[Previous] [Main Index] [Next]

Friday, May 21, 2010

THE IDEOLOGICALLY CHARGED THEORETICAL DEBATE BETWEEN ADVOCATES OF FREE-MARKETS VS. THE ADVOCATES OF GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS, TAXES, AND DISTRIBUTIVE POLICIES

Today's Buggy Topic . . . 

As it stands, is misleading.  The chief reason?  You see, after posting a lengthy analysis of free-market New Classical theoretical work about the self-regulating, self-adjusting nature of free-markets --- as worked out mainly in the last 40 years or so by University of Chicago economists, from Milton Friedman on (many f them winners of Nobel Prizes) --- prof bug had to finish a different project and then moved on to start posting at Economist's View in more recent threads there.  

So what you'll find if you click here will be only half of what the subject-title says, the other half --- worked out in macroeconomics by New Keynesians of all sorts, along with a fair amount of work recently in microeconomics  by Nobel Prize winning economists like Daniel Kahneman, George A. Akerlof, A. Michael Spence, Joseph E. Stiglitz --- missing, alas.  No help for it, not at any rate as long as the buggy prof is under some relentless pressure of time. 

Something Else is Missing Too

Originally, after laying out the basic theoretical beliefs of both sides in the dispute --- whether markets are self-adjusting and self-regulating with at most short-term market failures, or whether those failures (plus the degree of income inequality) can be corrected by government regulations and redistributive policies without harming economic efficiency and growth rates in productivity and per capital income --- prof bug had hoped to compare the strengths and weaknesses of each side in the debate. 

Who knows?  Maybe in the future.