Why is neoclassical economics such unsubstantiated garbage when you look at its assumptions with a critical mind...

>Read Marx for a critique of something that didn't even exist when Marx wrote his critique
Are you guys for real

This might sound weird, but do you know of any reputable economists criticizing Varoufakis in free online lectures (Youtube or any other site) ? I'd ask for articles or books, but I probably wouldn't read them.

As far as literary types are concerned, the field of economics started with Adam Smith and David Ricardo (only really important as an influence on Marx) ended with Marx. Everyone after Marx is alternately a Communist hero (when they want to have a nostalgia trip over the USSR or Maoist China, which they've never been to) or a revisionist (when the USSR or Maoist China did something bad) or a neoliberal meanie.

this is correct
t. also econ major

THis should be essential viewing for the plebii who don't understand economics

youtube.com/watch?v=YZNwdcESn90

Did major economists at the world bank/ecb not sort of vindicate faroufakis by arguing that too Much austerity has actually been wrong for majority of eu countries. This type of debate has been had in NL and even our neoclassical liberals conceded this point.

Literally gave every reason for leaving the EU and Brexit in his book.
Also didn't bend over for the EU commissioners.
Absolutely BASED

>Varoufakis is widely viewed as a joke among actual economists.

Oh, you mean by the very neoclassicists he argues against? Why would you expect them to respect him?

While Marx's ideas about communism might be far fetched, his actual critique of capitalism is still pretty much the base for anyone interested in economy.

Not really. He's got a pretty notorious bias toward promoting his own ideological tendency, completely avoiding contradictory evidence in most of his literature and presenting his (oftentimes out-of-date) convictions as empirical fact.

Because liberal economics are full shite.

>far-fetched
Wrong

Neoclassical economics is the direct continuation of the strain of political thought that Marx was criticizing, and his criticisms are absolutely poignant today

if you wanted people to trust your opinion then you should not have majored in economics

if you can’t extrapolate Marxist critiques out into the Neo-Keynesian, Neo-Liberal, Libtard domains of thought you’re a brainlet. like a 115 IQ dunning-krueger nigger brainlet who shouldn’t be allowed to vote or own property. Everything he said applies today, his solutions were the only incorrect assessment he made. Communism is retarded, bordering on suicidal, communist critique of Capitalism is as true as Quantum Mechanics

It's actually crazy how many people don't understand that the majority of Marxs work is just describing how capitalism works.

Imagine worshiping an outdated convoluted unfinished book this much.

>Read Marx
Why would anybody trust the opinion of a guy who can't understand the existence of the middle class or labor as a good?

or how he thinks it works, but he's full of shit since every prediction he has been turned out wrong.

t. non-stem "social scientist"

I don't think Marx's conclusion of communism is far-fetched, because as time goes by the possibility of capitalism being supplanted by a cooperative system eventually nears 1. This becomes even more true if you consider the potential for automation and cybernetic management.

Saying "capitalism will last forever" is a pretty bold statement considering that capitalism is the youngest and shortest-lived economic system that humans have experienced.

human desire is virtually infinite, there no such thing as post-scarcity, people will I always find new ways and new things that are scarce that they want. Not to mention environmentalists claiming the exact opposite, that we're heading towards an energy crisisl.

Bullshit, not one of Marx's predictions have been wrong. The worst that can be said is that certain predictions (the impoverishment of the proletariat, the destruction of all feudal vestiges, and a global socialist revolution) have not come yet.

Anti Marxists have argued that this supposedly unfalsifiable nature makes the Marxist paradigm illegitimate, but recent economic trends have done nothing but vindicate Karl Marx's conclusions. Look into the apparent falling rate of profit of non-financial economic activity, the increasingly untenable status of social democracy, the universality of debt in the first world, and the rapid dwindling of wages relative to inflation.

The human desire for a more comfortable existence is exactly the reason why socialist revolutions have happened.

Communism is an inherently selfish movement. It's the self actualization by the proletariat of their own material potential.

>Saying "capitalism will last forever" is a pretty bold statement considering that capitalism is the youngest and shortest-lived economic system that humans have experienced.

yeah, and it's pretty neat to think that it's already out-preformed every economic system that preceded it, raising both living standards globally and being a boon to technology and scientific progress; and beating out that shitstain of a religion masquerading as an economic system, Marxism and every flavor of socialism under it.

>Saying "capitalism will last forever" is a pretty bold statement
Who the fuck says this

Those revolutions never happen in capitalist countries. Funny.

>muh GDP

The labor theory of value is considered wrong by almost all non-Marxist economists, and even many Marxist ones (don't ask me how they're Marxist then, you can get 5 mutually incompatible theories from 5 different Marxists), so saying this is basically false outside the English department.

>muh not waiting 2 hours on a line for government-issued bread and instead walking into a bakery with a hundred possible choices to make

yah fuck those capitalist pigs

What is Italy and Germany pre ww2?

>GDP
nigga what THE FUCK is GDP?
I measure success in the number of poo-in-loos, african nomads, and trailer trash that own smart phones

I am glad that you are enjoying your not-breadlines. You do no attempt at objectively considering the drawbacks of capitalism. Yes, it is capable of raising standards of living, and the market forces pit capitalists against each other in a fierce competition which is great for the consumer. You do not address that capitalism is a system which is fuels humans with negative emotions. It doesn't care about what humans want. I could go into detail, but let me keep it relatively it short. Competition through technological advancement decreases the necessity for workers. Workers are laid off. Business can't function unless workers work harder than the workers in a competing business. If they can't manage, workers are laid off. The economy of a country requires an exponential growing production sector (the GDP usually indicates this), if a exponential growth isn't achieved, the economy goes into a recession or depression (the consequences should be obvious). Capitalists need cheap resources to stay competitive. Nature doesn't matter to those possessed by either fear of going bankrupt (greed isn't the only factor). Countries would go to war to stay economically competitive (the Iraqi War was a war to keep the petrodollar strong and secure American economic hegemony). Western countries access cheap resources from third world countries to keep their economies running smoothly (decreasing their living conditions, while increasing ours). Work is exported to the third world so that a business can stay competitive (the gap between rich and poor widens in the first world).

If you don't like communism or whatever, then that is fine. Just don't LARP as a rich kid who thinks that capitalism has only benefits.

Marx would eagerly, vehemently agree with you.

He never said capitalism was some specific evil that we had a moral imperative to destroy, but instead an amazingly efficient new system which solved many of the problems of feudalism while creating some new ones.

Marx wrote dozens of books, more than you have ever read.
You worship outdated, childish ideas.
Marx did understand the middle class and adored labor. You can stop pretending you've even read something simple like the Communist Manifesto, now.

>my completely reductive view of history as a class struggle culminating in inevitable global socialist revolution is totally true guys!!! just um... keep waiting !!!!! SHUT UP, IT'LL HAPPEN
this is your brain on communism

>Varoufakis is widely viewed as a joke among actual economists.

Retard.

what
he's basically just a celebrity economist and political activist. Tons of economists have more important research contributions than him. At least economists who are also somewhat activist like Stiglitz or Krugman have Nobels to back it up.

It's true though

>Why do Economists who possess the very mindset that Varoufakis argues against in his books dislike him XD

Retards.

>preformed
I'm wary of your familiarity with Marx's bibliography. Have you even read the manifesto where it clearly lists capitalism's advantages over feudalism. The steam engine outperformed canal barges. Why would that in any way affirm the idea that the steam engine will never be supplanted? What do you have to gain from bloviating on something about which you haven't read?

>I am glad that you are enjoying your not-breadlines. You do no attempt at objectively considering the drawbacks of capitalism.

Capitalism has drawbacks, like everything else that exists. Consider the neurons fired.

>Yes, it is capable of raising standards of living, and the market forces pit capitalists against each other in a fierce competition which is great for the consumer. You do not address that capitalism is a system which is fuels humans with negative emotions.

Some weasel words going on here. What is a capitalist? One with capital investments? Well then most consumers are capitalists, at the very least if they have a 401k. Capitalism does feed off of negative emotions, but also positive emotions. Mind-blowing. At this point, I’m convinced you think that ambition is synonymous with greed.

>It doesn't care about what humans want.

lol

>I could go into detail, but let me keep it relatively it short. Competition through technological advancement decreases the necessity for workers.

Yeah, the Ford assembly lines really destroyed the labor force. Technological advancement does not necessitate a decrease in demanded labor.

>Workers are laid off. Business can't function unless workers work harder than the workers in a competing business.

This is such a non-point. What are you even saying? The “effort” put into workers does not determine competitive viability all by itself. Do you think Amazon is just full of really, really hard workers? Sustained competitive advantages are rarely born from the labor. C’mon bruh

>If they can't manage, workers are laid off. The economy of a country requires an exponential growing production sector (the GDP usually indicates this), if a exponential growth isn't achieved, the economy goes into a recession or depression (the consequences should be obvious).

Nor sure if you know what the word exponential means.

>Capitalists need cheap resources to stay competitive. Nature doesn't matter to those possessed by either fear of going bankrupt (greed isn't the only factor). Countries would go to war to stay economically competitive (the Iraqi War was a war to keep the petrodollar strong and secure American economic hegemony).

(I am woke and I know the REAL reason this war happened!!!)

>Western countries access cheap resources from third world countries to keep their economies running smoothly (decreasing their living conditions, while increasing ours). Work is exported to the third world so that a business can stay competitive (the gap between rich and poor widens in the first world).

Too bad the living conditions of third world countries have been going up, and not down. Particularly correlated strongly with the spread of capitalism and free markets.

No, they dislike him because of his relative lack of contributions and constant media presence. There exist left and even Marxist-leaning economists who are treated seriously, e.g. Roemer who wrote a whole book on Marxist economics using standard (neoclassical) formalism. What gets you treated as a meme is being a media whore with few research contributions, e.g. Varoufakis. You have to be a based black person to do that, see e.g. Sowell

Cuba?

>e.g. Roemer who wrote a whole book on Marxist economics using standard (neoclassical) formalism.

Hm, really makes you think

Labor theory of value is a joke and thus is everything based on it.

>Business can't function unless workers work harder than the workers in a competing business. If they can't manage, workers are laid off.
Wew lad, I'm left leaning myself but this is patently false. Richer countries are the ones where the average working time is lower. It's because efficiency is far more important. Where did you read this?

if capitalism is going to be supplanted by something it certainly won't be marxism. too many misinterpretations of the mechanical workings of capitalism, too ridged to remain stable for extended periods of time. that's not to say the thing that might supplant capitalism won't have some aspects of marxism / socialism, we don't live in a world of absolutes, and that is just the worst for marx's messiah complex and his cult true believers.

also I'm wary of marx's ability to distinguish the difference between capitalism and feudalism because many of his problems with capitalism aren't capitalism at all.

>Capitalism will always be around because it had an inexhaustible potential for transmuting human need to continue proliferation of capital.
I for one don't consider my material desires to be insatiable or ever-expanding.

Replied to the wrong post.

Pathetic waste of space then

Reading comprehension is difficult isn't it? Kill yourself, and if you don't, I hope you will learn what opposing interests mean, when you get replaced by a spic, your work gets outsourced to Vietnam, or your business goes bankrupt.

>and that is just the worst for marx's messiah complex and his cult true believers.
Name me some of Marx's ideas about utopianism that current theorists agree with.

And therein lies the fault in the average anti-capitalist's logic: the majority of people are actually quite pleased once they can afford to simply live comfortably.

>argument gets dismantled
>I bet if I tell him to kill himself I will look better

oof

>(I am woke and I know the REAL reason this war happened!!!)
But this is the overwhelming academic consensus.

ah the famous marxist whataboutery

I don't give one single shit about contemporary marxist thought because the marxist on the ground certainly doesn't.

Okay,
1. what specific parcel or element of Marx's utopianism is in vogue with unwashed Marxian purists of which, according to your implication, are legion compared to Marxists who read secondary theory? Most Marxists are familiar with Gramsci, Bordiga, the Frankfurt School, Žižek, and others. Nobody stops reading theory when they snap closed the back cover of Capital. I'll beat the bush a bit harder: you refer to Marx's utopianism. Do you believe Marx had a utopian project?

that marxism/socialism is, should be, will be, or needs to be the conclusion or replacement for capitalism, and that replacing capitalism with marxism/socialism is, will, benefit society and or social well-being.

>muh contribushun
Typical liberal.

That isn't utopian.

Socialism has empirically benefitted the well-being of countries that experienced it. The only fault, used as a propaganda tool by smug anglos, is that it didn't achieve the living standards of the first world. This is of course a patently ridiculous criticism, given that countries which had successful revolutions were extremely technologically backwards and poor. Case in point, USSR. Despite being invaded by a dozen countries at once, being devastated in WW2, and left essentially surrounded and alone after the failure of western European revolutions, it managed to achieve a level of production that almost equaled the major imperialist powers. This is a stunning achievement, and only extreme historical revisionism and rampant anti-communism conceals it.

are you retarded or just stupid?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergence_(economics)

tl;dr you could have put any political economy into those garbage tier socialist nations and they still would have converged. In fact, socialism is such a trash, unstable, theocratic piece of shit that it usually absolutely fucks the convergence process by either capping below true comparative convergence or putting the economy into such a severe recession that whatever convergence progress has been made is undone.

Under socialism there was nothing in polish shops.