Explore the vast range of titles available.

From email to smart phones, and from social media to Google searches, digital technologies have transformed the way we learn, entertain ourselves, socialize, and work. Despite their usefulness, these technologies have often led to information overload, stress, and distraction. David M. Levy, who has lived his life between the \"fast world\" of high tech and the \"slow world\" of contemplation, offers a welcome guide to being more relaxed, attentive, and emotionally balanced while online. In a series of exercises carefully designed to help readers observe and reflect on their own use., Levy has readers observe themselves while emailing and while multitasking , and also to experiment with unplugging for a specified period.

The \"Vanity of the Philosopher\"continues the themes introduced in Levy's acclaimed bookHow the Dismal Science Got Its Name.Here, Peart and Levy tackle the issues of racism, eugenics, hierarchy, and egalitarianism in classical economics and take a broad view of classical economics' doctrine of human equality. Responding to perennial accusations from the left and the right that the market economy has created either inequality or too much equality, the authors trace the role of the eugenics movement in pulling economics away from the classical economist's respect for the individual toward a more racist view at the turn of the century.The \"Vanity of the Philosopher\"reveals the consequences of hierarchy in social science. It shows how the \"vanity of the philosopher\" has led to recommendations that range from the more benign but still objectionable \"looking after\" paternalism, to overriding preferences, and, in the extreme, to eliminating purportedly bad preferences. The authors suggest that an approach that abstracts from difference and presumes equal competence is morally compelling.\"People in the know on intellectual history and economics await the next book from Peart and Levy with much the same enthusiasm that greets a new Harry Potter book in the wider world. This book delivers the anticipated delights big time!\"-William Easterly, Professor of Economics and Africana Studies, NYU, and non-resident Senior Fellow, Center for Global Development\"In their customary idiosyncratic manner, Sandra Peart and David Levy reexamine the way in which the views of classical economists on equality and hierarchy were shifted by contact with scholars in other disciplines, and the impact this had on attitudes towards race, immigration, and eugenics. This is an imaginative and solid work of scholarship, with an important historical message and useful lessons for scholars today.\"-Stanley Engerman, John Munro Professor of Economics and Professor of History, University of RochesterSandra J. Peart, Professor of Economics at Baldwin-Wallace College, has published articles on utilitarianism, the methodology of J. S. Mill, and the transition to neoclassicism. This is her fourth book.David M. Levyis Professor of Economics at George Mason University and Director of the Center for Study of Public Choice. This is his third book.

\"1.1 Introduction Taken separately, the contributions of the best-known principals of the early Virginia School of Political Economy - James Buchanan, Gordon Tullock, and Ronald Coase - are monuments of twentieth century economics. Yet despite their longstanding collaborations, significant differences characterize the research programs of Buchanan, Tullock, and Coase. Other prominent members of the early Virginia School, especially Rutledge Vining and Warren Nutter, add even more variation to the so-called School, so much so that one wonders if they are properly characterized as a \"School.\" The first question for a work on the Virginia School, then, is what beyond geographical proximity unites the works of Virginia political economists? Second, supposing a satisfactory answer to this question, how does the Virginia School relate to orthodox economics? As this study unfolds, it will become clear that, notwithstanding significant differences of approach and research questions, unifying threads run through the works of the Virginia School economists. These features separate the Virginia School from mainstream economics and from the Chicago School with which it is often identified. We begin by specifying the orthodoxy in order to sketch how Buchanan and his colleagues departed from it\"-- Provided by publisher.

In response to the invitation, in the announcement of this special issue, to explore the \"joy of information,\" this article investigates the information-intensive work called scholarship. Drawing upon the Greek philosophical understanding of contemplation as a journey of self-transformation and transcendence, it suggests that contemplative scholarship be understood as such a journey. From this perspective, the process of scholarship is as important as the product: first, because to pursue one's scholarship is not just to investigate one's subject matter, but to investigate oneself in relation to that subject matter, and to be transformed in the process; and second, because the process of deep immersion in one's subject matter can at times allow one not just to acquire knowledge but to encounter mystery, and to enter into states of wonder, awe, and joy.

The Princeton Panel was formed by Claude Robinson, a partner of George Gallup, to produce an ideology of capitalism by capitalist methods. It proposed to replace donors with market-based transactions. We explain this concern over the influence of donors by appealing to the ghastly experience of Isaac Don Levine when he attacked the antisemitism of Merwin Hart, the head of the influential National Economic Council. Although the Princeton Panel did not survive Robinsons passing, it served as a node in market liberalism. Gordon Tullock worked for Robinson and through the Princeton Panel met Murray Rothbard and Karl Popper.

The 1933 Mock Trial of Economists is occasionally noticed and then interpreted as a representation of popular discontent with the economists’ “crime” of “conspiracy to spread mental fog.” William Beveridge’s papers in the London School of Economics archives contain the written record of the performed composition and an unperformed frame for the Trial. Both are reproduced below. The performance singles out J. M. Keynes for his changing points of view. The unperformed frame provides evidence of Beveridge’s defense of diverse viewpoints in light of his worries about totalitarian repression. Long after he had left LSE, F. A. Hayek called attention to Beveridge’s worries about the fate of multiple viewpoints under socialism.

Adam Smith, asserting the common humanity of the street porter and the philosopher, articulated the classical economists' model of social interactions as exchanges among equals. This model had largely fallen out of favor until, recently, a number of scholars in the avant-garde of economic thought rediscovered it and rechristened it \"analytical egalitarianism.\" In this volume, Sandra J. Peart and David M. Levy bring together an impressive array of authors to explore the ramifications of this analytical ideal and to discuss the ways in which an egalitarian theory of individuality can enable economists to reconcile ideas from opposite ends of the political spectrum.

Rotator cuff tears have been reported to be uncommon following total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). Postoperative rotator cuff tears can lead to pain, proximal humeral migration, and glenoid component loosening. The purpose of this paper was to evaluate the incidence of post-TSA rotator cuff tears or dysfunction in osteoarthritic patients. A systematic review of multiple databases was performed using preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines. Levels I-IV evidence clinical studies of patients with primary osteoarthritis with a minimum 2-year follow-up were included. Fifteen studies with 1259 patients (1338 shoulders) were selected. Student′s t-tests were used with a significant alpha value of 0.05. All patients demonstrated significant improvements in motion and validated clinical outcome scores (P < 0.001). Radiographic humeral head migration was the most commonly reported data point for extrapolation of rotator cuff integrity. After 6.6 ± 3.1 years, 29.9 ± 20.7% of shoulders demonstrated superior humeral head migration and 17.9 ± 14.3% migrated a distance more than 25% of the head. This was associated with an 11.3 ± 7.9% incidence of postoperative superior cuff tears. The incidence of radiographic anterior humeral head migration was 11.9 ± 15.9%, corresponding to a 3.0 ± 13.6% rate of subscapularis tears. We found an overall 1.2 ± 4.5% rate of reoperation for cuff injury. Nearly all studies reported indirect markers of rotator cuff dysfunction, such as radiographic humeral head migration and clinical exam findings. This systematic review suggests that rotator cuff dysfunction following TSA may be more common than previously reported. IV, systematic review of Levels I-IV studies.