Craven, Jim wrote: > What exactly are "strictly" economic subjects? I know what the > ultra-reductionist and linear neo-classicals mean by that, but I don't know > what "progressive" economists mean by that. Good point, Jim. I think that the word, strictly, might not be appropriate. I was thinking of Louis's reviews of jazz or film as not being strictly economic -- but yet valuable in their own right. I did not mean that we should not veer from "strictly" economic, but rather put more energy into renewing our economic input. Now, what does economic mean? The majority of people on pen-l are economists. I would like to see us concentrate more of our energies on bringing our expertise to bear on subjects where we can make a positive contribution to progressive causes. I was thinking about the sort of questions that Audie Bock, the Green Member of the California Assembly asked. I would like to make our work more useful to left/progressive organizations. Jim, you of all people, working with the Blackfeet group, should be aware of how much a person with some training in economics can offer to help organizations accomplish their goals. So, strictly may have been an ill chosen word, but I hope that you now understand what I mean. By the way, Audie Bock's office will be calling on us for more help. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
