From: Stephen Cullenberg
Doug
People might be interested to know that Jack Amariglio, David Ruccio and I
have a forthcoming edited volume from Routledge on the topic Doug mentions.
. . .
Steve let me say I appreciate your persistence, in the face
of all the abuse to which I have made my own
At 02:06 PM 9/8/00 -0400, you wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yoshie, do you get extra hazard pay for
reading these people?
Are these people any worse than most of the economics
literature, which is all too often obscure, abstract, remote from
reality, and apologetics for the status quo?
Doug
Stephen Cullenberg wrote:
While the book deals mainly with economics, folks might also be
interested in another event where many people broadly influenced by
postmodernism (and many who are not) will be coming together to
discuss and debate Marxism. The Marxism 2000 conference sponsored
by
At 02:06 PM 9/8/00 -0400, you wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yoshie, do you get extra hazard pay for reading these people?
Are "these people" any worse than most of the economics literature, which
is all too often obscure, abstract, remote from reality, and apologetics
for the status quo?
Doug Henwood wrote:
Are "these people" any worse than most of the economics literature,
which is all too often obscure, abstract, remote from reality, and
apologetics for the status quo?
The economists are clearly of the enemy, and are recognized as such by
all on the left. So I would say
Jim Devine wrote:
BTW, Doug, is this the comparison we want to make (pomotistas vs.
neoclassical econ.)? isn't there a third alternative, like reading
LBO?
Well of course. But I'm biased.
Carrol Cox wrote:
The economists are clearly of the enemy, and are recognized as such by
all on the
BUFFALOS? --jks
In a message dated Fri, 8 Sep 2000 2:45:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Carrol Cox
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Doug Henwood wrote:
Are "these people" any worse than most of the economics literature,
which is all too often obscure, abstract, remote from reality, and
Me, an economist? Sir, there is my gage! And having shown little interest in
philosophy? What would show a lot. pray tell, beyond gettimng a PhD in it and working
the field until the jobs ran out? --jks
In a message dated Fri, 8 Sep 2000 3:20:41 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Doug Henwood
[EMAIL
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BUFFALOS? --jks
http://ils.unc.edu/~lindgren/RedOrange/index.html,
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/4401/RCMain.html.
Doug
You can get the gist of most economics works fairly quickly. All the
math and the like is just used to "prove" a simple a simple point.
There is little complexity. In that respect, economics might be the
easiest discipline in the world.
The hard part is putting together all the weird little
10 matches
Mail list logo