Lou is hardly in a position to knock any one for not reading something. His favourite pastime seems to be denouncing people he has never read. In the last week we have had Bill Wilson and Barrington Moore slammed. And this is only the latest. And I think it irrelevant in this case. I have read Brenner. The NLR article. The Past and Present article and the subsequent debate, which by the way were mainly about his anti-Malthusianism. And his book on Merchants and Revolution. Very little of the content of our debate had anything to do with the content of his writings. But rather were a condemnation for his "silences". I dropped out of the debate Jim B., because it became evident that you had no idea about the theory of money. Ricardo continued on but not one of his points was answered. ----Original Message Follows---- From: "James M. Blaut" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Michael: All well and good, but of the 20 or so people who have participated in the Brenner debate on this list, I'd venture that maybe 5 or 6 have actually read Brenner ,mostly his NLR article of 20+ years ago; and maybe 3 or 4 have read him in connection with this debate. I can't help but second Louis's point that if you're going to talk about somebody's ideas you sbould at least try to confirm what those ideas are. As I said once before, I suspect that some of the pro-Brenner interventions were motivated by political allegiances or at least general ideological sympathy, not concrete arguments -- I hope I'm wrong. But I will shut up for a while (to everyone's relief). Cheers Jim B Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archives http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://members.tripod.com/rodhay/batochebooks.html http://www.abebooks.com/home/BATOCHEBOOKS/ ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
