===================== HES POSTING ===================== I find it very interesting that so far in this discussion no one has referred to the definition of neoclassical economics offered by Eatwell & Milgate (1983, Keynes's Economics and the Theory of Value and Distribution). They assert that the hallmark of neoclassical economics is that the theory of value and distribution is also a theory of output: prices, output, and distribution are determined simultaneously. One implication of this theoretical approach is that it justifies the emphasis on "getting prices right" that is so prevalent in mainstream orthodoxy. Eatwell and Milgate draw out the implications far more eloquently. There is a core of neoclassical economics, and it has proven to be remarkably resistant to the challenges put forth by the "great orthodoxies." I would argue that this is partly because it serves very well as a justification for the institutions, processes, and consequences of corporate capitalism. Even though, in my opinion, and the opinion of many heterodox economists, it does a lousy job of actually explaining economics. Drue Barker Department of Economics Hollins College [log in to unmask] ============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]