====================== HES POSTING ====================
[Note from the moderator: This message was posted on Friday and
mysteriously made it to the archives but not to the subscribers. Apologies
for possible multiple postings. -- E-MS]
Bradley Bateman writes of "Petur Jonsson's ability to neglect much
..... [in] his rush to characterize people's aims in his own
convenient, but inaccurate, reconstruction." Although I am most
gratified to see that Bateman takes due note of this ability, modesty
propels me to admit that I did not really set out to rewrite "the
discussions from last fall." Hence all the credit for serendipitously
noticing that such a reconstruction had indeed taken place must go to
Bateman himself. What I had actually set out to do was simply to write
down some thoughts that came to me as I was rereading the debate ex
post facto from the HES archives. In fact, I thought I was trying to
change the subject a bit.
As for my "thinly veiled sneer" and my "sneer ... about historical
arguments" and my "unfortunate sneer." Alas, what I meant to produce
was a grin. Certainly nothing worse than a smirk, although I must
confess feeling a bit mischievous as I wrote my little note. Perhaps I
was too prankish. But then, what reaction could be more gratifying
than the sincere irritation displayed by Bateman in his response?
Thank you, thank you, thank you! And by the way it was "the style of
women's hats" not "women's hair fashions".
But, on a more serious note, Bateman also writes:
"I would think that a history of monetarism that looked at the
inflation of the 1970's, the political position of the central banks
that adopted monetarist targeting, the public perception of
Keynesianism's failure, the instability of velocity in the 1980's
(worldwide), the subsequent abandonment of monetarism, and the many
self-contortions of monetarists in the face of empirical evidence that
subverted their positions would be a much more useful history for
professional economists than a rehashing of who thought that the IS-LM
apparatus should or shouldn't be jettisoned."
In this passage Bateman makes my point. Without an understanding of
how and why Brunner set out to discredit what he sometimes called the
"islamic" framework, it is simply not possible to make any sense of
the rest of it. I was not suggesting that social, political, and
cultural issues as well as fashions and trends are unimportant.
Sometimes they may well be the key to grasping the how and why of
economic arguments from a different past. But, suggesting that we do
not need to understand the core of the theory itself is not only
laying it on "thick," it is downright flat-out crackpotism. If we do
not understand the theory, then debating its historical context makes
about as much sense as arguing about whether the moon is blue because
it is made of Roquefort or Danish Blue.
Petur O. Jonsson
Department of Economics and Finance
Fayetteville State University
============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]
|