read marx
Economics Thread
Kevin Stewart
Xavier Johnson
read kalecki
delong.typepad.com
kalecki is underrated in general tbh, technically in terms of priority of publication he beat Keynes to the punch on much of what Keynes is famous for.
Dylan Reed
No he checks out, looked up his publication record.
Eh I mean the institute pumps out some pretty stupid shit sometimes:
mises.org
If you insist, its a bit length (few pages). Not my best debate since the medium isn't great and I've been answering questions sporadically during lulls in work. Post mostly though so you can see just the innate level of misunderstanding this guy displays.
And just to reiterate this isn't like a ego boner stroking thing either, I am just quite concerned that there are legitimate academics out there being paid to pump this shit out to listening masses of students.
Aaron Adams
Also just worth pointing out, but you will quickly see my problem in this exchange. I simply cannot compete with this guys knowledge of Austrian economists, because frankly I know their philosophy is bullshit I never paid much mind to read it. But it’s clearly a handicap here, since he outright dismissed Marx’s definitions of socialism and only seems to accept Mises’ definitions. Which is why I made this thread, to learn more about resources on this matter.
Appreciate all you guys input thus far
Ian Campbell
In skimreading this, he really does seem to be an austrian type, certainly regarding definitions. Perhaps I was too kind to Mises. Since obviously I don't know who he is, I can't go further. In being a "legitimate academic" he might be an RDW type token who got picked up by the mostly chicago-type economics department to show that they do have a plurality of opinion (i.e "Our token Austrian" or "Our token Marxist") since even /r/neoliberalism would probably find it silly to argue all forms of collectivism/collectivist "coercion" are socialism, even if they may argue that one is a slippery slope to the other or so on.
In truth the conversation is quite frustrating since it's basically just definition wank. (Also, his "Socialism is when the owners of the means of production control the government" tangent has me baffled and I want to break his nose for "that's why i get paid to teach economics :^)" smugness.)
Owen Nelson
Reading Smith or Ricardo is not relevant for talking to economists. First of, most current econ profs, even at top universities (or especially those) have virtually no knowledge about classical economics (less than what you get from skimming Wikipedia). What they do is neoclassical economics, for that get the book Debunking Economics by Steve Keen (the chapter about Marxism isn't good though). They have virtually no knowledge about history, so when making a short reference to something like enclosure in Britain being a key thing in history for the development of capitalism, there's a good chance that they don't even roughly understand what you are talking about. Another thing is that economists are extremely dishonest people (which is remarkable given how autistic they often are), so when they don't understand something or don't know about a particular topic, it's unlikely that they'll just say that they don't know about it. Another remarkable thing about econ profs is how little real-world experience they have. So, when they talk about supply curves usually shaping upwards, that is per-unit costs increasing when production is increased, you see this word here: usually – this word doesn't refer to something backed by statistics, it doesn't even refer to cherry-picked real-world examples, rather, it refers to cherry-picked fictional examples. And being this insane isn't just true of far-right ones, "sensible centrists" like Paul Krugman lie all the fucking time about absolutely everything. They are not good for anything. There is basically ZERO performance-based filtering going on where those making the most accurate predictions get crowned winners (sadly, this also applies to the tiny group of Marxian economists). What they do is propaganda.
tl;dr economists are subhuman garbage.
Easton Scott
Shaikh book is a 1000 pages of love. My body is not ready, but it seems pretty interesting.
Landon Moore
Rejoinder: James Feigenbaum is an Unbearable Fagot by Dr user, PhD and researcher @ the Institute of Butt Science
Somebody with a bit of self-awareness would read the sentence and start having doubts about the quality of how he is categorizing people there. It's disingenuous to draw a lasso around rather distinct groups of people, then recognize that they have many disagreements, and then use this as a criticism, calling that the group's self-refuting positions as if these existed together in the minds of the same people. I can put BLM and the KKK together as one group and then use snippets of statements from different people in this grand BLM-KKK coalition that is a figment of my imagination, and then point out how contradictory that group's opinion about black people is. The only thing making such an argument proves is how much of a fuckhead you are.
Do you think saying this makes a certain person mad? Was that your reason for saying it? Would you show us on the doll where Ron Paul touched you?
I think you shouldn't write while on meth.
I'm opposed to it because if the goal is to set a physical quantity, you have to… set it as a physical quantity. You don't know in advance how much a tax will dampen demand, so in the end you have to fiddle with the tax all the time to get closer to meeting your actual physical target. And of course, you will not get as close as with actually fucking fixing it physically. Making a resource more expensive makes it less attractive at first and incentivizes people to come up with more efficient ways of using it, which in turn makes the resource more attractive than at the point immediately after the enactment of the tax, and this rebound effect can be very strong, you can't make any guarantees here that the people who get incentivized by the tax in the first place don't come up with efficiency increases that make the resource even more attractive than it was before the tax. (When the rebound effect is even stronger than the initially demand-dampening effect of the tax, you have something called a Jevons Paradox. A more modern version of the JP is known as the Khazzoom–Brookes postulate, which states that these effects are likely to happen.) So, if you aren't economically illiterate, you set the goal physically and allow trading with emission rights as that solves it – or rather, would solve it, if corporations more powerful than some countries weren't directly involved in moving these targets away from what actual scientists are recommending. Which is why we need socialism.
Socialists want to add people to productive activity, though I admit it's a puzzle what a James Feigenbaum is good for. My door-stopper thing is defect, I guess he could work as a replacement for that.
Colton James
The hater:
>“There is nothing in the original definition, in the academic definition, or in the dictionary definition about socialism meaning the elimination of property. “ As written by Daniel de Leon of the Socialist Labor Party in 1911: slp.org
Reply by the professor:
Juan Gomez
Why are you arguing with this retard about objective definitions? None exist. Just say this is how you and the rest of the socialist movement define it.