>"Despite the massive intellectual feat that Marx's

He meant that despite the massive intellectual feat that Marx's Capital represents, the Marxian contribution to economics can be readily summarized as virtually zero. Professional economics as it exists today reflects no indication that Karl Marx ever existed. This neither denies nor denigrates Capital as an intellectual achievement, and perhaps in its way the culmination of classical economics. But the development of modern economics had simply ignored Marx. Even economists who are Marxists typically utilize a set of analytical tools to which Marx contributed nothing, and have recourse to Marx only for ideological, political, or historical purposes.

>>2144798
>the Marxian contribution to economics can be readily summarized as virtually zero

???

Almost everything he wanted - minimum wage, work place standard, maternity leave, equal opportunity for the genders, retirement funds, labor unions, etc, almost all of it was implemented.

Only his most extreme suggestions weren't.

>>2144831
Not economics largely, that's mainly political. Him wanting those things is him not contributing anything to the field of economics

also:

>"However, the democratic petty bourgeois want better wages and security for the workers, and hope to achieve this by an extension of state employment and by welfare measures; in short, they hope to bribe the workers with a more or less disguised form of alms and to break their revolutionary strength by temporarily rendering their situation tolerable."

Because actual economists is based off axiomatic assumptions which actually hold true through testing. The Labour Theory of Value, which has been utterly disproved, is the basis of Marxist economics and therefore much of work is irrelevant to problems in the real world.

>>2144849
>actual economists is based off axiomatic assumptions which actually hold true through testing
No.

>>2144917
It really is frightening.

>>2144798
>>>/pol/

>>2144849
>The Labour Theory of Value, which has been utterly disproved

How so?

File: RRF_9301-fullWidthMobile.jpg (23KB, 345x230px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 345x230px

Marx was riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight

>>2144917
t. never studied economics

>>2145521
Funny because i studied precisely economics.

>>2145137
It hasn't, it's age old propaganda

>>2145137
Value doesn't come purely from production itself.

>>2145527
Post your school, student number, transcript with marks, names of your 3 favourite professors, and 2 pieces of ID.

>>2144831
Other than unions, he didn't want any of that.

>>2145543
Read his manifesto maybe.

>>2145137
He's wrong in saying it's been disproved; rather it has been placed (rightfully) in the dustbin of history.

The LTV is a theory, a system by that attempts to explain phenomenon. A theory is judged by how well it explains and predicts observed, empirical data. It's been done away with because other theories (IE, Marginalism) more accurately explain and predict empirical data.

>>2144798

I'll concede having not read much from Sowell but everything I see posted from him here is just appeals to authority. "Most economists reject it" is not a valid refutation of any socialist policy.

>>2145559
The funny thing is most economists also reject Sowell's libertarian school.

>>2145555
>mexican "intellectuals"

>>2145569
I erased it now that you've seen it because i don't want my info out there. I'm an argie.

File: wondertwinsbucket.jpg (29KB, 512x343px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 512x343px

>>2144798

Conservative libertarian has a problem with Marx? Color me surprised.

He's got some perverse reasoning. For instance, he claims to be a marxist in his 20's- but then studied Puerto Rico's minimum wage increase coinciding with an increase in unemployment for a reason not to be Marxist.

He also hates government mandated alms because it passifies the revolutionary outrage of the poor.

He both wants people employed- earning an unlivable wage and he wants people unemployed and angry so they will overthrow the government to improve their living conditions.

Anyone see the problem with that? It's fucking incoherent. You can't be in favor of galvanizing radical sentiments to improve the conditions of the poor and then shit on measures taken to improve the conditions of the poor. Those incremental improvements don't preclude eventual 'radical changes" from the starting point and they also don't preclude the well being of the mistreated.

>>2145616
>For instance, he claims to be a marxist in his 20's- but then studied Puerto Rico's minimum wage increase coinciding with an increase in unemployment for a reason not to be Marxist.

Well if the unemployment increased too much, then I don't see how he wouldn't consider that negative as an economist.

My country doesn't have a minimum wage and it's the second richest country in the world per capita.

>>2144798
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 and replaced it 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 in thinking only in abstractions but anyone who was studied science can tell you that abstractions often do not match reality.

File: rubocop.jpg (173KB, 658x370px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 658x370px

>>2145660
Do you live in Luxembourg? Because that's the second richest country, and it has a minimum wage of 1922.96 euros per month.

look, it'd take some serious study of Puerto Rico to find out what's going on in its economy- as of when Sowell was studying it. And I'm not going to do that, but here's some general ideas.

1. The companies could have protested the wage hike by firing laborers - despite not having a real need to lower the labor force.

2. There could have been a coinciding recession- the labor force would have dipped whether or not there was a minimum wage increase. Production cycles are common in capitalism. Every 4-7 years there's a downturn (since the great depression).

3. Demand for products could have decreased- foreign markets could close or tighten, local markets could have decreased- so the lay offs would have occurred whether there was a hike in minimum wage.


There are simply too many variables that say that minimum wage caused higher unemployment.

Also, note that the higher minimum wage can lead to more spending power- and more demand for goods, which leads to more demand for labor to meet those demands. This is the common economic model for higher minimum wages. The problem we are having currently is that real wages- in the U.S.- haven't increased in about 30 years- meanwhile corporate profits have gone up, and CEO earnings and bonuses have gone up tremendously.

>>2145720
No I live in Norway.

>>2145756
>tfw no bara Norwegian bf

>>2145696
>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.

This.

And one of the signs of it is that political hacks that never did anything of note in academia like Sowell are the ones getting their hands dirty fighting with Marx.

You never see the real luminaries lower themselves as to explain why Marxism is wrong and not part of the orthodox economic canon. For one of the most influential and contentious ideas in political-economic history that seems quite odd. You'd at least want an authoritative assembly of talking points from a couple experts if not a couple books refuting Marx. Biologists will have no problem explaining why creationists are retarded. It makes no sense unless you consider that the main rhetoric strategy is to just avoid Marx altogether. Because they have no real good slam dunk arguments that the experts are willing to stamp their name on popular ignorance and taboo are more powerful tools of social influence.

>>2145773
Are you a grill?

>>2145778
I wish this weren't true

>>2145660
>My country doesn't have a minimum wage and it's the second richest country in the world per capita.

Because you guys have unions both for employers and employees/occupational unions. Also greta social services so being paid less isn't much of a hit so your exports in theory are cheaper.

I would never drop the minimum wage in say America.

>>2145792
No. But I'd still like a bara Norwegian bf :3

>>2145803
>Because you guys have unions both for employers and employees/occupational unions.

So? There's no law that says neither employees nor employers have to accept the terms made by either party.

>>2145809
Both are on pretty steady grounding. In America and most of the anglo world Unions for the most part are dead, weak or only for careers or occupations you can't export.

>>2145137
It hasn't been completely refuted, because muh transformation problem, but literally everyone in the field has moved on to marginalism as a better explanation

>>2145548
See >>2144843 quote

>>2146661
Marx also contributed nothing to LTV really, other than from a (at the time non-existent) sociological perspective

File: 2b5.jpg (118KB, 375x330px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 375x330px

>>2144798
>Thomas Sowell

File: 1469983009844.gif (438KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

438KB, 300x300px

>>2144798

Was Marx actually an economist or just a political theorist who used economics in the sense of people grouped together by economic class to advance his political ideas?

From what I've read of him, his theories on economics seem specifically structured in order to galvanize hatred and inter-class strife, or else are political theory applied to economics and not empirically driven in some sense, e.g.Socialist economics, free market, Austrian, Chicago etc etc etc.

>inb4 >Austrian
>empirically driven

>>2146720
>Not
>An
>Argument

>>2146779
>inter-class strife

God forbid workers be pissed off that they're being paid pennies on the dollar to work 16 hour days

Guess those serfs who rose up against the French must have just been stirred up by mean old bourgeois people with their theories of liberty and rights

>>2146779
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm

>>2146779
Marx is a philosopher, sociologist, historian, economist, and a political activist depending on which of his texts you read.

>>2146779
What do you mean they aren't empirically driven? The whole point of Marx's study of political economy is an empirical critique of the organization of society.

No, Marx was not an economist. Marx studied humans and their communities from a biological perspective and used historical examples to dictate his beliefs. Marxism is the application of the material dialectic and can be used in any field of study. Economics does not incorporate material dialectics because economists are closer to mathematicians, many of whom are not scientists and economics is certainly not science.

His critique of society resulted in him advocating for a communal system for organizing humans. He felt that too often people were thought of as solely individuals (liberals) and communities (conservatives) but he wanted to regard humans as individuals-in-community.

>>2146836
I like how Marxists love to qualifying their idol's work as "empirical critique" and his socialism as "scientific", but when they talk about other theories then suddenly "economics is not science" (which I mostly agree with).

Economics without mathematics should go into the trash bin, that applies to Austrians as well.

He is right. That does not denigrate Marx at all though, as some anons seem to be thinking (by either fighting him or agreeing with him for it). In fact it can even clarify Marx's position.

He is saying you cannot find Marx in the analytical tools used today by economists, which is true. But Marx was not trying to come up with economical tools, he was using them to get his political point across. Which he did and with great success. Whether you agree with him or not, the novelty and influence of Marx lies within the politics of his work, which is not to say his vision of economy is at fault or outdated in any way.

A physicist may bring nothing new to mathematics and still be quite relevant to physics and use mathematics extensively to do so.

I made one thread on a Keynesian formula and got no replies, this shitty thread on Marx gets infinite replies.

File: 1475529704304.jpg (27KB, 283x323px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 283x323px

>>2146818

You know what I mean; that theory is very much period-specific, or rather, society-specific. The problem with that part of his theory is that he's assigning behaviours - in this case exploitation - to classes of people (be they economic or otherwise), which never turns out well because they're inevitably transposed into collective guilt which then logically helps justify collective punishment. There's an obvious difference between a capitalist who chains his workers to their workstations and, say, a peasant who eventually works his way up to becoming a minor landowner (for example a kulak) and hires workers to farm the extra land during the harvest, but the difference is obscured when talking about class v. class.

>>2146828

Reading now

>>2146836

I mean it's not empirically driven in the sense that Adam Smith's or Keynes's or Milton Friedman's (again, inb4 >Friedman >empirically driven) were, in that they examined phenomena and how people react to them while accounting for moral concerns, and then published works on that basis; and that introducing policy on the basis of their theories generally achieves the desired result, in line with their theories. Maybe not the 100% desired result, but maybe somewhere around 70% or 80%. I'm thinking specifically of market liberalisation in China, India, Singapore, the UK and elsewhere with regards to Smith and Friedman, and stimulus spending with regards to Keynes. Marxist ideas never seem to pan out as intended and his theory of worldwide revolution didn't occur as predicted, so either the thought was based on bad data, the policies are corrupted from the original Marxist thought, or else simply the thought misrepresented the world as it actually is and didn't understand what would actually happen. Of course, it's entirely possible I'm just missing the point of Marx; maybe I'm reading too much into him as an economist/political theorist and not treating him as just a particularly famous social critic?

>>2146836
>>2146869
>Mathematics isn't science

Stay classy /leftypol/!

All economics is applied math. If you can't understand it - or choose not to - it's your own fault.

>>2147243
>All economics is applied math
Using models with no empirical basis.

>>2147221
>Reading now
Good. If you know about classical economics you'll see that he builds up on it and that it is not a moral work, at all. He doesn't rely on social classes any more than smith or ricardo did either.

Not the other guy but i'll also answer:
>he's assigning behaviours - in this case exploitation - to classes of people (be they economic or otherwise), which never turns out well because they're inevitably transposed into collective guilt which then logically helps justify collective punishment
Economics actors in marxian economic theory are amoral. The capitalist acts the way he does because he is forced by competition.

>>2147243
Mathematics is art. Any mathematician worth his salt will tell you it is not a science. It's all word games built on assumptions. That doesn't mean mathematics is useless but it is not absolute.

The laws of Thermodynamics and Newtonian physics have no assumptions they are purely descriptive. You cannot construct these models a priori.

>>2147249
>No empirical basis
Haha! I'd like a source on that, the majority of papers have empirical data

>>2144798
>yet another faggot who doesn't know the difference between democratic socialism and authoritarian communism
>muh "I am always right and my opponents are silly" endlessly quoted black man

Keep your bullshit on /pol/ where it belongs.

>>2147435
Economists generate a model then find the data which supports the model. Scientists collect data then make observations.

>>2147464
It's just a pic mate, other's have stated what Sowell has said

>>2147507
Haha! I'll need some evidence of that! Here's proof economists generally use empirical data!

http://imgur.com/a/049Mn

>>2146818
Serfdom =/= Making less money than your boss.

This is why it's impossible to discuss with Marxist socialists. You always compare a market economy with the worst of human evil, and actually believe you don't sound like an idiot while doing it.

>>2147428
But they are modeled with systems that are derived mathematically. For instance, if Archimedes did not derive Pi from The Measurement of a Circle I doubt he would have been able to figure out the size of his Geocentric universe. Same with Newton, so at the core it is all derived from mathematics. Now here's where it gets interesting. Because how do you assume these mathematical concepts, like Geometry, which can be roughly defined in real life, stand to be a priori. How is it not a posteriori from our conception of the universe, or the number of digits on our hands for instance, almost like a system waiting to be discovered

File: e73157c6080eaf11551025411fbe9f1a2d5a4141b3b4d10a303788ae8e636c84_1.jpg (83KB, 600x593px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 600x593px

>>2144798
>supporting that anti white faggot

>>2147589
What?

>>2145756
Norway is nowhere near the richest countries.

>>2147249
uhhhh I'll just go ahead and make a baseless assertion XDDD

>>2146779
>specifically structured in order to galvanize hatred and inter-class strife
Yes workers never thought about organising before marx showed up
jesus christ, /his/

>>2148998
that doesn't seem to be what he is implying dunce

>>2147531
When you have to leave your home, since there are no jobs and the system requires you have one, and you need to go to the city, and there you need to pick between a few employers all of which have incentives to work you into an early grave, while paying you the minimum salary possible, yes, its serfdom.

1. You have no mobility. You are forced from one place to the other by the job market and the system requiring that you follow it.
2. You don't own your work. Most of the value you create working is awarded to your supervisor and your employer, very little to you.

Serfdom.

File: 12bb94573c4fb1625153e5f1a89ba3181984f558eb951c6482c382349a87a1a1.jpg (9KB, 208x239px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 208x239px

>taking thomas sowell seriously
>taking mainstream economists seriously
top kek

>>2144831

>Karl Marx was really a leftish market liberal who just wanted some maternity leave and minimum wage

I genuinely laughed our loud at this

>>2147589
>taking an out of context quote and ignoring literally everything else he says
go to bed hillary

>>2150993
>Joseph Stigglitz
>not to be taken seriously
lmaoing at ur life right now

>>2144831
Lmao'ing @ you

>>2150993
>Not taking Solow seriously, who has also expressed similar facts
>Taking heterodox economists seriously

>>2150993
wow man look at you got all those good ideas up in that head now.

>>2144843
>minimum wage, work place standard, maternity leave
>political
>American education

Ban Americans from /his/ pls

>>2144843
>crisis theory
>theory of the state's relationship to private industry
>SNLT/LTV
>not contributions to economic theory
hell, there's even a chapter in capitl vol 3 that explains stagflation

>>2151159
>Mainly
That list was fucking retarded. Marx was not some sort of left leaning moderate wtf

File: correlations.jpg (95KB, 447x576px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 447x576px

>>2144849
>LTV has been utterly disproven
lol
http://users.wfu.edu/cottrell/eea97.pdf

>>2144798

modern ""economics""" is the study of how to convince states to enact policies that will enable to the largest firms (that is, firms closest to the economist's ideal) to profit more easily. marxism concerns itself with the study of the capitalist mode of production as a whole. marxian economics is a smaller branch of this which deals with similar phenomena the modern """economists""" are interested in.

>>2151218
So Marxian economics is glorified sociology?

File: IMG_0039.jpg (123KB, 900x657px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 900x657px

>The very same bourgeois mentality which extols the manufacturing division of labour, the life-long annexation of the worker to a partial operation, and the unconditional subordination of the detail worker to capital, extols them as an organisation of labour which increases productivity - denounces just as loudly every kind of deliberate social control and regulation of the social process of production, denounces it as an invasion of the inviolable property rights, liberty and self-determining genius of the individual capitalist. It is characteristic that the inspired apologists of the factory system can find nothing worse to say of any proposal for the general organisation of social labour, than that it would transform the whole of society into a factory.

>>2151218
I know this is sarcasm but the fact that there are people on /leftypol/ that unironically believe this still makes me laugh

>>2145616
I honestly don't think Sowell was ever a Marxist. I think Sowell might have had Soviet sympathies when younger, as every one of his "refutations" of Marxism is really about the USSR. Sowell either seems completely unaware of non-USSR Marxism, or like he says everyone else does, he just ignores it.

>>2144798
i actually agree with this and i'm a marxist

it's just worse off for modern economics and besides anyone who knows a thing about economics knows that the mainstream has been in disrepute for decades now

>>2151231
you might have been responding to the wrong post, but if not keep your mouth shut ignoramus

>>2151175
>SNLT/LTV
That's a literal meme at this point

>>2151276
>i actually agree with this and i'm a marxist

>I actually agree with this and I'm a flat earther

>>2151297
a meme proven scientifically accurate
>>2151191

>>2151280
>wahhh stop exposing the infiltration

Stop raiding 4chan and we'll stop exposing you, /leftyshill/.

File: 372452f7f23fd42ab0824ee773664aaecc86995b6fcc5736d3e8f4edde05b169.png (177KB, 1400x680px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 1400x680px

>>2147249
>Using models with no empirical basis.
>>>/leftypol/

File: 12718047_1646180835658121_5002590089649616741_n.png (490KB, 712x840px) Image search: [Google]

490KB, 712x840px

>>2151337
oh the irony

>>2151344
>if you are not a leftist that means you are a supporter an Austrian School

Stop

>>2151344
>if ur ot with me ur the exact opposite 2 me

Why do leftists succumb to

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splitting_(psychology)

so easily?

It's like religious fervor desu. If you don't praise God you burn in hell. if you don't praise St. Marx you burn in Austrian land.

>>2151354
>>2151357
Well then, speak up, what do you believe in? General neo-classical economics/Chicago school? Keynes? What?

I don't believe in using economics to predict the future, as the future is over-determined by a multitude of factors. What we can do is examine the past to respond to the issues we face today.

File: tmp_1066-14806092532112014264360.jpg (598KB, 1500x2182px) Image search: [Google]

598KB, 1500x2182px

>>2151344
>implying I'm an austrian

>>2151344
>If you're not a leftist you're an austrian
'tism

>>2151376
Personally, I support the New Keynesian school.

File: 1459769117801.jpg (52KB, 600x560px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 600x560px

>>2151376
Not him, but I believe in Keynes.

>>2151376
New Keynesian

>>2151431
>>2151436
>>2151440
then how do you deal with the effects of capital accumulation on the political economy? as we've seen with the rise of neo-liberalism, as capitalism goes on the inequality it brings gives more and more power to capitalists, to the point that it empowers them to undo structural reforms meant to stabilize the economy.

>>2151223
>>2151231

Not arguments.

>>2151357

>>>""""""""psychological """""""""concepts"""""""""""""""""""

>>2151314
>papers that only examine marxist theory and its derivatives show me I was right all along

Even your own paper doesn't show actual correlation.

>>2151454
Inequality is decreasing

>>2151454
The latter is not a must, but rather, the product of lazy politicians and overambitious lobbyists. A political problem, not an economical one.

>>2151481
POverty is decreasing, inequality is not.

>>2151522
Internationally it is

File: 161221173430-inequality-piketty-1-780x439.png (111KB, 780x439px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 780x439px

>>2151481
uh huh...

>>2151533
Internationally*, and this is the fault of rising technology, not neoliberal policies

File: you.jpg (54KB, 312x560px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 312x560px

>>2151522
>politics and economics are not interconnected

>>2144831
american "leftists"

>>2145152
yes

>tfw capitalism keeps on winning

Feels good

>>2145807
do you have a feminine penis

>>2151603
>tfw left wing parties are neoliberal cuckolds
Hnnnng

File: e72.jpg (54KB, 680x456px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 680x456px

>>2151548
It's due to a multitude of factors, including the degradation of unions, technology, immigraiton and neo-liberal policies. You can't conclusively say any one of those things weren't related.

And anyway, the longterm levels of inequality are more beginning to hold steady, and yes go down a bit. I suspect this has a lot to do with a falling rate of profit in the aggregate as the third world's physical capital concentrations begin to compete with the first world's.

File: global inequality.jpg (25KB, 418x329px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 418x329px

>>2151643
meant to post graph

>>2151643
>degradation of leeches
>something negative

lel

File: 1457335415796.png (58KB, 553x759px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 553x759px

>>2151556
>Keynesianism as an economical decision nescecarily leads to a corrupted government

File: 353.gif (2MB, 171x315px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 171x315px

>>2151669
Do I have to spell this out? More inequality inherently leads to a more unstable system, not just because of political reality, but because the rich have a higher savings rate than the poor, creating an eventual mismatch of supply and demand for loanable funds when the mass of consumers becomes over-leveraged, creating a financial crisis.

File: e1e.gif (1MB, 389x560px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 389x560px

>>2151691
>money doesn't corrupt politics
this is a general rule of capitalism, not just Keynesianism, though it can hardly escape it.

>>2151712

I agree, we need to reduce state power, make it smaller. A powerful state meddling in an capitalist economy is no good.

File: 997.jpg (24KB, 384x306px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 384x306px

>>2151731
Are you retarded? How would that solve the problem?

>>2151737

Because it is the state that keeps companies afloat when they, in a free market capitalist system otherwise would've gone bankrupt.

By letting the market run the economy rather than the state, your rich people wouldn't have an advantage.

File: 550638b4ef35c8c1b2818c91ab1c130bc8c1de12c532790173118f36665c4e3b.jpg (45KB, 530x558px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 530x558px

>>2151748
capital accumulation happens regardless of competition. think of it in terms of owning a stock index fund or a mutual fund. The more money you have, the more you can own, which passively generates money itself.

>>2151768

Indeed, the more money you gamble with the more you can potentially win, sounds like a fair system to me.

File: 90c.jpg (29KB, 470x313px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 470x313px

>>2151775
Betting on an index fund is hardly a gamble. And you're still missing the point, by elevating some imaginary status such as risk-taking, your making certain that there will be an economic crisis thanks to capital accumulation. this becomes the inevitable result of the rules of the system. Or maybe you could prevent such a crisis by getting rid of the stock market and making ownership either personal or public property.

>>2151803

How is it not a gamble? Either you go long or short.

>imaginary status
>risk taking

you what?

>get rid of the stock market
>make ownership either personal or private

There are plenty of companies with personal ownership, and public property is very inefficient and unstable in most cases.

>invent something
>start company to start selling your invention
>oh btw I'll give everything up this is now owned by all of you workers xDD

Am I in 3rd grade?

Economic crisis doesn't happen because of risk taking. The last economic crisis in 07 happened because the government thought it could direct the market in certain ways but that is not how capitalism works.

File: 761.jpg (20KB, 385x256px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 385x256px

>>2151825
>How is it not a gamble? Either you go long or short.
Everything requires risk, putting money in an index fund is just as risky as relying on a job for a wage.

>you what?
stock investing could be automated to occur randomly and the results wouldn't be much different.

>There are plenty of companies with personal ownership, and public property is very inefficient and unstable in most cases.
Maybe by the sheer amount, but most economic activity is controlled by privately owned companies or companies with publicly trading stock.

As for public property, you may be referring to nationalized companies. Companies which are designed not to make a profit to begin with. They are meant to provide a public good or service. Public ownership, however, you can think of a bit differently. For example, it would be ridiculous to say that the companies invested in by Saudi Arabia's sovereign wealth fund are somehow less efficient or more unstable.

>>oh btw I'll give everything up this is now owned by all of you workers xDD
this happens all the time except its not workers who get it, its private companies and investors who buy up the rights to a product. When people start a company for their invention, the money they get is not for the invention, but for owning that company. The real worth of their invention is whatever they can get for selling the rights or license to produce it.

>Economic crisis doesn't happen because of risk taking. The last economic crisis in 07 happened because the government thought it could direct the market in certain ways but that is not how capitalism works.
Economic crisis happens for a multitude of reasons. The government, as is usually the norm, was only acting in the way moneyed interests wanted it to, which is what will always be the case in capitalism unless there is significant mass mobilization against such policies.

File: 4be.jpg (36KB, 515x713px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 515x713px

>>2151719
No, that's not a general rule. If it is, it's doing it wrong.

>>2151932

I'm sure you've heard of the saying, no risk no reward. It applies to literally everything in life, stock market included.

Anything you do in life has a risk and it has a reward. Everything you do is a trade.

If you fail to realize how investing is not gambling and believe that we should move to some shitty socialist idea of public ownership then there's no help for you.

>>2151825
>>2151932
cont'd

You could also apply the theory about a debt crisis caused by inequality to the causes of the 07 crisis, as well as the decline of collective bargaining power, a general labor surplus, corrupt credit ratings, or a lack of regulation of the banking sector.

I somehow doubt, that if the government had done nothing at all, the crisis would not have happened.

File: 000.png (384KB, 680x383px) Image search: [Google]

384KB, 680x383px

>>2151945
congratulations on winning the most niave post of the year award

File: uh huh.jpg (76KB, 482x510px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 482x510px

>>2151946
Do you not know what the efficient market hypothesis means? Who succeeds in the stock market is essentially random 99% of the time.

Literally anyone can take risks. The workers could just as easily take the risks. Who you're letting get the rewards under this system is literally destroying it.

>>2144798
>tfw too intelligent to win

>>2151001
>strawman + non argument
Read his manifesto.

>>2151064
>raw non argument
Read his manifesto.

>>2151594
t. savoy zizekson

>>2153071
>MARX WANTED EQUAL RIGHTS THEREFORE HE CONTRIBUTED TO MODERN ECONOMICS
You are a retard and please don't waste my time by commenting again

>>2153076
>ALL CAPS STRAWMAN

He contributed, because he identified a problem and suggested a list of changes to solve it.
The problem is recognized today, and some of his changes have been widely implemented. Others haven't, but that doesn't mean he didn't influence us.

>>2153079
Holy fuck you are a retard. This is an 18+ board. Saying hurr durr we need unions is not contributing to economics you fucking dropkick. I bet your head looks like a dropped pie

> his changes

> his changes

> his changes

TIL before Marx no one though of equal rights

Kys

>>2153085
Why do you continue to build strawmen and go to war with them when everyone can just scroll up and read my posts?
How can you confuse " I bet your head looks like a dropped pie " for an argument?

What the fuck is wrong with you?

>>2153090
Explain to me how wanting equal rights or supporting a minimum wage is contributing to the field of economics. I bet your head looks like a chewed up minty, doesn't it son?

File: fucking read his fucking book.jpg (65KB, 748x281px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 748x281px

>>2153098
Minimum wage and equal rights are only some of the suggestions he made and defended in his work.
Read these TWENTY FUCKING PAGES before you post.

He developed labor theory of value from Smith, was the first to spot the weaknesses of capitalism in a time of tremendous growth thanks to factories being widely introduced, basically a pessimist in times of optimism, and accurately predicted the revolutions coming from that.
His proletariat ideas spawned the "wage slave" meme that has been a very widely recognized meme in economics for centuries, and is still alive today.

>hurrr ur commie
I am not a marxist, and I am not a communist, and I am not a collectivist. I am simply annoyed by people making shit up and defending comfortable lies.
Marx is very much relevant, and marxist thought in economics and culture is on the rise if anything. I wish it weren't so, but it is.
He correctly identified the problem, and offered some solutions of it, and part of those solutions have been implemented (gender and race equality to have more workers, state funded education to have more educated people, state funded healthcare to avoid plagues, minimum work place standards to avoid incidents, minimum wage to avoid exploitation, paying extra for extra hours, maternity and paternity leave for parents, and so on). Others haven't, because its near impossible to do, especially before some super AI that can actually plan an economy.

Read the little tiny pamphlet, and come back to me with actual arguments, not insults.

File: CrQjCfHVUAEduUV.jpg large.jpg (109KB, 619x1000px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 619x1000px

>>2145756
>The socdem citizen telling people countries shouldn't take care of the poor

>>2153110
"And before we move onto covering monopsony class, let's praise Marx one more time for mentioning that he supports an idea, while offering FUCKING NOTHING to its development nor theory, nor counterfactual, nor empirics, amen."

That isn't doing fucking anything. He contributed fucking nothing. Friedman didn't become the greatest economist in the second half of the twentieth century by going ""hurr freedom and capitalism is good"

Jesus fucking Christ make this argument again after taking middle school economics

>His proletariat ideas spawned the "wage slave" meme that has been a very widely recognized meme in economics for centuries, and is still alive today.

This has got to be a fucking satire

>He developed labor theory of value from Smith

THIS HAS GOT TO BE FUCKING SATIRE
>marxist thought in economics

Lmao. Marxists are literally 0.01% of the field of economics and as Sowell (rightly) points out, that these economists have ulterior motives

Your head looks like an easy baked potato, am I right?

>especially before some super AI that can actually plan an economy.

There was an experiment where a supercomputer failed to do this exact thing. I'll see if I can find it

>gender and race equality to have more workers, state funded education to have more educated people, state funded healthcare to avoid plagues, minimum work place standards to avoid incidents, minimum wage to avoid exploitation, paying extra for extra hours, maternity and paternity leave for parents, and so on

Serious question, have you ever studied economics even remotely in your life?

>>2147243
>Mathematics isn't science
t. have never done either math or science

Science is Empericialsim plus math

>>2153134
Saying "this is satire" and "lmao" repeatedly is not an argument.
Why didn't you read a 20 page pamphlet before discussing its contents?

>>2153151
Two questions, have you studied ANY economics in your life, and do you understand what the term 'normative' means in academia?

>>2153155
You are attacking my person instead of my arguments, again.
Also the word "normative" was not used even once in this thread until you posted it just now.

>>2153160
What's your point? I was consistently making that argument without using the word. Of course when I bring it up, I know it triggers the little red inside
>dude liking unions proves marx contributed to the field of economics

>>2153174
You continue to not make an argument, and instead insult me. We are done here.

File: tmp_1066-14807098744681099126172.webm (3MB, 1920x1040px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1920x1040px

>>2151613
>the left has given up on socialism because capitalism has won
Ftfy

>>2153175
Which is strange because you haven't made an argument Marx's contribution to modern economics

>>2153178
Socialism and capitalism aren't binary choices.
Most if not all modern state employ some socialist policies, and increasingly more of them.

File: tmp_1066-1481145232986712531422.jpg (1MB, 2980x4500px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2980x4500px

>>2153194
>he thinks socialism is social democrat policies

>>2153199
Socialism is having mostly socialist policies.
You can have mostly socialist policies while also having some choice capitalist policies.

You don't need 100% only socialist policies for it to be "socialism". If that was the case, socialism never existed, nor capitalism, nor any system, since they were never 100% fully implemented. There was always overlap with other stuff.

>>2153209
>Socialism is having mostly socialist policies.
Wtf does this mean? "Okay bourgie swine you can keep the farm but I'm taking the machines!"

>>2153194
Government programs are state capitalism


>and increasingly more of them.

Have you missed the last 30 years? Reality has a neoliberal bias

File: tmp_1066-1480726458870-1281932392.jpg (145KB, 1200x1803px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 1200x1803px

>>2153209
Socialism by definition means having the means of production in worker control, either dirextly or indirectly. Having welfare or an eight-hour workday doesn't change anything.

>>2153213
>>2153215
You are confusing communism and socialism, which is easily corrected by reading a fucking book, niggers.

>>2153223
not him but don't tell someone to read a book when you're clearly using terms defined by the media

no books define socialism as having "mostly socialist policies" which is incredibly vague

>>2153134
>Sowell (rightly) points out, that these economists have ulterior motives

Unlike the Sowells of the world, of course.

>>2153429
I don't disagree, but he is entirely correct.

Economics are basically witchcraft and divination anyway.

>>2153523
yeah, it's funny to see people argue so vehemently on something that's purely speculative and can't be proven scientifically

>>2153532
That's not what I'm saying, I mean that economics are quite literally magic and are determined by rituals performed in secret.

>>2153545
oh shit
are the freemasons involved

>>2153552
No, this power is gained by blood and blood only, freemasons are mere sycophants.

>>2153532
LMAOOOOOOO
>>2153545

>>2153175
Will you chill the fuck out with you shrill "waaaaa, he's insulting me!" Questioning your knowledge of the field of economics is not a character attack, it's establishing credibility. The reason credibility needs to be established is that you have utterly failed to provide a single meaningful example of Marxist thought influencing economics, instead mindlessly demanding that we read the Communist Manifesto (which is a political, not economic text).