Home Topics in Depth Economics Dr Richard Wolff

  • Haikugal (4803 posts)
    Profile photo of Haikugal Donor

    Dr Richard Wolff

    January 2017

    February 2017

    Follow the money!

     

     

    mother earth, glinda, canoeist52 and 7 othersEnthusiast, Fuddnik, ThouArtThat, Pangolino, Eggar, pinduck, mmonk like this
      Be the bird.....       Hey DNC! Up Yours! It's ON!!

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

▼ Hide Reply Index
11 replies
  • pinduck (1109 posts)
    Profile photo of pinduck Donor

    1. There has been a decades-long effort to make sure no radical economists

    have professorships in American universities. Dr Wolff is one of a handful(at most) who is a tenured prof and can be considered radical. Koch money, and money from other RW sources, has bought Econ Dept chairs and demanded their pick be hired. Schools like George Mason U and the Florida uni system are examples where this is common.

    There are radical economists in diverse departments like Sociology and agronomy but virtually none in economics depts.

    Economists who use Marxian analyses have correctly predicted, as well as accurately described, that stagnation is the default state of global monopoly capital; predicted and described the financialization of the system; shown that imperialism is what props up monopoly capitalism; and predicted and described that this system will lead to global climate collapse.

    Neoclassical economists have not had a good run either in Chile or Kansas and they have not successfully addressed the parasitical nature of financialization.  Friedman & Hayak & Krugman continue to be taught but any appeals to the “free market” system fails because of the asymmetries of money and power and knowledge. Since neoclassical economics provides apologetics for late stage capitalism, there’s money in it for those who espouse it but there’s no dignity and no science involved. Money seems to be enough for them.

    "Sometimes I feel like Fletcher Christian..."
    • Haikugal (4803 posts)
      Profile photo of Haikugal Donor

      2. Thanks for your comment Pinduck.

      Dr Wolff helps me understand the world without all the bullshit.

        Be the bird.....       Hey DNC! Up Yours! It's ON!!
      • ThouArtThat (3315 posts)
        Profile photo of ThouArtThat Donor

        3. Check Out Mark Blyth And Steve Keen For Related Contrarian Economic Views

        eom

        Spam Suppression - Cialis - Viagra - Levitra
        • Haikugal (4803 posts)
          Profile photo of Haikugal Donor

          6. I will thanks.

            Be the bird.....       Hey DNC! Up Yours! It's ON!!
      • pinduck (1109 posts)
        Profile photo of pinduck Donor

        5. You're welcome & thanks for the diary. The lesson, I guess, is that corruption

        never sleeps and subverts everything it touches.

        "Sometimes I feel like Fletcher Christian..."
    • FanBoy (7108 posts)
      Profile photo of FanBoy

      10. thank you; i've heard the same story — it was something like 4 econ

      departments in the whole us that weren’t “orthodox” (i.e. apologists for the ruling class)

       

      Heterodox economics refers to schools of economic thought or methodologies that are outside “mainstream economics”, often represented by expositors as contrasting with or going beyond neoclassical economics.[1][2] “Heterodox economics” is an umbrella term used to cover various approaches, schools, or traditions. These include anarchist, socialist, Marxian, institutional, evolutionary, Georgist, Austrian, feminist,[3] social, post-Keynesian (not to be confused with New Keynesian),[2] and ecological economics among others.[4] In the JEL classification codes developed by the Journal of Economic Literature, heterodox economics is in the second of the 19 primary categories at:

      JEL: B – History of Economic Thought, Methodology, and Heterodox Approaches.
      Mainstream economics may be called orthodox or conventional economics by its critics.[5] Alternatively, mainstream economics deals with the “rationality–individualism–equilibrium nexus” and heterodox economics is more “radical” in dealing with the “institutions–history–social structure nexus”.[6] Many mainstream economists dismiss heterodox economics as “fringe” and “irrelevant”,[7] with little or no influence on the vast majority of academic economists in the English-speaking world…

      After 1945, the neoclassical synthesis of Keynesian and neoclassical economics resulted in a clearly defined mainstream position based on a division of the field into microeconomics (generally neoclassical but with a newly developed theory of market failure) and macroeconomics (divided between Keynesian and monetarist views on such issues as the role of monetary policy). Austrians and post-Keynesians who dissented from this synthesis emerged as clearly defined heterodox schools. In addition, the Marxist and institutionalist schools remained active…

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterodox_economics

       

      But what happened is, what used to be “mainstream” post WW2 (when I studied econ) started changing in the 80s.  It’s morphed and even Keynes is relegated to the dustbin.

       

       

       

      • pinduck (1109 posts)
        Profile photo of pinduck Donor

        11. Impressive post – thanks. The received economic orthodoxy is so divorced from

        reality that those who subscribe to it have to call those who study the political economy “fringe” “irrelevant” “subversive” as you point out. They cannot argue on the merits because monetarism, Chicago School, supply-side, etc has no grounding in reality and cannot withstand scrutiny. That’s why many economists are reductionist because they can pick one small  area as if it were there alone and study and quantify it. Actually they can do good work but they cannot plug their findings into a theoretical whole because there’s no “there” there.

        Keynes was quite an excellent economist and a lot of his work stands up today and provides fields for further study. Unfortunately, it’s global capital and the system’s super-exploitation of resources and people that must be replaced because of the existential threat of climate change and Keynes, and his system, is not able to deal with that. He didn’t know about it so how could he?

        When you studied economics corporate conglomerates were new and had yet to vertically integrate. In the 1950’s manufacturing in the USA accounted for (I am trying to remember these figures so don’t quote me please) 30% of the economy and finance accounted for 12%. Today, manufacturing in the USA accounts for approx. 15% while finance accounts for  25% of economic activity. Finance produces little of tangible value; manufacturing, of course does.

        Economists who use Marxian analysis – certainly not Marxist fundamentalists – have developed working theories that are both descriptive and predictive. A big step came with the publication of “Monopoly Capital” by Baran and Sweezy in the late 1960’s and updated by those who came later.

        "Sometimes I feel like Fletcher Christian..."
  • Fuddnik (533 posts)
    Profile photo of Fuddnik Donor

    4. Love Dr. Wolff.

    Bookmarked for later this evening when I have more time.

    If it ain't broke, break it!
    • Haikugal (4803 posts)
      Profile photo of Haikugal Donor

      7. Enjoy!

        Be the bird.....       Hey DNC! Up Yours! It's ON!!
  • Enthusiast (6619 posts)
    Profile photo of Enthusiast Donor

    8. Kicked and Recommended!

    Thank you, Haikugal!

    "The NSA’s capability at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything. There would be no place to hide."  Frank Church
    • Haikugal (4803 posts)
      Profile photo of Haikugal Donor

      9. Hey Enthusiast! Thanks!

      It’s good to see you :hi:

        Be the bird.....       Hey DNC! Up Yours! It's ON!!