nathan wrote: > I think the assumption that the more PhDs we have, the better is a > questionable one. the amount of people with doctorates has risen but i > don't think that has brought positive political developments.
Okay, I meant this in the political sense: the more working people, non-whites, women, non-heterosexuals, leftists (socialists, Marxists, all that), etc. go through higher education, grad programs, etc. and get those credentials (and hopefully much more than just the credentials), the better. In an ideal world, other things equal, statements made by people without credentials should be given equal consideration as those made by people with credentials. In the mean time, we need to leverage our credentials when we have them. This is also, by the way, another reason why we need to *critically appropriate* and critically improve on the conventional tools of economic analysis. Our critiques will not be given due consideration if we snipe at bourgeois economics from the outside, with only a superficial understanding of it. Consider HAP, these guys went ahead and tried to *replicate* the work that RR did, and that is part of the reason why they got the mileage they got. They weren't questioning the deepest philosophical premises, which shouldn't be read as an endorsement of such philosophical premises. Not that we should question those premises. I mean, we can and should do both -- walk and chew gum. But chew gum we also must. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
