From: glevy@PRATT.EDU
Date: Thu Oct 25 2007 - 16:02:39 EDT
> I personally find PoCbmoC very autistic, not that impressing. Hi Anders: I'm assuming that this is a translation issue: right? Rather than autistic (see e.g. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autistic>), what word did you intend to write? > How is > it possible to write such a book - and not relate more explicitly to > the history of economic ideas, where this book places itself in the > theoretical landscape etc. etc. I think that's one of its chief advantages. It's concise nature keeps the readers' focus on the most important qestions of theory from the author's perspective and thus prevents readers from being side-tracked into obscure history of thought issues. In any event, this is a question associated with the *form of exposition*. One can make no inferences about a writer's ability to critique other perspectives and grasp of the history of thought based merely on the absence of that material in a particular writing. As we all know, one of Sraffa's strong points was as a historian of economic thought so his not going into the history of thought in _PCBMOC_ shows basically nothing about the author or the book. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Oct 31 2007 - 00:00:20 EDT