comments on RWER issue no 78

Leave a comment Go to comments

Download whole issue

  1. Nicholas Dorn
    March 23, 2017 at 11:59 am
    Reply

    Anne Mayhew observes that ‘seeing humans as members of communities whose place in a larger world has been fundamentally altered by globalization and the internet, makes [economic] measures insufficient’. I find this recognition of place and community to be helpful in three senses. First, ‘place’, in the social sense of community, puts flesh on the bones of what otherwise would be a rather too-dry account of social reproduction as a purely economic process – by adding to this a sensitivity to locality, social linkage and even (maybe crucially) compassion. Second, framing issues in such a manner gets us away from the condescending and downright wrong description of voters in terms of being ‘left behind’ – as if they would rather like to join the cosmopolitan world and, with some effort, could be helped to. On the contrary, they reject what some scornfully have described as ‘anywhere’ mentalities and lifestyles. Third, ‘place’ as a pivot for thinking usefully challenges those of us who, whilst we are appalled by Trump, Brexit and similar phenomena, nevertheless have our own critiques over globalism/neoliberalism. How to reconnect?

  2. ntguardian
    March 30, 2017 at 4:51 am
    Reply

    Marshall Auerback introduces a thought experiment of a one-man economy. He claims that this single producer/consumer would never trade because, in doing so, he will never consume. But the argument is fallacious. Dr. Auerback does not describe trade; he describes throwing money into the trash can. In principle, whoever this producer would trade with may also be willing to purchase the single-man’s goods and thus both are made better off. In fact, if this thought experiment were true, no one anywhere ever would trade with anyone else; we’d all be subsistence farmers and the economy grinds to a halt.

  3. Jerry Lobdill
    July 28, 2017 at 2:37 pm
    Reply

    This comment is about Dr. Stephanie Kelton’s article re Trumponomics. I have read (in Michael Hudson’s work, I believe) that the US government includes rentier income in the definition of GDP. Do your graphs follow that definition?

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

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

Gravatar
WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Cancel

Connecting to %s