From a paper.
Advances in evolutionary theories (the Extended Synthesis) demonstrate that organisms systematically modify environments in ways that influence their own and other species’ evolution. This paper utilizes these theories to examine the economic consequences of human dispersal from Africa. Evidence shows that early humans’ dispersal affected the adaptability of animal species to human environments and, through this, the extinction of large mammals during Homo sapiens’ out-of-Africa migration. Empirical analyses explore the variation in extinction rates as a source of exogenous pressure for cooperation and innovation among hunter–gatherers and examine the impact of extinction on long-run development. The results indicate that extinction affects economic performance by driving continental differences in biogeography, disease environments, and institutions. Eurasia’s location along the out-of-Africa migratory path provided human and animal populations with coevolutionary foundations for domestication and agriculture, which gave Eurasians technological and institutional advantages in comparative development.
Interesting--and perhaps forbidden--thought.
***
According to a report by the All-China Federation of Industry and Commerce, more than 80% of China’s 1 billion private enterprises are family-owned, with about 29% of these businesses in traditional manufacturing. From 2017 to 2022, around three-quarters of China’s family businesses are in the midst of a leadership transition, marking the largest succession wave in Chinese history.
***
Is a ceasefire in the Middle East proof of concept for Hamas?
***
Some Books
From the insightful Amity Shlaes in her book New Deal Rebels:
Out of a very American sense of decency, most of the public was unwilling to delve into the New Deal’s arguments. To impugn the government’s motives would be more indecent yet. The longer the license of crisis was invoked, the more citizens accepted the suspension of their freedoms. And, over time, Americans became so accustomed to economic misery and their own lack of freedom that, benumbed, they came to see no other remedy to their woes than a yet-larger government. In any case, it appeared easier to go along.
***
According to a report by the All-China Federation of Industry and Commerce, more than 80% of China’s 1 billion private enterprises are family-owned, with about 29% of these businesses in traditional manufacturing. From 2017 to 2022, around three-quarters of China’s family businesses are in the midst of a leadership transition, marking the largest succession wave in Chinese history.
***
Is a ceasefire in the Middle East proof of concept for Hamas?
***
Some Books
From the insightful Amity Shlaes in her book New Deal Rebels:
Out of a very American sense of decency, most of the public was unwilling to delve into the New Deal’s arguments. To impugn the government’s motives would be more indecent yet. The longer the license of crisis was invoked, the more citizens accepted the suspension of their freedoms. And, over time, Americans became so accustomed to economic misery and their own lack of freedom that, benumbed, they came to see no other remedy to their woes than a yet-larger government. In any case, it appeared easier to go along.
(Familiar, no?)
*
From Magness' review of a book advocating changes in education by Gannon:
University professors, Gannon contends, must abandon “the façade of objectivity” in the classroom—a concept that he derides as “an abdication of our responsibility” and an exercise in “intellectually dishonest” instruction (p. 21). In its place, he espouses a “pedagogy of radical hope” that embraces its duty to train political activists, albeit only in a set of far-left values that perfectly align with Gannon’s own beliefs.
*
From Magness' review of a book advocating changes in education by Gannon:
University professors, Gannon contends, must abandon “the façade of objectivity” in the classroom—a concept that he derides as “an abdication of our responsibility” and an exercise in “intellectually dishonest” instruction (p. 21). In its place, he espouses a “pedagogy of radical hope” that embraces its duty to train political activists, albeit only in a set of far-left values that perfectly align with Gannon’s own beliefs.
(A revolutionary opinion on education as less an environment and more an indoctrination camp.)
*
Kline on his paper on liberalism as an adjective:
The digitization of text has enabled us to prove that liberalism started with Adam Smith and friends. Liberalism 1.0 was Smithian liberalism.
I show the origins, nature, and character of liberalism 1.0 in a new study, “‘Liberal’ as a Political Adjective (in English), 1769–1824,” embedded below.
The paper discusses the stepping from non-political meanings of the adjective liberal to the first political meaning. Smith and his friends christened their political outlook “liberal.” The data show that ‘liberal’ acquired a sustained political signification for the first time around 1769: the liberal policy principles of Adam Smith and his associates.
The study will appear in Journal of Contextual Economics – Schmollers Jahrbuch, in an issue containing proceedings of the Adam Smith 300 conference in Edinburgh in 2023, organized by the NOUS Network. The posting is done with permission of the editors of the special issue.
The bodies of evidence include: (1) the non-occurrence in English prior to 1769 (with a few exceptions); (2) the blossoming from 1769 of ‘liberal plan,’ ‘liberal system,’ ‘liberal principles,’ ‘liberal policy,’ etc.; (3) the occurrence beginning in the 1770s of political uses of ‘liberal’ in Parliament; (4) the occurrence of the same in the Edinburgh Review, 1802–1824.
The political adjective liberal came alive around 1769 and was sustained straight up to when the political nouns liberalism and liberal start up in the 1820s.
The data from French, German, Italian, and Spanish confirm that Britain was the first to get to a political sense of “liberal.”
I look at text of David Hume and Adam Ferguson, and then the liberal christeners William Robertson and, most importantly, Adam Smith.
I briefly treat figures in the sustainment of the christening, Edmund Burke, Dugald Stewart, and John Ramsay McCulloch.
I also discuss “liberal” in early American political discourse. I theorize on why “liberal” was never much used in America, until the twentieth century, when “liberal” acquired a new meaning contrary to the Smithian meaning.
Those who favor reform that reduces the governmentalization of social affairs need a name for that Smithian outlook. Whatever name we adopt, it will be abused or stolen by those whose characters and deeds spell the governmentalization of social affairs. We should remember who we are. We should return to the great liberal arc of the last 500 years, rising out of Christendom. There is only one liberalism 1.0. Let’s recover it and stick with it.
Kline on his paper on liberalism as an adjective:
The digitization of text has enabled us to prove that liberalism started with Adam Smith and friends. Liberalism 1.0 was Smithian liberalism.
I show the origins, nature, and character of liberalism 1.0 in a new study, “‘Liberal’ as a Political Adjective (in English), 1769–1824,” embedded below.
The paper discusses the stepping from non-political meanings of the adjective liberal to the first political meaning. Smith and his friends christened their political outlook “liberal.” The data show that ‘liberal’ acquired a sustained political signification for the first time around 1769: the liberal policy principles of Adam Smith and his associates.
The study will appear in Journal of Contextual Economics – Schmollers Jahrbuch, in an issue containing proceedings of the Adam Smith 300 conference in Edinburgh in 2023, organized by the NOUS Network. The posting is done with permission of the editors of the special issue.
The bodies of evidence include: (1) the non-occurrence in English prior to 1769 (with a few exceptions); (2) the blossoming from 1769 of ‘liberal plan,’ ‘liberal system,’ ‘liberal principles,’ ‘liberal policy,’ etc.; (3) the occurrence beginning in the 1770s of political uses of ‘liberal’ in Parliament; (4) the occurrence of the same in the Edinburgh Review, 1802–1824.
The political adjective liberal came alive around 1769 and was sustained straight up to when the political nouns liberalism and liberal start up in the 1820s.
The data from French, German, Italian, and Spanish confirm that Britain was the first to get to a political sense of “liberal.”
I look at text of David Hume and Adam Ferguson, and then the liberal christeners William Robertson and, most importantly, Adam Smith.
I briefly treat figures in the sustainment of the christening, Edmund Burke, Dugald Stewart, and John Ramsay McCulloch.
I also discuss “liberal” in early American political discourse. I theorize on why “liberal” was never much used in America, until the twentieth century, when “liberal” acquired a new meaning contrary to the Smithian meaning.
Those who favor reform that reduces the governmentalization of social affairs need a name for that Smithian outlook. Whatever name we adopt, it will be abused or stolen by those whose characters and deeds spell the governmentalization of social affairs. We should remember who we are. We should return to the great liberal arc of the last 500 years, rising out of Christendom. There is only one liberalism 1.0. Let’s recover it and stick with it.
(Liberal concepts start with Adam Smith.)
No comments:
Post a Comment