Almost Classical

I tell my students, learn to tell a story about economics, not merely to report statistics. This is why: Taking On Adam Smith (and Karl Marx) - NYTimes.com : Academic economics is so focused on getting the econometrics and the statistical interpolation technique correct, he said, “you don’t really think, you don’t dare to ask the big questions.” American economists too often narrow the questions they examine to those they can answer, “but sometimes the questions are not that interesting,” he said. “Trying to write a real book that could speak to everyone meant I could not choose my questions. I had to take the important issues in a frontal manner — I could not escape.”  He hated the insularity of the economics department. So he decided to write large, a book he considers as much history as economics, and one that is constructed to lead the general reader by the hand. He is also not afraid of literature, finding inspiration in the descriptions of society in the realist novels ...

Jeremy Bentham, by Henry William Pickersgill (died 1875). See source website for additional information. (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) I disagree with Peter Singer on most ethical measures, and this is no exception… Heartwarming causes are nice, but let’s give to charity with our heads - The Washington Post The notion that we can measure what is "right" using a form of ethical calculus dates back to at least Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) and the Principle of Utility. Bentham argued there are seven variables to consider when judging the "best" choice: Intensity of pleasure. Duration of pleasure. Certainty of consequences. Propinquity (proximity, nearness) of pleasure.  Fecundity (abundance) of pleasure. Purity of pleasure. Extent and scope of pleasure for others.  Singer takes things in the direction of Marx, with the needs of the (desirable and productive) many outweighing individual choice of happiness. For Singer, like the Progressives of the Wilson...

Profit. Wealth. Return. "Success." The most troubling trend among "libertarian" organizations and vocal "proponents" of libertarianism and classical liberalism is a near-worship of money and its accumulation. Too many supposed libertarians confuse "the market" with freedom and liberty. They assume that the market, either the messed-up rigged marketplace we have today or a mythical laissez-faire market, is the foundation of classical liberalism. Usually, these are politicians trying to argue for an ethical system grounded in competitive market theory, or members of think tanks with a vested interest in conflating freedom with markets. The truth is simple: freedom is about the sovereignty of the self. This freedom to make good or bad choices, the right to be whatever you wish to be, does include the potential  to market your ideas and creations, but there is no mandate to participate in a capitalist economy (or crony capitalist or corpora...

This is an extremely long post — this topic is one I feel almost daily since entering academia. I've heard many colleagues discuss the evils of business and capitalism, and then they ask what I did before joining an English Department faculty. I generally omit most of my experiences and focus on my creative writing. Many of us "capitalists" believe there is a gulf between some academic disciplines and the larger community. Outside business schools and some of the sciences, I know my experiences and beliefs will be insulted or dismissed, usually with "respect" and other polite framing that barely masks derision. People wonder why there is such deep division in our culture? We've become entrenched in dichotomies, when life is not binary (except for the ideological extremists, I suppose). Writing instruction and rhetoric in particular seems entangled in political views. We enter this field with the idea of changing something. You don't teach communica...

From The Secular Humanist (paraphrased): Atheists/agnostics are now 18% of U.S. voters, trending center-left and libertarian. "The non-religious are most likely to live in Purple Districts" a study found. Church attendance is equated with "social conservative" in the U.S., but used to be "liberal" (1920s-40s Social Gospel movement). The "far left" is now more likely to be "alternatively spiritual" -- Wicca? Druid? Marxist-Wiccanism. Who knew? I was struck by this finding. Therefore, the two major parties need to pay attention to the non-religious if they want to win future elections. Self-identified "Spiritual and/or religious" people occupy the two political extremes, with some notable exceptions. Yes, there are progressive atheists, but I think many of these are what the author would group with social democrats, not radical socialists or Marxists. Apparently, there are a lot of New Age people on the far left. That would ...