<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Intellectual Trespassing as a Way of Life &#187; Political economy</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.blog.ellerman.org/category/political-economy/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.blog.ellerman.org</link>
	<description>An interdisciplinary blog on the human sciences and current events</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Dec 2011 15:19:52 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Is Wall Street Capitalism really &#8220;The Model&#8221;?</title>
		<link>http://www.blog.ellerman.org/2011/12/is-wall-street-really-the-model/</link>
		<comments>http://www.blog.ellerman.org/2011/12/is-wall-street-really-the-model/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Dec 2011 21:51:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>David Ellerman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Current events]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Development aid]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economic theory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal theory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Political economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[absentee ownership]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Japanese-style firm]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Occupy Wall Street]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[responsibility]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wall-Steet Capitalism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blog.ellerman.org/?p=51</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The continuing financial collapse of 2008, which caused trillions of dollars of damages to most everyone but the Wall Street elites, will perhaps lead to some hesitation in the reflex to evoke the Wall Street model—if not to some more fundamental rethinking of the issues. Perhaps the Occupy Wall Street movements around the world are the beginning of such a rethinking. In any case, our purpose here is such a rethinking by going back to some of the basic principles that are supposed to be exemplified in a market economy.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.blog.ellerman.org/2011/12/is-wall-street-really-the-model/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Free Cities: What could be wrong with that?</title>
		<link>http://www.blog.ellerman.org/2011/10/free-cities-what-could-be-wrong-with-that/</link>
		<comments>http://www.blog.ellerman.org/2011/10/free-cities-what-could-be-wrong-with-that/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 02 Oct 2011 18:14:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>David Ellerman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Current events]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Development aid]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economic theory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intellectual history]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal theory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Political economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Political theory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blog.ellerman.org/?p=42</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This post is an update of a previous post on The Charter Cities Debate and Democratic Theory. A new twist on Paul Romer&#8217;s idea of charter cities has come to my attention. It is promoted under the name of &#8220;free cities.&#8221; The home base seems to be the Free Cities Institute headquartered at the Francisco [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.blog.ellerman.org/2011/10/free-cities-what-could-be-wrong-with-that/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Fukuyama and Dahrendorf on Hayek</title>
		<link>http://www.blog.ellerman.org/2011/05/fukuyama-and-dahrendorf-on-hayek/</link>
		<comments>http://www.blog.ellerman.org/2011/05/fukuyama-and-dahrendorf-on-hayek/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 May 2011 21:48:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>David Ellerman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Current events]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Development aid]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economic theory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Political economy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blog.ellerman.org/?p=40</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Frank Fukuyama's recent review of Hayek's Constitution of Liberty in the NYTimes has raised a ruckus in Hayekian circles. I review an older critique of Hayek by Ralf Dahrendorf and then lament the absence of the Hayekians in the great debate of the 1990s about socially engineering the transition from socialism to capitalism. Apparently the Hayekian strictures against utopian social engineering only applied to the transition in the opposite direction.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.blog.ellerman.org/2011/05/fukuyama-and-dahrendorf-on-hayek/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Inalienable Rights: Part III A Litmus Test for Liberalism</title>
		<link>http://www.blog.ellerman.org/2010/03/inalienable-rights-part-iii-a-litmus-test-for-liberalism/</link>
		<comments>http://www.blog.ellerman.org/2010/03/inalienable-rights-part-iii-a-litmus-test-for-liberalism/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Mar 2010 19:21:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>David Ellerman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Fatal Flaws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intellectual history]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal theory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Political economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Political theory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employment contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Inalienable rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John Rawls]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Montesquieu]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pact of subjection]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Robert Nozick]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[self-rental contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[self-sale contract]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blog.ellerman.org/?p=31</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Surely it is not too much to ask a modern liberal theory of justice that it provide a coherent account of why some contracts, e.g., self-sale contract, should be deemed invalid and why the rights such contracts would legally alienate are inalienable. In that sense, the theory of inalienable rights provides a historical litmus test for liberalism.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.blog.ellerman.org/2010/03/inalienable-rights-part-iii-a-litmus-test-for-liberalism/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>8</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why is Non-democratic Government Wrong? Involuntariness or Treating Persons as Things?</title>
		<link>http://www.blog.ellerman.org/2010/03/why-is-non-democratic-government-wrong-involuntariness-or-treating-persons-as-things/</link>
		<comments>http://www.blog.ellerman.org/2010/03/why-is-non-democratic-government-wrong-involuntariness-or-treating-persons-as-things/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Mar 2010 16:43:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>David Ellerman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Intellectual history]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal theory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Political economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Political theory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[alienable natural rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[consent vs. coercion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[delegation vs. alienation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employment contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gierke]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Grotius]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hobbes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lex regia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nozick]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pactum subjectionis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Thomas Aquinas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[translatio vs. concessio]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blog.ellerman.org/?p=13</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Is Democracy Government based only on the Consent of the Governed? Classical liberalism takes the most basic question about a social institution as: &#8220;consent or coercion.&#8221; Democracy is often characterized as &#8220;government based on the consent of the governed&#8221; so non-democratic government is then typically condemned as being involuntary and coercive. This common condemnation of [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.blog.ellerman.org/2010/03/why-is-non-democratic-government-wrong-involuntariness-or-treating-persons-as-things/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Are  the self-sale and self-rental contracts on the same moral footing?</title>
		<link>http://www.blog.ellerman.org/2010/03/are-the-self-sale-and-self-rental-contracts-on-the-same-moral-footing/</link>
		<comments>http://www.blog.ellerman.org/2010/03/are-the-self-sale-and-self-rental-contracts-on-the-same-moral-footing/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Mar 2010 20:32:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>David Ellerman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Economic theory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intellectual history]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal theory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Political economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Political theory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employment contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[J. Philmore]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Murray Rothbard]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[renting people]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[specific performance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[voluntary slavery contracts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blog.ellerman.org/?p=14</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Neverfox's comment to my last post, Why Was Slavery Wrong?, was so rich that I will reply by this new posting, rather than just a comment on the comment. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.blog.ellerman.org/2010/03/are-the-self-sale-and-self-rental-contracts-on-the-same-moral-footing/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why was Slavery Wrong? Involuntariness or Treating Persons as Things?</title>
		<link>http://www.blog.ellerman.org/2010/02/why-was-slavery-wrong-involuntariness-or-treating-persons-as-things/</link>
		<comments>http://www.blog.ellerman.org/2010/02/why-was-slavery-wrong-involuntariness-or-treating-persons-as-things/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Feb 2010 19:51:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>David Ellerman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Intellectual history]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal theory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Political economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Political theory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[alienable natural rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Blackstone]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hobbes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Locke]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nozick]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pufendorf]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[renting people]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Roman law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Seabury]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[voluntary slavery contract]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blog.ellerman.org/?p=12</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&#8220;Involuntariness&#8221; is the usual answer. Indeed, classical liberalism takes the most basic framing of a social question as: &#8220;consent or coercion?&#8221;  In this view, democracy is characterized as government &#8220;with the consent of the governed&#8221; so slavery and non-democratic government were both condemned for the lack of consent. This common condemnation of slavery on the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.blog.ellerman.org/2010/02/why-was-slavery-wrong-involuntariness-or-treating-persons-as-things/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The fatal flaw in finance theory: Capitalizing &#8220;goodwill&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://www.blog.ellerman.org/2010/02/the-fatal-flaw-in-finance-theory-capitalizing-goodwill/</link>
		<comments>http://www.blog.ellerman.org/2010/02/the-fatal-flaw-in-finance-theory-capitalizing-goodwill/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Feb 2010 18:02:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>David Ellerman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Economic theory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fatal Flaws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Political economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[capital theory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[capitalized value]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[finance theory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[goodwill]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Keynes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Miller-Modigliani]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[property rights]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blog.ellerman.org/?p=9</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The fatal flaw at the root of today's post is really what might be called "the fundamental myth" about the current property system, namely that the market-contractual role of being the residual claimant in a productive opportunity is treated as a "property right" that is currently owned by some legal party (e.g., the corporation having the contractual role) and that may be bought and sold as well as capitalized into the party's current valuation.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.blog.ellerman.org/2010/02/the-fatal-flaw-in-finance-theory-capitalizing-goodwill/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Development or just poverty reduction?</title>
		<link>http://www.blog.ellerman.org/2010/02/development-or-just-poverty-reduction/</link>
		<comments>http://www.blog.ellerman.org/2010/02/development-or-just-poverty-reduction/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Feb 2010 22:11:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>David Ellerman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Current events]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Development aid]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Political economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[development]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Indian casinos]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[labor migration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[poverty reduction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[remittances]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[resource curse]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blog.ellerman.org/?p=8</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Many of the debates about foreign aid and development assistance seem to pivot on different visions of the goal: development or just poverty reduction.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.blog.ellerman.org/2010/02/development-or-just-poverty-reduction/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Social Engineering vs. Pragmatism: Part I of Commentary on the Sarkozy-Stiglitz Commission</title>
		<link>http://www.blog.ellerman.org/2010/01/social-engineering-vs-pragmatism-part-i-of-commentary-on-the-sarkozy-stiglitz-commission/</link>
		<comments>http://www.blog.ellerman.org/2010/01/social-engineering-vs-pragmatism-part-i-of-commentary-on-the-sarkozy-stiglitz-commission/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Feb 2010 00:04:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>David Ellerman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Current events]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Development aid]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economic theory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Political economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cost-benefit analysis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John Dewey]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Joseph Stiglitz]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pragmatism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sarkozy Commission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[social engineering]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[social indices]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blog.ellerman.org/?p=7</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The point of this Part I commentary on the Sarkozy-Stiglitz Commission is to juxtapose the social engineering perspective implied in the whole exercise of trying to find a better index of  "economic performance and social progress" to a more pragmatic perspective.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.blog.ellerman.org/2010/01/social-engineering-vs-pragmatism-part-i-of-commentary-on-the-sarkozy-stiglitz-commission/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

