Weitere Kapitel dieses Buchs durch Wischen aufrufen
We start with a review of the basic ideas of some important economists as given in Chap. 2. Economies exist independently of how we perceive or choose to study them. For more or less accidental reasons, we have chosen over the past 140 years to consider and study economics as a social science. The present social science focus, however, was not particularly the case with earlier economists, before, say, 1880, who were more likely to ask «where does wealth come from?» than are most mainstream economists today. In general, these earlier economists started their economic analysis with the natural biophysical world, probably simply because they had common sense but also because they deemed inadequate the perspective of earlier mercantilists who had emphasized sources of wealth as «treasure» (e.g., precious metals) derived from mining or trade or plunder. In the first formal school of economics, the French physiocrats (e.g., Quesnay 1758; see Christensen [1, 2]) focused on land as the basis for generating wealth.
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten
Sie möchten Zugang zu diesem Inhalt erhalten? Dann informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:
Christensen, P. 1994. Fire, motion and productivity: The proto-energetics of nature and economy in Francois Quesnay. In Natural images in economic thought, ed. P. Mirowski, 249–288. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRef
———. 1984. Hobbes and the physiological origins of economic science. History of Political Economy 21: 4.
Worrell, Delisle. 2010. Governor of the Central Bank of Barbados, in an address to the Barbados Economic Society (BES) AGM, Bridgetown, 30 June 2010.
Krugman, P. 2009. How did economists get it so wrong? Editorial New York Times 2: 2009.
Henrich, J., et al. 2001. Cooperation, reciprocity and punishment in fifteen small-scale societies. American Economic Review 91: 73–78. CrossRef
Hall, C., D. Lindenberger, R. Kummel, T. Kroeger, and W. Eichhorn. 2001. The need to reintegrate the natural sciences with economics. Bioscience 51 (6): 663–673. CrossRef
Hall, C., and J. Gowdy. 2007. Does the emperor have any clothes? An overview of the scientific critiques of neoclassical economics. In Making world development work: Scientific alternatives to neoclassical economics, ed. G. LeClerc and C.A.S. Hall, pp 3–12. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Gowdy, J. 2001. “Economics Interactions with Other Disciplines,” theme article Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems, UNESCO, Paris.
Hall, C. 1991. An idiosyncratic assessment of the role of mathematical models in environmental sciences. Environment International 17: 507–517. CrossRef
Friedman, M. 1955. Essays in positive economics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
John McMurtry, J. 1999. The cancer stage of capitalism. London: Pluto Books.
Cox, Adam. 2010. Blame Nobel for crisis, says author of ‘Black Swan’, Reuters (2010-09-28).
Taleb, N. N. 2007. The pseudo-science hurting markets (PDF).
Johansson, D. 2004. Economics without entrepreneurship or institutions: A vocabulary analysis of graduate textbooks (PDF). Economic Journal Watch 1 (3): 515–538.
Sutter, D., and R. Pjesky. 2007. Where would Adam Smith publish today? The near absence of math-free research in top journals. Economic Journal Watch 4 (2): 230–240.
Hall, C.A.S., P.D. Matossian, C. Ghersa, J. Calvo, and C. Olmeda. 2001. Is the Argentine National Economy being destroyed by the department of economics of the University of Chicago? In Advances in energy studies, ed. S. Ulgaldi, M. Giampietro, R.A. Herendeen, and K. Mayumi, pp 483–498. Padova: Argentine Economy.
Mirowski, P. 1984. More heat than light. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Easterly, W. 2001. The elusive quest for growth: Economists’ adventures and misadventures in the tropics. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Piketty, T. 2013. Capital in the twenty first century. (English edition, 2014, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
Sekera, J. 2016. The public economy in crisis: A call for a new public economics. New York: Springer. CrossRef
Hall, C.A.S., and K. Klitgaard. 2006. The need for a new, biophysical-based paradigm in economics for the second half of the age of oil. Journal of Transdisciplinary Research 1 (1): 4–22.
- Is Economics a Science? Social or Biophysical?
Charles A. S. Hall