===================== HES POSTING ==================== > Michael Williams wrote the following: > > "I have met so many bright and motivated students who felt that they > were repeatedly required to 'pay their dues' again and again by not only > mastering, but actually doing original work at the ever-expanding > technical frontier of orthodox economic modelling, before being allowed > to 'play the blues' and get down to serious theoretical criticism of > orthodoxy. Too often the result is that they either quit economics in > favour of another social science, or perhaps philosophy, or they put > aside the critical enthusiams of their 'youth' and immerse themselves in > orthodoxy's 'normal' science. Neither of these consequences can be > good for the health of the discipline, I would suggest." As a fairly new "motivated" graduate student interested in economics, I am interested in the issues raised by Mr. (Prof?) Williams. In my exposure thus far to "Neoclassical economics" I have found certain issues and assumptions which I question. I also question numerous issues and assumptions within "heterox" alternatives, with the possible exception of Austrian. Unlike the "many bright and motivated students" cited by Williams, I do not find it at all unreasonable that I am expected to "master" (that is, demonstrate understanding of) orthodox economic modeling before I have standing to criticize it. Toward that end (the ultimate mastery) I am pursuing a Ph.D. in economics, as well as the additional learning provided by subscribing to this and other mailing lists, among other things. I am not overly concerned about being forced into some hypothetical mold which (in an ongoing thread) seems to escape specification. Mike Robison Michigan State University Statistics/Economics ============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]