The best critique I have seen is
Heinz Kurz and Neri Salvadori, "Theories of 'Endogenous
Growth' in Historical Perspective," in _Contemporary
Economic Issues: Economic Behaviour and Design, vol. 4,
IEA Conference Volume No. 124, Proceedings of the
Eleventh World Congress of the International
The difference is that once the marginal cost is spent, the information
can be used over and over. A machine cannot do the same thing.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 05:32:02PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I've never understood, given a certain set of assumptions, why endogenous growth
>theory wa
I'm sorry, I missed what TFP stood for?
As far as what prompted it, I would say the fact that before it came along,
neoclassical growth theory was dead dead dead!!!
See Beyond the Steady State edited by E. J. Nell, D. Laibman, and J. Halevi,
Macmillan.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL P
At 03:42 PM 2/15/01 -0500, you wrote:
> The best critique I have seen is
>Heinz Kurz and Neri Salvadori, "Theories of 'Endogenous
>Growth' in Historical Perspective," in _Contemporary
>Economic Issues: Economic Behaviour and Design, vol. 4,
>IEA Conference Volume No. 124, Proceedings of the
>
Sure, but how is this cost of information different than the cost of
training an employee how to use a complex machine? It costs time and money
to do so, but once you do, the info can be used over and over at no cost to
run the machine .
Would this also not just be a variation on the Solow model
> I'm sorry, I missed what TFP stood for?
Total factor productivity. Is Arrow's A really TFP?
>
> As far as what prompted it, I would say the fact that before it came
along,
> neoclassical growth theory was dead dead dead!!!
>
What do you mean by this, though? Was it not able to predict the gr
We are in agreement. I only said that the zero marginal costs was the
major difference between the two approaches.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 10:33:06PM -0800, Christian Gregory wrote:
> Sure, but how is this cost of information different than the cost of
> training an employee how to use a complex
Jim says:
>so what, in short, is the substance of their critique?
I don't know that particular paper, but I have another one by Kurz.
First, Kurz begins by quoting Adolph Lowe from a must-read 1954 article called
"The Classical Theory of Economic Growth" that of course I can't help but
includin
] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thursday, February 15, 2001 7:59 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:8167] Re: Re: Re: new growth theory
>At 03:42 PM 2/15/01 -0500, you wrote:
>> The best critique I have seen is
>>Heinz Kurz and Neri Salvadori, "Theories of 'Endogenous
>>Growth&
I think the purpose of all this is a search for a
means to offset limitations of a formal approach to
growth theory. Diminishing returns of capital and
labour
set in quickly in a Cobb Douglas setting, then you
need human capital to offset diminishing returns. i
have done something like that for ea
>
> As far as what prompted it, I would say the fact that before it came
along,
> neoclassical growth theory was dead dead dead!!!
>
What do you mean by this, though? Was it not able to predict the growth
rates of postwar Japan? Or was the fashion for it over? It had no more
explanatory power? (I
Christian wrote:
>What do you mean by this, though? Was it not able to predict the growth
>rates of postwar Japan?
Are you familiar with Shaikh's HUMBUG production function?
Mat
Anwar Shaikh, 1974, "Laws of algebra and laws of production" Review of Economics
and Statistics, 51, 1, pp. 115-20.
2001 1:43 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:8197] RE: Re: Re: Re: new growth theory
>Jim says:
>
>>so what, in short, is the substance of their critique?
>
>I don't know that particular paper, but I have another one by Kurz.
>
>First, Kurz begins by quoting Adolph Lowe from a must-read 1
My cup runneth over! Thank you very much, Mat! I hope that those who don't
know growth theory as well as I to shun the "newness" of Romer _et al_.
This should encourage me to dig up the chapter on growth theory of my
dissertation (which treats growth as a disequilibrium process)... but it
won'
Barkley wrote:
> Basically they do a very careful review of past
>approaches to growth theory and show that many
>of the classical writers, starting with Adam Smith,
>had essentially fully developed models of growth
>that incorporate the essential ideas of "new
>endogenous growth theory."
>
ty impressive blurb from Samuelson
on it, dont you think?
-Original Message-
From: J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 3:45 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:8212] Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: new growth theory
Mat,
The one you have
> Barkley wrote:
> > Basically they do a very careful review of past
> >approaches to growth theory and show that many
> >of the classical writers, starting with Adam Smith,
> >had essentially fully developed models of growth
> >that incorporate the essential ideas of "new
> >endogenous gro
period analysis,
but I think one needs to do more than that.
Barkley Rosser
-Original Message-
From: Forstater, Mathew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Friday, February 16, 2001 6:50 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:8226] RE: Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: new growth the
18 matches
Mail list logo
