I can resist anything, except temptation! (Oscar Wilde)

Category archive

status quo

Keynesian myths

in status quo

“It is obvious that the Keynesians’ disgust with the Neoliberal policies of the government of big business is misplaced. At the heart of their frustration is the unrealistic perception that economic strategies and policies are largely intellectual products, and that policy making is primarily a matter of technical expertise and personal preferences: economists and/or policy makers who are far-sighted, good-hearted, or better equipped with “smart” ideas would opt for “good” or Keynesian-type capitalism; while those lacking such admirable qualities would foolishly or misguidedly or heartlessly choose “bad” or “Neoliberal capitalism”. As I have pointed out in an earlier critique of Keynesian economics, it is not a matter of “bad” vs. “good” policy; it is a matter of class policy. Keynesians are angry because they tend to be oblivious or shy away from the politics of class, that is, the politics of policy making. Instead, they seem to think that economic policy making results mainly from a battle of ideas and theories, and they are disappointed because they are losing that battle.”[1]


  1. Ismael Hossein-zadeh, “Solutions to the Global Economic Crisis: Keynesian Myths, Hopes and Illusions,” The Market Oracle, 06-Nov-2011. [Online]. Available: http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article31395.html. [Accessed: 23-Jun-2014]. 

China and Shale Gas

in status quo

“The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates that China possesses by far the world’s largest reserves of technically recoverable shale gas. Although China’s shale gas industry is not as advanced as the United States’, it could be the most advanced outside of North America.”[1]


  1. “China’s Shale Gas Development Potential,” Stratfor, 2014. [Online]. Available: http://www.stratfor.com/sample/image/chinas-shale-gas-development-potential. [Accessed: 18-Mar-2014]. 

Removing Knowledge

in status quo

“About five times as many pages are being added to the classified universe than are being brought to the storehouses of human learning, including all the books and journals on any subject in any language collected in the largest repositories on the planet… Whether one figures by acquisition rate, by holding size, or by contributors, the classified universe is, as best I can estimate, on the order of five to ten times larger than the open literature that finds its way to our libraries. Our commonsense picture may well be far too sanguine, even inverted. The closed world is not a small strongbox in the corner of our collective house of codified and stored knowledge. It is we in the open world—we who study the world lodged in our libraries, from aardvarks to zymurgy,wewho are living in a modest information booth facing outwards, our unseeing backs to a vast and classified empire we barely know.”[1]

The author starts by estimating the extraordinary size of the classified knowledge, and uses the classified theory of knowledge to explain the concepts such as “subjective secrets”, which are compact, transparent, arbitrary, changeable, and perishable; and “objective secrets” which are diffuse, technical, determinable, eternal, and long lasting qua secrets. Objective secrets can create more difficult problems, while subjective ones can cause deadly harm. Therefore, the control over the transmission of knowledge, the extensive measures which are used, and its internal paradoxes and ironies are explored. In other words, the author gives an overview on the hidden side of knowledge, the secret world of anti-epistemology, and the monopolistic vision on knowledge transmission.


  1. Galison, P., 2004. Removing Knowledge. Critical Inquiry 31, 229–243. 

Open access: Good or evil?!

in status quo

A sensible argument against open access?

… Following the changes, costs of publication will fall not on the reader but on universities, which will pay “author processing charges” each time they wish to have work from one of their academics published. The new system, according to its critics, will give university managements unprecedented control over their academics’ ability to publish their work, provoking Professor Peter Mandler, president of the RHS, to claim that the government is at risk of sacrificing the cherished values of British [1].

0 £0.00
Go to Top