/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14476139]

how can Marxists ever recover?

[Anonymous No.14476152]

I don't know, but got help you if you ever actually read actual economics, your poor little brains might explode. :3

Just keep on discussing Austrian vs Marxian economics please... sigh.

[Anonymous No.14476165]

>>14476139
they can't.

good to see sowell memed on this board. he's an exquisite thinker ignored by his generation for political reasons.

[It ain't easy being sleazy(...) No.14476168]

>>14476152
Sowell is Chicago.

[Anonymous No.14476176]

>>14476168
Chicago is hardly much different. Very qualitative, not very scientific at all.

I agree with some of Milton Friedman's points for what it's worth, but definitely not all. I thought Hayek and Keynes were both better qualitative thinkers. :3

[Anonymous No.14476181]

>>14476139
Good intro. I would read it before starting Capital.

[Anonymous No.14476184]

>>14476139
I’m reading The Vision of The Anointed right now. Should I have read this first?

[Anonymous No.14476185]

>>14476176
Keynesian economics is for pseuds

[It ain't easy being sleazy(...) No.14476186]

>>14476176
>Very qualitative, not very scientific at all.

[Anonymous No.14476208]

>>14476186
>>14476185
Yep, that's right. In order to be scientific, it must rely on some form of fundamental rigorous proof, typically provided through mathematics.

Friedman, Hayek, and Keynes do not do this at all. But Hayek and Keynes are more respectable than Friedman. It has been a rather disappointing downward trend as far as qualitative economics go. These days economists say less timeless concepts and more or less just say topical political remarks or nuances in population growth. Sad! :3

[It ain't easy being sleazy(...) No.14476229]

>>14476208
Okay, but what about neoclassical economics? Does that meet your standards, or do you continuously jerk off to game theory?
And doesn't a methodology founded upon a sound epistemology matter too?

[Anonymous No.14476282]

>>14476229
>Neoclassical economics
The only 'neoclassical' economist I've extensively read at this point is Irving Fisher, and I enjoyed him extensively. I might re-read some of his stuff later on as well, I very much enjoyed his work on interest rates and I very much enjoyed his work on utility and indifference curve analysis.

Irving Fisher and Pareto were the best at indifference curve analysis. Yes, I do believe that Fisher had an advanced understanding of the computational problems of utility within economics. :3

As far as he is connected with Neoclassical economics, I approve of Neoclassical economics. Please note though, that just because an economist is mathematical does not mean that I automatically approve of them. There are some mathematical economists who structure their entire system around Keynesian economics... a bit more ridiculous than Neoclassical in my opinion. Paul Samuelson has crafted elaborate econometric models based on the book 'The General Theory of Employment Interest and Money'. Now, in my opinion, this is asanine and doesn't make any sense. I myself have critiqued that entire book, so if the entirety of economics went the way of Keynes I would be very upset.

But Game Theory? Fundamental foundation. Fundamentally rigorous and a great logical exercise to contemplate. Game theory, in my opinion, is similar to what Prior Analytics is for the field of logic. It helps describe and set up different forms of analyzing proofs that you already knew existed but had not recorded in such an organized way.

There are some geniuses who have taken to time to describe human interaction in ways previously unviewable. Von Neumann is one of those geniuses. So is the Lausanne school though. The Lausanne school and Game theory are the best schools, the latter of which is still going and I am trying to keep up with it.

But Neoclassical is okay, I definitely respect it, I think that Walras exposed the flaws of the classical school of economics sufficiently well. The entire methodology of the LTV is a petito principia, and has two variables for one equation, therefore unsolvable (relatively).

But Neoclassical economics is not simply disproven because Walras disproved the classical LTV. You can still do some rewarding thought experiments with utility through the LTV, but Walrasian economics is a fundamentally much more improved way of thinking of the economic system. :3

[Anonymous No.14476453]

>>14476282
I dunno what it is guys, but something tells me this guy doesn't actually grasp mathematical theory, feels insecure about it and winds up just vaguely alluding to historical instances. The sequences of what happened are there, but none of the concepts are used or even elaborated on. This reads like the author is seriously insecure.

[Anonymous No.14476466]

>economics
cringe

[Anonymous No.14476473]

>>14476139
Just call him and his statistics an uncle Tom.

[Anonymous No.14476500]

>>14476152
it's so fucking funny how literally every internet sperg is "austrian", and then think that's the economics

[Anonymous No.14476538]

>>14476500
They think if they throw out a vaguely "economicsy" word people will assume they're an expert. Every commie from here to Timbuktu thinks they're an economist because they managed to slog through 90 pages of garbage written by a pseud.

They want so bad to believe there's a world where they'll get paid enough for whatever they want to sit indoors and argue on the internet. It's fucking pathetic IMO

[Anonymous No.14476541]

Not a Marxist but this is retarded and the worst way to critique marxists. Most modern Marxists don't care about economics. It's much more about liberating workers from the exploitation of capitalists through seizing the means. Economics us secondary, because their primary objective is a moral one, in enacting justice against perceived wrongdoings.
The place you actually want to argue against Marxists is in the morality of employment by "capitalists" (people who own means of production) and the immorality of seizing the means. Seizing the means is literally theft, so it's not hard to argue against that. Arguing about employment usually follows a stupid cycle.
>Capitalists are taking your surplus value
I agreed to that, and it's not immoral because I'm using their means of production
>But you're being exploited
No I'm not I agreed to this arrangement of labor and can leave any time if I felt I wasn't being fairly compensated
>B-but your surplus labor!
I don't care about surplus labor because I'm happy with the wage I'm being paid, and if I wasn't I would leave and find another job
>Y-you just don't have class consciousness!

[Anonymous No.14476571]

>>14476208
>typically provided through mathematics.
this is exactly where economics has gone awry. only thing you proof is you abstracted model where everything depends entirely on the assumptions you have made. not that there would particularly wrong here, unless if they wouldn't simultaneously claim that these deductions also hold for real world or that assumptions do not matter.

[Anonymous No.14476577]

>>14476541
Not necessarily retarded, though I'd agree that it is not as effective as the moral argument. A pillar of American socialists, who frequently larp as Marxists or revolutionaries, is that the poor would be materially better off if only their agenda was executed through state and cultural apparatus. In comes the arguments of Basic Economics and, with much more brevity, Economics in One Lesson, demonstrating how the poor are better served by free markets than by a planned economy, including the spectrum between the poles.
Forcing the leftists to admit that their goal isn't even for the material welfare of the plebs, even though strictly logically speaking their argument is internally consistent, destroys their optics and sheds a lot of normies who just want fuller bellies and an economy for their family.

[Anonymous No.14476593]

>>14476541
>Marxism is about morality
I'd laugh if your delusions weren't so despicable.

[Anonymous No.14476605]

>>14476453
What aspect of the mathematical theory do you understand or wish to discuss? YOU tell ME.

Typically in threads about books, they begin with the OP stating that you must have read the book in order to sufficiently discuss it. Well, have you read The Theory of Games and Economic Behavior?
>>14476571
Thanks but no thanks you’re just a moron. :3

[Anonymous No.14476650]

>>14476605
>>14476453
What I’m trying to say is that I understand quite a bit of it anon. I also understand quite a bit of Spectral Analysis, modulation for frequency functions, Markov chains, hyperspace Analysis. I have learned these things through economics my friend. Mathematics is just another language you get acquainted with. Now what area would you like to discuss though, that pertains to Game Theory? And I am talking a friendly discussion, not some pop quiz where you bullet questions at me in an attempt to prove me wrong. :3

[Anonymous No.14476680]

>>14476605
good arguments. and add introduction to theory of science to your reading list. not all science is math, fuck can't believe these retards...

[Anonymous No.14476692]

>>14476680
>not all science is math
Show me a scientific economics book which does not utilize mathematics. You might need to NAME a BOOK :3

[Anonymous No.14476736]

>>14476692
>>14476680
I mean, just so we’re clear, you could have actually said something correct :3 This was not a rhetorical question.

I would have accept Joseph Schumpeter’s work, which is largely non-mathematical, or some of Morgenstern’s work, which does deal with mathematics, but only occasionally.

But of course fuck those people right? Let’s just read Marx and Neo-Marxists and Austrians and fight over political parties HURRR DURRR

[Anonymous No.14476737]

>>14476593
They have no compassion to capitalists because they believe they are being exploited and must week vengeance. That's a moral argument.
Yes, historically many Marxists put primary focus on economics first, but today it's usually about a moral claim.

[Anonymous No.14476786]

>>14476692
there's a whole field of Sraffian economics, not you must have heard of input-output tables atleast?
hope you realize by math you mean formal mathematical deductivism .

[Anonymous No.14476788]

>>14476593
He does have a point though, there's a right way and a wrong way to argue against Marxists. The wrong way is with facts, arguments, logic, and reality. These things mean nothing to them. The right way is with bullets, bombs and blunt trauma.

[Anonymous No.14476796]

>>14476786
So what’s a good scientific book from the sraffian field of economics. I hope you realize we are on the literature board buddy. We talk about books here. Name one good mathematical book from the sraffian field of economics.

[Anonymous No.14476822]

>>14476139
>some a priori abstraction that only exists in the heads of economists btfo material reality
ummm, no sweety

[Anonymous No.14476826]

>>14476796
>The Market for Lemons (Akerlof 1970)
Even you should be able to accept that methodology. I don't know how else to explain it

[Anonymous No.14476829]

>>14476737
>persuing your rational self interest is about morality

[Anonymous No.14476832]

>>14476139
stop felating shareholders

[Anonymous No.14476839]

>>14476826
Maybe I’ll check it out friend, thanks. I’ll be reading Harsanyi and Reinhard coming up pretty soon. Have you read them?

[Anonymous No.14476849]

>>14476788
Nap in action

[Anonymous No.14476917]

You guys need to buy intro to macro/micro economics textbooks what makes someone decide to be an "austrian" or a "marxist" economist anyways

[Anonymous No.14476935]

>>14476917
Complete idiocy. Neither of those forms of economics are in any way scientific. Those are more of a ‘philosophical’ Way of looking at the world.

You don’t value philosophy more than science do you?

[Anonymous No.14476946]

>>14476282
>>14476208
you don't understand economics you dumb commie

[Anonymous No.14476962]

>>14476946
? I don’t understand why you think I’m a Communist?

[Anonymous No.14477000]

>>14476962
>Yep, that's right. In order to be scientific

Everyone and their grandma knows Marx claims his system to be scientific even though thats all bull

[Anonymous No.14477030]

>>14477000
So anyone that claims they are practicing ‘scientific economics’ is inherently Marxist?

Let me help you out, in life there are people who like to influence others. It doesn’t mean that they are doing a good thing or even pushing them in the correct direction, but you will meet many of these people. Karl Marx, for having a system of economics partially grounded in the truth, was reall just one of those people. Therefore, his lineage, which only appeared after the poor psychopath had died, is a multitude of misguided delinquents known as ‘cultural Marxists’. ‘If we cannot change the system by force we will do it from within’ these cultural Marxists say. The problem we are facing is that for some reason or another their voices are the loudest. If you do not take a rational stance, if you do not take a stance at all of a rational world you will be swept away by their fantastical demands.

I think Marx said some things that were true. I do not think that the exploitation of labor was one of them. I do not think that the idea of class conflict was either. I could go into it in further detail if you’d want, but there are other socialist systems out there besides Communism which are worth looking into. If you read at all, you’d do well to read them.

Start with Schumpeter. But no, no I am not a Communist at all, I dislike Marx very much.

[Anonymous No.14477099]

>>14476788

>Rights must be reciprocated

Ha, what a cuck.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.14477171]

>>14476139
Marx. Hello? Retroactively, anon

>>14476185
Tell that to all those Americans in the 1930s breadlines

[Anonymous No.14477209]

>>14477171
Butterfly, you’ve never even read Marx. You’re like a Nazi who hasn’t read Nietzsche.

And The New Deal inspired Keynes, not the other way around. :3

[Anonymous No.14477216]

>>14476139
If Marxists would admit that they disagree with mainstream science, then maybe the practice of disagreeing with mainstream science would be more accepted. Which might be a good thing. Or not.