RE: RE: Lies, damned lies, and economics

["Forstater, Mathew" <ForstaterM@xxxxxxxx>]

I admire both Galbraith and Heilbroner, but it always seemed clear to me
that Heilbroner (save maybe his New Yorker articles or whatever) was
writing at a more complex, deeper level (even in NYRB--articles on
Schumpeter, Keynes, etc.).  One may differ with, e.g., his
interpretation of dialectics in Marxism: For and Against (about which he
has always remarked that the most important word in the title was
"and"), but I don't think you can say that it is 'watered down'.  While
it is true that Heilbroner is trying to communicate with an audience
beyond professional economists or university professors, I think he does
challenge the reader to put some thought into his arguments.

Recently, Heilbroner has said that he thinks of himself as in the field
of education, not economics, and that his favorite work of his own is
his Visions of the Future, which is not really about economics, but
looks at how perceptions of the future have changed through history, and
how those perceptions affect the present.

Mat