This is interesting news

Political economy is related to economics, of course, but it is a much more useful field of study for two fundamental reasons. One is that it adds money into the normal field of study when most theoretical macroeconomics and quite a lot of microeconomics simply ignores it.

Does it? Will come as something of a surprise to the monetarists among others…..

14 thoughts on “This is interesting news”

  1. I would have thought the past couple of years has conclusively shown that political economics is an oxymoron.

  2. I find the word “aggression” triggering.

    But then the word “trigger” makes me feel unsafe.

    And then …

    There is no end to the bedwetting.

  3. This tweet takes the cake (and I saw it on his sidebar)

    Things Labour has to talk about to win:

    – Relationships with the EU
    – Proportional representation
    – Restoring public services
    – The Green New Deal
    – Transforming savings and pensions to provide funding for the investment we need
    – Scotland

    Might we start soon, please?

    If I were in Tory HQ this would be my dream list of issues for Labour to focus on – with the possible exception of #3, and that’s only because of their total inadequacy, all have absolutely zero relevance to most of England outside Murphy’s febrile group of lunatics.

  4. I’ve often looked globally to see the ‘inspiration’ behind his ‘thinking’ (if his wittering dignifies that title) and come to the conclusion that the closest state to his ‘vision’ is North Korea

    This excerpt from the post seems to me to suggest that the state ought to both mandate how you are employed and ration the goods you consume? Can you draw any other conclusion?

    The bigger issue in that case is whether or not society in the UK now wishes to change the balance of reward within our economy. We already know that we face the most fundamental economic changes because of climate change. This will challenge the allocation of many rewards within society, but that will also be happening within the context of a society that for decades has been moved from productive added value work to unproductive speculation, and from meeting need (housing, education, health and social care, transport, etc.) into the pointless and economically reckless production of artificial wants that only advertising can stimulate demand for (excess consumption, ever more complicated mobile phones and cars, most of whom features we never use but which we own to project our own perception of our status in society, etc) that in turn trash the environment.

    When you read this tortuously written, hastily typed crap, then I am reminded of documentaries I have seen or indeed books I have read about the secretive Asian dictatorship. Total control of all economic aspects according to the state’s vision of ‘productive work’, strict limits on consumption and no private advertising permitted. It’s a regime that subjects are willing to risk the imprisonment of their entire families and swim across a ten mile river while starving to escape. Quite a vision. As he says:

    ‘If only more people thought like me the world would be a better place’

  5. Dennis, Pointing Out The Obvious

    I’ve often looked globally to see the ‘inspiration’ behind his ‘thinking’ (if his wittering dignifies that title) and come to the conclusion that the closest state to his ‘vision’ is North Korea

    I think Kim Jong-un is a bit too neoliberal for Murphy’s taste.

    Actually, the closest state to his vision would be Heaven, with him being God.

  6. Dennis

    This sentence has genuinely made my coffee come out of my nostrils when I drank it and read simultaneously – sheer genius

    I think Kim Jong-un is a bit too neoliberal for Murphy’s taste.

    The hilarious thing is I can imagine him writing that very sentence…

  7. “most theoretical macroeconomics and quite a lot of microeconomics simply ignores it”

    Quite a breathtaking assertion, even from someone with Spud’s level of ignorance. What, after all is the title of Keynes’s book about economics? Did David Hume not contribute a theory of the quantity of money in the 1750s? Has he not heard of Milton Friedman or monetarism or the whole Chicago School?

  8. ‘Actually, the closest state to his vision would be Heaven, with him being God.’

    That does seem to apply to an awful lot of people Dennis.

  9. “I think Kim Jong-un is a bit too neoliberal for Murphy’s taste.”

    I’m fairly sure that in the fallout from his break-up with Corbyn, Murphy did at one point accuse the People’s Jeremy of being insufficiently left-wing…

  10. When it comes down to it this blog is all about political economy.

    This is taken from the Encyclopedia Britannica definition of ‘political economy’

    ‘political economy – branch of social science that studies the relationships between individuals and society and between markets and the state, using a diverse set of tools and methods drawn largely from economics, political science, and sociology. The term political economy is derived from the Greek polis, meaning “city” or “state,” and oikonomos, meaning “one who manages a household or estate.” Political economy thus can be understood as the study of how a country—the public’s household—is managed or governed, taking into account both political and economic factors.’

    So in a technical sense he does pontificate on these matters. Despite almost zero knowledge of economics and political science he does attempt to postulate on this topic. But you’d be better off going to the local secure mental institution to get insight to be frank.

  11. Market economists and Tory politicians would say they should just go and get another job in that case. But that’s just naive because what it assumes is that there is no cost to transitioning between jobs for either employees or employers when that is very obviously not the case.

    Whereas under policies like ‘The Green New Deal’ and the forthcoming changes to lifestyle he advocates across his myriad screeds the changes can be accommodated with absolutely no issue or resistance?

    As a result, what they also do is massively undervalue human capital. Much of Grant Shapps’ rhetoric around this issue certainly suggests that he has no awareness at all of the importance of people within the railway industry.

    Owning a model railway suddenly makes him an expert on this topic. By contrast to Shapps, his dismissal of an entire industry which is one of the leading providers of his beloved tax in the UK and his move to ban anyone from that industry commenting on his blog of course shows he appreciates ‘human capital’ to an extraordinary degree.

    As more than a couple of people commenting here have rightly said previously – ‘What a truly evil C%^& he is’

  12. It seems he has invented frictional unemployment, which no orthodox economist has ever written about

  13. The production function has been a powerful instrument of miseducation. The student of economic theory is taught to write Q = f(L, K) where L is a quantity of labor, K a quantity of capital and Q a rate of output of commodities. He is instructed to assume all workers alike, and to measure L in man-hours of labor; he is told something about the index-number problem in choosing a unit of output; and then he is hurried on to the next question, in the hope that he will forget to ask in what units K is measured. Before he ever does ask, he has become a professor, and so sloppy habits of thought are handed on from one generation to the next.

    Joan Robinson

    Does monetarism simply ignore this basic problem?

Leave a Reply

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