Support the World Economics Association

flattr this!

I'm not the only economist campaigning to bring about a new, empirical, realistic economics--far from it. In fact there is an association dedicated to this end with over 10,000 subscribers: the World Economics Association.

As is often the case, the formation and management of the WEA has rested on the shoulders of one person: Edward Fullbrook, the UK-based scholar who kept the PAECON movement alive after its birth with the French student "Protest Against Autis­tic Economics” revolt back in 2000. With­out his energy and com­mit­ment, that spark lit by the French stu­dents might have petered out. Thanks to Ed’s efforts, the WEA is flour­ish­ing, and has almost as many mem­bers of the Amer­i­can Eco­nomic Asso­ci­a­tion. The WEA’s pur­pose is:

to improve eco­nom­ics. It intends to do so by encour­ag­ing plu­ral­ism, by devel­op­ing a thriv­ing, grow­ing, and active plat­form for econ­o­mists com­mit­ted to plu­ral­ism and new think­ing; and by deep­en­ing and broad­en­ing the reach of its activ­i­ties. To that end it will expand and con­tin­u­ally upgrade the qual­ity of its suite of jour­nals, estab­lish its con­fer­ences as lead­ing the field, and expand its web­site to become a cen­tral loca­tion and ref­er­ence point for eco­nom­ics and economists.

Now the WEA is try­ing to expand its oper­a­tions, and it requires finan­cial sup­port to do this. It has put out an appeal to raise US$100,000. Mem­ber­ship of the WEA is free, but they are ask­ing mem­bers and sup­port­ers to pledge an annual amount equiv­a­lent to US$15. They also accept spon­sors with one-off pay­ments of from $100 up (I just put in $1,250 as a sponsor).

If you want to encour­age the devel­op­ment of a real­is­tic eco­nom­ics, then please con­sider donat­ing to the WEA.

About Steve Keen

I am a professional economist and a long time critic of conventional economic thought. As well as attacking mainstream thought in Debunking Economics, I am also developing an alternative dynamic approach to economic modelling. The key issue I am tackling here is the prospect for a debt-deflation on the back of the enormous debts accumulated in Australia, and our very low rate of inflation.
Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Support the World Economics Association

  1. Steve Hummel says:

    Oh thanks. I’ve been want­ing to repost my refu­ta­tion of veloc­ity the­ory with the REALITES of cost account­ing here ever since it was missed/ignored the first time. And my response to you in the above shows why it is nec­es­sary for econ­o­mists to finally real­ize that sci­ence and math although won­der­ful and nec­es­sary tools are inad­e­quate alone to under­stand eco­nom­ics which after all IS a moral sci­ence, and that fac­tor­ing in the need for wis­dom is not only nec­es­sary to find eth­i­cal solu­tions, but also ACTUALLY IS the eco­nomic and mon­e­tary POLICY solu­tion to our cur­rent cri­sis and the long term sta­bil­ity of those sys­tems. Yes, there IS a NATURAL canon to human life (sorry Rover) and the sooner econ­o­mists, financiers and their ter­mi­nally ortho­dox fol­low­ers wake up to that fact the sooner will be the bet­ter and more joy­ous sur­vival of Mankind. We are homo sapi­ens, i.e. wis­dom dis­cern­ing man, not homo eco­nom­i­cus, no?

  2. Steve Hummel says:


    He’s cor­rect and onto some­thing with the IDEA of the need for reform. How­ever reform is really never enough. You can’t reform a cat from want­ing to eat a mouse. You have to trans­form the cat. Good luck with that, but a finan­cial sys­tem or account­ing rule.…..are human sys­tems and thus mal­leable. Humans are always cor­rupt­ible too, so you’ll need reform/regulation also in addi­tion to trans­for­ma­tion of such sys­tems, that’s true. But to get back to the sys­tems, the account­ing sys­tem in par­tic­u­lar, how do you trans­form account­ing rules? Account­ing as we are recently com­ing to under­stand is impor­tant as a guide to fol­low­ing the econ­omy and money sys­tem., and COST account­ing a sub­set of account­ing is par­tic­u­larly sig­nif­i­cant. Why? Well, because it, cost and its assess­ment, is at least co-equally as impor­tant as profit itself.….because that’s how you know whether or not you’ve made a profit. Now I’m not refer­ring here to the kind of shenani­gans that the Banks and pols of var­i­ous stripes have enabled in sus­pend­ing FASB stan­dards in not allow­ing assets to be marked to mar­ket as well as other uneth­i­cal obfus­ca­tions of real­ity.
    But again, I AM refer­ring specif­i­cally to the ever present and deeply embed­ded effects of cost accounting’s rules/conventions. The two most impor­tant of these are:

    1) ALL costs must be con­sid­ered within commerce/the econ­omy, and
    2) Labor costs are not the total­ity of costs and hence, because ALL costs must fac­tored into price.…there will always tend to be a a higher rate of flow of total prices than the total rate of flow of indi­vid­ual incomes.

    So income scarcity is BUILT INTO the account­ing dis­ci­pline. This is 24/7 REALITY NOT THEORY. Quan­tity and veloc­ity THEORIES are incor­rect inac­cu­rate and much less sig­nif­i­cant than this REALITY. Quan­tity the­ory may have some sig­nif­i­cance, yes, but much less than the it has as the pet hate of most money reform­ers, and veloc­ity the­ory may actu­ally have a form of liq­uid­ity effect of help­ing to “keep the balls in the air” so to speak, but so far as liq­ui­dat­ing more debt than cost account­ing says it ever can.…that is a com­plete fal­lacy. And as we have found out debt and its build up.…is of major, major impor­tance. And so an ENFORCED build up of debt via cost accounting’s ENFORCED con­ven­tions of income scarcity viz prices is exposed as the “too close to per­ceive” “mun­dane” REALITY that under­lies the whole she­bang of the prob­lem. Oh, and exports are no actual solu­tion to this dilemma, just a geo-politically dan­ger­ous and often hege­monic “can kick­ing” exercise.

    So how do you over­come and trans­form this this tyranny of num­bers, this dom­i­na­tion by dis­ci­pline, this “only this for that” par­a­digm? Well, you think out­side of the box by GOING out­side of the cost accounting/commercial/economic sys­tem and GIVE INDIVIDUALS MONEY. Hor­rors!, say the moral­ist and the Banker. No, actu­ally TRANSFORMATION…of the CONSUMER finan­cial paradigm…from loan ONLY to Div­i­dend AND loan, if desired and actu­ally cred­itable. And of course this is a DISTRIBUTIVE div­i­dend not a RE-distributive one, and a non inter­est bear­ing one also. That way you see you’ve not only not taken from some­one in order to give to another, but com­pletely avoided click­ing in the con­ven­tions of cost account­ing as well. And so a truly free flow­ing free mar­ket system.…finally. Ah, Grace the lib­er­a­tor, a sense of which is the thing that inwardly keeps us from going at each oth­ers throat, and the tem­po­ral uni­verse free gift that lib­er­ates us from the enforced bur­den of debt. As above, so below, as within, so with­out. Money and Wis­dom. Align­ment and Bind Back.

Leave a Reply