re. cranks

[Whitalone@xxxxxxx by emout37.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) Tue, 7 Oct 1997 23:23:15 -0400 (EDT)]

I could not let this one pass. It seems every three or so months comes a call
to eliminate the "cranks" from the rank and file of PKT. Whatever
motivations, however noble or insecure, that lead to this call, I hope will
be ignored.

Mason asks, "Are you out there?    Intimidated?"

Of course I am. Being an amatuer student of history and economics, I find
many of the subjects to be way over my understanding. At the same time, there
is purpose to this pursuit. While I may respond infrequently, I find that
many of the regulars often ask or respond with the types of thoughts I have.
No need for me to toot my horn.

John O'Donnell responds, "I can only hope that there are also an abudnance of
those who struggle to learn and have a talent to teach who still find the
effort worthwhile."

Paul Rosenberg states, "I'd really *LIKE* to be subscribed to a list that
discusses
Post-keynsian theory."

I can only respond to these two statements by acknowleding the crank that I
am, while holding out the possiblity of teaching in semi-retirement. This
irrationality is evidenced by one who saves and prints-out the majority of
postings so I can read them at my leisure since I am busy with other
pursuits, like handling the sales for the small printing company I work for
and raising two teenage sons. (Which also means the demand for telephone time
is very scarce in my household)

Actually, I just wanted to say that this list has been the most professional
list I have had the privileged to enjoy. (And I have subscribed to many over
the last year) I have learned more about Keynesian economics than anything in
print, not counting the books by contributors to this list. Indeed, being a
crank has a simple solution, just delete the posts from whitalone. Believe me
there is no personal or monetary loss to me personally.

However, continue to allow me the priviledge of listening to your arguements.
Afterall, I can think of nothing more un-Keynesian than denying cranks access
to the economic arguments that predominate this list. If there exists a
deficiency with keynesian economics, i think it resides in the fact that
keynesian economics is ignored or viewed as too socialist for a capital
society. This requires continued articulation of the potential for keynesian
economic policy. If in some small way I might contribute in my area of
influence, then all is well and we need not abandon ship....

Best regards,

Scott R. Simpson
whitalone@xxxxxxx