Introductory lectures on heterodox economics - Tom Palley - FMM 

Professor Palley passes by his mentioning of Quesnay and the Physiocrats all too quickly. One needs to read Turgot for a good understanding of the general laws of production and distribution of wealth (an analysis that strongly influenced Adam Smith). Their most important observations were cast aside by orthodox economists, including Keynes. What were those observations? Foremost is that nature is and must be considered as the source of wealth, an asset not produced by individuals and, therefore, part of the commons. From this perspective, Turgot argued that rents (i.e., ground rents in the era dominated by agricultural production) rightfully belonged to the community, to be collected as the 'inpot unique'. By the time Keynes was writing, the ground rents associated with agricultural land use were greatly diminished as a share of total rents generated from natural resource-laden lands and locations in towns and cities. Ricardo failed to see the consequences of changing land use; Patrick Edward Dove and Henry George did not. Keynes ignored the extent to which owners of well-located parcels or tracts of land extracted rents from the productive sectors of the economy. One economist who had come to embrace the business cycle analysis provided in Henry George's work and, therefore, challenged both the neoclassical theorists as well as Keynes, was Harry Gunnison Brown, who studied under Irving Fisher at Yale, taught at Yale until 1915, then joined the faculty at the University of Missouri. The weaknesses in Keynesian analysis are are presented by Brown in a 1951 paper titled "A Dilemma of Contemporary Keynesism (American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol.10, No.3, April 1951).

I know he touches on Minsky and role of finance etc. But as a post graduate follower of economics I've always wondered why a deep analysis of the role of debt hasn't been done, maybe I'm wrong and someone has?

we need to read whose paper on Minksy? (45:24)

Where is figure 5?

Okay so I don't feel like any great poibts have been made for heterodox economics. Its just a big history lesson on where it comes from.

We don’t need full employment we need full entrepreneurship, worker cooperatives, each their own boss, and authentic products and work. Full unemployment? Doing what? Based on seeking Coca Cola and toy soldiers ? Barbie dolls and Twinkie’s ? Let’s get real !