<< To me, existing conditions are merely failed visions, both being equally real
in the perception sense.
Well said Henry
I remember another impression I have that. at least up to the 60s, British and
European economist tended to be philosophers while the American economists that
I knew or whose work I was reading were mechanics, onsumed with operational
aspects of quantitative analysis, so much so that one cannot carry on an
overview conversation with them unless one is deeply involved in their
specific, narrow and esoteric specialization.
I would like to hear your reaction to the NYTime article as a professional.
>> I took two courses with Bob Heilbroner at the New School and co-taught a course with him entited "Economics in Social Perspective" at Adelphi University (that's another whole story).
Bob is that rare combination of economist who is both literate and basically a no-bullshit kind of person. The profession sometimes pays respect to him, but basically your average AEA neoclassical type probably thinks what he does is sociology and not economics - though I'm sure they have never actually read his stuff. In fact, reading (ex cathedra) is ACTIVELY discouraged in economics. Nevertheless, the force of events, time and again, comes back to bite the profession in the face - and thoughtful grad students actually begin to return to his stuff.
Interestingly, while I was at the New School there were significant disagreements about Heilbroner. Many thought he was too conservative and dismissed him as not "rigorous." However, in point of fact Heilbroner was the "godfather" (Anwar Shaikh's characterization) of the PE program and really created the space for Marxist economics being taught at the New School. Ultimatley, the grad program owes A LOT to Bob.
Jason