Rosser Jr, John Barkley wrote:
>
> Actually I think that this discussion, although I am
> not going to participate further in the dino extinction
> part of it, is relevant. I remind that this arose out of a
> debate over environmental/ecological economic issues. It
> slid over into a discussion of the more purely ecological
> side of things. But, all should keep in mind that the
> coevolving ecosystem includes the economy and the mutual
> interactions between the human (economic) and the non-human
> parts of the broader ecosystem. The relevance of
> "exogenous shocks" (asteroids, etc.) versus "endogenous
> shocks" (complex ecosystems undergoing rapid changes as
> they cross certain crucial thresholds) is obviously
> relevant in just plain old garden variety econ as well.
> Barkley Rosser
> On Tue, 28 Apr 1998 07:53:05 -0700 James Devine
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Robin writes:
> > >I thought this was a list for economists. Well, OK, not exactly
> > >economists but political economists. Is that what makes a political
> > >economist different from a mainstream economist. We talk about asteroids
> > >and dinosaurs?
> >
> > I think one thing that distinguishes us from mainstream economists is that
> > we're willing to talk about almost everything (as long as we have some kind
> > of informed opinion). More importantly, we're willing to talk about
> > everything -- but don't imitate Gary Becker to reduce everything to the
> > "exchange with maximizing subject to constraints" story.
I was only joking about what political economists do or should think and
talk about. I would never dream of suggesting that anyone on this list
restrict the width of their intellectual gaze or comments.
