I agree and think this is important. There has to be a constructive assessment of some sort, either what @Undercoverhist describes here or something similar. /1https://twitter.com/Undercoverhist/status/1130485441126383617 …
-
Show this thread
-
I have some archival material along these lines that I’ve been sitting on precisely b/c I’m trying to determine what the actually useful analysis is. Otherwise it’s just revelations w/o meaning. Learning about it matters but the end goal must be more than a data dump. 2/
3 replies 2 retweets 7 likesShow this thread -
I think it would be useful to move the conversation up to this level every once in a while to take stock and reorient: what are we trying to accomplish with these socio-political histories of economics and how should we do them to achieve what we’re trying to accomplish. 3/
1 reply 3 retweets 11 likesShow this thread -
One last point: I’m not saying Calvin is doing a data dump. He’s got a very coherent paper in-process. But it’s always something to be thinking about. 4/
1 reply 2 retweets 3 likesShow this thread -
One more thing I want to say on this: historians of economics need to be very careful about the boundaries between history of economics and histories of conservatism. They obviously have a lot of important overlap and should draw on each other. 5/
2 replies 2 retweets 10 likesShow this thread
Honestly, I think these boundaries are often set up to protect economics from some hard questions about politics. Maclean's books has flaws but that shouldn't be an excuse to maintain barriers that only serve to shield an untenable internalist view of discipline.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.