Marxist economics

There was no economies before that.

>What is barter and trade

>he still thinks barter and trade was the dominant system before capitalism

Marx talked about more than communism.

> trade
> without money
?

>mfw Veeky Forums troll is so bad he's god-like

KOLLAPS

I know it wasn't. But to suggest that economies haven't existed without money is ludicrous.

Sorry for being rude, sir. Here, take this sword. It's dangerous to go alone.

In short, it doesn't work.
All economical decisions individuals make had to be replaced by a planned economy, where "experts" make the decisions for everybody else, without knowing their preferences or situation.
Like replacing a massive hive mind with some guys you trust on their politic reliability. The result is a massive waste in most areas.
Next thing is money, money is a way to measure and exchange work. I work, I get a certain amount of money, which I can exchange for any kind of product or work I can see fit. I can buy an Iphone, a pound of flour, drink a coffee or whatever. So I can freely convert my work in somebody else's work, like the guy who planted the coffee, built the coffee machine, made the mug, built the coffee house or serves me as waiter. For a certain Item, hundreds of steps and thousands of people might be involved, yet I still can convert my work easily in theirs. Now that is fucking elegant, and save for some necessary regulations it doesn't require much maintenance, as it is a self organizing system.
Now hive mind and self organizing system makes good pair. Myriads of of products, people, decisions every day. And this is why a planned Economy will fail hard, it simply has not the means to make this decisions as efficient. At last you end up with some kind of barter economy, trading Titanium for oranges or Wheat for cotton, because your money essentially lost its value as stored up work.

Marxism's strength does not lie in it's economic framework, something which even Marxists themselves agree with. The argue for Marxism using methods other than economics and hope you dont notice when they push the economics on you. Furthermore, most other schools of economics can fit in Marxist ideas into their framework once they understand the deliberate, convoluted language that Marxists use to describe their ideas.

A major problem with Marxist economics is that it essentially only exists in two areas, labour theory and business cycle theory. Thais it. No monetary theory, no theory of the firm, no theory of trade, nothing. Any incursion into these areas marxists make is just that, a small incursion.

Marxist labour theory essentially states that the labour market structure is a complete and total monopsony (one buyer, many sellers). While there is an argument over the degree of monopsony power within the labour market (for example, minimum wages are suggested to correct for this), to say its a complete monopsony is contrary to the facts. People can move jobs and it is ironically the lowest paid jobs that have the least monopsony power.

Marxist business cycle theory is essentially that business cycles are caused by inequality. One problem with this theory is not with Marx but with his proponents, they cannot actually agree on what he said. Some suggest a chronic under consumption hypothesis (people dont spend as much money because they dont have it due to inequality). Some completely disagree and suggest something else that is unfortunately escaping me atm. Either way, to say that ALL business cycles are SOLELY driven by inequality is contrary to fact. Keynesianism can include inequality leading to lowered consumption as a factor in the bottoming out of a business cycle and it is much more versatile than Marxist business cycle theory. Add in monetarism and neo-classical thought and you get a theory that is much more robust than Marx's.

Thoughts on Libertarian Socialists, who wish for a Stateless, classless society but where money still exists as a means of trade (no taxes and communes the worker the amount of money relative to how much he produces (to prevent the 'exploitation' as they would call it)?

So, a planed economy is a much less efficient system to allocate goods, to convert work, and to let good ideas compete with bad ideas.

Only good point it has is to even out hardships for the ones who's work or means of production are not valued at the market. but this comes at a high price, as you have to take resources and freedom to make decisions away from individuals and you actually have to do this by massive force. The privileges of the decision makers and and unfree society was pretty much the result everywhere.

>libertarian
>still has money
>thinks this will work fine

You need "states" or whatever you'd like to call it as a mutually controlled, neutral (optimally, we know how reality looks like) instance to enforce common standards, enforce common rules and fight, "illegal" practices. Also, it makes a lot of sense to use those structures further, for example to promote education, public safety, transport, etc.

Classes on the other hand are a spook, they are meaningless in the post modern service orientated economy where human resources and education is the main mean of production. In many European countries the classic working class is nearly non existing anymore, so is the clergy, the nobility and pretty much anything else. Rich and poor still exist of course, but they are completely different from the classic Marxist theory which aimed at industrial workers of the 19th century.

As of yet, the best method to analyze labor relations.

Economists study value, not money

...

But irl capitalism doesn't work like you're implying anyway.
>le invisible hand of the market
Is just a meme. People with money will spend their money on power to control the market as they please and there's always the problem with monopolies where its way easier to buy the competence out of the market than try to innovate.
So really its a kind of planned economy, with the difference that the planning is done by a group of elite rich people.

Marxist economics reminds me of retarded undergrad shit where you calculate every variable instead of assuming that market demand will provide necessities.

Na mate, it doesn't work that way, or better working markets don't work that way. If you look at markets who's control instances are flawed (State corrupt), people will not invest in it, because their investment is not safe. Those states work on bribes and personal relations, and you'd need to buy them first to conduct business, which most people don't like.

>people with money
Do most of the time have not aligned interests and are happy if they are treated just as the next guy and not get disfavored. The class meme doesn't fit here anymore, just because one is rich doesn't mean he has the same goal as other rich people.
And if they want into rent seeking, they have to retort to much more subtle methods like lobbying in parliament.

>monopolies
Are outlawed pretty much anywhere for a good reason

>you need
Proof?

If you have no neutral agent you can refer to, all you have left is force to achieve your goals. Much more so with billions of people who compete for resources.

Are you just using fancy terms that look like an argument?

Nah, he's just spooked. So are you, in fact.

He's saying that there is no reason for anyone to do business with you and buy goods and services you provide when they could use force instead, and because of that, force is the only power anyone has in an anarcho-capitalist world. By "neutral agent" he means the state. Of course, the state isn't neutral and bends to the will of the bourgeois, but his argument still stands.

He did a shit job of explaining it, I never gave my view either, just asked questions. Why am I spooked?

capitalism makes things like housing and to a lesser extent food needlessly scarce and expensive and makes useless shit needlessly abundant and cheap

>Communism is the only alternative to capitalism

I assumed you were and Also, is too aggressive to be "just asking questions". Try to be nicer if you want to appear neutral.

You were correct except is not me

based.

Pretty sure Marxists economics was thoroughly refuted over the last 150 years, which is why they've shifted to social issues because they can't otherwise compete in the marketplace of ideas t. Dave Rubin

> raising the minimum wage raises real wages not just nominal wages and has no consequences
> reducing the supply of employers and demand for employees is a sure fire way to prosperity

Herpa....fucking...derp.

>Openly loathe marxists but I'll try to be as objective as possible

Adam Smith had laid the ground work of economics quite substantially by explaining the most basic principle of it; supply and demand. Marx helped move the study of economics forward by a whole century via contributing the theory of labor. While he did contribute to economics, most Marxists tend to neglect the entire century and a half of study that has been conducted since the Publishing of Das Kapital. There have been many schools in this field, both the vital and the controversial that have added vital clauses to the discipline (Keynesian, Austrian, Chicago, Moneterism, behavioral, game theory). Marx contributed a clause of his own but he is not and should never be taken as the final word on it

Economics is a study, not a science. It is not perfectly predictable and probably never will be due to human unpredictability. Marx's contribution to it was a chapter in it's ongoing study, Analogous to how Einstein's theory of relativity was a chapter in the ongoing study of physics

>IE Netwon founded the ground work for our understanding of physics with his theory of gravity. Einstein Expanded upon the theory of gravity with the Theory of Relativity. Various physicists during the 1960's (including stephen hawking) expanded the theory of Relativity with the Theory of Everything and so on
Similarly
>Adam smith founded the ground work for our understanding of economics with the wealth of nations. Marx Expanded upon this by expanding upon Labor theory of value. John Maynard Keynes further expanded upon economics and is the most widely accepted notion of the present. Chicago, Austrian, Monetarism have been picking up in popularity since the second half of the twentieth century and so on

If you disregard Marx, you don't understand how capitalism works.

That almost makes Marxists conservatives in their study.....a little ironic.

Why not? Are his class distinctions still relevant? Or the labour theory of value?

nice post

All of human history proves him wrong

>People with money will spend their money on power to control the market as they please and there's always the problem with monopolies where its way easier to buy the competence out of the market than try to innovate.
I'll take Anti-trust laws for $500, Alex

>Workers have absolutely no agency
As a man of the working class, this is my biggest complaint with Marx's theories

Every time you buy out another competitor you reduce your ability to compete with the next one, especially if you take on debt or have to do a restructure.

> tfw /pol/ and meme magic know more than Marxist "Veeky Forumstorians".

m.youtube.com/watch?v=uhg0SUYOXjw
Alternative economic model theory by brillant french economist/sociologist. (marxist) if you can understand french you will found this interesting.

>Marxist
>Economics
Pick one and ONLY one

no one can really determine what someones needs are

or what they are capable of

so his whole theory falls apart

end of story.

Why?

Might as well ask us about Creationist theory

> The labor theory of value

/thread

It's hilarious that is almost the exact opposite of the truth.

Marxism is all about objective value and social patterns. Neo-classical marginalism is the one that believes value and scarcity are social constructions in our head.

>being this ill-informed about the thing you're criticizing

>you can't trade two comodities without the involvement of money in between the transaction
are there really people this stupid alive?

Immoral.

economy isn't concerned only with money this is stupid. here are two different dictionary definitions on the word economy:

1. the wealth and resources of a country or region, especially in terms of the production and consumption of goods and services.
2. careful management of available resources.

neither of those is dependent on currency. you can have an economy without currency, its called barter and trade.

>trade without money

"hey, I have 3 sheep I'll give you for 1 cow. thanks for trading with me."

Finance by the way is the movement of money specifically.

this isn't completely true. You can easily point out that Marx himself never addressed some of these issues but marxian economics didn't just end with marx. If you take a class on international relations / political economy (at least in Canada as far as I know) they always teach you three economic theories: liberalism, mercantilism, and neo-marxism.

there is lots of incredibly important theory on trade for Marxism, particularly in the area of how to develop your undeveloped country for example (dependency theory.) Same with those other things you mentioned. They have all been covered by marxists its not like they're all just imbeciles who forgot to fill in any blanks for the last 150 years.

>leftist "economics"

I kek every time.

Capitalism reigns supreme.

>Kill capitalist exploiters and hand over means of production to uneducated peasants.
>Everybody starves because they don't know how to run their factory or market goods.
Marxism.

Autism and pseudo economics

Makes no coherent economic sense. The discipline of economics is based on managing scarcity through incentives. A Marxist economy battles incentives through scarcity.

Full collectivism means no exchange of goods or services.

Right. That's why only the Free Hand of the Market (pbuh) can determine our lives.

poo poo

pretty sure nothing has been refuted

>we need the faggot who inherited the factory who spends all day jerking off in his office to run it
>people who cash dividends are essential to the day to day operations of the company

Marxist economics studies capitalism not communism.

Jesus Christ is Veeky Forums this ignorant? I'm not even mad at the user I'm replying to but more so all the idiots who replied but didn't know shit.

back to your containment board