-----Original Message----- From: Michael Perelman <michael at ecst.csuchico.edu> To: pen-l at galaxy.csuchico.edu <pen-l at galaxy.csuchico.edu>
>I want to know what direction we should take. On another list, Barkley
>Rosser has said, and not without reason, if the new lists, kill pen-l,
>so be it -- the logic of the marketplace of ideas. Off line, Jim Devine
>told me that he thought that pen-l serves a different purpose, creating
>a different type of space than the other lists.
I think the worries about PEN-L are overrated (although worth considering. New lists are like new toys; everyone wants to try them out but that does not mean they will not return to the old standbys.
However, the existence of LBO-TALK and MARXISM may be a chance for some kinds of discussion to move off PEN-L, while PEN-Ls original purpose as a key place of discussion of progressive economics issues could be heightened.
As a non-economist, I can't always follow the discussions of Pareto optimization, but more layman offshoots of such discusssions should be the bread-and-butter of PEN-L (and I have a sense have ebbed in recent times with more straight up political discussions). What the balance between LBO-TALK and PEN-L should be I can't say, but more places to discuss these issues should enhance opportunities over time, especially with a reasonable amount of periodic cross-posting to cross-fertilize ideas.
--Nathan Newman