OPE-L message, Re: [OPE] Great Inventions and Alternative Nobel Prize

IMPORTANT: If you cite this message, OPE-L policy requires you not to reveal the identity of the author.

Re: [OPE] Great Inventions and Alternative Nobel Prize

To: Outline on Political Economy mailing list <ope@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Subject: Re: [OPE] Great Inventions and Alternative Nobel Prize

From: Alejandro Agafonow <alejandro_agafonow@xxxxxxxx>

Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2008 20:02:07 +0000 (GMT)

Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.es; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Message-ID; b=iSEukjIkmSUK5jlim/JPOSsXnYbNfsVaCYfXWw0HJ8RZeTUP3JVJjn7q4Dmv+SlBXDU4/3Aajl/GeRpwIpFvo0ZHcyCCOxHAStWEmAaZAhrXY9EiVzuMcw7v/6LX1ibWpg5iZp3u1mt7+badHRMUppm5Y6E2CoSI9LNJJ4tqIgw=;

You may cite this message only if you do not disclose who wrote it.

Levy 09-03-2008: â[â] really want to lend credibility to the 'Nobel Prize in Economics'? To do so, I think, implicitly recognizes that marginalist economics is a 'science' and that the neo-neoclassicals are the legitimate arbiters [â]â

As a market socialist I belong to heterodox economics and therefore I have to remind you all that part of marginalism does not belong to the mainstream that monopolizes academy.

Regards,

Alejandro Agafonow

----- Mensaje original ----
De: GERALD LEVY <gerald_a_levy@xxxxxxx>
Para: Outline on Political Economy mailing list <ope@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Enviado: domingo, 9 de marzo, 2008 19:04:03
Asunto: RE: [OPE] Great Inventions and Alternative Nobel Prize

> In any case, there was a point I was making about this: that there are
> nuances about the Prize in Economics which sometimes we can take advantage
> of, even if we don't respect the concept of such a prize.

Hi Paul Z:

Yes, I heard that point. No doubt, there are some winners of the
Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences who are more deserving
than others. But, do we as heterodox economists and Marxians really
want to lend credibility to the 'Nobel Prize in Economics'? To do
so, I think, implicitly recognizes that marginalist economics is a
'science' and that the neo-neoclassicals are the legitimate arbiters
(since they are the ones who control the awarding of the Bank
of Sweden Prize) to decide who has - and who has not - advanced
economic theory. So, maybe we can 'take advantage' (gain some
talking points) but what do we lose in so doing?

In solidarity, Jerry

-----Sigue archivo adjunto en el mensaje-----

_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope

_______________________________________________ ope mailing list ope@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope