I'm taking an advanced grad seminar in political economics and inequality as of next week and these are the 3 books...

I'm taking an advanced grad seminar in political economics and inequality as of next week and these are the 3 books we'll be reading (plus i would assume other articles which the prof hasn't sent yet.)

What should I expect from a class like this? According to his short bio one of his main interests seem to be neo-Keynesian political economic policies.

Attached: The_Price_of_Inequality.jpg (332x499 68.57 KB, 27.32K)

Other urls found in this thread:

archive.fo/Twr2c).
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

The book by Reich contains a section called "attack of the cyber stalinists" which opposes cockshott thought. I'd recommend you shilling /ourguy/ as much as possible if there is discussion of that section. Also consider reading Shaikh's magnum opus and using that as ammo in the class. PDF attached.

It's afraid

Attached: communism what it looks like45.jpg (800x435, 120.49K)

Re-read that second book's title.

Shilling for neoliberalism and capitalism with a human face

Attached: 2564278e9d223aba2b353356ce562799.406x406x1.jpg (406x406, 38.57K)

SocDems wailing about the post-war boom.

Keynesians actually tend to vocally oppose neoliberalism. That's the best way they've found to appear like an alternative without having to actually criticize capitalism.

For those unfamiliar with Reich, his chronological bibliography is pottery.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (859x439, 38.13K)

KEK

ScotCyberSocSquad is coming.

Attached: 9545d9afcbc036ed2fce5dbbe2a2194e47a6f672d067db44e054b778c684799a.jpg (657x960, 188.06K)

That was Paul Mason (also discussed in this thread: archive.fo/Twr2c).

Welp,my mistake.

What sort of arguments to expect from Keyesians??

I hate the two liberal takes on capitalism.
Microeconomic, neoclassical libshits (basically neoliberals) believe in the based individual and that everything is wrong because of the government.
Macroeconomic, Keynesian libshits believe that everything is wrong because the government didn't watch the people carefully enough.
Such a big crock of shit, it is unreal.

Attached: 1476682890157.jpg (640x539, 72.5K)

Has anybody read Capital in the 21st Century? Isn't the conclusion literally just the same as marxists have been saying, that there are internal contradictions within capitalism that cause tension between the property owning class and the workers? Why is everyone all of a sudden JUST beginning to accept this?

what are their critiques of cockshott if i may ask?

Expect myopic focus on "inequality" and "rising incomes" and no mention of climate change.

In his mind capital is synonymous with the wealth of the wealthy. It isn't a mode of production, more of a law of nature that capital produces profit.

I thought capitalism was a mode of production and that capital is "wealth" which has the function of increasing its own growth? Like money with the purpose of making more money, and capitalism is just the mode which this mechanism inhabits.

Is that actually what they believe?

Piketty's Capital is probably really bad from what I heard, he mixes up stocks and flows. Yanis Varoufakis wrote a negative review about it.

he's not a marxist. anything that's said by a declared marxist will be silenced, swept under the rug, ridiculed, or ignored, regardless of the content. he on the other hand remains in the media's realm of "acceptability".

i didn't say he's a marxist i just meant to say that, well isn't he just pointing out what we've been saying this whole fucking time?

neo-keynesian or new keynesian? most neo-keynesians are dead. Samuelson was a neo-keyneisan, Stiglitz etc are new keynesians. Basically you will encounter a social democrat and he will inform you that capitalism is solvable by the state. The most effective weapon against this sort of idea is actually not left wing economics but a critique of the state. Mention that the state cannot act in the general interest of people when it is instrumentalized by the bourgeoisie.