I am not sure that I follow Roy's train of thought. Certainly there is a 
place for the type of list about which he writes. However, it has been 
the tradition on the HES list for as long as I remember to entertain 
comments related to posted reviews. At times, posters have gone far 
beyond what is warranted by a particular review. At others, they have 
not. The list moderator's job is presumably to prevent the discussion 
from drifting too far. Perhaps Roy's point is that the discussion has 
drifted too far. If so, a brief note the moderator would seem in order. 
I assume that by posting Roy's comment to the list, Humberto is 
suggesting a discussion of Roy's view.

First I disagree that the list in general has changed a great deal. 
There were times, as I recall, when the list more closely conformed to 
the norm that Roy is suggesting. There were other times when it was more 
open than it is now. My opinion is that it is not too far from center now.

Second, a discussion of bubbles, booms, and the trade cycle is very much 
related to the history of economic thought. This would be true whether 
or not the discussion was related to a book review. But of course it is 
related to a book review. Of course, different posters come to the list 
with different viewpoints and also with different abilities to follow 
and contribute to a discussion. Sometimes, these viewpoints and 
prerequisites for making a useful contribution need to be sorted out. So 
long as everyone is civil, however, I don't see this as a problem.

Regarding bringing the HE community together, email lists perform a 
function that associations cannot possibly perform. They bring together 
scholars who either cannot afford to or do not wish to participate in 
professional associations. I am partly in both classes. They also enable 
them to learn from each other and to establish contacts in ways that are 
different from those that occur at formal meetings.

I do benefit from the list and I appreciate Humberto's moderation. The 
current norm is fine with me.

With no disrespect, it is perhaps worth remembering that it is possible 
to block posts from particular individuals or lists and to hit the 
delete button.

With respect,



E. Roy Weintraub wrote:
> Colleagues: Although I may be the only one interested in this posting, 
> I still would like to let folks know that I have asked the list 
> manager to remove me from this SHOE List. Once upon a time, this list 
> served to bring together announcements, information, and indeed 
> community to the far-flung and isolated members of the HE community. 
> It now no longer appears to do so, as a number of individuals have 
> informed me, off list, that they have no interest in the limited range 
> of subjects that appear, like Gresham's Law, to have driven out all 
> other subjects. I hope that, if others feel the same way, the list 
> owners at HES and ESHET will find a way to address the issue of 
> reduced subscriptions. If others do not feel the same way, the list 
> will go on as it has been doing. In any event, in the future please 
> feel free to email me privately at [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>. ERW
>
> On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 7:30 PM, Pat Gunning <[log in to unmask] 
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
>     Robin, I must admit that I cannot follow your reasoning. Perhaps
>     you could clarify. Here is what you say about the causes of an
>     increase in productivity:
>
>     "When prices rise because demand has risen, it is reasonable for
>     agents to respond by producing more, thereby increasing the
>     productivity of the system. Further, it is reasonable for
>     individuals to hasten their purchases in anticipation of further
>     price increases. This, too, increases the productivity of the system."
>
>     I take it that you are proposing two causes of increases in the
>     productivity of the system: (1) an increase in demand for consumer
>     goods and (2) the expectation that the prices at which they buy
>     capital goods (including consumer durables and land) will rise.
>
>     Neither of these is sufficiently specified for me to evaluate your
>     claim. Let me start with the first: the idea that a demand
>     increase could cause economic growth. Are you writing about
>     aggregate demand? You cannot mean the demand for a specific
>     consumer good. This cannot occur without an offsetting decrease in
>     demand for another product, an increase in resource supply, a
>     technological advance, or a reduction in demand for a capital good
>     (a decrease in saving). To support your claim, you would have to
>     specify much more than you do. Or if you are writing about
>     aggregate demand, what else are you assuming? Again, you would
>     have to specify much more before one could evaluate your claim.
>
>     The second cause is the expectation of a higher price which
>     presumably would occur if one buys a durable consumer good or a
>     durable capital good, including land. But why would someone expect
>     the price of such a good to rise without an offsetting expectation
>     that the price of some other good to fall? Again there must be
>     other changes that are occurring that you have not specified.
>
>     It is difficult for me to make sense of your distinction between
>     bubbles and increases in productivity if you do  not specify more
>     fully.
>
>     -- 
>     Pat Gunning
>     Independent economist
>     Groton, Connecticut
>     http://www.nomadpress.com/gunning/welcome.htm
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> E. Roy Weintraub
> Professor of Economics
> Duke University
> www.econ.duke.edu/~erw/erw.homepage.html 
> <http://www.econ.duke.edu/%7Eerw/erw.homepage.html>


-- 
Pat Gunning
Independent economist
Groton, Connecticut
http://www.nomadpress.com/gunning/welcome.htm