Chris Hayes blogged the emerging dissatisfaction with neo-classical economics among a minority of economists who are described as "heterodox," i.e., applying the tools of economics (as heavily influenced by the neo-classical movement) without ascribing to neo-classicalism as a faith.
This reminds me of a recent dinner party I attended where a guest tried to impress upon me the importance of markets when he exclaimed..."there is even a price for marriage."
He was, of course, technically correct, but to be more precise he should have said something along the lines of, "an economist can create a model (which may or may not empirically track reality) in which she can create a market (which may or may not exist in reality) which will yield an intersection of a supply-demand curve at an optimal point (or some other definition of price).
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Cheney, Trade Sanctions, and Israel
Vice President Cheney spoke at the AIPAC conference yesterday and took it as a chance to cast Democrats who back an anti-war strategy as not supporting the troops. AIPAC used the conference, which Mr. Cheney spoke at for the second year in a row, as a show of its continued power after the trials of its former policy director and Iran expert.
Speaking of Iran...
AIPAC pushed for investment sanctions against Iran at its conference, targeting CalPERS among others. This is where Cheney comes back in.
Cheney spoke on economic sanctions in a 1998 talk at the Cato Institute, largely drawn from his Cato book, Economic Casualties: How U.S. Foreign Policy Undermines Trade, Growth, and Liberty. In that talk, he described unilateral US economic sanctions (his "favorite hobbyhorse") as "ineffective" and "motivated primarily by domestic political considerations, by a desire to respond to pressure from some group or other here at home."
He cited as examples sanctions against Turkey and Azerbaijan. The common denominator: a strong lobby opposed to the policies of those two states.
He explained the sanctions against Turkey quite succinctly; "We sanctioned Turkey because the Greek-American lobby was significantly bigger and more effective than the Turkish-American lobby here at home. That's the sum total of why we did it."
And similarly for Azerbaijan, "now there are sanctions on Azerbaijan. We're not allowed to spend any U.S. government dollars in that country. That's not a response to what we perceive to be sound foreign policy in that part of the world. It's more specifically a reflection of a desire by Congress to respond to the concerns voiced by the Armenian-American community, which is bigger than the Azerbaijani-American community. As a result we currently have a prohibition against U.S. government money being spent in Azerbaijan. "
Now which Middle Eastern country in 2007 has a large, powerful, and active lobby in the United States that is able to influence the US Congress to pass "ineffective" unilateral sanctions?
Speaking of Iran...
AIPAC pushed for investment sanctions against Iran at its conference, targeting CalPERS among others. This is where Cheney comes back in.
Cheney spoke on economic sanctions in a 1998 talk at the Cato Institute, largely drawn from his Cato book, Economic Casualties: How U.S. Foreign Policy Undermines Trade, Growth, and Liberty. In that talk, he described unilateral US economic sanctions (his "favorite hobbyhorse") as "ineffective" and "motivated primarily by domestic political considerations, by a desire to respond to pressure from some group or other here at home."
He cited as examples sanctions against Turkey and Azerbaijan. The common denominator: a strong lobby opposed to the policies of those two states.
He explained the sanctions against Turkey quite succinctly; "We sanctioned Turkey because the Greek-American lobby was significantly bigger and more effective than the Turkish-American lobby here at home. That's the sum total of why we did it."
And similarly for Azerbaijan, "now there are sanctions on Azerbaijan. We're not allowed to spend any U.S. government dollars in that country. That's not a response to what we perceive to be sound foreign policy in that part of the world. It's more specifically a reflection of a desire by Congress to respond to the concerns voiced by the Armenian-American community, which is bigger than the Azerbaijani-American community. As a result we currently have a prohibition against U.S. government money being spent in Azerbaijan. "
Now which Middle Eastern country in 2007 has a large, powerful, and active lobby in the United States that is able to influence the US Congress to pass "ineffective" unilateral sanctions?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)