Eugene writes: > I think your answer points up how serious the problem is. > Sounds like you (me, everybody) don't have a framework. > > I draw the inference from your post -- apologies if this > is incorrect -- that you are saying, "Well, you don't have a framework to > start with, so we should start with the neo-classical framework and point out > the problems."
No. I was just wondering. In my experience, only an alternative theory can beat a theory. If given a choice, I would start with a Marxian (not a neoclassical) theory, trying to make it as concrete as possible, as with the old Bowles & Edwards UNDERSTANDING CAPITALISM textbook. That doesn't work in teaching, so I simply use a cleaned-up version of the neoclassical models, with a minimum emphasis on the imaginary perfect competition model. I am looking forward to using the Microeconomics In Context book as soon as it is available... > ... Let a thousand parables bloom. We will be off the > treadmill and on an actual path going somewhere. right: we need lots of parables --- or rather paradigms. But we need to have a clear alternative to the hegemonic one (orthodox or neoclassical economics). We can't just describe the world. We might start with an alternative to the Heyne list of the "economic way of thinking" (opportunity cost, etc.) as being the key things that students should keep in mind all through the semester or year. JD
