Time Stamp 00:00 Introduction to Topic 00:17 Intro to Guest, Robert Dimand 00:59 Difference between economic history and history of economic thought 01:47 Why did economics students stop taking mandatory courses in economic thought? 02:25 Economics became increasingly technical and mathematical 03:03 The University of Chicago's ironic turn towards more technical economics 03:59 Was the turn away from economic thought a function of the Cold War? 05:10 Brock University's prior course in Marxian economics 06:00 Why should economics students care about the history of economics? 06:10 You get a deeper understanding of mainstream economics if you study thought 06:29 Historical perspective: what you get taught in class is not the final truth 07:43 A greater variety of approaches to economics than in a first-year intro course 08:13 History of thought is really fun and entertaining! 09:01 Personal question: how did you become interested in economic thought? 13:08 Is economics, as we know it today, really a Child of the Enlightenment? 13:56 People thought about economic topics since ancient times 14:55 Economics emerges in the 18th Century - David Hume and Adam Smith 15:44 Economics also emerges during the French Enlightenment 16:41 Why didn't pre-Enlightenment societies develop economics as a separate field of study? 17:15 Tradition of economic thought prior to Enlightenment: skeptical of markets and trade (usury, etc.) 19:08 Why didn't economics emerge in non-Western societies (India, Islamic Middle East, China)? 19:39 Medieval scholastics analyzed trade 19:59 Traditional China: merchants had low prestige and honour, even though it was viewed as necessary 20:34 In ancient/medieval India, merchants are lower in the caste system 21:08 Aristotle influenced medieval Islamic society 21:45 Did economics develop along Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions? 22:47 Kuhn's ideas debated within the history of economic thought 23:10 The Enlightenment was definitely a sea change 23:24 Debate about whether the 1870s so-called Marginal Revolution was a paradigm shift 26:07 Has the current textbook definition of economics always captured how we define the field? 26:32 Lionel Robbins' definition has been twisted a bit 27:27 In 1932, economics's definition is not entirely valid 27:50 Alfred Marshall's competing definition of economics 29:00 Is the distinction between neoclassical and heterodox economics illusory? 29:35 To some extent, it is an arbitrary distinction 29:51 Heterodox schools differ from each other 30:09 Austrian economics has its roots in neoclassical economics 30:34 Econophysics is quite mathematical 30:50 Mainstream economics is not as monolithic as it once was 32:06 Is there any value to heterodox economics for mainstream economists? 32:23 Financial crisis --> renewed interest in Post-Keynesian economics 33:10 Econophysics is useful in understanding financial markets 34:29 New Institutional Economics is used in research 34:49 Advice for young scholars to be more productive? 40:36 Advice for those considering economic thought as a career? 42:58 Wrap-up and thanks.
Пікірлер: 2