Re: RE: Sweden -- A few reactions on the N.Y. Times article,lbo-talk@panix.com

["Rosser Jr, John Barkley" <rosserjb@xxxxxxx>]

Bill,
    I would agree, and there is quite a lot of other
evidence out there as well.  I think an empirical assault
is necessary.
     At one point Sargent was defending ratex on axiomatic
methodological grounds, but since he went to Santa Fe he
has backed off and become a bounded rationality type,
although one who remains not all that far from ratex.
Assuming ratex away is not going to convince those who
think that it is the cat's meow.  And plenty of folks out
there still do, at least "in theory."
Barkley Rosser
On Fri, 14 Aug 1998 09:06:48 -0500 (CDT) "William S. Lear"
<rael@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Thu, August 13, 1998 at 16:11:41 (-0400) Rosser Jr, John Barkley writes:
> >Paul,
> >     We've been around this a million times, but personally
> >I would rather see ratex disproved rather than assumed
> >away.  This smells to me too much of the kind of gimmickry
> >the neoclassicals are constantly engaging in.
>
> Not that they "disproved" it, but didn't the work by, say, Tversky and
> Kahneman throw a bit of sand in the gears?
>
>
> Bill

--
Rosser Jr, John Barkley
rosserjb@xxxxxxx