Whose economic views and vision do you most agree with?

[ogc163]

I was just about to make a post.

I agree with Marx more than anybody based on more of a philosophical tip. Marx more than a "economist" was a historian and social scientist who radically questioned the status quo of class hierarchy, which has been entrenched in society since the beginning of recorded history. He questioned the validity of the capitalist system as he knew it and challenged notions of modernity.

Keynes is obviously the best economist out of the 3 traditional choices, Hayek was a paranoid radical (sorry @ogc163) who didn't actually contribute anything tangible to the objective field of economics, and Friedman was a two faced liar who didn't even believe what he was saying many times. On the one hand he would talk about strict monetary policy, yet in his academic papers he would talk about a helicopter drop of money to get out of a liquidity trap ; a point brought forward by Krugman. Also, Friedman's ideas had to be implemented by a dictator in Pinochet, he is just generally a reprehensible guy and his ideas ultimately failed us and gave us the crash, according to his disciple Greenspan.

I would disagree with the idea that Hayek didn't bring anything to the field of economics, I think his work and writings on the limitations of knowledge were especially important considering the time period he was writing in. The importance of pricing mechanisms were considered trivial by Market Socialists like Oskar Lange who thought that resource allocation and prices could be set by a board. I find it difficult to see how anyone can look at the writings and debates during the Socialist Calculation Debate and not see how it impacted economics in general.

In terms of Friedmans helicopter point, it was a metaphor and you don't have to be a Monetarist to agree and/or understand what he was getting at. Here is the quote in it's proper context on Page 29 http://tylerawatts.com/uploads/Friedman-The_Mystery_of_Money.pdf and here is Brad Delong ( A Keynesian) on the "Helicopter Drop" http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2010/...ilyJournal+(Brad+DeLong's+Semi-Daily+Journal)

 

[babylon1]

like i said i rely on wikipedia, and apparently they believe maosim falls under marxism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism#Maoism and the chinese claimed to be communist back in the day and now they are capitalist when they realized what a failure, non marxism/socialism/communism or whatever the fuk you want to call it was


and so you are saying that cuba and venezuela are controlled by a tiny bourgeoisie minority so therefore they arent marxist?

neither is marxist. crack open the communist manifesto, son. take a few sociology classes at night

 

[HollowPoints2]

By now Black ppl should have mastered the fundamentals of capitalism we've been here 400 years.when you understand the economic system and know how it works then you'll come out on top.

 

[theworldismine13]

neither is marxist. crack open the communist manifesto, son. take a few sociology classes at night

I plan to, but until then can you clarify why Cuba and Venezuela are not Marxist, is it becuase they are a totalitarian regime and/or becuase they are controlled by a tiny bourgeois minority???

 

[88m3]

neither is marxist. crack open the communist manifesto, son. take a few sociology classes at night

How do you expect him to be able to do that when he is constantly under threat from illegal immigrants?

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

I was just about to make a post.

I agree with Marx more than anybody based on more of a philosophical tip. Marx more than a "economist" was a historian and social scientist who radically questioned the status quo of class hierarchy, which has been entrenched in society since the beginning of recorded history. He questioned the validity of the capitalist system as he knew it and challenged notions of modernity.

Keynes is obviously the best economist out of the 3 traditional choices, Hayek was a paranoid radical (sorry @ogc163) who didn't actually contribute anything tangible to the objective field of economics, and Friedman was a two faced liar who didn't even believe what he was saying many times. On the one hand he would talk about strict monetary policy, yet in his academic papers he would talk about a helicopter drop of money to get out of a liquidity trap ; a point brought forward by Krugman. Also, Friedman's ideas had to be implemented by a dictator in Pinochet, he is just generally a reprehensible guy and his ideas ultimately failed us and gave us the crash, according to his disciple Greenspan.

You speaking intelligently about economics juxtaposed to the Mowgli avatar makes it even funnier for some reason.

 

[babylon1]

I plan to, but until then can you clarify why Cuba and Venezuela are not Marxist, is it becuase they are a totalitarian regime and/or becuase they are controlled by a tiny bourgeois minority???

they don't have anywhere near economic equality. the masses do not own the means of production. the bad apples rose to the top and claimed to be marxists. they are nothing more than totalitarian dictators. no different than the plutocrats that run things in the u.s.

 

[OsO]

good back and forth discussion



any economic system will work if executed by socially responsible parties.

and any economic system will fail if executed by socially irresponsible parties.

simple.

 

[Type Username Here]

I plan to, but until then can you clarify why Cuba and Venezuela are not Marxist, is it becuase they are a totalitarian regime and/or becuase they are controlled by a tiny bourgeois minority???

That's absolutely right. All these counties have their own take on Marxism, just like many countries have their take on Capitalism, but there has never existed a true Marxist society in the history of this planet, only warped versions of it. Capitalism has absolutely had periods in history where it was pure free-market/no intervention periods that resembles what people call "true Capitalism".

In countries like Cuba and the USSR, the only things that changed were:

A) Who the wealthy, powerful people in control were
B) The easiest method to become the people described above. Instead of becoming a CEO or business owner, you climb up the Government ranks.

Venezuela was heading this exact way too, which is why I'm not a leftist that rides on the Chavez bandwagon. Hugo Chavez died with a net worth between $400 Million to over a Billion dollars depending on the source. There is absolutely nothing Marxist about that at all.

 

[theworldismine13]

Thanks for clarifying, im glad we cleared up that Cuba and Venezuela are failures and blueprints for disaster and that people calling themselves Marxist, anti capitalists and anti imperialists are very likely to be full of shyt

And we also learned from the real that Marxism as written out by Marx could never work

 

[88m3]

Thanks for clarifying, im glad we cleared up that Cuba and Venezuela are failures and blueprints for disaster and that people calling themselves Marxist, anti capitalists and anti imperialists are very likely to be full of shyt

And we also learned from the real that Marxism as written out by Marx could never work

only the kingsmen's and metareign/novelthug's of the world would tell you otherwise...

 

[Black smoke and cac jokes]

Damn I hate when I'm late to these threads.

good back and forth discussion



any economic system will work if executed by socially responsible parties.

and any economic system will fail if executed by socially irresponsible parties.

simple.

Not true since two of the chosen economic systems blatantly structures society to be divided into classes. Both Hayek's and Friedman's theories support division and would allow economies to divert into financial well-being for a few.

That's absolutely right. All these counties have their own take on Marxism, just like many countries have their take on Capitalism, but there has never existed a true Marxist society in the history of this planet, only warped versions of it. Capitalism has absolutely had periods in history where it was pure free-market/no intervention periods that resembles what people call "true Capitalism".

In countries like Cuba and the USSR, the only things that changed were:

A) Who the wealthy, powerful people in control were
B) The easiest method to become the people described above. Instead of becoming a CEO or business owner, you climb up the Government ranks.

Venezuela was heading this exact way too, which is why I'm not a leftist that rides on the Chavez bandwagon. Hugo Chavez died with a net worth between $400 Million to over a Billion dollars depending on the source. There is absolutely nothing Marxist about that at all.

I don't know if you were just saying that to state facts or an input to support the theory . Anyways, I think some people in this thread will interpret that as a "win" for capitalism over communism and I would just like to point out that it is not. In fact, the U.S. economy during the late 1800's/early 1900's suffered greatly due to the free-market approach.

Read Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" and how FDR took the initiative to end the detrimental system due to capitalism that was affecting the different industries around the country.

Keynes-supporter of capitalism, but believes the marketplace is inherently unpredictable and believes in government spending and aggressive monetary policy to pick up the slack and boost aggregate demand when the economy starts to sputter. You don't go the austerity route because when you cut wages and lay people off, there's less money being spent and you continue on a deflationary spiral of low demand.

It's not really that he supported capitalism, more that he knew it was a primitive ideology that could be elaborated into a new way of thinking.

 

[Type Username Here]

Thanks for clarifying, im glad we cleared up that Cuba and Venezuela are failures and blueprints for disaster and that people calling themselves Marxist, anti capitalists and anti imperialists are very likely to be full of shyt

And we also learned from the real that Marxism as written out by Marx could never work

Who the hell wants to model it after Cuba and Venezuela? Can you show me posts where people have said this?

 

[Black smoke and cac jokes]

Wait a minute.. when people are saying Cuba is a failed state, are we looking at it from solely an economic standpoint or are we factoring in social welfare?

 

[Type Username Here]

Wait a minute.. when people are saying Cuba is a failed state, are we looking at it from solely an economic standpoint or are we factoring in social welfare?

It's a failed state when taking into account both factors in my opinion. The only thing they got right was the fleet of doctors they built up. Even Castro admitted it was a failure.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/09/fidel-castro-cuba-economic-model

Once that USSR aid, supplies and exports dried up, it was a wrap.