Beautifully said, Steve. These debates can get so heated that it's easy to lose track of why we're here to begin with--the energizing tonic of spirited and, one hopes, open-minded debate across a gloriously wide spectrum of issues.
Thanks for the good words, which have got my day off to a good start.
Gary
Gary Mongiovi
Economics & Finance Department
St John's University
Jamaica, NEW YORK 11439 (USA)
Tel: +1 (718) 990-7380
Email: [log in to unmask]
________________________________________
From: Societies for the History of Economics [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Steve Kates [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 11:18 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [SHOE] Overseer Clarification
I am rather charmed by Barkley Rosser’s last post, to wit:
So, my final comment will be directed very directly at Steve Kates and James Ahiakpor. Can you guys not figure out that you have totally and utterly lost this debate? Nobody here agrees with you, nobody. You have lost, period. Sure, you can get the occasional Per Berglund to sort of attempt to help you out by questioning details of the critiques of your arguments, but even those folks in the end do not come down on agreeing with your defense of a strong version of Say's Law. Deal with it, please. We have all had more than enough.
I am more than aware that so far as numbers go, we are on the wrong side of the ledger. When I began to argue in public against the stimulus back in 2009, there were attempts made by that solid mainstream to have me sacked from my university appointment. There are risks in taking such positions. What protects me now from such attacks is the unbelievably dismal outcomes from the stimulus. You may not understand what I’m saying. But there is no doubt that, so far as the way our economies have performed, I have little reason to think anything other than that Mill was right, that the “strong version of Say’s Law” is valid, and classical economists knew what they were talking about. The modern Keynesian fashion, on the other hand, has little to show for it. Does evidence really count for nothing?
But I come onto this thread firstly to thank our moderator for his willingness to let the previous thread on L'offre crée même la demande continue to its end. But there is more to it than that. I wrote my book on Defending the History of Economic Thought, not just to explain why making the effort to understand the economic theory of the past is an extremely good way to deepen an economist’s understanding of economic theory, but also to argue that HET is the place where economic theory goes to regenerate itself. This is the one and only place that economists from every one of the traditions in economic theory come to look in on what is being said by others.
There are mainstream journals, but also Austrian, Neo-Keynesian, Post-Keynesian, Institutionalist, Marxist and others, and if you are not part of whatever tradition that journal represents, it is unbelievably difficult to get published. HET has broken this tradition down, at least to some extent. It may well be that no one can follow what I or James or Per are trying to say, although we can follow each other with near perfect clarity. But where else are you going to even hear it at all?
The History of Economic Thought is by all accounts dying yet it is the most intellectually alive area in the whole of economic theory. It teems with ideas and there are economists from every tradition who are willing to fight it out before an audience of upwards of a thousand of their peers who can follow these discussions as they like. There is seldom a thread I don’t learn from and I typically read them through.
And there is no doubt that HET is under threat of extinction. There are people at the top of our hierarchies, and I am talking about our hierarchies within HET, who would willingly take this study into the History and Philosophy of Science and leave economics behind. There are also mainstream theorists who would be glad to see the end of us and our constant criticisms of established textbook economics.
But there are also people, like myself and others who come to this site, who just find it fascinating to listen in on alternative ways of thinking about economic issues. That is what HET is for. Rather than restrict this area to burrowing into particular issues related to economists who are no longer mentioned in our textbooks, it should also be a place where ancient economists are resurrected and their ideas discussed. And I don’t just mean on this site but across the entire expanse of the history of economic thought.
The journal, History of Economics and Policy, is a paradigm of just what is needed. Perhaps not for all of us, but certainly for some of us. This is not the end of HET but in my view is its salvation. Here is a link to its archive.
http://econpapers.repec.org/article/fanspespe/
It is what every HET journal should become more like. Some traditional material but also some which see the relevance of past theory to our present problems.
On 10 February 2014 01:41, Humberto Barreto <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
Re the Say's Law conversation, Prof. Rosser said:
"Really, this has gone on way too long, and the overseers here were wise to warn of "downward spirals" regarding this beaten to death topic, and they have made it clear offline to some of us that they are thoroughly sick and disgusted with this topic."
Although I thank Prof. Rosser for this contribution to the discussion, there is only one overseer of this list, me, and I don't want you to think I said that I was "thoroughly sick and disgusted with this topic." Those are Barkley's words, not mine.
I do occasionally email individuals off-list and point out how hard it is to end conversations on this list. Someone has to have the last word. It takes a certain level of wisdom and maturity to realize that it is time to simply not respond.
I know many of you would have a tighter filter, but by erring on the side of greater openness, I believe I am giving the members of this list the opportunity to share what they know and to keep us all connected to the history of economics.
I write this while returning home from a workshop at Duke that was focused on how to promote the history of economics on the web, including open access digital archives and HET resources for scholars and students. This list is an important piece of what must be a multifaceted approach. Please encourage friends and colleagues with an interest in the history of economics to join us. Simply copy and send them this link:
https://listserv.yorku.ca/archives/shoe.html
As always, I welcome any feedback and suggestions from you.
Yours in moderation,
Humberto Barreto
--
Dr Steven Kates
Associate Professor
School of Economics, Finance
and Marketing
RMIT University
Building 80
Level 11 / 445 Swanston Street
Melbourne Vic 3000
Phone: (03) 9925 5878
Mobile: 042 7297 529
|
