I have certainly tried to communicate the Chapman analysis in published articles and conference presentations. It is not that Chapman is so difficult but that people have preconceptions and prejudices that lead them to not merely reject Chapman's analysis but to reject even considering Chapman's analysis. Those prejudices are hard-wired into the grammar of "economics" as we know it today. People are speaking 'prose' without even knowing it. And that prose is Martineau's -- not Marx, Keynes or even Ricardo, Smith or MIll.
With regard to the movie gambit, it may be worth pondering the affinities and differences between Martineau and melodrama. What? Martineau and melodrama? Yes, see John Vint (2007), "Harriet Martineau and Industrial Strife: From Theory into Fiction into Melodrama." See also Nicholas Daly (1998), "Blood on the Tracks: Sensation Drama, the Railway, and the Dark Face of Modernity." On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 10:49 AM, Perelman, Michael <[email protected]>wrote: > 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 > -- Sandwichman
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
