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

[jm]

Más interesante que lo que puedan decir los profesionales del autobombo,
ahora beatificados como ejecutivos de la Sociedad para Aprovecharse del
Pensamiento Crítico dedicada a bolos y bombos mutuos, es lo que piensa el
personal más serio:

http://www.vnavarro.org/?p=10830

Saludos

JM
 El 18/05/2014 23:47, "Pedro J. Hdez" <phergont en gmail.com> escribió:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Escepticos mailing list
> Escepticos en dis.ulpgc.es
> http://correo.dis.ulpgc.es/mailman/listinfo/escepticos
>
>