Who Rules the World? A Portrait of the Global Leadership Class — John Gerring, Erzen Oncel, Kevin Morrison, and Daniel Pemstein

Empirical study of global elites.

Download PDF at link.

Notice that the title assumes a social structure based on class and class differences. This is SOP in sociology; yet, the significance of class is denied in conventional economics, if not also the existence of class structure and even society as a meaningful concept.

Cambridge University
Who Rules the World? A Portrait of the Global Leadership Class

John Gerring, Erzen Oncel, Kevin Morrison, and Daniel Pemstein

Barkley Rosser — Who Is Really A Socialist? [Updated]

Barkley Rosser either makes a bad mistake in starting with Marx's definition of "socialism" as state-ownership of the means of production as exclusive, or he is carrying water for the ownership class that uses this arbitrary definition to demonize the opposition to its rent-seeking and parasitic rent extraction, e.g., by socializing negative externality, the result of which is now climate change. I suspect that he was shooting from the hip and shot himself in the foot instead of hitting his target. Disappointing for a smart guy. On the other hand, I often disagree with his analysis when it exceeds the scope of his field, which is economics within the scope of the conventional approach to it. Such is the case here, in my view, although he does bring it non-economic factors.

Wikipedia:

Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and workers' self-management of the means of production[10] as well as the political theories and movements associated with them.[11] Social ownership can be public, collective or cooperativeownership, or citizen ownership of equity.[12] There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them,[13] with social ownership being the common element shared by its various forms.[5][14][15]

Socialist systems are divided into non-market and market forms.[16] Non-market socialism involves the substitution of factor markets and money with engineering and technical criteria based on calculation performed in-kind, thereby producing an economic mechanism that functions according to different economic laws from those of capitalism. Non-market socialism aims to circumvent the inefficiencies and crises traditionally associated with capital accumulation and the profit system.[25]By contrast, market socialism retains the use of monetary prices, factor markets and in some cases the profit motive, with respect to the operation of socially owned enterprises and the allocation of capital goods between them. Profits generated by these firms would be controlled directly by the workforce of each firm, or accrue to society at large in the form of a social dividend.[26][27][28] The socialist calculation debate concerns the feasibility and methods of resource allocation for a socialist system.

Socialist politics has been both internationalist and nationalist in orientation; organised through political parties and opposed to party politics; at times overlapping with trade unions, and at other times independent and critical of unions; and present in both industrialised and developing nations.[29] Originating within the socialist movement, social democracy has embraced a mixed economy with a market that includes substantial state intervention in the form of income redistribution, regulation, and a welfare state. Economic democracy proposes a sort of market socialism where there is more decentralized control of companies, currencies, investments, and natural resources.

In particular, critics of "socialism" that charge it is a failed system that history exposes as inferior ignore a factor that I regard as the most salient one, namely, the ferocious opposition and actual violent attacks of the capitalist, so-called liberal order  (read "bourgeois liberal" plutonomy)  on any hint of social power and control that would limit the power and control of the privileged elite and which imposes a dictatorship of the ruling class through their minions, behind a facade of representative democracy. In the US, for instance, the a bipartisan establishment is rife with corruption, much of it legalized.

Economists simply are not in a position to hold themselves out as experts capable of commenting definitively on these matters since they have put so many relevant factor beyond the scope of their subject matter. The result is an economics devoid of connection with reality.

In the real world, capitalism has been linked historically with imperialism and colonialism. Neoliberalism can be viewed as joined at the hip with neo-imperialism and neocolonialism. Neoconservative and liberal internationalism/interventionism are both based on "spreading freedom and democracy" which is equated with economic liberal as bourgeois liberalism, which is liberal chiefly in the sense that powerful elites are enabled by capture of the state to extract rent without limitation and to do so globally, backed by a powerful military and control of the global financial system.

This is becoming especially important now that "socialism" is becoming a hot topic and economists think that they are are in a position to be best informed about it and comment on it. That is not necessarily so. Very few have the breadth and depth of knowledge of Michael Hudson, for instance.

Socialism involves not only economics, but also other fields such as political theory, sociology, anthropology, history, general systems theory, psychology, and philosophy.

Oh, and did I forget physics, you know, like neoclassical economics is trying to imitate? See Albert Einstein, Why Socialism?

Is genuine socialism best characterized in terms of government that is actually "of the people, by the people and for the people" rather than being controlled by a ruling class and operated for special interests as a representative democracy under capitalism and the way the US was really organized under the Constitution?

Econospeak

Who Is Really A Socialist?
J. Barkley Rosser | Professor of Economics and Business Administration James Madison University

UPDATED

Yves Smith weighs in here. Useful in my view, but also incomplete. She also ignores the political aspect of external pressure, including threat of force and actual force, that I brought in above. It is very difficult to disentangle the social, political, financial and economic, especially when it involves key international and geopolitical input. Characterizing "socialism" based on such historical examples is naive, in my view.

For example, is Venezuela a "failed state" entirely owing to "socialist" policy or in part, even great part, owing to US pressure since Chavez, including a former coup attempt. Moreover, the sorry state that Venezuela was in prior to Chavez and which underlay his rise was a result of the comprador government that served as US puppet, a state to which is the US is working reestablish there. Simlarly, a great deal of Soviet and Red Chinese policy was a response to pressure, threat of force and actual application of force from the "free world" dominated by "capitalism" as the mortal enemy of "socialism"

Moreover, "capitalism" and "socialism" are such high level abstractions they are difficult to define technically in a way that can be measured quantitatively. And quantitative modeling is a sine qua non of science these days. Otherwise it is speculative in a way that is undecidable on data-based evidence. However, to reduce the problem to what is measurable often excludes material factors that are relevant. So the end-result is based on opinion, which famously suffers from cognitive bias, including ideological bias.

Oleg Komlik — The Sociology of Quantification: Seeing like Numbers

Short and important.

Economic Sociology and Political Economy
The Sociology of Quantification: Seeing like Numbers
Oleg Komlik | founder and editor-in-chief of the ES/PE, Chairman of the Junior Sociologists Network at the International Sociological Association, a PhD Candidate in Economic Sociology in the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at Ben-Gurion University, and a Lecturer in the School of Behavioral Sciences at the College of Management Academic Studies

See also

Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science
Revisiting “Is the scientific paper a fraud?”

Andrew Gelman | Professor of Statistics and Political Science and Director of the Applied Statistics Center, Columbia University

Robert Paul Wolff — The Deep State

Robert Paul Wolff is largely correct here, but "the deep state" cannot be equated with bureaucracy as a political factor ensuring constancy and stability, as Max Weber described.

He apparently did not so a search on the term "deep state," which seems to have originated with respect to Turkish state and intelligence services and senior administration under Kemal Ataturk. In Russia is this is known as the siloviki (senior career intelligence and military) and nomenklatura (senior administrative bureaucracy). In China, the deep state is the senior level of the CCP. 

These are special cases of a state within a state as the locus of power in a nation-state, and not all deep states resemble each other closely. However, the family resemblance is arguably close enough to provide a context for at least a semi-analytical the use of the concept of a deep state in political science. However, the meaning should be carefully specified to avoid ambiguity, conflation, and confusion.

In the US the "deep state" has several meanings, given by different analysts. The most restricted is the senior career intelligence, military, and government service that persists across administrations. It also means those that control the military-intelligence-industrial-financial-government apparatus that is based on the revolving door that provides continuity between the public and private sectors insuring effective control by unelected elites. NGOs such as think tanks but not limited to them constitute another factor mediating the connection of public and private, state and non-state, government and shadow government.

The post describes something that is related to the these factors but is not coterminous with it. The US government bureaucracy is huge since it includes all the civil servants. The deep state is something different. It is partially a subset of the bureaucracy but not limited to it, and the revolving door makes it dynamic, uniting the public and private sectors.

US deep state is also more amorphous than the government bureaucracy, since it is a shadow organization rather than one with institutional arrangements, including a foundation in law. Because it lacks institutional arrangements, many deny its existence as an entity. And that is the way the deep state likes it.

But RPW's point that bureaucracies provide continuity that can inhibit change, including reform, owing to the iron law of oligarchy, is well-taken. A deep state can be viewed as a aspect of bureaucracy that is concentrated and entrenched at the top, providing elite control.

The deep state is also a subset of the Establishment, but also different from it. The Establishment is made up of the entrenched elite and their cronies and minions. The deep state is a concentrated subset of the Establishment, characterized by occupying positions of power and influence.

The Philosopher's Stone
The Deep State
Robert Paul Wolff | Professor Emeritus, University of Massachusetts Amherst

Daniel Little — Social consciousness and critical realism

Critical realism proposes an approach to the social world that pays particular attention to objective and material features of the social realm -- property relations, impersonal institutional arrangements, supra-individual social structures. Between structure and agent, CR seems most often to lean towards structures rather than consciously feeling and thinking agents. And so one might doubt whether CR has anything useful to offer when it comes to studying the subjective side of social life.…

The answer, however, seems to be fairly clear. Ideas and mental frameworks have social antecedents and causal influences. Individuals take shape through concrete social development that is conducted through stable social arrangements and institutions. Consciousness has material foundations. And therefore, it is perfectly appropriate to pursue a realist materialist investigation of social consciousness....

Ironically, this position seems to converge in an unexpected way with two streams of classical social theory. This approach to social consciousness resonates with some of the holistic ideas that Durkheim brought to his interpretation of religion and morality. But likewise it brings to mind Marx's views of the determinants of social consciousness through objective material circumstances. We don't generally think of Marx and Durkheim as having much in common. But on the topic of the material reality of ideas and their origins in material features of social life, they seem to agree.

These considerations seem to lead to a strong conclusion: critical realism can be as insightful in its treatment of objective social structures as it is in study of "subjective" features of social consciousness and identities.

Compare with Karl Marx:

In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness. At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or – this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms – with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution. The changes in the economic foundation lead sooner or later to the transformation of the whole immense superstructure.

In studying such transformations it is always necessary to distinguish between the material transformation of the economic conditions of production, which can be determined with the precision of natural science, and the legal, political, religious, artistic or philosophic – in short, ideological forms in which men become conscious of this conflict and fight it out. Just as one does not judge an individual by what he thinks about himself, so one cannot judge such a period of transformation by its consciousness, but, on the contrary, this consciousness must be explained from the contradictions of material life, from the conflict existing between the social forces of production and the relations of production. No social order is ever destroyed before all the productive forces for which it is sufficient have been developed, and new superior relations of production never replace older ones before the material conditions for their existence have matured within the framework of the old society. — Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy

Understanding Society
Social consciousness and critical realism
Daniel Little | Chancellor of the University of Michigan-Dearborn, Professor of Philosophy at UM-Dearborn and Professor of Sociology at UM-Ann Arbor

BIEN — History of UBI: From Hunter-Gatherers to the 21st Century

Backgrounder. Links to an Investopedia paper.

Seems to reinforce the conclusion that sharing requires a more advanced level of collective consciousness or necessity for social cooperation to survive than exists in most places today.

BIEN
History of UBI: From Hunter-Gatherers to the 21st Century

Andrew Gelman — Why they aren’t behavioral economists: Three sociologists give their take on “mental accounting”

The other thing—and this is important—is that the perspectives coming from these three academic disciplines are not competing; they’re complementary. It’s important that money in different bank accounts is liquid—or, to be more precise, it can be liquid for those people who choose to let it be so. It’s important that people often seem to behave as if there are walls between the accounts, restricting their transactions and “freezing” the money, as it were. And it’s important to understand the social context of these behaviors.

Analogously, in section 5.2 of our paper on rational-choice models of voting, Edlin, Kaplan, and I discuss how the rational model is complementary with a psychological understanding of voters. It’s my impression that Bandelj, Wherry, and Zelizer are in agreement with me on this general point, that patterns of human behavior can be usefully understood in different theoretical frameworks. There’s no “right” or “wrong” framework (although one can come to correct or incorrect conclusions within any framework), rather, each framework gives us a way of thinking about the behavior, and entry points into studying it further.

I talk more about frameworks, and how they differ from theories, here.*

Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science
Why they aren’t behavioral economists: Three sociologists give their take on “mental accounting”
Andrew Gelman | Professor of Statistics and Political Science and Director of the Applied Statistics Center, Columbia University

* Philosopher of science Karl Popper and others have criticized such theories as being nonscientific because they are non-refutable, but I prefer to think of them as frameworks for doing science. As such, Freudianism or Marxism or rational choice or racism are not theories that make falsifiable predictions but rather approaches to scientific inquiry. Taking some poetic license, one might make an analogy where these frameworks are operating systems, while scientific theories are programs. That’s why I wrote that I can’t say that Wade is wrong, just that I don’t find his stories convincing.…

I respect the effort to push such theories as far as they can go, but I find them generally less convincing as they move farther from their home base. Similarly with economists’ models: they can make a lot of sense for prices in a fluid market, they can work OK to model negotiation, they seem like a joke when they start trying to model addiction, suicide, etc.

All-encompassing frameworks are different from scientific theories. Both are valuable — frameworks motivate theories and help us interpret scientific results — but I also think it’s important to be clear on the distinction.

Peter Turchin — Who Are the Elites?

“Elites” (and “elite overproduction”) are key concepts in the structural-demographic theory (SDT). In this blog post I’d like to explain the meaning of this term. This is especially important because the popular usage (see Liberal Elite) has very little in common with the sociological definition (which is how it’s used in SDT). Thus, we have “Trump vs. the Elites” which is, sociologically speaking, nonsense.

As a term in sociology, elites are simply a small segment of the society who concentrate social power in their hands. They are the power-holders (and I increasingly use this term in my lectures, to avoid confusing them with those “latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading” folks that the right-wingers love to hate).

Next question, what is social power? Answer: ability to influence other people’s behavior. Sociologists such as Michael Mann distinguish four sources of social power: military (coercion), economic, administrative or political, and ideological.
Put simply, there are many ways to influence people behavior. I can make you to do something by force, or a threat of force; I can pay you to do it; I can order you; or I can persuade you. The last is one of the most important, if often underappreciated, forms of social power....

Elite = social power. See, for instance, C. Wright Mills, The Power Elite.

Cliodynamica — A Blog about the Evolution of Civilizations
Who Are the Elites?
Peter Turchin | Professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Connecticut, Research Associate in the School of Anthropology, University of Oxford, and Vice-President of the Evolution Institute

Jon Hellevig — The Scientific Essence of Economy – Capitalism and Socialism versus a Democratic Competitive Market Economy

Must-read if you are into foundations of economic and political theory. Useful even if you are not, since Jon Hellevig debunks a lot of the myths about capitalism, neoliberalism, liberalism, socialism and communism in advancing his argument for a democratic competitive economy.

Keeper.

Awara Blog
The Scientific Essence of Economy – Capitalism and Socialism versus a Democratic Competitive Market Economy
Jon Hellevig

William Hawes — Growing Up Insane

Why do democracies select insane people — psychopaths and sociopaths — to lead them. This is yet another paradox of liberalism.

In biology (and sociology), the dominant of a species discipline the sub-dominant and control the submissive. Is there any way for humans to get out of this cage imposed evolutionarily?

The current state of American politics must make us question whether any of our leaders in the Beltway can be described as “grown-ups”, i.e., fully mature and sane individuals. Between the endless war crimes, corporate corruption, lobbyists who bribe congressmen and write legislation, and the ineptitude of federal entities who are supposed to protect our health such as the FDA, EPA, and CDC, it would appear that leaders in all three branches of government, as well as the leaders of the corporate world, are either insane, suffer from various psychological disorders, as well as suffering from a type of collective hallucination, the common denominator being an utter lack of empathy for others humans, or respect for the Earth.

Further, we must at least question whether collectively, we the citizenry, are as susceptible to mass delusions as our psychopathic leaders are. Our society can be effectively generalized as forming what Paulo Freire calls a culture of silence, many of whom see no problems with exploiting and despoiling other countries, looting wealth, and killing millions; and many more that are simply afraid to speak out against the indignity of the US empire, in fear of socio-cultural reprisals. This culture of silence, which we are taught at a young age, indoctrinates and effectively eliminates the ability of people to form critiques of our rotten political and economic systems. This is who Richard Nixon was really referring to, when he spoke of the “Silent Majority”: citizens too naïve, dumb, childlike, and afraid to confront the injustices inherent to our system were exactly who Tricky Dick was appealing to.…

Counterpunch
Growing Up Insane

William Hawes

Tyler Cowen — What the hell is going on?

Donald Trump may get the nuclear suitcase, a cranky “park bench” socialist took Hillary Clinton to the wire, many countries are becoming less free, and the neo-Nazi party came very close to assuming power in Austria. I could list more such events.

Haven’t you, like I, wondered what is up? What the hell is going on?

I don’t know, but let me tell you my (highly uncertain) default hypothesis. I don’t see decisive evidence for it, but it is a kind of “first blast” attempt to fit the basic facts while remaining within the realm of reason.…

Marginal Revolution
What the hell is going on?
Tyler Cowen | Holbert C. Harris Chair of Economics at George Mason University and serves as chairman and general director of the Mercatus Center

Katehon — Theories of Globalization

Brief summary of the field. Backgrounder.

Katehon
Theories of Globalization

Russ — Religion is All Good and Well….

This is a nice short post on abstraction and reification of ideas. Most of what we deal with today in the "Antropocene epoch" is human artifacts, some of which actually exist along with natural objects as modifications of natural objects. But many and many of the most significant are mental constructs. These mental constructs then take on a reality of their own through the social construction of reality.

While you are reading this, keep Citizen's United in mind and remember than the people who gave it to use are dressed in robes and sit in high seats.

Voltaire
Religion is All Good and Well….

Russ

According to parasite stress theory, we should see higher levels of collectivism in situations of higher pathogen stress, but not in response to other kinds of material insecurity. 

According to the material insecurity or institutional hypotheses, we should expect people to exhibit less collectivism and in-group loyalty when state-level institutions successfully meet people’s basic needs and guard against material threats.

Finally, the asocial life history hypothesis suggests that in situations where people have fewer opportunities to control risk, for example, in situations of greater mortality and economic uncertainty, they will avoid investments in anything but their own immediate reproduction (and thus eschew commitments to relationships and other social investments).

Another important distinction between these different theories is the feedbacks they posit.

Parasite stress and asocial life history theories both assume a relatively fixed environment to which individuals adapt.

The material insecurity or institutional hypothesis, on the other hand, assumes positive co-evolutionary feedbacks, whereby the existence of beneficial institutions can lead people to make further investments in those institutions to render them even better investments in the future. Thus, the material insecurity or institutional hypothesis can lead to novel social trajectories which are not purely driven by initial conditions—such as parasite levels—in a setting.…

Suggestive rather than conclusive, but interesting nevertheless.

Evonomics
A New Theory That Explains Economic Individualism and Collectivism
Daniel Hruschka | Associate Professor of Anthropology at Arizona State University

Daniel Little — History of sociology

Sociology is a discipline with a short history and a very dense and complex tree of topics and methods. So writing its history — even limited to the past century and a half — is extremely challenging. And the idea that the discipline has worked itself out as the methodical development of ideas advanced by the "founders" -- e.g. Marx, Durkheim, Tarde, Weber, and Simmel -- is really a non-starter. Each of these thinkers brought important ideas into the mix; but sociology is more than simply an elaboration of their nineteenth-century and early twentieth-century ideas. Rather, sociologists have taken a meandering path as they have reacted to new social problems, innovations in theory and method, and shifting priorities in universities and funding sources.…

Economics is an aspect of sociology, and a branch of sociology, economic sociology, is dedicated to it. Unfortunately, there is no sociological economics is conventional economics. Marxist, Marxian and Institutional economics can be viewed as sociological economics. Conventional economics rejects sociological approaches in favor of formal methods.

Understanding Society
History of sociology
Daniel Little | Chancellor of the University of Michigan-Dearborn, Professor of Philosophy at UM-Dearborn and Professor of Sociology at UM-Ann Arbor

Frank W. Elwell — Immanuel Wallerstein's World-Systems Theory

25 slide presentation of Immanuel Wallerstein's World-Systems Theory by Frank W. Elwell,  author of Macrosociology: Four Modern Theorists. Wallerstein was a student of C. Wright Mills, Professor of sociology at Columbia University and author of The Power Elite.

Wallerstein's World-Systems Theory is power-based. It deals with flows of people, information, resources, products, and wealth in a world-system that is social(institutional), political (power-based) and economic (distributive). It is a Marxian analysis that sees the ultimate outcome of the world game being socialism after the breakdown of capitalism owing to its internal contradictions.

If you are are not familiar with Wallerstein, this is a good introduction to his thinking.

Immanuel Wallerstein's World-Systems Theory 
Frank W. Elwell, Professor of Sociology at Murray State University,
ht Jan Milch

Daniel Little — Social structures as entities

Institutions and rules.

Understanding Society
Social structures as entities
Daniel Little | Chancellor of the University of Michigan-Dearborn, Professor of Philosophy at UM-Dearborn and Professor of Sociology at UM-Ann Arbor

Daniel Little — Fissioning community

What is a community, and what forces exist to either preserve the strands of community or to erode those strands? 

To start, a community is a population within a defined geographical space. It is a group of people who have their own interests, identities, and affinities. It is a group of people who act in a variety of ways — work, garden, vote in elections, raise children, join protest movements, support the government, steal cars, and attend public events. It is a group of people who are located within a space of social relationships — a set of social network graphs detailing their relations to family, friends, co-workers, fellow worshippers, fellow members of sports teams and civic associations. It is a group of people who have strong ties and weak ties to a range of other people and organizations. And it is a group of individuals who have ideas about how society should work, what is fair, who benefits from current social and political arrangements. 

What makes a collection of people into a community rather than a jumble of unrelated individuals? There needs to be something in common, something that ties individuals together so they are to some degree willing to act in consideration of others in the group—a set of values, a set of shared purposes, a set of shared commitments to rules and laws of action in society. A strong community demonstrates a high degree of common respect for these values, rules, and laws. A weak community is the society that Hobbes feared—an agglomeration of self-interested actors competing for power and wealth, in which life is nasty, brutish, and short.…

The fundamental weakens of any liberalism that takes the individual to be elemental and self-interest to be the determinative driving force.

Understanding Society
Fissioning community
Daniel Little | Chancellor of the University of Michigan-Dearborn, Professor of Philosophy at UM-Dearborn and Professor of Sociology at UM-Ann Arbor

Daniel Little — John Levi Martin on theory

Sociological theory.

Why is sociological theory important. I consider economics to be a subfield of sociology, as did Marx as a precursor of sociology. Some view him as a co-founder of the discipline that emerged from this type of work. Institutional economists, following Veblen rather than Marx, also take this tack.

There are three major categories of science based on the type of subject matter: natural or physical, biological or life, and social or human. Economics is clearly a social science that studies a subset of human action and the behavior and interaction of homo socialis. Homo economicus is an abstraction that is fictive (imaginary) and useful only for making assumptions to develop simple models that aren't generally representational. The actual subject is homo socialis, with all the complexity that reflexivitiy and emergence involve, complicated by epistemic and ontological uncertainty.

Additionally, to the degree that economics is normative, and this is to a great degree, it also involves social and political philosophy, and to the degree it is qualitative, it also involves qualitative disciplines like the humanities. Economics is also also a policy science so in involves political science as well as social and political philosophy. Since economics is a human science it involves psychology, cognitive science, and evolutionary science. And to the degree it is practical in involves government, business, finance and related institutions, especially law.

Conversely, axiomatic economics has developed into a specialized branch of mathematics largely divorced from reality. Continuing in this direction doesn't seem advisable to me. Economics needs an overhaul from the foundations on up.

Understanding Society
John Levi Martin on theory
Daniel Little | Chancellor of the University of Michigan-Dearborn, Professor of Philosophy at UM-Dearborn and Professor of Sociology at UM-Ann Arbor

Tim Johnson — Scientific facts and democratic values

The logic of justification comes down to criteria. Are there absolute criteria? How would one know for sure that one knows that criteria are absolute?

Magic, Maths, and Money — The Relationship between Science and Finance
Scientific facts and democratic values
Tim Johnson | Lecturer in Financial Mathematics at Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh