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 >