Folks,
This is just a quick remark on the last few postings. Words such as
"balanced" have absolutely nothing to do with legitimate
scientific/academic inquiry. It is not the duty of the historian to
counterbalance various ideas on the way an economy works but to give a fair
account of the way these ideas have existed in the past. More generally,
the process of academic validation has nothing to do (and should have
nothing to do) with a democratic process (Quesnay is not seeking
reelection). For those who doubt it, there is the following reference:
Fish, Stanley (2008). *Save the World on Your Own Time*. Oxford University
Press. It pays reading.
Sincerely,
Yann Giraud
(University of Cergy-Pontoise)

On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 9:35 AM, E.Schoorl <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>  On 11-03-12, *mason gaffney *<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Nom de Dieu!  This is as unbalanced as a Rush Limbaugh monologue. How about
> giving equal time to supporters of Physiocracy
>
>  Hi Mason!
> I'm not only looking forward to this conference, but already to its
> successors as well: on antiRicardianism, antiKeynesianism (invited keynote
> speaker: Steve Kates) etc.
> I hope that some questions on the history and sociology of our discipline
> will be discussed: How come that some of the falsified ideas of  'defunct
> economists' keep influencing ideas and policies long after? (A question not
> entirely irrelevant for the 21st century.)
> Best regards,
> Evert Schoorl
>