Umoja's thoughts on Economics

[Umoja]

Continued from Chit-Chat:

I don't think capitalism is the savior of humanity, nor do I think it's particurally nice, but it's doing a few interesting things:
-It's 'evolving' economist are still trying to figure out ways to quantify and understand the economy. With new and different perspectives the view of capitalism changes, and economist discover new means to affect the economy. The high inflation of the late-70's and the disinflation afterwards being a good example.
-Economics involve trade-offs. It's very hard to find absolute good or absolute bad in economics, because to have one thing, you give up another.
-Capitalism isn't a unified system, it's very 'spur of the moment.' It doesn't have a plan, other then expansion.
-Capitalism, with proper government restrictions, I believe could actually be ethical. It just not be as ethical as some leftist would like.
-I notice in the field of economics, some of the most radical thinkers have little understanding of economics. To them it's too corrupted.... but to me that's like an English major advocating Creationism. This sin is most commonly commited by Libertarians and Communist I tend to believe. They seem to think an economics system is good for philosophical rather then practical reasons.

[ComradeRed]

Are you taking microecon or macroecon?

I would advice against taking loads of economics courses since they are rather arrogant compared to other sciences. Other sciences present the problems they are facing, economics pretends there are no problems (despite the infinite number of internal contradictions it faces).


-It's 'evolving' economist are still trying to figure out ways to quantify and understand the economy. With new and different perspectives the view of capitalism changes, and economist discover new means to affect the economy. The high inflation of the late-70's and the disinflation afterwards being a good example. Well, undoubtedly, an economy is a complex system, or at least an evolutionary one.

Now, in most sciences, complexity and chaos theory are the "kiss of death"...the time when most "bail out" because it loses its absolute determinism. We can't say what the inflation rate of Japan will be in ten years, though we can make more general statements like "Capitalism will collapse".

But unfortunately, evolution has to admit complexity theory if it is to be modelled mathematically. This is so with computational evolution too, there is a reliance on random numbers in evolutionary models.

Just for fun try combining the field of complex dynamical systems with something like Piero Sraffa's i/o system.


-Economics involve trade-offs. It's very hard to find absolute good or absolute bad in economics, because to have one thing, you give up another. Yes, this is kind of on the right track.

In an exchange someone gains and someone loses...contrary to the wishes of the philistines of the Austrian school. Somehow I sense you don't mean this.

You want to know what's even harder: trying to quantify absolute good and bad (even using quantum booleans).

Somehow it seems like "good" and "bad" are the subject of ethics, economics is about something else completely...like production, exchange, and value.


-Capitalism isn't a unified system, it's very 'spur of the moment.' It doesn't have a plan, other then expansion. Don't confuse purpose with life. Nature is also a ver 'spur of the moment' system, but it is still a system that can be described accurately.

Nature doesn't have any plans, period. It isn't, as far as is known, a unified system.

Yet there are accurate models of nature. Granted there isn't a 'UFT' for nature, there really isn't one for economics either...that doesn't stop there from being accurate models of specific parts of economics.


-Capitalism, with proper government restrictions, I believe could actually be ethical. It just not be as ethical as some leftist would like. Leftists aren't looking for ethics. Ethics is a subjective thing, using it in an argument is worse than being illogical.

Leftists are looking for a more effecient system than capitalism, since capitalism promotes wage-slavery. Placing restrictions is dandy, but leftists seek the abolition of wage-slavery totally.


-I notice in the field of economics, some of the most radical thinkers have little understanding of economics. To them it's too corrupted.... but to me that's like an English major advocating Creationism. This sin is most commonly commited by Libertarians and Communist I tend to believe. They seem to think an economics system is good for philosophical rather then practical reasons. I assume you are alluding to Karl Marx when you refer to "Communist"? By the by, have you studied Das Kapital?

What most people fail to realize is that Marx was first and foremost an economist. He studied very thoroughly the economists of his day, even the esoteric ones. You don't believe he has a thorough understanding of economics, you must not have read Marx's notes on economics.

I have no argument that Libertarians don't have a clue what they are talking about, most are the intellectuals of trailer trash.

[BuyOurEverything]

What most people fail to realize is that Marx was first and foremost an economist. He studied very thoroughly the economists of his day, even the esoteric ones. You don't believe he has a thorough understanding of economics, you must not have read Marx's notes on economics.


I agree with the first part of this. However, Marx economic analysis is now over one hundred years old. It seems that in the last few decades (or even more), "Marxists" have seemingly taken a rather hostile view to the field of economics in general and modern socialists tend to be (often purposely) ignorant of economics.

[Umoja]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 08:13 PM




Are you taking microecon or macroecon?

Last Semester I took an intro course to both. I'm taking international economics this semester (and probubly intermediate micro next semester).


I would advice against taking loads of economics courses since they are rather arrogant compared to other sciences. Other sciences present the problems they are facing, economics pretends there are no problems (despite the infinite number of internal contradictions it faces).

I'm gonna be honest, that's the worst advice a leftist ever gave me. If we're talking about an economic ideaology, learning economics would be key. It's this type of attitude that completely boggles me about most leftist. Economics the science of dealing with limited resources, that is a problem! Economics just realizes that you can't come up with a mathematical solution to a problem.


Leftists aren't looking for ethics. Ethics is a subjective thing, using it in an argument is worse than being illogical.

If ethics aren't the issue, prove to me that capitalism isn't an effective economic system. It's hard because you don't have many good examples to compare against.


I assume you are alluding to Karl Marx when you refer to "Communist"? By the by, have you studied Das Kapital?

What most people fail to realize is that Marx was first and foremost an economist. He studied very thoroughly the economists of his day, even the esoteric ones. You don't believe he has a thorough understanding of economics, you must not have read Marx's notes on economics.

I'll admit that I haven't read any of Marx's works in entirety. Still Marx lived in a time before economic theory had really taken off. It's ridiculous to claim Marx had insight about the nature of modern economics. The field of Macroeconomics didn't even exist!

This is exactly the problem I see with Marxist. They're too dogmatic, and don't acknowledge that economics in 2006 are completely different then economics in 1870. Yes, the root problems may still exist, but the approach to solving them is based on antiquated economic views.


I have no argument that Libertarians don't have a clue what they are talking about, most are the intellectuals of trailer trash.

You completely missed my point. I'm saying that a philosopher has no place acting like an authority in economics.

My exact problem with leftist is they don't have knowledge in the area they need it. You can have strong opinions, but they don't seem well founded. They're based on ancient economic theories, and come across as being dogmatic instead of practical.

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by Umoja+--> (Umoja)
I'm gonna be honest, that's the worst advice a leftist ever gave me. [/b] Thanks, I try :blush:

If you want to continue your endeavor in economics, I would suggest reading Debunking Economics by Steve Keen. He is critical about everything, but demonstrates the absurdities of microeconomics.


Economics the science of dealing with limited resources, that is a problem! Economics just realizes that you can't come up with a mathematical solution to a problem. What's interesting is that the solution that is given is based on incorrect reasoning and concludes to a nonsensical conclusion.

"Conventional" economics (as though that meant anything) proposes that laissez-faire is the best solution to the "problem" of "shortages". This is then proposed under the guise of "postive" rather than "normative" economics; clearly it is the latter.

Think it through, what happens in practice is that more shortages occur because there is absolutely nothing to stop them from occurring.


If ethics aren't the issue, prove to me that capitalism isn't an effective economic system. It's hard because you don't have many good examples to compare against. The California energy crisis is a prime example of capitalism at its prime. There were mass energy shortages because the energy utilities were privitized.

That really wasn't too effecient. But a select few made an incredible amount of profits from it. That doesn't help effeciently allocate resources either.

Cliche economists like to say that capitalism is the best system, just look at what happened to the Soviet Union. Well, look at it now. It fell from the second world to the third, and the resources aren't being allocated effeciently...and it's the closest thing to the economists' ideal capitalism!



I'll admit that I haven't read any of Marx's works in entirety. Still Marx lived in a time before economic theory had really taken off. It's ridiculous to claim Marx had insight about the nature of modern economics. The field of Macroeconomics didn't even exist! Have you read any of Alfred Marshall? That man is supposedly responsible for "modern" economis (as though that meant something) and his book The Principles of Economics is pure philosophy, no science.

Marx was observing England, which was the most advanced capitalist society for its time. A lot of his predictions are empirically verifiable, like the business cycle.

It doesn't matter if you call it macroeconomics or not, since the entire macro-micro dichotomy is a misnomer, Marx made definite predictions based on empirical data. His theories have yet to be refuted by observation.


This is exactly the problem I see with Marxist. They're too dogmatic, and don't acknowledge that economics in 2006 are completely different then economics in 1870. Yes, the root problems may still exist, but the approach to solving them is based on antiquated economic views. Have you ever thought that not that much has changed?

That "antiquated economic views" you speak of actually works better than macroeconomics under the same conditions of: the economy in constant equilibrium, AND the odd treatment of time.

Piero Sraffa wrote profoundly about it, and the shortcomings of Marginalism. If you have the time, read The Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities. It proves that "antiquated reasoning" is actually better than the "modern" reasoning, since it is impossible to determine supply and demand curves.

Here (http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/profiles/sraffa.htm) is the profile for Piero Sraffa,



You completely missed my point. I'm saying that a philosopher has no place acting like an authority in economics. Marx wasn't a philosopher, he was an economist. He may have had a Ph, D. in philosophy, but he studied economics since he graduated college.

Look up some of his notes on economics, they're rather interesting.


BuyOurEverything
I agree with the first part of this. However, Marx economic analysis is now over one hundred years old. It seems that in the last few decades (or even more), "Marxists" have seemingly taken a rather hostile view to the field of economics in general and modern socialists tend to be (often purposely) ignorant of economics. One of the problems is that economics is rather, well, wrong.

There are some heterodox schools of economics that I think should be explored and integrated into Marxist economics. Evolutionary economics, complexity economics, and Neo-Ricardian economics all have something useful to give.

But, as you mention, some leftists are rather aggressive against this, calling it a "bastardization" of Marxist economics.

Marxist economics needs, more than ever, to be simplified and to expand. There are gross generalizations of it in bourgeois schools of thought, and it is because of the rather esoteric jargon that things like Das Kapital is written in.

[Umoja]

If you want to continue your endeavor in economics, I would suggest reading Debunking Economics by Steve Keen. He is critical about everything, but demonstrates the absurdities of microeconomics.

I won't deny that it could well be a useful book, but I think it's rather one sided to think that 'economics' needs to be debunked. That makes it sound like Marxism is the only answer. Maybe, just maybe, economics needs to be studied, the ups-and-downs discovered, and then a new system invented. I don't think it's wise to create a leftist movement filled with people who think modern economics is completely wrong, and it needs to be thrown out.

But since you seem to think that, can you direct me to some interesting things from Keen's book?


"Conventional" economics (as though that meant anything) proposes that laissez-faire is the best solution to the "problem" of "shortages". This is then proposed under the guise of "postive" rather than "normative" economics; clearly it is the latter.

See that's where you're wrong. Laissez-Faire economics isn't what's taught, most economics students would believe that government involvement in the economy is a good thing. That is Postive econmics, but you need both aspects for economics to work.



The California energy crisis is a prime example of capitalism at its prime. There were mass energy shortages because the energy utilities were privitized.

I agree with you. I think that government should have more control over so-called 'public utilities,' the control they have isn't enough. Still, my point is there isn't one 'capitalism.' It's different in Sweden then it is in America. It's different in Costa Rica then it is in Jamaica. Agree?



That really wasn't too effecient. But a select few made an incredible amount of profits from it. That doesn't help effeciently allocate resources either.

Actually, I agree with you, but that's because power companies hold a monopoly. It's almost impossible for a new power company to startup.


Cliche economists like to say that capitalism is the best system, just look at what happened to the Soviet Union. Well, look at it now. It fell from the second world to the third, and the resources aren't being allocated effeciently...and it's the closest thing to the economists' ideal capitalism!

No, capitalism is the only system that has held up to scrutiny. That's why I'm skeptical if the old ways of Marxism are really all that efficient. It seems like leftist will point at a shortfall of capitalism, and say it's a failure, but won't be as critical of the soviet union.


Marx was observing England, which was the most advanced capitalist society for its time. A lot of his predictions are empirically verifiable, like the business cycle.

It doesn't matter if you call it macroeconomics or not, since the entire macro-micro dichotomy is a misnomer, Marx made definite predictions based on empirical data. His theories have yet to be refuted by observation.

You sound like one of Ayn Rand's followers. You're advocating the person like he's some sort of Messiah. Firstly, if Marx's theories were right, you can't advocate Russia as being a good example of communism, and have to claim that all revolutions in pre-industrial nations are automatic failures.

Secondly, England wasn't a capitalist society. It was a proto-capitalist society. Many of the things Marx said were right, I can agree with that also, but should his theories not be developed on? It seems like purist think that's a repugnant idea, Marxism is an unchangeable dogma... unless your name is Lenin.



Marxist economics needs, more than ever, to be simplified and to expand. There are gross generalizations of it in bourgeois schools of thought, and it is because of the rather esoteric jargon that things like Das Kapital is written in.

Exactly! At the end of the day we actually agree on the main issue at hand! The lack of knowledge about economics, and the fact that most people are too dogmatic about the little they know is deterimental to the leftist movement.

[ComradeRed]

I won't deny that it could well be a useful book, but I think it's rather one sided to think that 'economics' needs to be debunked. That makes it sound like Marxism is the only answer. Maybe, just maybe, economics needs to be studied, the ups-and-downs discovered, and then a new system invented. I don't think it's wise to create a leftist movement filled with people who think modern economics is completely wrong, and it needs to be thrown out.

But since you seem to think that, can you direct me to some interesting things from Keen's book?
I think you really need to read it, it's from a Post-Keynesian economist (not a Marxist one) and he is actually critical of Marxist economics too. You may want to read some of the stuff from the website (http://www.debunking-economics.com/) for Dr. Keen.

I don't have the energy to transcribe parts of the book, but Steve Keen reflected on his book and had some interesting comments:


I wrote Debunking Economics mainly to assist non-economists understand the flaws in conventional economic thinking that, to put it politely, were not well covered by most economics textbooks.

There are many such flaws. Most were established by economists who were critics of the dominant school of economic thought, known as "Neoclassical" economics--though one of the most important is, in soccer terms, an "own goal": the "Sonnenschein-Mantel-Debreu conditions" which establish that a "well behaved" market demand curve can't be derived from "well behaved" individual demand curves.

I didn't expect to add anything new to the literature myself (apart from my already published critiques of Marxian economics).

However, while writing the book, I discovered a flaw that, I thought, no-one else had previously seen: a logical error in the Marshallian model of "perfect competition". I put the argument in chapter four ("Size Does Matter"), and left proving it mathematically until after I had finished the book.

I had an inkling of how neoclassical economists would react to this, having read many hostile papers--and in my opinion, frequently mendacious papers--in response to previous critiques. But even I was taken aback by the force of the reaction to that one chapter of the book.

With the book behind me, I delved into the mathematical details of the argument--with the help of several colleagues, especially John Legge (Monash University) and Russell Standish (University of New South Wales).

Initially, I was surprised to find that the essence of my critique had been made by the staunch defender of neoclassical economics George Stigler, in his 1957 paper "Perfect competition, historically contemplated". This was that the demand curve facing the individual firm couldn't be horizontal--as all economics textbooks claim it is--but instead had to have the same slope as the market demand curve (given the assumptions of the Marshallian model).

Stigler, as one could expect, found a way to rationalise this inconvenient fact that seemed to preserve the neoclassical talisman of "perfect competition"--though every economics textbook, and probably 99% of neoclassical economists, ignored the fact itself, and continued with the "horizontal demand curve" fallacy.

I instead kept probing: a fallacy is a fallacy, and it can't be made to disappear without introducing further fallacies in its place. As I continued to explore, I was delighted to find that the key fallacy was something that is almost a mantra for neoclassical economists: that "profit is maximized by equating marginal cost and marginal revenue".

No it isn't--not when there's more than one firm in an industry. I derived a formula that shows the real profit maximizing output level for multi-firm industries, and it undermines the obsession that neoclassical economists have for "perfect competition" as an ideal market type.

If I ever have the chance to produce a revised version of Debunking Economics, I'll revise Chapter 4 substantially to reflect this critique, and much else besides. For the meantime though, I've made the argument in a number of places using mathematical reasoning. If you want to check that out, buy A student's guide to what's wrong with economics (edited by Edward Fullbrook).


Firstly, if Marx's theories were right, you can't advocate Russia as being a good example of communism, and have to claim that all revolutions in pre-industrial nations are automatic failures. I don't think the USSR was Communist, since it was State-Capitalist.


Secondly, England wasn't a capitalist society. It was a proto-capitalist society. Many of the things Marx said were right, I can agree with that also, but should his theories not be developed on? It seems like purist think that's a repugnant idea, Marxism is an unchangeable dogma... unless your name is Lenin. Sorry, but there was a class of capitalists who attained profit through the workers' labor. That qualifies as capitalist.

Proto-capitalist would be the cotton industry, which England was in the 17th and 18th centuries. It industrialized through this.

You may assert that I am a "dogmatist" (however ironic it may be that bourgeois economics can never be questioned, though Marx must obviously be self evidently wrong :rolleyes:), though I assert that Marxism needs to expand and incorporate modern ideas of heterodox economics and reject the bad ones.



Exactly! At the end of the day we actually agree on the main issue at hand! The lack of knowledge about economics, and the fact that most people are too dogmatic about the little they know is deterimental to the leftist movement. You don't understand my point at all. I'm saying that Marxism has to incorporate the good ideas of heterodox economics, not the dogmatic orthodox economics.

You also miss my point since I never said Marxist economics were wrong, they only need more formalism through other schools...all most parallel to how Marx did it.

Instead you prove my point previously made of dogmatic orthodox economists, since *obviously* Marx is "wrong" and Neoclassical economics is "right"...for no apparent reason other than Neoclassical economics was made 5 years after Marx wrote Das Kapital therefore it's "modern" (as though capitalism, which you say didn't exist in Marx's time, magically appeared within five years).

[Monty Cantsin]

I’m very dissatisfied with Leftist who ignores the economic. It comes from a reaction against second international type Marxists who reduced everything to economics and therefore ignored cultural politics. I think lots of leftist today though have gone too far in the other way.

I would advise people to study economics but be aware that economics is based on assumptions which may or may not be how things actually are. Leading to a situations where an action is ‘economical rational’ but not rational for human-beings. That’s the problem and that’s where leftist should be especially critical when a certain discourse Transcends its specific historical period and is applied in another which It doesn’t suit.

I’d advise studying along with ‘text book’; heterodox economics as well.

Without economics you can’t understand, globalisation and all these changes that are going on around us. You can’t furnish a critique of modern society.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Why is it that as soon as a staunch commie studies economics, he turns into a cappie?

Somewhat disheartening.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Why is it that as soon as a staunch commie studies economics, he turns into a cappie?

Somewhat disheartening.

Well i dont think this is true.

If he has been learning about it at university, then you have to account for the Bias in the lectures and the lecturers.

Also, there maybe a small amount of admiration for lecturers, allowing them to be more influential than they should be.

If you do a course in economics, but not in marxist economics, then you dont know both sides of the argument.

[Eastside Revolt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 07:30 PM
I notice in the field of economics, some of the most radical thinkers have little understanding of economics. To them it's too corrupted.... but to me that's like an English major advocating Creationism. This sin is most commonly commited by Libertarians and Communist I tend to believe. They seem to think an economics system is good for philosophical rather then practical reasons.
You really make it sound like we believe that every single occurance and fluctuation in a free market are intentional directions of a group of individuals. That we believe it is the sinful direction of these people or groups that is the "destruction of humanity".

I would have assumed that by now you had come to understand that we are materialists. We understand that environmental factors are some of the main reasons behind the socioeconomic position of much of the poor.

The larger the proportion of the population that has economic power in a society, the greater the progression in all fields of human life. (personal freedoms, technologies etc.) We know that in a modern society as well educated as much of the west, most regular poeple could organize themselves in such a matter that they could eliminate all the disasterous problems caused by bubble and bust, "free market" economies. Practical reason? no?

[Luís Henrique]

I'm gonna be honest, that's the worst advice a leftist ever gave me. If we're talking about an economic ideaology, learning economics would be key.

You just have to realise that "economics" is just ideology, not a science. You may be able to use it to better understand the world, but you have to start from the principle that it takes everything backwards, like "phlogistic" chemistry.

A good example is the definition of "capital" in "economics" books: it is always defined twice, once as something completely inanimated (so commies are wrong when they complain about what "capital" does - it is just things, it can do nothing!) and then again as something that "contributes" to the final product (so it actually does something, you see, which justifies the capitalist's profits).

(A good example of such confusion, on a higher level, can be found in Boehm-Bawerk, who struggles for pages and pages against the confusion of "economists" on the concept of "capital" - and then cannot help but add his own confusion...


It's this type of attitude that completely boggles me about most leftist.

It is true that rejection of knowledge is common among wannabe leftists, especially among the young. Of course it is not a leftist attitude, but something that reveals, quite certainly, the petty-bourgeois impatience that underlies.


Economics the science of dealing with limited resources, that is a problem!

"Economics" is not a science, it is magic.


Economics just realizes that you can't come up with a mathematical solution to a problem.

On the contrary, it strives to come up with mathematical models for everything, models that are too much abstract to effectively deal with reality. And, even when they aren't so, most "economists" confuse their mathemathical "description" of reality with reality itself.


If ethics aren't the issue, prove to me that capitalism isn't an effective economic system. It's hard because you don't have many good examples to compare against.

You can compare it with its own ideological promises.

You can also understand why it necessarily disrupts social life, why it necessarily ends wheeling in the empty, why its premises are tautological, why it cannot satisfy the increasing demands it creates itself...


I'll admit that I haven't read any of Marx's works in entirety.

Then read at least the first volume of Das Kapital.


Still Marx lived in a time before economic theory had really taken off. It's ridiculous to claim Marx had insight about the nature of modern economics. The field of Macroeconomics didn't even exist!

Here you display the same attitude you criticise in leftists: you don't know, you think that knowing wouldn't be necessary, and so you will keep unknowing.

Of course Marx had insight about the nature of modern economics; a better insight, for that matter, than most of modern economists. Those are neo-Ptolomaic; they may have better mathematical tools to calculate their epycicles than existed at Marx's time, but they miss the essential: the Sun does not move around Earth.


This is exactly the problem I see with Marxist. They're too dogmatic, and don't acknowledge that economics in 2006 are completely different then economics in 1870. Yes, the root problems may still exist, but the approach to solving them is based on antiquated economic views.

When you say "economics in 2006" and "economics in 1870", do you mean the (pseudo-)science of "economics", or its subject?


My exact problem with leftist is they don't have knowledge in the area they need it.

Well, it would not be out of lack of a proper scientifical tradition on the area, much on the contrary. The bourgeois, on the contrary, may have much knowledge about economy, but it is based on mystical and contradictory assumptions, such as that inanimated objects simultaneously create wealth and are unable to do anything.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Oh, yes.

I also suggest you read "History of Economic Thought" by E.K. Hunt. His analysis of most bourgeois economists are very interesting, you might find him challenging.

Luís Henrique

[Akira]

Economicism is a system that enslaves man and the bad in my opinion of it far outweighs any delusion of the good in of itself.

[Akira]

Society should value individual human beings instead of valuing the skill or productive behavior of human beings.

For instance valuing the means of what a human being can do for the wealth of a system is not a productive value judgement.

Today human beings are only judged for their mathmatical,mechanical and technological productiveness.

Today humanity becomes like a machine everyday.

[BuyOurEverything]

One of the problems is that economics is rather, well, wrong.

There are some heterodox schools of economics that I think should be explored and integrated into Marxist economics. Evolutionary economics, complexity economics, and Neo-Ricardian economics all have something useful to give.

But, as you mention, some leftists are rather aggressive against this, calling it a "bastardization" of Marxist economics.

Marxist economics needs, more than ever, to be simplified and to expand. There are gross generalizations of it in bourgeois schools of thought, and it is because of the rather esoteric jargon that things like Das Kapital is written in.


Is Marxist economics not a field of economics? I didn't mean to say that we should adopt the current bourgiouse theroies of economics, which are quite often wrong. I mean to say that by and large, socialist economics have not been developed in a long time and capitalism has changed much in that time. The incredible rise of transnational corporations and globalization have changed the structure of capitalism alot.

I think we should start to focus a little more on what a worker-controlled-production economy would look like, and how to produce one. I think it's a little naive to think that the entire world will just all of a sudden be able to take whatever they want whenever they want and maintain a stable system of production and distribution.

[ComradeRed]

Is Marxist economics not a field of economics? I didn't mean to say that we should adopt the current bourgiouse theroies of economics, which are quite often wrong. I mean to say that by and large, socialist economics have not been developed in a long time and capitalism has changed much in that time. The incredible rise of transnational corporations and globalization have changed the structure of capitalism alot. By all means, Marxist economics should be considered as foundational...what I meant was that the schools like Neo-Ricardian economics, et al., have concepts which can contribute significant ideas to Marxist economics.

What really needs to be investigated is if and when capitalism will collapse.


I think we should start to focus a little more on what a worker-controlled-production economy would look like, and how to produce one. I think it's a little naive to think that the entire world will just all of a sudden be able to take whatever they want whenever they want and maintain a stable system of production and distribution. Well, we *could* do that...but it seems utopian.

We don't really know what a worker-controlled economy would look like until one comes about. And there's no point in worrying about things that aren't a problem.

[Umoja]

The underground, and black market economy?

Worker controlled credit unions, credit unions in immigrant communities?

Is it possible to give loans without usury?

Is inflation a 'natural' state?

Government's enforcing the class structure?

Worker controlled business?

Enviornmental restraint without the existence of governments?

Security Companies, and Voluntary militias?

Markets without capitalism?


Random questions.

[ComradeRed]

Random questions. Elaborate?

It does seem to be random questions indeed; with the result being one asking "So what? :huh:"

Elaborate a little.

[Umoja]

Things I had on my mind, related to economics. You know how you think things, and realize "I should write these things down?" That was the situation. My more indepths thoughts on the questions themselves follow.

A noteable thing I found when I was researching Mutualism, and 'individualist anarchism.' Was the notion of subverting the government by not using the government controlled trade standards. Since the government itself helps perpetuate the class system, working outside of it weakens the government. Using non-government money, and trading in an economy that's parralell, but outside the traditional capitalist economy works towards this end.

I'm not entirely sure of the economics behind it, but Proudhon created his own workers credit union. Immigrant communities also have credit unions where they pay a fee, and after an alloted amount of time they give the money to a random member by lottery (and then exclude them from future lotteries).

Inflation, why does it exist? The entire reason that, I believe, people can justify giving loans out with interest is the threat of inflation.

If a government doesn't exist, how can enviornmental protection be regulated?

Security companies are an interesting idea. If people have the right of free contract, could they pay, or exhange their labor for physical protection? This need not just be 'police' actions but it would also apply to fire departments, and general insurance from 'acts of god.' Voluntary militias, same concept, need not be 'police.'

Finally, I know quite a few leftist believe in markets without capitalism. I tend to think markets allow the most individual freedom, since they allow a medium of exchange, and allow both needs and wants to be adressed.

[Luís Henrique]

Is it possible to give loans without usury?

Yes; loans given to capitalists to buy means of production aren't "usury": there is a rational expectation that the borrower will make more money out from the loan.


Is inflation a 'natural' state?

Yes, and no. No, because there is nothing "natural" in human societies. "Yes", because in a capitalist society, the State must antecipate the social need for increased circulating money, and mint it; and it cannot calculate accurately how much more new money the society will need in the future - therefore, it overestimates such need (because an underestimate would be worse), and mints more money than it will be effectively necessary, which in turn is what we call "inflation".


Enviornmental restraint without the existence of governments?

In a capitalist society? Or in abstract?


Markets without capitalism?

Yes, definitely: markets are much more ancient than capitalism; capitalism is 250 years old, markets are 5,000 - 6,000 years old. So markets without capitalism have been a millenial reality.

But markets cannot keep from becoming capitalist, once capitalism gets started.


Random questions.

Random answers...

Luís Henrique

[afrikaNOW]

I skimmed through Debunking Economics at my school library and boy thats some heavy stuff! Is that a book you can dive into with any economic knowledge?

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 09:13 AM
I skimmed through Debunking Economics at my school library and boy thats some heavy stuff! Is that a book you can dive into with any economic knowledge?
Yes, the modus operandi of the book is to teach you what bourgeois economics thinks, and then why it's wrong (some chapters are exceptions because it's impossible to teach it without debunking it).

I would highly recommend studying it. It's superb.

[afrikaNOW]

Alright i checked it out and will start on it this week. Prepare for questions from me.