Re: hedging: good or bad?

["Abu Rizvi" <srizvi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Alan Isaac wrote:

> Since ad hocery has come up twice now, I just want offer two
> cheers for it. Remember that the one neoclassical critique of
> non-neoclassical theories has been the charge of "ad hocery".
> This has often been levelled at the incorporation of stylized
> economic facts in to non-mainstream models, especially
> macro models. Hurray for that! --Alan G. Isaac
>
Alan,

Would you say who made this charge--of incorporating stylized facts
as being ad hoc--and against what non-neoc model?  Is this charge
common?  The usual charge is that non-neoc models are non-optimizing.

Moreover, isn't ad hocery much more commonly leveled against
neoclassical models, (1) either by non-neoclassicals such as Eatwell
(imperfectionism), or by (2) neoclassicals holding the view that the
model in question is assuming things simply to derive desired
results, but without establishing the assumption from  optimization
and the usual neoc data of preferences, endowments and technolgy?

--Abu.