Interesting and generous in spirit as always, although slightly disappointing to see you reference "What's wrong with economics", by a historian (albeit a great one), to attempt to fairly describe the economists viewpoint. Furthermore, describing the economists' view as "abstract", while referring to the critical geography / housing studies view as "empirical" and "material" seems a bit tendentious! It is precisely by omitting the quantitative economic perspective, anchored on the "material" measure of price/rent, that we end up in abstract normative territory! Nevertheless another interesting piece, and welcome to see the efforts towards methodological ecumenism! In light of your previous discussion of Ronan Lyon's work, Perhaps a dialogue could be fruitful? In any case, looking forward to the webinar, and thank you for your work.
Thanks for your comment Seán. That's an interesting point you make about the different ways we can think about what is 'abstract' and what is 'material', I'll have to have a think about that one!
Thanks Michael. It is merely to an extend an understanding of the material that I think both marxists and neoclassical economists would share. Nickels and dimes! As for the more substantive methodological questions underneath this distinction on terms, I think Ronan Lyons has already discussed this in response to your piece on twitter. Microeconomics already includes much of what you suggest that economics is missing. Again, this suggests that some kind of dialogue could be useful, and enlightening for your mutual readers (I say this part selfishly!). Anyway, I won’t go around in circles. Thank you for your response, and looking forward to reading future newsletters!
Interesting and generous in spirit as always, although slightly disappointing to see you reference "What's wrong with economics", by a historian (albeit a great one), to attempt to fairly describe the economists viewpoint. Furthermore, describing the economists' view as "abstract", while referring to the critical geography / housing studies view as "empirical" and "material" seems a bit tendentious! It is precisely by omitting the quantitative economic perspective, anchored on the "material" measure of price/rent, that we end up in abstract normative territory! Nevertheless another interesting piece, and welcome to see the efforts towards methodological ecumenism! In light of your previous discussion of Ronan Lyon's work, Perhaps a dialogue could be fruitful? In any case, looking forward to the webinar, and thank you for your work.
Thanks for your comment Seán. That's an interesting point you make about the different ways we can think about what is 'abstract' and what is 'material', I'll have to have a think about that one!
Thanks Michael. It is merely to an extend an understanding of the material that I think both marxists and neoclassical economists would share. Nickels and dimes! As for the more substantive methodological questions underneath this distinction on terms, I think Ronan Lyons has already discussed this in response to your piece on twitter. Microeconomics already includes much of what you suggest that economics is missing. Again, this suggests that some kind of dialogue could be useful, and enlightening for your mutual readers (I say this part selfishly!). Anyway, I won’t go around in circles. Thank you for your response, and looking forward to reading future newsletters!