All, I am still in the process of writing what is looking more like a manuscript. sorting, sifting, eliminating repetition, completing connections, and so on. Part of it comes to restoring a mutualist economics discourse. A number of meta issues entwine the fictions of neo-classical economics with much the same sort of effect as the social physics of of Comte/Durkheim and socialization by conformity. Re-Imagining Economics requires defining socialization to capacity/conditioning in distinction from socialization based upon conforming.
"Financial Predators v. Labor, Industry and Democracy" Michael Hudson UMKC, @ Sankt Georgen Univ., Frankfurt, Jun. 22, 2012
August 2, 2012
Europe's sovereign debt crisis in historical perspective
Sankt Georgen University, Frankfurt, June 22, 2012
Readers, I needed an article from a labor point of view to acknowledge Labor Day, and this the best one I could find. Maybe I'll find another. This is a bit too blue on blue in a patriotic sort of way, minus much in the way of empowerment. Regarding the deference to the mysteries of the rising rage, it is too understated by my tastes. The process has been in motion for more than 30 years.
"The Limits of Minsky's Financial Instability Hypothesis as an Explanation of the Crisis Thomas I. Palley
Readers, this is the first in the exchange of articles relative areas of convergence and divergence between and structural Keynesians, notably Hyman Minsky, and contemporary Marxists. In my opinion this is a relatively significant effort and actually quite rare among various partisan economic paradigms. Both paradigms are roughly described as institutional-centric economic models, hence "institutional" economics. I have placed my commentary at the end of this article, to in effect chime in on the exchange. Tadit Anderson
"Listen Keynesians, It's the System! Response to Palley" By John Bellamy Foster and Robert W. McChesney, the Monthly Review
Readers, this is the second of two articles as installments in a dialogue between the structural Keynesians and contemporary Marxists relative to their convergence and divergence. I have placed my commentary on the exchange at the end of the Palley article above in these postings. Tadit Anderson
In his column in yesterday's NYT, Professor Paul Krugman rose to the defense of Paul Samuelson. He argued that Michael Hudson's piece, originally published in 1970, not only misunderstood Samuelson's theories but also wrongly asserted that he was not deserving of a Nobel. Krugman's main argument was that Samuelson's version of "Keynesian" economics offered a solution to depressions that pre-existing "institutionalist" theory did not have:
In the Eye of the Storm: Updating the Economics of Global Turbulence an Introduction to Robert Brenner
In the Eye of the Storm: Updating the Economics of Global Turbulence, an Introduction to Robert Brenner's Update
by R. Taggart Murphy
Los Angeles Times http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-breakup24-2009nov24,0,2069502.story
In the U.S. and abroad, support grows for giving regulators the
authority to preemptively dismantle giant financial institutions
whose collapse could cripple the economy.
And here's Jamie .....as the soon to be new Wall Street cheerleader
Jamie Dimon, chief executive of JP Morgan Chase, recently said
in an opinion piece that "capping the size of American banks won't
eliminate the needs of big businesses," he said. "It will force them
Readers: Although this is a positive bit of news for the US's retail economy, it leaves some important questions unanswered. One being why has the US Treasury Department been entirely MIA in this process, when the importance of CIT to the non-Wall Street part of the US economy is enormous? The fate of CIT is possibly much more important generally than the survival big five on Wall Street. Another might be how is letting CIT pass into bankruptcy acceptable when the wholesale rescue of AIG from collapse was not acceptable?