QuesnayJr

63 ms·

841.
by QuesnayJr 7y ago
Marxist value theory basically died out in the 70s, which Freeman basically concedes in the "The Marxists Divide" section. His TSSI is an attempt to resusitate the theory, but it has found few adherents.
842.
by QuesnayJr 7y ago
The subjective theory of value is just that if people think something has value, then it has value. For a Marxist, telling people they are wrong about their subjective judgements is irresistable, so I can see why they strongly reject it. V
843.
by QuesnayJr 7y ago
Expected utility theory, if anything, is more scrutinized than the labor theory of value. They gave Kahneman the econ Nobel for (among other things) documenting empirical failings of expected utility.
844.
by QuesnayJr 7y ago
In Arrow's version the inputs are continuous rather than discrete, so I don't know if NP-hard is the right criterion. There is a discrete version that is NP-hard, but I'm not sure you even have existence for that case. The
845.
by QuesnayJr 7y ago
Modern economics doesn't really have a theory of value, which is a 19th century concern. (Arguably, Quesnay was the first person to have a theory of value.) Or, if you prefer, economics have a subjective theory of value. This has so
846.
by QuesnayJr 7y ago
Economics is an imperfect field, but a major source of criticism of it is that many people fundamentally object to the idea that you can ask "is" questions about the economy. The only proper questions are "ought" questi
847.
by QuesnayJr 7y ago
I can try to answer any questions you might have. The article highlights two main contributions of Arrow. One is a question of how a society can make collective decisions. A classical answer is "utilitarianism" -- if a collective
848.
by QuesnayJr 7y ago
Sound money is the surest route to destroying capitalism. The middle class didn't disappear because of Weimar. (It was a mixed bag, because the hyperinflation wiped out a lot of debts.) They disappeared because of the Great Depressio
849.
by QuesnayJr 7y ago
The exact opposite is true. Savers have been spoiled for generations because they got a positive return without doing any work, or bearing any risk. Those days have ended, at least in Europe. Nobody owes you a risk-free positive return.
850.
by QuesnayJr 7y ago
I'm not quite sure what you have in mind, but in a free market, interest rates in Germany would now be negative. People are demanding government action to prevent it.
851.
by QuesnayJr 7y ago
They didn't do that at all. Did they stockpile food, or gasoline? Did they build extra houses, or cars, or infrastructure. They did not. They put money in the bank. Money by itself doesn't do anything. It has to be invested,
852.
by QuesnayJr 7y ago
The parent comment doesn't just say "efficient market". It also explicitly mentions "Homo economicus" and "rational company". A rational company makes rational decisions, pretty much by definition. The s
853.
by QuesnayJr 7y ago
If you calculated that interest rate, it would be negative. Ten-year German bonds have a negative interest rate. Cash savings pay less than bonds, so money in a cash account pays an even-more negative rate. The only way banks could pay a
854.
by QuesnayJr 7y ago
It's not like Germans are squirrels piling up acorns for the winter. They are keeping gigantic amounts of money in cash, cash that nobody wants. When the crash hits, they didn't do anything useful to prepare for it.
855.
by QuesnayJr 7y ago
Because you can't really save for the future. You can only invest for the future. Saving only pays off when there's someone to take those savings and spend them on investments.