Political economy seeks to avoid the set of standard assumptions that limit the scope of neoclassical and neoliberal economic thinking (see separate entries) that bias that discipline towards the promotion of capitalism (see separate entry) and capitalist market systems, which bias both inherit from classical economics (see separate entry).
So the entire aim is to build summat that ignores all the things that folk have found out about the subject? Even the classical? Marx is out then?
Because political economy does not necessarily assume that optimal structures for society exist but is instead concerned with the reconciliation of the multiple claims and influences that exist on resources within an economy and how they might be reconciled it almost invariably promotes solutions that differ to those commonplace in positive economics (see separate entry) and associated neoclassical and neoliberal thinking where the achievement of a state of optimality described as equilibrium is the goal. As a consequence, political economy has a bias shared with normative economics (see separate entry) meaning that recommendations as to the way in which equitable outcomes within society can be created are the most likely focus of its work.
Political economy concentrates upon equitable outcomes? Isn’t that rather biasing the definition?
As a definition of what Lord Spudcup thinks he’s doing it might be rather accurate. Ignore everyone with a clue and drive to a predetermined end point.
Does he have a definition of “equitable”?
Is it possible for anyone to read these sentences and not come to the conclusion that the writer is a drivelling idiot who writes clumsy, meaningless garbage?
Diogenes
Agreed, the idiot transfers his capacity for interminable, impenetrable and unpunctuated sentences into definitions in a glossary (definition – a brief dictionary). However, at least no sign of any Murphy clichés as yet, such as candidly or staggering.
What the fuck was that self-indulgent word salad?
We lean towards markets for economic exchanges because they reflect (mostly) how the world actually is and how people interact at the micro level. Nobody had to design the market economy, it essentially just evolved that way and has done for thousands of years – before currency even existed.
ChatGPT would do much to improve the tuberous blog. For one thing there would be greater consistency and fewer literals and it should be a doddle to incorporate essential stylistic hallmarks like “candidly” and “that was your final comment here”.
The only potential snag is training the AI to write “thirteenthly” but once that niggle is addressed there can be more quality time spent with the train set unless there should be a bugle call from Hollyrood for the McMurphy of Solanum.
I like the idea that political economy excludes the likes of Adam Smith, David Ricardo or J.S Mill in favour of a no name ignoramus obscurantist from Ely. Very nice.
I would say this, though, as the great ‘Bis’ (Bloke in Spain) points out – it is Murphy’s world. We just live in it. The number of memos and seminars/events I have at work emphasizing ‘equity’ means his word salad:
As a consequence, political economy has a bias shared with normative economics (see separate entry) meaning that recommendations as to the way in which equitable outcomes within society can be created are the most likely focus of its work.
Might be more in tune with the current ruling classes’ vision of the future than any of us….
It’s like the people who assert what “democracy” means and give a series of policy outcomes, rather than the correct meaning, the process by which the policies are chosen. It’s like asserting that “AC” means “what makes lights come on”.
I was wrong.Sunday won’t be ‘I’ve created a whole new form of economics that just happens to require me to be in charge of everything’ day, thats now moved up to today. Sunday will instead be ‘Tax the rich because they’ve got more money than me and I don’t like them’ day. Sorry for the mix up.
“…concerned with the reconciliation of the multiple claims and influences that exist on resources within an economy and how they might be reconciled … ”
Except he reconciles this as “The State should appropriate whatever it wants to and fuck you”.
The man is downright evil.
Geoffers
The most accurate statement made yet. He is as close to pure evil as anything I have encountered.
“@V-P
He is as close to pure evil as anything I have encountered.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qw1hcevmdU
More evil than evil?
I actually admire the guys work as a con artist. Hes as thick as pig shit, every day he demonstrates his lack of knowledge about any subject he opines on, yet somehow has passed himself off as an economist and conned his way to grants and a professorship. He’s found his marks and empties their wallets. Even got the mugs on his blog to buy him a load of apple tech last week. Nice hustle there, you fat potato
I don’t know what meds he’s on, I don’t approve of them, and I want some.
It’s been years since I hallucinated at that level.
Why was his gig cancelled? Is Scotland in mourning? Is the saltire flying at half mast? Are jockinese transvestite rapists donning widow’s weeds?
Presumably the model train controller will get paid for his no show. Not his fault, after all.
Andrew C
That clip did being back some happy memories – of course, act in haste, repent at leisure and all that.
However, his rapacity and basically criminality (in that he now just wants to seize assets) are a direct threat to me and my family. He shows no empathy or remorse indeed he was described in a film:
‘Listen, and understand
That potato is out there..
It can’t be bargained with or reasoned with.
It doesn’t feel pity or remorse or fear!
And it absolutely will not stop, ever
Until you are dead’
Got to love Nick Nairn (celebrity chef, no me neither) keeping his place on the Debate Scotland panel, but Richard Murphy (very important economic justice grifter) being told he’s no longer invited.
Because Sturgeon is quitting.
To which Richard Murphy says
“BBC Scotland has cancelled the planned broadcast tonight and replaced the *whole* panel with others who will discuss Sturgeon” before later conceding that it was just him the BBC did not want at this time.
Murphy’s version of “Political Economy” seems to be very short on advice on how to produce an *equitable* outcome which must, by the definition of “equitable”, provide greater rewards to those contributing significantly more.