Gene
says: > I've said about all I can say -- I
think our disagreement comes down to this: I think it is a mistake to give
any ground, any voice at all, to neo-classical micro. <
I
don't believe in compromising with NC economics. But I don't think that some
theories that are identified
Jim,
I've said about all I can say -- I think our disagreement
comes down to this: I think it is a mistake to give any ground, any
voice at all, to neo-classical micro. If I am not misinterpreting
you, you think that after beginning with neo-classical a critique can be
crafted that will put
Robert,
Thanks for being so gracious in your reply to my not so gracious post.
And, yes, do send me your article -- off list probably is better -- by reducing
the volume for others. The framework for keeping track of assumptions sounds
useful.
There was a good 10 page summary of the Cam
> Jim asked how I would teach, instead of neo-classical micro.
>
> I've asserted that neo-classical is a story. A story, propaganda,
> designed and intended to subjagate.
right, though I don't think it was "designed" as much as happened: a bunch
of folks really like the calculus and other math
At 16:44 23/05/02 -0700, Eugene Coyle wrote:
>Robert, I haven't read your article but will make an effort to find it.
A better article might be the one I did for the Pennsylvania Economic
Association, which I can send you via attachment:
"Political and Social Economics: A Framework and Some Exa
>And how are you (me, us) going to get an alternative theory if we keep
honoring neoclassical models? <
so what's your alternative?
JD
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,
"Devine, James" wrote:
> Eugene Coyle writes:
> > The problem is much worse than lying economists. Economists believe what
> they say.<
>
> right.
>
> >Would a biology or other science teacher start with teaching Creationism
> and then critiquing it around the edges by pointing out some counte
Eugene Coyle writes:
> The problem is much worse than lying economists. Economists believe what
they say.<
right.
>Would a biology or other science teacher start with teaching Creationism
and then critiquing it around the edges by pointing out some counter
evidence? It seems to me that anyone
- Original Message -
From: "michael perelman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 8:20 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:26168] Re: RE: RE: Lies, damned lies, and economics
> I might have added Phil Mirowski as an excellent writer, altho
I might have added Phil Mirowski as an excellent writer, although he does
not usually write for an popular audience.
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
11 matches
Mail list logo
