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
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 PhysiocracyHi 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