Flattr this!

I’ve neglected this site for some years now, after a cou­ple of ISP crashes dam­aged it, so things like links to rec­om­mended sites have dis­ap­peared. I’ll add a cou­ple now and try to keep the page updated in the future.

Jim Nolt’s “Polar­ized Polit­i­cal Econ­omy

Polar­iz­ing Polit­i­cal Econ­omy seeks to com­pre­hend capitalism’s chaos and explain how forces like pri­vate power and strat­egy shape our world. Author James H. Nolt is a senior fel­low with World Pol­icy Insti­tute and teaches inter­na­tional rela­tions at New York Uni­ver­sity.

Ari Andricopoulos’s “Notes on the Next Bust

Ari Andri­copou­los PhD. is a prin­ci­pal at Dacha­ran Advi­sory AG, an invest­ment man­ager. He has a PhD. in Finan­cial Math­e­mat­ics from Man­ches­ter Uni­ver­sity and has pub­lished in var­i­ous aca­d­e­mic finance jour­nals.

  • things fall apart.…and some­times they can fall together. Look­ing for the means tore-sub­scribe to your/SK’s arti­cles, which was an RSS feed. Long time pro­moter of MMT/FF/HM et al locally, and on SSI thnx T

  • sorry incom­plete infor­ma­tion, for­mer email addy, new email addy cnstrctvsln.@gmail Tadit

  • jaimeop­erez

    Pro­fes­sor Keen: I am work­ing on a munic­i­pal level “reset” rel­a­tive to tax deposits, bank rela­tions, bond cre­ation and imple­men­ta­tion etc. How can I obtain a con­sul­ta­tion to cre­ate a local level strat­egy con­sis­tent with your analy­ses? Thank you.

  • You can email me at debunk­ing AT gmail DOT com Jamie. But I am far too busy already to con­sider con­sul­tancy. Maybe we can work out some other method.

  • Reen Ser

    To Pro­fes­sor Keen: I just won­der whether there is inter­est and space for ques­tions & com­ments con­cern­ing con­tent of your book “Debunk­ing Eco­nom­ics”. Please tell where to place such!
    regards, RS

  • ken blawatt

    There is a new book out that offers an alter­nate approach to eco­nom­ics. It is called Mar­co­nom­ics — it incor­po­rates mar­ket­ing prin­ci­ples in defin­ing eco­nomic activ­ity.
    Mar­co­nom­ics: Defin­ing Eco­nom­ics Through the Social Sci­ences
    The Fail­ure of Clas­si­cal Eco­nom­ics
    PREFACE to the BOOK
    Emer­ald Group Pub­lish­ing, 2016, Ken R. Blawatt, Ph.D.
    The book intro­duces an alter­nate the­ory to clas­si­cal eco­nom­ics. But firstly, it argues that clas­si­cal eco­nom­ics is no longer appro­pri­ate and should be with­drawn from all uni­ver­sity cur­ric­ula. The pro­posed replace­ment is a meld­ing of mar­ket­ing and eco­nomic thought. It draws its sci­en­tific foun­da­tion from the prin­ci­ples of con­sumer behav­ior. Eco­nomic activ­ity is a human under­tak­ing. It is moti­vated by needs, wants, desires and directed by social behav­ior, psy­chol­ogy and our own per­sonal expe­ri­ences. There is very lit­tle that is assump­tive in the approach to acquir­ing goods and ser­vices. It can­not be defined by the idea that we are dri­ven to max­i­mize our sat­is­fac­tion, all things being equal. When we want some­thing, we want it and it can be an emo­tional or an objec­tive search. Just as eas­ily it can be an irra­tional or an ulte­rior action of choice. It is not a one act play sketched out on an assump­tion backed down­ward slop­ing line.
    The text begins with a review of the sense and sen­si­bil­ity of clas­si­cal eco­nom­ics with an exten­sive search through the writ­ings of dozens if not hun­dreds of senior pro­fes­sion­als and estab­lished aca­d­e­mics. It con­cludes that the “laws” and nos­trums of eco­nom­ics can best be expressed as an eco­nomic belief sys­tem that has taken soci­ety to a pre­car­i­ous place in his­tory. And within this belief sys­tem there is a trin­ity, three con­cep­tions that guide our faith. The first is that the wealthy are enti­tled to their posi­tion. This social nos­trum has been accepted by mankind with the arguable notion that as the wealthy acquire riches they will share their gain with lesser beings through a trickle-down effect. It does not work. They keep the money. The sec­ond con­cep­tion is the notion of a free mar­ket in which the the­o­ret­i­cal beliefs of sup­ply and demand will reach some equi­lib­rium. There are no free mar­kets. The con­cept of a free mar­ket is a myth and one that is wel­comed by finan­cial play­ers for their own pur­pose. And the tenets that accom­pany the con­cept are also myths. The third is the accep­tance of a mon­e­tary value as the only accept­able mea­sure­ment of eco­nomic suc­cess. The goal is to make as much money as you can. We can add to that with Mil­ton Friedman’s dec­la­ra­tion “that the social respon­si­bil­ity of a busi­ness is to make profit.” Only money counts as the end result of busi­ness.
    As the text will argue, the trin­ity is an unsup­ported belief sys­tem with­out sci­en­tific and empir­i­cal con­tent. It dis­counts the notion of free mar­kets and the tenets of clas­si­cal eco­nom­ics; the belief sys­tem that has built a sys­tem that favors the “one per­cent.” It chal­lenges the empha­sis econ­o­mists and finan­cial author­i­ties have placed on the mon­e­tary out­come as being the only mea­sure of eco­nomic suc­cess and sug­gests a return to human scale and the triple bot­tom line.
    Clas­si­cal eco­nom­ics is not based on any known sci­en­tific pro­ce­dure. It is very much a devel­op­ment that comes from sub­jec­tive esti­ma­tions as to how the econ­omy should work. As such it lacks both integrity and valid­ity and this omis­sion of real­ity has led to poli­cies and direc­tions that have pro­duced any num­ber of dra­matic fail­ures in regions and glob­ally, includ­ing the 2007–2008 finan­cial cri­sis. Here’s the issue. In our uni­ver­si­ties, we instruct young peo­ple to know and under­stand the most cur­rent of prin­ci­ples in the social sci­ences, med­ical health, the hard sci­ences, busi­ness and tech­nol­ogy. Each of the two dozen or so major dis­ci­plines are very busy doing sci­en­tific research that advances, changes or mod­i­fies the prin­ci­ples of that dis­ci­pline. As a result of this require­ment aca­d­e­mics are able to teach the lat­est in astro­physics, med­ical sci­ences, psy­chi­a­try and so on. They per­form new exper­i­ments in chem­istry and physics. They have come to under­stand mankind more and bet­ter in behav­ior and reme­dial appli­ca­tions. Every dis­ci­pline pushes at and improves the under­ly­ing prin­ci­ples of that spe­cialty. Well just about every one, except­ing eco­nom­ics where the under­ly­ing “prin­ci­ples” have not changed since the days of Adam Smith. In fact, many of the math­e­mat­i­cal for­mu­la­tions used in eco­nom­ics are redun­dant, out of date; no longer use­ful. On this account, it is argued that the basis for eco­nomic think­ing is actu­ally a belief sys­tem. It is com­posed of selec­tive laws that have no foot­ing in fact and as such is more akin to being a reli­gion.
    In recent times, a num­ber of learned econ­o­mists have pon­dered the lack of a sci­en­tific foun­da­tion for the dis­ci­pline. These few have begun to apply ele­ments of the social sci­ences to eco­nomic deci­sion mak­ing as a place from which they might begin an evo­lu­tion. The text goes on to exam­ine the recent emer­gence of eco­nomic thought that incor­po­rates behav­ioral fac­tors into a new field of “behav­ioral eco­nom­ics.” The advance­ment of this inno­v­a­tive think­ing is long over­due; but it is only a par­tial solu­tion. It is excel­lent but not good enough to cite Edward De Bono.
    “Mar­co­nom­ics” devel­ops the argu­ment there is a more advanced incor­po­ra­tion of the social sci­ences which pro­gresses to a new eco­nomic par­a­digm; an exten­sion of cur­rent behav­ioral eco­nomic think­ing. It estab­lishes a hypoth­e­sis, tests it empir­i­cally and sets out a model that is more rep­re­sen­ta­tive of human eco­nomic behav­ior. Eco­nom­ics is about the mar­ket­place. It is not about the “price-auc­tion” par­a­digm that Thurow sees as irrel­e­vant to sci­ence and dan­ger­ous to pol­icy. It is about human beings mak­ing devel­oped deci­sions about the acqui­si­tion of a goods and ser­vices. It is directly tied to two vari­ables; expec­ta­tion of per­for­mance and per­cep­tion of worth and these form the par­a­digm that estab­lishes a new plateau from which one can exam­ine eco­nomic activ­ity. The the­ory has been tested in a pilot study and pre­lim­i­nary papers have been pub­lished. What is to fol­low will be a larger research effort that con­firms the ini­tial find­ings and leads to the devel­op­ment of an optional eco­nomic foun­da­tion.
    The text goes on from this point to explore sev­eral direc­tions that fur­ther research might take to empower eco­nomic con­sid­er­a­tions in fore­cast­ing; the role of inno­va­tion, the entre­pre­neur­ial pre­rog­a­tive and com­pet­i­tive­ness. For exam­ple, there may be a ratio­nal basis for an his­tor­i­cal price curve, sim­i­lar to the demand curve that may play in a par­tic­u­lar sec­tor of the econ­omy where there is an indi­cated asso­ci­a­tion between price and vol­ume.
    Hav­ing reviewed and cast over the ratio­nale of the elite and the unsup­port­able assump­tions of clas­si­cal eco­nomic think­ing, the text con­sid­ers the effect of the par­a­digm as it moves the phi­los­o­phy of eco­nom­ics from a foun­da­tion of mon­e­tary per­for­mance to one that is more human and based as much on behav­ioral out­comes. The pro­posed model is one that pri­or­i­tizes the impor­tance of the mar­ket (Cus­tomers), the enablers (Employ­ees), the social sys­tem (Com­mu­nity) and lastly the mon­e­tary (Share­hold­ers and cap­i­tal­ists). It con­cludes with a dis­cus­sion of con­scious cap­i­tal­ism over an unfet­tered, penu­ri­ous and indi­vid­u­al­is­tic cap­i­tal­ism as the over-arch­ing eco­nomic model.