Faculty Panel Discussion: Vision in Heterodox Economics | The New School

Подписаться 192 тыс.

Просмотров 58 тыс.

50% 1

The New School for Social Research based in New York City, offers master's and doctoral programs in anthropology, economics, philosophy, politics, psychology, and sociology; interdisciplinary master's programs in historical studies and liberal studies. THE NEW SCHOOL FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH | www.newschool.edu/nssr
Join us for a panel discussion with our esteemed economics faculty on issues related to the vision and future of heterodox thought in economics.
Panelists: Lisa Selca, Ed Nell, Anwar Shaikh, Duncan Foley, Teresa Ghilarducci, Sanjay Reddy, Christian Proaño
Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis (SCEPA) | www.newschool.edu/scepa
www.economicpolicyresearch.org
Some of the questions the panel will address are:
-What defines us as heterodox economists and is there any commonality in vision besides opposition to the mainstream?
-Is the term heterodox even useful? Using the term heterodox automatically defines us as in opposition to some perceived orthodoxy. However, this necessitates defining exactly what modern orthodoxy is. How can we define the mainstream today? What exactly are we battling?
-Has the crisis created more space for heterodox economics in academia and policy and can we find a common vision for expanding the presence of heterodox economics in academia?
-What kind of room does the changing global landscape create for heterodox ideas?
Department of Economics | www.newschool.edu/nssr/economics
Location: Wolff Conference Room
Friday May 4, 2012 1pm-3pm

Опубликовано:

15 май 2012

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 18

@bharat9889 11 лет назад

excellent, let us all work hard on the alternatives

@bharat9889 11 лет назад

I don`t think Christan really understood the point Sanjay was trying to make at 1:55

@MarkoKraguljac 11 лет назад

Please watch at least first 90 minutes of "Zeitgeist: Moving Forward". You have it on my channel page (not as my upload). What you will hear there is just a *small* part of what I would have to say. Before Zeitgeist I had the same opinion my whole life, just a lot less articulated. For now, take that as my answer.

@nthperson 5 лет назад

More recently, Professor Nell examined the contributions to political economy of Henry George, who made a remarkable attempt in the late 19th century to describe the principles operating in the real world. I received a copy of his book ("Progress and Poverty in Economics") and wrote a chapter by chapter commentary on the book (limited by the fact that I do not possess the fluency in calculus relied upon in mainstream economic theory). My commentary on the book is available online for anyone who might have an interest. The link is: dodson-edward_review-of-edward-nell-progress-and-poverty-in-economics-2018-apr

@MarkoKraguljac 11 лет назад

Taking seriously "GDP", "unemployment" etc without going deeper and questioning very fundamentals of "economic life" makes you a priest of "economic science", as far as I am concerned. Most of those are not doing it consciously. They are stuck in a thought-box without realizing it and wiggle around by changing sequence of words in already "approved" sentences. We need honest, truly scientific, multidisciplinary approach if we aspire to make science out of current "economic thought".

@distopiadnb 11 лет назад

Honestly, I've invariably heard indefensible crap stemming for similar premises. The "they are not doing it consciously" hypothesis is untenable, indemostrable, and a quite arrogant way of thinking in general. It's usually endorsed to bypass proof-based reasoning. Then, what's inherently wrong about "GDP" and "unemployment"? They are contested concepts, and surely the panelists all think of them in quite different ways than the mainstream of the profession. Make your objections explicit please.

@distopiadnb 11 лет назад

Okay, still your claim sounds really weird to me. Apart from this video, have you ever read anything by Foley or Shaikh -those among the panel whose works I'm familiar with? If not, trust me: there are *far away* from the conventional approach to economic theory (I find the word "narrative" naive and misleading, science is not fiction, not even in a broad sense, pace postmodernists). Curiosity: what would you mark as the watershed between "official" and not? What's the difference?

@distopiadnb 11 лет назад

You did express your view -on YT comments, indeed- but you did not provide reasonable arguments in its support. If doing that requires you to expose your world view in its entirety... well, it would be quite a failure on your side I guess. Also, I didn't really express any substantive view you can disagree on. I've just criticized what seem to be your premises and posed some questions you don't seem prepared or willing to answer to. That's fine, but please don't put the onus on my side.

@distopiadnb 11 лет назад

Oh-my-god. Oookay, ciao!

@distopiadnb 11 лет назад

again: what is non-serious about the concepts of "unemployment" or "GDP". I don't ask for your world view, just display some specific arguments to support what you stated. Is this asking too much? Motivations for outright statements like "they failed because they take unemployment seriously"?

@distopiadnb 11 лет назад

Oh no, really, i'm not going into this. I won't convince you that everything "holist" is just a discourse lacking falsifiable empirical content and therefore -as a rule- meaningless -though there is all the relevant epistemological literature for you to understand the argument. You would probably reply with generic references about allegedly "new methodologies" connected with some scientific theory whose specific content you actually ignore, say quantum mechanics or string theory. No thanks

@MarkoKraguljac 11 лет назад

I neither have time nor willingness to write books in YT comments and broadly describe my world view. I expressed my opinion that this panel (as many others) failed. That it is useless talk-fest as it usually is the case when economics are concerned. You might think otherwise and your are entitled to that. Our views obviously differ too much.

@distopiadnb 11 лет назад

lol duncan foley power endorsed? clearly you have no idea of what you're saying.

@MarkoKraguljac 11 лет назад

Why so "scholarly" arrogant all of a sudden? You obviously dont have a clue what it is about, only some faulty preconceptions. What exactly is the problem with given holistic critique?

@distopiadnb 11 лет назад

1:12:42 terrible mistake. Actually, if you are a natural scientist most surely you never read Newton or Kepler or other founding fathers. You might have read some, say Darwin, but not in any way that is related to the actual practice of the discipline. Instead, you learn by reading handbooks and contemporary research papers, all previous knowledge being utterly non-personalized and accumulated without any need to reference back to the "classics". The "classics" are "humanist" objects of knowledge. Exactly the opposite.

@MarkoKraguljac 12 лет назад

Incredibly frustrating babble-fest.. as usual. Bunch of confused "rebels" unable to surpass terminology, mindset and framing of "official, power endorsed" priesthood. After all, they have to live and keep their jobs. And cycle is closed. With us all inside.