Print

Print


Philip:

I didn't know they had food stamps in Europe?

Linwood

On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 4:08 PM, Philip Pilkington <[log in to unmask]
> wrote:

> Miscommunication here. I'm from Europe. My experiences are drawn from that
> pot.
>
> Phil
>
>
> On Saturday, 14 May 2016, Hopkins, Barbara E. <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
>> John,
>>
>>           You might find The Challenge of Affluence
>> <http://www.amazon.com/Challenge-Affluence-Self-Control-Well-Being-Britain/dp/0198208537>
>> relevant to your topic.  He has a chapter on obesity.  He explains why
>> weight loss can be tied to class privilege.  There is another chapter on
>> smoking that is also more prevalent among the poor.  I think the cultural
>> focus on obesity is part of an effort to refocus us all on the
>> overconsumption of the poor, so that we are distracted from the
>> overconsumption of the rich.  But, as someone pointed out, obesity cannot
>> be reduced to “overconsumption.”  It is also about nutrition.  There is some
>> evidence
>> <http://www.motherearthnews.com/real-food/signs-of-nutrient-decline-zmaz04jjzsel.aspx>
>> that food has less nutrients per calorie than in the past.  You point out
>> the link between adequate food and health, but I’m pretty sure that  It is
>> also linked to time poverty, because access to fresh fruits and vegetables
>> can be difficult and eating a big mac is both quick and cheap. And, as Zdravka
>> and I wrote
>> <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270250152_Gender_Dimensions_of_the_US_Consumer_Borrowing_Expansion>,
>> the increase in women’s labor force participation means less time for
>> household production among the working poor.  Cooking beans and rice takes
>> a long time. The other issue is whether one has the facilities.  In high
>> cost housing places like San Francisco, one might not be able to afford
>> more than a hot plate.
>>
>>           Your link between adequate food and health is important, but
>> overstated.  Poor health (of both mother and child) is one of the
>> barriers <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2667863/> to
>> getting a job, or a decent job, for a lot of poor women with kids. For kids
>> with food allergies the food bank doesn’t necessarily have food they can
>> eat.  The role of mental illness here might be particularly interesting,
>> because it would affect the ability for some form of deprivation to effect
>> social control.
>>
>>           Also, in response to the claim that hungry kids are the
>> children of people who sell their food stamps – First, it is different to
>> say this happens – anecdotal evidence is sufficient for that – and “this is
>> typical”. It is incorrect to assume that everyone that needs assistance, gets
>> it.
>> <http://www.iwpr.org/publications/pubs/the-children-left-behind-deeper-poverty-fewer-supports-1>
>> After the financial collapse 62% of poor women did not receive food
>> stamps
>> <http://www.iwpr.org/press-room/press-releases/public-assistance-not-reaching-poor-women-during-recession>.
>> (67.5% of poor women in New Mexico, which, for those of you who were not at
>> the session, represents the anecdotal evidence Jim used to challenge John’s
>> premise.) Yes, most of those people are getting food somehow, leaving their
>> kids alone so they don’t have to pay for childcare, not fixing stuff when
>> it breaks, taking out payday loans. When I looked at the USDA data some
>> years ago, children were entirely shielded from “hunger” or “disrupted
>> eating patterns and reduced food intake that characterize very low food
>> security” (that means that mothers (we are mostly talking mothers) went
>> hungry so they could feed their kids first).  Today,
>> <http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/1896836/err194_summary.pdf> (or rather
>> two years ago and going back two years before that) that still happens, but
>> for 1.1 percent of households with children, “both children and adults
>> experienced instances of very low food security.” That means that at
>> sometime during the year they skipped meals or ate less because they could
>> not afford it. Does that mean children are more likely  to be hungry or
>> poisoned with lead?  I’m not sure, but probably the lead thing. While I
>> agree that this isn’t the means for motivating people (if I understood
>> Anne’s comment, neither did Polanyi), I think that hunger is a bigger
>> problem than most people realize and growing and deepening
>> <http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-us/key-statistics-graphics.aspx#trends>
>> and NOT exclusively a problem of drug addicted homeless people (after all
>> homeless people are not covered by the USDA survey, since it covers
>> “households”).
>>
>>           I think it is intuitive that “the nature of poverty” has
>> changed.  I also think that poverty looks different in different places and
>> among different groups (lone mothers, for example).  Poverty in Northern
>> New Mexico (or Southern New Mexico) looks very different from poverty in
>> Baltimore or Chicago or Detroit. But, I think that to focus on this point
>> (the idea that poverty is different than we think it is) requires reading
>> some ethnography, such as
>> http://www.amazon.com/New-Poverty-Studies-Ethnography-Impoverished/dp/0814731163
>> reviewed
>> http://scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2863&context=jssw
>>
>>          In *The Milagro Beanfield War*, a fictional account of property
>> rights vs. water rights and subsistence farming vs. wage labor in Northern
>> New Mexico, one of the main characters says “Do you remember when we were
>> not rich, but when our poverty was not a thing to be ashamed of?”
>>
>> There have been shifts over time back and forth as to how much we blame
>> people for their economic misfortune.  Those enabling myths are an
>> important part of the mechanisms for social control.
>>
>> Barbara
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Barbara Hopkins, Ph.D.
>> Economics Dept.
>> Wright State University
>> 3640 Col. Glenn Hwy
>> Dayton, OH 45435
>> office: 937 775-2080
>> 211 Rike
>> Fax: 937 775-2441
>> [log in to unmask]
>> www.wright.edu/~barbara.hopkins
>> Sent from Mail for Windows 10
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *Linwood Tauheed
>> *Sent: *Friday, May 13, 2016 8:35 PM
>> *To: *[log in to unmask]
>> *Subject: *Re: Ideological element among Institutionalists?
>>
>>
>> Philip:
>>
>> Assuming your response was to my request for "data, studies, or other
>> information":
>>
>>    1. I have no idea what you mean by "I'm open to it" or "Certainly."
>>    2. My question was about whether you could provide "data, studies, or
>>    other information to substantiate your claim".  I assume from your
>>    non-response on this point that you cannot.
>>    3. Your anecdotal experience is not sufficient to substantiate your
>>    claim.  JK Galbraith has alerted us to the dangers contained in the
>>    "conventional wisdom".  William Dugger has alerted us to the power of the
>>    "enabling myth" in maintaining the status quo.
>>    4. Since this is a discussion of ideology among institutionalists I
>>    think it is appropriate to appeal to that tradition for commentary.
>>
>> Gunnar Myrdal wrote the following in "Value in Social Theory" (1958 -
>> originally 1944 as an appendix of "An American Dilemma").  (I'm not
>> asserting that your use of "children in very run-down schools" is a
>> reference to racial characteristics, but the correlation is high and so I
>> thought referring to Myrdal was appropriate.)
>>
>> There are in the Negro problem whole systems of popular beliefs
>> concerning the Negro and his relations to the larger society *which are
>> crudely false and can only be understood in this light*. These 'popular
>> theories' or *ideologies* are *themselves important data in our study,
>> as they represent strategic social facts in the practical and political
>> problems of race relations*. A legitimate task of education is to
>> attempt to *correct popular beliefs by subjecting them to rigorous
>> examination in the light of the factual evidence*. This educational
>> objective must be achieved in the face of the psychic resistance mobilized
>> by the people who feel an urgent need to retain their biased beliefs in
>> order to justify their way of life. (my emphasis)
>>
>> In a more penetrating analysis all tendencies to bias will be found to
>> have involved relations among themselves and with deeper ideological
>> tendencies w*hich have even shaped our main conceptional tools in social
>> science* ... *These ideological tendencies are biased in a static and
>> do-nothing (laissez-faire) conservative direction*, which, in the main,
>> works against a disfavored group like the American Negroes.
>>
>> Myrdal comes to these insights as a result of leading an actual empirical
>> research project on American race relations, the most in depth study even
>> to this date, in which he collaborated with economists, political
>> scientists, sociologists, historians, educators, philosophers, and
>> psychologists among other disciplines.  In fact, it was during this project
>> that Myrdal states that he became an "Institutional Economist", from being
>> a neoclassical economist, as he confronted his own ideological positions,
>> and found them lacking because they did not conform to data, studies and
>> other information.
>>
>> In a section titled "BIASES IN THE RESEARCH ON THE AMERICAN NEGRO
>> PROBLEM" Myrdal delineates categories of biases; among them:
>>
>>    1.  "The Scale of 'Friendliness' to the Negro" - which by inference
>>    would apply to "liberal" bias, and
>>    2.  "The Scale of 'Friendliness' to the South" - which by inference
>>    would apply to "conservative" bias.
>>    3.  "The Scale of Radicalism-Conservatism" -  which directly
>>    addressed the liberal-conservative split, and
>>    4.  "The Scale of Scientific Integrity."
>>
>> On this last "Scale" Myrdal writes:
>> The degree to which a scientist is prepared to study unpopular subjects
>> and to state plainly and clearly unpopular conclusions derived from his
>> findings depends, naturally, on his own political inclinations, his
>> personal courage, and the relative freedom awarded him by society. These
>> factors, however, are not independent of each other. *In communities
>> where academic freedom is low, the scientist normally will, in adjustment
>> to the environment in which he works, develop, on the one hand, a dislike
>> for controversial matters and for clear and bluntly scientific statements
>> concerning them, and, on the other hand, an unduly high valuation of
>> agreement and conformity as such*. Quite independent of the favorable or
>> unfavorable judgment society passes upon such an attitude, it is, of
>> course, detrimental to scientific clarity and objectivity and to scientific
>> progress. (emphasis mine)
>>
>> Certainly, what would distinguish the institutional approach from the
>> neoclassical is the importance placed on producing "scientific" evidence
>> from real world empirical research on which to base theory.  To the extent
>> that institutionalism, as a community, de-values research on "unpopular
>> subjects", or unpopular conclusions from findings, it diminishes academic
>> freedom.  However, those conclusions, if not based on data, studies or
>> other information are "mere" opinion, and everyone has theirs.
>>
>> I use this reading in my Institutional Economic Theory class as a way of
>> encouraging my students to come to the realization that we are all biased
>> in our opinions, but we have an obligation, as social scientists, to work
>> to get beyond our ideological "mere opinions" to Dewey's "warranted
>> assertability".
>>
>> Linwood
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 5:48 PM, Philip Pilkington <
>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm open to it. Certainly. But it does happen. I know it because I've
>>> seen it up close. With some of my friends and some of their family's
>>> kids. And if liberal types want to deny it due to their own ideological
>>> predilections, that's on the.
>>>
>>> Btw on the original question... Yes this is heavily ideological from
>>> what I can see. A picture painted by the middle class to avoid the truth of
>>> what is going on.
>>>
>>> Phil
>>>
>>>
>>> On Friday, 13 May 2016, Linwood Tauheed <[log in to unmask]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Philip wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "You also sometimes find children that are hungry in very run-down
>>>> schools, for example. But this is typically because the parents are
>>>> flogging food stamps for drugs or alcohol."
>>>>
>>>> Philip, would you provide data, studies, or other information to
>>>> substantiate you claim that there are children in very run-down schools who
>>>> are hungry because their parents traded food stamps for drugs and alcohol?
>>>>
>>>> I'm curious.
>>>>
>>>> Linwood Tauheed
>>>> On May 13, 2016 9:48 AM, "Philip Pilkington" <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> John,
>>>>>
>>>>> Seems to me perfectly coherent. Hunger -- as in, the need for food --
>>>>> is not a problem in most Western countries. And yes, obesity and
>>>>> obesity-related interests (diabetes etc) now seem far more prevalent among
>>>>> poorer people.
>>>>>
>>>>> Food banks and soup kitchens do still exist in the US. But these
>>>>> appear to be mainly for homeless people and drug addicts. I think it's the
>>>>> homelessness and drug addiction that are the main problems here, not lack
>>>>> of food per se.
>>>>>
>>>>> You also sometimes find children that are hungry in very run-down
>>>>> schools, for example. But this is typically because the parents are
>>>>> flogging food stamps for drugs or alcohol.
>>>>>
>>>>> In Greece you do seem to have old style soup kitchens reemerging:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/06/greece-food-crisis-summer-austerity
>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.theguardian.com_world_2013_aug_06_greece-2Dfood-2Dcrisis-2Dsummer-2Dausterity&d=CwMFaQ&c=3buyMx9JlH1z22L_G5pM28wz_Ru6WjhVHwo-vpeS0Gk&r=eUwz24ZOHF_27smkcXilYmeJwIgj_MK5LvDb-_0dUr8&m=xJTJs4lUFWMXa14tmCfUE4chbGek-txKQYUHwn8rOLQ&s=GtBAGDke-7xNsHA57yeE_QYIJsnlQu-Smd4-3E0wwgw&e=>
>>>>>
>>>>> But even there it's not really like the classic soup kitchen that
>>>>> would literally feed starving people. It seems more so that people who are
>>>>> hard up use the facilities to save money that they then spend on other
>>>>> things -- like clothes and books for their children.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think you're right: poverty today increasingly looks like poisonous
>>>>> overconsumption; of bad quality food and of drugs and alcohol.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>>
>>>>> Phil
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 3:11 PM, John Watkins <
>>>>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Michael,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you for your comments. I agree: hunger is imprecise. And while
>>>>>> most people maybe fed, they are not well fed. Even here, as you suggest,
>>>>>> there is controversy regarding what it means to be well fed.
>>>>>> Obviously, we have many people who are not going hungry (nutrition is
>>>>>> another issue), but other needs are going without.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My point is that the nature of poverty has changed. And it is
>>>>>> important to trace those changes. Amartya Sen had an interesting comment,
>>>>>> which may seem obvious after said. Needs are a function of what is
>>>>>> possible. His point is that living 200 years is not a need because it is
>>>>>> not possible. Hence, poverty itself, loosely defined as the inability to
>>>>>> satisfy needs, is a matter of what is possible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> john
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *From:* AFEEMAIL Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On
>>>>>> Behalf Of *Michael Keaney
>>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, May 13, 2016 12:19 AM
>>>>>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: Ideological element among Institutionalists?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi John
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hunger is perhaps too imprecisely defined – and reducing everything
>>>>>> to calories ignores the issue of nutrition. I attach two relatively recent
>>>>>> FT reports that have some bearing on your topic. Especially the Fifield
>>>>>> article is quite damning about the state of grocery retail in the US, and
>>>>>> may be read in conjunction with Eric Schlosser’s classic “Fast Food
>>>>>> Nation”. Not so long ago Europe had its own horse meat scandal, revealing
>>>>>> just how little is known of the supply chains feeding us. “Soylent Green”
>>>>>> also comes to mind!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Michael
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *From:* AFEEMAIL Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On
>>>>>> Behalf Of *John Watkins
>>>>>> *Sent:* 12. toukokuuta 2016 20:39
>>>>>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>>>>>> *Subject:* Ideological element among Institutionalists?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> At the recent AFIT meetings, I presented a paper that received
>>>>>> considerable criticism. Criticism, of course, is fine, even desirable. I
>>>>>> have to wonder, however, if the source of the criticism, in fact, lay in
>>>>>> our own ideological blinders. The point that received the most criticism
>>>>>> was my claim that hunger is not the problem it was once, at least in the
>>>>>> West.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The response led me to wonder if I had attacked a sacred cow, if
>>>>>> ideology had blinded my fellow institutionalists to changes in the American
>>>>>> economy. I know of no way to go about research other than the use theory
>>>>>> and facts. I try to confront ideology wherever I find it, which is usually
>>>>>> among mainstream economists. This is not to say that we, too, wear
>>>>>> occasionally ideological blinders.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Polanyi refers to the use of hunger as a means of motivating people
>>>>>> in the19th century civilization. Polanyi uses hunger as a term for
>>>>>> needs generally.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I asserted that the muted response to the financial crisis was, in
>>>>>> part, that hunger was no longer the problem it was once. Although the
>>>>>> popularity of both Trump and Sanders may reveal up to now a silent, growing
>>>>>> response to the crisis and how it was handled. Its silence, however, is not
>>>>>> motivated by hunger.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My point is despite the rise in inequality, most people suffer from
>>>>>> too much food, not too little. The United States Department of Agriculture
>>>>>> prefers the term food security to hunger, meaning that the people have
>>>>>> sufficient calories (2100 calories per day for an adult) to perform their
>>>>>> daily functions. The importance of food security cannot be underestimated.
>>>>>> Good nutrition improves the ability to avoid and fight disease, improving
>>>>>> longevity (See McKeown 1983). Data from the US Department of Agriculture
>>>>>> indicates that food insecurity with hunger increased from 3.1 % in 2001 to
>>>>>> 5.7% of households during 2008 and 2009. Overall, food insecurity comprised
>>>>>> 19.2 percent of households. The USDA defines food insecurity as households
>>>>>> “unable to acquire adequate food for one or more household members because
>>>>>> they had insufficient money and other resources for food” (Coleman-Jensen,
>>>>>> Rabbitt, Gregory and Singh 2015a, 8). Admittedly, there is a difference
>>>>>> between the threat of hunger and hunger itself. In 2014, nineteen percent
>>>>>> of households expressed concern that money until the next check would be
>>>>>> insufficient (Coleman-Jensen, Rabbitt, Gregory and Singh 2015b, Table S-5,
>>>>>> p. 10). Nevertheless, the report surmises that food insecurity in the
>>>>>> United States is not chronic.[1]
>>>>>> <#m_-8584048169100269309_m_-2633567896810551105_m_585571547717877223_m_743450686717580733_m_-7897436544169904802_m_-2749118744887126702__ftn1>
>>>>>> Even so, food insecurity persists among more marginalized groups:
>>>>>> minorities, single women with children, low-income groups, and so on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All of this was resurrected for me by an article in *The Wall Street
>>>>>> Journal *today titled “Obesity: The New Hunger.” The *Journal*, of
>>>>>> course, is hardly a progressive paper. Nevertheless, we would be remiss to
>>>>>> ignore analyses and the facts presented. I do not deny that hunger still
>>>>>> exists in America. And the criticisms I received were anecdotal, which I do
>>>>>> not deny. Nor do I deny the increase in inequality and the inability of
>>>>>> many people to satisfy other needs. But is hunger the issue that it once
>>>>>> was? Or as progressives, are we ignoring the facts? Are we ignoring changes
>>>>>> in the nature of poverty itself?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John P. Watkins
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Professor of Economics
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Westminster College
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1840 South 1300 East
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Salt Lake City, UT 84105
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Office: 801 832-2628
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cell: 801 550-5834
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>> <#m_-8584048169100269309_m_-2633567896810551105_m_585571547717877223_m_743450686717580733_m_-7897436544169904802_m_-2749118744887126702__ftnref1>
>>>>>> “When households experience very low food security in the United States,
>>>>>> the resulting instances of reduced food intake and disrupted eating
>>>>>> patterns are usually occasional or episodic but are not usually chronic”
>>>>>> (Coleman-Jensen, Rabbitt, Gregory and Singh 2015a, 11).
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Philip Pilkington
>>>>>
>>>>> Tel: 0044(0)7825371244
>>>>> Twitter: https://twitter.com/pilkingtonphil
>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_pilkingtonphil&d=CwMFaQ&c=3buyMx9JlH1z22L_G5pM28wz_Ru6WjhVHwo-vpeS0Gk&r=eUwz24ZOHF_27smkcXilYmeJwIgj_MK5LvDb-_0dUr8&m=xJTJs4lUFWMXa14tmCfUE4chbGek-txKQYUHwn8rOLQ&s=BrjTr8E_OCc1cTAnLvCf-od-FYJl0NWC76dZrC6L310&e=>
>>>>> Academic Publications:
>>>>> http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=1508797
>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__papers.ssrn.com_sol3_cf-5Fdev_AbsByAuth.cfm-3Fper-5Fid-3D1508797&d=CwMFaQ&c=3buyMx9JlH1z22L_G5pM28wz_Ru6WjhVHwo-vpeS0Gk&r=eUwz24ZOHF_27smkcXilYmeJwIgj_MK5LvDb-_0dUr8&m=xJTJs4lUFWMXa14tmCfUE4chbGek-txKQYUHwn8rOLQ&s=PQRH_d-hPdLWLlB8Drhj4NSqgNRW2X8sEbARCIhXc7Q&e=>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Philip Pilkington
>>>
>>> Tel: 0044(0)7825371244
>>> Twitter: https://twitter.com/pilkingtonphil
>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_pilkingtonphil&d=CwMFaQ&c=3buyMx9JlH1z22L_G5pM28wz_Ru6WjhVHwo-vpeS0Gk&r=eUwz24ZOHF_27smkcXilYmeJwIgj_MK5LvDb-_0dUr8&m=xJTJs4lUFWMXa14tmCfUE4chbGek-txKQYUHwn8rOLQ&s=BrjTr8E_OCc1cTAnLvCf-od-FYJl0NWC76dZrC6L310&e=>
>>> Academic Publications:
>>> http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=1508797
>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__papers.ssrn.com_sol3_cf-5Fdev_AbsByAuth.cfm-3Fper-5Fid-3D1508797&d=CwMFaQ&c=3buyMx9JlH1z22L_G5pM28wz_Ru6WjhVHwo-vpeS0Gk&r=eUwz24ZOHF_27smkcXilYmeJwIgj_MK5LvDb-_0dUr8&m=xJTJs4lUFWMXa14tmCfUE4chbGek-txKQYUHwn8rOLQ&s=PQRH_d-hPdLWLlB8Drhj4NSqgNRW2X8sEbARCIhXc7Q&e=>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Linwood F. Tauheed, Ph.D.
>> Associate Professor of Economics
>> University of Missouri-Kansas City
>> 5100 Rockhill Road, 202D Manheim Hall
>> Kansas City, Missouri 64110
>>
>>
>
> --
> Philip Pilkington
>
> Tel: 0044(0)7825371244
> Twitter: https://twitter.com/pilkingtonphil
> Academic Publications:
> http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=1508797
>
>


-- 
Linwood F. Tauheed, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Economics
University of Missouri-Kansas City
5100 Rockhill Road, 202D Manheim Hall
Kansas City, Missouri 64110