Neokeynesian-Neoclassical synthesis
Hi all, maybe it could be a silly question but I was wondering if the neo keynesian theory and the neoclassical synthesis are similar school of thought. Are not they ? Thanks in advance Galapagos
A Wave of (Israeli) Jews Returning to Russia
A Wave of Jews Returning to Russia By Anatoly Medetsky Staff Writer Vladimir Filonov / MT As the Iron Curtain began to fall, Igor Dzhadan left the Soviet Union with his family, bound for Israel and a longforbidden opportunity. Dzhadan was luckier than most of the 11,000 Soviet doctors who rushed to Israel around the same time, 1990, under Israel's Law of Return. He was able to continue practice and research. Still, he returned to Russia in 2001 to become an editor at Moscow's Jewish News Agency. It was interesting for me to live in a Jewish state, but I feel more comfortable in Russia, Dzhadan said. I knew from the experience of others that I could find work here and my life prospects wouldn't be worse than in Israel. Dzhadan is part of a tide of emigrants who have returned to Russia from Israel over a litany of concerns: the second intifada, Israel's worsening economy, an inability to adapt to cultural and social realities. According to a study released this March, at least 50,000 emigrants returned from Israel from 2001 to 2003. The exodus has stirred up a discussion in Israel, said Boruch Gorin, head of the public relations department at the Russian Federation of Jewish Communities, which commissioned the study. On the one hand, millions of Jews already live outside Israel. On the other hand, living in Israel is an ideology, and tthat the people who sought a shelter in the country have been leaving is a blow to the ideology, he said. (snip) Another reason for returning was what Dzhadan called the sectarian structure of the society. In order to rent an apartment or find a job, a person has to operate through members of his party or immigrants from the same country or area. I didn't like it, he said. I'm used to operating in an open society where people don't ask you to what community you belong. http://www.moscowtimes.ru/stories/2004/08/04/003.html __ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Marxmail connection problems
All mailing lists based on Hans Ehrbar's server, including Marxmail, are not functioning right now due to a system-wide problem in the economics department at U. of Utah. Will make another announcement when we have a handle on the situation. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: The NY Times, the Democratic Party and Italian fascism
--- Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: He liked the fact that Soviet children wore uniforms, etc. Oh, my back!) --- Most people in Russia want to bring that back on a voluntary basis. Personally I find Young Pioneer uniforms to be adorable. __ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Re: What is the total wealth ?
Carrol Cox wrote: I don't think estimates of total wealth tell one much. What counts for your purposes is the flow of material goods and services available at any given moment. Or perhaps the productive capacity if everyone were employed, but I doubt anyone could make even a wild estimate of that. I'm not sure I understand your points, but estimating the value of (global) aggregate wealth or what Marx called (global) social capital shouldn't be a challenge to make us feel nihilistic. Next I'll make a wild estimate of the value of world's capital. Well-informed people could correct it or refine it further. Today, with access to markets, accumulated wealth is capital in some phase of the canonical cycle (M-C... P... C'-M'). Sure there's some wealth already at the brink of being consumed, but neglect that. So, for our purpose, global wealth = global capital. Using Doug's figures, last year, global capital generated a *gross* income of USD 7,867.94 per capita. Since global population is, say, 6.3 billion, then we're talking about a gross income of 50 trillion USD, plus or minus change. That and a few other pieces of information (under some roughly plausible assumptions) should suffice to make an estimate. We're just trying to price an (aggregate) asset. How much of this gross income would be required for the simple reproduction of the economy? In other words, how much is it *net* global income, income that we could dissipate without jeopardizing the ability of global capital to generate the same net income every future year? Deduct depreciation and also the fraction of consumption that just replenishes the labor force at its current skill level. So, there's no labor force growth, no accumulation of human capital, and no addition to the capital stock. Assume there's no uncertainty or sustainability issues, so we're certain that global capital will re-generate the same net income forever. Hence, risk = 0. In other words, we are assuming perfect foresight, rational expectations, whatever. (Risk would lower the estimate a bit. But note that, after a few years, sustainability doesn't really matter, because we're going to discount net income and what comes in the far future will be worth little in terms of present value. So I'm making these assumptions to simplify matters only. For instance, if we know or suspect that the world will end by 2050, the calculation would only get more complicated, but the result would not be that different.) I cannot make an educated guess about net global income, so I'll just say it's 30 trillion USD. Global capital can be now treated as an annuity, which is very convenient because its present value formula is net income flow/r. To calculate the present value, we discount net income using its opportunity cost. And what would that be? The value of the next best alternative to dissipating the net global income back into the universe. Say, what we people are actually doing right now, using current net income to expand future income. How? By adding to current consumption (to expand the labor force and to expand its skill) and by adding to the stock of global capital. Say, the labor force will grow at 4% per year in the future and per-capita income at 1%. Then, the next best alternative is expanding global net income at a rate of 5% per year. This growth rate is assumed constant (since there's no risk, no volatility). So that's the global discount rate we should use to price our annuity. Thus, the discounted present value of global capital is: K = 30 trillion USD/0.05 = 600 trillion USD That's close to 100 thousand USD per person. Very roughly. Julio _ De todo para la Mujer Latina http://latino.msn.com/mujer/
Re: Neokeynesian-Neoclassical synthesis
Economists never get together at conventions to standardize naming conventions, but in the vernacular there's sort of a family relationship between the neoclassical synthesis, neo Keynesianism, and new Keynesianism. the neoclassical synthesis arose after WW2, with Paul Samuelson: the idea was that the government and the central bank would maintain rought full employment, so that neoclassical notions -- based on scarcity -- would apply. neo-Keynesianism (often contrasted with the post-Keynesianism of Paul Davidson, et al) is based on the synthesis but puts more emphasis on microfoundations, the use of Walrasian general equilibrium theory in macroeconomics. This developed over time. new Keynesianism (associated with Greg Mankiw, now Bush's CEA chair) is a response to the Robert Lucas/new classical school, which criticized the inconsistencies of the neo-Keynesian school in light of the concept of rational expectations. The new classicals combined a unique equilibrium (at ful employment, natch) with rational expectations. The new Keynesians say: we have all sorts of microfoundations that indicate that markets don't clear because of price stickiness, so there's no unique equilibrium in the short run, so the rational expectations-based critique doesn't apply. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine From: PEN-L list on behalf of Galapagos Sent: Wed 8/4/2004 4:04 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L] Neokeynesian-Neoclassical synthesis Hi all, maybe it could be a silly question but I was wondering if the neo keynesian theory and the neoclassical synthesis are similar school of thought. Are not they ? Thanks in advance Galapagos
Re: What is the total wealth ?
Julio H wrote: I cannot make an educated guess about net global income, so I'll just say it's 30 trillion USD. Global capital can be now treated as an annuity, which is very convenient because its present value formula is net income flow/r. To calculate the present value, we discount net income using its opportunity cost. And what would that be? --- Surely this is the entire problem at the heart of the Cambridge Capital Controversy; you can't work out what the total amount of capital is without making an assumption about the rate of profit and vice versa. dd
Re: What is the total wealth ?
In one of the last paragraphs of my previous posting, I wrote: Say, the labor force will grow at 4% per year in the future and per-capita income at 1%. I meant: Say, the POPULATION will grow at 4% per year in the future and per-capita income at 1%. Doug's figure is per capita, not per worker. Not that it makes much of a difference. Julio _ Visita MSN Latino Noticias: Todo lo que pasa en el mundo y en tu paín, ¡en tu idioma! http://latino.msn.com/noticias/
Russian left-wingers' linkup seen as step towards
From the Putinoid press, owned by Boris Berezovsky. BBC Monitoring Russian left-wingers' linkup seen as step towards manageable opposition Source: Kommersant, Moscow, in Russian 3 Aug 04 The Motherland faction has announced its plans to coordinate its actions with the Communists in the Duma. The Kremlin is reportedly unperturbed by the opposition's joining of forces. Moreover, according to a Russian paper, this move was authorized by the Kremlin, which regards it as a step towards a manageable opposition. The following is excerpted from a report by Russian newspaper Kommersant on 3 August. Subheadings have been inserted editorially. Dmitriy Rogozin, leader of the Motherland faction in the Duma and of the party of the same name, yesterday announced his intention to create a coordinating council with the CPRF [Communist Party of the Russian Federation] faction for joint actions in the State Duma. The Communists reacted favourably to the idea, although they regard the Motherland as a Kremlin project. But the Motherland's initiative will not go beyond the framework of the level of opposition permitted by the Kremlin: even united, the left-wing minority is incapable of obstructing the adoption of laws needed by the authorities, but on the other hand Mr Rogozin himself will be able to earn political points by demonstrating his opposition credentials to voters yet again. [Passage omitted]. Similarities The Duma Communists proved ready for an alliance - despite the fact that since the moment that the Motherland bloc emerged they have described it as the Kremlin's pocket bloc, created to split the camp of left-wing and patriotic forces. As Ivan Melnikov explained to Kommersant yesterday, the Motherland faction is a mix of different people, and many of them are close to the CPRF faction in terms of their approach, their assessments, and their analysis. In Comrade Melnikov's opinion, this is evidenced by the results of Duma voting on basic laws in the last year and a half. He therefore feels that it is logical and natural in principle to take the next step - to move from recording that they have common positions to coordinated actions. Differences But for all the similarity over their approaches and voting motives in the Duma, the CPRF and the Motherland have fundamentally different opposition credentials. The Communists are opposed to One Russia, the government, and the president, where as nobody from the Motherland leadership has ever spoken out against the president. Dmitriy Rogozin himself has always stressed that his associates have complaints only against the government. And yesterday too, when criticizing the government draft law on benefits, he preferred to talk about the astonishing shift of the parliamentary majority to an extreme right-wing position, which, in the Communists' view, is definitely not astonishing since it reflects the liberal bias in President Putin's policy. The Kremlin's alleged designs Moreover, during that same February when Mr Rogozin became the sole leader of the Motherland party, Kommersant's sources in the presidential administration were saying that it was the Kremlin that had given Motherland carte blanche to demonstratively display tough opposition. Kremlin spin doctors gave the Motherland the role of the number two party of power, which would win the attention of voters if One Russia should for some reason lose its image as the number one party of power. And the Duma examination of the draft law on benefits is the very occasion when One Russia is at risk of severely undermining its image as the defenders of the people. So it is not hard to suggest that Mr Rogozin has also agreed to an alliance with the CPRF with the Kremlin's knowledge. The combined votes of the Motherland (39 deputies) and the CPRF (51 deputies) will not, however outweigh One Russia's constitutional majority, so there is no threat to either the benefits law or other laws that the executive branch needs. On the other hand, Motherland will be able to demonstrate to voters that it is not afraid of speaking out against the authorities and concluding an alliance with the Communists, who have withdrawn to a position of total opposition. And this will ultimately increase the Kremlin's chances of creating a manageable left-wing opposition in Russia. __ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
1.9 billion of Iraqi money to US firms
$1.9 Billion of Iraq's Money Goes to U.S. Contractors By Ariana Eunjung Cha Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, August 4, 2004; Page A01 Halliburton Co. and other U.S. contractors are being paid at least $1.9 billion from Iraqi funds under an arrangement set by the U.S.-led occupation authority, according to a review of documents and interviews with government agencies, companies and auditors. Most of the money is for two controversial deals that originally had been financed with money approved by the U.S. Congress, but later shifted to Iraqi funds that were governed by fewer restrictions and less rigorous oversight. For the first 14 months of the occupation, officials of the Coalition Provisional Authority provided little detailed information about the Iraqi money, from oil sales and other sources, that it spent on reconstruction contracts. They have said that it was used for the benefit of the Iraqi people and that most of the contracts paid from Iraqi money went to Iraqi companies. But the CPA never released information about specific contracts and the identities of companies that won them, citing security concerns, so it has been impossible to know whether these promises were kept. The CPA has said it has awarded about 2,000 contracts with Iraqi money. Its inspector general compiled records for the major contracts, which it defined as those worth $5 million or more each. Analysis of those and other records shows that 19 of 37 major contracts funded by Iraqi money went to U.S. companies and at least 85 percent of the total $2.26 billion was obligated to U.S. companies. The contracts that went to U.S. firms may be worth several hundred million more once the work is completed. That analysis and several audit reports released in recent weeks shed new light on how the occupation authority handled the Iraqi money it controlled. They show that the CPA at times violated its own rules, authorizing Iraqi money when it didn't have a quorum or proper Iraqi representation at meetings, and kept such sloppy records that the paperwork for several major contracts could not be found. During the first half of the occupation, the CPA depended heavily on no-bid contracts that were questioned by auditors. And the occupation's shifting of projects that were publicly announced to be financed by U.S. money to Iraqi money prompted the Iraqi finance minister to complain that the ad hoc process put the CPA in danger of losing the trust of the people. Kellogg Brown Root Inc., a subsidiary of Halliburton, was paid $1.66 billion from the Iraqi money, primarily to cover the cost of importing fuel from Kuwait. The job was tacked on to a no-bid contract that was the subject of several investigations after allegations surfaced that a subcontractor for Houston-based KBR overcharged by as much as $61 million for the fuel. Harris Corp., a Melbourne, Fla., company, got $48 million from the Iraqi oil funds to manage and update the formerly state-owned media network, taking over from Science Applications International Corp. of San Diego. The new television and radio services and newspaper have been widely criticized as mouthpieces for the occupation and symbols of the failures of the reconstruction effort. When it was being financed with U.S.-appropriated funds, the contract drew scrutiny because of questionable expenses, including chartering a jet to fly in a Hummer H2 and a Ford pickup truck for the program manager's use. Fareed Yaseen, one of 43 ambassadors recently appointed by Iraq's government, said he was troubled that the Iraqi money was managed almost exclusively by foreigners and that contracts went predominantly to foreign companies. There was practically no Iraqi voice in the disbursements of these funds, Yaseen said in a phone interview from Baghdad, where he is awaiting his diplomatic assignment. Even Iraqi officials who served in the government while the CPA was in charge complained they had little say in the use of their own country's money. Mohammed Aboush, who was a director general in the oil ministry during the occupation, said he and other Iraqi officials were not consulted about expanding the KBR contract. But he said he informed his American advisers at the CPA that the Iraqis felt KBR's performance had been inadequate and that he'd prefer that another company take over its work. Aboush said that he was ignored and that he believes the decision to go with KBR was political. I am old enough to know the Americans and their interests and they are not always the same interests as the Iraqi interests, he said. U.S. officials contend the CPA was faithful to the terms of a United Nations resolution that gave the United States authority to manage the Iraq oil money during the occupation. We believe that contracts awarded with Iraqi funds were for the sole benefit of the Iraqi people, without exception, Brig. Gen. Stephen M. Seay, head of contracting activity for the successor to the CPA's office, wrote in a response to
Re: What is the total wealth ?
I'm glad that someone still remembers the CCC. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine From: Daniel DaviesSurely this is the entire problem at the heart of the Cambridge CapitalControversy; you can't work out what the total amount of capital is withoutmaking an assumption about the rate of profit and vice versa.dd
Re: What is the total wealth ?
Daniel Davies wrote: Surely this is the entire problem at the heart of the Cambridge Capital Controversy; you can't work out what the total amount of capital is without making an assumption about the rate of profit and vice versa. You caught me! Yes, you're absolutely right. My exercise is formally flawed. Yet, Marx would pull a trick out of his dialectic hat and say: In practice, the markets solve the paradox all the time. We'd look around and note that -- after all -- marketable assets do get priced. So, at a point in time, the sum of their values must be some definite number. How flimsy will that number be if it is based on circular reasoning? As flimsy as the human condition is. If we think about it, this paradox is at the heart of any theory of value. What's the measure of all things? For all we know, other things, the neoclassical would claim. The claim of the humanist (the Marxist included) would be: For all we know, we humans are the measure of all things. How can humans measure their humanity using their humanity as the standard? Well, we can -- we do it somehow as we proceed to live our lives. And we won't be able to move beyond that point... Julio _ De todo para la Mujer Latina http://latino.msn.com/mujer/
Re: What is the total wealth ?
Sorry if this has already been quoted. ...when the limited bourgeois form is stripped away, what is wealth other than the universality of individual needs, capacities, pleasures, productive forces, etc., created through universal exchange? ... The absolute working-out of his creative potentialities, with no presupposition other than the previous historic development, which makes this totality of development, i.e., the development of all human powers as such the end in itself, not as measured on a predetermined yardstick... Grundisse 488 Jonathan
Re: What is the total wealth ?
Julio Huato wrote: Say, the labor force will grow at 4% per year in the future and per-capita income at 1%. Then, the next best alternative is expanding global net income at a rate of 5% per year. This growth rate is assumed constant (since there's no risk, no volatility). So that's the global discount rate we should use to price our annuity. Thus, the discounted present value of global capital is: K = 30 trillion USD/0.05 = 600 trillion USD Another approach. According to the BEA, the value of fixed reproducible tangible wealth (including consumer durables) in the U.S. was $32.8 trillion in 2002. (Note that the rate of return on those assets implied by GDP is a lot higher than Julio's estimate - around 30%.) That year, according to World Bank stats, the U.S. had 32% of world GDP. So, scaling up based on that income share, we can estimate that the global capital stock is worth $102.1 trillion - or roughly $16,000 per capita. Doug
Re: What is the total wealth ?
Daniel Davies wrote: Surely this is the entire problem at the heart of the Cambridge Capital Controversy; you can't work out what the total amount of capital is without making an assumption about the rate of profit and vice versa. Yeah, but nobody cares about that anymore. It was an obsession of some weirdos in England a generation ago, but we've moved beyond that now. Doug
Re: What is the total wealth ?
Right, they should teach that marginal productivity theory created economic justice because everybody got rewarded according to their marginal product. Sraffa proved that it was BS. Samuelson and others attempted to refute him, but were unsuccessful. Solow said that it was a tempest in a teapot. Now nobody cares, but they continue to teach the same BS. On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 12:07:17PM -0400, Doug Henwood wrote: Yeah, but nobody cares about that anymore. It was an obsession of some weirdos in England a generation ago, but we've moved beyond that now. Doug -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: What is the total wealth ?
Of course, the current thinking is that it is human capital that is responsible for most of the productivity. Has anybody made a recent estimate of the aggregate human capital? On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 12:06:08PM -0400, Doug Henwood wrote: Another approach. According to the BEA, the value of fixed reproducible tangible wealth (including consumer durables) in the U.S. was $32.8 trillion in 2002. (Note that the rate of return on those assets implied by GDP is a lot higher than Julio's estimate - around 30%.) That year, according to World Bank stats, the U.S. had 32% of world GDP. So, scaling up based on that income share, we can estimate that the global capital stock is worth $102.1 trillion - or roughly $16,000 per capita. Doug -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
What is the total wealth ?
Wow . Thanks Julio. I have to study your calculation more to understand it. What are the parts of this whole ? Like Max's Brooklyn Bridge. What proportion is fictional (?) capital ? What proportion is owned by the wealthiest individuals ? by Julio Huato I'm not sure I understand your points, but estimating the value of (global) aggregate wealth or what Marx called (global) social capital shouldn't be a challenge to make us feel nihilistic. Next I'll make a wild estimate of the value of world's capital. Well-informed people could correct it or refine it further. Today, with access to markets, accumulated wealth is capital in some phase of the canonical cycle (M-C... P... C'-M'). Sure there's some wealth already at the brink of being consumed, but neglect that. So, for our purpose, global wealth = global capital. Using Doug's figures, last year, global capital generated a *gross* income of USD 7,867.94 per capita. Since global population is, say, 6.3 billion, then we're talking about a gross income of 50 trillion USD, plus or minus change. That and a few other pieces of information (under some roughly plausible assumptions) should suffice to make an estimate. We're just trying to price an (aggregate) asset. How much of this gross income would be required for the simple reproduction of the economy? In other words, how much is it *net* global income, income that we could dissipate without jeopardizing the ability of global capital to generate the same net income every future year? Deduct depreciation and also the fraction of consumption that just replenishes the labor force at its current skill level. So, there's no labor force growth, no accumulation of human capital, and no addition to the capital stock. Assume there's no uncertainty or sustainability issues, so we're certain that global capital will re-generate the same net income forever. Hence, risk = 0. In other words, we are assuming perfect foresight, rational expectations, whatever. (Risk would lower the estimate a bit. But note that, after a few years, sustainability doesn't really matter, because we're going to discount net income and what comes in the far future will be worth little in terms of present value. So I'm making these assumptions to simplify matters only. For instance, if we know or suspect that the world will end by 2050, the calculation would only get more complicated, but the result would not be that different.) I cannot make an educated guess about net global income, so I'll just say it's 30 trillion USD. Global capital can be now treated as an annuity, which is very convenient because its present value formula is net income flow/r. To calculate the present value, we discount net income using its opportunity cost. And what would that be? The value of the next best alternative to dissipating the net global income back into the universe. Say, what we people are actually doing right now, using current net income to expand future income. How? By adding to current consumption (to expand the labor force and to expand its skill) and by adding to the stock of global capital. Say, the labor force will grow at 4% per year in the future and per-capita income at 1%. Then, the next best alternative is expanding global net income at a rate of 5% per year. This growth rate is assumed constant (since there's no risk, no volatility). So that's the global discount rate we should use to price our annuity. Thus, the discounted present value of global capital is: K = 30 trillion USD/0.05 = 600 trillion USD That's close to 100 thousand USD per person. Very roughly. Julio
What is the total wealth ?
I don't have the next thought wellformed, but don't the wealthiest people have to guarantee that they own a certain portion of the total wealth/social capital in order that it be capital with capital power ? If the bottom 6.28 billion people had a larger portion of the total, they could live comfortably and not depend on the richest to survive and live. Isn't the value of hedge fund wealth dependent in part on it being part of hedge fund owners and other finance capitalists owning a certain portion of total wealth ? Of the different forms of wealth, what is the significance of fictitous capital ( if I use that term correctly)being so attenuated from a result of a labor process and from use-values ? Isn't owning it a way of indirectly owning and controlling a major portion of wealth that is in the form of non-fictitious capital ? What proportion of total wealth is far attentuated from attachment to any use-value ? By defining wealth as capital, isn't the value of that capital defined based on its ability to generate more capital ? What proportion of total wealth is in a form that is of use to the vast majority of the people ? Charles Julio Huato wrote: Say, the labor force will grow at 4% per year in the future and per-capita income at 1%. Then, the next best alternative is expanding global net income at a rate of 5% per year. This growth rate is assumed constant (since there's no risk, no volatility). So that's the global discount rate we should use to price our annuity. Thus, the discounted present value of global capital is: K = 30 trillion USD/0.05 = 600 trillion USD Another approach. According to the BEA, the value of fixed reproducible tangible wealth (including consumer durables) in the U.S. was $32.8 trillion in 2002. (Note that the rate of return on those assets implied by GDP is a lot higher than Julio's estimate - around 30%.) That year, according to World Bank stats, the U.S. had 32% of world GDP. So, scaling up based on that income share, we can estimate that the global capital stock is worth $102.1 trillion - or roughly $16,000 per capita. Doug
Re: Neokeynesian-Neoclassical synthesis
- Original Message - From: Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 4:04 PM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Neokeynesian-Neoclassical synthesis the neoclassical synthesis arose after WW2, with Paul Samuelson: the idea was that the government and the central bank would maintain rought full employment, so that neoclassical notions -- based on scarcity -- would apply. neo-Keynesianism (often contrasted with the post-Keynesianism of Paul Davidson, et al) is based on the synthesis but puts more emphasis on microfoundations, the use of Walrasian general equilibrium theory in macroeconomics. This developed over time. new Keynesianism (associated with Greg Mankiw, now Bush's CEA chair) is a response to the Robert Lucas/new classical school, which criticized the inconsistencies of the neo-Keynesian school in light of the concept of rational expectations. The new classicals combined a unique equilibrium (at ful employment, natch) with rational expectations. The new Keynesians say: we have all sorts of microfoundations that indicate that markets don't clear because of price stickiness, so there's no unique equilibrium in the short run, so the rational expectations-based critique doesn't apply. Hello James, thanks for your reply. Finally, I have understood that both neo Keynesians and new Keynesians have a kind of common roots in the neoclassical synthesis. Could they be considered a kind of evolution of the neoclassical synthesis ? I knew that Mankiw is associated with the new Keynesians. Who could be associated with the neo Keynesians ? Thanks Galapagos P.S. I saw your web site. There is a lot of interesting stuff !!!
Re: Neokeynesian-Neoclassical synthesis
Galapagos (who proves that no man is an island) writes: thanks for your reply.it's a pleasure. Finally, I have understood that both neo Keynesians and new Keynesians have a kind of common roots in the neoclassical synthesis. Could they be considered a kind of evolution of the neoclassical synthesis ?it's not a Darwinian-style evolution. There are two main forces at work in the evolution of neoclassical economics and varieties of economics associated with it. The first is the need to force all theory into a micro-economic optimization framework, withequal exchange between individuals being the dominant vision, though game theory can allow some flexibility here. More generally, the use of math is rewarded, while non-mathematical approaches are punished.This encourages all sorts of Chicago-school type inanity (such as Robert Lucas or Robert Barro). The second, especially for macroeconomics, is the real world of business fluctuations, inflation, etc., a lot of which don't fit into the neoclassical orthodoxy. I knew that Mankiw is associated with the new Keynesians. Who could be associated with the neo Keynesians ?James Tobin and Franco Modigliani. P.S. I saw your web site. There is a lot of interesting stuff !!!thanks. Comments are always welcome, even for stuff that's already been published. jim devine
poor old MF
From MS SLATE, Today's Papers (Aug. 4, 2004): The [Wall Street]Journal goes high with word the Kerry campaign's impending release of endorsements from 200 big businessmen. Many of them supported President Bush in 2000. "George is a really good guy personally," said one. "He had an opportunity to bring the country together--which was his MO in Texas. But for reasons only his psychiatrist would know, he's chosen to do just the opposite as president. He's turning out to be the worst president since Millard Fillmore--and that's probably an insult to Millard Fillmore." Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
The Manchurian Candidate: The Return of the Repressed
The Manchurian Candidate: The Return of the Repressed (If Fahrenheit 9/11 is a perfect filmic expression of the Anybody But Bush ideology of liberal intellectuals, The Manchurian Candidate unexpectedly -- despite the intentions of its creators -- serves as a cinematic vehicle for the return of the politically repressed: The chief danger to the republic . . . emanates not from the extremes -- a fanatical foreign enemy combined with a zealous administration -- but from the center, from the moderate wing of the opposition party and its corporate sponsors [A. O. Scott]): http://montages.blogspot.com/2004/08/manchurian-candidate-return-of.html. Yoshie
Re: What is the total wealth ?
The BSers of the world have united. The revolutionary result is mainstream economics.. Cheers, Ken Hanly - Original Message - From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 11:38 AM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] What is the total wealth ? Right, they should teach that marginal productivity theory created economic justice because everybody got rewarded according to their marginal product. Sraffa proved that it was BS. Samuelson and others attempted to refute him, but were unsuccessful. Solow said that it was a tempest in a teapot. Now nobody cares, but they continue to teach the same BS. On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 12:07:17PM -0400, Doug Henwood wrote: Yeah, but nobody cares about that anymore. It was an obsession of some weirdos in England a generation ago, but we've moved beyond that now. Doug -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Imam in Virgin Mary Drag in the Green Zone
Imam in Virgin Mary Drag in the Green Zone: http://montages.blogspot.com/2004/08/imam-in-virgin-mary-drag-in-green-zone.html.
Re: What is the total wealth ?
it is surprising what a man can understand when his pocketbook depends on him not understanding it, or some such. dd -Original Message- From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Michael Perelman Sent: 04 August 2004 17:38 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: What is the total wealth ? Right, they should teach that marginal productivity theory created economic justice because everybody got rewarded according to their marginal product. Sraffa proved that it was BS. Samuelson and others attempted to refute him, but were unsuccessful. Solow said that it was a tempest in a teapot. Now nobody cares, but they continue to teach the same BS. On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 12:07:17PM -0400, Doug Henwood wrote: Yeah, but nobody cares about that anymore. It was an obsession of some weirdos in England a generation ago, but we've moved beyond that now. Doug -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: The Manchurian Candidate: The Return of the Repressed
it's interesting that in the Manchurian Candidate, neither a George Bush nor a Dick Cheney character appears. On the other hand, there's an evil senator who reminded me of Hillary Rodham Clinton and her son, who seemed vaguely like John Kerry because of the whole emphasis on his war-heroic status. The Manchurian Candidate: The Return of the Repressed (If Fahrenheit 9/11 is a perfect filmic expression of the Anybody But Bush ideology of liberal intellectuals, The Manchurian Candidate unexpectedly -- despite the intentions of its creators -- serves as a cinematic vehicle for the return of the politically repressed: The chief danger to the republic . . . emanates not from the extremes -- a fanatical foreign enemy combined with a zealous administration -- but from the center, from the moderate wing of the opposition party and its corporate sponsors [A. O. Scott]): http://montages.blogspot.com/2004/08/manchurian-candidate-ret urn-of.html. Yoshie
Re: What is the total wealth ?
ken hanly wrote: The BSers of the world have united. The revolutionary result is mainstream economics.. For many years I taught a course in ancient (greek) literature in translation -- including the Odyssey and the Oresteia. One of the problems was convincing the students that, yes, Homer (the Odyssey poet that we call Homer for lack of an actual name) and Aeschylus really did believe in the existence of Zeus, Athena, et al. In the future (if we have a future) I suspect teachers of twenty-first century history will have an even more difficult time convincing their students that anyone ever really believed mainstream economics! One of the gimmicks I used a few times in the class was to paraphrase a few premises of mainstream economics and point out that the Greeks really had better reason to believe in Zeus and Athena. Carrol
Wallerstein on the elections
Now here's something you don't see everyday. Olympian, long-wave, crypto-Hegelian, world-systems arguments for voting Kerry. http://fbc.binghamton.edu/142en.htm -- Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Bush Using Drugs to Control Depression, Erratic Behavior
From Capitol Hill Blue Bush Leagues Bush Using Drugs to Control Depression, Erratic Behavior By TERESA HAMPTON Editor, Capitol Hill Blue Jul 28, 2004, 08:09 http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_4921.shtml President George W. Bush is taking powerful anti-depressant drugs to control his erratic behavior, depression and paranoia, Capitol Hill Blue has learned. The prescription drugs, administered by Col. Richard J. Tubb, the White House physician, can impair the Presidents mental faculties and decrease both his physical capabilities and his ability to respond to a crisis, administration aides admit privately. Its a double-edged sword, says one aide. We cant have him flying off the handle at the slightest provocation but we also need a President who is alert mentally. Tubb prescribed the anti-depressants after a clearly-upset Bush stormed off stage on July 8, refusing to answer reporters' questions about his relationship with indicted Enron executive Kenneth J. Lay. Keep those motherfuckers away from me, he screamed at an aide backstage. If you cant, Ill find someone who can. Bushs mental stability has become the topic of Washington whispers in recent months. Capitol Hill Blue first reported on June 4 about increasing concern among White House aides over the Presidents wide mood swings and obscene outbursts. Although GOP loyalists dismissed the reports an anti-Bush propaganda, the reports were later confirmed by prominent George Washington University psychiatrist Dr. Justin Frank in his book Bush on the Couch: Inside the Mind of the President. Dr. Frank diagnosed the President as a paranoid meglomaniac and untreated alcoholic whose lifelong streak of sadism, ranging from childhood pranks (using firecrackers to explode frogs) to insulting journalists, gloating over state executions and pumping his hand gleefully before the bombing of Baghdad showcase Bushs instabilities. I was really very unsettled by him and I started watching everything he did and reading what he wrote and watching him on videotape. I felt he was disturbed, Dr. Frank said. He fits the profile of a former drinker whose alcoholism has been arrested but not treated. Dr. Franks conclusions have been praised by other prominent psychiatrists, including Dr. James Grotstein, Professor at UCLA Medical Center, and Dr. Irvin Yalom, MD, Professor Emeritus at Stanford University Medical School. The doctors also worry about the wisdom of giving powerful anti-depressant drugs to a person with a history of chemical dependency. Bush is an admitted alcoholic, although he never sought treatment in a formal program, and stories about his cocaine use as a younger man haunted his campaigns for Texas governor and his first campaign for President. President Bush is an untreated alcoholic with paranoid and megalomaniac tendencies, Dr. Frank adds. The White House did not return phone calls seeking comment on this article. Although the exact drugs Bush takes to control his depression and behavior are not known, White House sources say they are powerful medications designed to bring his erratic actions under control. While Col. Tubb regularly releases a synopsis of the Presidents annual physical, details of the Presidents health and any drugs or treatment he may receive are not public record and are guarded zealously by the secretive cadre of aides that surround the President. Veteran White House watchers say the ability to control information about Bushs health, either physical or mental, is similar to Ronald Reagans second term when aides managed to conceal the Presidents increasing memory lapses that signaled the onslaught of Alzheimers Disease. It also brings back memories of Richard Nixons final days when the soon-to-resign President wandered the halls and talked to portraits of former Presidents. The stories didnt emerge until after Nixon left office. One long-time GOP political consultant who for obvious reasons asked not to be identified said he is advising his Republican Congressional candidates to keep their distance from Bush. We have to face the very real possibility that the President of the United States is loony tunes, he says sadly. Thats not good for my candidates, its not good for the party and its certainly not good for the country.
Re: Bush Using Drugs to Control Depression, Erratic Behavior
Robert Naiman wrote: From Capitol Hill Blue Bush Leagues Bush Using Drugs to Control Depression, Erratic Behavior By TERESA HAMPTON Editor, Capitol Hill Blue Jul 28, 2004, 08:09 http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_4921.shtml President George W. Bush is taking powerful anti-depressant drugs to control his erratic behavior, depression and paranoia, Capitol Hill Blue has learned. This sort of thing should be discouraged. Powerful would simply not not appear in an honest account as a modifier of anti-depressant drugs. I've _never_ seen that adjective in straightforward discussion of anti-depressants, and the only excuse for it hear is that the writer is trying to put across bullshit. What in the hell would a weak anti-depressant drug be? Carrol
Re: Bush Using Drugs to Control Depression, Erratic Behavior
Joyful gospel songs? Cheers, Ken Hanly - Original Message - From: Carrol Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 7:23 PM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Bush Using Drugs to Control Depression, Erratic Behavior Robert Naiman wrote: From Capitol Hill Blue Bush Leagues Bush Using Drugs to Control Depression, Erratic Behavior By TERESA HAMPTON Editor, Capitol Hill Blue Jul 28, 2004, 08:09 http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_4921.shtml President George W. Bush is taking powerful anti-depressant drugs to control his erratic behavior, depression and paranoia, Capitol Hill Blue has learned. This sort of thing should be discouraged. Powerful would simply not not appear in an honest account as a modifier of anti-depressant drugs. I've _never_ seen that adjective in straightforward discussion of anti-depressants, and the only excuse for it hear is that the writer is trying to put across bullshit. What in the hell would a weak anti-depressant drug be? Carrol
Re: Bush Using Drugs to Control Depression, Erratic Behavior
Carrol Cox wrote: What in the hell would a weak anti-depressant drug be? White wine spritzers? Doug
Re: Bush Using Drugs to Control Depression, Erratic Behavior
ken hanly wrote: Joyful gospel songs? :-) Now that is really depressing. As a friend of mine in the local Depressive Support Group once observed, Just because you're crazy doesn't mean you're not also a jerk! There is no difficulty in demonstrating that Bush and his friends are one large bunch of thugs war criminals. There is no need for Capital Blue's baiting of the mentally ill! Carrol
Re: Bush Using Drugs to Control Depression, Erratic Behavior
On US NPR's "Day to Day" today, MS SLATE's Timothy Noah reported that Fidel Castro talked about this ina recent speech, citing some of the same sources. (Noah's point, however, was that he respected Bush more than he respected Castro and that he wished that the latter hadn't cited one of his SLATE articles.) Frankly, I don't think it matters if the POTUS is stark raving loony or not. He's basically a figure-head, representing a coalition of powerful forces. His handlers will keep him in line. stark raving, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine From: Robert NaimanSent: Wed 8/4/2004 4:16 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [PEN-L] Bush Using Drugs to Control Depression, Erratic Behavior From Capitol Hill Blue Bush Leagues Bush Using Drugs to Control Depression, Erratic Behavior By TERESA HAMPTON Editor, Capitol Hill Blue Jul 28, 2004, 08:09 http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_4921.shtml President George W. Bush is taking powerful anti-depressant drugs to control his erratic behavior, depression and paranoia, Capitol Hill Blue has learned. The prescription drugs, administered by Col. Richard J. Tubb, the White House physician, can impair the President's mental faculties and decrease both his physical capabilities and his ability to respond to a crisis, administration aides admit privately. "It's a double-edged sword," says one aide. "We can't have him flying off the handle at the slightest provocation but we also need a President who is alert mentally." Tubb prescribed the anti-depressants after a clearly-upset Bush stormed off stage on July 8, refusing to answer reporters' questions about his relationship with indicted Enron executive Kenneth J. Lay. "Keep those motherfuckers away from me," he screamed at an aide backstage. "If you can't, I'll find someone who can." Bush's mental stability has become the topic of Washington whispers in recent months. Capitol Hill Blue first reported on June 4 about increasing concern among White House aides over the President's wide mood swings and obscene outbursts. Although GOP loyalists dismissed the reports an anti-Bush propaganda, the reports were later confirmed by prominent George Washington University psychiatrist Dr. Justin Frank in his book Bush on the Couch: Inside the Mind of the President. Dr. Frank diagnosed the President as a "paranoid meglomaniac" and "untreated alcoholic" whose "lifelong streak of sadism, ranging from childhood pranks (using firecrackers to explode frogs) to insulting journalists, gloating over state executions and pumping his hand gleefully before the bombing of Baghdad" showcase Bush's instabilities. "I was really very unsettled by him and I started watching everything he did and reading what he wrote and watching him on videotape. I felt he was disturbed," Dr. Frank said. "He fits the profile of a former drinker whose alcoholism has been arrested but not treated." Dr. Frank's conclusions have been praised by other prominent psychiatrists, including Dr. James Grotstein, Professor at UCLA Medical Center, and Dr. Irvin Yalom, MD, Professor Emeritus at Stanford University Medical School. The doctors also worry about the wisdom of giving powerful anti-depressant drugs to a person with a history of chemical dependency. Bush is an admitted alcoholic, although he never sought treatment in a formal program, and stories about his cocaine use as a younger man haunted his campaigns for Texas governor and his first campaign for President. "President Bush is an untreated alcoholic with paranoid and megalomaniac tendencies," Dr. Frank adds. The White House did not return phone calls seeking comment on this article. Although the exact drugs Bush takes to control his depression and behavior are not known, White House sources say they are "powerful medications" designed to bring his erratic actions under control. While Col. Tubb regularly releases a synopsis of the President's annual physical, details of the President's health and any drugs or treatment he may receive are not public record and are guarded zealously by the secretive cadre of aides that surround the President. Veteran White House watchers say the ability to control information about Bush's health, either physical or mental, is similar to Ronald Reagan's second term when aides managed to conceal the President's increasing memory lapses that signaled the onslaught of Alzheimer's Disease. It also brings back memories of Richard Nixon's final days when the soon-to-resign President wandered the halls and talked to portraits of former Presidents. The stories didn't emerge until after Nixon left office. One long-time GOP political consultant who - for obvious reasons - asked not to be identified said he is advising his Republican Congressional candidates to keep their distance from Bush. "We have to face the very real possibility that the President of the United States is loony
Re: Bush Using Drugs to Control Depression, Erratic Behavior
What in the hell would a weak anti-depressant drug be? A Democrat for president? Dan
Re: Bush Using Drugs to Control Depression, Erratic Behavior
Title: Message I actually think this kind of thing is wretched US bourgeois politics. The author of Bush on the Couch is a liberal psychiatrist who has never had Bush on the couch, never interviewed him, and has no deep and directknowledge of his mental state except for his disagreement with Bush's policies, which are pretty much all products of the needs and character of US imperialism today. Some of the stuff he regards as loony are policies fully backed by Sen. John Kerry, who is boring but not necessarily crazy. It is outrageous and, in my opinion, unethical for a psychiatrist to use his credentials and his pseudo-knowledge of Bush in this way. I see no evidence that Bush is paranoid, and if he is depressed, well, good. I hope he has a lot more than I know to be depressed about. This is not a first, of course. The same thing was done by Fact Magazine re the supposedlyclearly insane Barry Goldwater, when he won the Republican nomination as a right-winger in 1964. I remember this study of Goldwater's clear insanity for the classic comment that Goldwater's opposition to social security showed that he hated his mother. The idiot failed to notice that Goldwater's mother, if she was alive at the time, did not need social security. She was, like Goldwater, very rich. Later, as bourgeois politics moved further to the right, Goldwater became a middle of the road Republican. I guess he started taking his medication. The same kind of crap was used to drive Thomas Eagleton, McGovern's choice for vice president, out of the race in 1972 because he had suffered from a severe period of depression (so did Abraham Lincoln from time to time) and took medication (which was not available to Lincoln, who managed pretty well without it). Just to clarify any conflict of interest, I take 40mg. Lexapro daily, and think that -- on my medication or off -- I would make a better president than either Bush or Kerry (albeit for a different class or bloc of classes).So would many, many other people -- millions of them --who fight on the side of the oppressed and exploited, whatever their psychological what-nots. Fred Feldman -Original Message-From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Devine, JamesSent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 12:59 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Bush Using Drugs to Control Depression, Erratic Behavior On US NPR's "Day to Day" today, MS SLATE's Timothy Noah reported that Fidel Castro talked about this ina recent speech, citing some of the same sources. (Noah's point, however, was that he respected Bush more than he respected Castro and that he wished that the latter hadn't cited one of his SLATE articles.) Frankly, I don't think it matters if the POTUS is stark raving loony or not. He's basically a figure-head, representing a coalition of powerful forces. His handlers will keep him in line. stark raving, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine From: Robert NaimanSent: Wed 8/4/2004 4:16 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [PEN-L] Bush Using Drugs to Control Depression, Erratic Behavior From Capitol Hill Blue Bush Leagues Bush Using Drugs to Control Depression, Erratic Behavior By TERESA HAMPTON Editor, Capitol Hill Blue Jul 28, 2004, 08:09 http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_4921.shtml President George W. Bush is taking powerful anti-depressant drugs to control his erratic behavior, depression and paranoia, Capitol Hill Blue has learned. The prescription drugs, administered by Col. Richard J. Tubb, the White House physician, can impair the President's mental faculties and decrease both his physical capabilities and his ability to respond to a crisis, administration aides admit privately. "It's a double-edged sword," says one aide. "We can't have him flying off the handle at the slightest provocation but we also need a President who is alert mentally." Tubb prescribed the anti-depressants after a clearly-upset Bush stormed off stage on July 8, refusing to answer reporters' questions about his relationship with indicted Enron executive Kenneth J. Lay. "Keep those motherfuckers away from me," he screamed at an aide backstage. "If you can't, I'll find someone who can." Bush's mental stability has become the topic of Washington whispers in recent months. Capitol Hill Blue first reported on June 4 about increasing concern among White House aides over the President's wide mood swings and obscene outbursts. Although GOP loyalists dismissed the reports an anti-Bush propaganda, the reports were later confirmed by prominent George Washington University psychiatrist Dr. Justin Frank in his book Bush on the Couch: Inside the Mind of the President. Dr. Frank diagnosed the President as a "paranoid meglomaniac" and "untreated alcoholic" whose "lifelong streak of sadism, ranging from
