Coase and Wang on capitalism in China

by on November 14, 2012 at 2:54 pm in Books, Current Affairs, Economics, Uncategorized | Permalink

Nick Schulz does the interview.  After they discuss the topic, here is one bit toward the end:

We are now working with the University of Chicago Press to launch a new journal, Man and the Economy. We chose our title carefully to signal the mission of the new journal, which is to restore economics to a study of man as he is and of the economy as it actually exists. We hope this new journal will provide a platform to encourage scholars all over the world to study how the economy works in their countries. We believe this is the only way to make progress in economics.

For the pointer I thank David Levey.

Alan November 14, 2012 at 2:59 pm

“Man and the Economy”? “People and the Economy” would have about double the scope.

conchis November 14, 2012 at 3:35 pm

+1

dcdrone November 14, 2012 at 3:37 pm

Oh for Christ’s sake enough with the white-knighting.

Come on November 14, 2012 at 4:06 pm

No, seriously, it’s not the 1970s anymore.

wiki November 14, 2012 at 6:43 pm

I am certain all these commenters are indignant at all the recent flood of academic papers that use “she” as the general pronoun when discussing random individuals. I’m sure they’re equally incensed that men are excluded by these articles and work hard to lobby the major academic journals to stop these discriminatory practices.

Welcome to the 1970s November 14, 2012 at 10:43 pm

But apparently it is. As the new journal’s editors note: “We chose our title carefully to signal the mission of the new journal, which is to restore economics to a study of man as he is and of the economy as it actually exists.”

clazy November 15, 2012 at 11:17 am

ba da boom

Victoria Rivero November 14, 2012 at 4:32 pm

Why “man”?

And women?

TuringTest November 14, 2012 at 6:29 pm

How about “human and nonhuman animals and the economy”?

maguro November 14, 2012 at 7:21 pm

That’s “womyn”.

Libby November 15, 2012 at 12:50 am

How about The Human Economy? Much catchier in my opinion.

GiT November 15, 2012 at 12:58 am

Humanity and Economy, perhaps?

Norman November 15, 2012 at 10:29 am

+1

clazy November 15, 2012 at 11:18 am

Oh the humanity

Careless November 15, 2012 at 5:03 pm

Catchier, perhaps, but it’s a term with baggage that they would avoid.

BetasGonnaBeta November 14, 2012 at 4:42 pm

For the love of god cut the beta pc crap. Man and the male pronoun have been used in gender neutral fashion since for fucking ever.

Michelle November 14, 2012 at 9:40 pm

And this argument makes sense because we should never change a tradition, even if it doesn’t make sense today? Got it.

Steve M November 14, 2012 at 10:26 pm

How about going back to the Anglo-Saxon? “Man” as unsexed, “Sword Man” as male. It would seem a less bad change than using the vilely Latinate “Person” everywhere.

Cliff November 14, 2012 at 11:53 pm

Why doesn’t it make sense today? It has always meant the same thing. It’s not a “tradition”, it’s just a word.

GiT November 15, 2012 at 1:00 am

For the love of God cut the alpha/beta crap, you Epsilon.

JVM November 15, 2012 at 7:22 pm

For the love of god cut the beta pc crap. Exclusion of women in discourse has been universal since for fucking ever.

FTFY

Millian November 16, 2012 at 3:05 pm

It’s OK behaviour because it’s old?

A pro-slavery newsbook in the 1850s is looking for its lost propagandist…

David Bley November 14, 2012 at 4:51 pm

Isn’t about time that we started approaching the economy as a system that serves the needs of humankind rather than this darwinian entity that has a mind of its own. Our founding fathers did it with government, why cannot we do the same? Ours certainly does not serve anyone it seems to me.

j r November 14, 2012 at 5:25 pm

What are you talking about? Who exactly treats the economy as a “darwinian entity.” And more importantly, what exactly is a darwinian entity?

Matt November 14, 2012 at 8:18 pm

The founding fathers approached government as a Darwinian entity. That was Madison’s point in the Federalist Papers, at least.

Claudia November 14, 2012 at 6:50 pm

My complaint with the title has nothing to do with the gender bias but the unclear connection between the two objects. Maybe “Our Economy” would make their point more clearly. I understand an economy to be the complex sum of human actions and interactions (past, present, and future). Sure the sum can be greater than the parts (woo hoo macro), but it is not an independent “it.” Alternately the economic equivalent of “Musician and the Concert” might do the trick. Maybe this meaning in the title is clear to the authors, but it needs to be clear to the audience too. What makes me really scratch my head though is that I was under the impression that several economic journals were already interested in “how the economy works.” Learn something here everyday.

freethinker November 14, 2012 at 7:30 pm

I went through some issues of JEL, Journal of Economic Perspectives and JPE. All of them deal with issues of importance to people … or to “Man” . It is claimed that the new journal will study the economy as it “actually exists”. But The Real World Economic Review already claims to do that. Moreover, there is a methodological problem in the claim about studying something as it really exists since we perceive the economy through a paradigm. The different schools of thought differ about “what actually exists” in the economy. So do the editors mean they will study what actually exists according to their paradigm? Or will the journal be a forum for diverse viewpoints?

John B. November 14, 2012 at 10:50 pm

If I understand it well, it means you want to take economy back from the world of mathematical equations to the social science sphere. Well, that sounds pretty well, because as we can see, theory of the Economy is not working in the real life, because it is constantly treating human beings as a rationally thinking individuals who behave only in order with their incentives, which are not well defined. We have to understand, that current economy is just a fight between low taxes-high taxes. Each one of the concepts is correct if you implement him well. But they both try to avoid the human factor in the play. The institutions are not well designed and it produces more and more confusion. The current fight against the global economic crisis is just one example of this problem.

Libby November 15, 2012 at 12:38 am

“Man and the Economy”? You do realize this is the 21st century right? Are you listening to songs from the Hit Parade and driving an automobile?

Ray Lopez November 15, 2012 at 1:56 pm

I am deeply offended by your trivialization of this important issue.

Baphomet November 15, 2012 at 3:31 am

Murray Rothbard wrote a thick book with a similar title, I seem to remember. I have high hopes for this.

Paul November 17, 2012 at 2:36 pm

What’s the better alternative? People and the Economy? Persons and the Economy? Nope.

WalkerW November 29, 2012 at 8:45 am

Second definition on Dictionary.com:

“Man – a member of the species Homo sapiens or all the members of this species collectively, without regard to sex: prehistoric man.”

I guess I didn’t see this as an issue of traditional gender bias as much as I simply saw it as a recognized definition.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: