Professor Palley passes by his mentioning of Quesnay and the Physiocrats all too quickly. One needs to read Turgot for a good understanding of the general laws of production and distribution of wealth (an analysis that strongly influenced Adam Smith). Their most important observations were cast aside by orthodox economists, including Keynes. What were those observations? Foremost is that nature is and must be considered as the source of wealth, an asset not produced by individuals and, therefore, part of the commons. From this perspective, Turgot argued that rents (i.e., ground rents in the era dominated by agricultural production) rightfully belonged to the community, to be collected as the 'inpot unique'. By the time Keynes was writing, the ground rents associated with agricultural land use were greatly diminished as a share of total rents generated from natural resource-laden lands and locations in towns and cities. Ricardo failed to see the consequences of changing land use; Patrick Edward Dove and Henry George did not. Keynes ignored the extent to which owners of well-located parcels or tracts of land extracted rents from the productive sectors of the economy. One economist who had come to embrace the business cycle analysis provided in Henry George's work and, therefore, challenged both the neoclassical theorists as well as Keynes, was Harry Gunnison Brown, who studied under Irving Fisher at Yale, taught at Yale until 1915, then joined the faculty at the University of Missouri. The weaknesses in Keynesian analysis are are presented by Brown in a 1951 paper titled "A Dilemma of Contemporary Keynesism (American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol.10, No.3, April 1951).
I know he touches on Minsky and role of finance etc. But as a post graduate follower of economics I've always wondered why a deep analysis of the role of debt hasn't been done, maybe I'm wrong and someone has?
We don’t need full employment we need full entrepreneurship, worker cooperatives, each their own boss, and authentic products and work. Full unemployment? Doing what? Based on seeking Coca Cola and toy soldiers ? Barbie dolls and Twinkie’s ? Let’s get real !
@@fachriranu1041 yes, but in a different sense. let's say that 10 people own a co-op selling wheat grass juice. as demand fluctuates, or as their technology (capital) improves, or as crops succeed or fail, the workers adjust accordingly. no one is laid off, they simply redistribute profits and work hours and leisure time as fluctuating circumstances dictate. they may agree on a desired profit goal and work the amount of time according to this goal. now, let's say they are in a social network of co-ops (selling other sustainable necessary goods), this "shiftability" is also beneficial as operational within the macro-economy. (the mother company franchise). unemployment is eliminated because the "work day time standard" flexes with all other variables. a frozen 9-5 standard for all leaves workers out of work when the company fails. I argue that this is one (of a few) major factors in high unemployment, arbitrary rules of work time standards. but this is an unfinished dissertation in the works, so I will leave it there. there are many other factors that I outline but need more clarity.
@@abcrane we can eliminate unemployment with job guarantee then shift mode of production to coop like you describe with job guarantee scheme still intact for safety net. I think thats a more realistic way to get what you want.
@@fachriranu1041 great point. in your schemata, to exemplify: let us say in a town of 1000 people, 600 work standard jobs under "job guarantee scheme." 400 who worked in this scheme then launch the co-ops (combined in the franchise *I spell out the functions and benefits of the franchise in book). the franchise "fees" are then rolled into funding more co-ops. 200 folks are brought into the franchise as worker-owners of their own shops. again, fees are rolled into launch for more. now, let us say that these folks prefer a simple lifestyle and to only buy what they need and what is healthy for self and natural environment. HERE is where Keynes economy of thrift is no longer a threat to the economy, but an asset. HERE is where Keynes "stimulation of spending/demand is not only arbitrary, but counterproductive. (we all do benefit his roads and highways, but that's another topic) for the workers in those standard jobs, they need a Keynes program as safety net. In the immediate circumstance, Keynes was a savior of many. But in the long haul, his concepts engendered a dependent mass, dependent on both the whimsical nature of aggregate demand and government hand outs. the franchise does make provisions for those unable to work due to disability, but via its prosperity, not its poverty. work in progress, thank you for this!
@@abcrane because everyone always have job wether it is private firm job or coop job or gov job (JG scheme) there are always standart lower bound of Agregate Demand.
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
Professor Palley passes by his mentioning of Quesnay and the Physiocrats all too quickly. One needs to read Turgot for a good understanding of the general laws of production and distribution of wealth (an analysis that strongly influenced Adam Smith). Their most important observations were cast aside by orthodox economists, including Keynes. What were those observations? Foremost is that nature is and must be considered as the source of wealth, an asset not produced by individuals and, therefore, part of the commons. From this perspective, Turgot argued that rents (i.e., ground rents in the era dominated by agricultural production) rightfully belonged to the community, to be collected as the 'inpot unique'.
By the time Keynes was writing, the ground rents associated with agricultural land use were greatly diminished as a share of total rents generated from natural resource-laden lands and locations in towns and cities. Ricardo failed to see the consequences of changing land use; Patrick Edward Dove and Henry George did not. Keynes ignored the extent to which owners of well-located parcels or tracts of land extracted rents from the productive sectors of the economy.
One economist who had come to embrace the business cycle analysis provided in Henry George's work and, therefore, challenged both the neoclassical theorists as well as Keynes, was Harry Gunnison Brown, who studied under Irving Fisher at Yale, taught at Yale until 1915, then joined the faculty at the University of Missouri. The weaknesses in Keynesian analysis are are presented by Brown in a 1951 paper titled "A Dilemma of Contemporary Keynesism (American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol.10, No.3, April 1951).
we need to read whose paper on Minksy? (45:24)
Fazzari S
I know he touches on Minsky and role of finance etc. But as a post graduate follower of economics I've always wondered why a deep analysis of the role of debt hasn't been done, maybe I'm wrong and someone has?
Where is figure 5?
Okay so I don't feel like any great poibts have been made for heterodox economics. Its just a big history lesson on where it comes from.
We don’t need full employment we need full entrepreneurship, worker cooperatives, each their own boss, and authentic products and work. Full unemployment? Doing what? Based on seeking Coca Cola and toy soldiers ? Barbie dolls and Twinkie’s ? Let’s get real !
You know your description is a full employment too right?
@@fachriranu1041 yes, but in a different sense. let's say that 10 people own a co-op selling wheat grass juice. as demand fluctuates, or as their technology (capital) improves, or as crops succeed or fail, the workers adjust accordingly. no one is laid off, they simply redistribute profits and work hours and leisure time as fluctuating circumstances dictate. they may agree on a desired profit goal and work the amount of time according to this goal. now, let's say they are in a social network of co-ops (selling other sustainable necessary goods), this "shiftability" is also beneficial as operational within the macro-economy. (the mother company franchise). unemployment is eliminated because the "work day time standard" flexes with all other variables. a frozen 9-5 standard for all leaves workers out of work when the company fails. I argue that this is one (of a few) major factors in high unemployment, arbitrary rules of work time standards. but this is an unfinished dissertation in the works, so I will leave it there. there are many other factors that I outline but need more clarity.
@@abcrane we can eliminate unemployment with job guarantee then shift mode of production to coop like you describe with job guarantee scheme still intact for safety net. I think thats a more realistic way to get what you want.
@@fachriranu1041 great point. in your schemata, to exemplify: let us say in a town of 1000 people, 600 work standard jobs under "job guarantee scheme." 400 who worked in this scheme then launch the co-ops (combined in the franchise *I spell out the functions and benefits of the franchise in book). the franchise "fees" are then rolled into funding more co-ops. 200 folks are brought into the franchise as worker-owners of their own shops. again, fees are rolled into launch for more. now, let us say that these folks prefer a simple lifestyle and to only buy what they need and what is healthy for self and natural environment. HERE is where Keynes economy of thrift is no longer a threat to the economy, but an asset. HERE is where Keynes "stimulation of spending/demand is not only arbitrary, but counterproductive. (we all do benefit his roads and highways, but that's another topic) for the workers in those standard jobs, they need a Keynes program as safety net. In the immediate circumstance, Keynes was a savior of many. But in the long haul, his concepts engendered a dependent mass, dependent on both the whimsical nature of aggregate demand and government hand outs. the franchise does make provisions for those unable to work due to disability, but via its prosperity, not its poverty. work in progress, thank you for this!
@@abcrane because everyone always have job wether it is private firm job or coop job or gov job (JG scheme) there are always standart lower bound of Agregate Demand.