Mat wrote, >Perhaps one of the most easily expressed and understandable critiques of mainstream >economics is that so many of its results rely on the full employment assumption. . .
I'm not sure that is exactly true for applied labor models in which "unemployment" does occur. Because of this, I don't think that an attack via the full employment assumption of non-labor models will have much of an effect. I'm not sure, but it seems the introduction of unemployment in mainstream GE models wouldn't be too hard to do. Beckers allocation of time work is completely consistent with people not working but whining that they really want jobs (but don't take them). Among the many different mainstream approaches to unemployment are the oppportunity costs of working are too great (lazy workers!) and the labor extraction models. And the capital controversy is so 1960/1970s. (It didn't have an effect then and there is not reason to suppose it will have an effect in the 2000s. Eric .
