new instituonalism school can discuss with small changes int ehframework.
So My point is, since them it all seems ilusory.. maybe I am wrong.
At elast Keynnes made some sense of the structure, but nowadays economists sound like them in the terms of illusory structrues.
Maybe I am wrong though.
A pleasure I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude
... after enough examples, at Tennessee we decided that "New" is an acronym for "No Effing Way". "New Institional" is No Effing Way Institutional, "New Keynesian" is No Effing Way Keynesian, "New Classical" is No Effing Way Classical.
The frustrating thing about the New Institutional approach is that they have an analytical toolkit that could be used to consider questions beyond the limit of what traditional marginalist economics can talk about ... but they refrain from doing so in order to remain in contact with traditional marginalist economics. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
