Jim Craven wrote: Dave's work is very deep and somewhat molelike. As an editor and final technical reviewer on Colander's Economics 3rd Ed., I had many exchanges with Dave on incorporating non-linear dynamics, the spread of ideas and institutional resistance to development/critique of theory, the "education" of new economists etc. He thought some of my proposals for Economics 3rd Edition would kill the book in less than a week (some were indeed somewhat outrageous like using the metaphor of a singles bar to explain various forms of "efficiency" (technological, economic, productive, consumer, exchange and allocative) e.g. maximizing output per unit of input or minimizing input per unit of output--the dance of maximization common in all singles bars. But Colander is a very deep thinker whose writings often do for his CV and career what Jaws I,II and III did for ocean bathing. ----------------------------------------------------- I agreee that much of Colander's book is very good for teaching an intro course. But one thing keeps me from using the book. He shares the view that you cannot teach intro without some historical background. I start every micro class with 1 1/2 weeks of econ. history. I can't use his book because his history chapter is TERRIBLE. It is written from the perspective that markets have always existed, so capitalism is different from feudalism and slavery only in some minor details. If your view of history comes from that chapter, it is impossible to bring in the idea of different modes of production, different class relations, etc. He may be critical of some of the neoclassical tools, but he shares their view that one can use those tools to analyze slave and hunting and gathering societies. It seems to me his critique of NC comes out of the Austrian school. But we have to remember that the enemy of our enemy is not our friend. Austrians have developed some great rhetoric to attack NC, but thier views are more anto-social and anti-human than the NC views. Doug Orr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
