I think I will abstain from most of the major points, but just I will comment on number 4, in regards to the Walras that is referred to in Neo-Classical (and most other equilibrium analysis today). The story seems to me to be a very muddled one, with different strands going of in different directions, and I would be happy if anyone has corrections or additional points to add. In brief, starting with Marshall and Walras, they both had the notion of a 'normal equilibrium', but where Walras used net excess demand (a la Quesnay I would suppose), Marshall looks at the problem through prices at demand and supply. Their conclusions are similar, equilibrium in exchange is achieved by price adjustments and equilibrium in production through quantity adjustments (noting that exchange happens through bartering traders with prices signals as the 'active force') In Pareto's Manuale, he also approached equilibrium analysis, but from a 'tastes and obstacles' perspective, focusing on price takers who optimize. The agents are no now bith producer and consumer, and suppliers no longer meet the demands of traders which makes the earlier need for equilibrium in exchange irrelevant, and the price movement and setting is lost. This system was however differentiable, and focused on efficiency (Pareto style). By 1918 the Vienna Colloquium, revived GE in a Walras-Cassel model, defining GE as a set of factor prices and output prices which set supply and demand equal. By using complimentary slackness, a static GE solution is proved to be unique in here. (A subtle shift away from Walrasian dynamics, I add). During the 1930's a revival of the Paretian view took place, and the use of calculus was beginning to make inroads. Hicks stated very clearly later his being influenced by Pareto, and a marginalist revival (of sorts) was taking place in academia. As WW II broke out, the Vienna Colloquium was disbanded, and 1939 saw the foundation of the Cowles foundation (with the maxim "Science is measurement"), and it is through the large influx of continental European economists who worked on Walrasian-Cassel models, into this foundation which was strong on Paretian Equilibrium and mathematics (going hand in hand), where the new consensus on what GE analysis should be. I would call this, and others have, a Neo-Walrasian General Equilibrium system, as it has very little to do with Walras himself - beyond banking on his name. So in respect to cui bono, it seems to have been a benefit for each succesive generation to keep working at the 'frontier' of mathematical economics, each proponent trying to improve on the last one's conceived shortfalls, ending up with nothing more than fancy algebra. The ultimate 'Chinese Whisper' gone wrong. I have a brief paper on this if anyone is interested, but I have honestly not submitted it anywhere, and I think the gist of what I am saying is found above. All the best Benjamin H .Mitra-Kahn