[OPE-L:7010] [OPE-L:502] Re: Kliman on Moseley

Andrew Kliman (Andrew_Kliman@email.msn.com)
Thu, 25 Feb 1999 02:29:10 -0500

A reply to OPE-L 499 and 501.

I understand and sympathize with David's problem; I've had a similar
problem. After all, the term *temporal single-system
interpretation* wasn't coined until 1995.

So I understand the difficulty in coming up with a name. But time
doesn't stop until you do. Your school of thought needs to be
called *something* in the meantime.

*Simultaneism*, it seems, will have to do for now. It seems
preferable to the term *equilibrium theorists*, which was once used,
but to which people like Bruce objected, on the grounds that they
(in their opinion, not ours) aren't equilibrium theorists.

Fred, you seem to have misconstrued my question. I'm aware of how
you like your *difference* from everyone else labeled. If and when
I find the need to refer to the distinction between your thinking
and others, I'll be quite happy to use the term *macro-monetary*.
But that simply is not what is at issue here. The term
*simultaneism* refers to a *common element* that you share with the
mainstream Walrasian tradition, Bortkiewicz, the New Interpretation,
Bruce Roberts, Anwar Shaikh, the surplus approach, etc. This
commonality needs to be called *something*. If not *simultaneism*,
then what?

The reason this is so important is that, if there is no name for
your school of thought, then it is as if it doesn't exist. And
therefore it is as if WE do not exist in opposition to you. (All
determination is negation.) That's not what you want, is it?