tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2556307309509108391.post194025217063517924..comments2023-02-14T08:32:05.734-04:00Comments on The Economics Anti-Textbook: AntiTexterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17975559825072265469noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2556307309509108391.post-53842346403924908872017-12-29T15:54:39.237-04:002017-12-29T15:54:39.237-04:00Thank you for that comment. By coincidence, I rece...Thank you for that comment. By coincidence, I recently read some short essays along these lines, one of which referred to Gaffney. <br /><br />http://evonomics.com/josh-ryan-collins-land-economic-theory/ <br />http://evonomics.com/why-laissez-faire-lovers-are-anti-capitalists/ <br /><br />This Evonomics site has many interesting essays.AntiTexterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17975559825072265469noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2556307309509108391.post-67126722796669034422017-12-25T13:24:42.863-04:002017-12-25T13:24:42.863-04:00«Kwak singles out the Austrians, von Mieses and Ha...«<i>Kwak singles out the Austrians, von Mieses and Hayek, and Milton Friedman and some of his University of Chicago colleagues. He should have included James Buchanan</i>»<br /><br />Thanks to M Gaffney, an "original neoclassicist" I have become aware that a really major sabotage of political economy studies was done by one person in particular, JB Clar, who worked tirelessly to expunge from neoclassical models the notion of "land", inherited from the classical political economists, by confusing into a general notion of "capitalness". As M Gaffney documents, this was done for purely political reasons, to eliminate from Economics the notion of "land rent" and thus foil the arguments of Henry George and others.<br /><br />Mason Gaffney amusingly makes this criticism from an "orthodox" point of view, as his argument is that "orthodox" neoclassical theory has always treated "land" explicitly, and the work of JB Clark has been a betrayal of "orthodox" Economics to dissemble the exploitation of capitalists by landowners.<br /><br />http://www.masongaffney.org/publications/K1Neo-classical_Stratagem.CV.pdf<br />http://www.masongaffney.org/publications/K2008_Keeping_Land_in_Capital_Theory.pdf<br /><br />https://www.amazon.com/dp/0856832448<br />“Condemning the post-industrial economy to protracted periods of economic failure, this thought-provoking book documents how the integrity of economics as a discipline was deliberately compromised in the United States towards the end of the 19th century. Several chairs of economics were funded at leading universities to rebrand economics to justify unearned income. The tools for this strategy became neo-classical economics, and, unlike classical economists like Adam Smith who described wealth as the product of three factors—land, labor, and capital—the new theorists reduced these to two: labor and capital, thus treating land as capital. This concealed the benefits enjoyed by those in receipt of the rent from land.”<br /><br /><br />http://www.masongaffney.org/essays/Four_vampires_of_capital.pdf<br />http://www.masongaffney.org/workpapers/How_a_Land_Boom_Destroys_Capital_10_2005.pdf<br />http://www.masongaffney.org/publications/C9Land_Distinctive_Factor.CV.pdfBlissexnoreply@blogger.com