>then, if you debunk the econ, the bidniz folks lose
>their "intellectual legitimacy." Therefore, debunking
>neoclassical econ is of paramount importance. You
>need to make it clear that the emperor has no clothes
>
>This is what I take to be Franks' argument --
>persuasive too.
But it doesn't matter. Neoclassical econ isn't about rational argument or belief - it's a form of ideology. Efficient market theory is clearly nonsense, but that hasn't stopped people from believing it. You could refute all of it until you're blue in the face and it won't make a damn bit of difference. Which, parenthetically, is one reason why the Bowles/Gintis/Folbre attempt to use neoclassical technique to make progressive/feminist arguments is doomed; they'll never persuade true believers, and their political allies are sensible enough to regard the whole NC enterprise as either delusional or corrupt.
Doug