about a year ago some prominant Post Keynesians cellotaped 33 theses against the LSE’s glass doors. Beyond the media aura of the sponsoring Guardian there wasn’t much echo and no prominant mainstreamers have bothered to react. that’ss no doubt partly because not that many mainstreamers want to be called that. To construe the mainstreram as homogenus is a big mistake. Homogenous is the mainstream paradigm in as far as in insist on equilibrium econonics. Tghough like with Brexit there are hard and soft versions.
As far as I am concerned the economics to move beyond is the one that construes money as neutral. And that includes explicit non mainstreamers like marxists. So a provocative starting point of an alternqtive paadigm would be to redefine it ala Orrell : “To do with Money”
The first task of the working group is to try and come up with a more managable number of theses
Apart from the 33 there is also a 95 manifesto and tax economist xxx 23 followed by a discussiion trail on how to reduce that to ten, as one comment says: “Moses managed with ten”
taking into account some of the many reasonable criticisms that hve been made of the 33 by eg F coppola n should perhaps play homage to Kuhn’s original on paradigm change which emphasis that a new paradigm has to sole or at least refe to problems of the existing
rather than make general normative statements about ahat economics should be one should perhaps start by engaging with the classical canon of commands
so nimber one should engage with supply and demand by putting it back into its box, so to speak, partly like Ortrell or keen but also focusing on effective versus real demand as a first example of value being monetarised in a reductionist manner to be reencountered endlessly
etc
no a lot of echo and most mainstreamers haven’t bothered to react.