Date: Thu Feb 03 2005 - 14:19:47 EST
> I think the point of the cowritten piece by Michele Naples was that > an introductory economics textbook which has scientific pretension > should be very clear on the nature and source of profit in a profit > oriented system. A textbook should be judged by the clarity of the > answer that it provides and the superiority of that answer over > alternative explanations. The Marxian texts that you mentioned are > thus not the best introductions to Marx's Capital as a work in the > history of economic thought; they are simply the best introductions > to economics. Rakesh: The article by Naples and Nahid Aslanbeigui was very explicitly directed towards the *neoclassical* answers presented by introductory textbooks, not Marxian or heterodox economics texts. Michele used to assign Swartz and Bonello _Clashing Views on Controversial Economics Issues_ (McGraw-Hill) for her intro. classes in economics. I don't know if she still does. I don't have experience using this book -- have others on the list? -- but I don't generally find "controversial issues" books to be very well organized as texts and they generally leave out too much "basic theory" material that I believe should be covered in an introductory course. If you are interested in some of her thoughts on teaching introductory economics see: http://econwpa.wustl.edu/~tchecndg/archive/1995/0893.html http://www.listproc.bucknell.edu/archives/femecon-l/199904/msg00055.html In solidarity, Jerry PS re Alejandro's suggestion for a webpage: Well, who on the list knows how to put together web pages? If they had the time, this might be a good project for ... Allin? ... and/or Paul C? ... and/or Hans? ... and/or Ian W? ... and/or ...???
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Feb 04 2005 - 00:00:01 EST