Brian:
But when you follow the technology, Mark, it leads to the
questions of social reproduction and of government.
Exactly! It's really a pleasure to discuss this with someone who does
their homework! g
According to Perez, it's only after the successful resolution
of the
John:
The submersion (perversion!) of much general systems
thinking into the cybernetic/military-industrial was an
unfortunate result of crossovers between all these people
(and others) at the time.
As I emphasized to Brian, when you look at any of this with perversion
and
Brian:
And the question is: Does this represent the
longed-for foundation of a new expansionist wave?
Or (more likely in my view) just the agitated death
throes of neoliberal informationalism?
There you go again! g You really can't put an ideology on these
developments, since they are
hehe Mark
Economics is in *trouble* (like the rest of social science) because
it leaves out basic realities and these simplifications -- whether
in the service of modeling assumptions or whatever -- have now
become too important to ignore. By emphasizing the HUMANS, you have
correctly noted
Ed/Brian/Keith:
Thank you for this wonderful essay . . .
Hurray for the nettime lovefest! Ed loves Keith. Keith loves Brian.
Brian loves (depends if you mean in public or in private) . . . ?? g
Here's the discussion about Keith's *manifesto* on Facebook --
_Mark Stahlman_
Brian:
Now, both Sugihara and Arrighi are clearly idealizing the
Industrious Revolution, and I am not so sure (at all) that you
would find these good things happening in the factories and
supply-chains of Sony or the Toyota Motor Company!
Does either Sugihara or Arrighi ever mention
On 01/18/2013 08:05 AM, Keith Hart wrote:
A century ago, Alfred Marshall, author of Principles of Economics (1890)
and Keynes' teacher at Cambridge defined economics as both a study of
wealth and a branch of the study of man. But, in a manifesto published in
the Harvard Business Review last
Hello Keith, hello everyone -
On 01/19/2013 12:48 PM, Keith Hart wrote:
I believe we are witnessing a drive for corporate home rule which would
leave them the only citizens in a world society made to suit their
interests. This is the logical conclusion of the collapse of the
difference
*Thanks for the idea*, Mark. Nettimers can check out the human economy
program at http://web.up.ac.za/humaneconomy.
Ronald * *Coase, an American economist of British origin, won a Nobel prize
for inventing the idea of transaction costs in his famous paper The nature
of the firm (1937). He is now
