23 Apr 2013 - 16:00
J. Bradford DeLong
Richard Jensen
Timothy Fuerst
Chair and Moderator: Richard Jensen, Gilbert F. Schaefer Professor and Chairperson of the Department of Economics, University of Notre Dame
4:00 pm – Lecture: J. Bradford DeLong, Professor of Economics, University of California, Berkeley, Research Associate of the NBER, and Visiting Researcher (2012-2013) at the Kauffman Foundation
4:45 – Commentary: Timothy Fuerst, William J. and Dorothy K. O’Neill Professor of Economics, University of Notre Dame
5:05 – Discussion: Type your questions in the Comment field below.
For a printable PDF version of the schedule of events, click here.
I appreciate Professor Lilla’s assertion that “the market” is no longer a useful metaphor and that the modern economy is really dictated by the processes of international finance. Professor Lilla, could you speak to today’s “socially conscious consumer”, (e.g. the conscious buyer of FairTrade products) as an individual with a definite sense of his or her place in this economy? Could the socially conscious consumer be an example of a liberal (as a believer in individual rights and the power of individual autonomy) with the greater awareness, self-determination, and ability to give a coherent picture of the present that you are calling for?
I appreciate Professor Lam’s overview of situation of public intellectuals in China. However, it seems that, eventually, the title “public intellectuals” now has a negative connotation – which is quite phenomenal. As Professor Jensen has pointed out, public intellectuals are able to make their voices heard on Internet and social networks; however, it is on the same platforms that their articles or arguments are received with negative comments. I do not quite agree that public intellectuals in China should be primarily concerned with politics; here is my question, why do you think that politics (i.e. democracy, etc.) is the major target of public intellectuals instead of other topics? Thank you.
I’d like to press Professor Horwitz to speak further about the bloggosphere’s benefit to public dialogue. Public intellectualism requires the sharing of informed opinions with the wider public in order to direct collective action. Groups that disagree on the proper course of action must undoubtedly pass their ideas back and forth to assess their comparative benefits and detractors; however, the bloggosphere is a selective medium that allows users to screen the information they consume. This most often results in the reinforcement rather than assessment of convictions as people choose to read blogs that match their beliefs. So how might public intellectuals utilize blogs in a way that breaks out of the selective screening of Internet audiences?