Re: Mainstream Economists Are Ignorant And Arrogant

In article <1118274100.033533.215180@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Zerge" <zerge@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Without the intention of insulting Robert, and not being really
> familiar with his, um, "heterodox" ideas about economics, I have the
> feeling that he considers himself to be some sort of iconoclast of
> economics, a pioneer, mind you. Which may indeed be the case, I don't
> know. And that's why he insults us, mainstream economists, calling us
> arrogant and stupid.

A "decent conversation" is one where Zerge makes up positions for
others?

One has to understand some technical details to understand why many of
the posts collected here, mostly from economists, are ignorant:

<http://www.dreamscape.com/rvien/Fumbles/Fumbles.html>

I guess it isn't so surprising that some economists should claim that
canonical models in capital theory don't have capital, that approvingly
citing a standard demonstration of the falsity of the Labour Theory of
Value suggests the one doing the citing supports the LTV, or whatever.
But, even when more economists posted here, no North American
mainstream economists would correct others, in these threads, on
even narrow points. Instead, some would even egg one another on in
error and even in dishonesty.

Despite the behavior shown here and elsewhere, I expect that
journal editors, for example, try to fairly evaluate submissions.

What is mainstream? The graduate students David Colander polls are, for
example. They received or are getting their PhDs from MIT, Harvard,
Yale, Columbia, Chicago, or Stanford. On the other hand, I would not
necessarily expect a PhD from Amherst, the New School, or Knoxville
to be mainstream.

There are other places where I would expect to find self-consciously
heterodox economists. One aspect of the evolution of economics is
periodic purges of economic departments in North America. For example,
Notre Dame, Rutgers, Harvard, and Ubana-Champaign.

Consider Harvard. One has the Sweezy brothers being denied tenure and
external politically-motivated interventions attempting to deny
Galbraith tenure. Later, one has tenure battles over Bowles and the
departure of Bowles and Gintis. I'm not sure I fully understand
Leontief's departure, with his claims that Harvard never supported
him. In the last few years, we have battles over the introductory
undergraduate course and the refusal to let Marglin teach it like
he and the students wanted.

Maybe the mainstream is open to a certain amount of innovation
these days. But this history is not so easily discarded.

--
Mostly economics: <http://www.dreamscape.com/rvien/#PublicationsForFun>
r c
v s a Whether strength of body or of mind, or wisdom, or
i m p virtue, are found in proportion to the power or wealth
e a e of a man is a question fit perhaps to be discussed by
n e . slaves in the hearing of their masters, but highly
@ r c m unbecoming to reasonable and free men in search of
d o the truth. -- Rousseau
.

Relevant Pages

  • full text article on heterodox economics....
    ... not one of their market forces theories can be called ... economists descend on some lucky city for the Allied Social Science ... Associations Annual Meeting, the economics field's largest gathering, ... I ask him about how he relates to the so-called mainstream ...
    (sci.research.careers)
  • Re: Thomas Covenant series
    ... economists accept the views that were taken for granted at Harvard when ... I was an undergraduate there. ... economists disagree on. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.composition)