Sunday, January 6, 2013
Clint Balinger — Small c chartalism, sovereign money, & public policy space v. private profit space
As a newcomer to study of monetary economics and finance who is neither an economist nor a finance professional, Clint suggests the need for a glossary of agreed upon technical definitions and consistency of their use in context for the sake of brevity, clarity and precision of expression in a rather complicated field. I second the motion. It would make understanding easier and debate more straightforward. Even those that think the definitions are already well elaborated in the literature should not be opposed to creating a glossary that would serve as a standard across the spectrum of discussion. Presuming that is the case, who is going to do it, and who gets to vote on the outcome?
Clint Balinger
Small c chartalism, sovereign money, & public policy space v. private profit space
This relates perhaps to Paul Krugman post, Ideology and Economics, holding that a research study shows agreement in economics over a normal paradigm, presumably one with a Walrasian neoclassical foundation in general equilibrium. But the study was conducted using a group of six economists selected from the seven "top schools." From the seven top schools? Selection in and out is the objection, and the study clearly has a selectivity bias.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Bluefin tuna sells for record $1.76 million in Japan; sushi anyone?
see yahoo home page for details, no bubble being generated in the tuna industry after humans have fished tuna to extintsion. Mother earth will extract a terrible price on the human race for its selfish nature to destroy the very hand that feeds us. The present Wall Street pricing model needs to be abolished. IE price value according to prosperity and profits, and that means prosperity all the human race not just a gifted few who are fortunate enough to collect the wealth and than be trapped with their own mortality later. Phony self serving charities and so called endowements are not the answer. All is corrupted, myself included. How do we change? Or are we doomed?
Hello Tom, is that your intro? Thanks, very nice.
Although there are other points in my post, the bit on definitions is important as you note. A large amount of heat is generated because people talking past each other in economics more than many other disciplines I think. Seems like half the discussions on econ sites are due to different uses of terms (the slighter the difference, the more trouble it causes really)rather than substantive issues.
Oh, on newcomer - I actually got into Fisher (1935) through Soddy 1926 of all people - in the early mid- 1990s, and much later Keen, so not entirely new to this. (interesting - only found out recently that Soddy 1926 had directly influenced Frank Knight (1927) well before the Great Depression - a lot The Chicago Plan is not due only to the Great Depression as is widely thought it seems). Since 2008 it has seemed changes are possible, and recently decided to join the online discussions. Working on long term historical accounts of international development, however, for some years though, when not working abroad.
I looked into economics after reading Fisher in the 90s, but saw that (the mainstream) was useless, and did other things.
Anyway, yes - stipulative definitions = good for debate; hagiography = a surefire way to factionalization and stagnation.
Cheers,
Clint
PS baLLinger (two "L's")
Since I mentioned it - the (very short, but in retrospect quite historically important) Frank Knight review of Wealth, Virtual Wealth and Debt, by Frederick Soddy
by Frank H. Knight
In The Saturday Review, April 16, 1927, p. 732
here
Regarding this topic - I set up a Wiki on heterodox econ terms, if anyone wants to contribute feel free, it is open to all.
http://clintballinger.edublogs.org/wiki/concise-heterodox-economics-definitions/
Cheers, Clint
Oops - better html -
Concise Heterodox Economic Terms Wiki – Please Contribute
Post a Comment