>> Rob, a theory which says that relative prices will not reflect relative
>> scarcity is nonethless a theory of the allocation of scarce resources
>> amongst alternative ends.  Nowhere in Robbins' definition does it
>> specify 'and the theory must find that that prices directly reflect
>> scarcity!'  Understand?


> What I don't understand is why Chris would think I should find
> persuasive his refusal to address economic theory.


First, Rob, I stick by my statement above: your requirement that a
theory predict that prices will reflect relative scarcity in order
to conform to Robbin's definition is just goofy.  Perhaps 90% of
mainstream economics is no longer "economics" if we were take your
misreading seriously.  Second, the quote you finally provide which
might actually buttress your argument:


>    "...in a production context...it makes no sense to talk of
>    'endowments' of given physical quantities if these physical
>    quantities, to be carried over from one period to another, are
>    the unknowns to be determined. It makes no sense to talk of
>    'scarce' resources, if these resources can be produced in
>    whatever quantities may be needed by the economic system...


is very weak.  It makes perfect sense to talk of "scarce" 
resources, even if those resources cound "be produced in whatever 
quantitities may be needed by the economic system," if that production 
has an opportunity cost (that's what we mean by "scarce," Rob).  And I
don't know of any produced resources with zero opportunity cost.
The quote above has either been taken wildly out of context or
is simply wrongheaded.  Or both.