If you really want to understand the unfolding presidential race, check out a little-known economic theory called "public choice." Public choice theory argues that economic self-interest is the driving force of politics.
The take-home message from this body of research is this: What counts as a fair transaction depends in large part on perceived relative social status -- where the parties stand in their perceived hierarchy and how they believe they got there.
What on earth did this misanthropic woman write that was so appealing to her disciples and how could we have allowed them to use her warped creed to further their own political ends and enrich their cronies?
Over the past 200 years or so, many of the world's conflicts have developed around a little-known debate in economic theory. The outcome of this argument has had an impact equal to that of a major war.
As INET Executive Director Rob Johnson said, "last year's conference punctured the mystique of market stability (not to mention real events). This year, the conference will shatter the illusion of control."
This is the third time that I have been through an economic event where there were groups of people who said the old methods of analysis didn't apply. As I will demonstrate, nothing could be farther from the truth.