Comments on: Elite appropriation of economics – the case for (r)evolutionary political economy

By: Stephen I. Ternyik

Stephen I. Ternyik — Sun, 05 Jun 2016 15:37:42 +0000

In reply to Deniz Kellecioglu. Dear Deniz ! Many thanks for clarifying your literary intention for potential readers. Best: stephen

By: Deniz Kellecioglu

Deniz Kellecioglu — Sun, 05 Jun 2016 11:07:38 +0000

In reply to Stephen I. Ternyik. Dear Stephen, thank you for your comments. However, I am not able to understand the second part of your comments. This is because I do not use any of the terms in quotation marks, and do not promote "scientific economics". My account aims to outline a more modest but practical agenda for economic methodology. Science can be interpreted in so many ways. I do not share the classic and strict understanding of science promoted by for instance Karl Popper. My stance in the paper is more open-ended, while emphasising an emancipatory approach to conduct economics. I hope this clarifies for potential readers.

By: Stephen I. Ternyik

Stephen I. Ternyik — Sat, 04 Jun 2016 22:23:32 +0000

In reply to Gerson P. Lima.

The mentioned politics of money bends the arc of economic distribution towards the ‘rentier elite’ and curbs overall human productivity, in terms of capital growth (lower wages/higher rents) ; your idea of a research group on real world demand/supply sounds very interesting, in terms of ’emancipatory economics’. I will read deeper into your paper, to better understand the guiding economic formulae. Deniz seems to aim at participatory economics which is very close to your empirical arguments on ‘new tools’ (for an age old ‘cake’ problem).

By: Gerson P. Lima

Gerson P. Lima — Fri, 03 Jun 2016 19:13:43 +0000

Deniz, I share with you the idea that “the most powerful misappropriate economics mainly through their political, economic and ethical power, together with allied economists” and commanded by central banks´ shareholders. I also agree with Stephen Ternyik that “they will not take the whole cake home if economic science will be applied”. Accordingly, in my Conference paper I estimated the aggregate supply and demand of the United Stated and demonstrated that the monetary policy may be at the root of this misappropriation for it causes GDP to fall (= less employment and lower workers´ wages) and prices to raise (= more capitalists´ rent).
My point is that we need a new economic science that heterodox economists agree with and that this new science must be tested against the real world. The starting point of this new economic science seems to be a Real World Supply and Demand Theory that allows for the measure of the economic policy performance. I hope that a dependable real world economic theory will allow us to think about replacing the fake manipulated neoclassical doctrine that states the supply and demand interaction as a device that assures economic equilibrium at “best” situations, thus leaving room for the deleterious monetary policy. I think that perhaps the present prejudice against the notion of supply and demand may be seen as one of the “factors that obstruct or construct (r)evolutions in economics”. By the way, mainstream monetarist economics produced a lot of prejudices we must face and abolish.

By: Stephen I. Ternyik

Stephen I. Ternyik — Fri, 03 Jun 2016 10:05:13 +0000

This is a very (!) information-rich (****) paper and it points to the right direction of research: emancipatory vs. non-emancipatory economics. The reference to Singapore (p.18) and similar land-value taxations systems (e.g. HK) clearly demonstrates that free economic activity can not be equated with our current ‘rentier economics’. In short, I support the intention of the author to move ‘professional economics’ to ‘scientific economics’, i.e. a science that it worth its name and ‘stands on common ground’. To be more precise, the rentier and the speculator will receive their fair share of the ‘social product’, because we need them to point to systemic mal-functions. However, if economic science will be applied, ‘they will not take the whole cake home’.