[escepticos] El nuevo Marx que critica el catastrofismo de Karl

[Pedro J. Hdez]

Supongo que están al tanto del libro más famoso del momento.

Capital in the Twenty-First Century por Thomas Piketty

Escrito por un economista francés, el libro se lee más como un ensayo
histórico que como un libro de economía. No esperen una prosa fácil de
seguir.

Tienen un excelente resumen en
http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21592635-revisiting-old-argument-about-impact-capitalism-all-men-are-created/

Empieza básicamente por poner a caldo a su profesión diciendo lo siguiente:

"To put it bluntly, the discipline of economics has yet to get over its
childish passion for mathematics and for purely theoretical and often
highly ideological speculation, at the expense of historical research and
collaboration with the other social sciences. Economists are all too often
preoccupied with petty mathematical problems of interest only to
themselves. This obsession with mathematics is an easy way of acquiring the
appearance of scientificity without having to answer the far more complex
questions posed by the world we live in. There is one great advantage to
being an academic economist in France: here, economists are not highly
respected in the academic and intellectual world or by political and
financial elites. Hence they must set aside their contempt for other
disciplines and their absurd claim to greater scientific legitimacy,
despite the fact that they know almost nothing about anything. This, in any
case, is the charm of the discipline and of the social sciences in general:
one starts from square one, so that there is some hope of making major
progress. In France, I believe, economists are slightly more interested in
persuading historians and sociologists, as well as people outside the
academic world, that what they are doing is interesting (although they are
not always successful)

The truth is that economics should never have sought to divorce itself from
the other social sciences and can advance only in conjunction with them.
The social sciences collectively know too little to waste time on foolish
disciplinary squabbles. If we are to progress in our understanding of the
historical dynamics of the wealth distribution and the structure of social
classes, we must obviously take a pragmatic approach and avail ourselves of
the methods of historians, sociologists, and political scientists as well
as economists. We must start with fundamental questions and try to answer
them. Disciplinary disputes and turf wars are of little or no importance.
In my mind, this book is as much a work of history as of economics."

Ferreira todavía no lo ha leído, así que no tenemos su punto de vista. Sin
embargo adelanta alguna cosa y apunta ya a algunas críticas
http://todoloqueseaverdad.blogspot.com.es/2014/05/antes-de-leer-el-capital-en-el-siglo-21.html

saludos

-- 
Pedro J. Hernández
http://gplus.to/pedroj