"Despite the massive intellectual feat that Marx's Capital represents...

t. never studied economics

Funny because i studied precisely economics.

It hasn't, it's age old propaganda

Value doesn't come purely from production itself.

Post your school, student number, transcript with marks, names of your 3 favourite professors, and 2 pieces of ID.

Other than unions, he didn't want any of that.

Read his manifesto maybe.

He's wrong in saying it's been disproved; rather it has been placed (rightfully) in the dustbin of history.

The LTV is a theory, a system by that attempts to explain phenomenon. A theory is judged by how well it explains and predicts observed, empirical data. It's been done away with because other theories (IE, Marginalism) more accurately explain and predict empirical data.

I'll concede having not read much from Sowell but everything I see posted from him here is just appeals to authority. "Most economists reject it" is not a valid refutation of any socialist policy.

The funny thing is most economists also reject Sowell's libertarian school.

>mexican "intellectuals"

I erased it now that you've seen it because i don't want my info out there. I'm an argie.

Conservative libertarian has a problem with Marx? Color me surprised.

He's got some perverse reasoning. For instance, he claims to be a marxist in his 20's- but then studied Puerto Rico's minimum wage increase coinciding with an increase in unemployment for a reason not to be Marxist.

He also hates government mandated alms because it passifies the revolutionary outrage of the poor.

He both wants people employed- earning an unlivable wage and he wants people unemployed and angry so they will overthrow the government to improve their living conditions.

Anyone see the problem with that? It's fucking incoherent. You can't be in favor of galvanizing radical sentiments to improve the conditions of the poor and then shit on measures taken to improve the conditions of the poor. Those incremental improvements don't preclude eventual 'radical changes" from the starting point and they also don't preclude the well being of the mistreated.

>For instance, he claims to be a marxist in his 20's- but then studied Puerto Rico's minimum wage increase coinciding with an increase in unemployment for a reason not to be Marxist.

Well if the unemployment increased too much, then I don't see how he wouldn't consider that negative as an economist.

My country doesn't have a minimum wage and it's the second richest country in the world per capita.

Moral theorists and political philosophers were desperate to prove Marx wrong (because everyone thought Marx was hot shit for introducing a scientific approach to philosophy) so they created the field of economics. They pretend Marx doesn't exist because if his ideas on society were disseminated most of the logic our institutions are built on would fall apart.

Economists replaced the biological approach of Marx and Smith and replaced it with mathematical models that obfuscate real situations in order to justify things like wealth inequality and the institutionalization of elites. Economists don't mention Marx because Marx has nothing to do with economists and economists have no knowledge of reality. They are capable in thinking only in abstractions but anyone who was studied science can tell you that abstractions often do not match reality.

Do you live in Luxembourg? Because that's the second richest country, and it has a minimum wage of 1922.96 euros per month.

look, it'd take some serious study of Puerto Rico to find out what's going on in its economy- as of when Sowell was studying it. And I'm not going to do that, but here's some general ideas.

1. The companies could have protested the wage hike by firing laborers - despite not having a real need to lower the labor force.

2. There could have been a coinciding recession- the labor force would have dipped whether or not there was a minimum wage increase. Production cycles are common in capitalism. Every 4-7 years there's a downturn (since the great depression).

3. Demand for products could have decreased- foreign markets could close or tighten, local markets could have decreased- so the lay offs would have occurred whether there was a hike in minimum wage.

There are simply too many variables that say that minimum wage caused higher unemployment.

Also, note that the higher minimum wage can lead to more spending power- and more demand for goods, which leads to more demand for labor to meet those demands. This is the common economic model for higher minimum wages. The problem we are having currently is that real wages- in the U.S.- haven't increased in about 30 years- meanwhile corporate profits have gone up, and CEO earnings and bonuses have gone up tremendously.

No I live in Norway.

>tfw no bara Norwegian bf

>Moral theorists and political philosophers were desperate to prove Marx wrong (because everyone thought Marx was hot shit for introducing a scientific approach to philosophy) so they created the field of economics. They pretend Marx doesn't exist because if his ideas on society were disseminated most of the logic our institutions are built on would fall apart.

This.

And one of the signs of it is that political hacks that never did anything of note in academia like Sowell are the ones getting their hands dirty fighting with Marx.

You never see the real luminaries lower themselves as to explain why Marxism is wrong and not part of the orthodox economic canon. For one of the most influential and contentious ideas in political-economic history that seems quite odd. You'd at least want an authoritative assembly of talking points from a couple experts if not a couple books refuting Marx. Biologists will have no problem explaining why creationists are retarded. It makes no sense unless you consider that the main rhetoric strategy is to just avoid Marx altogether. Because they have no real good slam dunk arguments that the experts are willing to stamp their name on popular ignorance and taboo are more powerful tools of social influence.

Are you a grill?

I wish this weren't true

>My country doesn't have a minimum wage and it's the second richest country in the world per capita.

Because you guys have unions both for employers and employees/occupational unions. Also greta social services so being paid less isn't much of a hit so your exports in theory are cheaper.

I would never drop the minimum wage in say America.

No. But I'd still like a bara Norwegian bf :3

>Because you guys have unions both for employers and employees/occupational unions.

So? There's no law that says neither employees nor employers have to accept the terms made by either party.

Both are on pretty steady grounding. In America and most of the anglo world Unions for the most part are dead, weak or only for careers or occupations you can't export.

It hasn't been completely refuted, because muh transformation problem, but literally everyone in the field has moved on to marginalism as a better explanation

See quote

Marx also contributed nothing to LTV really, other than from a (at the time non-existent) sociological perspective

>Thomas Sowell

Was Marx actually an economist or just a political theorist who used economics in the sense of people grouped together by economic class to advance his political ideas?

From what I've read of him, his theories on economics seem specifically structured in order to galvanize hatred and inter-class strife, or else are political theory applied to economics and not empirically driven in some sense, e.g.Socialist economics, free market, Austrian, Chicago etc etc etc.

>inb4 >Austrian
>empirically driven

>Not
>An
>Argument

>inter-class strife

God forbid workers be pissed off that they're being paid pennies on the dollar to work 16 hour days

Guess those serfs who rose up against the French must have just been stirred up by mean old bourgeois people with their theories of liberty and rights

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm

Marx is a philosopher, sociologist, historian, economist, and a political activist depending on which of his texts you read.

What do you mean they aren't empirically driven? The whole point of Marx's study of political economy is an empirical critique of the organization of society.

No, Marx was not an economist. Marx studied humans and their communities from a biological perspective and used historical examples to dictate his beliefs. Marxism is the application of the material dialectic and can be used in any field of study. Economics does not incorporate material dialectics because economists are closer to mathematicians, many of whom are not scientists and economics is certainly not science.

His critique of society resulted in him advocating for a communal system for organizing humans. He felt that too often people were thought of as solely individuals (liberals) and communities (conservatives) but he wanted to regard humans as individuals-in-community.

I like how Marxists love to qualifying their idol's work as "empirical critique" and his socialism as "scientific", but when they talk about other theories then suddenly "economics is not science" (which I mostly agree with).

Economics without mathematics should go into the trash bin, that applies to Austrians as well.

He is right. That does not denigrate Marx at all though, as some anons seem to be thinking (by either fighting him or agreeing with him for it). In fact it can even clarify Marx's position.

He is saying you cannot find Marx in the analytical tools used today by economists, which is true. But Marx was not trying to come up with economical tools, he was using them to get his political point across. Which he did and with great success. Whether you agree with him or not, the novelty and influence of Marx lies within the politics of his work, which is not to say his vision of economy is at fault or outdated in any way.

A physicist may bring nothing new to mathematics and still be quite relevant to physics and use mathematics extensively to do so.

I made one thread on a Keynesian formula and got no replies, this shitty thread on Marx gets infinite replies.

You know what I mean; that theory is very much period-specific, or rather, society-specific. The problem with that part of his theory is that he's assigning behaviours - in this case exploitation - to classes of people (be they economic or otherwise), which never turns out well because they're inevitably transposed into collective guilt which then logically helps justify collective punishment. There's an obvious difference between a capitalist who chains his workers to their workstations and, say, a peasant who eventually works his way up to becoming a minor landowner (for example a kulak) and hires workers to farm the extra land during the harvest, but the difference is obscured when talking about class v. class.

Reading now

I mean it's not empirically driven in the sense that Adam Smith's or Keynes's or Milton Friedman's (again, inb4 >Friedman >empirically driven) were, in that they examined phenomena and how people react to them while accounting for moral concerns, and then published works on that basis; and that introducing policy on the basis of their theories generally achieves the desired result, in line with their theories. Maybe not the 100% desired result, but maybe somewhere around 70% or 80%. I'm thinking specifically of market liberalisation in China, India, Singapore, the UK and elsewhere with regards to Smith and Friedman, and stimulus spending with regards to Keynes. Marxist ideas never seem to pan out as intended and his theory of worldwide revolution didn't occur as predicted, so either the thought was based on bad data, the policies are corrupted from the original Marxist thought, or else simply the thought misrepresented the world as it actually is and didn't understand what would actually happen. Of course, it's entirely possible I'm just missing the point of Marx; maybe I'm reading too much into him as an economist/political theorist and not treating him as just a particularly famous social critic?

>Mathematics isn't science

Stay classy /leftypol/!

All economics is applied math. If you can't understand it - or choose not to - it's your own fault.

>All economics is applied math
Using models with no empirical basis.

>Reading now
Good. If you know about classical economics you'll see that he builds up on it and that it is not a moral work, at all. He doesn't rely on social classes any more than smith or ricardo did either.

Not the other guy but i'll also answer:
>he's assigning behaviours - in this case exploitation - to classes of people (be they economic or otherwise), which never turns out well because they're inevitably transposed into collective guilt which then logically helps justify collective punishment
Economics actors in marxian economic theory are amoral. The capitalist acts the way he does because he is forced by competition.

Mathematics is art. Any mathematician worth his salt will tell you it is not a science. It's all word games built on assumptions. That doesn't mean mathematics is useless but it is not absolute.

The laws of Thermodynamics and Newtonian physics have no assumptions they are purely descriptive. You cannot construct these models a priori.

>No empirical basis
Haha! I'd like a source on that, the majority of papers have empirical data

>yet another faggot who doesn't know the difference between democratic socialism and authoritarian communism
>muh "I am always right and my opponents are silly" endlessly quoted black man

Keep your bullshit on /pol/ where it belongs.

Economists generate a model then find the data which supports the model. Scientists collect data then make observations.

It's just a pic mate, other's have stated what Sowell has said

Haha! I'll need some evidence of that! Here's proof economists generally use empirical data!

imgur.com/a/049Mn

Serfdom =/= Making less money than your boss.

This is why it's impossible to discuss with Marxist socialists. You always compare a market economy with the worst of human evil, and actually believe you don't sound like an idiot while doing it.

But they are modeled with systems that are derived mathematically. For instance, if Archimedes did not derive Pi from The Measurement of a Circle I doubt he would have been able to figure out the size of his Geocentric universe. Same with Newton, so at the core it is all derived from mathematics. Now here's where it gets interesting. Because how do you assume these mathematical concepts, like Geometry, which can be roughly defined in real life, stand to be a priori. How is it not a posteriori from our conception of the universe, or the number of digits on our hands for instance, almost like a system waiting to be discovered

>supporting that anti white faggot

What?

Norway is nowhere near the richest countries.

uhhhh I'll just go ahead and make a baseless assertion XDDD

>specifically structured in order to galvanize hatred and inter-class strife
Yes workers never thought about organising before marx showed up
jesus christ, Veeky Forums

that doesn't seem to be what he is implying dunce

When you have to leave your home, since there are no jobs and the system requires you have one, and you need to go to the city, and there you need to pick between a few employers all of which have incentives to work you into an early grave, while paying you the minimum salary possible, yes, its serfdom.

1. You have no mobility. You are forced from one place to the other by the job market and the system requiring that you follow it.
2. You don't own your work. Most of the value you create working is awarded to your supervisor and your employer, very little to you.

Serfdom.

>taking thomas sowell seriously
>taking mainstream economists seriously
top kek

>Karl Marx was really a leftish market liberal who just wanted some maternity leave and minimum wage

I genuinely laughed our loud at this

>taking an out of context quote and ignoring literally everything else he says
go to bed hillary

>Joseph Stigglitz
>not to be taken seriously
lmaoing at ur life right now

Lmao'ing @ you

>Not taking Solow seriously, who has also expressed similar facts
>Taking heterodox economists seriously

wow man look at you got all those good ideas up in that head now.

>minimum wage, work place standard, maternity leave
>political
>American education

Ban Americans from Veeky Forums pls

>crisis theory
>theory of the state's relationship to private industry
>SNLT/LTV
>not contributions to economic theory
hell, there's even a chapter in capitl vol 3 that explains stagflation

>Mainly
That list was fucking retarded. Marx was not some sort of left leaning moderate wtf

>LTV has been utterly disproven
lol
users.wfu.edu/cottrell/eea97.pdf

modern ""economics""" is the study of how to convince states to enact policies that will enable to the largest firms (that is, firms closest to the economist's ideal) to profit more easily. marxism concerns itself with the study of the capitalist mode of production as a whole. marxian economics is a smaller branch of this which deals with similar phenomena the modern """economists""" are interested in.

So Marxian economics is glorified sociology?

>The very same bourgeois mentality which extols the manufacturing division of labour, the life-long annexation of the worker to a partial operation, and the unconditional subordination of the detail worker to capital, extols them as an organisation of labour which increases productivity - denounces just as loudly every kind of deliberate social control and regulation of the social process of production, denounces it as an invasion of the inviolable property rights, liberty and self-determining genius of the individual capitalist. It is characteristic that the inspired apologists of the factory system can find nothing worse to say of any proposal for the general organisation of social labour, than that it would transform the whole of society into a factory.

I know this is sarcasm but the fact that there are people on /leftypol/ that unironically believe this still makes me laugh

I honestly don't think Sowell was ever a Marxist. I think Sowell might have had Soviet sympathies when younger, as every one of his "refutations" of Marxism is really about the USSR. Sowell either seems completely unaware of non-USSR Marxism, or like he says everyone else does, he just ignores it.

i actually agree with this and i'm a marxist

it's just worse off for modern economics and besides anyone who knows a thing about economics knows that the mainstream has been in disrepute for decades now

you might have been responding to the wrong post, but if not keep your mouth shut ignoramus

>SNLT/LTV
That's a literal meme at this point

>i actually agree with this and i'm a marxist

>I actually agree with this and I'm a flat earther

a meme proven scientifically accurate

>wahhh stop exposing the infiltration

Stop raiding Veeky Forums and we'll stop exposing you, /leftyshill/.

>Using models with no empirical basis.
>>>/leftypol/

oh the irony

>if you are not a leftist that means you are a supporter an Austrian School

Stop

>if ur ot with me ur the exact opposite 2 me

Why do leftists succumb to

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splitting_(psychology)

so easily?

It's like religious fervor desu. If you don't praise God you burn in hell. if you don't praise St. Marx you burn in Austrian land.

Well then, speak up, what do you believe in? General neo-classical economics/Chicago school? Keynes? What?

I don't believe in using economics to predict the future, as the future is over-determined by a multitude of factors. What we can do is examine the past to respond to the issues we face today.

>implying I'm an austrian

>If you're not a leftist you're an austrian
'tism

Personally, I support the New Keynesian school.

Not him, but I believe in Keynes.

New Keynesian

then how do you deal with the effects of capital accumulation on the political economy? as we've seen with the rise of neo-liberalism, as capitalism goes on the inequality it brings gives more and more power to capitalists, to the point that it empowers them to undo structural reforms meant to stabilize the economy.

Not arguments.