Why did Marx contribute nothing to economics?

>>2144655
He clearly did contribute something. His ideas are discussed to this day and contrasted with other schools of economics.

>>2144725
>His ideas are discussed to this day and contrasted with other schools of economics.
No they aren't. They were literally ignored and irrelevant

>>2144655
Classical economics were turbo butthurt because of the banter and 95% of them chose to ignore him without really discussing his theory.
Things only changed in the last 50% with Marx appearing in the curriculum and such.

>>2144732
*and still are to this day

but anon Marx's analysis of capitalism was perfectly in line with the economic thought of the day

>>2144655
He didn't follow scientific process on his economics but tried to fit them to his political vies, with the result that his economics where bogus shit. Now thats why nobody uses them.

File: The_Making_of_the_English_Working_Class.gif (49KB, 207x350px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 207x350px

>>2144733
>50 years
>>2144736
Well, we have to be precise here. There is a difference between discussing Marx' ideas and "Marxist" command economy. Historically command economy was extensively discussed, especially by Friedman and I would even go a step further following newer history of science and say that without the USSR Friedman's theory would have developed in a different way. His writings are manichean as fuck.

And Marx itself was and is discusses. Especially be the British (right after WWII for example by (crypto) Marxists in Oxford). Pic sort of related.

>>2144742
good on him for helping create sociology

>>2144757
Sociology has zero predictive power, social psychology is where it's at

>>2144740
>Milton
>Did nothing
Lmao. Literally buttraped the keynesian school so hard it became a filthy mix of a bunch of different schools

>>2144740
>Marx never worked
This meme needs to die. He worked harder than any Scholar I ever studied and we can clearly tell this from the gigantic amount of letter, notes and excerpts he produced. To this day we are busy putting them up in a critical collection.
>hurr durr intellectual work is not work cause no pay
He also wrote for several newspapers writing one of this most influential texts.
>>2144746
>He didn't follow scientific process
If you don't present a proof for this I will assume you never read Marx. The Kapital is an extensive Critique of classical economy. He read all that stuff and responded to it. There also is very limited politics in the Kapital but massive amounts of empirical data.
People who claim what you did are mixing up his texts. He himself wanted (we have prove for that) to write a text in the tradition of precise German science.

>>2144782
No, he wrote about sociology, for which he contributed a lot. His economics are made up bullshit.

>>2144789
>Capital: Critique of Political Economy
Sociology didn't even exist yet so Marx was not able to read anything but economics. Also the Kapital is a story of the accumulation and distribution of capital so it's hardly not economical.
Please shot me the politics and the sociology here:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1885-c2/ch03.htm

>>2144797
>implying Marxist Mehrwert theory or Arbeitswert was not made up
>implying Kapital I was not a study in sociology
>implying Marxist "economy" didn't went straight to the garbage because he just tried to prove his point with made up economy
Kapital 1 was a well made analysis of early industrial sociology, Kapital 2&3 was just garbage with economical hypothesis that never worked out and where disproved countless times.

>>2144807
>>implying Marxist Mehrwert theory or Arbeitswert was not made up
Doesn't really matter since I never claimed anything about the validity of his theory. And yes, it's as made up as any economic theory.
>implying Kapital I was not a study in sociology
You could also argue that it's political theory. My point is sociology as a science didn't exist and Marx was clearly moving in the economic discourse since the text sure as hell is too scientific to be aimed at communist circles. It is clearly aimed as a scientific audience which only could have been trained in economics. Just because Hobbes works on geometry suck it doesn't mean they were not texts on geometry.
>implying Marxist "economy" didn't went straight to the garbage because he just tried to prove his point with made up economy
I never implied that. And as a historian I care little about the validity of his economic ideas to be frank.


Just because I refuse to shit talk Marx it doesn't mean I am a Marxist or subscribe to his ideas. I just can't stand contra-factual memeing.

>>2144759
>social psychology is where it's at
also has zero predicting power. mind you neither does economics

>>2144732
They are about as respected as Austrian economics.

>>2144782
>The Kapital
>Not either "The Capital" or "Das Kapital"
Well thanks for triggering me, shitlord.

>>2145822
This is unfair, Austrians contributed a lot in the first half of the 20th century and Hayek deserved his Nobel prize.

Unfortunately the best the Austrians can currently offer is clowns like Hoppe, and they generally have their heads up their praxeological asses.

>>2145845
>and Hayek deserved his Nobel prize.
Hayek supported a minimum social safety net. When you get to the core of it, he was miles away from Mises and Rothbard.

I was baiting, but seriously now: Austrians made important contributions but then again most western countries also got socialized medicine and healthcare which, while far from being a direct product of Marx's revolutionary ideas, are still an inheritance from socialism, the most reformist, fabian kind. The cores of both sides, however, are pretty much dropped from the forefront.

>>2145870
>Mises and Rothbard
>Hoppe
Modern Austrian Economics is a joke.
Marxist, Austrian, and MMT economics are all trash tier.

>>2145895
no u

They were shit, but Austrians are even more retarded.

Praxeology is pure cancer.

>>2145896
ok

>>2144655
People are always returning to Marx's work. It's not mainstream but there are things like temporal single-system interpretation.

I am not surprised fans of classical economics dismiss Marx outright and vice versa

>>2144733
>banter
Speaking of, does anyone please have a pic of Marx and Hegel ruining that Moses Hess reputation?

The problems with Marx were the problems of classical political economy in the first place
He critiqued within it's framework, and when it became obsolete so too did he.

And y'know you gotta hand it to Marx, he put the stuff to bed, even if he took himself with it.

>>2145870
>Austrians made important contributions
Such as neutering themselves by creating praxeology?

>>2145900
What is the praxeology equivalent to The Capital or Wealth of the Nations?

>>2144742
"No"

>>2146076
Hayek was not a praxeologist.

>>2146132
What was his contributions?

>>2144655
How many threads can people make about Marx on one board?

>Why did Marx contribute nothing to economics?

Moral theorists and political philosophers were desperate to prove Marx wrong (because everyone thought Marx was hot shit for introducing a scientific approach to philosophy) so they created the field of economics. They pretend Marx doesn't exist because if his ideas on society were disseminated most of the logic our institutions are built on would fall apart.

Economists replaced the biological approach of Marx and Smith with mathematical models that obfuscate real situations in order to justify things like wealth inequality and the institutionalization of elites. Economists don't mention Marx because Marx has nothing to do with economists and economists have no knowledge of reality. They are capable of thinking only in abstractions but anyone who was studied science can tell you that abstractions often do not match reality.

>>2146143
ABCT

>>2146052
>when it became obsolete
Are you talking about the marginal revolution here?

>>2146076
Human Action

>>2146176
>ABCT
>The Austrian explanation of the business cycle differs significantly from the mainstream understanding of business cycles and is generally rejected by mainstream economists. Mainstream economists generally do not support Austrian school explanations for business cycles, on both theoretical as well as empirical grounds
What a faggot without any friends.

>>2146198
>Human Action
Praxlology.

>>2146219
If you have friends you already failed at life.

File: 1478990860452.jpg (42KB, 523x478px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 523x478px

>>2144760
>Friedman as an opponent of Keynes
Friedman enabled Keynesians by helping Nixon take us off the gold standard, that's how all this deficit spending was possible, how ignorant of history can you be?

>>2147178
Him and Lucas literally buttraped the keynesian school so hard the new keynesian school was formed (which was closer to monetarist than keynesian) how ignorant of history can you be?

>>2144797
Sociology as a word was invented by Auguste Comte in 1839. It doesn't mean that Marx has asknowledged himself as a sociologist or something like that though.