Michael: "Mat, I don't think that you should say what Brad's criteria are."
Michael, Brad wrote:
"For Paul Krugman "major economist" means someone who built a useful model--like
Ricardo. Marx's attempts at economic model building as *we* see it were not
successful--hence Samuelson's judgment of Marx as a minor post-Ricardian."
(emphasis added).
I assumed that when he said "we" he was indicating agreement with this criteria.
By the way, if Ricardo fits the bill, why again was Schumpeter "first"? The
former felt strongly enough about technical change to add the Machinery chapter
to the third edition of his _Principles_ (admirably, and against the wishes of
many of his capitalist friends and Members of Parliament who did not want to see
support for worker claims that there could be permanent technological
unemployment)? Anyway, this is all old news, right? And I appreciate Brad's
participation on the list. Plus, it has to be admitted that a lot of the work in
"radical political economics" had/has strong neoclassical elements. A lot of
feminist economics is also neoclassical. Mat
