Interesting apparently informed comment on Newsnight (BBC2) last night:
The issue of WMD is a proxy and a lever for regime change. [obviously
applied selectively to the countries across the world]
The Bush administration is divided about whether to go for regime change in
north Korea. It has
Hi everyone. In 3 weeks time I will be giving a talk titled what is wrong with the mainstream economics and the audience will be mostly mainstream economists and students! I feel this is a good opportunity to influence some students but also feel very nervous:o( I am quite confident about my own
I notice that in the San Francisco area some of these groups join with
leftists in demonstrations but it sounds as if they do not participate in
many major demonstrations. Is it because there is such a gulf between the
major participants on other issues or what? I have always had problems with
What a big
order! If I were to be forced to talk about this subject, I'd stick to the basic
point that "the problem with mainstream economics is not that it's wrong in its
own termsas much asthat it's incomplete." For example, the
mainstream's "new institutional economics" (NIO)is a matter
Title: duct and cover
If anyone wants to buy duct-tape, I'll be at Grand Central Station in NYC under the big clock at noon on Saturday. I expect to be able to sell it at about four times the going rate in California...
;-)
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Chapter:
http://www.exitleft.org/Nitzan_Bichler_2002-The_Global_Political_Economy_of_Israel_Ch_5.pdf
Paper:
http://www.exitleft.org/Its_all_about_oil-long-Feb_6_2003.pdf
Thank you Louis. We don't feel this is a fruitful
debate, but will make a farewell point about facts using the exchange below
From: Devine, James
What a big order! If I were to be forced to talk about this subject, I'd
stick to the basic point that the problem with mainstream economics is not
that it's wrong in its own terms as much as that it's incomplete. ...
E.g., it doesn't account for negative externalities, the
Title: RE: [PEN-L:34673] Re: RE: What is wrong with the mainstream economics?
Negative externalities can be found in any introductory econ. textbook. The problem is that many or most textbooks tend to minimize their role as a major source of market failure (calling them mere neighborhood
I started a 'left-right' anti-war web site with libertarians
(some from the Cato Inst., which is almost entirely against
the war), plus a couple of standard-issue right-wingers (one
works for R. Novak, the other is a journalist in Mississippi).
It's here, for any interested: http://nowarblog.org
From: Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If anyone wants to buy duct-tape, I'll be at Grand Central Station in NYC
under the big clock at noon on Saturday. I expect to be able to sell it at
about four times the going rate in California... ;-)
Hmm, more up-to-date, entrepreneurial conduct than
Jonathan Nitzan wrote:
Granted, we cannot PROVE that these facts were the cause of anything.
We can only imply a certain logic here.
Okay, let me conclude with a few observations. You seem to take Michal
Kalecki and Seymour Melman seriously, whom you describe in the following
terms:
Toward
Title: doublethink
Now that I've had the time leisure to look deeper into Nagarjuna (http://www.smith.edu/philosophy/jgarfieldnlt.html), paraconsistent logic (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-paraconsistent/), and inconsistent mathematics
- Original Message -
From: Max B. Sawicky [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I started a 'left-right' anti-war web site with libertarians
(some from the Cato Inst., which is almost entirely against
the war), plus a couple of standard-issue right-wingers (one
works for R. Novak, the other is a
I would second Jim's suggestion (the problem is that it's incomplete) in the case of
a short presentation. THe focus on preference formation and the role of institutions
in this is also a good idea.
Just pointing out the implications of endogenous preferences tends to undercut all
the welfare
Mainstream economics can be stretched and bent to deal with many non-mainstream
concerns, but I think there are three conceptual limits and one sociology-of-knowledge
limit.
Conceptual:
1. "Exchange", what markets presumably consist of, is a metaphor. Economic
interactions often have
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 13:11:41 -0500
From: Mitchel Cohen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: UN Security Council email addresses
Dear Friends,
With Blix's report to the UN due on Friday, France's UN office is BEGGING
us to flood their
Thanks Chris for your reports on the NATO rift -- they're greatly
appreciated. The NATO ambassadors' meeting is now cancelled until after
the UN meeting on Friday. It sounds like Germany may be changing its
tune. Your point on economic exposure is well taken. Can France and
Belgium continue
Swami's 2003 State of the Universe Address
by Swami Beyondananda
Hello everybody -- it is great to be here ... and you know what? We
really have no choice. Because no matter where we are, we are always
here. And it is always now. In fact, there's even a book called The
Power of Now. I haven't
At 08:13 AM 2/13/2003 -0800, you wrote:
What a big
order! If I were to be forced to talk about this subject, I'd stick to
the basic point that the problem with mainstream economics is not
that it's wrong in its own terms as much as that it's incomplete.
For example, the mainstream's new
John Jay (from Federalist #4):
It is too true, however disgraceful it may be to human nature, that nations in general
will make war whenever they have a prospect of getting anything by it; nay, absolute
monarchs will often make war when their nations are to get nothing by it, but for the
Nearly 40 million people are facing famine in Africa and the rest of the
world is forced to focus on possible geopolitical realignments that the
US doesn't fancy. Have we lost our minds? Is it a forlorn hope that
people matter too?
Diane
At 07:33 PM 2/12/2003 -0800, you wrote:
An assault
Famine spreads across Africa
Africa Recovery (New York)
NEWS
February 12, 2003
By Ernest Harsch
New York
With 38 million facing starvation, business as usual will not
do
On a scale not seen in Africa in nearly two decades, famine is once
again stalking the continent. According to estimates
[Useful links and biographies on Patricia Bath and Bessie Blount below.
Diane]
Part 1: African American Innovations
http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blkidprimer6_12aa.htm
Part 2: African American Innovations
http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blkidprimer6_12aa2.htm
Part
joanna == joanna bujes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
joanna Trust me; he _is_ the only worthwhile philosopher I've
joanna encountered in the twentieth century.
You should really, really read Marilyn Frye's citeThe Politics of
Reality/cite.
Kendall Clark
--
Jazz is only what you are. -- Louis
Title: British unions on the move
http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/world/story/0,4386,171187,00.html
The Straits Times February 12, 2003
British unions may block war supplies
They will do so if Britain goes to war without UN mandate
By Alfred Lee
London - Trade union leaders have threatened
correction add _ to chinamission for addresses to SC. PZ
***
Confronting 9-11, Ideologies of Race, and Eminent Economists, Vol. 20
RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY, Paul Zarembka, editor, Elsevier Science
One way to go about addressing the question
would be to divide your criticisms into internal critiques, external critiques,
and empirical (in)validity.
The internal could mention the problems in
capital theory and other logical inconsistencies (Marc Lavoie does a good job
of summarizing
Mainstream economics, particularly it's theory[ies] of rationality-agency,
cannot explain Enron-Enronomics, a firm designed using many tools of
mainstream economics:
http://www.house.gov/jct/
Issue 7-03 2/13/03
ENRON REPORT
The JCT has issued a 3-volume report: Report Of Investigation Of Enron
At 12/02/03 23:30 -0500, Mevin wrote:
Ideological apparatuses by
definition do not create order, but rather help to stabilize
a social order. The state is not an abstraction but a bureaucracy -
organization of people on the basis of a . . . .Committee system.
It is this bureaucracy that shall
About the problems with utility theory.
On the one hand, some reasonable philosophers hold that utility theory makes sense at
one level.
On the other hand, the way that much mainstream theory uses utility theory is wacko
and dishonest.
One good example of this is in undergraduate trade
Yes the Becker article is exactly a dismissal of difficult issues by
assumption. As a result of circumstances too arcane to explain, I recently
found myself participating on a phone call with Becker and the Director of
the National Cancer Institute about the economic value of medical research.
I
Title: RE: [PEN-L:34694] re: What is wrong with the mainstream economics?
why can't Enron be explained using the (relatively mainstream) theory of the principal/agent problem?
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
-Original
10 million join world protest rallies
By John Vidal
The Guardian
February 13 2003
Up to 10 million people on five continents are expected to demonstrate
against the probable war in Iraq on Saturday, in some of the largest peace
marches ever known.
Yesterday, up to 400 cities in 60 countries,
Denial of march costs antiwar protesters symbol and power, too
By Janny Scott
New York Times
February 13 2003
There have been marches that looked like rallies and rallies that looked
like marches and demonstrations that were a little bit of both. But when a
federal judge ruled this week that
Title: RE: [PEN-L:34697] Gary Becker
Martin says:I was found Becker very unimpressive.
he is definitely unimpressive. I once heard him present a paper in which he portrayed the family as being run by a benevolent dictator to attain the family's welfare optimum (my words, not his). Who is he
Title: RE: [PEN-L:34696] re: What is wrong with the mainstream economics?
Eric says: At a more fundamental level, utility theory ignores a major claim of many western thinkers that (using mainstream language) people have preferences over preference orderings but that they often find they are
I disagree. I read his recent thing on the economics
of advertising and thought it was a pretty good go. A
lot of his stuff that won him the Nobel Prize is pretty
lame and obvious, but at bottom, I think that he's at
least asking interesting questions.
The real problem with Becker is his
This statement is so frustrating--chronic deficits exacerbating the
long term budget outlook reduce the capacity of the government to
finance... Just keep backing yourselves further an further into the
corner, so you can never support common sense budgetary policy again, or
only do so at the risk
Title: RE: [PEN-L:34704] FW: Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts
heck, it only backs us into a corner if the government pays attention. The only impact the statement is likely to have is to discourage further large tax cuts for the rich...
a signer,
Title: RE: [PEN-L:34696] re: What is wrong with the mainstream economics?
Perhaps one of the most easily expressed
and understandable critiques of mainstream economics is that so many of its
results rely on the full employment assumption (trade theory again is a great
example). As Shaikh
Title: RE: [PEN-L:34704] FW: Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts
Why use arguments one knows to be untrue? They
can only come back to haunt.
-Original Message-
From: Devine, James
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003
5:12 PM
To: '[EMAIL
Cuz then the signatories would be limited to
the members of this list!
mbs
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Forstater, Mathew
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 6:06 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:34704] FW: Economists' statement
Hasn't 20 years of this position proven not only its ineffectiveness but
its damaging consequences? I remember a D.C. bureaucrat telling me in
the mid-80s how upset the Dems were about the Heilbroner and Bernstein
book, The Debt and the Deficit: False Alarms, Realm Possibilities.
Enough!
I know
Title: RE: [PEN-L:34704] FW: Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts
only if one
has power of some sort. The fact is, however, that given the balance of
political power the Bush tax cuts and war spending seem to be perfectly designed
to starve the civilian side of the government.
- Original Message -
From: Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED]
why can't Enron be explained using the (relatively mainstream) theory of the
principal/agent problem?
=
Some questions I've been asking while looking at the Enron document:
Are there sets/classes of
On the substance, I didn't think this letter
was so bad. I signed it myself (I've avoided
signing previous ones).
The content of this is totally lost on the public.
A PEN-L petition is not going to change anybody's mind.
We got wall-to-wall coverage, and news stories
said 'economists don't like
Strange choice of pictures for the front pages of Friday's British press:
Blair playing fooling around in shirt sleeves with a guitar, and David
Blunkett playing drums. While the newreels show picture after alienating
picture of Bush in front of US armed forces, with his clipped, decisive
Proposed real non-defense outlay increases in the FY04 budget are 1.2% for
discretionary
spending and 2.0% for entitlements. That's pretty damn low.
Worse than Clinton, even!
mbs
only if one has power of some sort. The fact is, however, that given the
balance of political power the Bush tax
Mat wrote,
Perhaps one of the most easily expressed and understandable critiques of mainstream
economics is that so many of its results rely on the full employment assumption. . .
I'm not sure that is exactly true for applied labor models in which unemployment
does occur. Because of this, I
Eric - I wouldn't spend a lot of time on the capital critique, but it is
worth a mention. The fact that the 'other side' conceded defeat
(Samuelson 1966) and it still didn't stop the theory from being used can
support the argument that the continued dominance of mainstream
economics may be due to
By the way, the argument that the capital critique is so 60s/70s which
I generally consider to be a compliment, to me is similar to the one
that peace is so 60s/70s. By the way way, Syed Ahmad's Capital in
economic theory: neo-classical, Cambridge, and chaos; Elgar, c1991,
received some good
Forstater, Mathew wrote:
This statement is so frustrating--chronic deficits exacerbating the
long term budget outlook reduce the capacity of the government to
finance... Just keep backing yourselves further an further into the
corner, so you can never support common sense budgetary policy again,
Right, this is why I didn't sign it either (despite the enormous
persuasive power of my endorsement).
Peter
Forstater, Mathew wrote:
This statement is so frustrating--chronic deficits exacerbating the
long term budget outlook reduce the capacity of the government to
finance... Just keep
Mainstream economics can be attacked at many levels. Being a philosopher by training, I'll mention some foundational issues that may have been slighted in the discussion so far. The theory depends are two levels of questionable assumptions. One level concerns the notion of a utility function. This
Chris Burford notes:
This could also fit in with
Blair's surprising change of tack in the Commons Wednesday: the argument
for invading Iraq, that day, was not weapons of mass destruction, or the
need to fight terrorism, but it was humanity: the sanctions over the years
had resulted in so many
jks wrote,
The theory depends are two levels of questionable assumptions.. . .
Well actually at the level of high theory these assumptions have not been accepted
since the development of the notion Pareto Efficiency. Informally, these assumptions
have also not been accepted since the, I think,
That's what I meant by technical devices. However, commsurability is still maintained,a nd you can't talk about Pareto optimality without it, which is why I focused on that assumption. jks
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
jks wrote,The theory depends are two levels of questionable assumptions.. . .Well
When greed is fact and control is fiction
Enron's spectacular collapse was not an isolated financial disaster, says
Frank Partnoy. It was symptomatic of a new culture of concealment in business
and a reckless disregard of risk
Friday February 14, 2003
The Guardian
The 1990s were a decade of
I don't think anyone argues that no taxes are necessary? No taxes would
mean no currency, because taxes create the demand for money (see Wray's
book, etc.).
I do subscribe to the Lerner functional finance view that all that
matters are the *effects* of any particular relation between G and T,
In a message dated 2/13/03 1:19:26 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I would say it is more than the bureaucracy. I think the state has fuzzy boundaries as we should expect.
I illustrated an application of what I was arguing for in my post of 23 Dec 2002 "Frist's ideological
Title: Enron and P/A
[was: RE: [PEN-L:34711] Re: RE: re: What is wrong with the mainstream economics?]
I wrote: why can't Enron be explained using the (relatively mainstream) theory of the principal/agent problem?
Ian writes: Some questions I've been asking while looking at the Enron
jks wrote,
That's what I meant by technical devices. However, commsurability is still
maintained,a nd you can't talk about Pareto optimality without it . . .
PO does _not_ require any interperson utility comparison (ie, commsurability); that is
its beauty from the point of view of NC
Any work supporting the economic stimulus benefits of
extended or increased unemployment insurance? Theres a bill coming up in
Kansas some of us are working on drafting some letters and testimony, any
empirical work showing positive effects, that kind of thing? tyhanks
Communersability isn'tr interpersonal comparison of utilities. It's the assumption that even within a single individual's utility functions all values are commebsurable, that it's possible to compoare, e.g., my distaste for brussels sprouts with my contempt for Enron, my love for my sweetie with
jks wrote,
Communersability isn'tr interpersonal comparison of utilities. It's the assumption
that even within a single individual's utility functions all values are
commebsurable, that it's possible to compoare, e.g., my distaste for brussels sprouts
with my contempt for Enron, my love for my
In a message dated 2/13/2003 9:33:38 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Friday February 14, 2003
The Guardian
There have been three major changes in financial markets in the past 15 years.
First, financial instruments became increasingly complex and were used to
manipulate
But to have consistency you need comparability. Incommernsurability means that you don't have that, you can't rank incommensurable values ordinary; you can't compare them.You need a common scale of some sort, ort some ranking mechanism. Otherwise you can't decide which of two outcomes is more
[the Ayn Rand quote is hilarious, as it's the law of identity, or in
information theory, redundancy.]
[New York Times]
February 14, 2003
On the Second Day, Atlas Waffled
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Dear Alan Greenspan:
After reading your recent testimony, I'd like to share some Objectivist
philosophy
At 13/02/03 20:06 -0600, Ken wrote:
How wacko can Blair get? Is he
trying to outperform Bush?
There is collusion between Blair and Bush (one of the hostile images of one
of the editions of the tabloid press in the UK this morning is a large
picture for Valentine's Day, of the two kissing)
NY Times, Feb. 13, 2003
Behind Roses' Beauty, Poor and Ill Workers
By GINGER THOMPSON
CAYAMBE, Ecuador, Feb. 10 In just five years, Ecuadorean roses, as big
and red as the human heart, have become the new status flower in the
United States, thanks to the volcanic soil, perfect temperatures
70 matches
Mail list logo
