Print

Print


My response to the Senate resolution. Apologies for typos, etc. I was
supposed to be packing for a trip but was too angry to let this go!

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.forbes.com_sites_johntharvey_2019_05_03_the-2Dsenate-2Dmotion-2Dto-2Dcondemn-2Dmmt-2Dhere-2Dare-2Dsome-2Dbetter-2Dsuggestions-2Dfor-2Dcondemnation_&d=DwIFaQ&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=LtbujWNPdbzw6j8eq9-RJVMBctp9ndCoqGEy57VsNLQ&m=2GTTbfFHd7gDeYIMV_wfiTIuuSu44EDaD5_ytNhLppA&s=wWffyLSgx6opWeDTyvQN6fCr8vkiuiZjr3nv9HENWiI&e=
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.forbes.com_sites_johntharvey_2019_05_03_the-2Dsenate-2Dmotion-2Dto-2Dcondemn-2Dmmt-2Dhere-2Dare-2Dsome-2Dbetter-2Dsuggestions-2Dfor-2Dcondemnation_-23594303f131cb&d=DwIFaQ&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=LtbujWNPdbzw6j8eq9-RJVMBctp9ndCoqGEy57VsNLQ&m=2GTTbfFHd7gDeYIMV_wfiTIuuSu44EDaD5_ytNhLppA&s=FhrfnyBT43yARhFOPaLdqmk5T-cjyPVR9Q8X1ebJ1ZU&e=>

--
John T. Harvey
Professor of Economics
Texas Christian University <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.econ.tcu.edu_&d=DwIFaQ&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=LtbujWNPdbzw6j8eq9-RJVMBctp9ndCoqGEy57VsNLQ&m=2GTTbfFHd7gDeYIMV_wfiTIuuSu44EDaD5_ytNhLppA&s=RNHBU9MHXMIMkcWfNIwUVIGR-tRROdJwhuStxARodLM&e=>

<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.com_Contending-2DPerspectives-2DEconomics-2DContemporary-2DSchools_dp_0857932039_&d=DwIFaQ&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=LtbujWNPdbzw6j8eq9-RJVMBctp9ndCoqGEy57VsNLQ&m=2GTTbfFHd7gDeYIMV_wfiTIuuSu44EDaD5_ytNhLppA&s=eDvjmzR7ch7ohkyFAs8Ae_6lZTUcUY1ck2Xddi-LJn0&e=>

<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.com_Currencies-2DCapital-2DFlows-2DCrises-2Ddetermination_dp_0415781205_&d=DwIFaQ&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=LtbujWNPdbzw6j8eq9-RJVMBctp9ndCoqGEy57VsNLQ&m=2GTTbfFHd7gDeYIMV_wfiTIuuSu44EDaD5_ytNhLppA&s=eMmAMsmGX3NJ7qYd8--2yDkflVSoiW5xpffUgx_2fKQ&e=>

<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.com_Directions-2DHeterodox-2DEconomics-2DAdvances-2D2008-2D02-2D20_dp_B01FIZW0G8_ref-3Dasap-5Fbc-3Fie-3DUTF8&d=DwIFaQ&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=LtbujWNPdbzw6j8eq9-RJVMBctp9ndCoqGEy57VsNLQ&m=2GTTbfFHd7gDeYIMV_wfiTIuuSu44EDaD5_ytNhLppA&s=QJvk6ck2LBjaumDB9lJWpXUcqghEIv4Cop2tleyAj8o&e=>

<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.com_Foundations-2DInternational-2DEconomics-2DPost-2DKeynesian-2DPerspectives_dp_0415146518_ref-3Dasap-5Fbc-3Fie-3DUTF8&d=DwIFaQ&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=LtbujWNPdbzw6j8eq9-RJVMBctp9ndCoqGEy57VsNLQ&m=2GTTbfFHd7gDeYIMV_wfiTIuuSu44EDaD5_ytNhLppA&s=Y1KhG-Szuhx9rjPgbQHRRCqpp72GBmVkcg3MqSE5VSs&e=>

Amazon Author Page <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.amazon.com_author_john-5Ft-5Fharvey&d=DwIFaQ&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=LtbujWNPdbzw6j8eq9-RJVMBctp9ndCoqGEy57VsNLQ&m=2GTTbfFHd7gDeYIMV_wfiTIuuSu44EDaD5_ytNhLppA&s=Sa4wL40E5G_fsR0n-PcRkXC5EhJ0VRqYkpZRuSGz2KM&e=>

Forbes.com Blog <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.forbes.com_sites_johntharvey_&d=DwIFaQ&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=LtbujWNPdbzw6j8eq9-RJVMBctp9ndCoqGEy57VsNLQ&m=2GTTbfFHd7gDeYIMV_wfiTIuuSu44EDaD5_ytNhLppA&s=Ln9LT0YJFEVUXLiRL5FZYJCBSk49YFQap1Lq4uwP1Oc&e=>


On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 9:37 PM Wray, Randall <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Well here you go. For all the MMT haters. There is now actually a Senate
> Resolution to condemn it. And FIVE, yes, count them FIVE have already
> signed on. That's practically unanimous, I think. Write your senator.
>
>
> Pasted and attached. LOL.
>
>
> 116TH CONGRESS 1ST SESSION S. RES. ll
> Recognizing the duty of the Senate to condemn Modern Monetary Theory and
> recognizing that the implementation of Modern Monetary Theory would lead to
> higher deficits and higher inflation.
> IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
> llllllllll Mr. PERDUE (for himself, Mr. BRAUN, Ms. ERNST, Mr. MORAN, and
> Mr. TILLIS) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the
> Committee on llllllllll
> RESOLUTION Recognizing the duty of the Senate to condemn Modern Monetary
> Theory and recognizing that the implementation of Modern Monetary Theory
> would lead to higher deficits and higher inflation.
> Whereas noted economists from across the political spectrum have warned
> that the implementation of Modern Monetary Theory (referred to in this
> preamble as ‘‘MMT’’) would pose a clear danger to the economy of the United
> States; Whereas, on March 4, 2019, former Secretary of the Treasury
> Lawrence H. Summers said that— (1) MMT is fallacious at multiple levels;
> (2) past a certain point, MMT leads to hyperinflation; and
> 2
> PAT19390 S.L.C.
> (3) a policy of relying on a central bank to finance government deficits,
> as advocated by MMT theorists, would likely result in a collapsing exchange
> rate; Whereas, on February 26, 2019, Jerome Powell, Chair of the Board of
> Governors of the Federal Reserve System, said: ‘‘The idea that deficits
> don’t matter for countries that can borrow in their own currency I think is
> just wrong’’; Whereas, on March 25, 2019, Janet Yellen, former Chair of the
> Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, disagreed with those
> individuals promoting MMT who suggest that ‘‘you don’t have to worry about
> interest-rate payments because the central bank can buy the debt’’,
> stating: ‘‘That’s a very wrong-minded theory because that’s how you get
> hyper-inflation’’; Whereas the March 2019 report entitled ‘‘How Reliable is
> Modern Monetary Theory as a Guide to Policy?’’ by Scott Sumner and Patrick
> Horan of the Mercatus Center at George Mason University found that— (1)
> MMT— (A) has a flawed model of inflation, which overestimates the
> importance of economic slack; (B) overestimates the revenue that can be
> earned from the creation of money; (C) overestimates the potency of fiscal
> policy, while underestimating the effectiveness of monetary policy; (D)
> overestimates the ability of fiscal authorities to control inflation; and
> (E) contains too few safeguards against the risks of excessive public debt;
> and (2) an MMT agenda of having fiscal authorities manage monetary policy
> would run the risk of—
> 3
> PAT19390 S.L.C.
> (A) very high debts; (B) very high inflation; or (C) very high debts and
> very high inflation, each of which may be very harmful to the broader
> economy; Whereas the January 2019 report entitled ‘‘Modern Monetary Theory
> and Policy’’ by Stan Veuger of the American Enterprise Institute warned
> that ‘‘hyperinflation becomes a real risk’’ when a government attempts to
> pay for massive spending by printing money; and Whereas the September 2018
> report entitled ‘‘On Empty Purses and MMT Rhetoric’’ by George Selgin of
> the Cato Institute warned that— (1) when it comes to the ability of
> Congress to rely on the Treasury to cover expenditures, Congress is, in 1
> crucial respect, more constrained than an ordinary household or business is
> when that household or business relies on a bank to cover expenditures
> because, if Congress is to avoid running out of money, Congress cannot
> write checks in amounts exceeding the balances in the general account of
> the Treasury; and (2) MMT theorists succeed in turning otherwise banal
> truths about the workings of contemporary monetary systems into novel
> policy pronouncements that, although tantalizing, are false: Now,
> therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate— 1 (1) realizes that deficits
> are unsustainable, irre-2 sponsible, and dangerous; and 3 (2) recognizes— 4
> 4
> PAT19390 S.L.C.
> (A) that the implementation of Modern 1 Monetary Theory would lead to
> higher deficits 2 and higher inflation; and 3 (B) the duty of the Senate to
> condemn 4 Modern Monetary Theory
>
>
> L. Randall Wray
> Senior Scholar, Levy Economics Institute
> Papers: www.levyinstitute.org/publications/?auth=287
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.levyinstitute.org_publications_-3Fauth-3D287&d=DwMF-g&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=LtbujWNPdbzw6j8eq9-RJVMBctp9ndCoqGEy57VsNLQ&m=TfnSFuuS30IX6ZiE2L_LadIxVQoZf05h5OPArLvfZsE&s=hJpME4rgr72cWEQgdqCHRTiMGsyJrKWOCPvB6bD4PRg&e=>
>
> Co-editor *Journal of Post Keynesian Economics*
> ISSN 0160-3477 (Print), 1557-7821 (Online)
> www.tandfonline.com/toc/mpke20/current
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.tandfonline.com_toc_mpke20_current&d=DwIFaQ&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=LtbujWNPdbzw6j8eq9-RJVMBctp9ndCoqGEy57VsNLQ&m=2GTTbfFHd7gDeYIMV_wfiTIuuSu44EDaD5_ytNhLppA&s=oSZe8yXrVJ5Xwa9PG_5-ySC9V32JkqMAiZ7lj6aNWfc&e=
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.tandfonline.com_toc_mpke20_current&d=DwMF-g&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=LtbujWNPdbzw6j8eq9-RJVMBctp9ndCoqGEy57VsNLQ&m=TfnSFuuS30IX6ZiE2L_LadIxVQoZf05h5OPArLvfZsE&s=yeuARFU15FwD_Th4w9YW2iGL-lE5agZOuvehYEOuXvM&e=>
>
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__http-3A__www.tandfonline.com_toc_mpke20_current&d=DwMF-g&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=LtbujWNPdbzw6j8eq9-RJVMBctp9ndCoqGEy57VsNLQ&m=TfnSFuuS30IX6ZiE2L_LadIxVQoZf05h5OPArLvfZsE&s=bo8_E7y5Zo-7UB4ZYmXJeO7VJgTiql_6sZZ_SSHMnF4&e=>
> New Book: *Why Minsky Matters: An Introduction to the work of a maverick
> economist, *Princeton University Press
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__press.princeton.edu_titles_10575.html&d=DwIFaQ&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=LtbujWNPdbzw6j8eq9-RJVMBctp9ndCoqGEy57VsNLQ&m=2GTTbfFHd7gDeYIMV_wfiTIuuSu44EDaD5_ytNhLppA&s=1HBqo_jyHY3t_EoSi-OfDGccW_Owd7Z_DT8_5vrg1bw&e=
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__press.princeton.edu_titles_10575.html&d=DwMF-g&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=LtbujWNPdbzw6j8eq9-RJVMBctp9ndCoqGEy57VsNLQ&m=TfnSFuuS30IX6ZiE2L_LadIxVQoZf05h5OPArLvfZsE&s=SaMgQaw3sswsDNFTj--KDS-ZkL2pzI6QGz-fp20WQgU&e=>
>
> New Book: *Modern Money Theory: a primer on macroeconomics for
> sovereign monetary systems*, Palgrave Macmillan
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.palgrave.com_page_detail_modern-2Dmoney-2Dtheory-2Dl-2Drandall-2Dwray_-3Fisb-3D9781137539908&d=DwIFaQ&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=LtbujWNPdbzw6j8eq9-RJVMBctp9ndCoqGEy57VsNLQ&m=2GTTbfFHd7gDeYIMV_wfiTIuuSu44EDaD5_ytNhLppA&s=xXLSo0pGsr-Z7-liydxq-AxLgTYpDjpO3GGTzUSbaWI&e=
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.palgrave.com_page_detail_modern-2Dmoney-2Dtheory-2Dl-2Drandall-2Dwray_-3Fisb-3D9781137539908&d=DwMF-g&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=LtbujWNPdbzw6j8eq9-RJVMBctp9ndCoqGEy57VsNLQ&m=TfnSFuuS30IX6ZiE2L_LadIxVQoZf05h5OPArLvfZsE&s=rxV0QtSdY_ewSA8NNyxfqU9HY_vPIPNPTvESMvQjVyU&e=>
>
>
> Please make note of my new email address as I will be transitioning all
> email to:
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* AFEEMAIL Discussion List <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of
> Mayhew, Anne <[log in to unmask]>
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 2, 2019 2:37 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: [AFEEMAIL] Are Sustainability and Public Choice schools of
> thought, per se?
>
>
> Randy and all:
>
>
>
> I repeat my suggestion that we need to pay more attention to what we mean
> by ‘neoclassical” and suggest that all who want to understand the
> neoclassical approach read Tony Lawson’s article on how and why Veblen
> coined the term.
>
>
>
> I also continue to think that little is gained by denigration of critics
> of various forms of heterodoxy by calling attention to arguments advanced
> (developing countries as toxic waste dumps or the record of women in
> science) unless it is shown how those arguments stem from ill-founded
> assumptions/methods that are also being used to criticize heterodox
> approaches.  Once again, I defer to Warren Gramm who warned against
> hunkering down in bunkers rather than careful argumentation.
>
>
>
> That said, I do think that it has been very hard for a lot of heterodox
> economists, and particularly those who operate from the foundation of
> pragmatic philosophy to engage in careful argumentation because pragmatists
> can offer no absolute truths.  Truth evolves as does society.   The desire
> for certainty that has become so important in recent decades makes
> productive public discourse difficult but it does still go in in various
> think tanks and journals and it is important to maintain civil discourse
> there.
>
>
>
> Now, let me turn to the other part of Randy’s response to my last posting
> and say that I find MMT more puzzling than scary.  And, in order to try to
> understand that which has puzzled me I have purchased the new book by
> Mitchell, Wray, and Watts and have been reading parts of it.  The whole is
> daunting as it is 600 pages of textbook material, much of which I already
> understand and was teaching long ago.   What I am searching for is a
> reasonably nuanced explanation of why the MMT proposition that the U.S.
> government can never default on debt denominated in its own currency”
>  seems to me to be taken as so important.  I understand the truth of this
> proposition but in a world in which even small shifts in the relative
> returns on the debt of nations on the international financial markets can
> alter holdings and lead to changes in the non-monetary sectors of
> economies, it seems to me that this is an issue that needs to be
> addressed.  Perhaps it has been and I am looking in the wrong places, so
> please help.   Let me add that I come to this question knowing that the
> U.S. dollar has not always been the reserve currency and I do know that the
> transition from the British Pound to the U.S. dollar in the first part of
> the 20th century was not smooth.  International money markets and their
> effects worry me but I do not see this addressed.
>
>
>
> I also understand that the regressive effects of additional bond issues to
> finance additional government spending could be avoided by skipping the
> step or issuing the bonds and simply increasing reserves.  This is, I know,
> an emergency measure that has been used.  But advocating this as a routine
> measure seems to me to run counter to Fagg Foster’s emphasis on the
> principle of minimal dislocation.  Or, as I think Veblen would have put it
> in runs counter to the nature of evolutionary change. Again, this may have
> been addressed but I do not know where.
>
>
>
> I also totally understand that the FED accommodates fiscal actions that
> are driven by Congressional action and the functioning of the economy.  But
> accommodation cannot easily be converted into power to cause.  That is why
> I remain so puzzled by the emphasis on monetary policy. Why not emphasize
> the joint importance of fiscal policy.  I realize that not everything can
> be done at once but I fear that MMT, with its heavy emphasis on monetary
> policy, may misdirect public discourse.
>
>
>
> Further, the heavy emphasis on full employment, or jobs for all, is, to
> me,  reminiscent of the Maginot Line.  Economies change and so do economic
> problems.  Dudley Dillard’s magnificent text, *The Economic Development
> of the North Atlantic Community,* was all about that.  Surely consistency
> with his approach and vision requires recognition of the changes in labor
> markets and expectations about labor participation that have occurred over
> the past 70+ years.
>
>
>
> Any help in sorting out these continuing puzzles will be helpful.
>
>
>
> Thanks, Anne
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* AFEEMAIL Discussion List <[log in to unmask]> *On Behalf
> Of *Wray, Randall
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 1, 2019 8:14 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: [AFEEMAIL] Are Sustainability and Public Choice schools of
> thought, per se?
>
>
>
> First, I had thought Affee-ers would be familiar with Joan Robinson's
> term; "bastard" has a very specific and technical meaning--illegitimate
> birthing--in reference to the questionable lineage of modern macro. I did
> toy with the order of the phrasing in one of my sentences, as she put it
> first as a modifier. And yes, it was meant to be funny. Sorry that was so
> confusing.
>
>
>
> And let me say I would not use this to describe actual birthing of humans
> as all creatures great and small are either birthed, hatched, or
> created--and there can be no illegitimacy for a birthed human.
>
>
>
> Robinson applied it to ideas. I was applying it to those who try to
> package neoclassical economics as Keynesian. Geoff usefully added several
> others who have packaged heterodox ideas into neoclassical economics.
> Cross-breeding is rarely successful. As I said. Bastards are the result.
>
>
>
> I'll leave it to John Henry to define Neoclassical Econ, as he taught me
> and then wrote the book on it. I think Geoff's definition isn't that
> useful. I recommend John's book "The Making of Neoclassical Economics" (if
> my memory serves me well). From the beginning this was a political agenda.
> Equilibrium and utility are diversions.
>
>
>
> Now as to using bastard as a pejorative to describe actual neoclassicals.
> In my experience, yes, a lot of them do qualify. I can think back nearly 20
> years ago when the AEA neoclassicals decided to cut AFEE panels to reduce
> the number of institutionalists who might show up at the meetings. They
> offered no rational explanation. As I recall, two of the neoclassicals
> stood up to defend us--Diedre McCloskey and Ed Leamer. The rest of them?
> Cut the panels. And they've continued to do that. Bastards? Your call.
>
>
>
> I've also had a lot of experience with bastards over the years--doing
> their best to exclude heterodox economists from positions, tenure,
> publications. I think many other Institutionalists and heterodox economists
> have, also.
>
>
>
> Summers has emerged as one of the main "Keynesian" critics of MMT. And is
> (hilariously) enlisted by a large number of heterodox economists--including
> FEMINIST LABOR ECONOMISTS!--in their critiques of MMT. Larry! who argues
> woman cannot do science. Larry! who argues we should view developing
> countries as toxic waste dumps. Larry! who helped to ensure CDSs could not
> be regulated by any government body. Yes, Larry is on OUR side.
>
>
>
> Bastard? Your call.
>
>
>
> It is funny that everyone now must take the opportunity to criticize MMT
> and distance themselves from it. No matter how irrelevant to the discussion
> at hand. MMT has got to be stopped. Why? Because there has not been any
> heterodox theory that has captured the attention that MMT has got over the
> past half century (or more). It must be stopped.
>
>
>
> Why is it so damned scary?
>
> A.
>
> O.
>
> C.
>
>
>
> There is no excuse for arguing from a position of ignorance any more. Bill
> Mitchell, Martin Watts and I have put out a textbook on it; almost 600
> pages. AFEE folk are encouraged to read it and to point out where we've
> gone astray from Keynes's and Institutionalist teachings. I am confident
> that we've got Keynes right--confirmed by referees who said they'd never
> seen in a textbook an exposition that stayed so close to Keynes. I'm also
> confident that it is consistent with the Institutional theory advanced by
> Fagg Foster and Dudley Dillard--and I've published several articles in the
> JEI on that version.
>
>
>
> I cannot vouch for consistency with Anne's or Geoff's version. I would
> like to know where we went wrong. Please cite page and passage. Handwaves
> are no longer necessary.
>
>
>
> L. Randall Wray
>
> Senior Scholar, Levy Economics Institute
>
> Papers: www.levyinstitute.org/publications/?auth=287
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.levyinstitute.org_publications_-3Fauth-3D287&d=DwMF-g&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=LtbujWNPdbzw6j8eq9-RJVMBctp9ndCoqGEy57VsNLQ&m=q1ZFayA1nv1JUGOc18LPyK8PW8VmF9Hj9rJVbR9JqOs&s=J6sdSLroJtBvZ43C9BxQx1mTKOFAuEuzHHXPE_EJpPM&e=>
>
> Co-editor *Journal of Post Keynesian Economics*
> ISSN 0160-3477 (Print), 1557-7821 (Online)
> www.tandfonline.com/toc/mpke20/current
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.tandfonline.com_toc_mpke20_current&d=DwMFAg&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=LtbujWNPdbzw6j8eq9-RJVMBctp9ndCoqGEy57VsNLQ&m=26asCDoscjvajHZ83zWVbCD_4o8F8QDdofyzpBBCc6A&s=1okF-eMyPBclIFBCeVe9Pq61p6QfyYKzRVSt6aIu6oA&e=>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.tandfonline.com_toc_mpke20_current&d=DwIFaQ&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=LtbujWNPdbzw6j8eq9-RJVMBctp9ndCoqGEy57VsNLQ&m=2GTTbfFHd7gDeYIMV_wfiTIuuSu44EDaD5_ytNhLppA&s=oSZe8yXrVJ5Xwa9PG_5-ySC9V32JkqMAiZ7lj6aNWfc&e=
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.tandfonline.com_toc_mpke20_current&d=DwMF-g&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=LtbujWNPdbzw6j8eq9-RJVMBctp9ndCoqGEy57VsNLQ&m=q1ZFayA1nv1JUGOc18LPyK8PW8VmF9Hj9rJVbR9JqOs&s=WMu5vVREIb6REAYTPkca8pZ2AkUzG8FJZ4ux9MElDEY&e=>
>
> New Book: *Why Minsky Matters: An Introduction to the work of a maverick
> economist, *Princeton University Press
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__press.princeton.edu_titles_10575.html&d=DwIFaQ&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=LtbujWNPdbzw6j8eq9-RJVMBctp9ndCoqGEy57VsNLQ&m=2GTTbfFHd7gDeYIMV_wfiTIuuSu44EDaD5_ytNhLppA&s=1HBqo_jyHY3t_EoSi-OfDGccW_Owd7Z_DT8_5vrg1bw&e=
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__press.princeton.edu_titles_10575.html&d=DwMF-g&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=LtbujWNPdbzw6j8eq9-RJVMBctp9ndCoqGEy57VsNLQ&m=q1ZFayA1nv1JUGOc18LPyK8PW8VmF9Hj9rJVbR9JqOs&s=PfVL9tYnA7LIU1hx6YPB9IFZ0HdeZi-kebGoBu2t6cM&e=>
>
>
>
> New Book: *Modern Money Theory: a primer on macroeconomics for
> sovereign monetary systems*, Palgrave Macmillan
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.palgrave.com_page_detail_modern-2Dmoney-2Dtheory-2Dl-2Drandall-2Dwray_-3Fisb-3D9781137539908&d=DwIFaQ&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=LtbujWNPdbzw6j8eq9-RJVMBctp9ndCoqGEy57VsNLQ&m=2GTTbfFHd7gDeYIMV_wfiTIuuSu44EDaD5_ytNhLppA&s=xXLSo0pGsr-Z7-liydxq-AxLgTYpDjpO3GGTzUSbaWI&e=
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.palgrave.com_page_detail_modern-2Dmoney-2Dtheory-2Dl-2Drandall-2Dwray_-3Fisb-3D9781137539908&d=DwMF-g&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=LtbujWNPdbzw6j8eq9-RJVMBctp9ndCoqGEy57VsNLQ&m=q1ZFayA1nv1JUGOc18LPyK8PW8VmF9Hj9rJVbR9JqOs&s=eNe46NLeTXiCBN2IRMKIrFmFFSOjK_W9euNsFhFWjP8&e=>
>
>
>
>
> Please make note of my new email address as I will be transitioning all
> email to:
>
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* AFEEMAIL Discussion List <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of
> Mayhew, Anne <[log in to unmask]>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 1, 2019 2:34 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: [AFEEMAIL] Are Sustainability and Public Choice schools of
> thought, per se?
>
>
>
> I think Geoff makes a good and valid point.  Use of pejoratives and lack
> of attention to what it is that differentiates a group from one’s own is a
> sure sign of the kind of “camp meeting” attitude that Warren Gramm worried
> about among heterodox economists.  As a useful antidote I highly recommend
> Tony Lawson’s article on “What is this ‘School’ called Neoclassical
> Economics?”  This article, originally published in the *Cambridge Journal
> of Economics (*2013).  Tony’s article is a serious and in depth effort to
> determine what Veblen meant when he coined the name “neoclassical.”  In
> 2016 a collection of essays, edited by Jamie Morgan was published by
> Routledge under the title *What is Neoclassical Economics?  *Tony’s
> article is republished and there are many others including one that I wrote
> titled “Lawson, Veblen, and Marshall:  How to Read Neoclassicism.”  I would
> welcome feedback.
>
>
>
> This discussion about “schools” can continue to be a useful one if it
> involves discussion of that preconceptions, tenets, methods are considered
> core and essential to each of the schools.  I, for example, am interested
> in knowing more about whether MMT, as it is discussed in political
> discourse, is consistent with Post Keynesian Economics and/or
> Institutionalism.  It seems to me not to be so but I am willing to be
> informed.
>
>
>
> Here is to good and informed discussion.
>
>
>
> --Anne
>
>
>
> *From:* AFEEMAIL Discussion List <[log in to unmask]> *On Behalf
> Of *Wray, Randall
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 1, 2019 2:50 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: [AFEEMAIL] Are Sustainability and Public Choice schools of
> thought, per se?
>
>
>
> No, I probably have a different definition of bastard in mind.
>
>
>
> However some of those examples you listed would serve.
>
>
>
> L. Randall Wray
>
> Senior Scholar, Levy Economics Institute
>
> Papers: www.levyinstitute.org/publications/?auth=287
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.levyinstitute.org_publications_-3Fauth-3D287&d=DwMF-g&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=LtbujWNPdbzw6j8eq9-RJVMBctp9ndCoqGEy57VsNLQ&m=AS_YyxKoFXN6E1u4Ni9mC9lhVCTLhBz9oIdswPP3JAE&s=dA4D5TIGzfW8j0rJ3XalBnjYwFsvzuphseDEgR42dEo&e=>
>
> Co-editor *Journal of Post Keynesian Economics*
> ISSN 0160-3477 (Print), 1557-7821 (Online)
> www.tandfonline.com/toc/mpke20/current
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.tandfonline.com_toc_mpke20_current&d=DwMFAg&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=LtbujWNPdbzw6j8eq9-RJVMBctp9ndCoqGEy57VsNLQ&m=w9nENK9q9MAGIuc_uub9SF9l3xd1oAHeMbMQ26oVoDA&s=GcDUtbp7jHpWa0HGIV6Te41NjbdbYy34MjA2atomvkE&e=>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.tandfonline.com_toc_mpke20_current&d=DwIFaQ&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=LtbujWNPdbzw6j8eq9-RJVMBctp9ndCoqGEy57VsNLQ&m=2GTTbfFHd7gDeYIMV_wfiTIuuSu44EDaD5_ytNhLppA&s=oSZe8yXrVJ5Xwa9PG_5-ySC9V32JkqMAiZ7lj6aNWfc&e=
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.tandfonline.com_toc_mpke20_current&d=DwMF-g&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=LtbujWNPdbzw6j8eq9-RJVMBctp9ndCoqGEy57VsNLQ&m=AS_YyxKoFXN6E1u4Ni9mC9lhVCTLhBz9oIdswPP3JAE&s=hs2ha-s6qGxlbAf6sYsOVswpCPCuZDJpczM1iB9tz5s&e=>
>
> New Book: *Why Minsky Matters: An Introduction to the work of a maverick
> economist, *Princeton University Press
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__press.princeton.edu_titles_10575.html&d=DwIFaQ&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=LtbujWNPdbzw6j8eq9-RJVMBctp9ndCoqGEy57VsNLQ&m=2GTTbfFHd7gDeYIMV_wfiTIuuSu44EDaD5_ytNhLppA&s=1HBqo_jyHY3t_EoSi-OfDGccW_Owd7Z_DT8_5vrg1bw&e=
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__press.princeton.edu_titles_10575.html&d=DwMF-g&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=LtbujWNPdbzw6j8eq9-RJVMBctp9ndCoqGEy57VsNLQ&m=AS_YyxKoFXN6E1u4Ni9mC9lhVCTLhBz9oIdswPP3JAE&s=_HsR1hGnMqDHhPo1IjDWRCPwxYQrb2Ulex93PCTKBfw&e=>
>
>
>
> New Book: *Modern Money Theory: a primer on macroeconomics for
> sovereign monetary systems*, Palgrave Macmillan
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.palgrave.com_page_detail_modern-2Dmoney-2Dtheory-2Dl-2Drandall-2Dwray_-3Fisb-3D9781137539908&d=DwIFaQ&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=LtbujWNPdbzw6j8eq9-RJVMBctp9ndCoqGEy57VsNLQ&m=2GTTbfFHd7gDeYIMV_wfiTIuuSu44EDaD5_ytNhLppA&s=xXLSo0pGsr-Z7-liydxq-AxLgTYpDjpO3GGTzUSbaWI&e=
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.palgrave.com_page_detail_modern-2Dmoney-2Dtheory-2Dl-2Drandall-2Dwray_-3Fisb-3D9781137539908&d=DwMF-g&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=LtbujWNPdbzw6j8eq9-RJVMBctp9ndCoqGEy57VsNLQ&m=AS_YyxKoFXN6E1u4Ni9mC9lhVCTLhBz9oIdswPP3JAE&s=AjCeKXjejp_Ii-pN59Ad7Z6wweyh_2d7T7dtcsFBHDk&e=>
>
>
>
>
> Please make note of my new email address as I will be transitioning all
> email to:
>
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* AFEEMAIL Discussion List <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of
> Geoffrey Hodgson <[log in to unmask]>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 1, 2019 7:35 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: [AFEEMAIL] Are Sustainability and Public Choice schools of
> thought, per se?
>
>
>
> Dear AFEEers
>
>
>
> Randy Wray has contributed much of value in his writings. The phrase
> “neoclassical bastards” (30 April) is not one of them.
>
>
>
> It all depends how you define “neoclassical”. There is a controversy over
> the meaning of “neoclassical economics”. My suggestion would be to define
> it in terms of utility maximization and equilibrium. By this definition,
> most (but not all) of mainstream economics is neoclassical.
>
>
>
> The assumptions of utility maximization and equilibrium are not
> ideologically neutral. But they are highly adaptable. Abba Lerner and Oskar
> Lange used them (within general equilibrium theory) to try to show how
> socialism can work. The same assumptions are adopted by Marxists such as
> John Roemer and (the late) Eric Olin Wright, as well as by post-Marxists
> such as Sam Bowles and Herb Gintis. They may all be wrong, but are they all
> “bastards”?
>
>
>
> Randy may have a different definition of neoclassical in mind, but he
> should have made his meaning clear.
>
>
>
> Best wishes
>
> Geoff
>
>
>
> In future, please use my [log in to unmask] address.
>
>
>
> Geoffrey M Hodgson
>
> Professor in Management at Loughborough University London
>
> Editor in Chief, *Journal of Institutional Economics*
>
> Secretary of the World Interdisciplinary Network for Institutional
> Research (WINIR)
>
> Secretary of Millennium Economics Ltd
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.geoffreymhodgson.uk_&d=DwIFaQ&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=LtbujWNPdbzw6j8eq9-RJVMBctp9ndCoqGEy57VsNLQ&m=2GTTbfFHd7gDeYIMV_wfiTIuuSu44EDaD5_ytNhLppA&s=2MOnDRW_HLW9BrfVfonZGktMP0i7fmtzg6Bk9yDbTaA&e=
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.geoffreymhodgson.uk_&d=DwMF-g&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=LtbujWNPdbzw6j8eq9-RJVMBctp9ndCoqGEy57VsNLQ&m=GQVu6nnk2xegQ7BuLlHnzG8FuUBsnn9jESlECIE_gkk&s=YX-5zTXwxrDvFK9a506z3Jx94-cZFhGKy88Caw3UE-0&e=>
>
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* AFEEMAIL Discussion List <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of
> Wray, Randall <[log in to unmask]>
> *Sent:* 30 April 2019 11:24:39
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: [AFEEMAIL] Are Sustainability and Public Choice schools of
> thought, per se?
>
>
>
> Brian: my professor, Marc Tool, used to thunder against all "isms" and if
> you sat in the front of the class--as I did--he put the fear of god into
> you. I still hesitate before adding an ism to Institutional.
>
>
>
> However as Paul Davidson always says, categorization is essential to
> building an understanding. As a kid you learn animal, vegetable, mineral
> and it helps to make sense of the world. You go on to species and learn
> about cats, dogs, and gold fish. There's a lot of variability across
> individuals, but more similarities within groups. They mostly mate with
> their own kind--but a few of the more adventurous try cross-species
> dallying.
>
> Ditto with schools of thought (at the extreme, isms). Individuals might
> protest mightily about pigeon-holing and that of course is unfair, but to
> build understanding the categorization is essential. And cross-species
> fertilization almost never works.
>
>
>
> When I finally went on to grad school, a few months into the program, one
> of my fellow students told me that I was the only one (of 24 entering first
> years) who had an ideology. He had never heard of a school of thought. He
> had thought economics is just economics.
>
> Or, more precisely, economics is just math. Like many of those other
> students, he struggled trying to make sense of what the heck economics
> actually is, other than special purpose sets of math equations with no
> apparent links among them. He and many others did rather poorly that first
> year; I found grad school to be very easy because I knew which ideology the
> neoclassical bastards were trying to feed us. I knew it at least as well as
> they did--probably better. Neoclassicals are by far the most likely to
> protest that they are not neoclassical.
>
>
>
> I've always taken John Harvey's approach to teaching. Schools of thought
> is the first lecture in any and every class I teach. I cannot imagine
> making any sense of economics without that.
>
>
>
> L. Randall Wray
>
> Senior Scholar, Levy Economics Institute
>
> Papers: www.levyinstitute.org/publications/?auth=287
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.levyinstitute.org_publications_-3Fauth-3D287&d=DwMF-g&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=LtbujWNPdbzw6j8eq9-RJVMBctp9ndCoqGEy57VsNLQ&m=uYtW8ih6C2SsTnBaYtcTxoMsMwWeS1zuXFNb1XjJv4c&s=-e3tCQDHzOS_kmW4TIIWwSXj9E4f3x4l4pfThi3TFyg&e=>
>
> Co-editor *Journal of Post Keynesian Economics*
> ISSN 0160-3477 (Print), 1557-7821 (Online)
> www.tandfonline.com/toc/mpke20/current
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.tandfonline.com_toc_mpke20_current&d=DwMFAg&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=LtbujWNPdbzw6j8eq9-RJVMBctp9ndCoqGEy57VsNLQ&m=w9nENK9q9MAGIuc_uub9SF9l3xd1oAHeMbMQ26oVoDA&s=GcDUtbp7jHpWa0HGIV6Te41NjbdbYy34MjA2atomvkE&e=>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.tandfonline.com_toc_mpke20_current&d=DwIFaQ&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=LtbujWNPdbzw6j8eq9-RJVMBctp9ndCoqGEy57VsNLQ&m=2GTTbfFHd7gDeYIMV_wfiTIuuSu44EDaD5_ytNhLppA&s=oSZe8yXrVJ5Xwa9PG_5-ySC9V32JkqMAiZ7lj6aNWfc&e=
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.tandfonline.com_toc_mpke20_current&d=DwMF-g&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=LtbujWNPdbzw6j8eq9-RJVMBctp9ndCoqGEy57VsNLQ&m=uYtW8ih6C2SsTnBaYtcTxoMsMwWeS1zuXFNb1XjJv4c&s=PvD-zEiLPysIYTDHV0QSPv9WuXOWQOrcxj0SzeHrv5k&e=>
>
> New Book: *Why Minsky Matters: An Introduction to the work of a maverick
> economist, *Princeton University Press
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__press.princeton.edu_titles_10575.html&d=DwIFaQ&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=LtbujWNPdbzw6j8eq9-RJVMBctp9ndCoqGEy57VsNLQ&m=2GTTbfFHd7gDeYIMV_wfiTIuuSu44EDaD5_ytNhLppA&s=1HBqo_jyHY3t_EoSi-OfDGccW_Owd7Z_DT8_5vrg1bw&e=
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__press.princeton.edu_titles_10575.html&d=DwMF-g&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=LtbujWNPdbzw6j8eq9-RJVMBctp9ndCoqGEy57VsNLQ&m=uYtW8ih6C2SsTnBaYtcTxoMsMwWeS1zuXFNb1XjJv4c&s=JTBLsV1IsqCl-EEX_Fkg4xcEjKUZYTJKw9krp1iG2-Y&e=>
>
>
>
> New Book: *Modern Money Theory: a primer on macroeconomics for
> sovereign monetary systems*, Palgrave Macmillan
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.palgrave.com_page_detail_modern-2Dmoney-2Dtheory-2Dl-2Drandall-2Dwray_-3Fisb-3D9781137539908&d=DwIFaQ&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=LtbujWNPdbzw6j8eq9-RJVMBctp9ndCoqGEy57VsNLQ&m=2GTTbfFHd7gDeYIMV_wfiTIuuSu44EDaD5_ytNhLppA&s=xXLSo0pGsr-Z7-liydxq-AxLgTYpDjpO3GGTzUSbaWI&e=
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.palgrave.com_page_detail_modern-2Dmoney-2Dtheory-2Dl-2Drandall-2Dwray_-3Fisb-3D9781137539908&d=DwMF-g&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=LtbujWNPdbzw6j8eq9-RJVMBctp9ndCoqGEy57VsNLQ&m=uYtW8ih6C2SsTnBaYtcTxoMsMwWeS1zuXFNb1XjJv4c&s=g5jN5RZ8MIGBYys4ofLgvNxQ-PO9enYXh-W43lswZfs&e=>
>
>
>
>
> Please make note of my new email address as I will be transitioning all
> email to:
>
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* AFEEMAIL Discussion List <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of
> Brian Eggleston <[log in to unmask]>
> *Sent:* Monday, April 29, 2019 6:34 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: [AFEEMAIL] Are Sustainability and Public Choice schools of
> thought, per se?
>
>
>
> I really don’t mean to be too glib here but aside from crafting a text,
> why/how  does this matter?  I’m reminded of  Duke Ellington’s comment.
> “There are two kinds of music. Good music, and the other kind.”  Perhaps
> “school of economic thought” (from an internal perspective) is really not
> much more than a variation on this expression; and also about as useful.
> (John, this is not a critique of  your text.)   Perhaps a focus on
> economists' (broadly interpreted) ideas rather than filiation is more
> fruitful.  My comment is likely a reflection of my general disdain for what
> my mentor (Warren Gramm) termed “camp meetings.”  (He also wasn't big into
> loyalty oaths.)
>
>
>
> The above aside, I appreciate anything which challenges the deeply
> entrenched perspective that there's really only one "good" economics and a
> bunch of the other kind.   So, as I said above, I'm not seriously dissin'
> your text.
>
>
>
> Brian
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 9:00 AM John Harvey <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Dear All,
>
>
>
> I am working on revisions to my Contending Perspectives in Econ book and
> one chapter that I originally intended to write was on ecological economics
> or econ of sustainability. The existing chapters cover Neoclassicism,
> Marxism, Austrianism, Post Keynesianism, Institutionalism, New
> Institutionalism, and Feminism.
>
>
>
> Do you consider ecological econ/sustainability a school of thought , per
> se along the lines of those others or is it a topic area?
>
>
>
> Similarly, I have a colleague who uses my book and she's very keen that I
> add a Public Choice chapter. Same question: school of thought or subject
> area?
>
>
>
> Incidentally, she is an Austrian and yet there is no one in the department
> whose overall philosophy regarding pedagogy and curriculum matches mine
> more completely. She's a wonderful person. Who would have thought?!
>
>
>
> John
>
>
> --
>
> John T. Harvey
> Professor of Economics
>
> Texas Christian University
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.econ.tcu.edu_&d=DwMFaQ&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=LtbujWNPdbzw6j8eq9-RJVMBctp9ndCoqGEy57VsNLQ&m=o3RUAKYABOhIoL9srCpfVjuXOp6xKbo1b_cIAXzdAw4&s=y6g8JvZbQh_hufHY2Nzx9GbQuiZI-8nDyMEKBzMDJ0A&e=>
>
>
>
>
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.com_Contending-2DPerspectives-2DEconomics-2DContemporary-2DSchools_dp_0857932039_&d=DwMFaQ&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=LtbujWNPdbzw6j8eq9-RJVMBctp9ndCoqGEy57VsNLQ&m=o3RUAKYABOhIoL9srCpfVjuXOp6xKbo1b_cIAXzdAw4&s=8ZuCOEbgE0pK5qlE0KVd--9CYLJkMV5c09qkEfNHtF4&e=>
>
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.com_Currencies-2DCapital-2DFlows-2DCrises-2Ddetermination_dp_0415781205_&d=DwMFaQ&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=LtbujWNPdbzw6j8eq9-RJVMBctp9ndCoqGEy57VsNLQ&m=o3RUAKYABOhIoL9srCpfVjuXOp6xKbo1b_cIAXzdAw4&s=rKzaMr68Z988BHACWtWZDD5Bthj9jHleKGsN661YKfA&e=>
>
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.com_Directions-2DHeterodox-2DEconomics-2DAdvances-2D2008-2D02-2D20_dp_B01FIZW0G8_ref-3Dasap-5Fbc-3Fie-3DUTF8&d=DwMFaQ&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=LtbujWNPdbzw6j8eq9-RJVMBctp9ndCoqGEy57VsNLQ&m=o3RUAKYABOhIoL9srCpfVjuXOp6xKbo1b_cIAXzdAw4&s=c0vruZERn63l2OMS-sO-YRVXm6A0OPOQdr19U9ElkW8&e=>
>
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.com_Foundations-2DInternational-2DEconomics-2DPost-2DKeynesian-2DPerspectives_dp_0415146518_ref-3Dasap-5Fbc-3Fie-3DUTF8&d=DwMFaQ&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=LtbujWNPdbzw6j8eq9-RJVMBctp9ndCoqGEy57VsNLQ&m=o3RUAKYABOhIoL9srCpfVjuXOp6xKbo1b_cIAXzdAw4&s=AFNLQPWIHU8EHvxP0u88owhC6bM0p2Spz08EV7c4UIU&e=>
>
>
>
> www.CowboyEconomist.com
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.cowboyeconomist.com_&d=DwMFaQ&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=LtbujWNPdbzw6j8eq9-RJVMBctp9ndCoqGEy57VsNLQ&m=o3RUAKYABOhIoL9srCpfVjuXOp6xKbo1b_cIAXzdAw4&s=xmAn3EQDO_SqwZ9McxAGIv_cavWfSGZEckRDBBCl5TQ&e=>
>
>
>
> Forbes.com Blog
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.forbes.com_sites_johntharvey_&d=DwMFaQ&c=Cu5g146wZdoqVuKpTNsYHeFX_rg6kWhlkLF8Eft-wwo&r=LtbujWNPdbzw6j8eq9-RJVMBctp9ndCoqGEy57VsNLQ&m=o3RUAKYABOhIoL9srCpfVjuXOp6xKbo1b_cIAXzdAw4&s=w7QFrnIla6QYOD828LGMNL8YM5L3ziLozG-4zEawZjc&e=>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Brian Eggleston, Ph.D.
>
> Department of Economics
>
> Augustana University
>
> Sioux Falls, SD 57197
>
>
>
>
>
> Expose yourself to your deepest fear; after that, fear has no power and
> the fear of freedom shrinks and vanishes.  You are free.      Jim Morrison
> (The Doors)
>