Suchergebnisse

Intro -- Contents -- Introduction. The Argument in Brief -- Part I. Economics Is in Scientific Trouble -- Chapter 1. An Antique, Unethical, and Badly Measured Behaviorism Doesn't Yield Good Economic Science or Good Politics -- Chapter 2. Economics Needs to Get Serious about Measuring the Economy -- Chapter 3. The Number of Unmeasured "Imperfections" Is Embarrassingly Long -- Chapter 4. Historical Economics Can Measure Them, Showing Them to Be Small -- Chapter 5. The Worst of Orthodox Positivism Lacks Ethics and Measurement -- Part II. Neoinstitutionalism Shares in the Troubles -- Chapter 6. Even the Best of Neoinstitutionalism Lacks Measurement -- Chapter 7. And "Culture," or Mistaken History, Will Not Repair It -- Chapter 8. That Is, Neoinstitutionalism, Like the Rest of Behavioral Positivism, Fails as History and as Economics -- Chapter 9. As It Fails in Logic and in Philosophy -- Chapter 10. Neoinstitutionalism, in Short, Is Not a Scientific Success -- Part III. Humanomics Can Save the Science -- Chapter 11. But It's Been Hard for Positivists to Understand Humanomics -- Chapter 12. Yet We Can Get a Humanomics -- Chapter 13. And Although We Can't Save Private Max U -- Chapter 14. We Can Save an Ethical Humanomics -- Acknowledgments -- Notes -- Works Cited -- Index.

Intro -- Contents -- Acknowledgements -- Preface: Crossings -- Part One. Donald -- 1. Boy to Man -- 2. Marriage -- 3. Internet -- 4. Proffesor Dressed -- 5. Clubs -- 6. In the Ladies' Room -- 7. Boldness -- 8. Epiphany -- 9. Losing a Family -- 10. Academic Drag -- 11. A Day You Feel Pretty -- 12. Premarin -- 13. Sweet October -- Part Two. Dee -- 14. Outed -- 15. "Welcome -- 16. The Cuckoo's Nest -- 17. Hearing? -- 18. Then Why Are You Doing This? -- 19. Chicago -- 20. Changing -- 21. Sister's Last -- 22. Profesional Girl Economist -- 23. Farewell Speech -- 24. Dutch Welcome -- 25. Dutch Winter -- 26. Passing -- 27. Yes, Ma'am -- Part Three. Deirdre -- 28. Vriendinnetjes -- 29. Women's World -- 30. To Make up for God's Neglect -- 31. Merry May -- 32. Starting -- 33. Finishing -- 34. A Woman on Hormone Replacement Therapy -- 35. Facelift -- 36. This Is How We Live -- 37. Thou Winter Wind -- 38. Homeward -- 39. Costs -- 40. Iowa Drag -- 41. Professoressa -- 42. Second Voice -- 43. Making it Up -- 44. Home -- 45. Differences -- 46. Christ's Mass 1997.

An insightful and passionately written book explaining why a return to Enlightenment ideals is good for the world. The greatest challenges facing humankind, according to Deirdre McCloskey, are poverty and tyranny, both of which hold people back. Arguing for a return to true liberal values, this engaging and accessible book develops, defends, and demonstrates how embracing the ideas first espoused by eighteenth-century philosophers like Locke, Smith, Voltaire, and Wollstonecraft is good for everyone. With her trademark wit and deep understanding, McCloskey shows how the adoption of Enlightenment ideals of liberalism has propelled the freedom and prosperity that define the quality of a full life. In her view, liberalism leads to equality, but equality does not necessarily lead to liberalism-and the fixation of the left on inequality is counterproductive. Liberalism is an optimistic philosophy that depends on the power of rhetoric rather than arms and on ethics, free speech, and facts for us to thrive. -- Provided by publisher

Estamos en guerra, dicen todos los presidentes, los presidentes reflexivos y cuasi liberales como Emmanuel Macron en Francia y Moon Jae-in en Corea, así como los irreflexivos y cuasi fascistas como Donald Trump en Estados Unidos y Viktor Orbán en Hungría. Una guerra terrible. Pero lo peor no es la guerra contra la enfermedad y, como daño colateral, el aplastamiento de la economía, por miserables que sean. La peor parte es la probabilidad de posguerra de un estatismo triunfante, y luego el fascismo al que regularmente da lugar el estatismo triunfante. La enfermedad es para 2020. El fascismo es para siempre. ; We are in a war, say all the presidents, the thoughtful and quasi-liberal presidents such as Emmanuel Macron in France and Moon Jae-in in Korea, as well as the thoughtless and quasi-fascist ones such as Donald Trump in the US and Viktor Orbán in Hungary. A terrible war. But the worst part is not the waritself against the disease and, as collateral damage, the crushing of the economy, wretched though they are. The worst part is the post-War likelihood of a triumphant statism, and then the fascism to which triumphant statism regularly gives rise. The disease is for 2020. The fascism is forever. ; peerReviewed

From 1800 to the present the average person on the planet has been enriched in real terms by a factor of 10, or some 900 percent. In the ever-rising share of places from Belgium to Botswana, and now in China and India, that have agreed to the Bourgeois Deal—"Let me earn profits from creative destruction in the first act, and by the third act I will make all of you rich"—the factor is 30 in conventional terms and, if allowing for improved quality of goods and services, such as in improved glass and autos, or improved medicine and higher education, a factor of 100. That is, the reward from allowing ordinary people to have a go, the rise at first in northwestern Europe and then worldwide of economic liberty and social dignity, eroding ancient hierarchy and evading modern regulation, has been anything from 2,900 to 9,900 percent. What needs to be explained in a modern social science history is not the Industrial Revolution(s) but the Great Enrichment, one or two orders of magnitude larger than any previous change in human history. The article takes seriously the lesson of comparative history that Europe was not unique until 1700 and argues that ideas—specifically Bourgeois liberal ideas—not capital or institutions, made the modern world.

AbstractI reply to amiable criticisms by Greif, Mokyr, Langlois, Lawson, and Tabellini of my own criticism of neo-institutionalism. They say that 'culture' is included in neo-institutionalism – which is mistaken on any serious definition of culture, such as those involving ethics, rhetoric, ideology, and ideas. They also say that neo-institutionalism has advanced beyond Max U and Samuelsonian economics. That's also mistaken. They do not attend to the humanities, which as 'humanomics' can indeed acknowledge 'culture' and non-Max U. Their particular historical examples show the opposite of what they think is shown. Ideas, rhetoric, ethics changed, and had to change, before institutions mattered.

Abstract'Institutions' do not mean the same thing to Samuelsonian economists as they mean to other people. North's 'rules of game', like chess, dominates, even when it is claimed that 'informal institutions' are allowed into the tale. The tale is that institutions were once clotted, and then became unclotted, and the Great Enrichment occurred. But the enrichment was by a factor of upwards of a hundred, which cannot be explained by routine movements to an efficient equilibrium. And changes of institutions did not in fact happen much in England. Ethics changed, not laws and procedures. For presently poor countries, too, it will not suffice, as the World Bank and Acemoglu recommend, to add institutions and stir. Economies rely on ethics, which neo-institutionalists, being at heart Samuelsonian, have not wanted to admit. Ideas matter. Indeed, metaphors and stories matter, as in Searle's account.

Capitalism has raised living standards worldwide by a thousandfold. Societies that respect innovation and entrepreneurship can expect more of the same.

The Great Recession is not the end of capitalism. An innovative economy makes mistakes, but that is not a good reason to regulate it out of its innovations. The innovations -- not unions or regulation -- have increased real income per head by a factor of 100 in the places that have adopted bourgeois liberty and dignity. An innovative economy is "rhetorical" because if our economic lives are not frozen by tradition, we must persuade each other what is to be done, "Rhetoric," of course, is the ancient word for unforced persuasion. Samuelsonian economics, which is the usual kind, ignores words, persuasion, rhetoric. Yet one quarter of national income in a modern economy is earned from "sweet talk." Discovery, which Austrian economists like Schumpeter and Kirzner emphasize, depends on rhetoric and the rhetoric depends on ethics. Realist political philosophy, and agency theory in business schools, miss the ethical foundations of our lives. Adapted from the source document.