But Samuelson and Feldstein were already well-established and did not have to worry about keeping their position.
On Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 05:38:43PM -0700, Sabri Oncu wrote: > Michael wrote: > > > The Bell Labs incident is somewhat different. > > It seems like individual profit maximizing > > behavior. The Feldstein incident and Samuelson's > > attack on the Sraffa reswitching theory were driven > > by higher motives -- to protect a defunct (but well > > funded) ideology. > > I beg to differ Michael. > > I don't know anything about Samuelson's attack on Sraffa and > don't deny the possibility of the presence of "higher motives" to > protect whatever but "well fundedness" in my view is a serious > force behind most of these. > > Once the problem posed to me is as simple as "survival", as it is > now in the current academic world, I will do as much as I can to > survive. I have never been sure as to what human nature is but > whatever it is, the survival instinct is a major part of it. I am > not going to let my son suffer because I cannot get one more > paper published. I will fight to the tooth and nail to get that > paper published, if not getting it published means we are in > trouble. > > Think about a UC Berkeley Economics professor watching the San > Francisco Bay from the North Berkeley hills (Did we not have one > of them here?). Do you think he would let what he has go without > fighting back? > > Sabri > -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
