okt 282011
 

Renowned psychiatrist and writer Iain McGilchrist explains how the ‘divided brain’ has profoundly altered human behaviour, culture and society

RSA Animate – The Divided Brain



Volledige lezing Iain McGilchrist

Psychiater Iain McGilchrist over de ontwikkeling van de hersenhelften en de arrogantie van de Verlichting

Twintig jaar werkte de Britse psychiater Iain McGilchrist aan The Master and his Emissary, zijn boek over de werking van de twee hersenhelften. Elk van de helften onderhoudt een eigen relatie met de wereld, schrijft hij. Maar in verschillende periodes van de geschiedenis ontkent de linkerhelft van de hersenen het bestaan van de rechterhelft. Met grote gevolgen: er ontstaat een scheve, kortzichtige blik op de wereld. „Er is niets fundamenteel mis met de linker hersenhelft,” zegt McGilchrist. „Het probleem is alleen dat hij zijn eigen beperkingen niet kent. Zo ook met de Verlichting. Het is een van mijn favoriete tijdperken, maar het leidde hier en daar tot de hoogmoedige gedachte dat wanneer we alles weten, ook alle problemen kunnen worden opgelost. Dat is belachelijk naïef. Dat is de opvatting van een kind dat nodig geconfronteerd moet worden met de wereld van volwassenen.”

‘Mijn grootste angst was dat ik genegeerd zou worden. Ik ben tenslotte een nobody.” Iain McGilchrist zit tegenover me in de bar van een hotel in Londen. Hij is een kleine, bebaarde man met een spontane, opvallend hoge lach. „Ik ben begonnen als literair criticus. Als twintiger schreef ik recensies en artikelen voor alle bekende bladen. Toen werd ik psychiater, trouwde, kreeg kinderen en werkte twintig jaar lang aan één boek. Toen dat vorig jaar eindelijk verscheen, wist echt niemand meer wie ik was.”

Genegeerd werd McGilchrist niet. The Master and his Emissary verscheen bij Yale University Press, kreeg overwegend juichende recensies, en werd genomineerd Continue reading »

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Hyves
sep 292011
 

The following is a paper given at the ASSA conference in Denver this past week for a panel organized by James Galbraith, titled Pressures on the Paradigm, sponsored by Economists for Peace & Security.

The Queen famously asked her economists why none had seen the global crisis coming. Obviously the answer is complex, but it must include the evolution of economic theory over the postwar period from the Age of Keynes, through the Friedmanian era and the return of virulent Neoclassical economics, and finally on to the New Monetary Consensus with a New anti-Keynesian version of fine-tuning by an unaccountable (independent) central bank

We cannot leave out the parallel developments in finance theory ith its efficient markets hypothesisand the subsequent deregulation and de-supervision that led to the financialization of everything.

But to make a long story short: if your theory says that a global collapse is impossible, you won’t see one coming. In truth, as Jamie has argued in his great book, the Predator State, no one outside Chicago and other institutes of the higher learning ever took the free market mantra seriously outside the ivory towers it was nothing but a slogan, a justification for enrichment of the powerful few.

Like Jamie, I believe orthodox macroeconomics is finished although not all the zombie practitioners of that dismal religion recognize they are dead. After the crisis hit, Jamie, Duncan Foley and I were invited to appear on panels at the University of Chicago along with a dozen or so of the Chicago boys.

Not surprisingly, none of them was budging from his dogma of free and efficient markets: the crisis was caused by too much government interference; the solution is more deregulation. Three years into this crisis those who never saw it coming proclaim signs of recovery everywhere they look.

And, still, it is only academia that is clueless. Everyone in financial markets saw it coming indeed, they planned on it and worked fastidiously to create it. They would profit on the way up, and then profit more in the collapse whilst collecting on their credit default swap bets and stealing all the homes.

It is Bushs ownership society and the goal all along was to transfer all ownership to the top through the creation of serial bubbles what Michael Hudson calls Bubbleonia. The biggest land grab since the enclosure movement.

Continue reading »

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Hyves
aug 072011
 

James Galbraith over Paul Krugman, Hyman Minsky, David Harvey, Ellen Wood, Robert Brenner, Giovanni Arrighi, Dean Baker, John Maynard Keynes, Wynne Godley, Peter Albin, Barkley Rosser, Ping Chen en Neoklassieke theorie

Who Are These Economists, Anyway?

Of course, there were exceptions to these trends: a few economists challenged the assumption of rational behavior, questioned the belief that financial markets can be trusted and pointed to the long history of financial crises that had devastating economic consequences. But they were swimming against the tide, unable to make much headway against a pervasive and, in retrospect, foolish complacency.

—Paul Krugman, New York Times Magazine, September 6, 2009

While normal ecclesiastic practice places this word at the end of the prayer, on this occasion it seems right to put it up front. In two sentences, Professor Paul Krugman, Nobel Laureate in Economics for 2008 and in some ways the leading economist of our time, has summed up the failure of an entire era in economic thought, practice, and policy discussion. And yet, there is something odd about the role of this short paragraph in an essay of over 6,500 words. It’s a throwaway. It leads nowhere. Apart from one other half-sentence, and three passing mentions of one person, it’s the only discussion—the one mention in the entire essay— of those economists who got it right. They are not named. Their work is not cited. Their story remains untold. Despite having been right on the greatest economic question of a generation—they are unpersons in the tale.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Hyves
jun 062011
 

Economic history is filled with bouts of financial euphoria followed by painful mornings after. When nations awake saddled with debts incurred to finance wars, episodes of failed speculation, or grand projects that haven’t paid off, they have two choices. Either the creditor class prevails at the expense of everyone else, or governments find ways to reduce the debt burden so that the productive power of the economy can recover….

The real issue is how to restructure debt when it becomes impossible to repay. This is not just a struggle between haves and have-nots but between the claims of the past and the potential of the future.

Zie ook commentaar Mike Konczal op RortyBomb

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Hyves
jun 052011
 

Life without QE2

Last November, the Federal Reserve announced a plan to purchase $75 billion each month in intermediate-term Treasury securities, a measure popularly described as a second round of quantitative easing, or QE2. June is the last month of this program, and it looks unlikely that the Fed will extend it, causing some observers to be concerned. My view is that QE2 had relatively modest effects, and such benefits as it provided should not evaporate with the end of the purchases.

One of the channels by which QE2 could have been expected to affect the economy is by changing the maturity structure of debt held by the public. The theory is that by taking a large enough volume of long-term debt off the market, the price of long-term bonds might rise, that is, long-term yields might fall. The Fed buys the bonds with newly created Federal Reserve deposits, which in the current environment function essentially like short-term Treasury bills. In the current situation, increasing the supply of these has no effect on short-term yields, so that the purchases on balance might be able to exert some economic stimulus.

The empirical evidence suggests that there is some potential for this to work, though massive purchases would be necessary to have modest effects on interest rates. The $75 billion purchased monthly by the Fed amounts to about 1% of marketable Treasury debt held by the public. Moreover, under QE2 the Fed has been purchasing intermediate-term rather than long-term debt, and the fact is that the average maturity of publicly held debt has actually been increasing rather than falling during QE2.

Lees verder op EconBrowser

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Hyves
jun 052011
 

Steve Keen is an Associate Professor in economics and finance at the University of Western Sydney. He identifies as post-Keynesian, criticizing both modern neoclassical economics and (some of) Marxian economics as inconsistent, unscientific and empirically unsupported. The major influences on Keen’s thinking about economics include Hyman Minsky, Piero Sraffa, Joseph Alois Schumpeter, and Francois Quesnay. His recent work mostly concentrates on mathematical modeling and simulation of financial instability.He is a Fellow at the Centre for Policy Development.

Financial instability and debt deflation

Most of the recent work of Steve Keen focuses on modeling Hyman Minsky’s Financial Instability Hypothesis and Irving Fisher’s debt deflation.[1][2] The hypothesis predicts that an overly large debt to GDP ratio can cause deflation and depression. Here, the falling the price level results in continually rising real quantity of outstanding debt. Moreover, the continued deleveraging of outstanding debts increases the rate of deflation. Thus, the debt and deflation act on and react to one another, resulting in a debt-deflation spiral. The outcome is a depression. Steve Keen argues that the current global economic crisis is the result of too much debt.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Hyves
jun 042011
 

The American linguist, social scientist and human rights campaigner Professor Noam Chomsky was last night announced as the 2011 recipient of the Sydney Peace Prize.

The Peace Prize is awarded by the Sydney Peace Foundation based at the University of Sydney. The announcement was made at Sydney Town Hall by Her Excellency Professor Marie Bashir, Governor of NSW and Chancellor of the University.

The citation for the award reads:

For inspiring the convictions of millions about a common humanity and for unfailing moral courage. For critical analysis of democracy and power, for challenging secrecy, censorship and violence and for creating hope through scholarship and activism to promote the attainment of universal human rights.

Stuart Rees, Chair of the Sydney Peace Foundation, said, “Professor Chomsky is one of the West’s most influential intellectuals in the cause of peace, the most significant challenger of unjust power.

“This inspiring choice comes at a time of violence and protest around the world. Across the Middle East brave people challenge authoritarian rule, yearn for freedom and for a state of their own. Yet, in Australia, leading politicians are still to find the courage to craft policies, such as those affecting refugees and asylum seekers, which reflect the hopes and standards set by Chomsky’s life and work.

“Come November 2011, I suspect thousands within the Australian public will not only take the opportunity to hear Professor Chomsky speak, but will also want to express their gratitude to him.”

Professor Chomsky will give the City of Sydney Peace Prize Lecture in the Sydney Town Hall on Wednesday 2 November., and will receive the $50,000 prize plus a hand-made glass trophy crafted by the Australian artist Brian Hirst, at a gala dinner held at the University of Sydney on Thursday 3 November.

Speaking from his home in Boston, Professor Chomsky said, “I am honoured to receive this prestigious award. I very much look forward to coming to Sydney.”

Noam Chomsky first became widely known through his work on modern linguistics especially his theory of a universal grammar. Since the 1960s, when he opposed the Vietnam War, he has forged a reputation as a political activist or “libertarian socialist”, especially as a critic of American foreign and domestic policy.

Chomsky has written more than 150 books including Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media (1988) co-written with Edward S Herman , which received worldwide attention and was turned into a documentary film.

Last year’s Sydney Peace Prize recipient was Indian scientist and environmental campaigner, Dr Vandana Shiva. Previous recipients of the Sydney Peace Prize include the Nobel Laureates Professor Muhammad Yunus and Archbishop Continue reading »

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Hyves

Switch to our mobile site