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