At 16:44 23/05/02 -0700, Eugene Coyle wrote:
Robert, I haven't read your article but will make an effort to find it.
A better article might be the one I did for the Pennsylvania Economic
Association, which I can send you via attachment:
Political and Social Economics: A Framework and Some
Jim asked how I would teach, instead of neo-classical micro.
I've asserted that neo-classical is a story. A story, propaganda,
designed and intended to subjagate.
right, though I don't think it was designed as much as happened: a bunch
of folks really like the calculus and other math and
RE
or with Mayo Toruno's book.
The second edition of Mayo's book, The Political Economics of Capitalism,
will appear in the not-too-distant future. It will be published by Atomic
Dog Press.
http://www.atomicdogpublishing.com/home.asp
Eric
Robert,
Thanks for being so gracious in your reply to my not so gracious post.
And, yes, do send me your article -- off list probably is better -- by reducing
the volume for others. The framework for keeping track of assumptions sounds
useful.
There was a good 10 page summary of the
Jim,
I've said about all I can say -- I think our disagreement
comes down to this: I think it is a mistake to give any ground, any
voice at all, to neo-classical micro. If I am not misinterpreting
you, you think that after beginning with neo-classical a critique can be
crafted that will put
Brad did not know about Schumpeter?
Eugene Coyle wrote:
Of course, NC economics allows for ANYTHING. Every time a hole in
logic or absurd assumption is raised, the reply is Well, yes, but ...
and then a new wrinkle is trotted out to preserve the
story/propaganda for another generation.
Gene
says: I've said about all I can say -- I
think our disagreement comes down to this: I think it is a mistake to give
any ground, any voice at all, to neo-classical micro.
I
don't believe in compromising with NC economics. But I don't think that some
theories that are identified as
Sorry; I originally sent this on the wrong thread.
Okay. I have an article which outlines my approach to teaching in all my
courses (though I am sorry to say it is mostly micro):
Robert Scott Gassler, The Theory of Political and Social Economics: Beyond
the Neoclassical Perspective, Journal
Robert Scott Gassler, The Theory of Political
and Social Economics: Beyond the Neoclassical
Perspective, Journal of Interdisciplinary Economics,
Vol. 9, No.2, 1998, pp.93-124.
Hi Robert,
Is your article available online? If not, and if you have an
electronic copy, could you please send me
Robert, I haven't read your article but will make an effort to find it.
I disagree with the direction you are taking. Have you ever been at a
conference with a panel up front, putting out a line? They might have a bit of
disagreement but essentially they agree. Someone from the floor takes
The problem is much worse than lying economists. Economists believe
what they say.
Would a biology or other science teacher start with teaching Creationism
and then critiquing it around the edges by pointing out some counter
evidence? It seems to me that anyone teaching micro is doing that ---
Eugene Coyle writes:
The problem is much worse than lying economists. Economists believe what
they say.
right.
Would a biology or other science teacher start with teaching Creationism
and then critiquing it around the edges by pointing out some counter
evidence? It seems to me that anyone
Devine, James wrote:
Eugene Coyle writes:
The problem is much worse than lying economists. Economists believe what
they say.
right.
Would a biology or other science teacher start with teaching Creationism
and then critiquing it around the edges by pointing out some counter
evidence?
Eugene writes:
I think your answer points up how serious the problem is.
Sounds like you (me, everybody) don't have a framework.
I draw the inference from your post -- apologies if this
is incorrect -- that you are saying, Well, you don't have a framework to
start with, so we
Ian wrote:
Second to last sentence: just think of the three
body problem of celestial mechanics.
I thought about it very hard to no avail. What is this three body
problem of celestial mechanics? Who is Perelman?
Sabri
Jim,
Two rejoinders. You say "If given a choice..."
Aren't you given a choice? If not, what does that say?
And you say, to slice out one sentence,
That doesn't work in teaching, so I
simply use a cleaned-up version of the neoclassical models, with a minimum
emphasis on the imaginary
You should know that Perelman wrote all the Marx brothers scripts.
On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 03:39:11PM -0700, Sabri Oncu wrote:
Who is Perelman?
Sabri
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: Sabri Oncu [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ian wrote:
Second to last sentence: just think of the three
body problem of celestial mechanics.
I thought about it very hard to no avail. What is this three body
problem of celestial mechanics? Who is Perelman?
And how are you (me, us) going to get an alternative theory if we keep
honoring neoclassical models?
so what's your alternative?
JD
Jim asked how I would teach, instead of neo-classical micro.
I've asserted that neo-classical is a story. A story, propaganda,
designed and intended to subjagate.
Well, I would tell a different story. The neoclassical story is that
firms maximize profits, fight competition by cutting prices,
Isn't that what lawyers are trained to do?
On Tue, May 21, 2002 at 07:56:47PM +, Justin Schwartz wrote:
Because it's hard to communicate clearly and effectively when you're lying.
But Friedman's popular writing isn't economics,
No. Can can write well in his technical articles and
Justin: But Friedman's popular writing isn't economics, it's standard
bourgeois
ideology of a rather blatant sort. I recently reread parts of Cap Freedom,
same old same old. No attempt to do what Gould does, explain scientific
results to the general reader. You know who's good at this in
and economics
Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 13:09:04 -0700
Isn't that what lawyers are trained to do?
On Tue, May 21, 2002 at 07:56:47PM +, Justin Schwartz wrote:
Because it's hard to communicate clearly and effectively when you're
lying.
Lawyer jokes aside, no, it's not. Unlike
I admire both Galbraith and Heilbroner, but it always seemed clear to me
that Heilbroner (save maybe his New Yorker articles or whatever) was
writing at a more complex, deeper level (even in NYRB--articles on
Schumpeter, Keynes, etc.). One may differ with, e.g., his
interpretation of dialectics
I might have added Phil Mirowski as an excellent writer, although he does
not usually write for an popular audience.
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: michael perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 8:20 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:26168] Re: RE: RE: Lies, damned lies, and economics
I might have added Phil Mirowski as an excellent writer, although he does
not usually write
What does it mean to say that economists deliberately
*lie* in a world where the relation of theories and evidences
is one/many of underdetermination?
Ian
In my understanding underdetermination is associated with the
observation that the system always finds a solution. To put this
in
From: Sabri Oncu [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What does it mean to say that economists deliberately
*lie* in a world where the relation of theories and evidences
is one/many of underdetermination?
Ian
In my understanding underdetermination is associated with the
observation that the system
28 matches
Mail list logo
