> I also think the above article is worth reading.


>> Unlike Vienneau the authors explain this argument clearly
>> and correctly.
 
> Notice that Mr. Weatherby does not say where he finds anything in
> the following unclear or incorrect:

>   http://www.dreamscape.com/rvien/Economics/Essays/LaborDemand.pdf
 
> He is just babbling bullshit.


That you for the well thought out logical, clear, refreshing, and 
intelligent argument. I will let readers decide that for themselves.


> The above is simply an ignorant ad hominem. Robinson's methodological
> point is different than my usual points in my numeric examples.
> 
> And Mr. Weatherby simply cannot know what I read or do not read.


I know what you post about and the criticism such as in this post that 
American economist are ignorant simply because they do not agree with 
your view. It is a logical conclusion to believe that you do not read 
ignorant work. You have posted on many ocassion your distate for 
anything you term mainstream and have few if any references from any 
referred journal that the majority of the field would be familar with.


>> They realize price Wicksel 
>> effects are possible yet that relative scarcity is empirically dominate 
>> even if price Wicksel effects exist (Cohen and Harcourt 2003).
 
> I think it misleading to cite Cohen and Harcourt to support Mr.
> Weatherby's view. Cohen and Harcourt are merely saying that that is
> what certain American economists think.


Where did I say these were my views this is Cohen and Harcourt's 
assement of American economist's views. They do not clearly support or 
not support the statement. They state this is the view of the 
Neo-Classical theory. I cite them because it is a very similar to waht 
Cohen and Harcourt wrote. It would be a statement you should agree with 
because it is a statement of Neo-Classical economist view the debate. 
The statement is positive not normative.


>> The 
>> authors also note that Solow's justification has always been that the 
>> model gives good empirical results. So the Cambridgians care mainly 
>> concerned about pure theory and not the empirical evidence to support 
>> the model.
 
> Untrue and a non sequitur. If I demonstrate your theory is logically
> untenable, that does not imply that I don't think having a
> theory, in some sense, that works well empirically is unimportant.


You can have your opinion but this again is Cohen and Harcourt's 
statement of Solow's view. Again read the article you will see I just 
paraphrased what was said which is why I cite them. I agree with Cohen 
and Harcourt in the end both sides are a matter of belief and opinion. 
You can not test if it is more important a model be a good predictor or 
theoritically consistent. This is opinion and not testable.


>> There has never been a consequences on the significance of results. 
>> (Cohen and Harcourt 2003).
 
> What Mr. Weatherby means to say is that there has never been a
> consensus about significance of the results.


uggh spell check. I must have hit replace too quickly. I should have 
learned by now not to rely on these silly tools.



>> I think Rob and others interested in his post should read the article to 
>> get a clear view of both sides of the debate.
 
> I already have some time ago.


Sometime ago? Did you see the working paper? The Winter 2003 addition 
was sent out a little less than one year ago.


>> It also explains why 
>> Americans have paid little attention to arguments such as the one's Rob 
>> tends to post. The school is thought is completely different. We believe 
>> that you should empirically prove that it exist before you say it 
>> confuscates the model. The Cambridgians say make sure the model is 
>> perfectly theoritically clear before you test it. In order to get Rob's 
>> results you have to believe that functions are discontinous.
 
> Nope.


Again thanks for the refreshing, inteligent, and enlightening argument.


>> The debate is not for naught in America however. The debate did lead to 
>> General Equilibrium analysis as a response to Samuelson's parables.

> The last sentence is badly phrased. But let it pass. Samuelson's
> parables are know to be generally false.


If you read Cohen and Harcourt you would that is exactly why General 
Equilibrium analysis started. Did you read the whole article? The 
authors state clearly that general equilibrium arose after the failure 
of the parables. It was " motivated by Samuelson's quest, in his 
surrogate production function to "provide some rationalization for the 
validity of the simple J.B. Clark parables"" (Cohen and Harcourt 2003). 
Again did you really read the article? Did you read all of it or just 
the parts you previously agreed with?

If you read the article it states clearly that the lack of evidence on 
either side has caused this to be a idelogical debate not a debate of 
theory. As Cohen and Harcourt note "The intensity and passion of the 
Cambridge Controversy was not generated by abstract technical questions 
about Wicksel effects, but by strong ideological undercurrents like the 
ethnical justification of returns to capital and fundemental 
methodological questions about comparing deeply differing visions of 
economics and the extent to which equilibrium is a useful tool of 
economic analysis."

This is why I haven't responded to you in a long while. You are not 
interested in the CCC for intellectual purposes you interested in making 
political statements. To an economist will the minimum wage lower 
employment is an equivalent statement to will a price control on pet 
rocks create a shortage of pet rocks. They are questions of prediction 
and if they are accurate to you the question on minimum wage is 
political. You confuse the analysis with trying to offer an alternative 
vision.