The current neo-Austrians dismiss even Marshallian partial equilibrium analysis. They claim that 1) no market is ever in equilibrium, or if it is, it is only momentarily (a position Marx held also, btw, see Vol. III of Capital), and 2) that the equlibrium is always changing so rapidly it is a waste of time to even talk about it. So, the focus should be on "market process" and how entrepreneurs dynamically move the market process along (if only the darned gummint would get off their backs and laissez faire!!!!!). Barkley Rosser -----Original Message----- From: Greg Nowell <GN842 at CNSVAX.Albany.Edu> To: lbo talk <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Date: Thursday, February 25, 1999 6:43 PM Subject: Query for Rosser
>Rosser:
>And there is the split between the Chicago School
>libertarians like
>Milton Friedman who buy garden variety Marshallian
>equilibrium analysis and
>the Austrian libertarians who think that such
>equilibrium analysis is a
>crock and a bunch of useless baloney. And among the
>Austrians there is
>unremitting warfare between the Hayekians and the
>harder core Misesians,
>with one of the latter "Bronx cheering" one of the
>former at a Mises
>Institute conference two years ago. They are
>constantly telling each other
>how they have to join ranks to fight off the nasty
>leftists, in between
>their bouts of mutual Bronx cheering.
>
>GN: Don't you mean Marshallian *partial* equilibrium
>analysis. I'm translating a French book on the
>development of Keynesian thought. The author is at
>pains to distinguish partial equilibrium analysis (of
>the dynamics of economic branches) from Walrasian
>analysis of equilibrium in the economy as a whole. So
>my question is whether they Hayekians think Marshallian
>partial equilibrium analysis is baloney or whether they
>are criticizing Walrasian equilibrium. -gn.
>--
>Gregory P. Nowell
>Associate Professor
>Department of Political Science, Milne 100
>State University of New York
>135 Western Ave.
>Albany, New York 12222
>
>Fax 518-442-5298
>
>
>