Difference between revisions of "Talk:Todd Sandler"
m (but there is an issue of focus) |
|||
| 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]] | ||
Revision as of 12:44, 15 January 2008
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...
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! --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. Paulo
