This discussion has heated up and there is a danger of some bad feeling developing. I hope we can take things down a notch or two before the debate becomes unpleasant. I'm sorry Rakesh interpreted my silence as arrogance, and I apologize for not responding to him and Jerry. I was indeed very busy just when that discussion was going on, and as a matter of sensible time-management, I try to limit my interventions in on-line discussion. The issue of equilibrium versus dynamics has been hashed out at length in many forums, and the participants seldom seem to budge from their entrenched positions. My points, in my intervention, were 1. that different tools are useful for addressing different questions; 2. that the questions addressed within the long-period equilibrium method are interesting and important, and therefore deserve our attention and ought to be sorted out; 3. but they are not the only interesting and important questions; accordingly dynamic and historical (and I suppose dialectical) approaches have merit; and 4. just as the long period equilibrium method has its limitations, so too Well, that's my two cents. All the best, Gary >===== Original Message From Rakesh Narpat Bhandari <rakeshb@Stanford.EDU> ===== >>On Thu, 31 May 2001, Rakesh Narpat Bhandari wrote: >> >>> >> in my opinion this is because marxians are powerless, and find that >>> >> they have to defend themselves from charges of logical incoherence if >>> >> they are to be considered respectable. >> >>me: >> >>> >I don't find that very convincing. Sraffa's critique, for instance, >>> >was directed more at neoclassical economics than at Marxism, yet with >>> >the exception of a few "high theorists" who strove to dispute Sraffa's >>> >claims, most neoclassical economists just got on with the job >>> >regardless, extending and applying. >> >>Rakesh: >> >>> so Allin what's your point? marxists have been forced to respond to a >>> critique which does not even apply to them... >> >>My point was just that marxists are not actually *forced* to spend all >>their time responding to critique. > >That's true, but if they consider those critiques answered and go >about applying Marx, they'll have almost no place in the academy. >That is not true of the neo classical economists who pay no price for >ignorning the capital debates. > >Rakesh > > > >> The example of neoclassical >>economics under Sraffa's critique shows that another option is just >>getting on with the job -- if there is a job to be got on with, i.e. >>an active research program that is throwing up new problems, concepts >>and methods. >> >>Allin.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Jul 15 2001 - 10:56:28 EDT