3 ms·

Prof. Wolff may be a Marxist and outsider in "economics circles", but this does not discredit him. Just read on him here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard

by effie 7y ago

Prof. Wolff may be a Marxist and outsider in "economics circles", but this does not discredit him. Just read on him here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_D._Wolff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_D._Wolff Macroeconomics is not exact science, all theories there are quite weak when compared to exact sciences. Given the increasing inequality and wage stagnation in the West and life quality increase in China in last four decades, I think listening to him is not a waste of time.

anm89 7y ago
So your argument is that because the whole field is junk credibility doesn't matter anyway? Economics may be far from a science but that doesn't mean all ideas are equal within it. Marxist economics happen to be one of the few ideas that is so obviously ridiculous that it fails to meet basic tests for applicability to the real world that other theories meet even if they are all unprovable and subjective. As an aside everytime it has been tried at scale millions have died awful deaths.
- effie 7y ago
  My argument is that orthodox economics and its application in the West have shown their limits so other ideas cannot be easily dismissed. Yes, failures of the Soviet Union are known. Totalitarian state murdering its own people, systemic corruption, weak exports and weak consumer goods, and of course, the arms race, made the quality of life in SU fall beyond that in the West significantly. Not that it proves anything about marxist ideas. In the beginning, marxist ideas were incredibly successful in Soviet Union. Prof. Wolff account of the history of Soviet Union is more informed and more interesting than "millions awful deaths". Also, in China we have an example of how big socialist state can work economically, those mistakes about consumer goods and exports were fixed.

3 ms·

Prof. Wolff may be a Marxist and outsider in "economics circles", but this does not discredit him. Just read on him here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard

by effie 7y ago

anm89 7y ago
So your argument is that because the whole field is junk credibility doesn't matter anyway? Economics may be far from a science but that doesn't mean all ideas are equal within it. Marxist economics happen to be one of the few ideas that is so obviously ridiculous that it fails to meet basic tests for applicability to the real world that other theories meet even if they are all unprovable and subjective. As an aside everytime it has been tried at scale millions have died awful deaths.
- effie 7y ago
  My argument is that orthodox economics and its application in the West have shown their limits so other ideas cannot be easily dismissed. Yes, failures of the Soviet Union are known. Totalitarian state murdering its own people, systemic corruption, weak exports and weak consumer goods, and of course, the arms race, made the quality of life in SU fall beyond that in the West significantly. Not that it proves anything about marxist ideas. In the beginning, marxist ideas were incredibly successful in Soviet Union. Prof. Wolff account of the history of Soviet Union is more informed and more interesting than "millions awful deaths". Also, in China we have an example of how big socialist state can work economically, those mistakes about consumer goods and exports were fixed.