For years I avoided articles that started "neoclassical theory is wrong because...". I found that the criticisms were not as good as the ones made by the neoclassical economists themselves.
Then I read Lee and Keen's "The Incoherent Emperor," which summarized the good critiques I missed all those years. >Doug Henwood wrote: >> I was at Yale from 1971 to 1975 when the English department was really >> cooking - Bloom, Hartman, de Man, Derrida sometimes. You may find that gang >> to be full of it - I didn't, and still don't - but it was intellectually >> very alive.< > >I think I've figured out what I don't like about literary criticism. >It's not the lit crit _per se_ (after all, a lot of economics is BS, >too). It's just that there's so little follow-through to write novels >and other literature based on the criticisms. > >But since I'm not a literatum, my vision of this issue is likely >blurred at best. My barb is based on generalization from experience >with so many "heterodox" economists who talk about methodology but so >seldom apply what they perceive as a correct methodology; if they do, >they rarely seem to come out with much in the way of new >understandings of reality. I'm not against discussions of methodology >_per se_ as much as _stopping_ with it. >-- >Jim Devine / "In an ugly and unhappy world the richest man can >purchase nothing but ugliness and unhappiness." -- George Bernard Shaw >_______________________________________________ >pen-l mailing list >[email protected] >https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > > _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
