Actually I think that this discussion, although I am
not going to participate further in the dino extinction
part of it, is relevant. I remind that this arose out of a
debate over environmental/ecological economic issues. It
slid over into a discussion of the more purely ecological
side of things. But, all should keep in mind that the
coevolving ecosystem includes the economy and the mutual
interactions between the human (economic) and the non-human
parts of the broader ecosystem. The relevance of
"exogenous shocks" (asteroids, etc.) versus "endogenous
shocks" (complex ecosystems undergoing rapid changes as
they cross certain crucial thresholds) is obviously
relevant in just plain old garden variety econ as well.
Barkley Rosser
On Tue, 28 Apr 1998 07:53:05 -0700 James Devine
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Robin writes:
> >I thought this was a list for economists. Well, OK, not exactly
> >economists but political economists. Is that what makes a political
> >economist different from a mainstream economist. We talk about asteroids
> >and dinosaurs?
>
> I think one thing that distinguishes us from mainstream economists is that
> we're willing to talk about almost everything (as long as we have some kind
> of informed opinion). More importantly, we're willing to talk about
> everything -- but don't imitate Gary Becker to reduce everything to the
> "exchange with maximizing subject to constraints" story.
>
> in omnivorous solidarity,
>
> Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &
> http://clawww.lmu.edu/Departments/ECON/jdevine.html
> "he who is unable to live in society or has no need, because he is
> sufficient for himself, must be either a beast or a god." -- Aristotle
>
--
Rosser Jr, John Barkley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
