Print

Print


Randy (and anyone else interested),

I took your  “neoclassical bastards” as a phrase somewhat akin to an
amusing double entendre.  Upon discovering Robinson’s “bastard Keynesian”
phrase long ago (in the title of John Hotson’s book of the mid 70s) I
immediately put it into my repertoire and have used it since.  I use it
sometimes for a tad of shock value in a classroom full of  youngins within
the halls of higher learning (along with the Schumpeterian “cold douche”
which Heilbroner so fondly recounted).  I was virtually certain that your
phraseology bore some of this Robinsonian  DNA.  I also took it in the
sense in which Geoff (and perhaps others) apparently took it (which is to
say a less clinical sense than Robinson’s assessment could be construed.)
I’ve encountered more than a few such neoclassical bastards but I’ve also
encountered heterodox bastards.

But note (above) that I said “ somewhat akin.”  That is intended to capture
some confusion on my part.  Robinson’s bastard Keynesians were those who
gloriously transformed the mostly literary and “nuanced” GT Keynes into the
“superior” Hicks-Hansen formalism (and for matters of convenience,
ignorance,  deception or whatever) conveniently left out (chronological as
opposed to “physics”)  time,  (radical) uncertainty, ignorance, etc.
Bastard (illegitimate) sums up this scenario quite nicely.   Keynes was not
the father of THAT child--at least in Robinson’s narrative).   Even Hicks
conceded this point late in life.

It’s when I wrestled with “bastard neoclassicals” that I quickly became
confused.  What would that perspective look like?   Would a bastard
neoclassical economist be one who arrived at the “standard” neoclassical
conclusions from a non-neoclassical perspective (different “axiomatic” set,
different ontology, etc.)?  Would a bastard neoclassical economist be one
who tries to “smuggle” heterodox ideas into the neoclassical framework?
Might a bastard neoclassical be a mere sociologist (as Schumpeter
essentially thought of Veblen)?  Are bastard neoclassicals those who failed
to grasp the fullness of Marshall (e.g., ignoring and/or ignorant of App. H
etc.) ?  Inquiring minds want to know.

This is (hopefully seen) as partly tongue in cheek but it’s a serious
inquiry too.  Is there an emblematic bastard neoclassicist?

BTW, my first (shitty) AFIT presentation long ago was partly an effort to
get at what I thought neoclassicism was/wasn’t and why I thought that
mattered.   (Short answer: apologetics).  We spoke for some time afterwards
and you were exceedingly gracious and welcoming.  (We talked at length
about some of the issues that you just recounted in re the grad school
experience etc.)  I remain grateful for that encounter some 30 years
later.

Brian

<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com_email-2Dsignature-3Futm-5Fmedium-3Demail-26utm-5Fsource-3Dlink-26utm-5Fcampaign-3Dsig-2Demail-26utm-5Fcontent-3Dwebmail&d=DwIFaQ&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=LtbujWNPdbzw6j8eq9-RJVMBctp9ndCoqGEy57VsNLQ&m=HP2l2H-aYoOIzS7OUgJyMz9d41c2Km7B1qzqpaHcXrc&s=ungXhliFOGHUTW75ihOd995FDh6OKgiYySO6aw3hHwc&e=>
Virus-free.
www.avg.com
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com_email-2Dsignature-3Futm-5Fmedium-3Demail-26utm-5Fsource-3Dlink-26utm-5Fcampaign-3Dsig-2Demail-26utm-5Fcontent-3Dwebmail&d=DwIFaQ&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=LtbujWNPdbzw6j8eq9-RJVMBctp9ndCoqGEy57VsNLQ&m=HP2l2H-aYoOIzS7OUgJyMz9d41c2Km7B1qzqpaHcXrc&s=ungXhliFOGHUTW75ihOd995FDh6OKgiYySO6aw3hHwc&e=>
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 7:19 PM Wray, Randall <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> First, I had thought Affee-ers would be familiar with Joan Robinson's
> term; "bastard" has a very specific and technical meaning--illegitimate
> birthing--in reference to the questionable lineage of modern macro. I did
> toy with the order of the phrasing in one of my sentences, as she put it
> first as a modifier. And yes, it was meant to be funny. Sorry that was so
> confusing.
>
>
> And let me say I would not use this to describe actual birthing of humans
> as all creatures great and small are either birthed, hatched, or
> created--and there can be no illegitimacy for a birthed human.
>
>
> Robinson applied it to ideas. I was applying it to those who try to
> package neoclassical economics as Keynesian. Geoff usefully added several
> others who have packaged heterodox ideas into neoclassical economics.
> Cross-breeding is rarely successful. As I said. Bastards are the result.
>
>
> I'll leave it to John Henry to define Neoclassical Econ, as he taught me
> and then wrote the book on it. I think Geoff's definition isn't that
> useful. I recommend John's book "The Making of Neoclassical Economics" (if
> my memory serves me well). From the beginning this was a political agenda.
> Equilibrium and utility are diversions.
>
>
> Now as to using bastard as a pejorative to describe actual neoclassicals.
> In my experience, yes, a lot of them do qualify. I can think back nearly 20
> years ago when the AEA neoclassicals decided to cut AFEE panels to reduce
> the number of institutionalists who might show up at the meetings. They
> offered no rational explanation. As I recall, two of the neoclassicals
> stood up to defend us--Diedre McCloskey and Ed Leamer. The rest of them?
> Cut the panels. And they've continued to do that. Bastards? Your call.
>
>
> I've also had a lot of experience with bastards over the years--doing
> their best to exclude heterodox economists from positions, tenure,
> publications. I think many other Institutionalists and heterodox economists
> have, also.
>
>
> Summers has emerged as one of the main "Keynesian" critics of MMT. And is
> (hilariously) enlisted by a large number of heterodox economists--including
> FEMINIST LABOR ECONOMISTS!--in their critiques of MMT. Larry! who argues
> woman cannot do science. Larry! who argues we should view developing
> countries as toxic waste dumps. Larry! who helped to ensure CDSs could not
> be regulated by any government body. Yes, Larry is on OUR side.
>
>
> Bastard? Your call.
>
>
> It is funny that everyone now must take the opportunity to criticize MMT
> and distance themselves from it. No matter how irrelevant to the discussion
> at hand. MMT has got to be stopped. Why? Because there has not been any
> heterodox theory that has captured the attention that MMT has got over the
> past half century (or more). It must be stopped.
>
>
> Why is it so damned scary?
>
> A.
>
> O.
>
> C.
>
>
> There is no excuse for arguing from a position of ignorance any more. Bill
> Mitchell, Martin Watts and I have put out a textbook on it; almost 600
> pages. AFEE folk are encouraged to read it and to point out where we've
> gone astray from Keynes's and Institutionalist teachings. I am confident
> that we've got Keynes right--confirmed by referees who said they'd never
> seen in a textbook an exposition that stayed so close to Keynes. I'm also
> confident that it is consistent with the Institutional theory advanced by
> Fagg Foster and Dudley Dillard--and I've published several articles in the
> JEI on that version.
>
>
> I cannot vouch for consistency with Anne's or Geoff's version. I would
> like to know where we went wrong. Please cite page and passage. Handwaves
> are no longer necessary.
>
>
> L. Randall Wray
> Senior Scholar, Levy Economics Institute
> Papers: www.levyinstitute.org/publications/?auth=287
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.levyinstitute.org_publications_-3Fauth-3D287&d=DwMF-g&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=LtbujWNPdbzw6j8eq9-RJVMBctp9ndCoqGEy57VsNLQ&m=q1ZFayA1nv1JUGOc18LPyK8PW8VmF9Hj9rJVbR9JqOs&s=J6sdSLroJtBvZ43C9BxQx1mTKOFAuEuzHHXPE_EJpPM&e=>
>
> Co-editor *Journal of Post Keynesian Economics*
> ISSN 0160-3477 (Print), 1557-7821 (Online)
> www.tandfonline.com/toc/mpke20/current
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.tandfonline.com_toc_mpke20_current&d=DwIFaQ&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=LtbujWNPdbzw6j8eq9-RJVMBctp9ndCoqGEy57VsNLQ&m=HP2l2H-aYoOIzS7OUgJyMz9d41c2Km7B1qzqpaHcXrc&s=ALYmka65PX6oYHmrLrqR7ZGaqd-VBr7cgeF3OhMdQR8&e=
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.tandfonline.com_toc_mpke20_current&d=DwMF-g&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=LtbujWNPdbzw6j8eq9-RJVMBctp9ndCoqGEy57VsNLQ&m=q1ZFayA1nv1JUGOc18LPyK8PW8VmF9Hj9rJVbR9JqOs&s=WMu5vVREIb6REAYTPkca8pZ2AkUzG8FJZ4ux9MElDEY&e=>
>
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__http-3A__www.tandfonline.com_toc_mpke20_current&d=DwMF-g&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=LtbujWNPdbzw6j8eq9-RJVMBctp9ndCoqGEy57VsNLQ&m=q1ZFayA1nv1JUGOc18LPyK8PW8VmF9Hj9rJVbR9JqOs&s=xLyJh-tvDLKM3jxvF_ZPRd4-lOCcdUc-OJCTAwII_l8&e=>
> New Book: *Why Minsky Matters: An Introduction to the work of a maverick
> economist, *Princeton University Press
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__press.princeton.edu_titles_10575.html&d=DwIFaQ&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=LtbujWNPdbzw6j8eq9-RJVMBctp9ndCoqGEy57VsNLQ&m=HP2l2H-aYoOIzS7OUgJyMz9d41c2Km7B1qzqpaHcXrc&s=SKc_o7PF_sGQ9BlQpV_8joqN6JfIKQnrcCnfsA6zg3U&e=
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__press.princeton.edu_titles_10575.html&d=DwMF-g&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=LtbujWNPdbzw6j8eq9-RJVMBctp9ndCoqGEy57VsNLQ&m=q1ZFayA1nv1JUGOc18LPyK8PW8VmF9Hj9rJVbR9JqOs&s=PfVL9tYnA7LIU1hx6YPB9IFZ0HdeZi-kebGoBu2t6cM&e=>
>
> New Book: *Modern Money Theory: a primer on macroeconomics for
> sovereign monetary systems*, Palgrave Macmillan
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.palgrave.com_page_detail_modern-2Dmoney-2Dtheory-2Dl-2Drandall-2Dwray_-3Fisb-3D9781137539908&d=DwIFaQ&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=LtbujWNPdbzw6j8eq9-RJVMBctp9ndCoqGEy57VsNLQ&m=HP2l2H-aYoOIzS7OUgJyMz9d41c2Km7B1qzqpaHcXrc&s=i_eO-ujXYkhHZ-BZ4EtI4sgMJolaYgMUJdqe74_mu5M&e=
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.palgrave.com_page_detail_modern-2Dmoney-2Dtheory-2Dl-2Drandall-2Dwray_-3Fisb-3D9781137539908&d=DwMF-g&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=LtbujWNPdbzw6j8eq9-RJVMBctp9ndCoqGEy57VsNLQ&m=q1ZFayA1nv1JUGOc18LPyK8PW8VmF9Hj9rJVbR9JqOs&s=eNe46NLeTXiCBN2IRMKIrFmFFSOjK_W9euNsFhFWjP8&e=>
>
>
> Please make note of my new email address as I will be transitioning all
> email to:
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* AFEEMAIL Discussion List <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of
> Mayhew, Anne <[log in to unmask]>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 1, 2019 2:34 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: [AFEEMAIL] Are Sustainability and Public Choice schools of
> thought, per se?
>
>
> I think Geoff makes a good and valid point.  Use of pejoratives and lack
> of attention to what it is that differentiates a group from one’s own is a
> sure sign of the kind of “camp meeting” attitude that Warren Gramm worried
> about among heterodox economists.  As a useful antidote I highly recommend
> Tony Lawson’s article on “What is this ‘School’ called Neoclassical
> Economics?”  This article, originally published in the *Cambridge Journal
> of Economics (*2013).  Tony’s article is a serious and in depth effort to
> determine what Veblen meant when he coined the name “neoclassical.”  In
> 2016 a collection of essays, edited by Jamie Morgan was published by
> Routledge under the title *What is Neoclassical Economics?  *Tony’s
> article is republished and there are many others including one that I wrote
> titled “Lawson, Veblen, and Marshall:  How to Read Neoclassicism.”  I would
> welcome feedback.
>
>
>
> This discussion about “schools” can continue to be a useful one if it
> involves discussion of that preconceptions, tenets, methods are considered
> core and essential to each of the schools.  I, for example, am interested
> in knowing more about whether MMT, as it is discussed in political
> discourse, is consistent with Post Keynesian Economics and/or
> Institutionalism.  It seems to me not to be so but I am willing to be
> informed.
>
>
>
> Here is to good and informed discussion.
>
>
>
> --Anne
>
>
>
> *From:* AFEEMAIL Discussion List <[log in to unmask]> *On Behalf
> Of *Wray, Randall
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 1, 2019 2:50 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: [AFEEMAIL] Are Sustainability and Public Choice schools of
> thought, per se?
>
>
>
> No, I probably have a different definition of bastard in mind.
>
>
>
> However some of those examples you listed would serve.
>
>
>
> L. Randall Wray
>
> Senior Scholar, Levy Economics Institute
>
> Papers: www.levyinstitute.org/publications/?auth=287
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.levyinstitute.org_publications_-3Fauth-3D287&d=DwMF-g&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=LtbujWNPdbzw6j8eq9-RJVMBctp9ndCoqGEy57VsNLQ&m=AS_YyxKoFXN6E1u4Ni9mC9lhVCTLhBz9oIdswPP3JAE&s=dA4D5TIGzfW8j0rJ3XalBnjYwFsvzuphseDEgR42dEo&e=>
>
> Co-editor *Journal of Post Keynesian Economics*
> ISSN 0160-3477 (Print), 1557-7821 (Online)
> www.tandfonline.com/toc/mpke20/current
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.tandfonline.com_toc_mpke20_current&d=DwMFAg&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=LtbujWNPdbzw6j8eq9-RJVMBctp9ndCoqGEy57VsNLQ&m=w9nENK9q9MAGIuc_uub9SF9l3xd1oAHeMbMQ26oVoDA&s=GcDUtbp7jHpWa0HGIV6Te41NjbdbYy34MjA2atomvkE&e=>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.tandfonline.com_toc_mpke20_current&d=DwIFaQ&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=LtbujWNPdbzw6j8eq9-RJVMBctp9ndCoqGEy57VsNLQ&m=HP2l2H-aYoOIzS7OUgJyMz9d41c2Km7B1qzqpaHcXrc&s=ALYmka65PX6oYHmrLrqR7ZGaqd-VBr7cgeF3OhMdQR8&e=
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.tandfonline.com_toc_mpke20_current&d=DwMF-g&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=LtbujWNPdbzw6j8eq9-RJVMBctp9ndCoqGEy57VsNLQ&m=AS_YyxKoFXN6E1u4Ni9mC9lhVCTLhBz9oIdswPP3JAE&s=hs2ha-s6qGxlbAf6sYsOVswpCPCuZDJpczM1iB9tz5s&e=>
>
> New Book: *Why Minsky Matters: An Introduction to the work of a maverick
> economist, *Princeton University Press
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__press.princeton.edu_titles_10575.html&d=DwIFaQ&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=LtbujWNPdbzw6j8eq9-RJVMBctp9ndCoqGEy57VsNLQ&m=HP2l2H-aYoOIzS7OUgJyMz9d41c2Km7B1qzqpaHcXrc&s=SKc_o7PF_sGQ9BlQpV_8joqN6JfIKQnrcCnfsA6zg3U&e=
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__press.princeton.edu_titles_10575.html&d=DwMF-g&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=LtbujWNPdbzw6j8eq9-RJVMBctp9ndCoqGEy57VsNLQ&m=AS_YyxKoFXN6E1u4Ni9mC9lhVCTLhBz9oIdswPP3JAE&s=_HsR1hGnMqDHhPo1IjDWRCPwxYQrb2Ulex93PCTKBfw&e=>
>
>
>
> New Book: *Modern Money Theory: a primer on macroeconomics for
> sovereign monetary systems*, Palgrave Macmillan
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.palgrave.com_page_detail_modern-2Dmoney-2Dtheory-2Dl-2Drandall-2Dwray_-3Fisb-3D9781137539908&d=DwIFaQ&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=LtbujWNPdbzw6j8eq9-RJVMBctp9ndCoqGEy57VsNLQ&m=HP2l2H-aYoOIzS7OUgJyMz9d41c2Km7B1qzqpaHcXrc&s=i_eO-ujXYkhHZ-BZ4EtI4sgMJolaYgMUJdqe74_mu5M&e=
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.palgrave.com_page_detail_modern-2Dmoney-2Dtheory-2Dl-2Drandall-2Dwray_-3Fisb-3D9781137539908&d=DwMF-g&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=LtbujWNPdbzw6j8eq9-RJVMBctp9ndCoqGEy57VsNLQ&m=AS_YyxKoFXN6E1u4Ni9mC9lhVCTLhBz9oIdswPP3JAE&s=AjCeKXjejp_Ii-pN59Ad7Z6wweyh_2d7T7dtcsFBHDk&e=>
>
>
>
>
> Please make note of my new email address as I will be transitioning all
> email to:
>
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* AFEEMAIL Discussion List <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of
> Geoffrey Hodgson <[log in to unmask]>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 1, 2019 7:35 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: [AFEEMAIL] Are Sustainability and Public Choice schools of
> thought, per se?
>
>
>
> Dear AFEEers
>
>
>
> Randy Wray has contributed much of value in his writings. The phrase
> “neoclassical bastards” (30 April) is not one of them.
>
>
>
> It all depends how you define “neoclassical”. There is a controversy over
> the meaning of “neoclassical economics”. My suggestion would be to define
> it in terms of utility maximization and equilibrium. By this definition,
> most (but not all) of mainstream economics is neoclassical.
>
>
>
> The assumptions of utility maximization and equilibrium are not
> ideologically neutral. But they are highly adaptable. Abba Lerner and Oskar
> Lange used them (within general equilibrium theory) to try to show how
> socialism can work. The same assumptions are adopted by Marxists such as
> John Roemer and (the late) Eric Olin Wright, as well as by post-Marxists
> such as Sam Bowles and Herb Gintis. They may all be wrong, but are they all
> “bastards”?
>
>
>
> Randy may have a different definition of neoclassical in mind, but he
> should have made his meaning clear.
>
>
>
> Best wishes
>
> Geoff
>
>
>
> In future, please use my [log in to unmask] address.
>
>
>
> Geoffrey M Hodgson
>
> Professor in Management at Loughborough University London
>
> Editor in Chief, *Journal of Institutional Economics*
>
> Secretary of the World Interdisciplinary Network for Institutional
> Research (WINIR)
>
> Secretary of Millennium Economics Ltd
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.geoffreymhodgson.uk_&d=DwIFaQ&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=LtbujWNPdbzw6j8eq9-RJVMBctp9ndCoqGEy57VsNLQ&m=HP2l2H-aYoOIzS7OUgJyMz9d41c2Km7B1qzqpaHcXrc&s=fZqfFOYC0U2NBj5rXb_gbEBCu9GewOLe4aS1EChRE0U&e=
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.geoffreymhodgson.uk_&d=DwMF-g&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=LtbujWNPdbzw6j8eq9-RJVMBctp9ndCoqGEy57VsNLQ&m=GQVu6nnk2xegQ7BuLlHnzG8FuUBsnn9jESlECIE_gkk&s=YX-5zTXwxrDvFK9a506z3Jx94-cZFhGKy88Caw3UE-0&e=>
>
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* AFEEMAIL Discussion List <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of
> Wray, Randall <[log in to unmask]>
> *Sent:* 30 April 2019 11:24:39
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: [AFEEMAIL] Are Sustainability and Public Choice schools of
> thought, per se?
>
>
>
> Brian: my professor, Marc Tool, used to thunder against all "isms" and if
> you sat in the front of the class--as I did--he put the fear of god into
> you. I still hesitate before adding an ism to Institutional.
>
>
>
> However as Paul Davidson always says, categorization is essential to
> building an understanding. As a kid you learn animal, vegetable, mineral
> and it helps to make sense of the world. You go on to species and learn
> about cats, dogs, and gold fish. There's a lot of variability across
> individuals, but more similarities within groups. They mostly mate with
> their own kind--but a few of the more adventurous try cross-species
> dallying.
>
> Ditto with schools of thought (at the extreme, isms). Individuals might
> protest mightily about pigeon-holing and that of course is unfair, but to
> build understanding the categorization is essential. And cross-species
> fertilization almost never works.
>
>
>
> When I finally went on to grad school, a few months into the program, one
> of my fellow students told me that I was the only one (of 24 entering first
> years) who had an ideology. He had never heard of a school of thought. He
> had thought economics is just economics.
>
> Or, more precisely, economics is just math. Like many of those other
> students, he struggled trying to make sense of what the heck economics
> actually is, other than special purpose sets of math equations with no
> apparent links among them. He and many others did rather poorly that first
> year; I found grad school to be very easy because I knew which ideology the
> neoclassical bastards were trying to feed us. I knew it at least as well as
> they did--probably better. Neoclassicals are by far the most likely to
> protest that they are not neoclassical.
>
>
>
> I've always taken John Harvey's approach to teaching. Schools of thought
> is the first lecture in any and every class I teach. I cannot imagine
> making any sense of economics without that.
>
>
>
> L. Randall Wray
>
> Senior Scholar, Levy Economics Institute
>
> Papers: www.levyinstitute.org/publications/?auth=287
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.levyinstitute.org_publications_-3Fauth-3D287&d=DwMF-g&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=LtbujWNPdbzw6j8eq9-RJVMBctp9ndCoqGEy57VsNLQ&m=uYtW8ih6C2SsTnBaYtcTxoMsMwWeS1zuXFNb1XjJv4c&s=-e3tCQDHzOS_kmW4TIIWwSXj9E4f3x4l4pfThi3TFyg&e=>
>
> Co-editor *Journal of Post Keynesian Economics*
> ISSN 0160-3477 (Print), 1557-7821 (Online)
> www.tandfonline.com/toc/mpke20/current
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.tandfonline.com_toc_mpke20_current&d=DwMFAg&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=LtbujWNPdbzw6j8eq9-RJVMBctp9ndCoqGEy57VsNLQ&m=w9nENK9q9MAGIuc_uub9SF9l3xd1oAHeMbMQ26oVoDA&s=GcDUtbp7jHpWa0HGIV6Te41NjbdbYy34MjA2atomvkE&e=>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.tandfonline.com_toc_mpke20_current&d=DwIFaQ&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=LtbujWNPdbzw6j8eq9-RJVMBctp9ndCoqGEy57VsNLQ&m=HP2l2H-aYoOIzS7OUgJyMz9d41c2Km7B1qzqpaHcXrc&s=ALYmka65PX6oYHmrLrqR7ZGaqd-VBr7cgeF3OhMdQR8&e=
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.tandfonline.com_toc_mpke20_current&d=DwMF-g&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=LtbujWNPdbzw6j8eq9-RJVMBctp9ndCoqGEy57VsNLQ&m=uYtW8ih6C2SsTnBaYtcTxoMsMwWeS1zuXFNb1XjJv4c&s=PvD-zEiLPysIYTDHV0QSPv9WuXOWQOrcxj0SzeHrv5k&e=>
>
> New Book: *Why Minsky Matters: An Introduction to the work of a maverick
> economist, *Princeton University Press
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__press.princeton.edu_titles_10575.html&d=DwIFaQ&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=LtbujWNPdbzw6j8eq9-RJVMBctp9ndCoqGEy57VsNLQ&m=HP2l2H-aYoOIzS7OUgJyMz9d41c2Km7B1qzqpaHcXrc&s=SKc_o7PF_sGQ9BlQpV_8joqN6JfIKQnrcCnfsA6zg3U&e=
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__press.princeton.edu_titles_10575.html&d=DwMF-g&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=LtbujWNPdbzw6j8eq9-RJVMBctp9ndCoqGEy57VsNLQ&m=uYtW8ih6C2SsTnBaYtcTxoMsMwWeS1zuXFNb1XjJv4c&s=JTBLsV1IsqCl-EEX_Fkg4xcEjKUZYTJKw9krp1iG2-Y&e=>
>
>
>
> New Book: *Modern Money Theory: a primer on macroeconomics for
> sovereign monetary systems*, Palgrave Macmillan
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.palgrave.com_page_detail_modern-2Dmoney-2Dtheory-2Dl-2Drandall-2Dwray_-3Fisb-3D9781137539908&d=DwIFaQ&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=LtbujWNPdbzw6j8eq9-RJVMBctp9ndCoqGEy57VsNLQ&m=HP2l2H-aYoOIzS7OUgJyMz9d41c2Km7B1qzqpaHcXrc&s=i_eO-ujXYkhHZ-BZ4EtI4sgMJolaYgMUJdqe74_mu5M&e=
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.palgrave.com_page_detail_modern-2Dmoney-2Dtheory-2Dl-2Drandall-2Dwray_-3Fisb-3D9781137539908&d=DwMF-g&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=LtbujWNPdbzw6j8eq9-RJVMBctp9ndCoqGEy57VsNLQ&m=uYtW8ih6C2SsTnBaYtcTxoMsMwWeS1zuXFNb1XjJv4c&s=g5jN5RZ8MIGBYys4ofLgvNxQ-PO9enYXh-W43lswZfs&e=>
>
>
>
>
> Please make note of my new email address as I will be transitioning all
> email to:
>
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* AFEEMAIL Discussion List <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of
> Brian Eggleston <[log in to unmask]>
> *Sent:* Monday, April 29, 2019 6:34 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: [AFEEMAIL] Are Sustainability and Public Choice schools of
> thought, per se?
>
>
>
> I really don’t mean to be too glib here but aside from crafting a text,
> why/how  does this matter?  I’m reminded of  Duke Ellington’s comment.
> “There are two kinds of music. Good music, and the other kind.”  Perhaps
> “school of economic thought” (from an internal perspective) is really not
> much more than a variation on this expression; and also about as useful.
> (John, this is not a critique of  your text.)   Perhaps a focus on
> economists' (broadly interpreted) ideas rather than filiation is more
> fruitful.  My comment is likely a reflection of my general disdain for what
> my mentor (Warren Gramm) termed “camp meetings.”  (He also wasn't big into
> loyalty oaths.)
>
>
>
> The above aside, I appreciate anything which challenges the deeply
> entrenched perspective that there's really only one "good" economics and a
> bunch of the other kind.   So, as I said above, I'm not seriously dissin'
> your text.
>
>
>
> Brian
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 9:00 AM John Harvey <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Dear All,
>
>
>
> I am working on revisions to my Contending Perspectives in Econ book and
> one chapter that I originally intended to write was on ecological economics
> or econ of sustainability. The existing chapters cover Neoclassicism,
> Marxism, Austrianism, Post Keynesianism, Institutionalism, New
> Institutionalism, and Feminism.
>
>
>
> Do you consider ecological econ/sustainability a school of thought , per
> se along the lines of those others or is it a topic area?
>
>
>
> Similarly, I have a colleague who uses my book and she's very keen that I
> add a Public Choice chapter. Same question: school of thought or subject
> area?
>
>
>
> Incidentally, she is an Austrian and yet there is no one in the department
> whose overall philosophy regarding pedagogy and curriculum matches mine
> more completely. She's a wonderful person. Who would have thought?!
>
>
>
> John
>
>
> --
>
> John T. Harvey
> Professor of Economics
>
> Texas Christian University
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.econ.tcu.edu_&d=DwMFaQ&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=LtbujWNPdbzw6j8eq9-RJVMBctp9ndCoqGEy57VsNLQ&m=o3RUAKYABOhIoL9srCpfVjuXOp6xKbo1b_cIAXzdAw4&s=y6g8JvZbQh_hufHY2Nzx9GbQuiZI-8nDyMEKBzMDJ0A&e=>
>
>
>
>
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.com_Contending-2DPerspectives-2DEconomics-2DContemporary-2DSchools_dp_0857932039_&d=DwMFaQ&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=LtbujWNPdbzw6j8eq9-RJVMBctp9ndCoqGEy57VsNLQ&m=o3RUAKYABOhIoL9srCpfVjuXOp6xKbo1b_cIAXzdAw4&s=8ZuCOEbgE0pK5qlE0KVd--9CYLJkMV5c09qkEfNHtF4&e=>
>
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.com_Currencies-2DCapital-2DFlows-2DCrises-2Ddetermination_dp_0415781205_&d=DwMFaQ&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=LtbujWNPdbzw6j8eq9-RJVMBctp9ndCoqGEy57VsNLQ&m=o3RUAKYABOhIoL9srCpfVjuXOp6xKbo1b_cIAXzdAw4&s=rKzaMr68Z988BHACWtWZDD5Bthj9jHleKGsN661YKfA&e=>
>
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.com_Directions-2DHeterodox-2DEconomics-2DAdvances-2D2008-2D02-2D20_dp_B01FIZW0G8_ref-3Dasap-5Fbc-3Fie-3DUTF8&d=DwMFaQ&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=LtbujWNPdbzw6j8eq9-RJVMBctp9ndCoqGEy57VsNLQ&m=o3RUAKYABOhIoL9srCpfVjuXOp6xKbo1b_cIAXzdAw4&s=c0vruZERn63l2OMS-sO-YRVXm6A0OPOQdr19U9ElkW8&e=>
>
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.com_Foundations-2DInternational-2DEconomics-2DPost-2DKeynesian-2DPerspectives_dp_0415146518_ref-3Dasap-5Fbc-3Fie-3DUTF8&d=DwMFaQ&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=LtbujWNPdbzw6j8eq9-RJVMBctp9ndCoqGEy57VsNLQ&m=o3RUAKYABOhIoL9srCpfVjuXOp6xKbo1b_cIAXzdAw4&s=AFNLQPWIHU8EHvxP0u88owhC6bM0p2Spz08EV7c4UIU&e=>
>
>
>
> www.CowboyEconomist.com
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.cowboyeconomist.com_&d=DwMFaQ&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=LtbujWNPdbzw6j8eq9-RJVMBctp9ndCoqGEy57VsNLQ&m=o3RUAKYABOhIoL9srCpfVjuXOp6xKbo1b_cIAXzdAw4&s=xmAn3EQDO_SqwZ9McxAGIv_cavWfSGZEckRDBBCl5TQ&e=>
>
>
>
> Forbes.com Blog
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.forbes.com_sites_johntharvey_&d=DwMFaQ&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=LtbujWNPdbzw6j8eq9-RJVMBctp9ndCoqGEy57VsNLQ&m=o3RUAKYABOhIoL9srCpfVjuXOp6xKbo1b_cIAXzdAw4&s=w7QFrnIla6QYOD828LGMNL8YM5L3ziLozG-4zEawZjc&e=>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Brian Eggleston, Ph.D.
>
> Department of Economics
>
> Augustana University
>
> Sioux Falls, SD 57197
>
>
>
>
>
> Expose yourself to your deepest fear; after that, fear has no power and
> the fear of freedom shrinks and vanishes.  You are free.      Jim Morrison
> (The Doors)
>


-- 
Brian Eggleston, Ph.D.
Department of Economics
Augustana University
Sioux Falls, SD 57197



Expose yourself to your deepest fear; after that, fear has no power and the
fear of freedom shrinks and vanishes.  You are free.      Jim Morrison (The
Doors)

<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com_email-2Dsignature-3Futm-5Fmedium-3Demail-26utm-5Fsource-3Dlink-26utm-5Fcampaign-3Dsig-2Demail-26utm-5Fcontent-3Dwebmail&d=DwIFaQ&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=LtbujWNPdbzw6j8eq9-RJVMBctp9ndCoqGEy57VsNLQ&m=HP2l2H-aYoOIzS7OUgJyMz9d41c2Km7B1qzqpaHcXrc&s=ungXhliFOGHUTW75ihOd995FDh6OKgiYySO6aw3hHwc&e=>
Virus-free.
www.avg.com
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com_email-2Dsignature-3Futm-5Fmedium-3Demail-26utm-5Fsource-3Dlink-26utm-5Fcampaign-3Dsig-2Demail-26utm-5Fcontent-3Dwebmail&d=DwIFaQ&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=LtbujWNPdbzw6j8eq9-RJVMBctp9ndCoqGEy57VsNLQ&m=HP2l2H-aYoOIzS7OUgJyMz9d41c2Km7B1qzqpaHcXrc&s=ungXhliFOGHUTW75ihOd995FDh6OKgiYySO6aw3hHwc&e=>
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>