Occupy Economics

from Peter Radford

Forgive me for my exasperation.

There are too many disparate efforts to rethink economics, conferences on this, and papers on that. I admire each and every one. I support whole heartedly any attempt to shake economics from its irrelevant torpor. But all this fractured effort is achieving nothing. It cannot succeed in the face of the depth of resistance in most university economics departments and the fear that academics seem to have of open action.

I can understand that many sympathetic academics may want to shun action, after all they have livelihoods at stake. But I ask: what is a career in economics worth if that economics is toxic? Those with the greatest stake in the subject are the students who have yet to choose which path to take. It is their action that needs to be facilitated and made secure.

For it is their open action that will change things. 

Concerted open action.

I am saddened, for instance, that the recent emergence of protest in various universities in England – well done Manchester – does not immediately have connection with the legacy of the post autistic movement started in Paris many years ago. That legacy is alive in the form of the World Economic Association with its 12,000 members worldwide.

Then there is the Institute for New Economic Thinking with its illustrious patronage from George Soros.

And now there’s Rethinking Economics, a collaborative network of ‘rethinks’, who presumably will rethink economics. They appear to collaborate with those students at Manchester and elsewhere who go under the banner of The Post Crash Economics Society. Or at least I think they do.

Then there are the outposts of heterodox thought and centers of resistance like the Heterodox Newsletter produced out in Kansas.

There’s clearly a lot of energy. And a great deal of frustration with the status quo. But not enough actual tangible progress.

I very much fear that this energy will dissipate quickly – once again – when it comes into contact with the inertia of academia, and the entrenched patronizing complacency of orthodoxy.

Hence my exasperation.

So, in order to avoid disappointment, I call on all those who lead these groups to convene, to cooperate, to organize, and to act.

Together not apart.

Call each other. Support each other. Now.

  1. November 12, 2013 at 8:55 am

    Germany made a first step. The next is to collaborate Europe-widely!
    http://www.plurale-oekonomik.de/home/

  2. Jeff Z
    November 12, 2013 at 3:34 pm

    Peter, take heart! The world is a better place with these admittedly separated movements and organizations. Even if there is no immediate success, there are people who keep the hope alive!

    The movements will crash against the breakwater of entrenched orthodoxy for a long time to come. The movement will probably ebb and flow like the tide, so the important thing is to be persistent and to never give up. As long as this and other blogs like it exist, we give those students hope for the future and for themselves. This blog may be more important than you know!

  3. November 12, 2013 at 4:56 pm

    Hi Peter,

    You forgot to mention the European Progressive Economists Network. (http://p2pfoundation.net/European_Progressive_Economists_Network) and all the organizations that belong to it. And there is also the organizations that advocate for the Monetary Reform like the American Monetary Institute (http://www.monetary.org/) or Positive Money (www.positivemoney.org) or MonNeta (Monneta.org). And the Initiative to Promote the Political Economy (http://iippe.org/wp/)

    There is clearly a need for a new consensus on Economics outside the academia. Neoliberal economic orthodoxy has infiltrated the scientific establishment completely, more so if we talk about Economics or Political Economy. Nothing against the status quo will emerge from it.

    What to do? You are right: there is too much dispersion. But I also resent a lack of real scientific attitude. Economist don’t listen to each other if they suspect that anything they hear has a tinge of a different ideology: not really a very scientific attitude.

  4. November 12, 2013 at 5:36 pm

    you cannot defeat somebody established with a nobody.. Being against mainstream is not enough.

    The best strategy is to go back to KEYNES — as correctly interpreted in POST KEYNESIAN MACROECONOMIC THEORY where what Keynes labeled the “Essential Properties” of interest and money are emphasized and where Keynes’s macroeconomics aggregate supply and demand curves can be directly derived from Marshallian micro demand curves and the Marshallian firm’s micro supply curves.

    In this analysis money contracts are the essence of organizing all market oriented production and exchange transactions and the delivery of a monetary sum will legally discharge all contractual obligations! Is not the money contractual system that we live under?

    But I can not understand why more of these non-mainstream economists will not even consider using a textbook based on these simple principles in their undergraduate macro course.

  5. November 12, 2013 at 10:24 pm

    you could put your textbook on line for free. (maybe with an abstract–i noter your definition of neoclassical econ isn’t quite the same as others. my view NC econ is adma smith plus money, but arrow showed how you can ‘internalize’ that.
    i’m from complexity theory (eg steven durlauf) and ecological econ view—do i’m not sure where keynes’ aggregate demand comes from, apart from selling books. (brian arthur also cited marshall). there’s also parecon. and note amartya sen also got a noble (though being at HU he doesnt have a dog in the fight).
    also many nonergodic systems can be decompoased approximately into ergodic components. (one can mention joseph mccauley who is not really ‘heterodox’.
    not all people live 100% under the money contractaul system. speak for yourself.

  6. Lyonwiss
    November 12, 2013 at 10:27 pm

    Most of these movements and initiatives come largely from academics. Unfortunately, academics learn and teach from the written word, from books and journals. New ideas from academics really mean only resuscitating ideas of “old masters”. Hence the heterodox movement and the call for pluralism would only lead to more talk and papers. The failed neoclassical paradigm has now been replaced by default by a failing version of the Keynesian paradigm. We need a new economic paradigm, not just a collection of possibilities.

    But the world has changed. So relevant new ideas have to come from original thinking from new experiences. But the education system does not prepare students for fresh thinking from new experiences. Even some academics who have limited real-world experience may not have learned enough or are able to overcome their “educated blindness”.

    In fact the world is in real danger from academics like Bernanke and Yellen who think they can direct the US and world economy using forecasts of policy impact based on some macroeconomic models. Their education does not even help them to recognize that they are failing. What is quite frightening is their explanation of failure is that they “have not been bold enough”.

    Governments guided by wrong ideas are failing. All they have done is to prevent economic recovery and increase wealth inequality and social inequity. The first thing is to recognize this fact of government failure and prevent them from getting bigger and more powerful and the establishment of police states.

    I agree with a previous comment that what we need, and can teach in universities, is a proper scientific foundation for economics. We need to establish, in a new paradigm, a rigorous scientific attitude for economics: demand proper statements of assumptions, proofs and evidence before major policy initiatives are thrust upon us to suffer the consequences.

    • davetaylor1
      November 14, 2013 at 3:10 pm

      Lyonwiss, I agree with what you are saying here, but if you think one has to choose between a new economic paradigm and a collection of possibilities, you don’t understand what a paradigm is.

      A paradigm is an example of a way of looking at things which reveals the existence of possibilities not previously evident. Thus Newton’s way of calculating localised solar orbits was a new paradigm of mechanics relative to Aristotle’s weighing scales example of a balance of forces, revealing both the static balance as a special case of the dynamic, and the possibility of detailed design of all sorts of moving machinery.

      Economics, I suggest, has reverted to (or never progressed beyond) the Aristotelian paradigm in its focus on a balance (equilibrium) between buying and selling. Heaviside’s application of Newton’s dynamics in the special case of electric circuits and Maxwell’s electromagnetic radiation provides a much more general basis, the simplest example of which is the circuit of Wheatstone’s Bridge, in which static balance appears as a special case of a balance of dynamic flows. (It is another way of interpreting the IS/LM relationship). But just as the possibilities of Newtonian mechanics are not restricted to solar orbits, nor are electric circuits used just to balance electron flows. Their use to distribute power and information for unspecified purposes has opened up all sorts of possibilities relevant to a dynamic understanding of the production and distribution of goods, power and information via the circulation of money.

      What is just as important (given how critical the economic situation is), the relevant flow circuit (as against trickle-down) theory and bottom-up ways of teaching it have already been developed in the paradigm example of electric circuits. But you are spot on in your opening sentence, Lyonwiss. Academics are fundamentally teachers, and they have to learn what they are going to teach. Economic teachers are therefore looking for initiatives in economics and not recognising them when more general theories are offered by (to them) outsiders like electrical, communications and control engineering practitioners.

      • Lyonwiss
        November 19, 2013 at 2:53 pm

        You said, “A paradigm is an example of a way of looking at things which reveals the existence of possibilities not previously evident”. Utter nonsense, because in that case paradigms are everywhere.

        It is you who don’t understand what a paradigm is. Please reconsider carefully and define what a “paradigm” is in one or two sentences, so that it makes some logical sense.

  7. Fred Zaman
    November 13, 2013 at 1:36 pm

    In a review of the essay “Nash dynamics of the Wealthy, powerful, and privileged…” (v. 61), Edward Fullbrook has reminded us, that, if a broad movement for reform is to gain momentum, there needs to be an intellectual framework within which the movement’s different members can cooperate most productively. One such framework possible in economics, for building momentum in the movement “Occupy Economics,” perhaps can be based on the political paradigm “Democracy Inc” of radical political theorist Sheldon Wolin, in which “economics dominates politics. In which case, arguably, the converse is then reflexively true as well: politics dominates economics. Below, in “On Wall Street, ‘Rational Men’ Lie,” a possible intellectual framework for the “Occupy Economics” movement is grounded on Wolin’s “Democracy Inc.”

    On Wall Street, “Rational Men” Lie

    “Managed democracy” is the application of managerial skills to the basic democratic political institutions of popular elections. An election, as distinguished from the simple act of voting, has been reshaped into a complex production. Like all productive operations, it is ongoing and requires continuous supervision rather than continuing popular participation. Unmanaged elections would epitomize contingency: the managerial nightmare of control freaks.“ (Wolin 2010, p. 140)

    “As America’s political dysfunction has grown worse [and its Wall Street elite “managed democracy” commensurately grown stronger], the economic stagnation of the middle class has deepened. This is not the result of blind economic forces, Adam Smith’s invisible hand, globalization, or some other nebulous cause. Specific committees of Congress, inevitably assisted by specific K Street lobbyists, wrote legislation that achieved this result.” (Lofgren 2012, p. 1)

    The “inverted totalitarianism” of Sheldon Wolin’s “Democracy Inc” (Wolin 2010) “represents the political coming of age of corporate power and the political demobilization of the citizenry,” “which [however] is not expressly conceptualized as an ideology or objectified in public policy.” The “political imagination” of which, “gaining a hold on ruling groups and becomimg a staple of the general culture,” is “first and foremost about…the joining of power, fantasy, and unreality” manifested principally in two forms: the power imaginary and constitutional imaginary. The second of which “prescribes the means by which power is legitimated, accountable, and constrained.” And the first of which, seeking “constantly to expand present capabilities,… is (referring to Hobbes’ Leviathan) a dynamic rooted in human nature and driven by a ‘restless’ quest for ‘power after power’ that ‘ceaseth only in death.’” The “rational men” of Democracy Inc rationalize “the quest for power…by giving it a political form” (p. 19).

    The “rational men” of Wall Street, referring to a composite of the neoclassical economists’ “rational man” working together behind the scenes in the manner of Hobbes’ Leviathan, “sanction” Wall Street’s wealthiest 1% in whatever they do in economics and politics; which sanctioning at the same time “repudiates” (negatively sanctions) the 99% thus disenfranchised on Main Street, both economically and politically. When the table below is expanded with the imaginaries of Democracy Inc identified in more detail, the result will be a partially defined “syndrome” of the “rational men” of Democracy Inc – a “short list” of the inverted totalitarianisms driving the transformational dynamics of Democracy Inc – “democracy” managed behind the scenes by Wall Street. The diversity of activists working toward eliminating, or otherwise limiting, these and other “inverted totalitarianisms” of the Wall Street elite perhaps can fellowship within the Wolin political framework to reinvent economics.

    Inverted Totalitarianisms Power Imaginaries Constitutional Imaginaries
    =================== ============== ======================
    trickledown economics See below See below
    ——————————— ————————– ———————————–
    market ergodic axiom TBD TBD
    ——————————— ————————– ———————————–
    economic game theory TBD TBD
    ——————————— ————————– ———————————–
    equity capitalism TBD TBD
    ——————————— ————————– ———————————–
    privatized health care TBD TBD
    ——————————— ————————– ———————————–
    “voter fraud” fraud TBD TBD
    ——————————— ————————– ———————————–
    others TBD TBD TBD

    —The “inverted totalitarianisms” of Democracy Inc compose the syndrome of Wall Street’s “rational men”
    —The “power imaginaries” of Democracy Inc “sanction” the wealthiest “1%”
    —The “constitutional imaginaries” of Democracy Inc “repudiate” the disenfranchised “99%”

    In the “Wall Street transformational dynamics” (WSTD) of America – a political macroeconomics dominated by the inverted totalitarianism of the “rational men” of “Democracy Inc” with headquarters on Wall Street – the above imaginaries in each category can be expanded into a more detailed list of the imaginaries of just a few of Wall Street’s “inverted totalitarianisms”; which “sanction” the wealthiest 1% in economics and in politics, but also at the same time ‘repudiate” (negatively sanction) capitalism’s disenfranchised 99% in the same way. The paradigm of WSTD macroeconomics thus perhaps can begin the task set by BC in comment #2; which is to “reimagine, re-evolve, redesign, and reboot” what Dave Taylor in comment #4 tells us should not be “on the basis of the same old lie-fed misconceptions; and [also that] those who lack the ‘imagination’ [required to pursue WSTD] need to [actually] listen to those who have.” In this new paradigm economic reimagining of Wall Street, economic theory engages politics reflexively – for in “new paradigm economics” one truly cannot be understood independent of the other.

    The basic thesis of Sheldon Wolin in “Democracy Inc” is simple – “economics dominates politics”; but, because he is political theorist rather than economist, he is unable to fill in the details about how this feat is accomplished in principle and theory. That is, he does not in any significant detail show just how neoclassical economists are today both the engine and engineer of Democracy Inc; which de facto is democracy of the wealthiest 1% on Wall Street, by the wealthiest 1% on Wall Street, and for the wealthiest 1% on Wall Street. Just how does on Wall Street’s “inverted totalitarianism,” because it is embedded in the economy structurally, enable the political hegemony of the wealthiest 1% over the disenfranchised 99%? And just how do the related “power imaginaries,” similarly embedded structurally, defend against political inroads by the disenfranchised 99%? And lastly, how do associated “constitutional imaginaries,” imbedded in the economy structurally as well, legitimate the political hegemony of the wealthiest 1% on Wall Street over the 99% on Main Street thus disenfranchised.

    Answering such questions in some detail, regarding the economic hegemony of the elitist Democracy Inc, perhaps should be the common cause of New Paradigm Economists in the years ahead. Sheldon Wolin has laid out the political field of play in some detail; so now may be time for New Paradigm Economists to carry the ball forward – against the “rational men” of capitalism’s ruling class – to touchdown by answering what remains “to be determined” regarding capitalism’s economic management of democracy in America. Are the economists of Real-World Economics Review and its related Blog up to the task? One economist of RWER clearly has shown himself to be thus ready and willing; but what about others who undoubtedly are equally capable? Will they ever be willing to join in the fight, as new paradigm economists committed to both truth AND JUSTICE? That question clearly is something that as yet remains unanswered.

    Trickledown Economics
    Boldly put, “rational men” on Wall Street lie. A half-truth presented as the whole truth is a lie, whether it is believed or not. And that exactly is what the “trickledown economics,” aka “supply-side economics,” of “rational men”– the economist’s theoretical “rational man” collectively speaking, in truth is. What then is the whole truth about trickledown economics? It is the inverted totalitarianism, and related power and constitutional imaginaries, of Democracy Inc’s rational men. The “inverted totalitarianism” of trickledown economics is how capitalism’s rational men rule behind the scenes through the phantom of Democracy Inc. Trickledown economics is the thesis that tax cuts and other economic benefits provided by government to the wealthiest 1%, the nation’s most powerful and privileged, improve the economy (earnings and consumption) of the 99%. This is the half-truth of trickledown economics whose validity in reality is confined to those times when the economy is in good shape, so that investors are eager to invest in new businesses and industries that do create jobs and provide other improvements in the economy of the 99%. This is what happened in the 1990s. When touted as being the whole truth, however, this half-truth is simply a lie; and the prevaricators thereof are manifest liars.

    The other half-truth about trickledown economics, which together with the above other half-truth make up the whole truth, is that in times when the economy isn’t in good shape, so that investors therefore are not prone to invest in new businesses that create jobs for the 99%. The money thereby saved through government tax cuts, along with any other benefits the government gives to the wealthiest 1%, in fact does not create jobs, nor does it provide other improvements to the economy of the 99%. The money instead goes into bank accounts and/or other financial instruments that preserve corporate and individual “liquidity” (cash not tied up and locked down in means of production). This half-truth of trickledown economics, its dark side, was clearly demonstrated following the Great Recession of 2008, when the hundreds of billions of dollars poured into Wall Street coffers by the government, in anticipation of stimulating the general economy of both the 1% and the 99%, never reached the 99%. Wall Street CEOs and CFOs never used this government largesse to stimulate the economy of the 99%, but instead pirated it away into corporate accounts – and no doubt individual accounts as well – that preserved investor liquidity.

    What then is the Whole Truth about “trickledown economics,” thus considered over times both good and bad? It effectively constitutes an “inverted totalitarianism” by which the wealthiest effectively rule over American democracy as an unseen shadow government. Contrary to what it is touted to be, especially by economic conservatives, trickledown economics has never been intended to be benefactor to the 99%. The benefits it provides to the 99% when the economy is good, although real, are – for the wealthiest 1% – incidental to the actual and constant goal of serving the interests of America’s wealthiest, most powerful and most privileged; those that in the vernacular of Sicilian society where family and wealth are everything, are “men of honor.” Over economic cycles good and bad, trickledown economics, never intending to promote the general welfare truly, enables the wealthiest 1% alone to survive and prosper. One lesson that the American public should, and ultimately must learn, from the Great Recession of 2008, is that the only ones consistently prospering in trickledown economics, through times both good and bad, are the wealthiest, most powerful and privileged. A second lesson to be learned by the American public is that, in order to defend and protect Democracy Inc, Wall Street’s “men of honor” lie.

    What then are we to think about the bubble of contrary misinformation broadcast by conservative commentators on Fox News and elsewhere, about trickledown economics and other “things of interest” to conservatives (Lofgren, Ch. 5 in particular)? Conservative agents of misinformation present as news and analysis conservative ideology that they tout as “fair and balanced,” which is incorporated into the subversive power imaginaries and constitutional imaginaries of Democracy Inc; whose power imaginaries are meant to never be made public. The continual spreading of misinformation by conservatives both economic and cultural provides political cover for covert, illicit governance by a conservative-based shadow government that is of the corporate elite, by the corporate elite, and for the corporate elite. This conservative, corporate governance of American democracy will be exposed and eliminated, however, only when the numerous inverted totalitarianisms of “Democracy Inc,” and its supporting power and constitutional imaginaries, are finally and most effectively exposed to public view by new paradigm economists and others.

    —Wolin, Sheldon (2010) “Democracy Inc: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism” (Princeton University Press: Princeton).
    —Lofgren, Mike (2012) “The Party is Over: How Republicans Went Crazy, Democrats Became Useless, and the Middle Class Got Shafted” (Viking Penguin: New York).

  8. Rhonda Kovac
    November 19, 2013 at 2:30 pm

    What about the heterodox community communicating more directly with the public? There is the RWER blog for economists. Consider a blog by economists for the general public, It could explain the basics of heterodox criticism with an emphasis on promoting the public’s awareness of how economics has been corrupted and hijacked out from under them, together with helping to empower people to reclaim their livelihoods and future.

  9. Fred Zaman
    November 20, 2013 at 3:01 am

    Why on Wall Street do “rational men” lie?
    To engage in “stealth economics” may be the answer.

    Stealth Economics of the Increasingly Wealthiest 1%:
    Slave State of the Increasingly Disenfranchised 99%?

    The 150th anniversary of Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address provides an auspicious occasion for taking note of what in truth may be “World War III” currently being waged in America and around the world, behind the scenes by the increasingly wealthiest 1% against the increasingly disenfranchised 99% in the hallowed name of “freedom”; in which “war” American democracy is seriously in danger of truly becoming a “managed democracy” of the wealthiest 1%, by the wealthiest 1%, and for the wealthiest 1% – de facto a “Democracy Inc” that, politically, is becoming increasingly dysfunctional:

    “Managed democracy” is the [stealth] application of managerial skills to the basic democratic political institutions of popular elections. An election, as distinguished from the simple act of voting, has been reshaped into a complex production. Like all productive operations, it is ongoing and requires continuous supervision rather than continuing popular participation. Unmanaged elections would epitomize contingency: the managerial nightmare of control freaks.“ (Wolin 2010, p. 140)

    “As America’s political dysfunction has grown worse [and the stealth economics of the wealthiest 1% grown commensurately stronger], the economic stagnation of the middle class has deepened. This is not the result of blind economic forces, Adam Smith’s invisible hand, globalization, or some other nebulous cause. Specific committees of Congress, inevitably assisted by specific K Street lobbyists, wrote legislation that achieved this result.” (Lofgren 2012, p. 1)

    These and other commentaries suggest that far more is involved in American economics today than what mainstream (“neoclassical”) economists admit, at least publicly. Falsely attempting to maintain that economics and politics are distinct disciplines, economic theories essentially sustain what in essence is the “stealth economics” of Wall Street’s corporate elite – one very important aspect of which is called “trickledown economics,” also referred to as “supply side economics.”

    The stealth economics of the wealthiest 1% “inverts,” “transforms,” or “perverts” human freedom through the economic and political forces of “Wall Street on steroids” here dubbed “E Libertas Inversum” (ELI). The forces of ELI sustain and improve upon the 1%’s economic war, waged through stealth against the 99% in economics, politics and society generally. ELI is the agent responsible for capitalism’s inversion, transformation, or perversion of “free choice” into something that may seem to be free choice; but in reality is something else quite different. One model of capitalism’s “stealth economics,” but unnamed as such, is the “Nash dynamics of the wealthy, powerful, and privileged…” (Zaman 2012); the intended “Nash equilibriums” of which are fundamentally anti-democratic in character.

    Yet another perspective of stealth economics is the “inverted totalitarianism” of Sheldon Wolin’s “Democracy Inc” (Wolin 2010), which “represents the political coming of age of corporate power and the political demobilization of the citizenry, which [however] is not expressly conceptualized as an ideology or objectified in public policy.” The “political imagination” of which, “gaining a hold on ruling groups and becoming a staple of the general culture,” is “first and foremost about…the joining of power, fantasy, and unreality” manifested principally in two forms: the power imaginary and constitutional imaginary. The second of which “prescribes the means by which power is legitimated, accountable, and constrained.” And the first of which, seeking “constantly to expand present capabilities,… is (referring to Hobbes’ Leviathan) a dynamic rooted in human nature and driven by a ‘restless’ quest for ‘power after power’ that ‘ceaseth only in death.’” The “rational men” of Democracy Inc rationalize “the quest for power…by giving it a political form” (p. 19). All of this exemplifies stealth economics, which now may be intent on reducing the 99% worldwide to a de facto economic and political slave state.

    A third example aspect of stealth economics, aka Sheldon Wolin’s managed democracy, are the “rational men” of Wall Street – here a composite of the neoclassical economists’ “rational man” working together behind the scenes as a Hobbesian-like Leviathan. Wall Street’s rational men “sanction” Wall Street’s wealthiest 1% in whatever they do in economics and politics; while at the same time “repudiating” (negatively sanctioning) the 99% (thereby disenfranchised) on Main Street, both economically and politically. When the “imaginaries” of Wolin’s “Democracy Inc” spelled out in more detail, the result will be a “syndrome” of Wall Street’s “rational men.” A short list of the “inverted totalitarianisms” driving the transformational dynamics of Democracy Inc, which is “democracy” managed by Wall Street’s wealthiest 1% behind the scenes through its stealth economics, includes the following:

    Inverted…………………….Power………………..Constitutional
    Totalitarianisms…………Imaginaries………..Imaginaries
    ==============================================
    *Stealth
    economics…………………TBD…………………..…TBD
    *Market
    ergodicity…….…………….TBD………..……………TBD
    *Economic
    game theory………….…..TBD……………………..TBD
    *Equity
    capitalism…………………..TBD……………………..TBD
    *Privatized
    health care………………..TBD………………………TBD
    *Fraudulent
    “voter fraud”……………..TBD …………………….TBD
    *Others
    TBD…………………………….TBD…………………….TBD

    The above inverted totalitarianisms of “stealth economics,” the economics of Wolin’s Democracy Inc, compose the syndrome of Wall Street’s “rational men.” The power imaginaries of the same “sanction” the wealthiest “1%”, while the constitutional imaginaries thereof “repudiate” the 99% (thereby disenfranchised).

    In the “transformational dynamics” of stealth economics here considered, whose managed democracy is dominated by “rational men” headquartered on Wall Street, the above imaginaries can be expanded into a more comprehensive list of Wall Street’s “inverted totalitarianisms”; the “imaginaries” of which “sanction” the increasingly wealthiest 1%, in economics and in politics, while at the same time “repudiating” (negatively sanctioning) the increasingly disenfranchised 99%. The “transformational dynamics” of Wall Street’s – i.e. the wealthiest 1%’s – stealth economics thus foemulated perhaps can begin the task set by BC in comment #2; which is to “reimagine, re-evolve, redesign, and reboot” what Dave Taylor in comment #4 tells us should not be “on the basis of the same old lie-fed misconceptions; and [also that] those who lack the ‘imagination’ need to [actually] listen to those who have.” In this new paradigm for the economic and political reimagining of Wall Street, economic theory engages politics reflexively; for in the “new paradigm economics” needed for the 21st century, one cannot be adequately understood independent of the other.

    —Wolin, Sheldon (2010) “Democracy Inc: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism” (Princeton University Press: Princeton).
    —Lofgren, Mike (2012) “The Party is Over: How Republicans Went Crazy, Democrats Became Useless, and the Middle Class Got Shafted” (Viking Penguin: New York).

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply to Susana M. Belmonte Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.