In previous papers [Spear and Young (2014, 2015)], we surveyed the origins, evolution, and dissemination of optimal growth, two-sector and turnpike models up to the early 1970s. Regarding subsequent developments in growth theory, a number of prominent observers, such as Fischer (1988), Stern (1991), and McCallum (1996), maintained that after significant progress in the 1950s and 1960s, economic growth theory “received relatively little attention for almost two decades” [Fischer (1988, p. 329)], and that “by the late 1960s early 1970s, research on the theory of growth more or less stopped” [Stern (1991, p. 259)]. Stern went on to say “the latter half of the 1980s saw a rekindling of growth theory, particularly in the work of Romer . . . and Lucas” (1991, p. 259), that is to say, in the form of “endogenous growth” models. McCallum, for his part, wrote (1996, p. 41), “After a long period of quiescence, growth economics has in the last decade (1986–1995) become an extremely active area of research.” Moreover, Brock and Mirman's (1972b) paper was the sole “extension” of Ramsey–Cass–Koopmans to a “stochastic environment” mentioned by McCallum (1996, 49).

In recent years there has been a rapid expansion of the ranges of speed and altitude that are of practical interest to aircraft and missile designers. In consequence, several new terms have been introduced to describe the new flow regimes that require to be considered and, at the same time the meanings of some of the older terms have undergone a measure of modification. The meanings attached to these terms by different workers have not always been consistent, differences have sometimes arisen from the differences of outlook between theoretical and experimental workers or between those concerned primarily with the motion of a fluid and those concerned primarily with the forces on a body in the fluid. To avoid the confusion that may readily arise if such differences become too well established it was felt desirable at this stage to attempt the formulation of unambiguous definitions of the more important terms in current use.

Two patients with previous cerebral damage and seizures and three patients with acute inflammatory cerebral lesions developed status epilepticus. They were unresponsive to standard anticonvulsants, but anesthetic barbiturates (thiopental and pentobarbital) stopped the seizures promptly.

Brain death and the persistent vegetative state (PVS) share the following features: 1.) There is death of neurons in the brain; 2.) Both require an etiology which is capable of causing neuronal death. 3.) The potential for cognition is totally and permanently lost; 4.) Intensive medical support is usually withdrawn. In contrast, the diagnosis of brain death depends on death of the brainstem, while PVS implies permanent and total loss of forebrain function. While brainstem death can be diagnosed clinically, accurate prognosis in PVS requires additional investigation. Thus far, the EEG is the most specific test of neuronal function in the cerebral cortex. Brain death is equivalent to death, while PVS is not; management of the latter is more complex because of medical, social, ethical and legal factors.

A review of patients with epilepsy showed that 5.9% had seizures exclusively in sleep (ES) and 4.7% had seizures predominantly but not exclusively in sleep (PS). These groups were compared with a group (W) with seizures mainly in wakefulness. The following significant differences were obtained: 1) generalized convulsions predominated in the ES while partial seizures were more common among PS and W patients, 2) seizures occurred less frequently in the ES group, and 3) more W patients had EEGs with generalized epileptiform activity and positive family histories for epilepsy.

We suggest the lower frequency of seizures in the ES group and the declining prevalence of sleep epilepsy are due to: 1) the high proportion of generalized as opposed to partial seizures in sleep and 2) more effective control of generalized seizures compared to partial seizures by modern anti-epileptic drug management.

The transcript of a panel discussion marking three decades of the real business cycle approach to macroeconomic analysis as manifested in Kydland and Prescott's “Time to Build” (Econometrica, 1982) and Long and Plosser's “Real Business Cycles” (Journal of Political Economy, 1983). The panel consists of Edward Prescott, Finn Kydland, Charles Plosser, John Long, Thomas Cooley, and Gary Hansen. The discussion is moderated by Sumru Altug and Warren Young. The panel touches on a wide variety of issues related to real business cycle models, including their history and methodology, starting with the work of Prescott and Kydland at Carnegie Tech and Plosser and Long at Rochester; their applications to policy; and their role in the recent financial crisis and likely future.

The panel discussion was held in a session sponsored by the History of Economics Society at the Allied Social Sciences Association (ASSA) meetings in the Randle A Room of the Manchester Grand Hyatt Hotel in San Diego, California.

This paper deals with the development of growth models from the optimal one-sector neoclassical approach of Cass–Malinvaud–Koopmans vintage, through two-sector, multisector, and turnpike models, and proceeds to discuss their displacement by the single-sector stochastic growth model. We also focus on the definitional shift regarding the turnpike. This is done by surveying both unpublished and published work by Uzawa, Cass, Koopmans, and McKenzie regarding growth and the turnpike, the cross-fertilization between them, and how this brought about the conflation of optimality and the turnpike, and the metamorphosis of the notion of the turnpike, from that of Dorfman–Samuelson Solow, to the Koopmans–McKenzie “amalgam” of models. Finally, the appearance of endogenous growth models, based on the work of Shell and Uzawa, is dealt with.

This paper surveys the contributions of David Cass, Tjalling Koopmans, and Edmond Malinvaud over the decades during which modern optimal growth theory was developed. By utilizing material ranging from dissertations, drafts, and working papers through conference presentations, discussions, and published papers, we show that both Malinvaud and Cass had significant impacts on the evolution of Koopman's thought, and the development of his part of what is known as “the Cass–Koopmans model.” Based on our findings, we conclude that the modern optimal growth model should include the contributions of Malinvaud, and be retitled “the Cass–Malinvaud–Koopmans” model accordingly.

The transcript of a panel discussion marking the 50th anniversary of John Muth's “Rational Expectations and the Theory of Price Movements” (Econometrica 1961). The panel consisted of Michael Lovell, Robert Lucas, Dale Mortensen, Robert Shiller, and Neil Wallace. The discussion was moderated by Kevin Hoover and Warren Young. The panel touched on a wide variety of issues related to the rational-expectations hypothesis, including its history, starting with Muth's work at Carnegie Tech; its methodological role; applications to policy; its relationship to behavioral economics; its role in the recent financial crisis; and its likely future.

The panel discussion was held in a session sponsored by the History of Economics Society at the Allied Social Sciences Association (ASSA) meetings in the Capitol 1 Room of the Hyatt Regency Hotel in Denver, Colorado.