Brilliant idea.

RachelCitando "Rosser, John" <[log in to unmask]>:

> As someone who has contributed to some of the discussions/debates   
> here and who is sorry that things have reached a point where someone  
>  like Roy Weintraub feels a need to withdraw and others are talking   
> of separate lists, let me note something.  Much of the problem here   
> is the difference between lists and blogs.  Whereas a decade ago and  
>  more lists dominated internet discussions/debates, blogs do now,   
> with surviving lists mostly being informative and not major debate   
> fora.  Part of the difference I think is that with a blog one can   
> choose to go there or not and choose to read something or not when   
> one is there.  On a list, everything anybody sends as posts   
> everybody must deal with at least to see if we want to read it or   
> just delete it, and many of us are indeed swamped with way too much   
> email, much of it spam.  We are wading through all kinds of stuff we  
>  do not wish to read to get at the stuff we want to or need to read   
> or deal with.  That is basically why a decade ago the old lists that  
>  people debated on in the 90s by and large disaappeared, to be   
> replaced by the blogs.  Most of the lists that have survived that   
> sea change have been largely of the informative, non-debating, type.
>
> So, I and others clearly have hung on to this list (one of the few I  
>  am on), partly because while there were discussions and debates,   
> they tended to be relatively low key and not too lengthy.  They   
> would appear, flare up a bit, but then usually pretty quickly   
> disappear, with an occasional exception.
>
> However, I agree with Roy that things have gotten out of hand now   
> here.  This is indeed a matter of negative externalities.  A small   
> number of people have been engaging in lengthy and repeated   
> arguments over the same handful of topics, repeating endlessly their  
>  same old same old arguments that we have all seen many times before  
>  ad nauseum, apologies to some here.  I would hope that this small   
> group of people could be prevailed upon to willingly restrain   
> themselves.  Maybe not post more than twice within any round of an   
> argument that comes up, especially if what you are doing is not   
> informative in the sense of "Oh, here is another source that is   
> relevant to this discussion that people here may not know about,"   
> rather than, "Of course according to the doctrine of blah blah blah,  
>  I am right again and you are wrong again for the umpteenth time   
> squared blah blah blah and more blah blah blah."  I do not know if   
> the moderator can encourage this or others can encourage it.  Maybe   
> a rule?  No commenting more than twice on a single thread, or   
> something like that?  Otherwise, indeed, this list will go the way   
> of many others that no longer exist.
>
> Barkley Rosser
>
> ________________________________
> From: Societies for the History of Economics [[log in to unmask]] On   
> Behalf Of Ken Gordon [[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2010 8:54 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: SHOE: DISC -- Gunning -- Bubbles, Booms, and the   
> Austrian Theory of the Trade Cycle
>
> I agree with Weintraub on this. Much of what appears on this list   
> these days are back-and-forth discussions between two members of the  
>  list. To the observers, each often seems to be talking past, not  
> to,  the other. In gentler times, those discussions would have taken  
>  place privately by letter, with the result, if any, bringing forth  
> a  paper or a book by one or both of the correspondents. Couldn't,  
> for  example, Robin and Pat take their discussion to private e-mail   
> exchanges, then when they reach a conclusion tell the rest of us   
> about it? And if they don't reach a conclusion, that'll tell them   
> something about the value of the exchange. This is a classic   
> externality: the marginal cost of one more bit traversing the   
> Internet is vanishingly small; the cost to me of scanning and   
> deleting is more than I want to spend.
>
> Ken Gordon
> On 2010-04-17, at 7:46 PM, 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/~erw/erw.homepage.html>
>
>