Simon's take on the generalization from Ricardo to marginalism adds a
fascinating dimension to this discussion. What it shows, I think, is that
the classical bourgeois economics was inherently ambiguous; that one road out
of it leads to Marx, while another leads to Walras, Marshall and J. B. Clark.
If this is true, then noone should be surprised at the terminological
paradox: classical economics contains its opposite, so "neo" does not mean
"similar."
David
David Laibman
P.S. Sorry for posting the same message, in two different forms, yesterday!
I thought the first one had been crashed, but I learned that you can't
predict when galaxy will process things.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------