Mankiw imho is not similar to Samuelson in stature, not even close -- maybe that is my age. But Samuelson wrote Foundations, for good or ill, mostly ill, and I'm unaware of anything of that stature Mankiw has done. Samuelson, whatever his failings, was never closely allied with the rich and spoke for the less fortunate. Mankiw seems to be a tool for the rich. I don't recall students walking out on Samuelson in the '60s, when student activism was much more than now, but they did for Mankiw. On the other hand, Samuelson had a nephew who went bad. To me Mankiw is a repulsive human while Samuelson was a sympathetic one.
Thanks for the quotes. The one from page 208 illustrate neo-classical teaching. How about differentiating between those already with poor nutrition, inadequate medical care and shoddy housing and those unwilling to give up the Gulfstream or the yatch so all could have less polution? Gene On Mar 11, 2013, at 1:14 PM, Jurriaan Bendien wrote: > I don’t know if people find this topic interesting or whether they think it > is boring, it is just a question I had in the course of some research. > > Gregory Mankiw is probably the most –read neoclassical economist in the USA > today (Marx would probably say “vulgar economist”). I am not sure if Mankiw > is as big as Samuelson was, but Mankiw is similar in stature. If you study > his writing, you will see that he allots a very important role to opportunity > costs, to explain the cost of capital the cost of labour, the cost of > pollution, and comparative advantage. As yet nobody has written a systematic > rebuttal of Mankiw’s economics though (something similar to Marc Linder’s > anti-Samuelson). > > I have selected a few quotes from N. Gregory Mankiw, Principles of > Microeconomics, South-Western/Cengage Learning, 2012 (digital version): > > "The opportunity cost of an item is what you give up to get that item. When > making any decision, decision makers should be aware of the opportunity costs > that accompany each possible action. In fact, they usually are. College > athletes who can earn millions if they drop out of school and play > professional sports are well aware that their opportunity cost of college is > very high. It is not surprising that they often decide that the benefit of a > college education is not worth the cost." (p.6) > > "The cost of something is what you give up to get it. This is called the > opportunity cost. The production possibilities frontier shows the opportunity > cost of one good as measured in terms of the other good. When society moves > from point A to point B, it gives up 200 computers to get 100 additional > cars. That is, at point A, the opportunity cost of 100 cars is 200 computers. > Put another way, the opportunity cost of each car is two computers. Notice > that the opportunity cost of a car equals the slope of the production > possibilities frontier." (p. 27) > > "Economists use the term comparative advantage when describing the > opportunity cost of two producers. The producer who gives up less of other > goods to produce Good X has the smaller opportunity cost of producing Good X > and is said to have a comparative advantage in producing it." (p. 55). > > "There are two ways to compare the ability of two people in producing a good. > The person who can produce the good with the smaller quantity of inputs is > said to have an absolute advantage in producing the good. The person who has > the smaller opportunity cost of producing the good is said to have a > comparative advantage. The gains from trade are based on comparative > advantage, not absolute advantage." (p. 59) > > "Certainly, clean air and clean water have value. But their value must be > compared to their opportunity cost—that is, to what one must give up to > obtain them. Eliminating all pollution is impossible. Trying to eliminate all > pollution would reverse many of the technological advances that allow us to > enjoy a high standard of living. Few people would be willing to accept poor > nutrition, inadequate medical care, or shoddy housing to make the environment > as clean as possible." (p. 208) > > "What do you give up to get an hour of leisure? You give up an hour of work, > which in turn means an hour of wages. Thus, if your wage is $15 per hour, the > opportunity cost of an hour of leisure is $15. And when you get a raise to > $20 per hour, the opportunity cost of enjoying leisure goes up." (p. 383) > > How does a marginalist theoretician explain price structures, i.e. relatively > stable price relativities? Well, opportunity costs are an important building > block in their explanation. > > Jurriaan > > > > > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
