|
Pomp posted:It's going to take awhile for socialism to stop being a dirty word in American society. From elementary school they start trying to teach us that it's inherently bad, and as long as it's in our textbooks that capitalism=freedom there's going to be a large group of people who carry that belief with them into adulthood. Speaking as someone who spent his education in two of the reddest states in the US I never had anything more really overt than some bland "rah rah entrepreneurship" stuff. It's really not a constant anywhere.
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 16:02
|
|
"
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 00:29 |
|
|
Pomp posted:It's going to take awhile for socialism to stop being a dirty word in American society. From elementary school they start trying to teach us that it's inherently bad, and as long as it's in our textbooks that capitalism=freedom there's going to be a large group of people who carry that belief with them into adulthood. Maybe this is unique to my school which focused more on the colonial period to about the Civil War, until my 12th grade AP US History class. Ok maybe they would mention 'The Jungle' in the context of the Industrial Revolution and the gilded age. I wonder if even the New Deal was too recent for it to be taught as History? I think I learned more about the Prussian Social Democrats and their social programs than I did about our own.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 16:45
|
|
|
ZeeToo posted:Had someone tell me yesterday that the "Fair Tax" is currently in place and working well in several countries. Well, most (all?) countries of Europe use the VAT to collect a fairly large amount of their funds. They have an income tax, too, though. Generally, in systems that have both VAT (or some other form of a general consumption tax like a sales tax) and income tax tend to have the left favorable to raising the income tax and cutting VAT and the right more favorable to raising the VAT and cutting income taxes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 20:10
|
|
|
Snorkio posted:What's interesting is how the progressive movement in the US is hardly ever mentioned as part of our history, and as such people have no idea that things like progressive taxation, welfare and regulations have a long and proud tradition in America, nor the fact that the Socialists and Communists were just another American political party back then. Growing up in Florida, which is both pretty conservative and absolutely dead last in terms of education, we were required to take a US history class that spent a full two weeks on how FDR kicked the great depression's rear end and personally killed Hitler or something. Then the rest of the class after that was basically all "gently caress the communists" leading up to "our savior Reagan" which was a pretty awkward tonal shift. Oh, and the book was recent enough to feature a whole chapter on 9/11 and Muslim extremism, which thankfully we ran out of time before getting to. Then again, I had a pretty awesome teacher who genuinely loved history, so we learned a lot of not-bullshit stuff that wasn't in the books too, and she'd correct the book if it was being dumb and biased 
Shame Boy fucked around with this message at 21:51 on Dec 2, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 21:48
|
|
|
Stefu posted:Well, most (all?) countries of Europe use the VAT to collect a fairly large amount of their funds. They have an income tax, too, though. Americans' minds must blow up when they realize that most European communist parties want to cut VATs. Commies lowering taxes on business and trade? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 23:19
|
|
|
Mans posted:Americans' minds must blow up when they realize that most European communist parties want to cut VATs. Commies lowering taxes on business and trade? I remember being optimistic about Michelle Bachelet because she said something like, the problem is inequality, let's find a market solution for that. However, most libertarians wouldn't identify inequality as a problem.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 01:04
|
|
|
Mans posted:Americans' minds must blow up when they realize that most European communist parties want to cut VATs. Commies lowering taxes on business and trade? Honestly, most Americans don't have a level of understanding required to even make it that far.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 04:02
|
|
|
In terms of the op in this thread, I have some useful items that can be added to that OP under the Palestine Israel subsection http://iem.edu.in/engineering/IEM_docs/home/notice/ShortHistoryofPalestine-IsraelConflict.pdf - provides details of the creation of zionism and pre israel palestine (well sourced to). http://www.btselem.org/ - The human rights watch in the occupied territories
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 08:17
|
|
|
I had a discussion with my family about general politics etc. recently. Since I study economics, they asked me what I would do (UK). I replied that I would expand government spending and do various lefty things like try to tame or nationalise the utilities, reverse the benefit cuts etc. They countered with a series of memes about how public sector workers were really lazy and that was why the utilities were privatised in the first place. I responded that the private sector didn't invest nearly as much as the Tories hoped they would and there hasn't been that much of an improvement, even though it's actually costing the public more through both subsidies and fees. However my grandfather used to be a civil engineer and seemed to know a lot more about it than me so I was forced to acknowledge I didn't have answers to every question. When we were talking about benefit claimants they pedaled the usual lines about them not wanting to work etc. I tried to present them with the statistic that benefit fraud is only estimated 0.5% but they refused to believe that was accurate given personal experience, and that 'fraud' may not include everyone who is in some way 'sponging.' I then tried to go down the route of explaining that even if people weren't looking for work, it's because there are not now and have historically not been enough jobs for everyone, so over time people become discouraged and apathetic, even though it's more of a systemic problem than their fault. They sort of got this but seemed unconvinced. Eventually I managed to get them on my side with the line that, whilst benefit 'scroungers' may be a problem, it's an order of magnitude away from the issues caused by the people at the top. While I feel I won a couple of the battles, the whole thing was ended by the tired "if you aren't liberal when you're 20, you have no heart. If you're not conservative by the time you're 40, you have no brain," and how I'd understand once I paid taxes etc. At that point the whole issue is too far gone to try and get your ideas across. Worth noting at this point that my family are generally left leaning. tl;dr: what is an easy and accessible way to counter all the prevalent ideas about benefit scroungers, public sector workers and unions?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 15:06
|
|
|
Cahal posted:I had a discussion with my family about general politics etc. recently. Since I study economics, they asked me what I would do (UK). I replied that I would expand government spending and do various lefty things like try to tame or nationalise the utilities, reverse the benefit cuts etc. Consider this answer incomplete and only half-serious, but if your goal is to persuade family and friends, I would suggest simply becoming a better rhetorician. There is no point at which your growing grasp of facts and knowledge of statistics will become so exceedingly convincing that they will stand on their own merit as a persuasive means. Not with 'normal' people, not in most cases outside of academia, etc. It is almost laughable for instance to imagine yourself returning to the next discussion with a stack of research papers to prove your point, etc. There is the highly recommendable Aristotle classic on this subject, which despite its age is still pretty useful. There probably are more modern books about this as well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 15:37
|
|
|
SSJ2 Goku Wilders posted:Consider this answer incomplete and only half-serious, but if your goal is to persuade family and friends, I would suggest simply becoming a better rhetorician. There is no point at which your growing grasp of facts and knowledge of statistics will become so exceedingly convincing that they will stand on their own merit as a persuasive means. Not with 'normal' people, not in most cases outside of academia, etc. It is almost laughable for instance to imagine yourself returning to the next discussion with a stack of research papers to prove your point, etc. Yeah I completely get that. The 0.5% statistic was considered nothing when compared with their availability bias, but of course to mention that to them would have seemed patronising, smug and above all unpersuasive. The only way I really got them on my side was by redirecting their anger at another sector of society (the top). Whilst this is surely closer to the truth, it is still the media-esque approach of identifying an arbitrary sector of society and hating the, which I disapprove of. But perhaps that's the best you can hope for with day to day discussions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 15:58
|
|
|
Cahal posted:Yeah I completely get that. The 0.5% statistic was considered nothing when compared with their availability bias, but of course to mention that to them would have seemed patronising, smug and above all unpersuasive. The only way I really got them on my side was by redirecting their anger at another sector of society (the top). Whilst this is surely closer to the truth, it is still the media-esque approach of identifying an arbitrary sector of society and hating the, which I disapprove of. But perhaps that's the best you can hope for with day to day discussions. lenin posted:“I know the Appassionata inside out and yet I am willing to listen to it every day. It is wonderful, ethereal music. On hearing it I proudly, maybe somewhat naively, think: See! people are able to produce such marvels!” He then winked, laughed and added sadly: “I’m often unable to listen to music, it gets on my nerves, I would like to stroke my fellow beings and whisper sweet nothings in their ears for being able to produce such beautiful things in spite of the abominable hell they are living in. However, today one shouldn’t caress anybody - for people will only bite off your hand; strike, without pity, although theoretically we are against any kind of violence. Umph, it is, in fact, an infernally difficult task!”
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 16:31
|
|
|
Cahal posted:While I feel I won a couple of the battles, the whole thing was ended by the tired "if you aren't liberal when you're 20, you have no heart. If you're not conservative by the time you're 40, you have no brain," and how I'd understand once I paid taxes etc. At that point the whole issue is too far gone to try and get your ideas across. Worth noting at this point that my family are generally left leaning. Am I the only person who likes the idea of paying my taxes assuming that a good chunk of it is going to help people less fortunate than me or otherwise improve the country as a whole? I mean I know at least some of it will be wasted on dumb poo poo like wars and such but a bigger chunk will be used to help everyone else, right? I'm about your age, and I pay an assload of taxes considering what I make and how young I am, and I don't really mind all that much.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 18:21
|
|
|
Parallel Paraplegic posted:Am I the only person who likes the idea of paying my taxes assuming that a good chunk of it is going to help people less fortunate than me or otherwise improve the country as a whole? I mean I know at least some of it will be wasted on dumb poo poo like wars and such but a bigger chunk will be used to help everyone else, right?  Some people believe they did it all themselves and that they owe others nothing because they aren't responsible for others' misfortune, personal responsibility, etc.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 18:25
|
|
|
I'm curious about strategies for keeping an argument on track in the face of semantic nitpicking. Most of the debates I have out in the world, and almost all discussions I've seen on this forum, are casual discussions between non-experts with different definitions of important terms (for instance, capitalist or Palestinian). How do you either deflect semantic arguments, or resolve disputes about terminology quickly and without ceding ground over them?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 18:25
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:I'm curious about strategies for keeping an argument on track in the face of semantic nitpicking. Most of the debates I have out in the world, and almost all discussions I've seen on this forum, are casual discussions between non-experts with different definitions of important terms (for instance, capitalist or Palestinian). Define them up front through mutual agreement/consensus. Also more generally for discussion that leaves room for semantics and interpretation: try to agree on epistemology or involve an arbiter e: you can cede ground without losing face to some extent. Giving people the feeling of having made their point to you, that you've listened and thought about it, no matter how vile, makes them more susceptible to persuasion
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 18:28
|
|
|
SSJ2 Goku Wilders posted:Some people believe they did it all themselves and that they owe others nothing because they aren't responsible for others' misfortune, personal responsibility, etc. Oh I realize, it just seemed like Cahal's family admitted to liking the idea of welfare and government stuff, but not actually having to pay for it... So yeah, you're exactly right.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 18:29
|
|
|
SSJ2 Goku Wilders posted:
"is a man not entitled to the hurf of his durf" is irrationally making me very happy right now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 18:32
|
|
|
SSJ2 Goku Wilders posted:e: you can cede ground without losing face to some extent. Giving people the feeling of having made their point to you, that you've listened and thought about it, no matter how vile, makes them more susceptible to persuasion I've found this depends pretty heavily on who you are discussing the subject with. If the individual is honestly of some open mind about considering your position, conceding minor points not wholly relevant to the main thrust of your argument (i.e. 'yes there is fraud but it's minor, we should really be focused on X because...') is a way to open up the discussion some. If the individual is just trying to ram their view home and they don't give a poo poo what you think? Conceding a point no matter how minor is going to result in them taking some absurd verbal victory lap. That said, if the person you are talking to is doing the latter and not the former, you're not really having a discussion; he's preaching or lecturing. It's fine to correct someone preaching or lecturing if they are spewing bullshit, but if it's just the two of you and he's not interested in even considering your arguments then you're wasting your time. If other listeners who might be swayed are present? Then it might be worthwhile to make your case against his, because even if he won't consider it they might.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 18:39
|
|
|
Mo_Steel posted:I've found this depends pretty heavily on who you are discussing the subject with. If the individual is honestly of some open mind about considering your position, conceding minor points not wholly relevant to the main thrust of your argument (i.e. 'yes there is fraud but it's minor, we should really be focused on X because...') is a way to open up the discussion some. If the individual is just trying to ram their view home and they don't give a poo poo what you think? Conceding a point no matter how minor is going to result in them taking some absurd verbal victory lap. During the Dutch elections a few months back, it was all the rage to discuss the goings-on of the whole spectacle, the debates that were being held, etc. One day after a particular class, I got involved in an amiable discussion with a lecturer about the whole ordeal and we generally agreed on most things. One of the other people in the room had overheard the discussion and butted in, proclaiming that no, in fact, liberalism has always been a strong defender of personal freedoms and our neo-liberal party has been the vanguard against out of control public spending and fraud-- you see see where this is going. His entire speech lasted about 2 minutes. It was orated in such a robotic and hurried manner that it sounded like a canned response he'd been practicing for months as some sort of mantra. I humored him and asked him whether he considered Pinochet (and other stock Killing Hope references) an example of the personal freedoms provided by liberalism. He didn't know what I was talking about and called me a nutty conspiracy theorist  That was basically the end of the discussion and there was no way that I was going to convince that guy of anything.So yeah, I agree with what you are saying. Having a receptive other end in your discussion is important and was assumed as a premise in my comment. SSJ2 Goku Wilders fucked around with this message at 18:56 on Dec 3, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 18:54
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:I'm curious about strategies for keeping an argument on track in the face of semantic nitpicking. Most of the debates I have out in the world, and almost all discussions I've seen on this forum, are casual discussions between non-experts with different definitions of important terms (for instance, capitalist or Palestinian). edit: I'll pull a falcon2424 and offer a LessWrong article, I think that often these kinds of disputes are disguised queries where the technical definition of capitalism is uninteresting, and the person who says "x economy is capitalist", is really trying to link some unnamed quality he links with capitalism, to x economy by making an irrelevant definition argument (not usually on purpose). http://lesswrong.com/lw/nm/disguised_queries/ twodot fucked around with this message at 19:35 on Dec 3, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 19:04
|
|
|
Please goons help me to refute this line of thinking that I get constantly from a coworker..."read Aftershock, we're heading for hyperinflation because the money supply has tripled" I've read some rather lengthy blogs which counter this, but they tend to get into complexities which I don't feel I could argue well myself.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 19:28
|
|
|
twodot posted:As has been pointed out by others, assuming you are engaged in a good-faith discussion, I prefer to just cede the ground, but additionally ask they substantiate why they made the nitpick. Thank you all for your advice; especially this advice. This seems like the best way to bring the nitpick back around into the discussion, instead of an ever-expanding cascade of "What do you mean by capitalism? Well, what do you mean by capital? Well, what do you mean by value?" bullshit. Ask why it matters, and you're back at the beginning of the chain, back in the original debate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 19:45
|
|
|
Kekekela posted:Please goons help me to refute this line of thinking that I get constantly from a coworker..."read Aftershock, we're heading for hyperinflation because the money supply has tripled" Just because there's supposedly three times as much money doesn't mean everything is going to suddenly cost three times as much (first of all this doesn't even meet the strict definition of hyperinflation unless it happened within the space of a month and then kept on going). The money is distributed out through a number of financial institutions which in turn operate different kinds of economic activity over quite a long time meaning it will only slowly affect the prices of things as they're actually purchased or revalued. Similarly because this money doesn't just suddenly hit there are long periods of time when this extra money appears to be an increase in real value which can spur real growth to match the increased amount of money meaning there's no problem. This is ignoring the actual beneficial action of QE which is theoretically (in this case meaning it's a lie, but whatever) supposed to allow lending institutions greater stability and security to lend the additional funds to grow the economy with the same effect. Depending on trade relations, international debt and capital controls inflation can also be exported to different countries (this is probably what has happened, assuming you're American) based upon exchange rates.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 19:52
|
|
|
If the money supply causing inflation is a problem, maybe we should thank those noble capitalists for locking $30 trillion away in Cayman banks. Can you imagine how horrible it would be if the regular economy had access to that? Why, it would be chaos!
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 20:24
|
|
|
Im looking for sources/statistics for murders by police/security guards by chocking under apprehention
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 21:47
|
|
|
Mans posted:Americans' minds must blow up when they realize that most European communist parties want to cut VATs. Commies lowering taxes on business and trade? The VAT is basically the European Sales Tax and from what I've heard they'd rather raise the income tax to compensate, which would make perfect sense for conservatives in the Income Taxless Paradise™ of Texas.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 21:57
|
|
|
How valid is the 'Capital Gains tax deters investing' argument, and are there alternatives to taxing it? Seems like unlimited tax free income for anyone with money would be a problem and how else would you handle that? edit: How context dependent is the 'deters investment' argument, anyways? Seems like capital gains from a bond fund being listed as income for a single filer would be of different significance than capital gains from selling my fabulous house, with the new bathroom, in the eyes of the argument.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 23:42
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:How valid is the 'Capital Gains tax deters investing' argument, and are there alternatives to taxing it? Essentially it's the other side of the standard supply-side argument, where if you give the investment class more money, more economic growth arises. This has literally never been proven to be the case, after decades of research. Capital gains are taxed on realized gains. There is no situation in which capital gains would make you negative gains, and essentially they don't figure into investing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 23:55
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:Capital gains are taxed on realized gains. There is no situation in which capital gains would make you negative gains, and essentially they don't figure into investing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 14:20
|
|
|
Question: if I invest in a European stock market and my investments turn a profit, but I am a citizen of the US living in the US, do I pay French taxes or American ones on that profit? I bring this up because, if it's the former case, then the one worry of capital gains could be pushing investors overseas. But if you're paying American taxes regardless, then your choice is still "Which of these investment looks best?" and not "Boy, I'd better just stick all this in the bank!"
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 16:07
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:Question: if I invest in a European stock market and my investments turn a profit, but I am a citizen of the US living in the US, do I pay French taxes or American ones on that profit? And if you stick it in the bank then they invest it anyway. Who cares?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 17:50
|
|
|
Mr. Belding posted:And if you stick it in the bank then they invest it anyway. Who cares? Well, all of the American businesses that aren't being invested in. If I have $200,000,000 and I invest it in France instead of America, or my bank does, that's a lot of money circulating in France instead of America.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 19:16
|
|
|
Mr. Belding posted:And if you stick it in the bank then they invest it anyway. Who cares? I don't think that banks actually base their investments on available deposits. There's both theoretical and empirical work suggesting that banks will make investments when demand is appropriately high and create the deposits later. I'm far from an expert on this topic but its worth noting that the 'loanable funds' model you're implicitly suggesting is more controversial than you may realize.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 20:34
|
|
|
namesake posted:Just because there's supposedly three times as much money doesn't mean everything is going to suddenly cost three times as much (first of all this doesn't even meet the strict definition of hyperinflation unless it happened within the space of a month and then kept on going). The money is distributed out through a number of financial institutions which in turn operate different kinds of economic activity over quite a long time meaning it will only slowly affect the prices of things as they're actually purchased or revalued. Similarly because this money doesn't just suddenly hit there are long periods of time when this extra money appears to be an increase in real value which can spur real growth to match the increased amount of money meaning there's no problem. This is ignoring the actual beneficial action of QE which is theoretically (in this case meaning it's a lie, but whatever) supposed to allow lending institutions greater stability and security to lend the additional funds to grow the economy with the same effect. Cool,thanks! I actually found some stuff on the Pragmatic Capitalism blog that helped me get my head around it as well. Is that site generally well regarded around here?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 06:53
|
|
|
Kekekela posted:Cool,thanks! I actually found some stuff on the Pragmatic Capitalism blog that helped me get my head around it as well. Is that site generally well regarded around here? MMT is general is good on the banking system but bad on macroeconomics. For more on endogenous money, see Steve Keen.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 10:35
|
|
|
Cahal posted:MMT is general is good on the banking system but bad on macroeconomics. For more on endogenous money, see Steve Keen. "Bad" is I think a bit strong, since it's not really an explicit macro discipline in the first place so much as a description of monetary mechanics. Some MMT-aligned economists might oversimplify some things (because lol economists), and one can often find Ramanan taking them to task for underestimating the importance of balance of payment issues, but I don't know if the problem is much more than that. It varies by person, too; I find Wray, for instance, to be less careful than Fullwiler. Even still, most of their macro policy prescriptions derive from Post Keynesian roots, anyway. On a tangent: MMT splinter faction "Monetary Realism" (which spawned from Prag Cap) posted another mammoth essay by the otherwise anonymous banker writing under the initials JKH. His/her analysis is generally worth digesting.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 15:44
|
|
|
Aeolius posted:"Bad" is I think a bit strong, since it's not really an explicit macro discipline in the first place so much as a description of monetary mechanics. Some MMT-aligned economists might oversimplify some things (because lol economists), and one can often find Ramanan taking them to task for underestimating the importance of balance of payment issues, but I don't know if the problem is much more than that. It varies by person, too; I find Wray, for instance, to be less careful than Fullwiler. Even still, most of their macro policy prescriptions derive from Post Keynesian roots, anyway. Yeah I was just being glib. I also regard MMT as a branch of post-Keynesian economics. I generally find their 'horizontalist' views on banking and monetary policy to be informative, but their 'verticalist' views on the government's use of taxation and spending just don't seem to make any sense to me. For example, they claim tax will be used to 'take inflation out of the economy,' but it seems to me most or all taxes actually increase prices/wages. The idea that the government can control the money supply with taxes and spending also seems to contradict their idea that the money supply is generally determined by the banking system. Furthermore, they do underrate BoP problems - Matias Vernengo has also taken them to task on this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 17:30
|
|
|
Cahal posted:For example, they claim tax will be used to 'take inflation out of the economy,' but it seems to me most or all taxes actually increase prices/wages. The idea that the government can control the money supply with taxes and spending also seems to contradict their idea that the money supply is generally determined by the banking system. True, taxes can increase prices via transaction costs and the like, but not all taxes are created equal. Whereas a tax by a municipality (or a state, in the US) is just a transfer with no change to system-wide assets, a tax by a sovereign issuer (e.g., the US federal government*) decreases net financial assets through the whole system, which ceteris paribus translates to fewer dollars chasing the same number of goods, which means net deflationary pressure. That's usually what they mean. It's sort of a "weak" quantity theory view, generally taking into account that Q is usually below max and V is drunk as poo poo. Plus monetary transmission is always a bone of contention, even for fiscal policy, since changes can take time to propagate. I don't see it as a contradiction that the government and banks both have a hand in the total money supply. If anything, the inherently pro-cyclical nature of bank money should provide a strong rationale for 'vertical' smoothing via government spending and taxation along the broad lines they propose. *This is one of the simplifications that can cause trouble for MMT folks: viewing the Fed and Treasury as a conglomerated sector makes sense for illustrating an idealized "issuer/user" distinction, but in reality it abstracts away a great many institutional/statutory nuances that can complicate the story a bit. Here's JKH's thoughtful treatment of the matter which in turn cites Marc Lavoie's critical appraisal. Aeolius fucked around with this message at 18:27 on Dec 5, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 18:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 00:29 |
|
|
Cahal, are you familiar with work by heterodox economists - most notably Erik Reinert, Ha-Joon Chang and Carlotta Perez - on what they call the 'Other Cannon' of economics? The intention is to introduce a more historical and evidence based framework into the economics discipline. The major influences would be Schumpeter, evolutionary economics along the lines of Nelson Winter, and the 19th century writings of Friedrich Liszt. Its not really a monolithic theory so much as it is a research project with at least a couple of sub-schools of economics uneasily rolled together and united by their opposition to the methodology of neoclassical economics and policy perscriptions of neoliberalism. Here and here you can find archives with examples of the kind of research that the 'Other Cannon' is pursuing. If you aren't particularly familiar with this school then I think you'd find some of their writing very intriguing. It would mesh well with some of the comments on your blog about the anti-historical nature of much of neoclassical theory. "The Role of the State in Economic Growth" is a good representative example. If you are already familiar with some of this stuff then do you mind if I ask what your thoughts are? I've been mightily impressed with this stuff but your formal training in economics vastly outstrips my own so you probably have insights or comments that wouldn't occur to me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 19:41
|
|