For whatever reason your links do not take the reader to the intended place. They instead take the reader to one place, a Google blogger page asking them to create a new blog. Obviously it weakens your points though it may strengthen Google's trading position.
When I studied economics and game theory/negotiation analysis at Harvard's Kennedy School of Gov in the late 1980s, I asked an econ professor why there was a lack of focus on "cutting up the pie" among different interest groups -- instead typically weighing costs/benefits in aggregate. His answer: "That's a matter for politics, not economics." One reason I prefer the term "political economics" is that it implies more thought about distribution.
For whatever reason I find the stories of the WB in 80s/90s morbidly fascinating. How come they never interviewed you for the Oral History program? Or did you never want to? I always thought that they generally were quite okay in capturing dissident voices?
For whatever reason your links do not take the reader to the intended place. They instead take the reader to one place, a Google blogger page asking them to create a new blog. Obviously it weakens your points though it may strengthen Google's trading position.
When I studied economics and game theory/negotiation analysis at Harvard's Kennedy School of Gov in the late 1980s, I asked an econ professor why there was a lack of focus on "cutting up the pie" among different interest groups -- instead typically weighing costs/benefits in aggregate. His answer: "That's a matter for politics, not economics." One reason I prefer the term "political economics" is that it implies more thought about distribution.
For whatever reason I find the stories of the WB in 80s/90s morbidly fascinating. How come they never interviewed you for the Oral History program? Or did you never want to? I always thought that they generally were quite okay in capturing dissident voices?