RE: Paul Krugman: Strong Unions Create a Strong Middle Class

RE: Paul Krugman: Strong Unions Create a Strong Middle Class (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

provfivetine -> RE: Paul Krugman: Strong Unions Create a Strong Middle Class (5/30/2011 2:34:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania Actually, you have never stated what you mean by "respected" You do realize that "Marxist" anything was banned from many universities for a long time. They were not even allowed to teach Marxism in any form. Many professors were fired for doing so. There are many parts of Marxism that are very relevant to many academic disciplines, and are still taught today. To ignore the impact of Marxism on any of the social sciences is to have a wide lack of knowledge about social science. Marxist ideas are threatening to capitalists, but to say everything that Marx contributed to the field of economics has been dismissed is just not true. It would be like saying all Freudian psychologists are not well respected just because some of what Freud taught is passé. Marx is used in my field, and while he isn't quoted much anymore.... he isn't ignored, ever. People argue him STILL. Now, to not understand this tells me that you have not taken many courses in the social sciences... and economics is a social science, btw Not taken any social science classes and not understanding this? That's a lofty charge to level against an Ivy League graduate student majoring in the social sciences... Cultural Marxism has been taught in the social science departments in the universities for a long time now, though much of the modern day theories taught in class have their roots in the Frankfurt School, and do not stem from Marx himself. As a general rule, they're aren't many Marxist economists (none at respected institutions), but there are plenty of Marxist historians, sociologists, anthropologists, philosophers, art historians, and the like (who all don't understand economics). My point here is not that Marx didn't make any contribution to the social sciences - clearly he did, but rather that he didn't make any contributions to economics. Cultural Marxism is different than Marxist economics. (I agree with you regarding your statement that economics is a social science, but that really isn't the mainstream view, and anything branching out on this would require a separate thread). Marx's position on economics was essentially this: all economic theory is meant to serve the interests from the class which it's proponent stemmed (Marx lived a wealthy bourgeoisie lifestyle, what does that make him?). He wouldn't even refute the economists' critiques of his theories. He shut them out all together and labeled their theories as "tainted ideologies" without ever refuting them. (This includes the criticism of the neoclassical economists, who Krugman basis much of his analysis off of.) This is analogous to a plane crashing and a scientist wanting to figure out why. Perhaps, he or she might address the problem by exploring the molecular structure of the plane, the environment that it faltered in, etc. The scientist would then use simple rules of physics to help aid in this process. A "Marxist scientist" then would say "That's bourgeoisie physics and those physics are tainted ideologically." No rationally thinking adult would accept this criticism, and that's exactly what his criticism of economics was. Marx made no contributions to economics. What economic contributions do you think he made? The labor theory of value was thoroughly refuted during the marginal revolution. It's no wonder why Marx couldn't complete Das Kapital; volumes 2 and 3 were posthumously published by Engels after his death. Marx labored his entire life to (unsuccessfully) solve the value predicament he found himself in. His didn't make a contribution to the field of economics, even Krugman recognizes this. Marx's contribution to the social sciences was his analysis of the superstructure - the so called "sociology of knowledge" (though this concept is often credited to Emile Durkheim), his theories of historical and dialectical materialism, and his unique way of historical interpretation - not economics.

provfivetine -> RE: Paul Krugman: Strong Unions Create a Strong Middle Class (5/30/2011 2:42:56 PM)
(doublepost)

cuckoldmepls -> RE: Paul Krugman: Strong Unions Create a Strong Middle Class (5/30/2011 2:47:09 PM)
Let me explain something for you. Unions drive up the cost of goods and services to an abnormally high amount. This is why for the past 50 years, people couldn't afford to buy a car, and Detroit almost completely self destructed, and would have if it were not for taxpayer bailouts. Now obviously, manufactured products are going to be more expensive since people have to have them. They can't manufacture stuff themselves. Services are going to cost less too since people can do without services if they have to. A $5 an hour worker can't afford to buy a car made by a $20 an hour worker. Now, obviously a liberals first inclination is to raise minimum wage, but that only causes inflation, and combined with new union demands each year, before you know it you have doubled the price of everything in less than 10 years. The best of course of action is to continue to make unions irrelevant, and drive the costs of manufactured goods and services down. This makes it more affordable to the lower class and improves the economy.

mnottertail -> RE: Paul Krugman: Strong Unions Create a Strong Middle Class (5/30/2011 2:50:08 PM)
quit taxing the people, tax the corporations, and it wasnt a case of couldnt afford to buy, it was that detroit corporations were peddling junk.

juliaoceania -> RE: Paul Krugman: Strong Unions Create a Strong Middle Class (5/30/2011 3:05:21 PM)
Andrew Kliman - Pace University... Anwar Shaikh - New School - NYC David Laibman - Brooklyn College There are three right there, all hold positions at three well regarded universities. Edited to add... I am just posting this because it seems as though you are stating there are NO Marxist economists that are respected out there... none that have positions at well regarded institutions. I only needed to find one to prove that you are wrong...

provfivetine -> RE: Paul Krugman: Strong Unions Create a Strong Middle Class (5/30/2011 3:24:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania Andrew Kliman - Pace University... Anwar Shaikh - New School - NYC David Laibman - Brooklyn College There are three right there, all hold positions at three well regarded universities. Edited to add... I am just posting this because it seems as though you are stating there are NO Marxist economists that are respected out there... none that have positions at well regarded institutions. I only needed to find one to prove that you are wrong... With all due respect, no one cares about what a Marxist economist at Pace University, the New School, or Brooklyn College thinks; they're just there to add diversity to the faculty, not to influentially shape economic thought or policy. I'm not trying to be arrogant, but it's just the truth Basically, the economics profession is shaped by: Harvard, Princeton, MIT (the big 3) and maybe the London School of Economics - though not so much anymore. There are other influential schools, to be sure, but it's pretty much dominated by those 4. I admit that you can find a few Marxist economists at good schools (so if you're looking for me to admit a mistake, then fine, consider this one of them) but it's just that the mainstream economics profession has not only completely abandoned the Marxist approach, they never endorsed it in the first place. When I say no "respected economist" I basically mean "no economist shaping todays policy." If you're an economist that's simply just lecturing 20 year olds on a daily basis then you don't have much juice. To be respected, you need that Nobel prize, or need to be cited frequently in the peer-reviewed literature. Marxist economists are not respected by anyone that takes economics seriously.

juliaoceania -> RE: Paul Krugman: Strong Unions Create a Strong Middle Class (5/30/2011 3:35:59 PM)
I see how this works, you say "Find me one respected Marxist economist with a position at a respected college" I did that, and then you raise the bar. I am not going to argue about whether or not Marx added anything to the field of economics... I personally know one Marxist economist who went on to get a law degree to fight for social justice as a socialist. He and i have had several conversations about the subject. I think he studied at Columbia University. It wasn't like he hid the fact he was a Marxist when he did his phd there. Now, I do not care if YOU respect him. I do. A lot of other people do.....

provfivetine -> RE: Paul Krugman: Strong Unions Create a Strong Middle Class (5/30/2011 3:50:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania I see how this works, you say "Find me one respected Marxist economist with a position at a respected college" I did that, and then you raise the bar. I am not going to argue about whether or not Marx added anything to the field of economics... I personally know one Marxist economist who went on to get a law degree to fight for social justice as a socialist. He and i have had several conversations about the subject. I think he studied at Columbia University. It wasn't like he hid the fact he was a Marxist when he did his phd there. Now, I do not care if YOU respect him. I do. A lot of other people do..... I have high standards. Respected institutions are the ones that are shaping the worlds policy; not the ones that regurgitate the theories of their superiors. There's a ton of Marxists "scholars" out there, and just because they study or teach at the university level does not relinquish them from suffering from profound intellectual confusion; no one with any juice respects them. I'm not a fan of Krugman, Stiglitz, Samuelsson, Sachs, Sen, etc; I'm just pointing out that even they are opposed to the economic doctrines of Karl Marx, as is anyone with an ounce of intelligence. At this point you're just trying to argue with me for the sake of arguing, with out having any substance. I've already admitted that I was wrong with "not being able to find a Marxist economist at a respected college." I was saying that, more so to prove my point that the economics profession doesn't take Marxist economists seriously, but you took it to be literal. Fine, you win! Do you want a cookie too? If you want to debate me on Marxism or Marxist economics, then start a new thread and debate me on it; I welcome that challenge. We've already hijacked this union thread enough.

juliaoceania -> RE: Paul Krugman: Strong Unions Create a Strong Middle Class (5/30/2011 4:00:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quit taxing the people, tax the corporations, and it wasnt a case of couldnt afford to buy, it was that detroit corporations were peddling junk. Quit calling corporations "individuals" and giving them the rights of individuals

farglebargle -> RE: Paul Krugman: Strong Unions Create a Strong Middle Class (5/30/2011 4:07:24 PM)
We should tax every dollar a company uses to pay outsourced workers to the point where it's cheaper to hire Americans again.

juliaoceania -> RE: Paul Krugman: Strong Unions Create a Strong Middle Class (5/30/2011 4:14:27 PM)
meaning protectionism... I agree.

DomYngBlk -> RE: Paul Krugman: Strong Unions Create a Strong Middle Class (5/30/2011 4:17:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: provfivetine quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania Actually, you have never stated what you mean by "respected" You do realize that "Marxist" anything was banned from many universities for a long time. They were not even allowed to teach Marxism in any form. Many professors were fired for doing so. There are many parts of Marxism that are very relevant to many academic disciplines, and are still taught today. To ignore the impact of Marxism on any of the social sciences is to have a wide lack of knowledge about social science. Marxist ideas are threatening to capitalists, but to say everything that Marx contributed to the field of economics has been dismissed is just not true. It would be like saying all Freudian psychologists are not well respected just because some of what Freud taught is passé. Marx is used in my field, and while he isn't quoted much anymore.... he isn't ignored, ever. People argue him STILL. Now, to not understand this tells me that you have not taken many courses in the social sciences... and economics is a social science, btw Not taken any social science classes and not understanding this? That's a lofty charge to level against an Ivy League graduate student majoring in the social sciences... Cultural Marxism has been taught in the social science departments in the universities for a long time now, though much of the modern day theories taught in class have their roots in the Frankfurt School, and do not stem from Marx himself. As a general rule, they're aren't many Marxist economists (none at respected institutions), but there are plenty of Marxist historians, sociologists, anthropologists, philosophers, art historians, and the like (who all don't understand economics). My point here is not that Marx didn't make any contribution to the social sciences - clearly he did, but rather that he didn't make any contributions to economics. Cultural Marxism is different than Marxist economics. (I agree with you regarding your statement that economics is a social science, but that really isn't the mainstream view, and anything branching out on this would require a separate thread). Marx's position on economics was essentially this: all economic theory is meant to serve the interests from the class which it's proponent stemmed (Marx lived a wealthy bourgeoisie lifestyle, what does that make him?). He wouldn't even refute the economists' critiques of his theories. He shut them out all together and labeled their theories as "tainted ideologies" without ever refuting them. (This includes the criticism of the neoclassical economists, who Krugman basis much of his analysis off of.) This is analogous to a plane crashing and a scientist wanting to figure out why. Perhaps, he or she might address the problem by exploring the molecular structure of the plane, the environment that it faltered in, etc. The scientist would then use simple rules of physics to help aid in this process. A "Marxist scientist" then would say "That's bourgeoisie physics and those physics are tainted ideologically." No rationally thinking adult would accept this criticism, and that's exactly what his criticism of economics was. Marx made no contributions to economics. What economic contributions do you think he made? The labor theory of value was thoroughly refuted during the marginal revolution. It's no wonder why Marx couldn't complete Das Kapital; volumes 2 and 3 were posthumously published by Engels after his death. Marx labored his entire life to (unsuccessfully) solve the value predicament he found himself in. His didn't make a contribution to the field of economics, even Krugman recognizes this. Marx's contribution to the social sciences was his analysis of the superstructure - the so called "sociology of knowledge" (though this concept is often credited to Emile Durkheim), his theories of historical and dialectical materialism, and his unique way of historical interpretation - not economics. Ahhh elitism at its finest. Surely, if one goes to harvard, ones academic knowledge and abilities far outweigh the rest of society....lol.....what a load of shit

juliaoceania -> RE: Paul Krugman: Strong Unions Create a Strong Middle Class (5/30/2011 4:19:57 PM)
Why bother arguing with him.... If someone told me that there were only a few esteemed schools of anthropology and no one outside of those schools contributed to the field, I would laugh at them. But alas, I am not an economist.... he can parrot whatever professor he likes[8\|]

DomYngBlk -> RE: Paul Krugman: Strong Unions Create a Strong Middle Class (5/30/2011 4:22:36 PM)
Not arguing..laughing. social dinosaur

provfivetine -> RE: Paul Krugman: Strong Unions Create a Strong Middle Class (5/30/2011 4:24:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk quote: ORIGINAL: provfivetine quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania Actually, you have never stated what you mean by "respected" You do realize that "Marxist" anything was banned from many universities for a long time. They were not even allowed to teach Marxism in any form. Many professors were fired for doing so. There are many parts of Marxism that are very relevant to many academic disciplines, and are still taught today. To ignore the impact of Marxism on any of the social sciences is to have a wide lack of knowledge about social science. Marxist ideas are threatening to capitalists, but to say everything that Marx contributed to the field of economics has been dismissed is just not true. It would be like saying all Freudian psychologists are not well respected just because some of what Freud taught is passé. Marx is used in my field, and while he isn't quoted much anymore.... he isn't ignored, ever. People argue him STILL. Now, to not understand this tells me that you have not taken many courses in the social sciences... and economics is a social science, btw Not taken any social science classes and not understanding this? That's a lofty charge to level against an Ivy League graduate student majoring in the social sciences... Cultural Marxism has been taught in the social science departments in the universities for a long time now, though much of the modern day theories taught in class have their roots in the Frankfurt School, and do not stem from Marx himself. As a general rule, they're aren't many Marxist economists (none at respected institutions), but there are plenty of Marxist historians, sociologists, anthropologists, philosophers, art historians, and the like (who all don't understand economics). My point here is not that Marx didn't make any contribution to the social sciences - clearly he did, but rather that he didn't make any contributions to economics. Cultural Marxism is different than Marxist economics. (I agree with you regarding your statement that economics is a social science, but that really isn't the mainstream view, and anything branching out on this would require a separate thread). Marx's position on economics was essentially this: all economic theory is meant to serve the interests from the class which it's proponent stemmed (Marx lived a wealthy bourgeoisie lifestyle, what does that make him?). He wouldn't even refute the economists' critiques of his theories. He shut them out all together and labeled their theories as "tainted ideologies" without ever refuting them. (This includes the criticism of the neoclassical economists, who Krugman basis much of his analysis off of.) This is analogous to a plane crashing and a scientist wanting to figure out why. Perhaps, he or she might address the problem by exploring the molecular structure of the plane, the environment that it faltered in, etc. The scientist would then use simple rules of physics to help aid in this process. A "Marxist scientist" then would say "That's bourgeoisie physics and those physics are tainted ideologically." No rationally thinking adult would accept this criticism, and that's exactly what his criticism of economics was. Marx made no contributions to economics. What economic contributions do you think he made? The labor theory of value was thoroughly refuted during the marginal revolution. It's no wonder why Marx couldn't complete Das Kapital; volumes 2 and 3 were posthumously published by Engels after his death. Marx labored his entire life to (unsuccessfully) solve the value predicament he found himself in. His didn't make a contribution to the field of economics, even Krugman recognizes this. Marx's contribution to the social sciences was his analysis of the superstructure - the so called "sociology of knowledge" (though this concept is often credited to Emile Durkheim), his theories of historical and dialectical materialism, and his unique way of historical interpretation - not economics. Ahhh elitism at its finest. Surely, if one goes to harvard, ones academic knowledge and abilities far outweigh the rest of society....lol.....what a load of shit Where did I suggest this? I merely mentioned that Harvard, MIT, and Princeton (who I disagree with by the way) control and shape the modern economics profession. Do you disagree with this?

provfivetine -> RE: Paul Krugman: Strong Unions Create a Strong Middle Class (5/30/2011 4:31:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania Why bother arguing with him.... If someone told me that there were only a few esteemed schools of anthropology and no one outside of those schools contributed to the field, I would laugh at them. But alas, I am not an economist.... he can parrot whatever professor he likes[8\|] I didn't say that there were only a few good schools for anthropology. Anthropology is a discipline that is vastly different from economics and relies more on field work and the study of ethnography and cultures. I don't claim to know much about the field; I've only studied Clifford Geertz in depth, and know that the methodologies used in anthropology allow the field to be much more subjective.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Paul Krugman: Strong Unions Create a Strong Middle Class (5/30/2011 4:32:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania Especially when he doesn't seem to understand protectionism does not equate communism[8\|] Apparently you dont know that communism is the same as Marxism, so stfu, newb.

provfivetine -> RE: Paul Krugman: Strong Unions Create a Strong Middle Class (5/30/2011 4:36:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania Especially when he doesn't seem to understand protectionism does not equate communism[8\|] Apparently you dont know that communism is the same as Marxism, so stfu, newb. I will defend my friend on this one because what you're saying isn't technically true. There are other branches of communism outside of Marxism (Kropotkinian style anarcho-communism and Christian messianic millennialism for example). Generally, all Marxists are communists but not all communists are Marxists.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Paul Krugman: Strong Unions Create a Strong Middle Class (5/30/2011 4:37:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania Especially when he doesn't seem to understand protectionism does not equate communism[8\|] Apparently you dont know that communism is the same as Marxism, so stfu, newb. And lmao at Pace and the New School being "respected in Economics". Pace is a safety school for the B student and the New School is a former art college that tries to pretend to be a serious university.

DomYngBlk -> RE: Paul Krugman: Strong Unions Create a Strong Middle Class (5/30/2011 5:00:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: provfivetine quote: ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk quote: ORIGINAL: provfivetine quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania Actually, you have never stated what you mean by "respected" You do realize that "Marxist" anything was banned from many universities for a long time. They were not even allowed to teach Marxism in any form. Many professors were fired for doing so. There are many parts of Marxism that are very relevant to many academic disciplines, and are still taught today. To ignore the impact of Marxism on any of the social sciences is to have a wide lack of knowledge about social science. Marxist ideas are threatening to capitalists, but to say everything that Marx contributed to the field of economics has been dismissed is just not true. It would be like saying all Freudian psychologists are not well respected just because some of what Freud taught is passé. Marx is used in my field, and while he isn't quoted much anymore.... he isn't ignored, ever. People argue him STILL. Now, to not understand this tells me that you have not taken many courses in the social sciences... and economics is a social science, btw Not taken any social science classes and not understanding this? That's a lofty charge to level against an Ivy League graduate student majoring in the social sciences... Cultural Marxism has been taught in the social science departments in the universities for a long time now, though much of the modern day theories taught in class have their roots in the Frankfurt School, and do not stem from Marx himself. As a general rule, they're aren't many Marxist economists (none at respected institutions), but there are plenty of Marxist historians, sociologists, anthropologists, philosophers, art historians, and the like (who all don't understand economics). My point here is not that Marx didn't make any contribution to the social sciences - clearly he did, but rather that he didn't make any contributions to economics. Cultural Marxism is different than Marxist economics. (I agree with you regarding your statement that economics is a social science, but that really isn't the mainstream view, and anything branching out on this would require a separate thread). Marx's position on economics was essentially this: all economic theory is meant to serve the interests from the class which it's proponent stemmed (Marx lived a wealthy bourgeoisie lifestyle, what does that make him?). He wouldn't even refute the economists' critiques of his theories. He shut them out all together and labeled their theories as "tainted ideologies" without ever refuting them. (This includes the criticism of the neoclassical economists, who Krugman basis much of his analysis off of.) This is analogous to a plane crashing and a scientist wanting to figure out why. Perhaps, he or she might address the problem by exploring the molecular structure of the plane, the environment that it faltered in, etc. The scientist would then use simple rules of physics to help aid in this process. A "Marxist scientist" then would say "That's bourgeoisie physics and those physics are tainted ideologically." No rationally thinking adult would accept this criticism, and that's exactly what his criticism of economics was. Marx made no contributions to economics. What economic contributions do you think he made? The labor theory of value was thoroughly refuted during the marginal revolution. It's no wonder why Marx couldn't complete Das Kapital; volumes 2 and 3 were posthumously published by Engels after his death. Marx labored his entire life to (unsuccessfully) solve the value predicament he found himself in. His didn't make a contribution to the field of economics, even Krugman recognizes this. Marx's contribution to the social sciences was his analysis of the superstructure - the so called "sociology of knowledge" (though this concept is often credited to Emile Durkheim), his theories of historical and dialectical materialism, and his unique way of historical interpretation - not economics. Ahhh elitism at its finest. Surely, if one goes to harvard, ones academic knowledge and abilities far outweigh the rest of society....lol.....what a load of shit Where did I suggest this? I merely mentioned that Harvard, MIT, and Princeton (who I disagree with by the way) control and shape the modern economics profession. Do you disagree with this? re read yours...its drippin

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875