At 01:59 PM 03/12/98 -0500, Jim Devine wrote:
>...But are political economists to leave economic theory to the
neoclassicals?...
Louis replied:
>...I think something else is going on, which I am in no position to
evaluate. In the deepest economic crisis since WWII, there is virtually no
discussion of it on PEN-L. This is not caused by "off-topic" posts but by
something else. As Brutus said, "The fault is not in the stars..."
I would vote for more engagement with economic theory on Pen-l. If it
happens to not be a point I am interested in/have time for at the momement,
I can always delete it, like I am sure most of us to do many "off-topic"
points that come down the pike. For example, I did not follow the labour
market issue Jim referred to, but I did appreciate it was raised. When I
have time I will return to a point Jim made about turnover times of
constant capital a while ago (though I am not suggesting a narrow focus on
value theory, etc. for the list).
I also think Louis has put his finger on something very important, the near
silence (especially theoretical, analytical, as opposed to
political-Political) on world economic prospects, crisis, etc. Jim has also
tried to raise this point, like recently providing his excellent paper on
the 'Great' one on his web page. Someone raised Brenner's article in NLR
awhile ago, but I was dissapointed no discussion ensued. (Partly this is
because I have not had a chance to read it, and I was hoping someone would
preview one point or another. I don't think it is wasting other's time to
share impressions and opinions of things that come out - including
mainstream press reports, especially if commented on.)
I can't belive that members of a list with this name are not all thinking
pretty seriously (if not necessarily coherantly) about the big economic
picture.
Or am I wrong - does anyone think Louis P. and the World Bank are playing
'chicken Little' ("the sky is falling; the sky is falling!")?
My apology for urging you to do as I say more than as I do.
Bill Burgess
