Heterodox
Nick Hanauer argues for some policies that postulate: Income distribution is not a matter of supply and demand or any other sort of economic natural laws. That a more egalitarian distribution of income leads to an increased demand and generalized shared prosperity. Tom Palley contrasts neoliberalism with an economic theory with an approach with another "theory of income distribution and its theory of aggregate employment determination". Elizabeth Bruenig contrasts liberalism with the the left. Paul Blest laughs at whining neoliberals Chris Lehmann considers how the turn of the US's Democratic Party to neoliberalism lowers its electoral prospects. Is the distinction between democratic socialism and social democracy of no practical importance at the moment in any nation's politics? I think
Topics:
Robert Vienneau considers the following as important:
This could be interesting, too:
Jodi Beggs writes Economists Do It With Models 1970-01-01 00:00:00
Mike Norman writes 24 per cent annual interest on time deposits: St Petersburg Travel Notes, installment three — Gilbert Doctorow
Lars Pålsson Syll writes Daniel Waldenströms rappakalja om ojämlikheten
Merijn T. Knibbe writes ´Fryslan boppe´. An in-depth inspirational analysis of work rewarded with the 2024 Riksbank prize in economic sciences.
- Nick Hanauer argues for some policies that postulate:
- Income distribution is not a matter of supply and demand or any other sort of economic natural laws.
- That a more egalitarian distribution of income leads to an increased demand and generalized shared prosperity.
- Tom Palley contrasts neoliberalism with an economic theory with an approach with another "theory of income distribution and its theory of aggregate employment determination".
- Elizabeth Bruenig contrasts liberalism with the the left.
- Paul Blest laughs at whining neoliberals
- Chris Lehmann considers how the turn of the US's Democratic Party to neoliberalism lowers its electoral prospects.
Is the distinction between democratic socialism and social democracy of no practical importance at the moment in any nation's politics? I think of the difference in two ways. First, in the United States in the 1970s, leftists had an argument. Self-defined social democrats became Neoconservatives, while democratic socialists found the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). Second, both are reformists approaches to capitalism, advocating tweaks to, as Karl Popper argued for, prevent unnecessary pain. But social democrats have no ultimate goal of replacing capitalism, while democratic socialists want to end up with a transformed system.