====================== HES POSTING =================== 
 
I agree that we should no longer spend much time criticizing Friedman,  
and that we should realize that he was talking to practical economists  
etc. But, since I am reading Friedman's methodological essay with my  
undergraduate students at this moment,I could not resist getting into this discussion
about Hammond's editorial.
Just a few remarks -- 
1) I deeply agree with Backhouse when he stresses the  
rhetorical importance of TAXONOMIES such as the one proposed by  
Hammond. I have been thinking about that lately, the importance of  
taking strong positions, even if the price of it is taking the risk of  
oversimplification. Not only because this attitude leads to academic  
success, but also because we learn from controversies, and  
controversies are not likely to occur when the conversation is too  
'mild', stated in very friendly terms. 
 
2) This is, of course, detrimental to moderate people, who are always  
searching for a middle position in a discussion, and who are always  
prone to reach an agreement with their opponents. 
 
3) I am sure that McCloskey knows about that. 
 
4) As for Friedman, looking from outside, I think he persistently holds a  
kind of 'mainstream mentality', rather than being a Marshallian. This  
explains his steady deffense of monetarism. 
 
5) As for taxonomies, we all know that they are convenient for  
generalizations, but always run the risk of being unfair in their border  
lines. 
 
Ana Maria Bianchi 
Universidade de Sao Paulo 
[log in to unmask] 
============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]