How come someone that has a PHD in economics and an ivy league education becomes marxists?

how come someone that has a PHD in economics and an ivy league education becomes marxists?

Smart people like to adopt and defend contrarian views, tho.

Because academics are completely out of touch with ordinary people.

(((someone)))

>that face

it happens you grow out of fascism

Read Schumpeter.

>Schumpeter's theory is that the success of capitalism will lead to a form ofcorporatism and a fostering of values hostile to capitalism, especially among intellectuals. The intellectual and social climate needed to allow entrepreneurshipto thrive will not exist in advanced capitalism; it will be replaced by socialism in some form. There will not be a revolution, but merely a trend forsocial democraticparties to beelectedto parliaments as part of the democratic process. He argued that capitalism's collapse from within will come about as majorities vote for the creation of awelfare stateand place restrictions upon entrepreneurship that will burden and eventually destroy the capitalist structure. Schumpeter emphasizes throughout this book that he is analyzing trends, not engaging in political advocacy.

>In his vision, the intellectual class will play an important role in capitalism's demise. The term "intellectuals" denotes a class of persons in a position to develop critiques of societal matters for which they are not directly responsible and able to stand up for the interests of strata to which they themselves do not belong. One of the great advantages of capitalism, he argues, is that as compared with pre-capitalist periods, when education was a privilege of the few, more and more people acquire (higher) education. The availability of fulfilling work is however limited and this, coupled with the experience of unemployment, produces discontent. The intellectual class is then able to organise protest and develop critical ideas againstfree marketsandprivate property, even though these institutions are necessary for their existence.

It's a common problem with academics. No real exposure to the money economy in an institution that prioritizes status (tenure) over production.

he ask a fair question in his videos.

can we make a better system than capitalism?

I think that's a fair question, even if socialism or comunism isn't the answer.

I think a mixed economy or social democracy is better.

O you mean like Mexico

can't we design a system where the main forces of production are automated and the wealth is distributed to society but also allowing for free market to dictate technological progress and allow enterpreurships to be motivated by profits?

some people just want to see the world burn

>can we make a better system than a system that is self altering so as to maximize its efficiency at maximizing what it was designed to maximize
The answer is no. It's like why you can't come up with something better than science. It's self altering, and anything better will just be absorbed into it.

So really, the question isn't "is capitalism good or bad" because capitalism is entirely outside of morality. It's just a collection of theories, models, and explanations that arises from people buying and selling. It's a tool. Rather, what you should be asking is "Are we valuing the right things".

It's not capitalism's fault that you're a lazy sack of shit, you'd be lazy under Communism or National Socialism.

reducing income inequality directly reduces incentive to invest

there's no automation for pharmaceutical research

income inequality is a good thing

Workers should reap the rewards of what they produce.

They do. It's called pay.

sure as soon as they invest in, organize production of and build the factories in which they work

social democracy is just "haha we're totally not socialists haha once we have power i swear we wont seize the means of productions and give it to the workers haha xd"

>Better
That's a normative judgement and something economists should avoid.

Why don't you read his papers and find out?

I think, ultimately, culture is the driving force behind the failures of each economic system. I prefer unbridled capitalism, but I am a realist as well. There is not an infinite amount of resources we can run through. There is not enough to go around. We must adopt a culture of responsible consuming and only allowing the most intelligent among us to reproduce. It would take two generations of responsible breeding (1 child per couple/IQ qualifiers) to right the overpopulation that threatens to destroy humanity.

As individuals we each have to take responsibility for the state of the world we live in. I have watched Florida's reefs deteriorate over my short life. I realize we have a dramatic impact on the environment. Our landfills are like the nursery of a spoiled child. It'd be best to culturally shift our gaze towards science, sustainable living, and colonization of space. I realize that we are only harming ourselves. We are racing to nowhere. It's quite suicidal.

>One child policy
Kill yourself

not him but why shouldn't economists attempt to model ways in which to decrease unemployment which is pretty much universally considered an indicator of a "better economy"

> It would take two generations of responsible breeding (1 child per couple/IQ qualifiers) to right the overpopulation that threatens to destroy humanity.

As long as you only mean non-whites and non-asians then sure b/c we're not the problem with overpopulation.

t. member of a race at replacement rate

But reduce unemployment by how much? This is where you run into problems.

Non-whites and non-asians would be righted with the IQ barriers on reproduction.

>neo malthusians
lol

>dude were totally fine bro lol everythings ok xdddd just chill out bro xddddddd

>caring about resources when we soon will be mining asteroids
lmao retards.

and im sure thats going to happen with the western trend of "social democracy" which seeks to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor which decreases incentive into large scale, long term investments such as private sector space research/exploration/colonization

You're betting on the most positive outcome, and not considering that massive alterations to Earth's chemistry will make the planet uninhabitable. We are quite some ways away from terraforming the universe and there is a good chance humanity will just fall flat on its face.

>westerners
>not china

it will happen, if only by china and the BRICS.

...

>he thinks western countries will still be a superpower
>what is the demographic winter

t.well-off Westerner who has never experienced hardship

Merely pretending?

>demographic winter isn't real

Did I say that you literal mongoloid? No one's talking about who will be a superpower and who won't be. (And if you think demographic winter's an issue take an actual look at china's situation).

You ignored both their points and went "brics lol china lol"

do you have an actual argument or are you just going to use ad hominem?

Jew? Jew.

/thread

who do you think will be the world workers in 20 years faggot?

do you think western nations wont collapse when the majority of their population will be elders taking goverment money rather than working?