Re: Hyman's Beef

["Bruce R. McFarling" <ecbm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 27 Oct 1997 01:12:00 -0500, Hyman Blumenstock
<hystock@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>Hyman says: I presumed that the "core model" is that which is expressed
>as early as page ix of the preface of Professor Heinz Kohler's text,
>titled "A Note to the Teacher, wherein he states: "....under the main
>theme of our discipline, the theme of > overcoming > scarcity."  Of
>what, I earnestly ask.  The only scarcity we know today is of Money, and
>that is purely imaginary.  Is it common sense?  Or is it venality of the
>first order.

	But that is the core model of a *school of thought* in economics.
Obviously, on way that the dominant school of thought reproduces its
dominance is by institutions that drive dissenting schools of thought
from the introductory textbooks: introductory textbooks over-represent
the positions of the dominant school of thought and under-represent the
positions of dissenting schools.

>That is what I meant as "holy writ," further expressed on page 2 of this
>almost 800 page text, at the summation statement of the very first
>paragraph, the strangely obfuscating phrase, "Human wants are virtually
>infinite."  Am I incorrect on this assumption, especially since another
>text book authored by the Wonnacutt brothers, Paul and Ronald says
>essentially the same thing, but substitutes the word "insatiable" for
>"infinite."  If my criticism is valid even before the main body of the
>text, then what of the validity of the entire 800 pages of text that
>follows, no matter how each different professor comes up with as many
>variations on that theme as there are professors.

	Yes, this *is* what I was responding to.  This *is* what *many*
economists do, which you have been writing as if *all* economists do,
and this *is* some of what is criticised by people that are (hold onto
your hats here folks) are economists. <gasp!>
	So when I wrote that your remarks should be directed to "those*
economists who hold these position, and that *not all* economists hold
these positions, I meant it.  If you draw your picture of what *all*
eocnomists think based on a reading of introductory textbooks, you are
building on a false premise that what is included in introductory
textbooks is an *unbiased* sample of the work of economists.  And
this is especially relevant with regards to posting on pkt, since
a majority of Post Keynesians will dispute the adequacy of some,
much, or most of what is written in introductory textbooks regarding
macroeconomic theory.  Of course, *how* much is inadequate, and *which*
aspects are inadequate, is very much a live question for debate.

Virtually,

Bruce McFarling, Newcastle, NSW
ecbm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx