[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Reply



---------------------------------------------------------------------
Please help make the Manifesto better, or accept it, and propagate it!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
>At 10:16 AM 03/23/2000 +0530, Prof. Roy wrote:
>
>>Hence, if the academic economist does
>>his/her job properly, then it might inevitably mean he/she finds himself
in
>>intellectual opposition to whomever is in power at a given time.   To put
it
>>differently, if the political power does something right, the academic
>>economist need not praise it because there are plenty of other people
around
>>to do that instead;  on the other hand, if the political power does
>>something wrong, then few other than the academic economist may be able to
>>even recognise that it is wrong, and hence has a responsiblity for stating
>>this publicly.
>
>>Liberal economics has to do with being one the side of the individual,
>>anonymous, consumer, farm-worker, industrial worker or small
businessman....
>>they tend to get the shaft from organised labour when the Left is in power
>>and from organised capital when the Right is in power....
>
>Dissenting in favour of the correct position is always the obligation of
>the economist. Point accepted.

-- good; now I have to say that my original comment to which you responded
and I replied to which you have responded, is yet to be published on IPI....
My reply is also yet to be published... what's happening?

But that does not require one's fluctuation
>from one end of the spectrum to the other.

-- of course not; quite the opposite... the academic economist stays the
same, it is the public mood and the majority of the day which rules....

It is merely relative to one's
>position that the position appears to so move.

-- nope.... all this is perhaps made clear in my Philosphy of economics,
which I would dearly love to have scanned!


This new rule of yours is
>therefore not quite attractive, I think, even with these explanations.

-- nope, I think you may have not understood what I nmeant or I have not
said it well enough..

>
>I do not subscribe to relativism of any sort:

-- but why not Einsteinian?

objectivity vs subjectivity is an epistemological category; relativism vs
absolutism is an ontological category; I am objectivist in epistemology and
anti-absolutist in ontology... this is discussed in greater detail in the
book..

I do believe that given
>sufficient study of the fudamentals, we can prescribe a sufficiently cogent
>and consistent position on political and economic issues. Liberty, for
>example, can be studied intensively, and will almost always yield similar
>conclusions. I was reading Mill's "On Liberty" these last few days, and was
>very pleasantly surprised that its truth in  most cases exceeds the
>understanding of liberty possessed by most of India's liberals today. Adam
>Smith, Mill, Hayek, Friedman, and many others are so consistent on
>fundamentals that one realizes that there is a steady progression in both
>political and economic science which parallels the progression in the pure
>sciences. Those who deviated from fundamentals, such as Marx and his gang,
>at least in their prescriptions, have proved unsustaniable and are on the
>way to oblivion. No relativism please.

---  My 1984 work which you have kindly spoken about is clearly in the same
genre as Smith, Mill, Hayek and  Friedman.    Philosophy of economics has
its agreements and its disagreements with Hayek and Friedman.  Our edited
work Foundations of India's Political Economy was, by its very nature,
catholic in its outlook.

This is a healthy debate.

Subroto Roy.


>
>
>
>



--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the National Debate on System Reform.       debate@indiapolicy.org
Rules, Procedures, Archives:            http://www.indiapolicy.org/debate/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------