I am very gratified by the replies to my rant this morning. I would
like to add a couple of comments.
1. I do not entirely agree with Louis P. in his take on the subject. I
don't think that the majority of people on pen-l are academic
economists. I am always amazed at the breadth of reading that many of
the non-academics manage -- Louis himself as well as Bill Lear stand out
in this regard.
Of the academics on this list, I think that very few are on the tenure
treadmill -- either because they are already secure or, what seems to be
the case more often here on this list, the econ. profs have interests
over and above their narrow academic demands.
2. This brings me to Frank Durgin's remark. I don't think that people
need to be well read in Marx to be able to contribute here. Of those
who are, many write without using marxist terminology, even if they are
well read in marxism. Jim Devine is an example, which brings me to my
final comment.
3. A number of people over the years have told me how much they
appreciate Jim's comments. I concur. I would like to differ with him
in one respect. From the very beginning, Doug had insisted that he did
not want LBO talk to "compete" with pen-l. He has invited a number of
people who share his interest in cultural critiques onto the list. As a
result, it has a much wider appeal than pen-l. He had told me that he
intended that outcome from the beginning, in that he saw a need to
engage people who might not be interested in our material.
Nonetheless, because of the value of his Wall Street and the LBO itself,
a good deal of discussion there parallels our "sphere of interest."
Like Jim, apparently, I delete the spice girls and read the economics.
In any case, I do not think that we need to be in an either/or with the
two lists.
In any case, I want to thank all concerned.
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chico, CA 95929
530-898-5321
fax 530-898-5901
