If you're like me, you're all about Al's point that this whole internets thing is providing a great platform for hashing out real issues. Real issues, like what theoretical framework we use to analyze our economy and how that framework is or isn't shielded from dissent by a roving band of vigilante Department Chairs. But, maybe also like me, you've been too busy doing actual work to keep up and read 16 posts in two days.

Fear not dear reader, if you want to follow the last two days of this titillating debate but are just joining us, we've put together a quick summary that will catch you up in just over 500 words. Special thanks to new TPM intern Evann Smith for helping me put this together.

Chris Hayes kicks things off by boiling down his feature Nation piece into two main points made by heterodox economists: (1) the sociology of the profession creates constraints on what is and isn't considered legitimate inquiry and (2) the theoretical framework of neoclassical economics has become largely identified with the definition of economics itself, like Rollerblades or Kleenex. Each marginalizes the work of heterodox economists.

Echoing Hayes' analysis, Thomas Palley agrees, arguing that these two points constitute "pillars of exclusion." “Today’s orthodoxy,” he asserts, “frames public understanding,” expectations, and thinking about “what policy issues are important and what policy solutions are possible.” Agreeing, Nathan Newman and James Galbraith remind readers, respectively, that heterodox analysis has “fled” economics to other disciplines and that neoclassical economics was not always dominant.

Tyler Cowen is pretty thoroughly unconvinced. Hayes’ article, he argues, lacks a discussion of any valid heterodox propositions that have been neglected. “Heterodox economics, as it currently stands, simply is not up to replacing the neoclassical paradigm or even living as a significant supplement. …Most of its best elements…have been absorbed by the mainstream, as Hayes himself admits and indeed emphasizes." Cowen also notes that there are more Democratic than Republican economists.

Max Sawicky and James Galbraith each respond. Sawicky dismisses as "irrelevant" Cowen's point about partisan affiliations and challenges that Cowen fails to address “the quoted words of economists of great stature who support the Hayes account.” Galbraith makes himself one of those economists, offering an impassioned account of his own experiences and stating “Professor Cowen writes with the supreme confidence of the practitioner of intellectual eugenics, passing blithe judgment over who is fit to live and who is not.” Cowen’s post also prompts Hayes to reenter the discussion and defend the sociological case against neoclassical dominance, “which chronicles the professional mechanisms that maintain the model's hegemony.”

David Warsh thinks Hayes' account shows the ways in which the field is changing and expects further movement toward understanding psychology and social context. David Ruccio thinks heterodox economists should focus on teaching the field on their own terms with the diversity they see within it. Mark Thoma agrees, pointing specifically to the role those economists should play within Departments and citing the story of Michael Perelman to support his claims.

Diane Coyle thinks Hayes account of heterodox ideas being integrated into the mainstream undercuts the complaints of the heterodox economists themselves, but also notes two areas where she'd like to see further improvement: the delay between what is researched and what is taught and gender and racial diversity in the field. Thomas Palley takes exception to what he sees as Diane Coyle lack of engagement with the arguments of heterodox economists and offers examples to back up his case. This morning, Coyle responds.

Finally, New York Times columnist and Princeton economist Paul Krugman has joined us, making two points. First, he warns against conflating heterdox economics with anti-free market analysis. This morning, he responds to Atrios' point that "very few mainstream economists were out there pointing out that claims about market manipulation were perfectly good economics." "When I said that neoclassical economics," he writes, "... I didn't mean that economists do that sort of questioning often enough. On the contrary - but the point then is that the problem isn't the methodology, it's the people."