PEN-L
mailing list archive
[ Other Periods  | Other mailing lists  | Search  ]
Date:  [ Previous  | Next  ]      Thread:  [ Previous  | Next  ]      Index:  [ Author  | Date  | Thread  ]

Re: [PEN-L:9698] Gen. Equilibrium

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
Which part of this rather peculiar passage do you see as contrary to the
Keynesian, pk story?
<p>What Keynes called 'classical' economics (which we call neo-classical)
<br>is primarily Marshallian, which is to say partial not general equilibrium
analysis.&nbsp; I don't know
<br>if Walras' general equilibrium perspective had made inroads among the
Brits of Keyne's era.
<br>&nbsp;
<p>Doug Henwood wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>Mark Blaug writes in Economic Theory in Retrospect
(5th ed., p. 290):
<p>"Utility theory was gradually deprived of all its bite and reduced
<br>from cardinal to ordinal utility and from ordinal utility to
<br>'revealed preference'; cost theories of value were shown, not to be
<br>wrong, but only valid in special cases; and general equilbrium
<br>virtually disappeared by 1900, only to be revived in the 1930s by
<br>Hicks and Samuelson as 'everybody's economics....'"
<p>This isn't the story you get from Keynes or modern post-Keynesians;
<br>what's up here?
<p>Doug</blockquote>

<pre>
-------------------
Barnet Wagman

wagman@xxxxxxxxxxxx

--------------------</pre>
&nbsp;</html>
[ Other Periods  | Other mailing lists  | Search  ]