[OPE-L:5763] Re: Neo-classical economics

Fred B. Moseley (fmoseley@mtholyoke.edu)
Thu, 27 Nov 1997 00:42:05 -0500 (EST)

[ show plain text ]

On Wed, 26 Nov 1997, [iso-8859-1] Abelardo Mariņa Flores wrote:

> Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 12:17:39 -0600
> From: "[iso-8859-1] Abelardo Mariņa Flores" <abmf@hp9000a1.uam.mx>
> To: 'OPE-L' <ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu>
> Cc: 'OPE-L' <ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu>
> Subject[OPE-L:5763] : Neo-classical economics
> Although the two theories are so different (classical and neoclassical (or marginlaist), as Fred's student notices, it is quite curious that Keynes uses the same term "classical school" to refer to Ricardo, James Mill and their predecessor, on the one side, and, as Keynes claims (chapter 1 of The General Theory...) "...those who adopted and perfected Ricardian economic theory...", including J.S. Mill, Marshall, Edgeworth and Pigou, on the other.
> Saludos,
> Abelardo

Indeed Keynes use of the term "classical" is very strange, as David has
also noted. This was partly Keynes' ego-mania. Keynes' substantial point
I think was that both classical and neoclassical economists accepted Say's

So now, this discussion has identified at least three possible
commonalities between classical and neoclassical economics:
1. hedonistic psychology (Veblen, Mitchell)
2. Say's Law (Keynes)
3. rent theory (Mohun)

The third possible commonality is perhaps the most interesting to think
about further, because it relates to the theories of value and
distribution, which I continue to think were fundamentally different.
But I don't have the time to think about this further right now.
Maybe someone else does.