Re: Notre Dame

[pdavidso <pdavidso@xxxxxxx>]

>===== Original Message From "Lee, Frederic" <leefs@xxxxxxxx> =====
>Paul,
>
>Thanks for the e-mail.... ICAPE is the one who is running the conference and
all paper selections and sessions was made by Rob Garnett, the conference
organizer.
>
>Notre Dame is a real setback for heterodox economics, but not an unfamiliar
one to you or to me.

Right since you were at Rutgewrs in the 1970s.

Fred then wrote:
In reading your longer e-mail on the topic of the CHE article, I agree that
some of the comments made by say Steve Keen may have not been the most
appropriate, but his frustration is real.


Paul's response:

Frustration is no excuse for making it even harder fo anti-mainstream ideas to
achieve any acceptability.  The trouble with Steve's book, IMHO, is that it is
too much frustration expressed -- and not enough good argument.

Fred wrote:
 I for one am concerned about the incoherent theory neoclassical micro as well
as its lack of empirical grounding.  But instead of engaging in a open
dialogue with me and many others, neoclassical economists ignore us and try to
run us out of the profession.

Paul's response:

I have a few more years on you in this catagory Fred -- but frustration and
lashing back in foolish language will only exacerbate the matter.



Fred wrote:
 In addition, many neoclassical economists seem to use the theory to support
the status quo--so there is a political edge to all of this.

Paul's response"

No doubt. So what else is new? See Ken galbraith's views on this.


Fred wrote:
 However, I do prefer to concentrate on the theory.  A couple of days ago the
NYT reporter called me up and talked to me about the Notre Dame issue and
heterodox vs. orthodox.  I tried to make him understand is that the
fundamental issue is theory--not politics, not maths, not econometrics.
Whether he understood what I was saying is another thing.  And whether he will
write a story on all this is uncertain as well.

Paul's response:

Uncertain, eh?  You must understand that media writers are looking for a tag
line to hange the story on.  If you don't give them that --forget about it.

so the result is UNCERTAIN, eh?

Fred wrote:
 One final little point.  The theory given in intro, intermediate, and
graduate micro texts is wrong and/or misleading in many ways--and economists
have know this for over 50 years.  Thus, I can only conclude that they present
this stuff for ideological purposes only.


Paul's response:

I do not think so. Partly itty is training and partly it is the desire to
emulate those who win Nobel prizes, and partly npt wanting to rock the boat.


Fred wrote:
 There are ways of presenting difficult material without introducing
deliberate falsehoods.  By the way, the feather-stone example is not a case of
a straw man.  The physics classes I had explained why they fell at different
rates while being consistent with the law of gravity.  However, in
neoclassical micro it is known that market demand curves cannot be derived
from adding up individual consumer demand curves (except when you assume all
the consumers to be the same).  Hence the theory says it cannot be done, but
the textbooks do it.


Paul's response:

Are you really convinced there is no such thing as a market demand curve Fred?
 I think you might have something regarding  problems in the attempt to build
up market demand curves from Walrasian roots, but surely the Marshallian
market demand curves -- given the underlying assumptions seem logically OK.
  I would call this both a deliberate falsehood and poor teaching--and a
strawman which is so easy to knock down--but it is a strawman of mainstream
own choosing.
>
>I hope all is well with you and that you can make it to Kansas City in June.

No one has invited me yet.

Paul

Paul Davidson
Editor, Journal of Post Keynesian Economics
University of Tennessee
SMC 503
Knoxville, Tennessee 37996-0550
phone # (561)369-1951; fax #(561)369-1951;
email pdavidson@xxxxxxx
http://econ.bus.utk.edu/davidsonextra/Davidson.html