Bill Lear beseeches Dennis, in part:
3) Which group of idiots assumes "subjects are immutable"?
Oh, Leicas, Minoltas, SpeedGraphics, etc. That sort, maybe.
valis
Rosser Jr, John Barkley wrote:
Now, although most
eurofinanciers poo-poo the possibility, it is not out of
the question that black markets in actual currencies could
develop in the next three years, that somebody might be
trading guilders for marks on the streets of Amsterdam, or
wherever, for
Joe Polito wrote,
I would like to add a few thoughts on the discussion.
1. Our Central Banks argue that there can only be about 2.5% economic
growth each year, consisting of 1.5% productivity improvements and 1%
population growth. In other words they believe in a lump of output
concept. Even
The Pope has come out against "the excesses of
capitalism," not capitalism per se. Bit of a difference
there.
Barkley Rosser
On Fri, 22 Jan 1999 15:22:02 +0100 "Eugene P. Coyle"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The NY Times front page headline on this story is that the Pope has come
out
Barkley Rosser wrote,
labeled a "Keynesian" who is proud of having as little to
do with anything Keynes ever wrote or thought as he can.
In a recent article on principles texts in the Eastern
Economic Journal Mankiw proudly declared that a difference
between his text and older ones is that
I have not followed all of the discussion about Butler but the repeated
references to bad writing made me think that the following might help.
These are a couple of excerpts from a paper of mine that criticises the turn
to Butler in international relations theory (yes, really). They focus on
This isn't Mankiw, but I would call attention to the work of Kip
Viscusi, who is by far the "leading authority" on risk in the US
economics profession, and who plays an important role in public policy
here and abroad. One small example of many: in hedonic wage/risk
studies, what's the best
In response to Paul Meyer.
1. The divide betweem continental phil and the anglo-american
tradition has been widening for, what, almost 200 years. At
this point they're really quite separate projects whose
results are not mutually translatable. I'm not sure how to
deal with
In America, we
I wrote,
well as level). IN HER EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, Baran simply stated that "Most of
the evidence, however, concludes that adverse employment effects do not
persist in the long run." Technically, her statement is correct because most
of the studies surveyed were old and ignored the structure of
This isn't Mankiw, but I would call attention to the work of Kip
Viscusi, who is by far the "leading authority" on risk in the US
economics profession
Let me say that I don't think Kip Viscusi is the leading authority on risk...
Brad DeLong
But, Brad, while we're asking for examples, can you give me an example of
any economist who has challenged the _sources_ of Samuelson Nordhaus's
perennial lump-of-labor fallacy? If anthropologists were as accomodating as
economists, Piltdown man would still be in our evolutionary family tree.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quine is probably much easier to grasp than Baudrillard for
a variety of reasons: eg, less intellectual baggage ; no ellipictical writing
style.
My very first writing assignment as a college freshman (long ago in a
place far away) was deciphering an essay by Quine
On Sun, January 24, 1999 at 15:41:02 (-0800) Brad De Long writes:
Explaining why, N. Gregory Mankiw, a 40-year-old Harvard economist and
author of a popular new textbook, "Principles of Economics," said: "We make
a distinction now between positive or descriptive statements that are
scientifically
On Sun, January 24, 1999 at 15:30:53 (-0800) [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
...
Initially articulated as a critique of compulsory heterosexuality
within feminism (Osborne, 1996: 110), the notion of performativity is
best understood as an attempt to avoid two forms of reductionism: on
the one hand, a
On Sun, January 24, 1999 at 14:49:06 (-0800) Tom Walker writes:
...
Here we go again. In his chapter on Mercantilism etc. Keynes wrote about how
orthodox economics "dealt with" the question of whether there could be too
much savings by simply ignoring it and ostracizing anyone who raised it.
This
Louis Proyect wrote:
There is some use to studying philosophy today, just as there is use to
studying literature or religion.
Whew, I'm greatly relieved for that dispensation!
Doug
Years and years and years ago, Paul Ricoeur did a much clearer job of
analyzing "meaningful action considered as text" and provided a fuller
philosophical rationale in Time and Narrative. Ricoeur is not easy reading,
admittedly. But then again he never became a trendy pop-academic phenom,
either.
Colin:
Question for Lou: I think I understand your reasons
for putting aside the whole project of w. phil, but
what do you make of Lenin's comment that you need
to learn Hegel's _Logic_ to understand _Capital_?
Are you arguing that Marx is simply the end of w.
phil as a worthwhile project?
I am
On the general point, Butler's work, if scarcely
Hemingwayesque, is quite intelligible to anyone
with a background in W. philosophy and post-
structural thought. Precisely how important a
theorist Butler is really doesn't interest me
here; but I did want to take a swat at the idea
that
I wote: I agree with you that the USSR was important. For a long time,
the oppressed of the world could take advantage of the split between the
two super-powers. The problem is this situation is over.
Charles answers: As an analogy, the Civil War is over, and there was even
a counterrevolution
I agree with Michael that most economists, both the
math types and the non-math types, write horribly.
Heilbroner is certainly one who writes well. Another mathy
type who writes well some of the time is the inimitable
Paul Samuelson, but not always.
Barkley Rosser
On Fri, 22 Jan 1999
Barkley wrote:
Now, although most
eurofinanciers poo-poo the possibility, it is not out of
the question that black markets in actual currencies could
develop in the next three years, that somebody might be
trading guilders for marks on the streets of Amsterdam, or
wherever, for something other
Mankiw's text is a compilation of currently fashionable
drivel in the economics profession, written by someone
labeled a "Keynesian" who is proud of having as little to
do with anything Keynes ever wrote or thought as he can.
In a recent article on principles texts in the Eastern
--- Forwarded Message Follows ---
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 03:16:36 EST
Subject: Radio show of interest: Yet Another CIA Deadly Screwup?
THE EXPERT WITNESS RADIO SHOW
WBAI New York City (99.5 FM-Tuesdays 7-8pm))
KPFK Los Angeles (90.7 FM)
I would make some comments, relatively naive, about about pomo that I hope the
more informed on the list could respond to.
I think there is tremendous "translation" problems surrounding post-modernism
arising from
a variety of contextual origins.
1) "Pomo" arises out of a discourse in
Does anyone know if Lenin wrote anything on Rosa Luxemburg's Accumulation
of Capital? If so, where is it? Thanks, Paul
***
Paul Zarembka, supporting RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY at
26 matches
Mail list logo
