3 ms·

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.
    - kelseyfrog 3y ago
      I guess it depends on what you think he predicts would happen. If it's workers revolting against capitalists, then sure, the trickle of bread works to diffuse this. If it's that economic relations would continue to define class relations, then he was absolutely spot on.
ffgjgf1 3y ago
Both models are entirely outdated and only superficially relevant in the modern world?

> 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.
  - kelseyfrog 3y ago
    I guess it depends on what you think he predicts would happen. If it's workers revolting against capitalists, then sure, the trickle of bread works to diffuse this. If it's that economic relations would continue to define class relations, then he was absolutely spot on.

ffgjgf1 3y ago

Both models are entirely outdated and only superficially relevant in the modern world?