<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Protestantism and Economics</title>
	<atom:link href="http://deregnochristi.org/2009/06/12/protestantism-and-economics/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://deregnochristi.org/2009/06/12/protestantism-and-economics/</link>
	<description>Christ&#039;s Kingdom sacred and secular</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 12 Nov 2011 16:30:45 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: J.R. Schuilimg</title>
		<link>http://deregnochristi.org/2009/06/12/protestantism-and-economics/#comment-3396</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[J.R. Schuilimg]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Oct 2009 07:34:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://deregnochristi.org/?p=673#comment-3396</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;True-orthodoxy-in-exile&quot; is a proto-Protestant mentality. One I am perfectly happy adhering to. Modern &#039;Protestantism&#039; is typified by the well-whatever-wherever mentality.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;True-orthodoxy-in-exile&#8221; is a proto-Protestant mentality. One I am perfectly happy adhering to. Modern &#8216;Protestantism&#8217; is typified by the well-whatever-wherever mentality.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Single Maria</title>
		<link>http://deregnochristi.org/2009/06/12/protestantism-and-economics/#comment-3124</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Single Maria]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Jun 2009 14:48:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://deregnochristi.org/?p=673#comment-3124</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Thanks for the post. I have read this book recently. It has no analogues. I was shoked while reading it. I am quite agree with  Robert Nelson that  modern economics is paradigmatically theological. He really open eyes for many people.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for the post. I have read this book recently. It has no analogues. I was shoked while reading it. I am quite agree with  Robert Nelson that  modern economics is paradigmatically theological. He really open eyes for many people.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Iohannes</title>
		<link>http://deregnochristi.org/2009/06/12/protestantism-and-economics/#comment-3118</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Iohannes]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 13 Jun 2009 19:55:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://deregnochristi.org/?p=673#comment-3118</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Lionel Robbins&#039; &lt;i&gt;Nature and Significance&lt;/i&gt; ends with what is, in my opinion at any rate, a superb statement of what economics can and cannot hope to achieve. I am a bit surprised the index to Nelson&#039;s book lacks a reference to Robbins.

Hayek interestingly favored most of the policy views of the Chicago School but considered its methodology quite flawed. He thought its preoccupation with macroeconomic aggregates ironically put it on the same theoretical basis as Keynesianism. One might say Friedman returned the compliment, praising Hayek as more a political philosopher than an economist. Though the Austrian School&#039;s eccentricities sometimes puzzle me, I think I&#039;d side with Hayek in this instance.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Lionel Robbins&#8217; <i>Nature and Significance</i> ends with what is, in my opinion at any rate, a superb statement of what economics can and cannot hope to achieve. I am a bit surprised the index to Nelson&#8217;s book lacks a reference to Robbins.</p>
<p>Hayek interestingly favored most of the policy views of the Chicago School but considered its methodology quite flawed. He thought its preoccupation with macroeconomic aggregates ironically put it on the same theoretical basis as Keynesianism. One might say Friedman returned the compliment, praising Hayek as more a political philosopher than an economist. Though the Austrian School&#8217;s eccentricities sometimes puzzle me, I think I&#8217;d side with Hayek in this instance.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

