[no subject]

[Bruce McFarling <ecbm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 28 Oct 1997 00:23:14 -0500, Hyman Blumenstock <hystock@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

>I seem to have difficulty in drawing attention to the validity of
>the phrase "Human Wants Are Virtually Infinite" that I presume is
>the core model

        How about this: "Human Wants are Virtually Infinite",
"Effectively Infinite" or "Actually Infinite" is bullshit that
helps to undergird a number of schools of thought in economics.
Institutionalists have been criticising this nonsense since
Veblen, and they haven't gone away -- though the mainstream
schools of thought in economics have long since stopped
listening.
        The *reason* you have difficulty attention to your
critique is that you write as if 'economics' consisted of a
single school of thought, and as if it is possible to find
out anything about Post Keynesian Economics by reading
mass-market Principles of Economics texts.  Mainstream
economists ignore you because they firmly believe in that
bullshit.  But at least you act as if mainstream economists
exist.
        The reason that you have trouble getting people paying
attention to your question above is that you presume that all
economists have the same core model.  Which is the same as
presuming that Post Keynesian Thought does not exist.  The fact
that your position implies that there is no such thing as
Post Keynesian Thought would not attract much attention among
mainstream economists, but among Post Keynesian economists and
others gathered to talk about Post Keynesian economics, it is
a bit distracting.
        As for LaRouche, it was a useful reminder that, as
much as Keynes elitism demands a bit of caution when we
are reading his theory and policy recomendations, there
are much worse elitist propagandists about, whose success
requires widespread lack of critical reasoning skills among
the population of our society (whichever society that may
happen to be).
Virtually,

Bruce McFarling, Ourimbah, NSW
ecbm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx