I was just rereading Bernal Vol I at bedtime last night. He attributes that periodization of 18th cen. European "anti-scientific philosophy" to intellectual historian Margaret Jacob.

cf either The Newtonians and the English Revolution (1976) or The Radical Englightment: Pantheists, Freemasons and Republics (1981); I've read neither nor J. Isreal.

The crucial distinction between Enlightenment and Radical Enlightenment teleology which politicized institutional norms was all things French. 1660 to 1770 was a period of great economic expansion, technical and empirical validation, and concentration of political power among Europe's monarchal families from which the Bourbons emerged um golden.

Following the aftermath of the 30 Years War, Bernal identifies four literary "forces" that reconstructed power centers among the antagonists' elite, philosophers: (i) Christian hostility toward pagan and neo-platonic civilizations (Casaubon, Bruno, Bentley); (ii) primacy of "progress" or modernity, justified by dating knowledge (Banier); (iii) racism (Locke, Hume, Toland); and (iv) Hellenism (Napoleon). The reign of Louis XIV, the "New Rome," is said to glorify the alchemical past while symbolizing the antithesis of post-war German "identity" as elaborated by, say, Leibniz, Goethe.

Göttingen can well be considered the embryo of all later, modern, diversified and professional universities. It was established in 1734 by George II, King of England and Elector of Hanover, was well endowed, and as a new foundation was able to escape many of the medieval religious and acholastic constraints that persisted in other universities. With its British connections it was a conduit of Scottish Romanticism as well as for the philosophical and political ideas of Locke and Hume ... It is true to say that while exclusive professionalism was the distinctive form of Göttingen scholarship, the chief unifying principle of its content was ethnicity and racism. This, of course, was the result not merely of the English scholarly contacts but, much more importantly, of prevailing opinion in German cultivated society as a whole. [1987:215]

So you may need to get out your Weber as well to given Calvinism its due in promulation of (g).


Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

Had I access to a competent English language research library, this would be one of the few areas I would be qualified to help with - at least, from the perspective of English language sources.

I do not know the professional or vocational leanings of many contributors to the site, but I would warn anyone considering a dip into the bottomless depths of British history against doing so as an amateur, for one is almost guaranteed to look like a fool.

The problem is that with mathematical models you often lose track of the intuition and the subtleties necessary to properly grasp what's going on, while additionally making the arguments inaccessible to the general public.  It's one thing to say "GDP growth was 2.2% in 2007."  But when you discuss the microeconomics that are the foundations of the macroeconomics -- how different people react in different ways, and to different degrees, given a set of incentives -- you can quickly find that words are simply the more effective means of explanation.

Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin

asdf:

This is actually one of my hot buttons. Anybody can write an editorial, but if there's no underlying analysis, it's just an argument.

Lots of maths in the FT and the Econo. It's not like they ever pull an argument out of thin air and try to make it convincing by repeating it over and over, even if it's nonsense.

If you're looking for quantitative support, consider:

1. Relative incomes
   
2. Relative taxation
   
3. Relative debt burden
   
4. Income changes over the last thirty years
   
5. Practical - i.e. High Street and Main Street - inflation increases.
   
6. Dot com, oil, and housing bubbles.
   
7. The current credit crunch.
   
8. Fradulent trading including BCCI, Enron, and the current crop of bandits.
   
9. Cultural changes and increasingly abusive work practices.
   
10. Union busting.
    
11. Deliberate use of outsourcing and immigration to drive down wage prices.
    
12. Constant media calls for 'reform' - juxtaposed explicitly againts worker income and job security.

I'm sure there's plenty there to keep you busy investigating real numbers.

Of course, apart from all of those - and it's not a complete list by any means - there's no evidence of a problem at all.

Maybe it's just my own ignorance of modern economics, but I am yet to see a mathematical model that captures the rich theory I see outlined in Keynes' book.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo