Re: a golden rule

[ecwfm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (bill mitchell)]

Ric writes:
>
>I think this is so important for honest intellectual debate. The golden
>rule has always been for me, which has served me well, is to give your
>opponent the most charitable interpretation of their position that way
>you can avoid straw man arguments. Another tricky one, which we constantly
>run into on this list, is the ability to criticize vehemently a person's
>logical position on a issue and then when it's all over to slap each other
>on the back with a grin for a job well done and go and have a beer together.
>Actually we should pat ourselves on the back here. Compared to many lists
>we do a pretty good job here at pkt.

Well a cyber beer at least. But the more substantive point i would make is
this. I agree that to debate we have to be informed. And it is better to
know the opposite view thoroughly before venturing to discuss it or
criticise it. To some extent radical economists are disadvantaged b/c the
opposition rarely find out anything about the precepts and thinking of our
approaches.

But the golden rule is not without an opportunity cost. Maybe _too much_
time is spent by us giving credence to recycled trash in the guise of
neo-new-classical thought at the cost of developing and refining and own
diametric thoughts and principles. These days (having been out of post grad
for 10 years) I rarely encounter anything in neo/new c articles which are
innovative or developmental (even within the confines of their own very
confined paradigm). i certainly encounter a plethora of whiz-bang technical
nuances but very little of substance. Where do I stop investing time in
learning all the skills to keep pace with this stuff? Maybe it is a
defensible position to lump it in the "more of the same" basket and get on
developing my own skills and learning in the areas of political economy
which are of personal interest and which i believe are more worthy of
publication etc.

and of-course with the lop-sided nature of the profession, where radical
thought is suppressed in usual debate and journals etc, to keep abreast of
all the weirdo neo c literature is extremely time consuming. Why is it not
legitimate to say, for example, when you see some article on the marginal
productivity theory of distribution or an aggregate production function (to
use just one of many examples), that the theory was categorically shown
during the cambridge debates to be logically flawed and therefore cannot
form the basis of any sensible knowledge. They just cannot keep trying to
reinvent their failed paradigm.

is that a straw person or not. i think not.

kind regards
bill
**************************************************************************
 William F. Mitchell            Telephone: +61-49-215027      .-_|\
 Department of Economics                   +61-49-705133     /     \
 The University of Newcastle    Fax:       +61-49-216919     \.--._/*<--
 Callaghan   NSW  2308                                            v
 Australia                      Email : ecwfm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
**************************************************************************