Let's make it fun. Get Krugman to do the review of lefty economics and
William Greider to respond.
Tom Walker
I like Paul a lot. Paul has been very good to me. Paul can't do a
sympathetic critique of *anyone*. I don't think it would accomplish
my educational objectives...
But you are right:
Jim Devine wrote
The only way to successfully debate PK, therefore, is to
present a theory. Ideally, it would be a general theory
which would include PK's theory as a special case.
Can anyone on pen-l provide?
Here's my theory, it's a play on Keynes' famous quote:
"Practical men, who
As the word "post-Marxist" is used, it usually has a large anti-Marxist
content, just as "post-modernism" is anti-modernist. (However, "Post
Keynesian" (which lacks a hyphen, for unknown reason) is pro-Keynes.) I
think the terms that Fred Moseley uses are good: radical and Marxist (or
neo-Marxist
Jim Devine wrote:
However, "Post Keynesian" (which lacks a hyphen, for unknown reason)
That's the way Paul Davidson spells it. I asked him about that once,
and here's his answer:
In the 1970s when Sidney Weintraub and I were organizing a new journal we
asked our editorial board for possible
But then what do we do with all the pre-post-Marxists (I'm asking for trouble
here) and the flat-out never-were-Marxists like me?
Peter
Brad De Long wrote:
It seems to me that "radical economics" does not denote a coherent entity
the way "Austrian economics" does. There are too many
That hurts...
Jim Devine wrote:
sounds like Peter Dorman should play the role of Harvey Rosen
I think Brad De Long's idea of a JEP mini-symposium on "radical
economics" is an excellent one, which I appreciate.
One possibility to consider: I edited a book published in 1995 entitled
*Heterodox Economic Theories: True or False* (the title was a take-off on
one of Mark Blaug's books). One
Radicals tend to agree on objectives (loosely) and they
share a dislike for the status quo in both the economics profession and
the wider universe, but that's about it.
You can't just be against something. You have to be for something. Or
there's no there there...
Brad DeLong, peering out his
I nominate Rosser. He seems more aware than most
of what a variety of off-center people are doing,
particularly on the macro side. Just as long as
he doesn't go into trade theory, where he transmutes
into B DeLong. On the micro side, I'd say Robin
Hahnel.
A problem others note is the meaning
Some time ago, I spoke with Tim Taylor, editor of the Journal of Economic
Perspectives, about the possibility of a survey of radical economics.
I, at least, am somewhat allergic to the word "survey." "Survey"
calls up the image of an article for the _Journal of Economic
Literature_ or the
Brad De Long wrote:
Brad, I think that it would be interesting to make it a collective effort on
the list.
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I agree with Max about Barkley. (We could insert Robert Blecker when
trade rolls around.) On the micro side, as much as I appreciate the work
Robin has done on welfare economics, I'd have to say he's too walrasian
to be representative. He's even more walrasian than a lot of
mainstreamers, and
Marxists economists are radical economists. Marxist economists are against capitalism
and for replacing it with socialism. This is the Marxist fulfillment of the obligation
to have both a negative and positive critique.
Hey , Brad, look. There goes Angela Davis, a radical
CB
Brad De Long
As I've said in the past, the real glue in radical or left economics is not
methodological but normative. We share (most of us) an appreciation for
"positive" as well as (or even for some at the expense of) "negative"
freedom, and so equality is a greater priority. We also tend to place a
At 02:00 PM 2/2/00 -0800, you wrote:
Brad De Long wrote:
Brad, I think that it would be interesting to make it a collective effort on
the list.
I know that I can't participate in such a collective effort. Too much work.
I can only write about what strikes my fancy at the moment, not as part of
My own intuition would be to begin with the way a radical economist approaches a
problem, emphasizing the methodological differences. Once that point is made
clear, then you can lay the groundwork for what Peter called the cacophony of
radical economics. In any case, I think that you'll find
]On Behalf Of Peter Dorman
Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2000 4:47 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:15981] Re: RE: Journal of Economic Perspectives
I agree with Max about Barkley. (We could insert Robert Blecker when
trade rolls around.) On the micro side, as much as I appreciate the work
Robi
Or maybe he should set up
a sociologist versus economist shoot-out. I'm
confident the former would love the opportunity.
One of them told me once, "you economists have
totally screwed up policy debate. You
individualize everything."
mbs
Reminds me of a week that I went to two meetings, both
It looks like Brad has emulated the goddess Eris, who (in the myth)
spawned the Trojan War by setting up a contest about which goddess
was prettiest. In our context, this has set up a conflict about
who's "really" radical or "really" Marxist, along with
characterizations of what kind of work
n
Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2000 4:47 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:15981] Re: RE: Journal of Economic Perspectives
I agree with Max about Barkley. (We could insert Robert Blecker when
trade rolls around.) On the micro side, as much as I appreciate the work
Robin has done on welf
Sociologist Orlando Patterson sent out a letter telling graduate students
that the professors would in the future regard graduate students who
taught sections for non-sociology courses--i.e., history and literature,
social studies, historical analysis, et cetera--as in some way disloyal to
When I use the term "walrasian", that's shorthand for a methodology that
takes static optimization as the guiding framework, and that sees the economy
as an adding-up of individual optimization programs. The two departures I
take that I see as "radical" (or at least different) are the
In order to avoid the perception of being vacuous (in this instance), let me
reiterate that my distinction was between normative and methodological, not
normative and positive. For the record, I think that normative and positive
economic analysis are *partially* separable.
Peter
Michael
Peter, I did not mean to imply that you are vacuous. Only the
postitive/normative stuff.
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Let's make it fun. Get Krugman to do the review of lefty economics and
William Greider to respond.
Tom Walker
It seems to me that "radical economics" does not denote a coherent entity
the way "Austrian economics" does. There are too many perspectives and
methodologies. Radicals tend to agree on objectives (loosely) and they
share a dislike for the status quo in both the economics profession and
the
It seems to me that "radical economics" does not denote a coherent entity
the way "Austrian economics" does. There are too many perspectives and
methodologies.
"Post-Marxist economics" then?
Brad DeLong
sounds like Peter Dorman should play the role of Harvey Rosen
At 05:48 PM 02/01/2000 -0800, you wrote:
It seems to me that "radical economics" does not denote a coherent entity
the way "Austrian economics" does. There are too many perspectives and
methodologies. Radicals tend to agree on
Some time ago, I spoke with Tim Taylor, editor of the Journal of Economic
Perspectives, about the possibility of a survey of radical economic.
Don't tell Brad DeLong about it, but Tim seemed receptive. My intention
was to make it some sort of collective project.
I was hoping that our text
I think Brad De Long's idea of a JEP mini-symposium on "radical
economics" is an excellent one, which I appreciate.
One possibility to consider: I edited a book published in 1995 entitled
*Heterodox Economic Theories: True or False* (the title was a take-off on
one of Mark Blaug's books).
30 matches
Mail list logo
