Robert Went notes that an argument similar to the one I made under the above title was presented by a neoclassical, orthodox, economist, Dani Rodrik. I see nothing surprising about the source. Neoclassical economics is not the same thing as Chicago economics. On the micro-level, there are all sorts of openings for more progressive conclusions than come out of the usual neoclassical research, because neoclassical assumptions of perfect competition, perfect information, etc. can be weakened. Sophisticated NC economics can be useful, though often its practitioners are excessively concerned with form (math) rather than content (e.g., criticism of markets). What NC economics misses, IMHO, is an understanding of the _totality_, of how our society is is dominated by capitalism, by capital. The NCs have some understandaing of how the parts create the whole, but usually stop there, clinging to reductionism or methodological individualism. They miss the way in which the totality -- capitalist class society -- feeds back to affect micro-processes ("whole makes parts"). The totality for most is Walrasian general equilibrium, which mostly simply aggregates individual processes. Thus, class conflict in the workplace is treated as a bilateral bargaining process or a "collective goods problem" (in which disobedient workers are free riders) or the efficiency-wage model (using wage scales to evoke effort, etc.) or something similar. Conflict (wildcat strikes, etc.) is seen as a market failure rather than an inherent aspect of capitalism. The potential for worker solidarity and the actuality of capitalist divide-and-rule are missed. Because of its avoidance of the issue of how the whole constitutes the parts, they also miss a lot of what's going on with how the parts make the whole. This is especially true when we think about time. For NC economics, time is really an embarrassment. They want to treat it as completely analogous to space. Irreversabilities and uncertainties about the future are anathema. To use the phrase "individual processes" in the same sentence with "Walrasian general equibrium," as I did above, is a theoretical mistake, since the Walrasian GE system is timeless (except nominally). They NCs miss the way in which competition and class struggle are time-bound processes or battles rather than static states, equilibria. enough sermonizing for the day, in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clawww.lmu.edu/fall%201997/ECON/jdevine.html Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ. 7900 Loyola Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90045-8410 USA 310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950 Economic theories "have become little more than vain attempts to revive exploded superstitions, or sophisms like those of Mr. Malthus, calculated to lull the oppressors of mankind into a security fo everlasting triumph." -- adapted from Percy Bysshe Shelley.