Talk:Todd Sandler - Revision history

Claire Robinson: Removing all content from page

2009-05-07T11:06:23Z

Removing all content from page

Paul: but there is an issue of focus

2008-01-15T12:44:28Z

but there is an issue of focus

David at 12:28, 15 January 2008

2008-01-15T12:28:40Z

Paul: vote for removal of names

2008-01-15T11:20:02Z

vote for removal of names

New page

i don;t see anything wrong with having John Nash, Dixit or Walras as "heroes" -- they are great mathematical economists, and Nash has done loads of important stuff in game theory. I don't see why that should be a blot. I don;t care for the type of autistic mathematical economics of Dixit and Walras, but it is not that they use mathematics to express their ideology like M. Friedman James Q Wilson Robert Barro, etc.

I vote for removing those three names...

[[User:Paul|Paulo]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:06, 7 May 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	i don;t see anything wrong with having John Nash, Dixit or Walras as "heroes" -- they are great mathematical economists, and Nash has done loads of important stuff in game theory. I don't see why that should be a blot. I don;t care for the type of autistic mathematical economics of Dixit and Walras, but it is not that they use mathematics to express their ideology like M. Friedman James Q Wilson Robert Barro, etc.

−	~~I vote for removing those three names...~~
−
−	~~[[User:Paul\|Paulo]]~~
−
−	Interesting. there is nothing 'wrong' with having them as heroes. The point is that this is how he defines himself. Mind you it is also clear that both nash and Buchanan are worthy of a profile particularly as they were closely involved in the rise of market fundamentalist economics. Public choice theory is core to this. Whther this was good or bad economics is not really the point? Certainly any development of the page could and should point out their contributions to 'knowledge' and their contributions to 'neoliberalism' - which might of course overlap!
−	~~--[[User:David\|David]] 12:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)~~
−
−	~~== but there is an issue of focus ==~~
−
−	~~Maybe correct, but then there is an issue of focus... where should Spin* devote its resources. Maybe the solution is to point directly to Wikipedia or SW.~~
−	~~[[User:Paul\|Paulo]]~~

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:44, 15 January 2008
Line 7:		Line 7:
	Interesting. there is nothing 'wrong' with having them as heroes. The point is that this is how he defines himself. Mind you it is also clear that both nash and Buchanan are worthy of a profile particularly as they were closely involved in the rise of market fundamentalist economics. Public choice theory is core to this. Whther this was good or bad economics is not really the point? Certainly any development of the page could and should point out their contributions to 'knowledge' and their contributions to 'neoliberalism' - which might of course overlap!		Interesting. there is nothing 'wrong' with having them as heroes. The point is that this is how he defines himself. Mind you it is also clear that both nash and Buchanan are worthy of a profile particularly as they were closely involved in the rise of market fundamentalist economics. Public choice theory is core to this. Whther this was good or bad economics is not really the point? Certainly any development of the page could and should point out their contributions to 'knowledge' and their contributions to 'neoliberalism' - which might of course overlap!
	--[[User:David\|David]] 12:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)		--[[User:David\|David]] 12:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
		+
		+	== but there is an issue of focus ==
		+
		+	Maybe correct, but then there is an issue of focus... where should Spin* devote its resources. Maybe the solution is to point directly to Wikipedia or SW.
		+	[[User:Paul\|Paulo]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:28, 15 January 2008
Line 4:		Line 4:

	[[User:Paul\|Paulo]]		[[User:Paul\|Paulo]]
		+
		+	Interesting. there is nothing 'wrong' with having them as heroes. The point is that this is how he defines himself. Mind you it is also clear that both nash and Buchanan are worthy of a profile particularly as they were closely involved in the rise of market fundamentalist economics. Public choice theory is core to this. Whther this was good or bad economics is not really the point? Certainly any development of the page could and should point out their contributions to 'knowledge' and their contributions to 'neoliberalism' - which might of course overlap!
		+	--[[User:David\|David]] 12:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)