A major modification of this page was done in the winter of 2017-'18; especially in regard to a number of my papers made available for download.
These have all been, more or less substantially, revised from earlier versions made public.

The Original "Third Way" Political Economist

(and how the extension of his thoughts leads to a modern, alternative economic paradigm*)

Drawn Portrait of Sismondi     Bibliography: of Sismondi's main works on Political Economy

Tableau de l'agriculture Toscane; Geneva, 1801
De la Richesse commerciale; Vol. 1, Geneva, 1803

De la Richesse commerciale; Vol. 2, Geneva, 1803
Nouveaux Principes d'Économie Politique; 2e éd. Vol. 1, Paris, 1827

Nouveaux Principes d'Économie Politique; 2e éd. Vol. 2, Paris, 1827

Études sur l'Économie Politique; 2 Vols., Bruxelles, 1837-8
Political Economy, and the Philosophy of the Government; a collection of his writings translated by F. Mignet, London, 1847
Political Economy; an A.M. Kelley Reprint of an 1815 Encyclopedia article, New York, 1966

SISMONDI



*) The term "Third Way" understandably has been regarded with aversion by a good many, ever since it was hijacked through the agency of the fake-left "progressives" at the end of the last century by such figures as Clinton in the U.S. and Blair in Britain, and especially once having merged with that vile rightist ideology called neoliberalism, earlier adopted by their predecessor policy-makers Reagan and Thatcher; with the original terminology referring to the idea of a happy medium between socialism and capitalism now totally perverted and lost by the privatization wayside. Does all this yet mean that the "Third Way" ship has sailed for good and is too far gone?
Perhaps but then again, unlike the present-day usurpers, an alternative economic paradigm equating its mission with promulgating economy-reformative ideas that are neither capitalist, socialist, nor anything else ideological, does as such hold a moral and legitimate inheritance to the term "Third Way". And when doing the necessary developmental work under a well-proven catchy and fair banner, its activities no doubt would be far more impelling in effecting real change than by just joining the barely surviving chorus of progressive thinkers. So why capitulate to the hijackers and relinguish the logical possibility of a successfull reclaimation?

In spite of going quite a bit beyond him further down on this page, this website remains dedicated to a tragically almost ignored follower of Adam Smith, named: Jean Charles Léonard Simonde de Sismondi (1773-1842), Sismondi for short. For he is, and always will be, the giant on whose shoulders I was able to stand. While Ricardo and, later thanks to Keynes, Malthus received all the credit for having advanced on the ideas of their illustrious predecessor Smith, respectively founding the orthodox and heterodox schools of thought; Sismondi, in spite of being the originator of more valid economic ideas than both of them combined, has never received the credit he deserves. To a large degree, I believe, this remains a mystery; even though some telling reasons for this, no doubt are detectable.
First, because his theory was inherently dynamic, not only his contemporaries, all steeped in a static approach, had no idea on how to deal with his concepts on the level it commanded; but, to the extent that his dynamic model plays havoc with the conventional assumption of economic determinacy, this still holds true for modern English interpreters of his works as well
1. Furthermore, even the belated acknowledgements of Sismondi's innovative dynamic approach, with some notable exceptions2, all published in French3; in my opinion, by enlarge yet also suffer from the inability of its authors to dispose of deeply ingrained deterministic blinders, while imparting a mathematical exactness to Sismondian analysis that he himself strongly denied the existence of.
Second, an article written for the Edinburgh Encyclopedia in 1815, although in the English speaking world generally understood to be an abridged version of his magnum opus N.P., first published in 1819, is almost totally devoid of its later evolved dynamic (statically-indeterminate) essence.
Third, here are some of Sismondi's own ideas regarding this neglect, as expressed in the preface
4 of the second edition of his main work. And finally, my own take on the main reason for all of this is that in spite of its title, Sismondi himself did not fully appreciate the fundamental difference between the formal part of his 1803 and at least some significant portions of his more colloquial 1819 approach, never could properly explain it; and that he therefore often seemed too ambiguous to be taken seriously in his quest to overtake the reigning establishment.

So why designating the ignoring of Sismondi's economic ideas as tragic? By far the greater part of historical suffering these past couple of centuries has been the result of a misinterpretation of economics. All dominant socio-economic "-isms": capitalism, communism, fascism, you name it, profess to hold the key to the cornucopia, with powerful forces within those movements forsaking large segments of the population perceived to stand in the way of that end. Sismondi was a "Third Way" (political) economist in spirit, long before Marx founded communism in response to unbridled capitalism, as a so-called second way. And it could even be said that instead of Marx being the original thinker, he simply appropriated crucial Sismondian terminology(1b), meant to help palliate the vicious conditions so common during the mid-industrial-revolution period, while subsequently putting his own stamp on it by radicalizing Sismondi's reasoning. Furthermore it could be argued, that most wars would never have started if a just, ideology-free economic solution had been within the grasp of policy-makers world-wide ever since Sismondi's time; i.e., post-Napoleonic.

But, blissfully unaware of a somewhat similar endeavour underway elsewhere(1b), on the principle of better late than never and in an effort to try to get rid of persistent old ideas inhabiting every nook and cranny not only of economists' but lay-persons' minds as well, I set out to translate the most relevant portions of Sismondi's magnum opus "Nouveaux Principes d'Économie Politique" (2e éd. Paris 1827) ; whose espoused principles, conceived about two centuries ago now, remain surprisingly new. Rather heavily annotated in places where this is deemed pertinent, it not only strives to stress the original indeterminacy slant of Sismondian thinking, but is also meant to lay the foundation for a totally different (non-deterministic) economics than is taught at present. Consequently thereby straightening out the notion, that after having advanced algebraic notations of lagged aggregate equilibrium income already in 1803(3d), that are fully in line with those of modern Post Keynesians; Sismondi's later theorizing is not inexplicably retrogressive(2c), but progressive and truly unique in its attempt to go beyond even the Keynesian disequilibrium economics of over a century later. This translation's ultimate purport therefore, is to show that the abrogation of classical economics by the marginalists of the late 19th century, was wholly unnecessary to put a close to classic political economic thinking, and a waste of time to say the least for now. As such, my translation not only differs from Richard Hyse's contemporary rendition(1b) as far as its annotations are concerned, but a liberal use of modern synonyms makes it in my opinion a far easier read.

     
Noted References:

1a.) Mao-Lan Tuan, Simonde de Sismondi as an Economist; Columbia University Press, New York, 1927.

1b.) J.C.L. Simonde de Sismondi, NEW PRINCIPLES OF POLITICAL ECONOMY, of Wealth in its Relation to Population. Translated and annotated by Richard Hyse. Transaction Publishers; New Brunswick, (N.J.) 1991.


2a.) A. Amonn, Simonde de Sismondi, Als National Oekonom. Francke Verlag, Bern; 2-Vol's 1945-9.

2b.) J. A. Schumpeter, History of Economic Analysis. London: George Allen and Unwin, 1954. pp. 493-6.

2c.) Thomas Sowell, Sismondi: A Neglected Pioneer; History of Political Economy. Spring 1972.



3a.) J. Weiller, Préface des Nouveaux Principes d'Économie Politique, J. C. L. Simonde de Sismondi. éd. Calmann-Lévy, 1971.

3b.) A. Parguez, "Sismondi et la théorie du déséquilibre macro-économique" Revue économique, 05, 1973.

3c.) Jean Weiller,  Société des amis de Sismondi, "Histoire, socialisme et critique de l'économie politique"; ISMEA Paris, 1976.

3d.) R. Arena, "Réflexions sur l'analyse sismondienne de la formation des prix"; Revue économique, 01, 1982. pp.132-149
3d2.) R. Arena, "Note sur les apports de Sismondi à la théorie classique"; L'Actualité économique, vol. 57, n° 4, 1981, pp. 565-588.




4.) Reprinted in the "Revue Encyclopédique", Sept. 1826; and translated by F. Mignet, 1847.

5.) Sismondi giving us a first hint of disequilibrium political economy: "Let us be wary of this dangerous theory of equilibrium, as supposedly reestablishing itself automatically...An inevitable equilibrium, it is true, is reestablished in the long run, but it is only by way of a frightful amount of suffering.” (transl. mine)  pg. 220 of:  Nouveaux Principes d'Économie Politique; 2e éd. Vol.2, Paris, 1827,


Once this work is read and the mind opened up, if not cleared of the countless misconceptions regarding commonly held economic notions, at least be made aware of a potentially valid alternative point of view; a follow up is meant to continue from where Sismondi left off(5), in a quest to make the workings of the economy an open book. By that I mean that its principles, as developed in a logically constructed thesis, could then be used to furnish answers to any real-world economic problem that might arise, rather than inherently containing all those possible answers already. For the real-world economy, being man-made and as such very much subject to human foibles at all times, requires a synthesis of its thesis and collective antinomies in order to understand it, and promulgate an equitable progression in a non-utopian setting.

A fair bit of work in that regard has already been done, but its task is huge. Aside from writing a 35+ page outline quite some time ago now, that throws the validity of the orthodox economic population-endogeneity axiom into doubt; and in addition to the writings as listed on the right, I have also started on a book. Tentatively it is called: EPICONOMICS: AN ALTERNATIVE ECONOMICS' THEORY FOR NON-ECONOMISTS. The term "epiconomics" was coined to signify a field of study that transcends the level whereon the the study of conventional economics takes place. Its preface and introduction,  downloadable on the right, pretty well identifies what will be involved. Over the years however, I've found my forte to lie in a succinct bringing to the fore of facts, as derived from an alternative set of apparently valid first principles; with which to successfully challenge both current orthodox and heterodox economic reasoning. But I'm not a storyteller, hence not a very good writer and could use some help in that regard. In other words, I'm looking for a collaborator and likely more than one. Thus if you have some background, preferably though not necessarily in heterodox economics, and have the knack to spin yarn from bare threads as it were, please consider getting in touch with me, your expertise is sorely needed. I also would be willing to start a Google or WordPress discussion group if the interest warrants it, and so develop a wider purview from prospective entries. For there is no doubt in my mind that a whole lot of thinking will be required to cover all the possible ramifications that will be affected by this new perspective.

To give you a starting idea what this alternative approach to uncovering the true nature of our economy is all about, below are some of its tenets. These are all deductively determined in terms of three high level axioms; but unlike all the other approaches from the earliest pamphleteers till modern theoreticians (with the possible exception of Sismondi), it doesn't take an existing economy as point of departure. Instead, its axioms derive from the pre-analytical position, of how an economy would be organized if it did not yet exist at all. In other words, how a hypothetical society with the knowledge of modern human beings, but simply living of the land and obtaining its standard of living from Nature, would organize an economy to add to its existing living standard with a minimum of waste (in supra-economic terms; i.e. not only a waste of endogenous outputs, but of exogenously located inputs as well). These additions to output would thereby necessarily have to be valued in terms identical to the values of the natural provisions currently being enjoyed, for otherwise they could not be added as such; which means that any notionally expressed values of the contemplated system, would have to annihilate one another at the point of its fruits becoming additional to a currently enjoyed standard of living.
The essence of the above epitome is that humanity, its sense of justice, motives, and utilities, and of course natural resources, can be expressed to exist exogenous to the economic system of its creation. And accordingly, the economy becomes strictly a set of
means to exogenously situated ends, being subject to and driven by the above indicated exogenous impulses, whereby determinate economic own-values by definition are ruled out; their very annihilation, instead will be determining what these values had been, thus making the economy from its inner core outward socially determined and its economics non-deterministic. Or, to put it in formal (mathematic) terms: the macroeconomy's determinant matrix, although still being the inverse of its supply matrix, not only isn't contemporaneous with the latter, but it is complex and incompatible with fixed-coefficient micro values. This makes supply coefficients indeterminate in time, whose unit of account moreover is elastic due to its value being induced exogenously; and only becoming determinate endogenously through demand, not through the demand for money, but for final output bit by bit over time. The cardinal economic question becomes, under what conditions do these non-fixed-in-time coefficients fulfill their determinant task; and which kind of, if any, intervention is required for its optimality.
General equilibrium modeling on the other hand, through base assertions of micro values in terms of utility that are endogenously fixed as "real" in time, not only defines away the possible existence of a higher level truth, turning the entire process into a trivial tautology without any clarification potential, but also can be shown to play loose and fast with our innate sense of justice as far as a determining utility principle is concerned. At a minimum an integrated falsifiable theory of the unit of account's value would be required, prior to any modeling done in its terms; which happens to remain sorely missing in economics' approaches of any persuasion.
If this alternate methodology to get to the bottom of how our economy works is not only logically valid at a high level of generality, but also relevant in uncovering during "normal" times obfuscated economic consequences (read: outside of crises, when it doesn't seem to matter in the least whether values are determinate or not); virtually the entire body of orthodoxy and a substantial portion of heterodox thought would be rendered inferior and suspect, by being mutually exclusive.
So here goes...

1. The economy functions non-linearly, contains no paradoxes, yet is sequentially causative (non of this "simultaneous determination" sophistry of Mainstream economics); with all supply-side activity keeping it in disequilibrium as its normal state of affairs, and the demand-side only potentially and non-contemporaneously pulling it back towards, though without ever reaching, a true equilibrium in time.

2. The optimal distribution of income has a pure economic meaning, and is not pushed away into some irrelevant ethical realm; as the consequence of a rising inequality in remuneration, while merely asset-inflationary for some, diminishes living standard achievability in real terms for the rest of the population. Money is no longer neutral.  

3. Monetary phenomena as well as the nature of capital are derived from axioms rather than inductively determined; this imparts a quantum leap advancement over the Keynesian critique of money-neutral (neo-)classical economics, through allowing comprehensive theories of inflation, growth, and profit.

4. As a "true" economic system, it is able to unify all its micro with its macro principles, whereby it refutes "the whole is simply the sum of its parts" of conventional economic theory; the "parts" having been identified here as an agglomeration of abstractions yet in search of determinants, and so are in no position to be added up at any time.

5. It is stimulated through direct spending and expertise underwritten "new" income, and not necessarily by the saving/investing of "old" income; as the latter may lead to a situation where claims to output have grown to far exceed that output, without such potential inflation being at all detectable by claim-holders in any economic fashion whatsoever.

6. It allows a level of aggregate profit realization that is totally independent of the remuneration rate of wage earners, but could result instead from the combination of (more or less ostentatious) lifestyles of profit earners and a concomitant decrease in unemployment.

7. It is vertically integrated, with the direct spending of profit income at the retail level, ex post "closing" all economic pursuits, which happens through ever diminishing numerically interlocking feedback loops; thus not only ruling out neat (ex ante fixed) econometric coefficients but a static determinacy as well, and whereby a multiplier of sorts enables the distribution of achieved growth in final output.

8. It not only disregards any determinacy in its capital values and/or equity, but, by being designated as valid claims to an eventual share in economy-produced transcendent standard of living, its economic-claim receivers are in debt to the economy; whose systemic rebirth and continuation requires a timely, mutual resolution. This puts the validation of all economic activity into the realm of distribution, and not into the one of production; and makes the satiation for produced output, and not its unbounded wants, the ultimate determinant of economic well-being.

8b. Therefore capitalism, or its alter ego finance, as thought to be an own-value creating entity, is unable to produce an appropriatable surplus in its conventional meaning of accumulated yet idle balances, (all financing being in fact deficit financing!) and becomes invalid; even though its component free-enterprise, having humanistic-judicial criteria determining the rightful development of its free natural resources, remains very much valid indeed.

9. It is unable to lower its already achieved standard of living, unless this either: actively, however unwittingly, is induced by an in essence inept but under current institutional directives unduly powerful, "economic man", or the population outruns the availability of natural resources.

10. Not only is it ideologically neutral, but by enlarge it is also readily understandable to anyone of average intelligence; for, in spite of being non-deterministic, it is far easier to understand than conventional economics.

...  It possesses many more surprising attributes as most of them, just like the above, are bearing virtually no resemblance at all to the way the economy is thought to function, according to present deterministic (equilibrium) theories. A further example of this, and perhaps pertinent to relate at this point as well, involves the notion of debt. But unlike debt in its normal meaning, here it concerns a kind of debt that nobody knows or talks about; i.e. the debt we owe to the economy by drawing an income from it... In order to achieve a modicum of understanding how the economy of ours functions in general and with regard to the notion of debt in particular, it has to become recognized that for economic continuity reasons and in terms of evolutionarily to be resolved sunk costs, income represents a systemic debt already and as such is no different than debt as it is commonly understood. Hence, earning some income and with that money pay off one's debt is a false dichotomy. It is no more than a robbing of Peter to pay Paul. Not necessarily an overriding problem, unless, under conditions ever-present in the real world, Paul not only misses the proclivity but isn't even in a position to compensate Peter from having been robbed. Instead, acting on the advice of a clueless economics profession, Paul "solves" the problem either by pulling plugs or letting it fester and have it develop into the situation of irresolvable debt that we're finding ourselves in right now.
The logic of the above depiction follows the above indicated dynamic analysis of how our economy works. And, because of functioning laggedly in a material way, cannot do without accounts to keep track of the acquisition and resolution of who owes what, during the time it takes to provide needed consumable output from freely provided natural resources. It is only these accounts that indicate an economy out of kilter, or, in a worst case scenario, a crash; for whatever is being accounted for always remains an unaffected and unscathed physicality. This kind of reasoning is able to go far beyond what orthodox and/or Keynsian comparative static and paradox laden economics professes to be the reality of income. The latter having as its (assumed to be true) foundational principle that all disbursed income by firms inherently possesses a positive physical causal agency at the very outset, and from that point of departure inducing the (thought to be valid) applicability to direct such determinate income toward either consumption or investment. 

If this all sounds interesting enough but you are still not sure it's not the work of a crank, why not download my translation of Sismondi's N.P.; that should be sufficiently informative to make up your mind one way or the other. If once having read Sismondi and thirsting for more, but you're unable to read beyond a smidgen of French, I was able to scan, OCR, and machine-translate his what now has become , so this too is available for download; with a proper translation perhaps to come later. Furthermore, a most favourable review of Sismondi's thoughts from a Marxian economics' perspective can be downloaded here. It is a Monograph of a Conference held December 1923, organized by the Society of Warsaw Economists in memory of the 150th anniversary of the birth of Sismondi by HENRYK GROSSMAN: SIMONDE DE SISMONDI ET SES THÉORIES ÉCONOMIQUES. (UNE NOUVELLE INTERPRÉTATION DE SA PENSÉE.) Translated and with a Preface added by me.

So to all you disgruntled economists out there, fed up with orthodox policy and crisis management agendas, but having been told ad nauseam that it takes a system to beat a system; this may just be it!

 
PAPERS/ARTICLES and other bits of WRITINGS:
My excuses in advance for a few occurring instances of  self-plagiarization in the following articles, especially coming to the fore in ontology.pdf and the Introduction of an upcoming book. Since a very different perspective on economic theory is introduced herewith and all individual manuscripts are supposed to be intelligible independently toward that end, it almost comes with the territory.


1. QUESTIONING THE ONTOLOGY OF CONVENTIONAL ECONOMICS
ontology2.pdf

ABSTRACT:

This paper introduces an alternative ontological paradigm, from a given set of (sustainable) natural resources, that allows the principal workings of the real-world economy to become falsifiable. The neutrality of the unit of account, axiomatic according to the orthodox paradigm and axiomatically diametrical to most heterodox approaches, is herewith deduced logically in favour of heterodoxy; as well as providing economists working in that inductivist tradition with a firm underpinning of many of their other positions. The paper also provides a crucial starting point to the discussion, as to whether the regulatory policies of a democratic society's free-market, should be pre-designed to allow for a steadily progressing standard of living for all, but whose economic values are consequently understood to be no more than notionally booked (indeterminate) representations; or, whether it rather has to defer to capitalist rulings, thus allowing "determinate" gains in equity value to occur, that when empirically proven to have been unrealistic is followed by more or less rampageous periodical corrections, while
all along detrimentally having affected the standard of living of society at large. The argument is inherent to having shown that the latter rests on the unfettered liberty of its agents to act; which is the antithesis of justice having a version of the golden rule as its underlying axiom, that also meta-underlies the former.


2. PREFACE and INTRODUCTION of upcoming book.
 
epiconomics.pdf


3
IN SEARCH OF ECONOMIC REALITY
economic reality.pdf


ABSTRACT:

This paper introduces a wholly different deductive methodology from all other conventional approaches to economics; and although underpinning a few (inductive) Keynesian propositions, it rejects others as being false. The model it uses is dynamic at its very core, which as such is thus impossible to be reduced to a static equilibrium condition, regardless if deemed to be an idealized version of reality or not. This would mean that when the economy as modeled is viewed at statically, all its endogenous values have now become indeterminate; and, while still remaining approachable for practical purposes, not only are these values inapplicable to be used as valid points of departure for an extended theoretical analysis, but also as empirically addable to provide a valid macro picture of our economy. A consequent conclusion is that all conventional economics, dealing with situations that are taken for granted to be, rather than as dynamic processes in a state of becoming, is fraudulent; innocent perhaps as in the case of the progressive factions of heterodoxy, but far less so where orthodox or Mainstream economics is concerned.


4. TOWARD NEUTRALIZING MONEY Upcoming (needs more work)
Marx_Debunked.pdf

ABSTRACT:
Since there is no shortage of literature critiquing the neutral-money and General Equilibrium, "rational -expectation" based (macro) approach of the mainstream in economics, this particular paper, arguing that delusional monetary impositioning by self-serving and market-rationality-imbued institutional powers-that-be is the ultimate reason for permanent disequilibria and consequent economic crises to keep on occurring, will neither be repeating nor adding much to the money non-neutrality concept of heterodox economics. Instead its focus will be on reasoning from the ground up, that if it is of the essence to sustain an equilibrium over time (i.e. dynamically) and thereby maximize the well-being of society as a whole, then money's influence ought to be neutralized systematically  by supra-market forces, i.e. by governments
. During the course of its argumentation that specific monetary policies are inept however, as money on the level of applied theory cannot be causal, it will yet underpin thereby a variety of progressive ideas already having been put forward by those economists commonly understood to be working in a heterodox and/or socialist tradition. Originally written as an attempt to convince my Marxist friends of the wrongheadedness of their tack, to the extent of demonstrating that their Marxian economic theory is fallaciously based on a material constitution of both money and capital, as held to exist in time (i.e. statically); this discourse has been greatly expanded since, to now also include substantive critiques of a number of fundamental economic notions held by various other approaches in economics.


5ETHICAL ECONOMICS: An Alternative Perspective(edited version of a paper written for a WEA online conference in 2008)
ethical economics.pdf

ABSTRACT:
This paper introduces the possibility that for an ethical dimension to the economics of society to exist logically, the conventionally accepted identification of economics, as being "the study of human activity as it relates to ends and scarce means which have alternative uses", will need to be abandoned and replaced by a definition of economics rolling out of a set of axioms that are entirely different than the ones underlying the above definition. Additionally, that by applying the philosophical methodology of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis the touted rigour of deductive orthodox theory not only would be surpassed, but also thereby establish that the economy will not equilibrate without the existence of an underlying morality. That is to say, by using a truth-finding methodology in combination with an alternative set of axioms, demonstrating by logic that economics without an ethical dimension isn't just amoral but immoral, because the universally applied utility principle sets the system up for an inevitable crash; while in the course of making its case, also rejecting both the latent Marxian and Keynesian approaches toward ethics in economics.

6MMT CRITIQUE  (in reference to:  L. Randall Wray's Working Paper* on money  *) http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_656.pdf)
mmt_critique.pdf 



7.  SEARCH: MY (PAST) MAIL GROUP ACTIVITIES.

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/gang8plus/ ​ search/messages?query=Vertegaal

https://www.mail-archive.com/search? ​q=vertegaal&l=pen-l%40lists.csuchico.edu

Between the mid '90s and early '00s, I've also been active on "pkt@cfs.colorado.edu", long since defunct; and while at the time of this writing its archives seem inaccessible, that may change in the future.

John S. Vertegaal       vertegaa@vcn.bc.ca

I'm getting a lot of spam on this address, that is deleted without opening. Thus if you decide to contact me, please put "Sismondi follow-up" in the subject line, so I don't inadvertently delete your mail.