It looks like Brad has emulated the goddess Eris, who (in the myth) spawned
the Trojan War by setting up a contest about which goddess was prettiest.
In our context, this has set up a conflict about who's "really" radical or
"really" Marxist, along with characterizations of what kind of work people
do. Of course, we didn't really need that much of a push, did we?
Frankly, I think that the JEP articles should be done by whomever really
wants to do them. There's some sort of princely payment in return, right Brad?
At 06:19 PM 2/2/00 -0500, you wrote:
>Who is actually doing micro from a radical perspective?
>
>What does that even mean?
>
>Ron Baiman is into it. Steven Marglin used to,
>haven't been keeping up w/his work since I was
>assigned his cost-benefit paper in grad school.
>But I see them in the same mold as Robin.
>
>If you're saying Hahnel is too fixed on markets
>and quasi-markets clearing, I don't think that's
>a handicap in this context. If you don't start
>with markets and quasi-markets, what do you have?
>Organizations? Somebody dig up Kenneth Boulding.
>Maybe Brad needs Stiglitz to
>debate Stiglitz. Or maybe he should set up
>a sociologist versus economist shoot-out. I'm
>confident the former would love the opportunity.
>One of them told me once, "you economists have
>totally screwed up policy debate. You
>individualize everything."
>
>mbs
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Peter Dorman
>Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2000 4:47 PM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: [PEN-L:15981] Re: RE: Journal of Economic Perspectives
>
>
>I agree with Max about Barkley. (We could insert Robert Blecker when
>trade rolls around.) On the micro side, as much as I appreciate the work
>Robin has done on welfare economics, I'd have to say he's too walrasian
>to be representative. He's even more walrasian than a lot of
>mainstreamers, and a lot more than someone like Stiglitz. (Not more
>walrasian than Roemer, though...)
>
>Micro is a problem, actually. Since this is where my main interest lies,
>I would really appreciate any leads on innovative, radical micro thinking
>-- especially work that can be used in applied and policy analysis.
>
>Peter
>
>Max Sawicky wrote:
>
> > I nominate Rosser. He seems more aware than most
> > of what a variety of off-center people are doing,
> > particularly on the macro side. Just as long as
> > he doesn't go into trade theory, where he transmutes
> > into B DeLong. On the micro side, I'd say Robin
> > Hahnel.
> >
> > A problem others note is the meaning of 'radical.'
> > There should be some place for the "post-K's."
> > Obvious possibilities there are Davidson and/or
> > Galbraith.
> >
> > For sympathetic mainstream listeners, I'd go w/
> > Blinder & Stiglitz. A Hahnel/Stiglitz exchange
> > would be pretty neat. Failing Stiglitz, maybe
> > Akerlof?
> >
> > mbs
> >
> > A while ago the _JEP_ had a short symposium on "Austrian" economics:
> > Harvey Rosen wrote a sympathetic critique of the Austrian school, and
> > Leland Yeager responded. This seemed to work: communication was
> > accomplished. The selection of Harvey as someone definitely in the
> > establishment but not unsympathetic to the Austrian point of view
> > proved a good way to get Austrian concerns and views in front of the
> > _JEP's_ readership. The selection of Leland to comment prevented the
> > symposium from collapsing into being just Harvey Rosen's view of
> > Austrian economics.
> >
> > Should the powers-that-be at the _JEP_ decide that it is time to do
> > the same thing for "Radical" economics, who should play the role of
> > Harvey Rosen? Who should play the role of Leland Yeager?
> >
> > Brad DeLong
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine
