>> >Subject: Re: Getting things all mixed up
>> >economist of any standing has ever paid the
>> slightest attention to Pound's
>> >ideas about money, for instance,
In response to Jonatham Morse's claim that no economist had pair any
attention to "Pound's" economics, Wayne wrote:
>Dead wrong. Read Giano Accame, _Ezra Pound
>Economista_, 1995. Massimo Bacigalupo reviewed it for
>Pai. (Accame a journalist whose field is economics and
>cites reputable sources.) The review inspited y.t. to
>read this book --hasn't anybody else read it?
I have read this book, and own a copy. But as Wayne concedes Accame is a
journalist not an economist. It is a reasonably competent book, but a
better account of Pound's econmics can be found in Giorgio Lunghini's
introduction to the Italian translation of THE ABC OF ECONOMICS Lunghini IS
an economist, and comes to a measured assessment, but not an endorsment of
Pound's views. Although Lunghini is an economist, like most economists, he
is not well informed on the history of economic thought. I put the question
to him in Milan, and he knew nothing of Gesell or Proudhon--two important
figures for an understanding of Pound's views.
In fact Pound's views are not his own, but an somewhat undisciplined
amalgam of Douglas (himself incompetent in economics) and Silvio Gesell (a
more presentable figure).
My POUND IN PURGATORY: A DESCENT FROM ECONOMIC RADICALISM INTO
ANTISEMITISM gives a detailed account of Pound's economic and political
opinions. I have received an advance copy, and it should be availabe in a
few weeks (Illinois UP). I recommend it to anyone interested in the topic.
University of Western Ontario