Thursday , July 2 2020
Home / Real-World Economics Review / Two definitions

Two definitions

From Peter Radford It is always interesting to read what people say in response to what you write.  It is also always educational.  I enjoy the learning. I recently wrote a short piece meant to be a little on the light side pondering the odd comparison of the use of the word essential in our vernacular understanding of it, and the way in which standard economic theory suggests we compute our various levels of worth.  I quoted J.B. Clark with respect to this latter point.  I made the point that Clark’s method is still the most well-worn within economic theory. And then I was criticized for not reading enough economics to understand that there is no such thing as “economic theory”; there are, I was admonished, a large number of such theories, and that we are all entitled to pick and

Peter Radford considers the following as important:

This could be interesting, too:

V. Ramanan writes Joan Robinson On International Trade In Times Of International Crisis

Editor writes RWER special issue: The Inequality Crisis

Dean Baker writes Structuring globalization to redistribute income upward

Dan Crawford writes Open thread June 30. 2020

from Peter Radford

It’s the kind of thing you will read in any well-selling textbook.  I have never asserted, however, that standard economics is an impenetrable monolith.  There are shades of grey within it sufficient to accommodate a great percentage of practicing economists.  It was to help encourage the creation and spread of an even greater plurality of ideas that I re-engaged with economics a couple of decades ago.

Peter Radford
Peter Radford is publisher of The Radford Free Press, worked as an analyst for banks over fifteen years and has degrees from the London School of Economics and Harvard Business School.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *