Re Steve K 6530: Thanks for your interesting post and the references. Some set of questions: [...] You write: "Neoclassicals would also have to drop static methods and learn about differential equations, etc--something none of them show any real inclination to do." 1. Pressumably, this would be the case of the Sraffians too, wouldn't it? How do you explain this situation? Why are most of the people so reluctant to abandon "static methods"? How did you personally escape from this? But, wasn't Hicks (a "neoclassical") interested in the kind of dynamics you're describing? 2. Can you provide us with a list of references, both from Math and Economics books and articles, so that one can learn --from the most basic to the complex stuff-- about non "static methods"? What would be a "ideal program" for a course(s) to have a "non equilibrium centered" approach to the capitalist reality? Is there anything analogous to "Kurz & Salvadori" in the field you are describing? 3. What do you think about Duncan's Money, Accumulation adn Crises (1986) and his "convolutions" approach to the capital circuit? A.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Mar 02 2002 - 00:00:04 EST