Does anyone still legitimately believe in Marxist "economics" and the labor theory of value...

>people wealthy enough to influence politics.
America, along with a large percentage of regimes across the Western world has fallen to an oligarchy. However, these people still receive enough support to call themselves "candidates" and have the positive influence on the people who call on ideologies like Marxism.
However, the matter is that the same people who outline the "evils of money" and try to dispel information regarding the "terror of wealthy class individuals" are also the same people who developed severe tax and mining laws, restraining markets. Not to mention the number of businesses that have left because of the absurdity of factory and environmental laws and how they have become cancer to most markets.

Marxism and Austrian economics are both pie in the sky, cloud cuckoo religious superstition and libertarians are utterly lacking in any kind of self-awareness, probably as a result of their autism. At least Marxists keep their bullshit to themselves for the most part.

>the absurdity of factory and environmental laws
>government attempts to remove externalities
>implying this isn't precisely what a government is for

"Walras, Jevons, and Marshall drew up the unshakable laws of economics. No, I have never studied mathematics. 19th century mathematics was too simplistic and largely useless in economics, so I am going to ignore the 20th century and assume we still live in the time of Mises. There is no need to assume that 19th century theory is wrong despite empirical data that proves the reverse.

My favorite economists? Hayek, Rothbard, Molyneux, the list goes on... If you don't support libertarian thinking you just need to pick up a basic economics textbook!!1 (posts the econ 101 meme-cross) price and quantity are set by supply and demand, SEE. Who cares if this is again empirically unfounded, the market will always reach equilibrium unless the state meddles! The theory will all work out if we just abolish the state :^)

There is also a global Keynesian conspiracy to crush our FREEDOM. Everything Keynes wrote was wrong. No, I haven't read the General Theory, I just know that everything he wrote was wrong because Hayek said so on that video. What do you mean, "Austrian economics has been absorbed into orthodox economics", nuhh uhh you're all just statists.

Everything Marx wrote was wrong too. No, I have never read Marx."

t. Educated by YouTube

Pretty much these.

>implying that this isn't what government is for
The government already has national parks and land set aside from the private sector, not mention that what you are implying is that the government is there to scare off the industries that provide jobs. There should be a need for laws in markets, of course, but when it comes down to scaring off the private sector and destroying manufacturing internally within a nation, like the US, that is where it becomes absurd.

False dichotomy. Rejecting Marxism doesn't entail adopting "fiscal conservatism", much less accepting fringe, pseudoscientific trash like the Austrian school.

enjoy my autismo

>Falling for the Austrian meme

Whoa Nelly

This

Austrian economics can't be beaten. It's an aprioristic approach to economy. Science is based on induction and probability. Praxeology is based on rational (and logical) deduction, and brings an a priori knowlodge to the table. That's why austrian economists make the best predictions.
Watch this video (youtube.com/watch?v=aTXxvWa11Lg). This lecturer and taught in University of Las Vegas, he's reaaaaally well "graduated".

Except their predictions have been empirically falsified, and most their theoretical framework has been largely dismissed.
To be honest, you sound like a cultist.

>[economics] can't be beaten

How so? I'm gonna ask for a source on that. And please, watch the video. I try to be the most rational as possible. If what you say is true, I'll change my mind about it

>Le Austrian meme school
Wew lad

The Austrian business cycle theory is contradicted by empirical evidence, not to mention it has been torn to shreds on a theoretical basis. I'm not going to watch an hour long video of a fringe, irrelevant figure giving a biased lecture on a concept I already know (Praxeology).

You don't seem to get why Praxeology fails. It doesn't matter how much sense makes it makes to you or how elegant it seems to you, if deduction gives conclusions about the world that contradict evidence, then the deductive reasoning is not sound, and you can't hide behind claims that a priori knowledge doesn't need evidence.

I have no idea how a grounded, real world subject with very important applications and consequences like economics produces so much more autism than things like metaphysics and theology.

>if deduction gives conclusions about the world that contradict evidence, then the deductive reasoning is not sound
so much this

What empirical evidence? Who refuted it? Give me names, books, papers. This "fringe" has a PhD in philosophy (and his thesis supervisor was Habermas), has degrees in economy, history and sociology. And what conclusions from praxeology contradict what evidence? Don't get me wrong; I really want to read the papers/books you're saying exist so I can open up more my mind in economics. What school of economics do you agree with?

>sends an almost hour long video
>watch it before you debate me
If we had a "batshit fringe ideology" bingo sheet, this would be the free square in the middle

>arguments with data pulled out of his ass
>tries to pass me like the crazy one
>thinks he refuted me
wew lad, nice ad hominem, you're right. now i see

He's right though, Austrians outright REJECT empiricism and they reject mathematic models as well.

Also Austrian fanboys really are cultists, see people like Peter Schiff who predict 1 correct thing out of 100 and are then hailed as geniuses.

You're forgetting the greatest cult leader of them all

do you think the pythagorean theorem should be tested every time? if you have true premises and deduct something without falling in fallacies, the consequence will be true. if some guy does that in a wrong manner, it means HE is wrong, but not deduction method

No, Austrian school is like throwing Pythagorean theorem out of the window to start with and going with your gut feeling.

can you link me to any article, book, paper that supports your claims? or explain me how is that so

econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/whyaust.htm

finally!!! thank you. if you have any more papers/books i'd appreciate it

Labour theory of value isn't a concrete rule (obviously things are only worth as much as what people agree to pay them for) but it works as a generalization. The price of a product is correlated to the amount of effort it takes to create it, and the observation that there is a value that exceeds what the compensation for the effort is is a prerequisite for growth.

Anyways Marxist economics are based on capitalism as it existed in the late 19th century, and the conditions at the time justified a lot of the premises and conclusions which were drawn. The same concepts are only marginally applicable to the state of world economy in the 21st century. It is still rather unclear what is the most desirable economic system for our contemporary conditions, but libertarianism based on 'rational' principles is not the 'obvious' choice you make it out to be. It ignores many realities of social conditions and the corresponding political forces and also makes unrealistic assumptions about humans (being rational and self-serving). The fact that classical liberalism worked well for many Western nations in the 18th-19th century doesn't mean that it will work the same today, even if 'on paper' it seems like the most efficient, beneficial, and so on

Math was invented so we know all the axioms.

Economies are super complex so there's no way to know all the assumptions you're making, and there's no way to test the one's you do know you are making.

Marxism or any form of redistribution, socialism, communism, is refuted by a family with siblings that do not share.
Man is perpetually young, even if he spends his life to study he can "max out" that study and can go no further before he dies. only in distant dreams can we attain true life and wisdom.
Anyways, what is curious about this is that any form of marxism relies upon the brotherhood of a class.
that fails, utterly.
When actual brotherhood fails in the simplest of things, for instance sharing... you should not seek to build a system of administration or a nation off of it.
It always takes mom and dad to clear things up, but mom and dad though they care are tyrannical by nature.
And without them, we are lost and helpless.

The family unit is the basis for any nation, the metaphysical bricks as opposed to the material clay.

Any system of governance is refuted by just looking at how a family operates.

Feudalism is the only system of governance which breaks this analogy apart.
The future of the world is Feudalism.

Mom and Dad are fascists and them leaving is like liberatarianism or anarchism (no moral guidance and certainly no actual guidance with anarchism)

>the purely free society will have a flourishing free market in children

Tbh I love how the Austrian detractors, instead of citing proof to their claims thatthe theories are bunk just scream "ITS MATH SO ITS RIGHT AND I DONT HAVE TO PROVIDE PROOF THAT YOU'RE WRONG"! Like holy shot you hate something because it doesnt use mathematical proofs, then turn around and pull that bullshit. Kys please.

Based Bryan

>structural poverty is essential to capitalism
How. It seems a pretty tall claim to me.

>Economics were fine, when they worked on their own accords and not overtaxed and overburdened by laws which imposed on the market, anyways

Ah, so it works in fantasy land.

Forgot to mention organ trafficking on children, also being sold as sex slaves as well, all in the name of a "Free" market.
youtube.com/watch?v=A-D8Mf9DdQI

>the labor theory of value?

The labor theory of value isn't even in the same ballpark.

The subjective theory of value is a stupid circlejerk and I don't undestand how it has been able to exist for so long.

Why are some things more expensive than others? Because people want to pay more. Why do people want to pay more? Because they want to.

Austrian economics yall.

>Implying that any "economist" does something other than analyzing money sequences.

Economics are a pseudo science.

Daily reminder

Classical liberals like Smith and Ricardo believed in the labor theory of value. Don't get yourself confused.

>he still thinks Marxism is "muh gubmint handouts"

L FUCKIN MAO

ITT: People who don't understand marginalism nor LTV

Everything but austrian economics is literally communism.

Let me check the successful capitalistfags!

Oy vey all funded by state.

How do austrians/ancaps think they're gonna held their property without living in police state?

Their proposed society is, indeed very free. They can hire bodyguards to protect them but will they stop 100 angry niggers armed to teeth? Let alone 100 angry rednecks since they'll be much more organised than niggers.

So what are they going to do? Organise people's militia? Majority of those people are morlocks just like the people who want to rob them, it's not going to work. Hire private army? What about people outside of 1%(that are able to have private army), are they left on their own?

Plain retarded.

I dont know much about it but why is Austrian so well regarded? surely we need some sort of control, if as minimal as possible, over the markets? Shit happens ya know

>It's only socialism if it works goy

>why is Austrian so well regarded?
it is not

Economists who work practically(as market analytics and so on) are never hardcore Austrians. Only academics who never stepped outside of their campus are.

Daily reminder you don't understand the first thing about heterodox economics.

Smith believed in a mix I think.

Because their ground-up approach has some compelling points.

Alone and without regard for its limitations you can go off on a tangent as they do with their "praxeology", but it is useful to study how markets work.

Except thats literally not what socialism is. Sanders is just a retarded new deal progressive.

Isn't praxeology all about the economy being inherently unknowable, so there's no point even trying to understand it?

You can't claim the government is "scaring off the private sector" when those externalities exist regardless, the only difference is that the government ensures the consequences of the externalities fall on those who create them, rather than random innocent taxpayers or consumers. The government does not CREATE externalities.

Keynesian economics FTW.
You need only look at the success of countries that implement it to draw your own conclusions

What the fuck is up with you retards thinking that communism = sharing everything you own with everyone?

Austrian economists are not well regarded at all. They are largely ignored by mainstream economists, and their views dismissed as unscientific.

However, libertarians and AnCaps are overrepresented on the internet, specially on places like Veeky Forums, giving the mistaken impression that the Austrian school is taken seriously.

>Putting Friedman with Rothtard and Rand

Jesus socialists are just as bad as ancaps.

New Keynesianism > everything else (for now)

agreed

P R O P A G A N D A

lololol
socialism is equality of opportunity and not of outcome, the factory belongs to everybody, the more you produce the more you get.

>americunts in charge of understanding communism