RWER issue 58: Peter Radford
Ethics in economics – Where is it?
Peter Radford download pdf
Read and leave comments here
And register for the WEA online conference: Economics in Society: The Ethical Dimension
Leave a Reply Cancel reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
RWER 26,369 subscribers
WEA Books
“a conceivably seminal contribution to this debate on economic systems and their place in human and natural systems.” – Steve Keen

“Some of his insights will no doubt become the key building blocks of the new economics the world needs so desperately today.” – Richard Koo

“This remarkable volume presents the full range of opinions on MMT, from its enthusiastic proponents to its severest critics” – John King

Regular Contributors
follow this blog on Twitter
Top Posts- last 48 hours
- The Collapse of the India’s creative Industries
- Economics Textbooks
- Axel Leijonhufvud (1933-2022)
- Beveridge Curves - Covid edition
- In economics value-neutrality is an illusion
- Thinking like an Economist?
- Gödel and the limits of mathematics
- Things to consider when reading Mankiw 9th ed. Chapter 1: Ten Principles of Economics
- World population graph: past, present, and future
- Can you think of something snappier than “Understanding the Economy – A Learning System”?
Real World Economics Review
The RWER is a free open-access journal, but with access to the current issue restricted to its 25,952 subscribers (07/12/16). Subscriptions are free. Over one million full-text copies of RWER papers are downloaded per year.
WEA online conference: Trade Wars after Coronavirus
Comments on recent RWER issues
————– WEA Paperbacks ————– ———– available at low prices ———– ————- on most Amazons ————-
WEA Periodicals
----- World Economics Association ----- founded 2011 – today 13,800 members
Recent Comments
- Romar Correa on The Collapse of the India’s creative Industries
- Meta Capitalism on In economics value-neutrality is an illusion
- Romar Correa on Axel Leijonhufvud (1933-2022)
- Meta Capitalism on In economics value-neutrality is an illusion
- Garrett Connelly on Thinking like an Economist?
- bruceolsen on Thinking like an Economist?
- evidencebasedeconomics on Thinking like an Economist?
- Charles Broming on Thinking like an Economist?
- Romar Correa on In economics value-neutrality is an illusion
- Steve Hummel on Economics Textbooks
- yoshinorishiozawa on In economics value-neutrality is an illusion
- bruceolsen on In economics value-neutrality is an illusion
- yoshinorishiozawa on Economics Textbooks
- yoshinorishiozawa on In economics value-neutrality is an illusion
- John deChadenedes on Economics Textbooks
Comments on issue 74 - repaired
Comments on RWER issues
WEA Online Conferences
—- More WEA Paperbacks —-
———— Armando Ochangco ———-

Shimshon Bichler / Jonathan Nitzan

————— Herman Daly —————-

————— Asad Zaman —————

—————– C. T. Kurien —————

————— Robert Locke —————-

Guidelines for Comments
• This blog is renowned for its high level of comment discussion. These guidelines exist to further that reputation.
• Engage with the arguments of the post and of your fellow discussants.
• Try not to flood discussion threads with only your comments.
• Do not post slight variations of the same comment under multiple posts.
• Show your fellow discussants the same courtesy you would if you were sitting around a table with them.
Most downloaded RWER papers
- Global finance in crisis (Jacques Sapir)
- Why some countries are poor and some rich: a non-Eurocentric view (Deniz Kellecioglu)
- The housing bubble and the financial crisis (Dean Baker)
- What Is Neoclassical Economics? (Christian Arnsperger and Yanis Varoufakis)
- Trade and inequality: The role of economists (Dean Baker)
- New thinking on poverty (Paul Shaffer)
- Green capitalism: the god that failed (Richard Smith)
- The state of China’s economy 2009 (James Angresano)
- Debunking the theory of the firm—a chronology (Steve Keen and Russell Standish)
Family Links
Contact
follow this blog on Twitter
RWER Board of Editors
Nicola Acocella (Italy, University of Rome) Robert Costanza (USA, Portland State University) Wolfgang Drechsler ( Estonia, Tallinn University of Technology) Kevin Gallagher (USA, Boston University) Jo Marie Griesgraber (USA, New Rules for Global Finance Coalition) Bernard Guerrien (France, Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne) Michael Hudson (USA, University of Missouri at Kansas City) Frederic S. Lee (USA, University of Missouri at Kansas City) Anne Mayhew (USA, University of Tennessee) Gustavo Marqués (Argentina, Universidad de Buenos Aires) Julie A. Nelson (USA, University of Massachusetts, Boston) Paul Ormerod (UK, Volterra Consulting) Richard Parker (USA, Harvard University) Ann Pettifor (UK, Policy Research in Macroeconomics) Alicia Puyana (Mexico, Latin American School of Social Sciences) Jacques Sapir (France, École des hautes études en sciences socials) Peter Söderbaum (Sweden, School of Sustainable Development of Society and Technology) Peter Radford (USA, The Radford Free Press) David Ruccio (USA, Notre Dame University) Immanuel Wallerstein (USA, Yale University)
Bravo Peter Radford!
Economics without ethics is an empty mental exercise. The ethics of economics are exceedingly simple. They can be reduced to this one maxim: Do not steal.
If you do not pay taxes on land and natural resources that are under your exclusive command, you steal from members of your community who will have to pay correspondingly higher taxes.
If you enjoy exclusive use of access to national credit, a common good, you steal from others in your community who will to pay you interest for their loans.
If you pay wages, you steal from your workers the fruits of capital appreciation.
If you agglomerate wealth into your hands using unethically acquired financial resources, you steal future capital appreciation from existing owners.
Yay!!! Bravo & kudos, Peter. Yet, let’s not forget the Golden Rule (not the plutocrat version): “Treat others as you would have them treat you.” – King Yshuah
Carmine, notions about taxation lacking comprehensive grounding in a big picture view of all the negative factors in a commercialized economy or plutonomy are inherently deficient. In a valid, viable, nonprofit money system managed by a government of, by, and for We the people, personal income tax and most other taxes are worse than unnecessary. It’s like robbing Peter to pay Paul, then robbing Paul to pay Peter, over and over and…
The current socioeconomic paradigm makes tax a way to get the 99% to pay double for everything while interest on debts drains the culture of its vitality and strength. Letting sociopathic privateers control the money system is exactly what Jefferson, among others, warned would enslave the world.
The cure is the whole truth + pure credit. See:
>> mm-greenbook.blogspot.com
Michael, it is good to see how much we agree. May I encourage you to contribute a Buddhist perspective on ethics in economics?
Dave, Friends & Allies, Season’s greetings & Christmas blessings to all. Now, Schumacher did an essay on Buddhist economics that probably covers the subject pretty well from the conventional standpoint. Yet, knowing what he never covered helped to inspire an exploration of the deepest, source level, causal principles & governing dynamics that led to my Fundamental Theory of Economics & Natural Values.
You can review the final final draft at EcotectureNOW.wordpress.com/unmoney along with some relevant posts from RWER blogs & comments that follow the theory.
I look forward to your feedback. If I continue getting no response, then I will have to assume that RW economists are as autistically egoic as the average plutonomist. After all, the only thing that could possibly prevent a co-creative response would be ethical shock & paralysis and/or neurotic/psychotic denial, right?