======================== HES POSTING ================= In response to Dr. Mayhew: (1) Neoclassical economics ASSERTS that most if not all human activity has a material aspect, and so a material opportunity cost, if not a direct material cost, and ususally both. [I, myself, think that I can give an example of a "costless activity", but I admit there are few, however important they may be. Neoclassical economics has nothing to say about such costless activities. And I may not be able to make my assertion stick.] (2) Neoclassical economics makes no assertion about the materialistic or spiritual character of motives. (3) Individuals are not calculating machines. They make their choice, and after the fact it can be seen that certain material valuations were entailed, even though not directly reflected upon by the decision maker. Neoclassical Economics was not refined under the criticisms of the Historical School [some of which you have repeated] until the 1930s. Thereafter, the Neoclassical stream of thought became confused with other, incompatible elements. It may be that most teachers of intermediate micro theory - Neoclassical Economics in as pure a form as one is likely to find it - fail to make its limitations known, or, indeed, fail to understand the rigours of the subject themselves. Or, perhaps, sophomore students just dont grasp the idea that there are limits to knowledge. ============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]