Fred Lee said: > The responses to Gary Mongiovi argument regarding supply and demand are interesting. It appears that the objective of Professor Ahiakpor and others is to establish the claim that Ricardo and other classical economists were really supply and demand theorists like Marshall and most 20th century economists. So it would seem that no other theoretical approach ever existed in economics other than supply and demand. The outcome of this position is to deny legitimacy to Marxists, Sraffians, and other heterodox economists who argue that their theoretical approaches can be traced back to the classical economists. So without such a legitimate past, the implied conclusion is that these approaches were never and are not now part of economics. Of course this implies that individuals who are partial to these approaches are not part of the community of economists. An interesting conclusion indeed. > I don't see my response as saying anything of the sort. I argued that Classicals knew of supply and demand, but chose to put the emphasis slightly differently--much more on costs and supply considerations. I would fit Marxists and Straffians in that same Classical framework--they know about demand but choose to put their emphasis elsewhere--I think it was Joan Robinson, who said that neoclassicals change the focus from big questions to "price of eggs" questions. So Fred's conclusion is certainly not the conclusion I would draw for the discussion. David Colander