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
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? (If
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.
d 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 theory
Seriously, they
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
MAIL 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' in Historical Perspective," in _Contempo
: [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 1954 article
called
"The Classical Theory of Eco
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
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."
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 may be either an earlier version
or some variation
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
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 growth
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."
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
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
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 was
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
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
18 matches
Mail list logo
