![]() ![]() However, “the economy that derives from it has not thereby been liberated from its providential paradigm” - it just emphasizes one half of the apparatus over against the other. The difference from the explicitly theological apparatus of providence is that liberalism denigrates Regno more and more in favor of Governo. The final step is Adam Smith’s “invisible hand,” which again plays the same role of coordinating individual contingent choices into a harmonious totality - and it has clear theological roots traceable from the Bible to Augustine, Aquains, and Luther, all the way to Bousset. Another physiocrat, Le Trosne, uses the term “social order” in much the same way - Agamben makes much of his use of “the government of order,” which he takes to be a double genetive reflecting the logic of “order” in Aquinas. So in addition to being clearly influenced by Malebranche, he carries Linnaeus’s concept of economy into his work. The physiocrats bring this logic into what we now consider the “economic” realm - notably, one of the main physiocrats, Quesnay, was actually a physician. In all cases, he refers specifically to the creator who has established this order. In a later work, Linnaeus uses politia naturae in a parallel sense. Linnaeus used the term “economy of nature” to mean essentially what the providential apparatus was getting at - the correlation of general laws with specific cases in a harmonious way. His genealogy basically goes from Linnaeus, to the physiocrats, to Adam Smith. Nevertheless, Agamben believes there are subterranean connections that can be brought to light. The availability of easy credit meant that too many people borrowed to buy properties that they could not afford.This brief appendix points toward ways in which the modern concept of economy can be linked to the theological concept, though Agamben leaves the full genealogy to other scholars.Īt first glance, it appears that the modern term “economy” does not come from any of the sources Agamben has been investigating, but rather to have emerged ex novo from the texts of philosophers and economists. Too much foreign money was flowing into the US from the Asian countries especially China. To economists, it all seems painfully simple. While few predicted the financial catastrophe, almost everyone has an explanation as to why it happened. “US and China Must Tame Imbalances Together,” suggested YaleGlobal, as the frenzied search for a solution continues around the globe. “Chinese Steelmakers Shiver, Indian Miners Catch Flu,” noted the Hindustan Times. “In an Interconnected World, American Homeowner Woes Can Be Felt from Beijing to Rio de Janeiro,” observed the International Herald Tribune at the onset of the crisis. The assumptions that ruled policy and politics over three decades suddenly look as outdated as revolutionary socialism.” In the new, globalized world of closely interdependent economies, the crisis affected almost every part of the world, receiving extensive coverage in the international media. Martin Wolff openly declared the end of a modern ideological god, “the free market economy” by stating that: “Another ideological god has failed. The Capitalist World Economy is experiencing one of its worst crises that have been extensively compared to 1929 Great Depression by many scholars and journalists. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |