[ show plain text ]
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 08:18:36 EST
From: Steve Keen <email@example.com>
Jerry made an interesting little comment:
>On the other hand, I think that Marxists could gain much from a
>systematic engagement with and then critique of "heterodox" economic
>theories, e.g. post-Keynesianism (Hi Steve K!). Interestingly, the
>advancement of Marxist ideas related to non-equilibrium theory owes much,
>I think, to an accessment of chaotic models rather than an examination of
>18th and 19th century ("scientific" and "vulgar") political economy.
which tempts me to suggest a basis for such a systematic engagement--but I
hesitate because I don't need to experiment with it to know it will make me
VERY unpopular on this list!
I have almost completed writing "Debunking Economics", which will be
published by Zed Books, hopefully before the year is out. As well as having
about a dozen chapters critiquing neoclassical economics, there is one
It is written in the same style as the rest of the book--which is to say
scattalogical. I'm not trying to win any friends amongst neoclassicals, and
while I *do* value my friendships with Marxists, I couldn't refrain from the
presentation style I had used in the rest of the book simply on that basis.
So if the list is interested, I'd be willing to post the relevant chapter
for comment (but if the word is yes, I'd better get the double-posting
problem I'm experiencing sorted out first!).
No problem if there isn't interest; but I did feel obliged to give
forewarning of this chapter to friends on this list.
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 21 2000 - 09:47:57 EDT