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

“[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

Chapter 1 of The Bourgeois Revaluation:
Medieval and Early Modern Economies had Bourgeois Capitalists

January 10th, 2010

The usual explanations for the modern world, Marxist or anti-Marxist, do not work very. What does work is a story of innovation by the bourgeoisie, a bourgeoisie revalued 1600 to the present, first in Holland and then in Britain and then the world. That’s what was argued in Bourgeois Dignity: Why Economics Can’t Explain the Modern World (2010).

Where then to look for the springs of innovation? The place to look, I say, is in the innovative activities of the urban middle class, …. [continues; click title bar above]

Chapter 2 of The Bourgeois Revaluation
And So Did the Ancient World

January 10th, 2010

[D]own to his death in 1964 Polanyi and his associates tried to demonstrate that at any rate the ancient world followed his anti-market model, and in particular that ancient Mesopotamia did. As socialists they wanted the market and the bourgeois life to be a mere recent stage, now thankfully to be superseded by the re-establishment of the communism that most intellectuals in the 1940s believed the remote past had seen and that the not-too-remote future would again achieve. The idea that a market society would turn out to be the end of history was from 1944 to 1964 obnoxious to the leading members of the European clerisy. [continues; click title bar above]


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