>Because the neoclassical model assumes people are rational consumption
>maximizers, but of course people are social animals and crave social
>interaction and approval, and this conflicts with the neoclassical
>assumption.
sorry to overpost--and i'm not going to be around much longer anyway so chill and i'll be outta everyone's hair soon enough-- but i just had to jump on this one: read adam smith. he said the same dang thing. i think it all quite "classical" bourg economics to think this way. i'll post more later b/c some of this ties into civil society and the binary opposition of state/market, individual/society an' all that. [and do note that i did say the economy operated according to a "moral logic" so i don't mean self-interest in quite the way you think. but here's a thought to chew on:
"To be observed, to be attended to, to be taken notice of with sympathy, complacency and approbation" are the driving force of "all the toil and bustle of the world...the end of avarice and ambition, of the pursuit of wealth"
so adam smith was the first chicago school economist. btw, did i get that optimizing v. satisficing or whatevA the hell it is right? i can never recall all that./
kelley