quote:


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.

quote:

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?

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

quote:

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?

Economics as a profession is heavily influenced by the capitalist model, would you not agree? Those who get to have their theories tested, get funded, get recognition tend to be people that would want to work within the capitalist system. If the system is biased against other models of economics, it stands to reason that those people who had aberrant ideas would not be accepted by the system that supports a certain way of thinking.

Color me unsurprised that Marxist economists are not flourishing in a system that supports capitalist models of economics.

For a couple of decades now we have had economic models that have led to the liberalization of global trade. Those who supported neoliberalization of markets were the ones with the megaphone. Unfortunately for the rest of us there was this problem of capitalist economic systems (especially global marketplaces) that hasn't been solved, and that is economies must have sustained growth to survive. It is impossible for economies to continue to have the growth necessary to support a global marketplace, therefore, what expands sooner or later contracts.

We are still in the midst of a major global contraction.

Now I could pick on other problems with the current global economic system, this is only one of them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk
re read yours...its drippin

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

This thread is a little bit like "water is wet"....

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

This thread is a little bit like "water is wet"....

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

Willbeurdaddy
You are wrong, he's a died in the wool Marxist. Read his books and columns. Change the dates and locations and Marx himself could have written them.

ad hominem and hasty generalization.

quote:

I assume that you're referring to a model based on the recognition of private property rights? If so, then yes, I would agree with you. Nearly all economists, when you get down to the nitty-gritty of things, favor the institution of private property and favor the institution of free markets - Krugman included.

quote:

To suggest that the world has liberalized it's marketplace is broadly correct. However, to suggest that the liberal policies are the fault of the current contraction is not correct. While some parts of the world have liberalized their markets - most notably the emerging and developing countries (China, India, Brazil, etc), the United States has not done so. Over the past 30 years there has been more regulation, more centralization, and more government control; not more economic liberalization.

quote:

What I gathered from your statement is this: more global economic liberalization has happened; since then, there has been economic contraction. Therefore, economic liberalization (capitalism) is the cause of the current contraction. What you have done with your reasoning here is violate the law of the excluded middle. Basically, what you're referring to is not a problem that stems from the recognition of private property rights and capitalism, but rather a problem that stems from government intervention in the economy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: provfivetine



Just because I stated that Harvard, MIT, and Princeton control and shape the field of mainstream economics doesn't mean that I agree with them. My larger point here, ironically, is actually the one that you accused me of: the economists at these institutions are elitists who think that they know how to plan all of our lives and know better than us. I vehemently disagree with the stances taken by these schools. I was just showing that, as off track as they are, even these schools reject the basic concepts of Marxist economics. The world would be better off if Harvard, MIT and Princeton didn't control the world of economics.

Many of my favorite economists are stuck at smaller state schools and get absolutely no credit for their outstanding work; they don't have any juice to influence policy. It's funny how you accuse me of elitism when that's exactly what I'm standing up to.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

I agree with Krugman that unions help keep the middle class strong.  However, the very climate that permits unions to exist does the same thing.  In other words, if unions are allowed to form and to thrive, the climate is already decent for the middle class.  The fact that overseas labor is so attractive is one real issue, and the attractiveness of products produced overseas is another.  Both cause labor to shift offshore, and they also weaken demand for local labor, which is critical to unions' viability.

In other words, I disagree with his notion that this is caused largely by political factors.  I contend that it is caused largely by economic factors, which in turn enable those political factors.

quote:

Both Marxist economics and neo-liberalism suffer the same basic flaw. Both discourses propose economic activity as the primary driver of human societies. The basic claim of neo-liberalism - that the market is the best ("most efficient") regulator of activity - is clearly flawed. Consider the issue of pollution for example. When asked, most people do not nominate economic matters as the most important thing in their lives. Usually their answers are along the lines of relationships family health .....

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

quote:

Both Marxist economics and neo-liberalism suffer the same basic flaw. Both discourses propose economic activity as the primary driver of human societies. The basic claim of neo-liberalism - that the market is the best ("most efficient") regulator of activity - is clearly flawed. Consider the issue of pollution for example. When asked, most people do not nominate economic matters as the most important thing in their lives. Usually their answers are along the lines of relationships family health .....

Also there is this idea that markets are "rational"... that individuals are rational actors making rational economic decisions based upon the best knowledge that they have... and that the market is always right.

Tell me, what is rational about spending 5000 dollars for a handbag

Marx was right about one thing, and that is consumer fetishism. Consumers make fetishes out of goods

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

When looking at how capital is moved around, I would say that this is not correct, there has been less regulation in regard to financial services.

quote:

What is a recession? A recession is a slow down in economic growth.

quote:



what I am referring to is a global system that does not quantify costs to the environment, to the people who live in the economies that capitalists do business in with regard to seeking profits for interests that are far flung away from where goods are manufactured. It is not so much that I am for the abolition of private property as I am against capitalists that live in one region of the world exploiting people that live in other regions.

quote:


This is done through economic organizations like the World Bank and the IMF who lend money to poor countries under the conditions that they sell off all services related to public good that can be privatized... and then having the people of these nations pay back money for projects that benefit capitalists almost exclusively... such as harbors, bridges, etc, that are used to get goods and products to market.

quote:


John Locke and his apple example... it is "evil" to hoard apples if you only let them go bad, but if it is a type of property that is not perishable it is okay to hoard it (gold, land, money).... yes I believe in private property to some degree, but I also believe in the public good. I think that local people should have more voice in how their resources and labor are used. I believe in local control over economics. I also believe in profit sharing without over paid CEOs... lastly, I do not think that capitalists necessarily add a much good to the system. There has to be something that is better than any other economic system we have ever had....because ours is deeply flawed. Anyone that would claim it is the end all be all isn't thinking of the future, and they are shortsighted.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle


Some inaccuracies in your account of things concern me. For example:
"Marx's contribution to the social sciences was his analysis of the superstructure - the so called "sociology of knowledge" "(post #21)

The sociology of knowledge usually describes a view that all knowledge is socially produced. As it concerns the nature of knowledge, it is an epistemological concept. Epistemology is taught as a branch of Philosophy in any University worth the name. The sociology of knowledge is generally accepted in the social sciences but it is neither a Marxist concept or a 'social sciences' concept.

quote:



The economic school of thought you are referring to - neo-liberalism- is often called the "Chicago School" in deference to Milton Friedman. Friedman was an academic at Chicago and is usually credited with the revival of free market economics to its position of almost total dominance in conventional economics today.

quote:


Both Marxist economics and neo-liberalism suffer the same basic flaw. Both discourses propose economic activity as the primary driver of human societies. The classic claim of neo-liberalism - that the market is the best ("most efficient") regulator of activity - is clearly flawed. For example consider the issue of pollution and the difficulties/inability of free market economies to address this urgent issue. Also, consider the delusion involved whereby pollution is not considered as a cost of production, which it so clearly is. Or the inability of the free market US healthcare system to provide for the health needs of all Americans. When asked, most people do not nominate economic matters as the most important thing in their lives. Usually their answers are along the lines of relationships family health .....

quote:


The dominant influence of the "dismal 'science'" of economics, and its mutant progeny - neo-liberalism - has been a fundamental factor in the huge transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich that most Western societies have experienced over the past few decades. As long as this wretched discourse continues to dominate economic analysis, this transfer of wealth can be reasonably expected to continue.

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

I have to get to bed, I have a way early appointment with a lender tomorrow... (laughing at this).... but I do have several things to say in response to this, and be prepared... some of them sound fairly Marxist.. although I am not against private property...

quote:

ORIGINAL: provfivetine

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle


Some inaccuracies in your account of things concern me. For example:
"Marx's contribution to the social sciences was his analysis of the superstructure - the so called "sociology of knowledge" "(post #21)

The sociology of knowledge usually describes a view that all knowledge is socially produced. As it concerns the nature of knowledge, it is an epistemological concept. Epistemology is taught as a branch of Philosophy in any University worth the name. The sociology of knowledge is generally accepted in the social sciences but it is neither a Marxist concept or a 'social sciences' concept.

Why did you purposely leave out the line where I credited Emile Durkheim with the concept?

quote:

quote:


Both Marxist economics and neo-liberalism suffer the same basic flaw. Both discourses propose economic activity as the primary driver of human societies. The classic claim of neo-liberalism - that the market is the best ("most efficient") regulator of activity - is clearly flawed. For example consider the issue of pollution and the difficulties/inability of free market economies to address this urgent issue. Also, consider the delusion involved whereby pollution is not considered as a cost of production, which it so clearly is. Or the inability of the free market US healthcare system to provide for the health needs of all Americans. When asked, most people do not nominate economic matters as the most important thing in their lives. Usually their answers are along the lines of relationships family health .....

The inability of the free market to provide health care? Health care costs, much like education, are driven up by government - not the free market. Why do you think things like breast implants, hair transplants, and laser eye surgery are all getting cheaper? The government isn't involved in them. If you want to discuss this, then post it in a different thread.

quote:


The dominant influence of the "dismal 'science'" of economics, and its mutant progeny - neo-liberalism - has been a fundamental factor in the huge transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich that most Western societies have experienced over the past few decades. As long as this wretched discourse continues to dominate economic analysis, this transfer of wealth can be reasonably expected to continue.

quote:


As I said before Keynesian economics dominates the mainstream, not the Chicago School. Again, these economic wealth transfers are the result of decades of government intervention, which creates the problems that they aim to solve.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
You didn't credit Durkheim - you credited Marx. You may have meant something else but your actual text clearly credits Marx and to me, sounds as though you are arguing against crediting Durkheim. Go back and read it.

quote:


I actually wrote the US system fails "to provide for the health needs of all Americans". By which I was clearly referring to its failure to cover tens of millions of Americans who remain uninsured. To me, this is a basic failing of the US system in exactly the same way as a food distribution system that fails to provide food for all the citizens of a country is a failed system. The cost of individual elective cosmetic surgeries is as relevant to this as the price of an individual vegetable is to the success/failure of a food distribution system.

quote:


I also note your silence on the issue of pollution that I highlighted. Should I interpret this silence as agreement with my points? If not, please outline your reasons.

quote:


Thank you for your opinion.

quote:


Most people would I think agree that the entire direction of economic policies in the West for the past few decades has been driven by market theory. The deregulation this theory demands is held responsible by many for the recent Global Financial Crisis, and the free hand it gave the well-heeled cowboys of Wall St. That is precisely the same people who went to Govts around the world begging for funds to save themselves (and the rest of us) from the consequences of their irresponsibility. Of course you may have missed these events. Not many taxpayers failed to notice it, or the big hole it left in their bank balances.

You are certainly entitled to your analysis and opinion. Whether your analysis and opinions correspond to facts or persuade is an entirely different matter. The argument that applications of a theory weren't in fact, "true/real/pure" applications of theory is the standard argument presented by ideologues when confronted with the failures of their ideology. It has been presented by Marxists, Christians, Muslims <insert any failed ideology of your choice here> at one point or another and is far from compelling . Personally, I find arguments that amount to the theory is true but the facts aren't to be tediously inadequate.