======================= HES POSTING ==================== 
 
On Mon, 10 Nov 1997 08:38:24 MST Robert Leeson  
<[log in to unmask]> wrote: 
 
> In other words, Friedman (and in his blunt fashion, George Stigler) thought 
> about how to provoke and influence their audience; Robinson et al seemed to 
> provoke and alienate their audience.       
>  
 
I think this is right. 
 
> I would be very interested to hear comments from those who lived through the 
> Cambridge controversies  
 
I was in Cambridge in the 1960s, and about half went along with the  
Robinson point of view. My favourite memory, from a little bit later,  
is of Joan Robinson, by then into her 60s, explaining that since  
reading Kuhn she understood that there was no hope of converting the  
neo-classicals, 'we' just had to wait for them to die off! I am not  
making this up - I really heard her say it, and she gave every  
appearance of believing it. 
 
That blinkered arrogance was characteristic of her and of Cambridge at  
the time. Anyone who didn't immediately accept her views was stupid or  
perverse and not worth arguing with. The subtext was: lesser places  
(like Chicago, MIT, LSE ...) should fall into line, since Cambridge was  
the centre of the world. The smugness and conscious sense of  
superiority of 1960s Cambridge had to be experienced to be believed.  
This was not just in economics, though in economics it was reinforced  
by a powerful belief that since Keynes was (a) semi-divine, and (b) a  
Cambridge man, those who had been his colleagues must also be treated  
with especial reverence. 
 
I have been repeatedly struck since by how ineffective much  
post-Keynesian rhetoric is. It seems almost compulsory to include  
vitriolic attacks on neo-classicism, often marked by a stunning  
ignorance of the literature under discussion. I don't know about  
others, but when I am insulted and hectored about my faults, I switch  
off. I have often had that experience when I try to read post-Keynesian  
writings. It isn't surprising that most economists don't even try to  
read it. 
 
Tony Brewer ([log in to unmask]) 
University of Bristol, Department of Economics 
============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]