Economic Theory/Thought

File: [07] On Our Way - USA.mkv_snapshot_11.46_[2015.01.27_19.03.00].jpg (66KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 1280x720px

JK Galbraith doesn't get enough love

>>976126
You should write about David Ricardo and comparative advantage. Maybe throw in some shit about the TPP.

Shit is simple and practically writes itself.

Monetary policy and Friedman
Fiscal stimulus and Keynes
Rational expectations and Lucas
Comparative advantage and Ricardo

There are tons more, consult wikipedia

thank you anons. I like the ideas regarding David Ricardo. My professor has a boner for him and we have covered him quite a bit. Any more ideas regarding him?

>>976126
If you don't know math, you can't write an economics paper that isn't polisci drivel.

Smith wasn't really a hardcore proponent of laissez faire and you would realize this if you actually read all the books of the wealth of nations beyond the first. Here's a good article on this: http://booksc.org/book/27374793

If you're going to do a paper on Ricardo mention the Ricardian socialists that used Ricardos concepts to critic elements of capitalism in the 1820's (20 years before Marx):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricardian_socialism

Especially Thomas Hodgskin (Marx essentially lifted a lot of ideas from him):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Hodgskin

Also work in Neo-Ricardianism and Piero Sraffa:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Ricardianism

Also this is why Ricardo is still relevant:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_capital_controversy

>>976365
>Smith wasn't really a hardcore proponent of laissez faire
This desu senpai. Ayn Rand would weep if she ever actually met Smith.

>>976365
this. Smith's ideas were more similar to social democracy than anything else.

Compare Keynes and Friedmans school of economy and write about why they differ.

>>976365
I'm surprised if anyone actually manages to get through the Wealth of Nations with that archaic writing style

>>976978
Bitch pleafe, you're juft mad becaufe you're an illiterate peafant

>>976126
>Adam Smith's laissez faire policies.
This is a common misunderstanding of Adam Smith. He was NOT a proponent of free markets in the modern usage of the term.

>>976448
This

>>976419
>social democracy
Not even a little bit. Social democracy is very often characterized by a lack of free trade. Adam Smith was not laissez-faire, but he was much closer to free market than anything else.

>>977024
considering it isn't my native language, I can live with that.