Re: Re: Re: US politics
I was wondering if you could give any insight into the mindset of Reich and other relatively intelligent mainstream or liberal political and economic commentators; is Reich for example, any more insightful in private than in public and is he aware of heterodox work? Same questions regarding Kuttner and any others you can think of. Come to think of it, whom would you and PEN listers consider to be interesting mainstream people who may be more progressive or insightful than most working in journalism, business and public affairs (i.e. not in academia or overtly progressive of heterodox groups) or even closet radicals. Thanks Dave Dorkin When I interviewed Robert Reich (as reported in a recent LBO), he said there was no political pressure to come up with low numbers, but he now concedes the projections are nonsense, and that there's no SS crisis. Now he tells us.
intelligent mainstream economic commentators?
I was wondering if anyone could give insight into the mindset of relatively intelligent mainstream or liberal political and economic commentators; are Kuttner and Reich, for example, aware of and sympathetic to heterodox work? Same questions regarding any others you can think of. Whom would PEN listers consider to be interesting mainstream people who may be more progressive or insightful than most working in journalism, business and public affairs (not in overtly progressive of heterodox groups like URPE etc) or even closet radicals. Thanks Dave Dorkin
Re: Re: Re: Re: Weber Help
Why on earth should it be an either/or choice at any rate? However, I think if you were familiar with social indicators for say, Brazil or El Salvador as compared to anywhere in Eastern Europe you might at least have the good sense to present a more nuanced view. Brad De Long wrote: I would point out that all of us--no matter what our nationality--should get down on our knees and thank God daily that over the twentieth century the decisive shaper of world culture was not one of the... alternative "mighty states": Russian officials, Japanese honor-bound authorities, German... ahem. Millions of Indochinese and Latin Americans might view American hegemony with a bit less cheer than you do. Doug And how would they view the hegemony of the mid-twentieth century Germans?
Manufacturing Consent (Chomsky) on TV tonight and tomorrow
For anyone who is interested and has Dishnetwork, Direct tv, or Worldlink tv on his or her cable system, Manufacturing Consent is on the Worldlink tv channel (a relatively new public network) tonight and twice tomorrow as well http://worldlinktv.com/
[PEN-L:12664] Re: RE: Re: Where's the Beef?
Well, one additional approach is to look at how different people across countries subjectively describe their own condition. The World Values Survey has been attempting to do this, among other things, for some time now. GDP can obviously of use for many reasons, but it has long since taken on a significance which it can not pretend to have without a more extensive explanation of its composition in each case. It may be that in public discourse with some, it is next to impossible to explain this, but that is another question entirely. Development for which sectors of a society, in what way, how, what are the subjective impressions of persons undergoing "development" or of "developed" peoples? Some info on this is available and is interesting. Regards Dave Max Sawicky wrote: Max Sawicky wrote: It boils down to this, if you're serious: Is it really the case that there is a lack of summary measures that indicate a widespread lack of development in the periphery over the past 50 years? Following your strictures not to question GDP as a measure of development, I guess it comes down to a matter of relative vs. absolute. - If you don't like GDP, give me something else that speaks to the issue. Give me hemorrhoids per capita between 1940 and 1999. Whatever. If you can't, you shouldn't say capitalism sustains itself on escalating misery in the Third World. You could, at the risk of being called names, say it subsists on uneven rates of increase. Or on the exhaustion of non-renewable resources that will lead to a fundamental crisis in the middle of the next century. mbs
[PEN-L:10098] International Inequality Comparisons?
Can anyone direct to any good, preferably online comparisons of inequality in both income and wealth across countries? I am aware of James Galbraith's working paper at CEPA and am looking for any other data sources and tables clearly presented if possible Thanks in advance Dave Dorkin
[PEN-L:10113] Argentina Intl.Inequality
I should probably point out why I was looking for more info today on inequality. In Pagina1 12, the Argentinian left daily, a report came out from an establishment consulting firm (FIEL)that the income share of the top 10% is 49.3% and not 37 as stated by Indec, the official agency in Argentina. Any comments on this? Thanks
[PEN-L:10119] Re: Argentina Intl.Inequality
Well, I'm sure you're aware of the fact that Argentina has traditionally been the most equally disributed country in the region historically; this approaches Brazilian levels and seems pretty significant to me coming as it does after a series of Menem and Cavallo reforms which are widely held to be successful by many. Here's FIEL's methodology as much as I can find. Let me know if you dont understand Spanish: ajusta los ingresos declarados por las familias en la encuesta de hogares del Indec, que se releva dos veces al año (en mayo y octubre), con la información proveniente de las llamadas cuentas nacionales (contabilidad que mide el Producto Bruto, el Ingreso Nacional y otras variables), que el Ministerio de Economía acaba de actualizar. Según las condiciones de trabajo del perceptor, los ingresos incluyen salarios, ingresos cuentapropistas, utilidades, intereses, renta y jubilaciones. Como el PBI que generan los argentinos ingresa en sus bolsillos en forma de salarios o ganancias del capital, las cuentas nacionales permiten chequear si lo declarado al Indec por los perceptores de ingresos es correcto. Doug Henwood wrote: Of what, income after taxes transfers? In U.S. pretax distribution in 1997, the top 20% had 49.4% of income, and the top 5%, 21.7%. They don't publish decile info, but around 38-40% isn't an ureasonable guess. Sounds like Argentina is very concentrated, since the U.S. is always the most unequal in the LIS rankings except for Russia. Doug
[PEN-L:10111] Re International Inequality Comparisons?
Right, but the Galbraith paper for example, makes an attempt to work around this and I was wondering if there were any other readily available papers or tables on this question of at least some use. Sorry for not expressing my question better. Thanks That's the only internationally comparable data. The UN and World Bank collect national data, but from different years using different techniques and definitions. The World Bank figures, for example, mix income and consumption data, which is analytically useless to compare. Doug
[PEN-L:10107] Re: Re: International Inequality Comparisons?
Thanks, but the Luxembourg study has little info on this and covers very few countries. I am familiar with the World Banks tables but they too are quite incomplete and difficult to read (in PDF form). Anyone know of anything else preferably with some analysis of the stats as well? try _Luxembourg Income Study_. Also _World Development Report_ has tables with gini index and income distribution by quantiles for most countries in the world. wojtek
[PEN-L:7581] Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: DeLong Compares Mao to Hitler
Is it not possible to use varying degrees of abstraction in the case of the US then and say that x millions of people died, led short brutish lives, or emigrated, due to US imposition of monocultural agriculture in their countries, provocation of coups and civil unrest, as well exports of arms to much of the world such as East Timor, Vietnam Guatemala etc? Why exempt the US on the basis of its avowed "democratic" principles a la Walter Lippman? If you accept explanations of death tolls for others, would you also accept them for the US? or would you simply dismiss anyone who made a case for this as being "ideological"? Brad De Long wrote: Gee. Other people complain that I do not abstract enough--that I argue too much from relevant historical contexts and so,as some put it, wind up making the same arguments that justify the Nazi New Order. Let me try to distinguish between two kinds of "relevant historical context." The first--which I reject completely and utterly--is that there is a difference between people killed by the Okhrana, shot by Franco's police, or starved to death because the Czar was uninterested in famine relief and the landlords were interested in exporting wheat through Odessa on the one hand; and people killed by the NKVD, or people starved to death because the soldiers took all their grain (and no one would dare tell Mao that the harvest was low) on the other hand because people who fall in the second group are counterrevolutionary scum or enemies of the people. Dead is dead. To deny the humanity of some of the dead seems to me to simply be anti-human.
[PEN-L:7044] Re: Baha'i in Iran
I've been looking into the Bahais for some time and the odd thing is that there is virtually no decent scholarship on them written by non-bahais. The only decent books I have found are written by ex-bahais (principally Juan Cole at U Mich). Their stance on academic freedom played a big role in losing them Cole, their most prominent academic as well as many other intellectuals. Anyone know of anything out there? Jim Devine wrote: Barkley wrote: Their [Baha'i] positions on women are also somewhat less than enlightened, although better than those of most of Islam, which they historically derived from. In Iran they are viewed as apostate heretics and thus subject to much more severe repression than other religious groups. They also suffer in Iran because many of them were involved in the Shah's regime. also, many of them were richer than most Iranis, so that there was resentment toward them (similar to much European feelings toward Jews) at the same time that the Ayatollah's stealing from them is more profitable than stealing from the average Mohammed.
[PEN-L:6612] New System For PC Music Stirs Concern Over Piracy
DEAN BAKER ON John Markoff New York Times, May 3, 1999, page C1 This article reports on a new product that will facilitate the transfer of music over the Internet. It also documents the efforts that the recording industry is taking to prevent this technology from spreading, including a court suit to have it banned. This again points to the increasing inefficiency of the copyright system as a means to support artistic work in the digital age.
[PEN-L:4160] Re: MUCH SCARIER THAN THE STUFF YOU SEND ME:
Sorry; intended for another recipient (still, it is pretty scary)
[PEN-L:4159] MUCH SCARIER THAN THE STUFF YOU SEND ME:
"When I want to get in touch with a market-oriented person or organization I first check Atlas's web page." Jerry Jordan Member of the Mont Pelerin Society President of the Federal Reserve Bank in Cleveland These are the right wing types you should be worried about: http://www.atlas-fdn.org/
[PEN-L:4151] LEFT WING THINK TANKS?
What would the list of left (or at least left of center) think tanks be? I count: Economic Policy Institute Institute for Policy Studies Jerome Levy Economics Institute ? Preamble Center Center for Economic Policy Analysis Transnational Institute The Century Foundation ? Center on Budget and Policy Priorities ? Any info on these and others I may have left out is greatly appreciated
[PEN-L:2304] Re: Re: Red Cross versus govt. collection of blood
Top graduates in France from their Grandes Ecoles almost always go into government service. Almost every minister you can think of there is aproduct of this system Michael Perelman wrote: Some time ago, the Nation ran a piece showing that Elizabeth Dole used the Red Cross tofurther her husband's political career. Even so, Brad is correct that you would want to create a public spirit, but the government seems to be a good place to start -- at least within the confines of our current system. The problem is that we do not hire good people to enter government, but instead we hire careerists. I understand that in Britain the top graduates of their universities went into government; the lesser people settled for academia and business. My source might have been wrong, but it is an interesting concept with regard to public service. Also, we would have to open government up to [an this contradicts my last point to some degree] all kinds of people, and not just elites. In a meritocracy, there might not be a contradiction. Ken Hanly wrote: Brad De Long better not come to Canada and suggest that the Red Cross is a good agency to collect and distribute blood! The Red Cross collected plasma from US prisons and managed to give AIDS to a number of haemophiliacs and others. THe Red Cross managed to destroy the credibility of the blood collection system and made it necessary to set up a new agency. The government has just been stuck with the task of compensating victims. Cheers, Ken Hanly -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
[PEN-L:2299] Re: Re: Judith Butler, etc.
So tell me; what is your response respond to this posting? (Since both Chomsky and the subject seem to come up alot here, I was wondering if anyone had a comment on this-Thanks) Dear Bill, Don't know if we met at MIT. I live a pretty crazy life, and sometimes can barely remember whether I've met my children recently. Hope you'll find a way out of the present bad situation. On postmodernism, I don't know anything about the Web, and don't know what you saw of mine on postmodernism, so a little hard to comment. But just keeping to what you wrote, I suspect we may be talking about different things. Running through your message, point by point. On theory, I don't object to the fact that postmodernism has no theories (i.e., nothing that could sustain a non-trivial argument). No one else does either, when we turn to human affairs or the kinds of things they are discussing. What I object to is that they proudly claim otherwise. Their productions are put forth as "grand theory," too deep for ordinary mortals to understand -- at least for me: I don't understand it, and am skeptical about whether there is any "theory" to understand. That's a great technique for enhancing one's own privilege while marginalizing the slobs. Does it serve any other function? If so, what? Am I missing some of the great achievements? If so, what? On the proof of Fermat's theorem, I have no independent judgment. Hence the word "apparently," which you picked up on quite accurately. I think we agree. On Evelyn Fox Keller, I also find her work very interesting, but don't see any connection to post-modernism (at least, in what both of us find interesting about it). As for it's being "a truism of our society that we're robots programmed by our DNA, which then interacts with the environment in such a complicated way that prediction tends to be impossible," and the failure of molecular biologists to prove this, I don't quite know what you mean. That what we do is the result of some complex interaction between our genetic endowment (which may not all be specified in DNA) and the course of experience -- that does seem to be close to truism. What else could play a role? God? That what we do is completely unpredictable is also true. There's been no progress since the Greeks on this, perhaps for quite fundamental reasons (I've written about this elsewhere, and won't repeat). But I don't see what this has to do with molecular biologists, still less with postmodernism. Every biologist and other scientist I know of agrees with you that "it's a still a complete mystery how an organism grows out a zygote." For a recent example, take Hazen's article on unsolved problems of science in the current issue of "Technology Review." I think you are pushing an open door on this one, and it has nothing to do with postmodernism. You write that "it's good that biologists have actually rejected the "master molecule" talk you still read about in glowing articles in Scientific American about the latest gene which controls trait X, but where the cybernetic craziness the biologists have gone into might be worse -- they've developed an obfuscatory language which allows them to think in same robotic metaphors." I don't recognize this from what I read in biology. There is a lot of fascinating work on "master" regulatory genes that seem to appear throughout organic forms, determining the development of body forms, eyes, etc., everywhere. If that's what you are referring to, it seems to be very enlightening and important. If something else, can't comment. But either way, I don't see the connection to postmodernism. Ruth Hubbard's work is also interesting. But I don't see the connection to postmodernism, or to serious biological science. On everything being a machine, surely no scientist should have believed this since Newton refuted the "mechanical philosophy" -- that is, the belief that the inorganic world is a machine -- outraging the scientific establishment (Huygens, Leibniz, Bernoulli, etc.) and himself as well, since he regarded this conclusion as absurd, and sought (vainly) to refute it for the rest of his life, as did Euler, D'Alembert, and other major figures of the 18th century -- and beyond; these efforts underlie the various ether theories. But by this century, Newton's demonstration that NOTHING is a machine has been almost universally accepted among scientists. So again, I don't see what the issue is. Or any connection to postmodernism (which, I admit, I don't understand). On Descartes's "ghost in the machine," that notion made sense in the time of Descartes, and was indeed straight, normal science. But the concept collapsed when Newton exorcised
[PEN-L:2254] Chomsky on postmodernism at Z36A2F103.CA36D25E@mindspring.com v04011701b2c903d3b3b5@[166.84.250.86]
(Since both Chomsky and the subject seem to come up alot here, I was wondering if anyone had a comment on this-Thanks) Dear Bill, Don't know if we met at MIT. I live a pretty crazy life, and sometimes can barely remember whether I've met my children recently. Hope you'll find a way out of the present bad situation. On postmodernism, I don't know anything about the Web, and don't know what you saw of mine on postmodernism, so a little hard to comment. But just keeping to what you wrote, I suspect we may be talking about different things. Running through your message, point by point. On theory, I don't object to the fact that postmodernism has no theories (i.e., nothing that could sustain a non-trivial argument). No one else does either, when we turn to human affairs or the kinds of things they are discussing. What I object to is that they proudly claim otherwise. Their productions are put forth as "grand theory," too deep for ordinary mortals to understand -- at least for me: I don't understand it, and am skeptical about whether there is any "theory" to understand. That's a great technique for enhancing one's own privilege while marginalizing the slobs. Does it serve any other function? If so, what? Am I missing some of the great achievements? If so, what? On the proof of Fermat's theorem, I have no independent judgment. Hence the word "apparently," which you picked up on quite accurately. I think we agree. On Evelyn Fox Keller, I also find her work very interesting, but don't see any connection to post-modernism (at least, in what both of us find interesting about it). As for it's being "a truism of our society that we're robots programmed by our DNA, which then interacts with the environment in such a complicated way that prediction tends to be impossible," and the failure of molecular biologists to prove this, I don't quite know what you mean. That what we do is the result of some complex interaction between our genetic endowment (which may not all be specified in DNA) and the course of experience -- that does seem to be close to truism. What else could play a role? God? That what we do is completely unpredictable is also true. There's been no progress since the Greeks on this, perhaps for quite fundamental reasons (I've written about this elsewhere, and won't repeat). But I don't see what this has to do with molecular biologists, still less with postmodernism. Every biologist and other scientist I know of agrees with you that "it's a still a complete mystery how an organism grows out a zygote." For a recent example, take Hazen's article on unsolved problems of science in the current issue of "Technology Review." I think you are pushing an open door on this one, and it has nothing to do with postmodernism. You write that "it's good that biologists have actually rejected the "master molecule" talk you still read about in glowing articles in Scientific American about the latest gene which controls trait X, but where the cybernetic craziness the biologists have gone into might be worse -- they've developed an obfuscatory language which allows them to think in same robotic metaphors." I don't recognize this from what I read in biology. There is a lot of fascinating work on "master" regulatory genes that seem to appear throughout organic forms, determining the development of body forms, eyes, etc., everywhere. If that's what you are referring to, it seems to be very enlightening and important. If something else, can't comment. But either way, I don't see the connection to postmodernism. Ruth Hubbard's work is also interesting. But I don't see the connection to postmodernism, or to serious biological science. On everything being a machine, surely no scientist should have believed this since Newton refuted the "mechanical philosophy" -- that is, the belief that the inorganic world is a machine -- outraging the scientific establishment (Huygens, Leibniz, Bernoulli, etc.) and himself as well, since he regarded this conclusion as absurd, and sought (vainly) to refute it for the rest of his life, as did Euler, D'Alembert, and other major figures of the 18th century -- and beyond; these efforts underlie the various ether theories. But by this century, Newton's demonstration that NOTHING is a machine has been almost universally accepted among scientists. So again, I don't see what the issue is. Or any connection to postmodernism (which, I admit, I don't understand). On Descartes's "ghost in the machine," that notion made sense in the time of Descartes, and was indeed straight, normal science. But the concept collapsed when Newton exorcised the machine (leaving the ghost intact). There's been a lot
[PEN-L:2256] Post Modernism
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --C775E3D3271770B5E606F984 http://www.zmag.org/instructionals/rtinstruc/id99%5Fm.htm --C775E3D3271770B5E606F984 nstruc/id99%5Fm.htm" HTML HEAD TITLEPost Modernism /TITLE = META http-equiv=3D"GENERATOR" CONTENT=3D"Created on Trellix, Exported wi= th ver. 2.0.0 HTML Exporter" = /HEAD BODY BGCOLOR=3D"#FF" TEXT=3D"#08" ALINK =3D"#80" LINK =3D"#F= F" VLINK=3D"#11" DIV ALIGN=3D"CENTER" FONT SIZE=3D"6" COLOR=3D"#11" FACE=3D"Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"B= Postmodernism/B/FONT/DIV DIV ALIGN=3D"CENTER" TABLE CELLPADDING=3D"0" CELLSPACING=3D"0" BORDER=3D"0" VSPACE=3D"0" HSPA= CE=3D"0" TR TD HEIGHT=3D"15" /TD/TR TR TD ALIGN=3D"CENTER"FONT SIZE=3D"5" COLOR=3D"#11" FACE=3D"Arial,H= elvetica,sans-serif"BMichael Albert/B/FONT/TD /TR /TABLE /DIV bR TABLE CELLPADDING=3D"0" CELLSPACING=3D"0" BORDER=3D"0" VSPACE=3D"0" HSPA= CE=3D"0" TR TD HEIGHT=3D"15" /TD/TR TR TD ALIGN=3D"LEFT"FONT SIZE=3D"3" COLOR=3D"#11" FACE=3D"Arial,Hel= vetica,sans-serif"BA little over two years ago, preparing to ride from= Boston to New York to attend the Socialist Scholars Conference, I asked = a scholar friend to explain quot;postmodernismquot; in the four to five= hours we would spend on the road. He accepted, and we rode#151;he lectu= ring and me listening./B/FONT/TD /TR /TABLE TABLE CELLPADDING=3D"0" CELLSPACING=3D"0" BORDER=3D"0" VSPACE=3D"0" HSPA= CE=3D"0" TR TD HEIGHT=3D"15" /TD/TR TR TD ALIGN=3D"LEFT"FONT SIZE=3D"3" COLOR=3D"#11" FACE=3D"Arial,Hel= vetica,sans-serif"BWhen we got to New York if someone had walked up an= d asked, quot;What is postmodernism?quot; I could not have answered. Fo= ur hours and I still didn't know what quot;postmodernismquot; referred = to. Three interpretations spring to mind./B/FONT/TD /TR /TABLE TABLE CELLPADDING=3D"0" CELLSPACING=3D"0" BORDER=3D"0" VSPACE=3D"0" HSPA= CE=3D"0" TR TD HEIGHT=3D"15" WIDTH=3D"60" /TDTD WIDTH=3D"12"/TDTD /TD= /TR TR TD ALIGN=3D"LEFT" WIDTH=3D"60" VALIGN =3D "top" IMG BORDER=3D"0" SRC= =3D"1x1.gif" HEIGHT=3D"1" ALIGN=3D"bottom" WIDTH=3D"60" HSPACE=3D"0" VSPA= CE=3D"0"/TD TD ALIGN=3D"LEFT" WIDTH=3D"12" VALIGN=3D"top"NOBRFONT SIZE=3D"3" C= OLOR=3D"#11" FACE=3D"Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"#149;/FONTFONT S= IZE=3D"2"nbsp;nbsp;/FONT/NOBR/TD TD ALIGN=3D"LEFT"FONT SIZE=3D"3" COLOR=3D"#11" FACE=3D"Arial,Hel= vetica,sans-serif"BMy tutor was an idiot incapable of explaining one c= oncept in four hours. /B/FONT/TD /TR /TABLE TABLE CELLPADDING=3D"0" CELLSPACING=3D"0" BORDER=3D"0" VSPACE=3D"0" HSPA= CE=3D"0" TR TD HEIGHT=3D"15" WIDTH=3D"60" /TDTD WIDTH=3D"12"/TDTD /TD= /TR TR TD ALIGN=3D"LEFT" WIDTH=3D"60" VALIGN =3D "top" IMG BORDER=3D"0" SRC= =3D"1x1.gif" HEIGHT=3D"1" ALIGN=3D"bottom" WIDTH=3D"60" HSPACE=3D"0" VSPA= CE=3D"0"/TD TD ALIGN=3D"LEFT" WIDTH=3D"12" VALIGN=3D"top"NOBRFONT SIZE=3D"3" C= OLOR=3D"#11" FACE=3D"Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"#149;/FONTFONT S= IZE=3D"2"nbsp;nbsp;/FONT/NOBR/TD TD ALIGN=3D"LEFT"FONT SIZE=3D"3" COLOR=3D"#11" FACE=3D"Arial,Hel= vetica,sans-serif"BI am an idiot incapable of understanding one concep= t in four hours. /B/FONT/TD /TR /TABLE TABLE CELLPADDING=3D"0" CELLSPACING=3D"0" BORDER=3D"0" VSPACE=3D"0" HSPA= CE=3D"0" TR TD HEIGHT=3D"15" WIDTH=3D"60" /TDTD WIDTH=3D"12"/TDTD /TD= /TR TR TD ALIGN=3D"LEFT" WIDTH=3D"60" VALIGN =3D "top" IMG BORDER=3D"0" SRC= =3D"1x1.gif" HEIGHT=3D"1" ALIGN=3D"bottom" WIDTH=3D"60" HSPACE=3D"0" VSPA= CE=3D"0"/TD TD ALIGN=3D"LEFT" WIDTH=3D"12" VALIGN=3D"top"NOBRFONT SIZE=3D"3" C= OLOR=3D"#11" FACE=3D"Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"#149;/FONTFONT S= IZE=3D"2"nbsp;nbsp;/FONT/NOBR/TD TD ALIGN=3D"LEFT"FONT SIZE=3D"3" COLOR=3D"#11" FACE=3D"Arial,Hel= vetica,sans-serif"BThe concept is idiotic, a vague pastiche of mush co= vering a range too broad to clarify in four hours. /B/FONT/TD /TR /TABLE TABLE CELLPADDING=3D"0" CELLSPACING=3D"0" BORDER=3D"0" VSPACE=3D"0" HSPA= CE=3D"0" TR TD HEIGHT=3D"15" /TD/TR TR TD ALIGN=3D"LEFT"FONT SIZE=3D"3" COLOR=3D"#11" FACE=3D"Arial,Hel= vetica,sans-serif"BThe third possibility, as you might guess, is my fa= vorite. But how could a concept which engenders shelves of books be nearl= y empty? Here's my hypothesis: Literary theory is largely a sham literary= theorists use to cajole regal treatment from their professional cohorts,= bosses, students, and broader intellectual community./B/FONT/TD /TR /TABLE TABLE CELLPADDING=3D"0" CELLSPACING=3D"0" BORDER=3D"0" VSPACE=3D"0" HSPA= CE=3D"0" TR TD HEIGHT=3D"15" /TD/TR TR TD ALIGN=3D"LEFT"FONT SIZE=3D"3" COLOR=3D"#11" FACE=3D"Arial,Hel= vetica,sans-serif"BHow can I commit such blasphemy?/B/FONT/TD /TR /TABLE TABLE CELLPADDING=3D"0" CELLSPACING=3D"0" BORDER=3D"0" VSPACE=3D"0" HSPA= CE=3D"0" TR TD HEIGHT=3D"15" /TD/TR TR TD ALIGN=3D"LEFT"FONT SIZE=3D"3" COLOR=3D"#11" FACE=3D"Arial,Hel= vetica,sans-serif"BFirst, calling an academic discipline phony is
[PEN-L:864] Grad programs in econ
Hi. I'm considering enrolling in a doctoral program in econ in one of the heterodox departments. I was wondering if anyone has any advice about heterodox departments as well as the idea of a doctorate in econ, as opposed to to sociology or pol.sc. given the state of the discipline and future job prospects (for non neo-classicals). All info is appreciated. Thanks in advance David Dorkin
