Talking at Melbourne Uni tomorrow night

6.30pm, Friday 6 May 2011
Basement Theatre, Business and Economics Building

Professor John Quiggin, University of Queensland, presents “What have we learned from the Global Financial Crisis?” at the Department of Economics – Melbourne Institute Public Policy Lecture 2011.


Here’s the link

32 thoughts on “Talking at Melbourne Uni tomorrow night

  1. Alice, I’ve been unable to respond before now to your query re Professor Quiggin’s speech. But if you’re still following this thread, I can say that it was well attended, and that its format drew a good deal on the material Professor Q had discussed in Zombie Economics.

    The questions were few but, I thought, interesting. It seems that Zombie Economics has done pretty well in terms of both sales and critical reception. One questioner asked about the US Tea Party.

    Whether there has been any mass-media Melbourne coverage of the talk, I don’t know. Still, I’m glad I went. While I was fearing it might be a dry technical lecture, it wasn’t anything of the kind. There was even a reference to Talleyrand’s remark about the early-19th-century Bourbon royals having “learnt nothing and forgotten nothing.” (Similarly with lots of economists now, of course.) That allusion by Professor Q got appreciate chuckles from the audience.

  2. @Chris Warren

    I am a great admirer of Marx’s theoretical depth and perception in both economics and politics (true political economy). Marx’s diagnosis and prognosis for capitalism have proved essentially correct in all major details. Marx’s prescription for a cure (communism) I am not so sure about. I also join Popper in rejecting Marx’s (or at least Marxian) historicism of the deterministic variety.

    If you are going to have (or are forced to have for the time being) a capitalist economy then guys like Keynes (and locals Keene and Quiggin) are the type of economists you hope would be in the ascendancy.

    As a general statement, I will say that my world view is that physical laws and biological laws (the biophysical) control far more outcomes in human history than is generally credited. Also, I would say that I see man as essentially selfish and corrupt or as always tending to corruption. I see this not from a theological standpoint but from a realist and biological standpoint which emphasises man’s animal nature. Most ideals are inventions; “love” for instance or “devotion to a god or cause” which latter mostly become mere rationalistations for man’s most brutish, selfish and murderous behaviours.

    The idea that mankind would be any “better” under a different system is total nonsense. I can accept “better off” but not better in nature. Every system needs an enormous number of checks and balances to moderate the inhumanity of humanity. I certainly don’t make Marxism a religion any more than I would accept capitalism or christianity or any other system of thought as a religion. Religion is blik as a wise fellow said. Pure ideology and religion are both mere dogmatic systems. (I am not saying Marx is pure ideology but “Marxism” rapidly become that in Leninist and Stalinist Russia).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s