> Mr. Weatherby, of course, is wrong. One of my points is that, due to
> price Wicksell effects, the interest rate is not equal in equilibrium
> to the marginal product of capital.


Which is not an assumption that is made in modern theoritical literature.
Again I suggest you read the literature so you know what does and does not
apply.

> This observation about price Wicksell effects
> allows one to criticize Romer (1990). Romer takes the consumption
> good as the numeraire and inserts capital goods measured in
> numeraire units into a production function. This is an error.


You are assuming the consumption good is valued in dollars. It is not, there
is no money in any growth model. Read the paper again and see what it says.
You still do not understand Romer and trying to respond to a one line
comment I made. Read it throughly before you criticize it.

    By the way why do we assume that profits are discounted by the interest
rate? You seem to think there is a problem here I wonder if you know why the
assumption is made.

> I thank Mr. Weatherby for documenting that some mainstream economists
> are socialized to adopt intellectually dishonest and willfully ignorant
> norms.


Oh yes of course. In your normal fashion when argument fails you turn to
inciting the crowd by showing how your out of the normal ideas are being
crushed by the big ugly body of some mainstream thought. There is no
intellectualy dishonest or willfully ignorant about ignoring a paper that
has absolutely nothing to do with the models you are writing. The paper has
nothing to do with the literature. In fact the need for endogenous
technically change was proved by the fact the Solow model and the models
that  revived it fell apart when technology was not growing at a constant
and was different across nations. If you had Rodriguez-Claire and Klenow you
would realize there are saying something similar to what Shaikh writes but
for a completely different reason.
    The problem is not with the functional form Y= A L^(1-alpha) K^(alpha).
The econometric problem is the exogenity of these variables. There is a
classic endogenity problem with the term A and with the measurement of the
capital stock. Empirically the capital stock is prone to error becuase it is
measured in dollars and that shocks to production affect investment in the
current period which in turn effects the current capital stock. The bit
about technology is what Rodriguez-Claire and Klenow along with Dinopolous
and Thompson address. I see that there is nothing dishonest about not citing
Shaikh when we know that the problem is something quite different then he
what he tries to point out. The problem is not with distribution the problem
but because the equation Shaikh estimates keep capital exogenous, which is
contrary to the Solow model, and they treat technology as exogenous which is
why the estimates fall apart.

> Mr. Weatherby still does not point out anywhere the endogeneous growth
> models he likes have been shown empirically superior to Goodwin's model.


Nor can because I have never read Goodwin's model nor do I have any
intention on spending my scarce time on reading something that has nothing
to do with my models or the questions I am addressing. Unlike you Rob I
refuse to comment on papers I have never read.
I can not comment on Goodwin but I can comment on Shaikh's technique. His
evidence falls victim to the endogenity problem.