4 ms·

>And I've always wondered whether it isn't a bit of a scam, really. Karl Marx showed us exactly how the scam works over 150 years ago and his analysis on the a

>And I've always wondered whether it isn't a bit of a scam, really. Karl Marx showed us exactly how the scam works over 150 years ago and his analysis on the accumulation of capital has never been disputed.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> his analysis on the accumulation of capital has never been disputed Within a Malthusian, i.e. zero or close to zero real growth, economy. And assuming no wealth transfers, e.g. welfare and taxation. Or bankruptcies and recessions, i.e. where accumulated "fake" capital is destroyed. Or limits to economies of scale, i.e. where "the larger capitals beat the smaller" [1], e.g. diminishing marginal returns or even antitrust. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_accumulation#Marxist_concept https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_accumulation#Marxist_c...
- xkekjrktllss 3y ago
  What? What does Malthus have to do with Marx? What are you smoking?
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > What does Malthus have to do with Marx? Overaccumulation ("when the rate of profit is greater than the rate of new profitable investment outlets in the economy") is analogous to starvation (population growth > food supply growth). It turns out we were able to both increase food supply more than Malthus expected and the profitable investment outlets more than Marx expected. (We're also better at moderating population growth and destroying surplus capital than either expected. Both predicted proximate doom where it didn't appear.) Malthusianism and Marxism are also both discredited (albeit not useless) economic models from empirical and theoretical perspectives.
    - xkekjrktllss 3y ago
      I'll take that as "nothing." Marx's analysis on the accumulation of capital has nothing to do with Malthus. You haven't even answered my question. Why would I waste my time? That said, Marx was a 19th century economist. Just like every other 19th century economist, he did not have a time machine and did not predict neoliberalism or modern financialized economies, which are still in their first test run. Hold your horses, sweetheart.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > Marx's analysis on accumulation of capital has nothing to do with whatever you're talking about What do you think it's about? Because I'm quoting from his work and its relevant Wikipedia article.
      - ffgjgf1 3y ago
        > You haven't even answered my question. Why would I waste my time? A better question is why’d you’d try to waste other peoples time with your silly irrelevant responses? > Marx's analysis on the accumulation of capital has nothing to do with Malthus. Just as (well less to be fair) it’s only tangentially related to the issues we’re facing.
    - kelseyfrog 3y ago
      Having read Marx, it's important to understand that the political economy he discusses although founded on LTV, is substrate independent, ie: it could just as well be affixed on top of marginalism. The reason that no one has done so is that it doesn't matter and wouldn't change anyone's minds. The interplay between social relations and economic relations are the entire point of the body of work and are entirely separate from any particular conceptualization of economics. It's a much more mature and honest stance to say, yeah, he was wrong about this minutia, but right on these other things.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > he was wrong about this minutia, but right on these other things I totally agree. And in a technical sense, his work is correct. If we didn't do wealth transfers or antitrust enforcement and had prolonged low or zero real growth, what he predicts would happen. (Same with Malthus.) The point is those minutiae matter. Which is why, as a philosophy, Marxism holds its own. As an economic theory, it doesn't. Calling his theories on capital accumulation undisputed is simply wrong.
  - ffgjgf1 3y ago
    Both models are entirely outdated and only superficially relevant in the modern world?
epistasis 3y ago
Marx's analysis biggest weakness is actually housing, and it shows. He uses a two-factor model of production, land and capital, and completely ignores land as a factor of production with characteristics quite dissimilar from capital. (At least on the broad economic sense, land is quite different, even if in accounting it is pretty much capital.) His later parts of Capital Part 3 on the class of landowners was good, but he never finished it. The first directive of the Communicst Manifesto, confiscating and redistributing land rents, was something that would have actually helped capitalism quite a bit to be more productive and improve everyone's life.
- xkekjrktllss 3y ago
  A housing situation like the modern US would have been ridiculous for any 19th century European to write about. Having most of a population living in homes occupied by their owners was unheard of and irrelevant at that time and/or place. Popular home ownership comprises a uniquely American political strategy. Calling this a "weakness" is just laughable. What other 19th century thinkers are you holding to the standards of a God?
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > Popular home ownership comprises a uniquely American political strategy We're smack in the middle of countries that measure and report homeownership [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_home_ownership_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_home_owne...
    - xkekjrktllss 3y ago
      Those are both American countries, but that isn't necessarily the point, which is a historical one. Tapping bits of seemingly infinite natural resources to expand land-owning constituencies has played an overwhelming role in the history of the United States and all over the New World.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> his analysis on the accumulation of capital has never been disputed Within a Malthusian, i.e. zero or close to zero real growth, economy. And assuming no wealth transfers, e.g. welfare and taxation. Or bankruptcies and recessions, i.e. where accumulated "fake" capital is destroyed. Or limits to economies of scale, i.e. where "the larger capitals beat the smaller" [1], e.g. diminishing marginal returns or even antitrust. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_accumulation#Marxist_concept https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_accumulation#Marxist_c...

xkekjrktllss 3y ago
What? What does Malthus have to do with Marx? What are you smoking?
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > What does Malthus have to do with Marx? Overaccumulation ("when the rate of profit is greater than the rate of new profitable investment outlets in the economy") is analogous to starvation (population growth > food supply growth). It turns out we were able to both increase food supply more than Malthus expected and the profitable investment outlets more than Marx expected. (We're also better at moderating population growth and destroying surplus capital than either expected. Both predicted proximate doom where it didn't appear.) Malthusianism and Marxism are also both discredited (albeit not useless) economic models from empirical and theoretical perspectives.
  - xkekjrktllss 3y ago
    I'll take that as "nothing." Marx's analysis on the accumulation of capital has nothing to do with Malthus. You haven't even answered my question. Why would I waste my time? That said, Marx was a 19th century economist. Just like every other 19th century economist, he did not have a time machine and did not predict neoliberalism or modern financialized economies, which are still in their first test run. Hold your horses, sweetheart.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > Marx's analysis on accumulation of capital has nothing to do with whatever you're talking about What do you think it's about? Because I'm quoting from his work and its relevant Wikipedia article.
    - ffgjgf1 3y ago
      > You haven't even answered my question. Why would I waste my time? A better question is why’d you’d try to waste other peoples time with your silly irrelevant responses? > Marx's analysis on the accumulation of capital has nothing to do with Malthus. Just as (well less to be fair) it’s only tangentially related to the issues we’re facing.
  - kelseyfrog 3y ago
    Having read Marx, it's important to understand that the political economy he discusses although founded on LTV, is substrate independent, ie: it could just as well be affixed on top of marginalism. The reason that no one has done so is that it doesn't matter and wouldn't change anyone's minds. The interplay between social relations and economic relations are the entire point of the body of work and are entirely separate from any particular conceptualization of economics. It's a much more mature and honest stance to say, yeah, he was wrong about this minutia, but right on these other things.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > he was wrong about this minutia, but right on these other things I totally agree. And in a technical sense, his work is correct. If we didn't do wealth transfers or antitrust enforcement and had prolonged low or zero real growth, what he predicts would happen. (Same with Malthus.) The point is those minutiae matter. Which is why, as a philosophy, Marxism holds its own. As an economic theory, it doesn't. Calling his theories on capital accumulation undisputed is simply wrong.
- ffgjgf1 3y ago
  Both models are entirely outdated and only superficially relevant in the modern world?

epistasis 3y ago

Marx's analysis biggest weakness is actually housing, and it shows. He uses a two-factor model of production, land and capital, and completely ignores land as a factor of production with characteristics quite dissimilar from capital. (At least on the broad economic sense, land is quite different, even if in accounting it is pretty much capital.) His later parts of Capital Part 3 on the class of landowners was good, but he never finished it. The first directive of the Communicst Manifesto, confiscating and redistributing land rents, was something that would have actually helped capitalism quite a bit to be more productive and improve everyone's life.

xkekjrktllss 3y ago
A housing situation like the modern US would have been ridiculous for any 19th century European to write about. Having most of a population living in homes occupied by their owners was unheard of and irrelevant at that time and/or place. Popular home ownership comprises a uniquely American political strategy. Calling this a "weakness" is just laughable. What other 19th century thinkers are you holding to the standards of a God?
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > Popular home ownership comprises a uniquely American political strategy We're smack in the middle of countries that measure and report homeownership [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_home_ownership_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_home_owne...
  - xkekjrktllss 3y ago
    Those are both American countries, but that isn't necessarily the point, which is a historical one. Tapping bits of seemingly infinite natural resources to expand land-owning constituencies has played an overwhelming role in the history of the United States and all over the New World.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago