Perry Mehrling wrote:
>
> In war, we know which side we are on so the only thing that matters is tactics.  In economics, do we know in advance what side we are on? 
This reminds me of a comment that I periodically post to the HES list as 
a kind of mental sticky note. I have posted this is several ways. This 
time let me follow Perry's rhetorical style. How can we expect to reach 
agreement on the important matters in HOT if we do not define economics?


If we respond like many HESers that HOT is what economists do, then 
tactical struggles seem very likely. Long live heteredox economics, 
whatever that is. But if we take the question seriously, like I believe 
we should, then we at least have some prospect for contributing to the 
development of economics. If nothing else, we would be in a position to 
judge the extent to which the mathematical and econometrics types (as 
well as all of those heterodoxites) have made a contribution. But, of 
course, we must first flush out some answers for ourselves, even if they 
are tentative and even if we permit challenges to them.

Pat Gunning