how the economic thinkers invoked by the prompt solved this problem

the problem it raises; (2) how the economic thinkers invoked by the prompt solved this problem; (3) how their temporal and spatial location might shape their response; and (4) why the problem remains significant today. When you cite texts listed on Order Description   Directions: Select any two of the following five prompts. In no more than ten total pages (single or double spaced), five pages per response, respond to the prompt as thoroughly as possible, clearly identifying (1) the problem it raises; (2) how the economic thinkers invoked by the prompt solved this problem; (3) how their temporal and spatial location might shape their response; and (4) why the problem remains significant today. When you cite texts listed on the syllabus, you should use in-text citation (e.g., Smith 1776:84). You are encouraged to work with other students as you develop responses to these prompts. However, if you plagiarize another work, you will receive no credit for the entire examination. (1) Human communities have existed for approximately 2.4M years. Markets have existed for nearly as long. And, yet, it is only within the last seven centuries (.03 per cent) of human existence that social life has come to be mediated by equal units of abstract time. D Landes, G Arrighi, and K Polanyi each tackle a different slice of capitalism, the emerging social system. Drawing upon their research, explain why capitalism appeared so recently, why it might have spread so rapidly, and why the recent appearance of capitalism (as a social form) might be of interest to economic thinking today. (2) The Socrates-Plato-Aristotle cycle in classical Greek history has informed the categories of economic thinking for over two and a half millennia; freedom- necessity, public-private, and political-economic have shaped how economic thinkers interpret the world around them. These categories held a special attraction for A Smith, GWF Hegel, and K Marx, giving rise to very different renditions of freedom, private enterprise (oikonomia), and public responsibility (politeia or res publica). Drawing upon the writings of our classical economists, explain why private enterprise (oikonomia) as a means of achieving freedom might prove both promising and problematic. How might the new economic formation undermine traditional thinking about republicanism? How might it challenge traditional accounts of freedom and necessity? (3) Classical economic thinkers wrestled with a world integrated by British imperial designs. Peasants had been expelled from their lands. Landed nobles were forced to compete against urban entrepreneurs. Orphans poured into the streets of London and Manchester. Vagrant women took up the oldest profession. Vagabond men entered the labor market. Working from K Polanyi, A Smith, T Malthus, and D Ricardo, explain why this elimination of traditional life was necessary for the appearance of the regulated market, why it generated a conflict among eighteenth and early nineteenth century economists, and how economic thinkers justified, defended, or found fault with the unprecedented human cost demanded by the new social formation. (4) The world of the utilitarians was barbaric. Children filled the streets of industrial cities. Opioids filled the snuff jars of the investor class. Prostitution was rampant. Disease spread rapidly in the crammed tenements of industrial cities. Homeless vagrants wandered between cities and day jobs. To such terrifying conditions most utilitarians attempted to give a positive spin. Drawing upon the works of J Mill, JS Mill, J Bentham, N Senior, and J-B Say explore why (or even whether) any of these thinkers found the new economic system the least problematic, how they justified these deplorable circumstances, and how (if necessary) they felt the problems of industrialization might be overcome. (5) On day one of the course, we postulated that a comprehensive, integrated, universal social formation was a precondition for the kind of economics practiced by economic thinkers from the seventeenth century to the present. Yet it was only the German Historical School that explicitly laid bare the comprehensive nature of this integrated social form. Drawing upon GWF Hegel, K Marx (early and late), and G v Schmo?ller explore how each of these thinkers accounts for the living, expanding, highly differentiated, directionally dynamic form assumed by the modern system. How are they similar? How do they differ? Then, drawing upon T Veblen, explain why mainstream neoclassical economics — Cambridge and Austrian — abandoned social, institutional, and historical dimensions of economic thought. Why might this prove to be problematic?