Whose economic views and vision do you most agree with?
- Thread starter Dusty Bake Activate
- Start date
Black smoke and cac jokes
All Black Everything
I guess I can't argue with the leaders of the country but we have to acknowledge their health and educational system.
Black smoke and cac jokes
All Black Everything
88m3
Fast Money & Foreign Objects
Yup. Save Haiti obviously.
Black smoke and cac jokes
All Black Everything
88m3 im not going down this path if u're trolling...so....are u?
theworldismine13
God Emperor of SOHH
Type Username Here
Not a new member
Any leftist who holds Chavez on some economic/Marxist pedestal doesn't know what the fukk they're talking about. NHH is not really a leftist though. He's more closer to your side of the equation.
theworldismine13
God Emperor of SOHH
what? i dont know what he is he can explain he himself, but he is always pushing chavez and castro
im pro capitalism, he isnt anywhere near me
Voted Keynes.
There were some things Marx just went straight looney on, even though he was a clever historical analyst on some issues.
1. Marx believed that capital is not a complement to but a substitute for labor. In other words, technological progress and capital accumulation that raise average labor productivity also lower the working-class wage. The market system simply could not deliver a good or half-good society but only a combination of obscene luxury and mass poverty. That's flat out wrong, and has been proven so by virtue of history.
2. Marx was money-phobic. He believed that a system that reduced people to some form of prostitution--working for wages -- was bad. He saw a society growing in which people worked for money, and their real life began only when the five o’clock whistle blows. To him, such an economy delivered low utility, and was also sociologically and psychologically unsustainable. According to Marx, people should view their jobs as expressions of their being: ways to gain honor or professions that they were born or designed to do or as ways to serve their fellow man. That's not true either. He just mistook the effects of poverty for the effects of capitalism. The demand for a world in which people do things for each other purely out of beneficence rather than out of interest and incentives leads you down a very dangerous road. Societies that try to abolish the cash nexus in favor of public- spirited benevolence do not wind up in their happy place.
3. Marx believed that the capitalist market economy was incapable of delivering an acceptable distribution of income for anything but the briefest intervals. To him, political democracy survives for as long as the rulers could pull the wool over the workers' eyes, and then collapses. Western Europe over the past fifty years serves as a significant counterexample. It may be difficult to maintain a democratic capitalist market system with an acceptable distribution of income. But social democracy, progressive income taxes, a very large and well-established safety net, public education to a high standard, channels for upward mobility, and all the panoply of the twentieth-century social- democratic mixed-economy democratic state can banish all Marx’s fears that capitalist prosperity must be accompanied by great inequality and great misery.
Friedman made an important contribution, but ultimately, the most salient points of monetarism were absorbed by the New Keynesians.
Everything Hayek wrote about economics pales in comparison to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_General_Theory_of_Employment,_Interest_and_Money
There were some things Marx just went straight looney on, even though he was a clever historical analyst on some issues.
1. Marx believed that capital is not a complement to but a substitute for labor. In other words, technological progress and capital accumulation that raise average labor productivity also lower the working-class wage. The market system simply could not deliver a good or half-good society but only a combination of obscene luxury and mass poverty. That's flat out wrong, and has been proven so by virtue of history.
2. Marx was money-phobic. He believed that a system that reduced people to some form of prostitution--working for wages -- was bad. He saw a society growing in which people worked for money, and their real life began only when the five o’clock whistle blows. To him, such an economy delivered low utility, and was also sociologically and psychologically unsustainable. According to Marx, people should view their jobs as expressions of their being: ways to gain honor or professions that they were born or designed to do or as ways to serve their fellow man. That's not true either. He just mistook the effects of poverty for the effects of capitalism. The demand for a world in which people do things for each other purely out of beneficence rather than out of interest and incentives leads you down a very dangerous road. Societies that try to abolish the cash nexus in favor of public- spirited benevolence do not wind up in their happy place.
3. Marx believed that the capitalist market economy was incapable of delivering an acceptable distribution of income for anything but the briefest intervals. To him, political democracy survives for as long as the rulers could pull the wool over the workers' eyes, and then collapses. Western Europe over the past fifty years serves as a significant counterexample. It may be difficult to maintain a democratic capitalist market system with an acceptable distribution of income. But social democracy, progressive income taxes, a very large and well-established safety net, public education to a high standard, channels for upward mobility, and all the panoply of the twentieth-century social- democratic mixed-economy democratic state can banish all Marx’s fears that capitalist prosperity must be accompanied by great inequality and great misery.
Friedman made an important contribution, but ultimately, the most salient points of monetarism were absorbed by the New Keynesians.
Everything Hayek wrote about economics pales in comparison to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_General_Theory_of_Employment,_Interest_and_Money
Black smoke and cac jokes
All Black Everything
1. Why are you twisting his words? He said that money should not substitute the real value of labor. Similar to a commodity, the services such as labor should not exceed the value of what the service provides not only monetarily but, most importantly, socially. EX. an investment banker should not make 5xmore (if not more) on average than what a police officer makes in a lifelong career.
2. Not true. Marx believed that money was a derivation of minerals such as gold and silver and should never exceed the expected social value of the mentioned commodities. Similar to a loaf of bread never meaning more than to the person who needs it since they are starving, money should be held in the same regard (only if it will fulfill the needs of the people). The current adoption where money is the main contributor to economic welfare is what he was against.
3. The bolded part proves his intentions of implementing a system that puts the worker/inhabitant/socially incapable at the forefront.
Surely, applying Marx to the current world would never last since it is a failing system. I do not deny that. But he's criticism on the capitalistic outlook - at that time and now - is spot on. How can we deny the current manifestation of labor-power? Are you really arguing against the current workforce being worked to their limits to enhance their own economic stance being wrong?
Aren't we creating a surplus value in different industries that only benefits a few?
Last edited:
88m3
Fast Money & Foreign Objects
Dusty Bake Activate
Fukk your corny debates
Enjoying reading this thread. Just out of curiosity, how many of you have coursework and education in economics and/or political science? How much? I didn't take an interest in econ really until after I graduated. I was a biology major, so I never took classes in those areas.
@Gallo, I'm surprised you chose Friedman. I would've thought for sure you would've said Keynes.
@Gallo, I'm surprised you chose Friedman. I would've thought for sure you would've said Keynes.
Subs for later response(I'm subbing too many threads for later) but in short I would eliminate Friedman from that poll as he was fundamentally Keynesian. Guys like De Long argue that Friedman completed Keynes. Anti-government idiots(and that includes fresh water/Chicago economists) and politicians hi-jacked him like they did Adam smith to further their extreme ideologies. My critique of Keynes boils down to Domingo's first post.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/14/milton-friedman-currency-debaser/
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/14/macro-retrogression/
Last edited:
TrueEpic08
Dum Shiny
1. Has next to nothing to do with what Marx actually wrote, and has already been addressed in the thread.
2. "Born or designed to do" is not the word, and, again, has nothing to do with what Marx wrote. Neither does "a world in which people do things for each other purely out of beneficence." An expression of being is actually a bit metaphoric. When Marx talks about species-being (or, as I've seen Gattungswesen translated at times, genus-essence), he's not talking about anything related to a genetic predisposition toward a certain trade, but toward a notion of human potentiality to develop themselves freely and in any way they see fit. I'd say "skill-set," but that actually relates more to what Marx was critiquing. And when you consider the what the term "skill-set" denotes and connotes, then you would know that it has only so much to do with conditions of poverty. Anyone can develop a "skill-set," whether you have nothing or an obscene amount of money. But the thing about developing a "skill-set" within a capitalist political economy is: 1. It fundamentally constricts the type of work you can conceive of doing, the way in which you can do it, and how you will develop yourself at jobs and in free time, just based on perceived "skills" that you have. 2. Even when you don't work, you conceive of your skill set in explicit terms of working. 3. It's usually delineated through a capitalist gradient i.e., "I can make a lot of money doing this," "I don't care about how much money I can make doing this, I'm going to do what I love," or "I just want to make enough to live off of" (the second two of which are really just derivations of the first). And 4. The ability to fully develop is delineated by class, so that someone with abundant resources can blow money on figuring out their "skill-set," while a poorer person may not get to do so, or may only get to do so at great cost. Only the last one explicitly has anything to do with class. When talking about alienation or species-being, you can't just constrict it to a certain class. It was a general social critique.
(Pier Paolo Pasolini had a very good quote about this in relation to clashes between Autonomist leaning students and the police in Italy: "When you clashed with the policemen at Valle Giulia, I sympathized for them. Because policemen are children of the poor." He said this not because he did not support Autonomism or the students, he did. But because the policemen, largely because of their class and/or social positioning due to their developed "skill-set," could not realistically protest, or at least conceive of it. The same thing happened at times with Occupy protesters and the police: when asked about whether they believed in what they were protesting for, I've heard policemen say, "ask me when I'm off-duty." Implicitly sympathizing, but not being able to actually join for various reasons, some of the reasons being explicitly tied to what I just wrote about in the above paragraph.)
The part about money has already been addressed, but know that someone who knew anything of Commodity Fetishism and Marx's value-form theory would not have written that.
3. You should be more aware of when you contradict yourself in your own paragraph. A "capitalist market economy" is no longer truly a "capitalist market economy" when you have to rely on the strictures of the welfare-state to such a degree. And besides, channels of upward-mobility haven't existed for over three decades now, and poverty and misery still existed, they were just sublimated and externalized through the proliferation of mental health issues, issues of class, race, and gender, and through most of the economic misery being exported to the Caribbean, the Southern Cone, and Southeast Asia (before reading its head during the transition of the former Soviet states to liberal democracy, and then coming home to the US after decades of encroachment and the media and ideology smoothing over the symptoms of that encroachment).
To answer @VictorVonDoom's question, I was a PolySci major for 3 years, and considered an Economics minor, so I've taken a ton of coursework in that area. I turned to my current field of study mostly because I got fed up with dominant schools of thought and discourses and couldn't imagine an academic career in either field (like, the entire field of orthodox economics is full of bullshyt. Junk science, really).