Jump to a page in this archive (posts are chronological):

Part II. The Anti-Materialist Project of “The Bourgeois Era”

July 22nd, 2009

It is a materialist prejudice common in scholarship from 1890 to 1980 that economic results must have economic causes. But ideas caused the modern world. The point can be made by looking through each of the materialist explanations, from the “original accumulation” favored by early Marxist historians to the “new institutionalism” favored by late Samuelsonian economists. The book present does so, and finds them surprisingly weak. The residual is ideas, in particular the Bourgeois Revaluation of the 17th and 18th centuries in northwest Europe. The argument takes six books, constituting a full-scale defense of capitalism. One is that … [continues; click title bar above]

“[W]e are often curious about how it might be possible to reform our basic economic institutions in ways that are more favorable to human development. In other words, we are often brought to think along the lines of some of the great dissenters in the economics tradition — Polanyi, Dobb, Marx, Sen, McCloskey, and Dasgupta.”

January 9th, 2010

Nick Krafft quoting Daniel Little in Open Economics (Notre Dame), September 29, 2009. Source site and title: “Social Economics” as an Alternative


Jump to a page in this archive (posts are chronological):