Dear Lawrence (and John and Roy): We seem to be talking past each other. Or the thread seems to be moving in different directions. Of course, I agree that neoclassical economics can be challenged on the points you described and on many others. But this is a history of thought list. We study history of thought as it is, not the thought that could have been or that might be if things happened to be different. We study other thought besides neoclassical economics but that is not the issue here. I think that Robin and I are on the same wavelength, although she does not mention neoclassical economics by name. I have already given an answer to the question of why "neoclassical economists insist on...methodological individualism." It is mainly because they are interested in interventionist arguments. From the viewpoint of those who make the arguments, intervention is designed to affect individual incentives. There is a second, related answer that I have given. Let me restate this also. The neoclassical economists attribute economic growth and well being to the actions of individuals. They believe that interaction under Smith's system of natural liberty provides incentives to practically everyone to participate in the specialization and the division of labor that causes economic growth under normal circumstances. They also refer to an extra contribution of human imagination, creativity, and inventiveness of particular individuals, who do more than merely respond to incentives. Those who make an interventionist argument must demonstrate an appreciation for the way the system works before one can take their argument seriously. In the above quote from your email, I omitted the phrase "the extreme version" because I don't think that neoclassical economics insists on the extreme version of methodological individualism. What you seem to have in mind is neoclassical modeling. It is simpler to model interaction if one assumes independence of individuals. But the best of the neoclassicals do not disregard culture, religion and biology. They realize that culture, etc. are relevant to the economic growth claim and to the assumption that intervention affects incentives. So there is a place for these "non-economic" factors in the evaluation of interventionist arguments. But that is not relevant to your statements. Pat Gunning