Published (almost!)

Economics in Two Lessons is listed as the #1 New Release in Microeconomics on Amazon. I’m not sure what this means, but it sounds encouraging.

It’s now available for preorder now, with a release date of April 23, the hardcover publication date. Apple books also has it for pre-order.

Thanks again to everyone who read and commented on the excerpts I published along the way. I’ve tried to mention you all in the acknowledgements, but it’s just about inevitable that I will have missed someone.

2 thoughts on “Published (almost!)

  1. JQ,

    For my part, I doubt I offered any ideas useful for that particular enterprise.

    To be honest, I would rather see you undertake a somewhat different writing project next time. “Zombie Economics” and “Economics in Two Lessons” certainly question aspects of orthodox economics but they still come from the paradigm of orthodox economics in the end, IMHO. We (the global community, all humanity) have arrived at a pass (or perhaps an impasse) where the most basic assumptions of orthodox economics clearly need to be reappraised.

    When an economist (your good self) makes a post about “The (failed) state of macroeconomics” – (2013) – that is a kind of indictment of orthodox economics itself. There also seem to be plenty of critiques from orthodox and heterodox economists alike to the effect that “Many results in microeconomics are shaky” or worse.

    (I can’t read the full article as I am pay-walled out of it.)

    There are plenty of heterodox economists (of course) who take issue with pretty much the entirety of orthodox microeconomics. IF (entertain the “if” for a moment) micro and macro are dubious and/or failed as various serious and not easily dismissed thinkers are saying, then what is left?

    The one thing I would argue remains is the need, nay the necessity, to go back to ontology. There is a need, I think, to go back to basics and re-construct an ontology of economics without recourse to the entire extant ontology of orthodox economics. How would an economist “un-know” the standard ontology of economics? How might he then reconstruct a new ontology for economics from scratch?

    Considering the state of human knowledge and science at the time of Alfred Marshall, considering that the ontology he developed then is still pretty much set in stone as the ontology of economics and finally considering the much more advanced state of science now, is it too far-fetched to consider that the ontology of orthodox economics is obsolete? The assumptions of mechanistic and deterministic (classical) science, and of Cartesian dualism, have fallen for the most part to the scientific/philosophical theories of evolution, supervenience, emergence, complex systems and (implicitly monistic) physical relational systems.

    It’s food for thought I think. Do you ever swap ideas with Emeritus Professor John Foster at U.Q.? This could be a silly question. He might be just down the hall from you for all I know. If you and John Foster could discuss and argue creatively about an appropriate ontology for economics, the results might be quite interesting. I’d like to be a fly on the wall for that one. I could be a fly on the wall if a book came out of it.

  2. Well done John. I shall be certainly adding it to my collection of your books. Still refer to Zombie Economics. Good luck with the new one.

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