Re: [OPE-L] is there "no longer a single dominant school" in economics?

From: Paul Cockshott (wpc@DCS.GLA.AC.UK)
Date: Tue Sep 13 2005 - 10:30:20 EDT

• Next message: Riccardo Bellofiore: "Re: [OPE-L] is there "no longer a single dominant school" in economics?"
• Previous message: Riccardo Bellofiore: "Re: [OPE-L] is there "no longer a single dominant school" in economics?"
• Maybe in reply to: Riccardo Bellofiore: "Re: [OPE-L] is there "no longer a single dominant school" in economics?"
• Next in thread: Riccardo Bellofiore: "Re: [OPE-L] is there "no longer a single dominant school" in economics?"
• Reply: Riccardo Bellofiore: "Re: [OPE-L] is there "no longer a single dominant school" in economics?"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

Riccardo wrote

 

 

yes, I am interested - btw, I strongly disagree both with the new
pluralism and with the turn taken by Bowles et al. They are following
the "imperfectionist" line descending from the EEG as the base of
economics. I am for a dialogue and criticism of the heterodox monetary
analysis within a Marxian perspective. I liked very much the other two
editions.

 

What do you mean by the EEG

• Next message: Riccardo Bellofiore: "Re: [OPE-L] is there "no longer a single dominant school" in economics?"
• Previous message: Riccardo Bellofiore: "Re: [OPE-L] is there "no longer a single dominant school" in economics?"
• Maybe in reply to: Riccardo Bellofiore: "Re: [OPE-L] is there "no longer a single dominant school" in economics?"
• Next in thread: Riccardo Bellofiore: "Re: [OPE-L] is there "no longer a single dominant school" in economics?"
• Reply: Riccardo Bellofiore: "Re: [OPE-L] is there "no longer a single dominant school" in economics?"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 14 2005 - 00:00:01 EDT