Austrian/Post Keynesian economics. I will not speak for PKE, but Austrians clearly reject rugged individualism and focus on the market and division of labor as means of social cooperation. Mises and Hayek clearly rejected rugged indivudualism. You may disagree with the idea that market relations represent social cooperation, but it is clearly the case that Mises and Hayek rejected rugged individualism. Doug Mackenzie