Re: Heterodoxy

["Harry L. Cook" <hlc710@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with what you are saying, but in the several years that I have been
tuning into PKT,  discourse directly on the central problem of income
distribution and institutional ramifications has been rare to nonextistent.
The issue is almost entirely simply ignored.
                                    Harry L. Cook

----- Original Message -----
From: "mongiovg" <mongiovg@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Post Keynesian" <pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2002 10:44 AM
Subject: Re: Heterodoxy


> In response to Harry Cook: Well, yes and no.
>
> Of course, what ultimately matter are the sort of concrete problems Harry
> mentions.  But to influence the way those problems are resolved,
> economists--mainstream or otherwise--need to be heard and heeded.  This
> discussion is about how non-mainstreamers can carve out a larger slice of
the
> discourse. Getting your message on the radar screen is part of what
political
> economy is about.
>
> I've been mulling over what Paul wrote in response to my earlier post on
this
> topic. I have some nuanced differences with him. First, I'll take credit
(or
> blame) for applying the phrase "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" in
this
> context: I suggested--a couple of years ago in an on-line discussion with
> Paul, as a matter of fact--that it had some relevance to how
non-mainstreamers
> engage with economists with whom they disagree. There are lots of thing
wrong
> with orthodox economics, and non-orthodox economists will have different
views
> about which of the many defects is most disabling. But to the extent that
we
> can agree that these various criticisms have merit, they reinforce each
other:
> that ought to be acknowledged, so that the criticisms can be incorporated
into
> a unified opposition to (mostly) bad orthodox theory.
>
> That doesn't mean we should deny our differences: Paul is right to say
that
> these differences are not trivial; at least, not all of them are. We ought
to
> debate them out. But it makes a difference whether we go into those
debates
> with the attitude that there's only one way right way to attack the
mainstream
> theory and develop alternatives to it, and all the other ways have to be
> discredited; or instead go in with the attitude that there are a number of
> useful ways to think about economic processes and what we ought to strive
for
> is clarity in articulating our differences (so we don't waste time arguing
> over misunderstandings).
>
> Also, there is a good deal of agreement among non-mainstreamers on policy
> issues, and this ought to be exploited better than it has been.  Paul
rebuffed
>  James Tobin's offer to make common cause with the Post Keynesians on
> unemployment policy. I groaned when I read that.  As I've said on other
> occasions, at least we can have a useful converstation with folks like
Tobin,
> even if we disagree on theoretical fundamentals. I don't understand this
idea
> that disagreeing with someone, even disagreeing at a foundational level,
means
> you can't work with him to promote common ends--for example, injecting
some
> common sense into public debate about unemployment policy. I don't think
this
> is naive: I think it's realistic.  I think that's how the Constitution of
the
> United States got hammered out, and how the New Deal got formulated and
> inmplemented, and it's how any insitution  comprised of
> not-exactly-like-minded individuals (URPE is a good example) manages to
> function and accomplish good things.
>
> Again, even the Austrians have a role in this discussion.  Lachmann's
> economics is close enough to Shackle's to provide support for Post
Keynesian
> positions, and insight for further thinking.  And the time is ripe for a
real
> discussion between Austrians and leftists on the issue of freedom.  Seems
to
> me that there is some common ground on the notion of the State as a
principal
> force for the suppression of freedom (now if only the Austrians would
> recognize that capital plays at least an equally important a role in
> suppressing freedom).
>
> I was just a lad in the days of the Trieste school, and I was not part of
the
> inner circle.  But I have the impression that Paul's characterization of
what
> happened is off target.  I don't think the problem was that people tried
to
> camouflage the fundamental incompatibilities of their approaches for the
sake
> or presenting a (false) unified front against orthodoxy.  I think there
was a
> genuine search for common ground that got scuttled because some
participants
> couldn't abide the big tent conception of heterodoxy. Had the experiment
> continued, the outcome might have been a more unified, though not
homogeneous,
> heterodox school, under the label of post Keynesianism--a "gorgeous
mosaic,"
> as ex-mayo David Dinkins once described New York City. The essays in
"Growth,
> Profits & Property" (edited by Ed Nell, CUP, 1980, for example were the
> culmination of a project to integrate Keynesian, Kaleckian, Sraffian and
> Marxian insights into a unified Post Keynesian account of postwar
capitalism;
> to judge from the essays, the  prospects in 1980 were not so bleak as they
> appear now.
>
> Paul bemoans the the mainstream view of heterodoxy as a
"divide-and-conquer"
> phenomenon.  But his approach promotes this view, and if I may say so,
plays
> into the enemy's hands. It is appropriate for non-mainstream economists to
> disagree with one another on unsettled issues. But they should also
> acknowledge common ground.
>
> Gary
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>