tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3634628224045926034.post712766253906732262..comments2023-08-29T01:27:13.772-07:00Comments on Magpie's Asymmetric Warfare: Capital Errors.Magpiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07528637318288802178noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3634628224045926034.post-73845178212811758912015-02-17T23:51:21.570-08:002015-02-17T23:51:21.570-08:00Hi Tao
"What you describe as 'neoclassic...Hi Tao<br /><br />"What you describe as 'neoclassical' isn't neoclassical, it's neoliberal, a notion that I've discussed here".<br /><br />I don't know, Tao. Personally, I don't find those labels that important. <br /><br />The connotation of neoliberal is more general. By neoclassicism one generally means the strictly economic theory (the usage dates to Veblen, btw, so it has a long and venerable history). That's why I use them.<br /><br />But, like I said, I'm not wedded to them.<br /><br />Regarding your posts: recently, Prof. Mitchell has written about George and Georgism. You might want to read this:<br /><br />http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=30215<br /><br />Incidentally, whether you call it neoliberalism, neoclassicism or whatever, Philip Wicksteed (one of the leading names of the second generation marginalists) was also a Georgist. Prof. Gaffney (a leading Georgist) defends Wicksteed's priority as inventor of marginal productivity over John Bates Clark. <br /><br />So, whether it's neoclassicism or neoliberalism it wasn't developed against Georgism, but it was partly developed by a Georgist.Magpiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07528637318288802178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3634628224045926034.post-18802816124922565362015-02-17T20:19:50.537-08:002015-02-17T20:19:50.537-08:00"But those things are assumed not relevant in..."But those things are assumed not relevant in the basic neoclassical setup"<br /><br />What you describe as "neoclassical" isn't neoclassical, it's neoliberal, a notion that I've discussed here:<br /><br />http://taojonesing.blogspot.com/2010/10/neoclassical-economics-are-to-henry.html<br /><br />http://taojonesing.blogspot.com/2010/11/financialism-and-disappearing-of-labor.html<br /><br />It may be that labels don't matter, but I think they do in the sense that the genesis of the political theory behind the economic theory is more readily identifiable. Neoclassical economics only concerned itself with disappearing rents from the economic lexicon. What passes as "neoclassical economics" is actually dominated by Finance out of the Chicago School and further disappears labor from the economic lexicon. The term "human capital" is a political one, not an economic one, and it is distinctly neoliberal.Tao Jonesinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10041034009270339963noreply@blogger.com