I have been following the talk on Naomi Klein's new book "The Shock Doctrine" on Marginal Revolution and the New York Times putting my two cents in. I don't want to read the book and as far as continuing to invest two cents into discussing the book, one should get change back. However, there is another discussion/debate/donnybrook going on between the so-called main stream and the so-called heterodex economists which is much more interesting.
Interesting in that it helps me get a better understanding of the methodologies used by economists. It also directly applies to my ongoing study of understanding how economics would fit in with my idea of intentional beneficial paradigm shifts. The larger debate is still between capitalism and socialism it seems but the world gets more interesting when the capitalist side includes Grameen phones with Iqbar Quadir from MIT and CARE refuses federal funds. I find value in both the thoughts of Professor Cowen and the newly discovered Professor Stiglitz and have not resolved any of my internal conflicts within the logic of my own perspective.
I must admit that I find the theoretical discussions very interesting recognizing that naiveté is one of the best sources of enthusiasm, but it is the more practical and closer to the ground work that I really admire. Its like having a theory of gravity which is interesting to read and think about but it is not that same as using that theory to explore our solar system.