Re: a golden rule

["RICHARD P.F. HOLT" <holtri@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Bill Mitchell writes,
"radical economists are disadvantaged b/c the opposition rarely find out
anything about the precepts and thinking of our approaches."

This has always been on of my major complaints about many who hold the
truth of the neoclassical paradigm is that they don't follow the
golden rule or even try to listen to others. I think this has created
a lot of intellectual dishonesty in our profession. One of the reasons
why I consider myself a heterodox economists is because I truly do believe,
with a passion, in intellectual values and also a concept of an intellectual
community with standards and it's important that we play the constant
professional gadfly. But I think that Marxists, institutionalists,
Post Keynesians should also play by the same rules. Sometimes I find
heterodox economists acting the same way that we criticize our neoclassical
colleagues for. My argument is that diversity is GOOD and unfortunately
if you go to most professional meetings particularly the AEA and look
at the program there's usually very little diversity of different types
of economics. There a little bit of tokenism. That's the reason why
I like the EEA because I think it really has tried to keep the profession
honest.
On another note, life is too short to be playing games. I know for many
of you that economics has defined your life. And like Socrates with his
staff and candle we are trying to find the difference between the shadows
and what is real. I'm trying to refute every neoclassical theory that
comes along, maybe when I was younger, but I can pick-up serious
individuals who work hard and believe in what they are doing and I don't
care if they are doing neo-classical, marxist, institutional or
post keynsian work I want to listen to them. (oops, I meant not trying to
refute eveyclassical theory... I better stop)
-Ric Holt