tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.comments2015-11-28T16:27:45.084-05:00Thoughts On EconomicsRobert Vienneauhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14748118392842775431noreply@blogger.comBlogger2687125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-39296263294967860062015-11-28T16:27:45.084-05:002015-11-28T16:27:45.084-05:00Hard to resist being drawn back to this topic beca...Hard to resist being drawn back to this topic because in a sense it is the vortex of doom of both Economics and political economy studies :-). In part because I put some comments on a page on a related topic here and the they are not appearing:<br />nakedkeynesianism.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/misconceptions-about-heterodox.html<br /><br />It is still about the significance of Sraffa's work and "proofs of general equilibrium". His "commodities by means of commodities" neoclassical model was designed to demonstrate that even a trivial multi-commodity neoclassical model would have "anomalies" that implied multiple potential equilibria with multiple distributions of income, depending in effect on government policy.<br /><br />The retort by *some* neoclassical was that the model with a single "commodity" was sufficient as long as the commodity was "money": because putting in market values of K and L would "homogenize" capital, and labor too.<br /><br />The problem with that as the other side pointed out (and it had been known for a long time) is that market prices themselves depend on the amount of capital and the distribution of income, therefore using "dollars" as the "commodity" is nonsensical.<br /><br />Therefore a problem arose that had vexed political economists for centuries: is it possible to create a unit of account ("money") that does not depend on the distribution of income?<br /><br />The really interesting part of "commodities by means of commodities" was not showing conclusively that multi-commodity neoclassical models suffer from Wicksell-effects, which was probably just an entertainment for P Sraffa.<br /><br />The really interesting part was that he found a somewhat abstruse method that allowed putting together in a the same simple neoclassical model a basket of commodities with an exchange value invariant to changes in the profit rate and the distribution of income.<br /><br />The proof that this was possible had been sought as the philosopher stone's of political economy studies for centuries, it was a *constructive* proof nonetheless, the crowning of many investigations in the theory of value. Sraffa for that alone belongs in the class of Great Political Economists. I am not sure that our blogger has mentioned this aspect of Sraffa's work as often as the "Wicksell effects" one.<br /><br />But it all disappeared as the Cambridge UK side won conclusively the science argument but lost completely the propaganda war...<br />Blissexnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-90805839071045695842015-11-27T17:04:03.451-05:002015-11-27T17:04:03.451-05:00«Many thanks for spotting this in P Romer's po...«Many thanks for spotting this in P Romer's post:<br /><br />«"an aggregate production function might lend support for a marginal productivity theory of the distribution of income,"»<br /><br />As it shows very clearly that P Romer is very aware that the core issue is the central truthiness of Economics, and that hallucinatory neoclassical talkiness of «an aggregate production» is meant to support that central truthiness.»<br /><br />«Looking at the systems of equations that have been proven to be solvable they don't actually match the usual "talkiness" side of neoclassical economics, they describe "something" that is far simpler.»<br /><br />Note that here I was just repeating what P Samuelson and F Hahn and other neoclassicals acknowledged during the Cambridges Capital Controversy, as I have summarized by quotes in my comments to a later post:<br /><br />http://robertvienneau.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/herbert-scarf-1930-2015.html<br />Blissexnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-74388977476603123672015-11-27T16:45:20.134-05:002015-11-27T16:45:20.134-05:00«The ones I have seen do not have the dated commod...«The ones I have seen do not have the dated commodities of the Arrow-Debreu model of intertemporal equilibrium»<br /><br />To summarize some of the assumptions, "core" neoclassical models "work best" when:<br /><br />* There is only one commodity that is at the same time capital and consumption goods.<br />* There is only one agent that is at the same time producer and consumers.<br />* Regardless of the one commodity and one agent, there are infinite markets for every possible future instant, each perfectly competitive because of infinite sellers and buyers competing.<br />* The one agent knows the probability distributions of all future events.<br />* There is an "auctioneer" that ensures all infinite markets for the same one commodity over infinite times with infinite buyers and sellers who are all impersonated by the same agent do clear simultaneously.<br /><br />Which talk of infinities and miraculous auctioneers able to deal with them reminds me of the topic of the lost comment:<br /><br />http://econospeak.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/what-has-not-been-said-about-later.html<br />«In particular he was more than any of the other general equilibrium theorists aware of the deep mathematical issues involved in actually precisely computing equilibria, issues related to constructivist critiques of classical mathematics over such things as assuming the Axiom of Choice and the Law of the Excluded Middle, issues raised in recent years by K. Vela Vellupillai, although with most economists ignoring him. Maybe they are right to do so, but I happen to know from talking with both of them at the same time a few years ago that Herb Scarf took these issues seriously, and Velupillai has credited him with being the only serious general equilibrium theorist to appear to be aware of them and to have discussed them, which he did in his famous book on computing general equilibria.»<br /><br />Interesting. I personally regard this as a bit weak point, especially compared to the above, because Zermelo-Frankel foundations of mathematics with the Axiom of Choice are widely accepted by mathematicians, even if constructivist ones would probably be better.Blissexnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-35607272025711985742015-11-27T16:31:55.447-05:002015-11-27T16:31:55.447-05:00Well again:
http://dept.econ.yorku.ca/~avicohen/r...Well again:<br /><br />http://dept.econ.yorku.ca/~avicohen/research.html<br />http://dept.econ.yorku.ca/~avicohen/Linked_Documents/JEP_Cohen_Harcourt.pdf<br />Blissexnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-7755044583238338332015-11-27T16:30:37.240-05:002015-11-27T16:30:37.240-05:00«So I had another comment ready here but I lost it...«So I had another comment ready here but I lost it, but then I did a web search for "putty capital" and I was pleased to find this:»<br /><br />So I garbled the URLs and they are:<br /><br />dept.econ.yorku.ca/~avicohehttp://dept.econ.yorku.ca/~avicohen/research.htmln/research.html<br />dept.econ.yorku.ca/~avicohen/Linked_Documents/JEP_Cohen_Harcourt.pdfBlissexnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-33512156063747354702015-11-27T16:28:35.389-05:002015-11-27T16:28:35.389-05:00Also very funny:
«The third theoretical neoclassi...Also very funny:<br /><br />«The third theoretical neoclassical response attempted to extend the one-commodity results to more general heterogeneous commodity models. Samuelson’s (1962) attempt in the “surrogate production function” included what appeared to be a variety of physically distinct capital goods, but he also assumed equal factor proportions in all industries, making relative prices independent of changes in distribution between wages and profits. As Samuelson subsequently realized, this effectively collapsed his model back to one commodity.<br />By the late 1960s, Samuelson’s (1966, p. 568) judicious “Summing Up” article admitted that outside of one-commodity models, reswitching and capital-reversing may be usual, rather than anomalous, theoretical results and that the three neo-classical parables “cannot be universally valid.” On a theoretical level, the “English” Cantabrigians won the round over aggregate production functions. Even neoclassicals like Hahn (1972, p. 8) showed no mercy for aggregate production functions, which “cannot be shown to follow from proper [general equilibrium] theory and in general [are] therefore open to severe logical objections.” They fell out of favor in the 1970s and early 1980s until their revival with endogenous growth and real business cycle theories.»<br /><br />Reswitching of the techniques! :-)<br /><br />«Moreover, the general equilibrium approach revitalized Robinson’s concerns about equilibrium. Theoretical work, speci cally, the disappointing Sonnenschein-Mantel-Debreu stability results, found no particular reason to believe in the stability of the general equilibrium outcome. In discussing these results, Hahn (1984, p. 53) wrote: “[T]he Arrow-Debreu construction . . . must relinquish the claim of providing necessary descriptions of terminal states of economic processes.” The lack of adequate stability results raised questions about the conception of equilibrium as the end of an economic process and the adequacy of comparative statics as explanations of the process of change following a parameter shift (Fisher, 1989; Ingrao and Israel, 1990).»<br /><br />Oh noes! :-)<br /><br />People like G Mankiw and L Hubbard have accumulated lots of capital which must mean that neoclassical capital theory works! :-)<br />Blissexnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-90664623959310553112015-11-27T16:25:38.890-05:002015-11-27T16:25:38.890-05:00So I had another comment ready here but I lost it,...So I had another comment ready here but I lost it, but then I did a web search for "putty capital" and I was pleased to find this:<br /><br />dept.econ.yorku.ca/~avicohehttp://dept.econ.yorku.ca/~avicohen/research.htmln/research.html<br /><br />This guys has done a lot of work on the Cambridges Capital Controversy and I have just read his "Whatever Happened to the Cambridge Capital Theory Controversies?" which is fairly interesting even if far too mild :-). Some relevant quotes:<br /><br />«A common starting point for the neoclassical perspective on capital»<br /><br />That's actually the end point too... :-)<br /><br />«is a one-commodity Samuelson/Solow/Swan aggregate production function model: $Q = f(K,L)$ where the one produced good (Q) can be consumed directly or stockpiled for use as a capital good (K). With the usual assumptions, [ ... ] this simple model exhibits what Samuelson (1962) called three key “parables”: 1) The real return on capital (the rate of interest) is determined by the technical properties of the diminishing marginal productivity of capital; [ ... ]»<br />The real return on physical capital is not the "rate of interest" :-).<br /><br />«3) the distribution of income between laborers and capitalists is explained by relative factor scarcities/supplies and marginal products. The price of capital services (the rate of interest) is determined by the relative scarcity and marginal productivity of aggregate capital, and the price of labor services (the wage rate) is determined by the relative scarcity and marginal productivity of labor (L).»<br /><br />The central truthiness of Economics!<br /><br />«Why do reswitching and capital-reversing occur? Samuelson (1966) provides the intuition using the Austrian conception of capital as time, so that the productivity of capital is the productivity of time itself.»<br /><br />Capital is definitely related to time... :-) But "the productivity of time itself" is quite amazing handwaving :-).<br /><br />«Because of Wicksell effects, in models with heterogeneous capital goods (or heterogeneous output), the rate of interest depends not only on exogenous technical properties of capital, but also on endogenously determined prices like the interest rate. The endogeneity of prices allows multiple equilibria, which complicates the one-way parable explanations of income distribution. Differences in quantities no longer yield unambiguously signed price effects. The power and simplicity of one-commodity models emanates from eliminating these endogenous price effects and measurement problems (Cohen, 1989).»<br /><br />The "commodities by means of commodities" story was just a rigorously built but comically trivial neoclassical model which was not the even more ridiculous "commodity by means of commodity" one of JB Clark and others.<br /><br />«Capital is fundamentally intertwined with issues of time. As Bliss (1975, p. 39) wrote: “One of the essential tasks of a theory of capital is . . . to make clear why a purely static and timeless economic theory could not be adequate.” Questions about the measurement of capital in aggregate production function growth models segued to questions about how, if at all, may dynamic processes of accumulation and distribution be analyzed within an essentially static equilibrium framework.»<br /><br />All sorted out within Arrow-Debreu(-Lucas) models or DSGE models :-).<br /><br />«Thus, many years ago, Robinson (1953, p. 590) put back on the agenda what we now call path-dependent equilibria: “the very process of moving has an effect upon the destination of the movement, so that there is no such thing as a position of long-run equilibrium which exists independently of the course which the econ omy is following at a particular date.” The title of her 1975 paper, “The Unimportance of Reswitching” (Robinson, 1975a), reflected her belief that while reswitching and capital-reversing were problematic for neoclassical capital theory, her methodological critique was far more important.»<br /><br />Hear hear! :-)<br />Blissexnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-18172802458975982722015-11-25T16:59:27.131-05:002015-11-25T16:59:27.131-05:00«Scarf as the economist who first demonstrated tha...«Scarf as the economist who first demonstrated that general equilibria need not be stable. Something more, some special case assumption or another approach entirely, is needed. [ ... ] CGE models. The ones I have seen do not have the dated commodities of the Arrow-Debreu model of intertemporal equilibrium»<br /><br />The Arrow-Debreu-(Lucas) models introduce infinite markets for infinite goods at every possible time to in essence abolish time: "tatonnement" happens in effect across eternity, once and forever. It is just a cheap shallow trick to turn "dynamics" into "statics".<br /><br />The deeper economic sense of that is wider: the trick is needed to get rid of the role of capital (it creates "knots" in the timeline, especially if one considers depreciation), and to avoid the "complications" like path dependency that creates. BTW Sraffa's illustration of "return of the techniques" even in comparative statics is all about path dependency especially in the accumulation of capital.<br /><br />Perhaps I have been too evocative in the above...<br />Blissexnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-54105575930190194772015-11-20T12:03:19.478-05:002015-11-20T12:03:19.478-05:00Chilling...
Chilling...<br />Regina Chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12179579340760940179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-13678766544612544462015-10-09T08:45:46.933-04:002015-10-09T08:45:46.933-04:00Thank you for your craven expression of interest i...Thank you for your craven expression of interest in the opinions of commentators.Robert Vienneauhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00872510108133281526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-55960743937067847042015-10-08T13:30:52.198-04:002015-10-08T13:30:52.198-04:00Quite a collection of morons you've assembled ...Quite a collection of morons you've assembled here, Bob.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-57645429484722488862015-09-23T18:18:09.328-04:002015-09-23T18:18:09.328-04:00So far, I have analytical results. That is, this i...So far, I have analytical results. That is, this is a matter of mathematical proof, not computer programming.Robert Vienneauhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00872510108133281526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-15362579889926665252015-09-23T14:26:02.221-04:002015-09-23T14:26:02.221-04:00Do you have the source code for your program? Even...Do you have the source code for your program? Even a gist will do :)pqnelsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12779680952736168655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-12729857096060146732015-09-19T07:10:55.981-04:002015-09-19T07:10:55.981-04:00Not bad. Both Clinton and the New Democrats, and B...Not bad. Both Clinton and the New Democrats, and Blair and New labour had an unprecented success. Jeremy Corbyn is more or less the return of Michael Foot. It would be similar to the return of the Democrats to the ideology of the Great Society. It makes Labour a part of the problems, and not a part of their solutions.Emil Bakkumhttp://hgdewolff.nlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-9856080741789880692015-09-07T14:20:36.230-04:002015-09-07T14:20:36.230-04:00Said differently, the various people who "pro...Said differently, the various people who "proved" that "the neoclassical theory" has a unique optimal equilibrium under which income is determined solely by productivity did not take "the neoclassical theory" and wrote it up in equations and then proved that.<br /><br />That's far too hard :-).<br /><br />What they did is something that you by now should be familiar with, as it is a standard technique in Economics (and other subjects) to get a paper out with big sounding (until one looks at the assumptions) results: they kept adjusting a set of equations clipping away the "hard" bits until they could find a set of equations for which they could prove "equilibrium".<br /><br />The resulting equations are not a model for "the neoclassical theory", unless it is decided to redefine the term "the neoclassical theory" as the theory described by that set of equations, but that's even bigger sophistry.<br />Blissexnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-63622954420714631182015-09-07T14:00:33.608-04:002015-09-07T14:00:33.608-04:00«A prove of the existence of an equilibrium is not...«A prove of the existence of an equilibrium is not a statement about actually existing economies. It merely says that a certain set of equations, inequalities, or whatever is consistent.»<br /><br />But the question is not whether the proof is of equilibrium of actually existing economies, it is whether the proof is of equilibrium in actually existing neoclassical theories. The equations in the various "proofs" of equilibrium are not those for recognizable neoclassical theories, but for very simplified versions of them. Since the solvability of the equations depends critically on many subtle assumptions, proving those equations have a solutions does not imply that any or most neoclassical theories have an equilibrium...<br />Blissexnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-60529980024577921432015-09-05T17:37:05.129-04:002015-09-05T17:37:05.129-04:00The INET blog in your list of other blogs has move...The INET blog in your list of other blogs has moved and now seems to be at <br />http://ineteconomics.org/ideas-papers/blog<br />Tomboktuhttp://cedarlounge.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-87077693601024523532015-08-27T06:26:01.037-04:002015-08-27T06:26:01.037-04:00A prove of the existence of an equilibrium is not ...A prove of the existence of an equilibrium is not a statement about actually existing economies. It merely says that a certain set of equations, inequalities, or whatever is consistent.<br /><br />Von Neumann provided such a proof shortly after Wald. And Von Neumann's model had certain family resemblances to Sraffa's.<br /><br />Thanks for the reference to Chaim Perelman. I probably will not read it, since I think Romer's scientism is not argued for much these days among philosophers of science. Those who agree with me that there's room among scholars for non-fully arguments are probably on Simon Wren-Lewis side <a href="http://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2015/08/a-sense-of-identity.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>, at least for this point.Robert Vienneauhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00872510108133281526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-49860624237544452602015-08-27T06:20:17.834-04:002015-08-27T06:20:17.834-04:00I find that Paul Romer was, at once time, that Hah...I find that Paul Romer was, at once time, that Hahn and Solow had backed upped their derision for macro following Lucas with solid analysis, as mathematical as you please. That is, Romer wrote a cover blurb for Hahn and Solow (1995).<br />Robert Vienneauhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00872510108133281526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-72151986550846569192015-08-27T06:15:24.458-04:002015-08-27T06:15:24.458-04:00This Romer is often suggested as being eligible fo...This Romer is often suggested as being eligible for a Nobel prize, for his work on endogenous growth, particularly Romer (1990). I'll be amused when and if he gets it.Robert Vienneauhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00872510108133281526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-68288091785774767092015-08-22T06:04:20.954-04:002015-08-22T06:04:20.954-04:00«Nobody cares what you think»
I care.
R Viennau&...«Nobody cares what you think»<br /><br />I care.<br /><br />R Viennau's thoughts are interesting to me. Perhaps because my background in political economy studies (quite some time ago) was much the "european" one that he has been discovering (Pareto, Walras, Keynes, Robinson, Sylos-Labini, Tinbergen, Schumpeter, Sraffa, ...) so I am amused to follow the evolution of this thoughts. I am also working in engineering currently, so that's another point of affinity driving interest.<br /><br />I stopped looking into the technical details long ago, when I figured the big tricks and sophistries of the neoclassical approach, and for me it is also interesting to me to read his detail investigations of the more reliable parts of the published literature and learn new things about that.<br />Blissexnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-66027965196045789972015-08-22T05:42:52.116-04:002015-08-22T05:42:52.116-04:00«Romer's comments about "talkiness" ...«Romer's comments about "talkiness" are silly.»<br /><br />Again, especially because neoclassical Economics, as in Arrow-Debreu-Lucas, is entirely "talkiness" and the "mathyness" that accompanies it does not match the "talkiness". It is all just sophistry.<br /><br />«I would be embarrassed to dismiss a scholar like Fernand Braudel on the grounds that he did not put forth mathematical models, as in physics.»<br /><br />There is a much bigger topic here that unfortunately seems very little known and yet is exceptionally important and an european philosopher, Chaim Perelman, has been writing about it in a good way.<br /><br />The issue he describes is that the rise of cartesian rationalism has created a situation where all discussions that cannot be handled with the cartesian method as pure talk. That is the assumption that either a topic can be discussed "scientifically" or it is complete bullshit.<br /><br />Which means that "scientifically" becomes a big talking point, and that discussions that are not purely bullshit but are not purely scientific either get lumped in with those that are mostly or entirely bullshit.<br /><br />That means surrendering too many topics that cannot be conclusively proven to deliver "scientific truth" to purely irrational discussion.<br /><br />The solution he describes is to resurrect "rhetoric" as a philosophical device, rather than a propaganda tool: that is to admit that there is a third category between the "provable truth" of the scientific method, and the "worthless bullshit" at the other end, and it is what I would call "persuasive even if not conclusive arguments".<br /><br />Rhetoric is then the set techniques that allow of constructing persuasive arguments where possible, even if the conclusions are uncertain, because *action* cannot be simply always guided by proven scientific truth, and should not be guided by arbitrary irrationality in every other case.<br /><br />The arguments of F Braudel as to history are an example of "rhetoric" well deployed: he does not write mathematical models, he does not prove the truth of his explanations, but supports them with persuasive interpretations and corroborating evidence he presents. His conclusions are uncertain for sure but they are not arbitrary, and it is then a call of judgement of the audience reading them as to how much to believe them.<br /><br />Put another way, Chaim Perelman makes the seemingly obvious argument that between hard scientific truth that can be proven with some accuracy, and arbitrary irrational bullshit about which nothing can be said either way, there should be a recognized category of well-founded persuasive judgement to which assign different weights of applicability.<br /><br />That is a very important argument.<br />Blissexnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-16356912980314374562015-08-22T05:12:15.791-04:002015-08-22T05:12:15.791-04:00Many thanks for spotting this in P Romer's pos...Many thanks for spotting this in P Romer's post:<br /><br />«"an aggregate production function might lend support for a marginal productivity theory of the distribution of income,"»<br /><br />As it shows very clearly that P Romer is very aware that the core issue is the central truthiness of Economics, and that hallucinatory neoclassical talkiness of «an aggregate production» is meant to support that central truthiness.<br />Blissexnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-18984018274889582762015-08-22T05:08:53.037-04:002015-08-22T05:08:53.037-04:00«the first rigorous proof of the existence of a ge...«the first rigorous proof of the existence of a general equilibrium»<br /><br />There is no such thing! And I am surprised that you fall for claims that it has been done, given your attention to the tricks of the the trade.<br /><br />General equilibrium models formalizing neoclasssical Economics *cannot* be proven to have a general equilibrium because they are both mathematically and semantically broken, they have no valid solutions, they just don't work.<br /><br />The various published "proofs" of the existence of general equilibrium are misleading: they are simply proofs that certain artfully constructed systems of equations are solvable.<br /><br />The confusion that those systems of equations that have been specifically shaped to be solvable are proofs that general equilibrium happens in neoclassical Economics is given by simple devices like giving labels like "price", "quantity", "capital", "labor" to various quantities in them, as if the equations were a mathematical formalization of the neoclassical handwaving model.<br /><br />Looking at the systems of equations that have been proven to be solvable they don't actually match the usual "talkiness" side of neoclassical economics, they describe "something" that is far simpler.<br /><br />Note: I think that the first case where a rigorously well defined neoclassical model that could be meaningfully said to achieve general equilibrium was created was by P Sraffa in the "commodities by means of commodities" line, and he did that specifically to explore whether even a very simplified neoclassical model worked in the way the neoclassical claimed, stripping away the "talkiness", and the answer was that it did not.<br /><br />P Romer's argument are particularly ironic given that neoclassical Economics is essentially just "talkiness", as it involves handwaving into existence imaginary things like "capital", "infinite markets", "perfect competition with one representative agent", "smooth aggregate demand functions" etc., and then creating mathy-looking systems of equations that don't actually correspond to the "talkiness".<br />Blissexnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-17463440636582497542015-08-21T18:46:27.217-04:002015-08-21T18:46:27.217-04:00Cripes, now there's a Paul Romer?
Does econom...Cripes, now there's a Paul Romer?<br /><br />Does economics really need ANOTHER Ro(e)mer?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com