This is a paragraph from my yesterday post, slightly amended so that it makes a bit more sense:
"Back to the neo-classical theory, how pivotal are its postulates in spitting out implications re. the big picture growth behavior of an economy? [Because, as] far as I can see, none of the most fundamental results of economic theory today requires the "neo-classical" framework. None. Let's go over them. The two big blocks of macro are growth and business cycles (short-run). A more detailed list of the blocks making up conventional micro would include: input-output choice (technology/cost/profit), consumer choice, duality, inter-temporal choice, uncertainty/risk, general equilibrium, econometrics, welfare, externalities, public choice, agency, and mechanism design. Only growth and intro to micro reasoning rely (out of convenience, not out of necessity) on "neo-classical" assumptions. All else doesn't depend on them. So it doesn't seem right to me to equate conventional or standard economics with *neo-classical* theory." _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
