 
| Subject: | |
| From: | |
| Reply To: | |
| Date: | Tue, 13 Mar 2012 10:27:06 +0100 |
| Content-Type: | text/plain |
| Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
I am deeply convinced that any 'anti' initiative helps to shed light on still unknown and, sometimes even deliberately, hidden aspects of a theory. I am sure that examining the strands of thought which go against a theory enriches the knowledge of the theory itself; I also believe that it is indispensable to 'dig' and bring to light all that is 'anti' the thought which is prevailing and dominant in any historical period, which, precisely because of its predominance, hides both its deficiencies and any expressions of thought contrary to it. What I am especially convinced of is that whatever the age and place there never is a 'single thought'.
I will be glad to participate in the conference: the 'Italian' Galiani is to be considered an anti-Physiocrats and I evaluate his contribution as a relevant one, if we want a more complete reconstruction of the history of economic thought of that period.
daniela parisi
________________________________
Da: Societies for the History of Economics [[log in to unmask]] per conto di E.Schoorl [[log in to unmask]]
Inviato: luned́ 12 marzo 2012 9.35
A: [log in to unmask]
Oggetto: Re: [SHOE] "Antiphysiocracy" Conference 2013 - Call for papers
On 11-03-12, mason gaffney <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Nom de Dieu! This is as unbalanced as a Rush Limbaugh monologue. How about
giving equal time to supporters of Physiocracy
Hi Mason!
I'm not only looking forward to this conference, but already to its successors as well: on antiRicardianism, antiKeynesianism (invited keynote speaker: Steve Kates) etc.
I hope that some questions on the history and sociology of our discipline will be discussed: How come that some of the falsified ideas of 'defunct economists' keep influencing ideas and policies long after? (A question not entirely irrelevant for the 21st century.)
Best regards,
Evert Schoorl
|
|
|
