I would add one other link to what Jim wrote: the Chapman proposal may have merit, but to make it overcome powerful interests requires that it be communicated in a way that is widely understood and, at the same time, the answers to the obvious objections are made clear beforehand. I think that this gap is the reason why people here respond in a way that Tom sees himself saying the same thing over and over.
I know that Tom has been working on this for years and that he also has a facility with language. One of my greatest hopes for the list when I first began it was that it would provide a means of articulating radical ideas in a way that would resonate with a wider population. Although I have tried to do this in my own work, I cannot pretend that I have succeeded. In suggesting that other people might do so, keep in mind that I am aware of my own deficiencies in this regard. Sabri has mentioned several times about making a movie. I believe he is correct, in the sense that we need to find a vehicle to speak more effectively. But, before we do so, we need to develop a compelling script in which we can make ourselves heard. From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jim Devine Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2011 10:24 AM To: Progressive Economics Subject: Re: [Pen-l] My blog rant Dipping into academic deconstructions of Chapman's work seems a real distraction. As Shane Mage points out, the real issue is political. Michael Perelman _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
