On 10/6/07, Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I wanted to add that we shouldn't forget the original context of this > discussion. That is, we should remember that the reason why Alan > Blinder is crucial in this discussion is _only_ that he received so > much flack from the orthodoxy (going against official academic and/or > scientific standards, BTW).
My far more cynical view is that the whole thing is a farce. AB's critics are firing at him with blanks, the aim is to make as much noise as possible to create the appearance of healthy debate, while simultaneously excluding all of the really dissenting voices. -raghu.
