>>>> ...the real interest rate is equivalent to the marginal product of 
>>>> capital...

>>> These assertions were shown to be wrong three decades ago...

>> Tell that to Lucas.

> xxxx is almost certainly more familiar with the writings of
> Robert Lucas than I am. But as far as I know Lucas has never commented
> on findings accepted or discovered by, say, Samuelson, F. Fisher,
> Bliss, or Hahn. Instead he just uses models and techniques known
> to have no valid theoretical or empirical foundation. This disregard
> of established results is hardly likely to increase respect for
> (schools of) economics.


Your first sentence seems correct but after that you seem to get in some
trouble.  Lucas is a macro economist and I really can't think of any
contributions to modern macro from Bliss or F. Fisher.  Checking both sides of
the isle, I looked in Sargent and in Blanchard and Fischer and find no
references for either of them.  I've read papers by Bliss but for the life of
me, I can't think of who F. Fisher is.  Stan Fischer?  Irving Fisher?  Lucas
is a busy guy, he doesn't have time to comment on everyone, even on every
economist.

His work has touched on that of (Paul) Samuelson and (Frank, not Robert) Hahn.
Lucas used an uncertainty over information structure similar to Samuelson's
asset pricing paper (1965) for his "Some international evidence..."(1973) 
paper.  I'm pretty sure he had plenty of other references as well.  
Lucas has certainly done Hahn related work with his growth models and 
asset pricing literature which examined issues in unstable equilibria like in 
Hahn's 1968 "Growth Path" paper.   

Criticising Lucas for being unfamiliar with the literature is like accusing
his work of lacking theoretical or empirical support.  It's OK not to like
him, but you have to work pretty hard to discredit him.  It's worth doing
though, you would get tenure and probably an endowed chair out of it, and
change the way modern macroeconomists think about the world.