Search results

The equation of unified knowledge says that S = f (A,P) which means that the practical solution to a given problem is a function of the existing, empirical, actual realities and the future, potential, best possible conditions of general stable equilibrium which both pure and practical reason, exhaustive in the Kantian sense, show as being within the realm of potential realities beyond any doubt. The first classical revolution in economic thinking, included in factor “P” of the equation, conceived the economic and financial problems in terms of a model of ideal conditions of stable equilibrium but neglected the full consideration of the existing, actual conditions. That is the main reason why, in the end, it failed. The second modern revolution, included in factor “A” of the equation, conceived the economic and financial problems in terms of the existing, actual conditions, usually in disequilibrium or unstable equilibrium (in case of stagnation) and neglected the sense of right direction expressed in factor “P” or the realization of general, stable equilibrium. That is the main reason why the modern revolution failed in the past and is failing in front of our eyes in the present. The equation of unified knowledge, perceived as a sui generis synthesis between classical and modern thinking has been applied rigorously and systematically in writing the enclosed American‐British economic, monetary, financial and social stabilization plans. In the final analysis, a new economic philosophy, based on a synthesis between classical and modern thinking, called here the new economics of unified knowledge, is applied to solve the malaise of the twentieth century which resulted from a confusion between thinking in terms of stable equilibrium on the one hand and disequilibrium or unstable equilibrium on the other.

The economic science is again in a crisis and a new solution prolegomena to any future study in economics, finance and other social sciences has just been published by the International Institute of Social Economics in care of the MCB University Press in England. The roots of the major financial and economic problems of our time lie in an open conflict between theory and practice. In the 1930s and before the conflict was between classical theory and given realities. In the 1990s the conflict appears between the now prevailing modern, Keynesian theory and the actual realities. In addition during the twentieth century a great argument developed between the two schools of thought, argument which is not yet settled. In one sentence, the prolegomena tried and was successful to solve the conflict between theory and practice and the big doctrinal dispute of the twentieth century. It was a struggle of research and observation over half a century between 1947 and 1997.

Questions whether the planned European Monetary Union is capable of solving the social economic challenges of our time. Examines the economic and financial history of modern times; explains the formulation of the impossibility theorem in practice, suggesting the equation of unified knowledge as a solution to the problem of economic calculation; and constructs a plan for a free and stable European Monetary and Economic Union. Looks at the provisions of the Maastricht Treaty (1992) questioning its ability to solve the basic problems of the member states of the European Union. Addresses a number of issues contained within the Treaty: acceptable socially beneficial goals; unacceptable socially harmful, adverse anti‐equilibrium means, policies, reforms and regulations; and the phenomenon of physics’ ‘chain reaction’ within economics. Gives a synopsis of anti‐equilibrium elements and forces in the Treaty of Maastricht, debating what needs to be done to ensure that European Monetary and Economic Union can become an immediate and lasting success.

The economic science is again in a crisis and a new solution prolegomena to any future study in economics, finance and other social sciences has just been published by the International Institute of Social Economics in care of the MCB University Press in England. The roots of the major financial and economic problems of our time lie in an open conflict between theory and practice. In the 1930s and before the conflict was between classical theory and given realities. In the 1990s the conflict appears between the now prevailing modern, Keynesian theory and the actual realities. In addition during the twentieth century a great argument developed between the two schools of thought, argument which is not yet settled. In one sentence, the prolegomena tried and was successful to solve the conflict between theory and practice and the big doctrinal dispute of the twentieth century. It was a struggle of research and observation over half a century between 1947 and 1997.

This is the second part of a long investigation under the title of, Principia Oeconomica; the first having appeared in this journal in 1986. The substance of the argument in this contribution is in the form of a dialogue with Henri Guitton, member of l'Institut de France and author of a book in French, De l'Imperfection en Economie (1979). Guitton is leading a new French Economic School critical of a modern economy characterised by ‘Econosm” or “Economy of Counter‐sense”. Economism refers to the practice of conceiving problems of a modern society in strictly economic‐accounting terms and neglecting a host of social and human aspects. The second term means that the sole attention given to growth in production did not increase the happiness of man but on the contrary it created for him new problems (pollution, noise, atomic radiation and other hazards). To cope with these problems, the French school recommends wise policies which Guitton called “creative imperfection”. Guitton's presentation is followed step by step, with an interpretation in terms of stable equilibrium. The recommendation stresses structural reforms to solve the same problems but following a road of “creative perfection” leading to the same goal sought by Guitton: a better world of tomorrow.

Investigates, in Part 1, the effects of West German stagnation in the 1980s following on from the welfare state doctrine of the 1960s and 1970s, which led to an economic and social crisis becoming inevitable. Shows this is not purely a German problem but one that also affects almost all other capitalist countries – either developed or developing. Expresses irony that the former communist bloc countries should also be engulfed in such crises. Proffers explanations and recommendations to offset the problems in Germany. Part II looks at Israel and how it has begun to emerge from its 1974 austerity programme by Rabin. States that Israel must initiate a new system of stable equilibrium to open a new era that is very possible, but involves economic and social thinking to avoid previous mistakes.

In the first decade of the 21st century, the financial crisis of 2007–2010 stands out as a landmark political, societal, business and economic event. Its impact on the financial sector is evident as seen by the collapse of banks such as Lehman Brothers, the sale of Bear Stearns to JP Morgan Chase and by the full or part nationalisation of others such as Northern Rock, Bradford and Bingley, Lloyds (including Halifax Bank of Scotland which they acquired during the crisis) and RBS. Its scope and breadth of impact has spread beyond the financial sector and has affected the broader economy and society. The North American along with a number of European and other economies fell into recession. The UK economy suffered its longest and deepest recession since the Second World War. Government and central banks announced unprecedented policy responses and initiated measures such as record low interest rates and quantitative easing (the printing of money) to stave off a 1930s style depression. Policies such as the car scrappage scheme introduced by the UK and American governments were designed to reduce inventories, stimulate economic recovery and help re-build confidence. Nevertheless, businesses suffered and a number of them collapsed, for example in the United Kingdom, high street retailers Zavvi, Woolworths and among others Borders ceased trading and were put into administration. The story of the financial and economic crisis has been well documented by, among others, Tett (2010), Roubini and Mihm (2010), and Bishop and Green (2010).

This study aims to critically review recent contributions to the methodology of financial economics and discuss how they relate to one another and directions for further research.

A critical review of recent literature on new methodologies for financial economics.

Recent books have made important contributions to the study of financial economics. They suggest new approaches that include an emphasis on radical uncertainty, adaptive markets, agent-based modeling and narrative economics, as well as extensions of behavioral finance to include concepts such as diagnostic expectations. Many of these contributions can be seen more as complements than substitutes and provide fruitful directions for further research. Efficient markets can be seen as holding under particular circumstances. A major them of most of these contributions is that the study of financial crises and other aspects of financial economics requires the use of multiple theories and approaches. No one approach will be sufficient.

There are great opportunities for further research in financial economics making use of these new approaches.

These recent contributions can be quite useful for improved analysis by researchers, private participants in the financial sector and macroeconomic and regulatory officials.

Provides an introduction to these new approaches and highlights fruitful areas for their extensions and applications.

André Gide's prophetic words during an interview at Karlsbad in 1933: “Hitler represents a delay in the progress of humanity. There will be another peaceful Revolution in Spirit — different from Capitalism, Socialism‐Communism and Fascism — which will guide the development of humanity to its right destination.”