From: Anders Ekeland (anders.ekeland@ONLINE.NO)
Date: Sat Sep 08 2007 - 00:31:06 EDT
Hi Jerry, First of all - science do not develop by consensus. I am a little surprised by your effort to have a "vote" on this. When it comes to what perspective will gain/lose support my guess is that the attitude of the TSSI, will gain support. It is clearly closer to Marx' vision, than Sraffa-like, static, linear algebra. Maybe not Kliman's version of it, but there is among many Marxist economist more that starts to rethink the relationship between prices of production, market prices and values, to question the whole Bortkiewicz-Laibman tradition. As has been pointed out by many neo-classical economy has not yet proved the *stability* of GE, which means that for all kind of policy questions using "first best" as a benchmark is not scientifically valid. That GE has an enormous ideological value is of course obvious. The sterility - and falling apart of "analytical Marxism" is by now clear. That nobody has still managed to formulate a complete alternative based on a fundamental dynamic view of the economy is also obvious - and to do so is the research agenda I - and increasingly more of us have. But do not find it so useful to discuss to which degree there is consensus on this. Let's discuss the substantive issues. I'll return to them. Regards Anders At 14:51 06.09.2007, glevy@PRATT.EDU wrote: > > My guess is that from the past mails this year > > there is NO consensus. > >Hi Riccardo: > >I believe that there is _close to_ consensus on the proposition - - both >on the list and and outside of the list among those who are familar with >the literature but are themselves not advocates of the TSSI. This is more >than a "guess" on my part as many have come forward and told me that they >agree with that conclusion based on their years of reading through the >relevant literature. It is indeed remarkable that after so many years and >so many publications, the TSSI has gained the support of so few additional >scholars. It should also be noted that this is a theme (whether directly >or indirectly stated) in so many of the critiques of the TSSI: whatever >differences these critics of the TSSI have among themselves (and they have >many differences!) they seem all to grasp the inherent dogmatic nature of >certain TSSI perspectives. Frankly, I'm just saying what most other >scholars in the field are thinking and/or have said. > >In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Sep 30 2007 - 00:00:05 EDT