[lbo-talk] "Economics" not a Discipline, [Fwd: Re: [Pen-l] supply and demand]

[Carrol Cox]

(Prefatory: Were I 15 or so years younger and not legally blind, I might
try to pursue the texts Ted cites and explore his position at some
depth. And I wish someone onthis list could respond in some detail to
his posts. I find them interesting but unpersuasive. So I guess at 80
and half-blind I shall stick to Albritton, Postone, Luxemburg, and Cox.
:-< )

It seems to me that Michael's post below is ample evidence for my denial
that "economics" is or can be a "discipline" or "science" or the
producer of "systematic knowledge." In fact, one sentence carries nearly
the whole of myargument: " In making this analysis, this theory pretends
that nothing else has happened to disturb the system, which is patently
ridiculous." But to show that ridiculousness one would have to go
"outside" economics, even "Marxian" economics. And that is what Marxist
"economistsd" do -- they abandon the ardtificial limitsd of economic
theory and write history.

Carrol

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Pen-l] supply and demand
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 11:09:16 -0700
From: Michael Perelman <michael at ecst.csuchico.edu>

The idea of long-term equilibrium is interesting.  Here is the way they
tell the 
story: in the short run there is a disequilibrium, say, a shortage it
requires more 
investment in a particular activity.  In the long run --, that is, given
enough time 
business can make the adjustment and reach an equilibrium.  In making
this analysis, 
this theory pretends that nothing else has happened to disturb the
system, which is 
patently ridiculous.