Re: More equilibrium, stasis and death

[Jim Devine <JNDF%LMUACAD.BITNET@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Brad Cox writes:
>Stepping far beyond my training into the realm of ill-informed opinion,
>didn't Economics pass up the opportunity to escape its equilibrium-bound
>traditions when it went with Keynes and Walras instead of embracing
>the Copernican role Hayek and Mises attempted to play?
>
why the emphasis on Hayek and Mises? what about dynamic thinkers such as
Marx and Schumpeter?

One reason for the dominance of equilibrium thinking, by the way, is that
economists love being able to derive clear results from simple math. I.e.,
calculus. I think Mirowski overdoes his stress on the connection between
19th century energistic physics and neoclassical economics.  Part of the
connection is simply a matter of the math tools used.

sincerely,

Jim Devine   BITNET: jndf@lmuacad    INTERNET: jdevine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ., Los Angeles, CA 90045-2699 USA
310/338-2948 (off); 310/202-6546 (hm); FAX: 310/338-1950