>After reading the following posting by Rod I could not help
>imagining what post-modern scholars in other disciplines must
>say about articles written in the American Economics Review.
>
Yup. It's highly _unfriendly_ for the _AER_ to be written as it is. (And,
indeed, wasn't the _Journal_of_Economic_Perspectives_ started to be a
journal that is readable by _economists_?)
It's a device of intellectual closure: make the barriers to trying to
understand what someone is trying to do so hard that no one does--and as a
result one's publications (and faculty slots) are immune from criticism...
It's also a cause of an enormous loss of mindshare on issues of economic
policy: a generation ago Newsweek's economic columnists were Paul Samuelson
and Milton Friedman. That's not true today...
Brad De Long
"Now 'in the long run' this [way of summarizing
the quantity theory of money] is probably |
<[log in to unmask]>
true.... But this **long run** is a misleading | Brad De Long
guide to current affairs. **In the long run** | Dept. of Economics
we are all dead. Economists set themselves | U.C. Berkeley
too easy, too useless a task if in tempestuous | Berkeley, CA 94720
seasons they can only tell us that when the | (510) 643-4027 376-1362
storm is long past the ocean is flat again." | (510) 642-6615 fax
--J.M. Keynes |
http://econ158.berkeley.edu/