4 ms·

The great thing about the practice of economics in the U.S. is that its just political ideology masquerading as a science. So the degree to which my language co

The great thing about the practice of economics in the U.S. is that its just political ideology masquerading as a science. So the degree to which my language conforms to the practitioners of a pseudoscience is irrelevant. >Its kind of funny, in economics we talk about how oligopolies will move prices up. So if all our 'real world markets' are 'monopolistic oligopolies' why are they not moving up? In the majority of markets and globally speaking this simply is not the case Because the models themselves are fictional games, with little relation to the realities of global history or politics. >Also the term 'Late Capitalist' sound like you not only believe that history moves in stages, but also that you know when one stage will end. Marxists did a better job predicting the trajectory of Capitalism than any one else, so this doesn't bother me.

thehardsphere 10y ago
> Marxists did a better job predicting the trajectory of Capitalism than any one else, so this doesn't bother me. I'm still waiting for Lenin to hang me with the rope I sold him.
- nickik 10y ago
  JPMorgen invested in a fund that was invested in all companies that did well when there was social unrest. Pretty close. Fun story, not sure if they made a profit.
nickik 10y ago
> So the degree to which my language conforms to the practitioners of a pseudoscience is irrelevant. You can call things what you like as long as you admit that most prices don't go up most of the time. > Marxists did a better job predicting the trajectory of Capitalism than any one else, so this doesn't bother me. Sure. Like when Marx said that workers will become poorer and poorer? How about the time when he predicted socialist revolutions in capitalist countries and the only place the happened were poor farm based countries? When Marx predicted that the amount of firms would decrees but turn into monopoly, and now 200 years later we have more firms then ever before. Marx economic works has been completely rejected by all modern economics. This was not because of some sort of hate for Marxism. He was actually quite a economics star at his time. Only once people started to pointed out the flaws in his system and he had no answer did the economics profession turn against him.
- alphonsegaston 10y ago
  Marx's economics are the basis for almost all functioning social democracies, which score higher on just about how every quality of life indicator than the United States. Hilariously, Hayek predicted that they would devolve into serfdom, which is what is actually happening in the country that hemmed closer to his ideology. Just look at the gig economy. The tech industry is actually a quite good example of the collapse towards monopolies. Venture Capitalists siphon up innovation created by underpaid labor using the guise of entrepreneurship, funneling ever greater wealth and control into a dwindling number of corporate giants. Small firms that do survive sell services to them. And I don't even really have to make this argument, as it is the express ideology of people like Thiel. The failure of socialism to develop in more advanced economies is the result of a violent, rightist empire that toppled any governments that moved democratically too far in this direction. Take Chile, for example... Marxist economics have been intentionally discredited by US institutions to serve their political ends. That much is true. But there are plenty of modern Marxists economists in European and Asian institutions. The bought and paid for US economists in their cozy corporate think tanks are not the totality of economic thought.
  - nickik 10y ago
    > Marx's economics are the basis for almost all functioning social democracies What? That is absurd. Maybe it could be claimed that other people who were partially inspired by Marx made modern states, but that's about all. > Hilariously, Hayek predicted that they would devolve into serfdom, which is what is actually happening in the country that hemmed closer to his ideology. Clearly you have not actually read or understood Hayek. This often gets repeated but everybody that knows anything about Hayek understands that this is false. > The tech industry I'm not gone address this because its so clearly false. There is a huge industry with 100000s of firms all over the world. Also I work in a small tech company who sells to other firms of very different sizes. > The failure of socialism to develop in more advanced economies is the result of a violent, rightist empire that toppled any governments that moved democratically too far in this direction. Take Chile, for example... True to some extent, but also a convenient excuse. Chile for example was never Socialist, they had a Socialist president for a while, but that's all. All the places that went for into that direction destroyed themselves as well, the hole Soviet Block, Venezuela and more. Marx btw never really defined how these systems should work. Other people did that based on what they thought Marx was saying. > Marxist economics have been intentionally discredited by US institutions to serve their political ends. False again. Marxist economics was already discredit wildly in Europe before US had many economists or institutions interested in economics. > But there are plenty of modern Marxists economists in European and Asian institutions. Again simply false. You can look at any indicators of economist opinions and you will see a huge majority of opposition everywhere in the world. > The bought and paid for economists in their cozy corporate think tanks are not the totality of economic thought. Again, Marx was already discredited before there really were think tanks. Eugen Böhm von Bawerk was not payed by JPMorgen, and neither were most other economist at the time.

thehardsphere 10y ago

> Marxists did a better job predicting the trajectory of Capitalism than any one else, so this doesn't bother me. I'm still waiting for Lenin to hang me with the rope I sold him.

nickik 10y ago
JPMorgen invested in a fund that was invested in all companies that did well when there was social unrest. Pretty close. Fun story, not sure if they made a profit.

nickik 10y ago

> So the degree to which my language conforms to the practitioners of a pseudoscience is irrelevant. You can call things what you like as long as you admit that most prices don't go up most of the time. > Marxists did a better job predicting the trajectory of Capitalism than any one else, so this doesn't bother me. Sure. Like when Marx said that workers will become poorer and poorer? How about the time when he predicted socialist revolutions in capitalist countries and the only place the happened were poor farm based countries? When Marx predicted that the amount of firms would decrees but turn into monopoly, and now 200 years later we have more firms then ever before. Marx economic works has been completely rejected by all modern economics. This was not because of some sort of hate for Marxism. He was actually quite a economics star at his time. Only once people started to pointed out the flaws in his system and he had no answer did the economics profession turn against him.

alphonsegaston 10y ago
Marx's economics are the basis for almost all functioning social democracies, which score higher on just about how every quality of life indicator than the United States. Hilariously, Hayek predicted that they would devolve into serfdom, which is what is actually happening in the country that hemmed closer to his ideology. Just look at the gig economy. The tech industry is actually a quite good example of the collapse towards monopolies. Venture Capitalists siphon up innovation created by underpaid labor using the guise of entrepreneurship, funneling ever greater wealth and control into a dwindling number of corporate giants. Small firms that do survive sell services to them. And I don't even really have to make this argument, as it is the express ideology of people like Thiel. The failure of socialism to develop in more advanced economies is the result of a violent, rightist empire that toppled any governments that moved democratically too far in this direction. Take Chile, for example... Marxist economics have been intentionally discredited by US institutions to serve their political ends. That much is true. But there are plenty of modern Marxists economists in European and Asian institutions. The bought and paid for US economists in their cozy corporate think tanks are not the totality of economic thought.
- nickik 10y ago
  > Marx's economics are the basis for almost all functioning social democracies What? That is absurd. Maybe it could be claimed that other people who were partially inspired by Marx made modern states, but that's about all. > Hilariously, Hayek predicted that they would devolve into serfdom, which is what is actually happening in the country that hemmed closer to his ideology. Clearly you have not actually read or understood Hayek. This often gets repeated but everybody that knows anything about Hayek understands that this is false. > The tech industry I'm not gone address this because its so clearly false. There is a huge industry with 100000s of firms all over the world. Also I work in a small tech company who sells to other firms of very different sizes. > The failure of socialism to develop in more advanced economies is the result of a violent, rightist empire that toppled any governments that moved democratically too far in this direction. Take Chile, for example... True to some extent, but also a convenient excuse. Chile for example was never Socialist, they had a Socialist president for a while, but that's all. All the places that went for into that direction destroyed themselves as well, the hole Soviet Block, Venezuela and more. Marx btw never really defined how these systems should work. Other people did that based on what they thought Marx was saying. > Marxist economics have been intentionally discredited by US institutions to serve their political ends. False again. Marxist economics was already discredit wildly in Europe before US had many economists or institutions interested in economics. > But there are plenty of modern Marxists economists in European and Asian institutions. Again simply false. You can look at any indicators of economist opinions and you will see a huge majority of opposition everywhere in the world. > The bought and paid for economists in their cozy corporate think tanks are not the totality of economic thought. Again, Marx was already discredited before there really were think tanks. Eugen Böhm von Bawerk was not payed by JPMorgen, and neither were most other economist at the time.