Robin Neill wrote, "As I read the journals, and much else, without math what
currently passes for economic thought could not be written, let
alone read."

Indeed, sometimes I wonder if anyone will read in 20 years the things that are being published in economics journals today. The data analysis of 50,000 observations to prove a small theoretical point.  People seem actually to think that the econometrics is theory, and it is just data analysis.  I wonder how many people read them even now. 
Marie Christine Duggan


-----Original Message-----
From: Societies for the History of Economics on behalf of Steve Kates
Sent: Sun 12/1/2013 9:42 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [SHOE] Economic Thought in the FT
 
I am grateful for Scott Cullen for pointing us towards this article. That
what Ha-Joon Chang has said is of direct relevance to HET is shown in this
para at the very end of the interview:

"Finally, I ask whether he thinks economics is a moral pursuit. Chang's
starting point seems to be that economic policies can make the world
better. 'Moral dilemmas are unavoidable,' he says as I signal for the
bill. 'Don't
forget that, at least in this country, economics used to be a branch of
moral philosophy. Adam Smith, Karl Marx, Joseph Schumpeter - they're not
just writing about economics, but about politics and culture and society
and morality.' He drains his cup. 'How has this wonderful subject we call
economics become so narrow-minded? I find that really sad.'"


Sad indeed.

On 1 December 2013 22:01, Robin Neill <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Colleagues:
>
>      As I read the journals, and much else, without math what
> currently passes for economic thought could not be written, let
> alone read.
>
> Robin Neill.
>



-- 

Dr Steven Kates
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