I am asking for some help. I am ready to send my article for publication. I have already followed instructions to tone way down my critique of Chicago. Anything that can make the story stronger would be appreciated.
http://michaelperelman.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/x2-new.pdf
Regarding Simon's role as a defender of Leibenstein, I have heard that it was Stigler above all others, followed closely by Milton Friedman, who most loudly disparaged the Nobel Prize given to Simon.
ReplyDeleteI had a couple of run ins with Stigler. I was not impressed.
ReplyDeletere Burying X-Efficiency PDF,
ReplyDeletePage 13, line 10
took not should read took note
I'm a psychologist/ former psychoanalyst who read your paper hurriedly, and because of current material obligations can not comment on it in detail the way I would like.
ReplyDeleteWhile I won't add anything that will help you for publication, I think it is worthwhile examining some of the hypotheses that current economic thought takes for a point of departure (the necessity and purpose of quantification, the scientificity, or NOT scientificity of economics, etc.), from a philosophical, and more general viewpoint.
I hope to get back to you, when time permits.
I will be interested to hear what you have to say. Obviously, the uber-rationality assumptions of economics are ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteMichael: very interesting. I think that there is a parallel to be drawn with the reception of Chamberlin/Robinson monopolistic competition: the emotional lashing-out and patent illogicality and unfairness of the "critique" offered by the defenders of the citadel. And, as with X-inefficiency, now it's nothing to build models with Dixit/Stiglitz monopolistic competition.
ReplyDeleteStigler was more respectful toward Robinson. Chamberlin drove him crazy.
ReplyDelete