Mfw people call his ideas outdated and claim the LTV fails to predict anything

Modern economics doesn't "predict" crap, it reacts to changes fantastically though. Sudden abundance of materials? Price drops on the item. Did capitalist predict this? No they didn't. But did the market respond appropriately, allowing the material to be distributed to the population in greater amounts? Yes it did.

>Modern economics doesn't "predict" crap, it reacts to changes fantastically though. Sudden abundance of materials? Price drops on the item. Did capitalist predict this? No they didn't. But did the market respond appropriately, allowing the material to be distributed to the population in greater amounts? Yes it did.
That's just the market doing what it does. I'm not talking about markets, I'm talking about economics, the fucking study of these things.

You're acting like capitalism is meant to predict anything though. Capitalist aren't sitting in their chairs, staring at their navels and imagining what the next "stage" of their ideology is. They created a reactive system, said system will react to any new changes. That's it, nothing more to ponder.

So Capitalism is a system, Marxism is an ideology?

>these economists didn't have original ideas about shit, you must accept 100% of their doctrine set forward or disregard his entire philosophy.
Keynes theory of interest rates mirrors that of Adam Smith at the technical base.

Keynes theory of employment? Not even close.

>hey nobody saw it coming except the people who did but those don't count!
This is what it's like to argue with a Marxist.

Pretty much. Classical liberalism is an ideology, but capitalism is just a system that has no opinion on the future.

Everyone saw the housing bubble coming. There were those who tried to profit off of it, and those who tried to protect others.
youtube.com/watch?v=ePO8NrLgXK4
Watch this video and tell me who Bernie Sanders is.

Now tell me who Ben Bernanke is.

They're both Jews.

Marx's ideas about human agency will become more salient in the age of mass automation and increasing calls for universal basic income.

>Let's convince poor people that freedom from inequity, exploitation and oppression is to make everyone poor, oppressed and exploited.

>religion is just a delusion to distract them from the absurdity of their enslavement.

>Everyone is poor, miserable, and forcefully United behind it now. Just a few more years comrade and communism

What economists actually had their predictions vindicated.

Michał Kalecki, Joseph Schumpeter, who else?

...

Orthodox economics is all about trying to predict changes, and these predictions have real and serious consequences

Nothing is worse than Marxism, not even AIDS.

Correct, but that says absolutely nothing about their benevolence towards humans, clearly.

Why?

We have food.
People under Marxist rule did not.
Checkmate

Jews and humans don't get along very well so that explains it.

Russians and Chinese didn't have food before communism either

Standard of living skyrocketed in both those countries after the adoption of socialism

broken and irrelevant ideology my friend. Historical materialism now that is a great joke.

The value of goods and services is determined by what people are willing to pay for them. End of.

Value is not a price.

You're retarded man.

>he fell for the "no one predicted the burst of the housing bubble" maymay

Most New Keynesians are neoliberals nowadays

>Standard of living skyrocketed in both those countries after the adoption of socialism

You forgot about how tens of millions of people starved to death.

Turn off the memes for a second, buddy.

Orthodox Economics is based on pure bullshit assumptions, the western world should embrace the teachings of the Evolutionary and Institutional schools of economics.

Well then guys, put your money where your mouth is, and use your superior whatever economic skills and make a fortune of the stock market.

Best economics coming through

>if you're semi-intelligent and disagree with me then fuck off
This is why marxists are all retarded.
The fact of the matter is, Marx was right about everything (mostly).
Except neither he nor Engels would ever have wanted in any way to be indentified with complete and utter bullshit that is Marxism.
Marx's predictive power is being destroyed by Marxists, the fact that Marx predicted that capitalist societies were necessary for producing communism somehow escapes the communists who want to destroy capitalist societies

They should all be corporatists.
I predict that Marx's revolution will not take place in a nation but in a corporation, when the workers shall run the business and the business shall become more and more self sufficient.
For a business to become a corporation and transform in this way, it requires a capitalist society to grow in.
A corporation would grow so large it will meet the material needs of its workers, whether it be instituted by the workers themselves or the workers depose the one who first instituted it makes no difference.

Marxists are fucking idiots, all attempts to produce a communist state have been completely un-Marxist, you can't force a natural progression.
I'll never understand why Marxists shoot them selves in the foot and then blame the bourgeois, even though Marx said a bourgeois is a necessary step of opposition in the evolution of the working class.
Marxists are just dumbfuck retarded faggots who should neck themselves.
>inb4 /pol/
You know I'm right, and it bothers you I know your god better than you do.
Also, Nietzsche could be correct as well.
The bourgeois could be the last men.
In either case, destroying capitalism is anti-Marxists and completely retarded for anyone with a basic understanding of Marx

Marxism is pseudo economics. Real economics cannot possibly be worse than it.

I actually agree with that line of thinking.

Socialism didn't cause that, botched agricultural techniques did.

Also, dustbowl. A lot people were fucking up agriculture at the time and crop rotation wasn't being properly practiced, including capitalist nations.

Just as they had starved before.

But far less people starved to death before

>Orthodox Economics is based on pure bullshit assumptions

Like what?

inb4 Orthodox economists assume perfect rationality

They don't

Dude, just accept it, marxism is either pseudo- or bad science from the 19th century.
That's it.

...

No, unimaginably more people starved. Just not all at once, as happens in famines caused by central planning.

Proofs?

>inb4 Imperialism isn't capitalism

Socialist states can be imperialist too, you know

Let's run through the assumptions for a market with perfect competition shall we

>A large number of buyers and sellers
Okey doke

>Perfect information
Clear hogwash*

>Homogeneous products
Ridiculous

>Well defined Property rights
Pure ideology

>No barriers to entry or exit
Ok

>Every participant is a price taker
Pure ideology

>Perfect factor mobility
Garbage**

>Profit maximization of sellers

>Rational buyers
Counter to empirical evidence

>No externalities
Ridiculous**

>Zero transaction costs
Impossible**

>Non-increasing returns to scale and no network effects
"Pretend the most successful companies on earth aren't real"

*Items with asterisk are literal impossibilities that violate laws of physics, ** for thermodynamics specifically

Theoretically, but in practice not really. It ain't imperialism if you ain't getting paid, and I tell ya the Soviets had to spend money to keep their proxies, with the union proper having a lower standard of living than a lot of its satellites. Calling that imperialism insults imperialism,

>posts Thorstein Veblen
As someone who believes in God, I was obviously stricken with disbelief at some of the conclusions he was drawing. I did agree though: modern scientific thought advances as industry develops and inherently has no soul, character, and is inherently godless.

Mainstream economics doesn't make any of these assumptions

>capitalism causes droughts
why not just admit it is the devil in your religion

> Stalin controls weather

Can mainstream economics dodge this

Neoliberal consensus economics is a scam pushed by the corporate and academic oligarchy in order to ensure to survival of the status quo

That being said, I'd still take Friedman'peak autism over Marx

You don't care about workers rights, at the very least?

You can get any economic theory to work out on paper, but at the end of the day humans are greedy motherfuckers, so capitalism is the natural outcome.

When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called "the People's Stick".

So let's work toward a future where beating is unnecessary.

>claim the LTV fails to predict anything

It's not that it fails to predict anything, it's that it's simply wrong. Value is NOT determined by the amount of labour that went into a product, this should be obvious with just a little thought. If two men make pots, and one of them takes twice as long as the other to make an identical pot, then would you expect to pay twice as much for it? No, the pot is worth what the BUYER will pay, and nothing more.

Lots of people saw it coming. The reason nothing was done to prevent it was political paralysis, NOT a failure of "economics".

We already live in such a world, no-one beats me if I'm late to my job.

>Standard of living skyrocketed in both those countries after the adoption of socialism

Before in Russia. Specifically, the 1861-1914 and especially the 1880-1914 period.
Standards of living dropped massively between the 1914-1929 period.
Of course, it's mostly the wars and famines that were responsible for that but still.

Both are wrong as they are way behind systems theory. Ecological economics it gtfo.
Although modern economics is worse because it is based on money which is not valued by the material reality it is used to trade, leads to extreme incongrences between the economy and the real world, like how the economy grows steadily and the world that the economy depends on is rapidly shrinking. Marxism fixes that problem but still isn't based in reality, and that still leads to problems in resource allocation, it also doesn't distribute wealth as well as market economies, but atleast Marxism doesn't lead people to believe that things are getting better and better when they are actually getting exponitailly worse.

We could have a natural law/ resource based market economy if we mutually owned the means of production and distributed them to syndicates using the scientific method to unsure sustianibility, where the product is then monetized with an objectively derived value that is based on scarcity, then to be traded in a market economy within libertarian municipalities that can also take advantage of socialism to produce post-scarcity goods and public services.
Best thing about it is it can be accomplished via anarcho-syndicalism and not by a political ""revolution"" that ends up in an authoritarian state.

Not that I want to defend LTV, but that's not actually how it's formulated, either in Marx or in Ricardo. You don't check on a good or a service to see how much actual labor is used, you check on the economically mainstream mode of building whatever it is.

That being said, LTV has a whole host of other problems, such as real estate evaluation, or anything in which demand rises faster than its production is increasing in efficiency: For an example, think of coal in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Coal mines got increasingly efficient, and produced more coal every year. Per whatever arbitrary unit of weight you want to use, you need less and less labor to get the coal to market. Price should go down, no? Except it didn't, because demands for power got higher and higher, and did so faster than coal could be exploited more readily.

I believe this started with Keynes theory of increasing output. One way to increase output is to extend bank credit, which necessarily both raises the marginal value of the next output in terms of wage units and increases the money unites represented in terms of wage units. That way, an extension of bank credit geometrically discourages buyers consumption, which is why you see the dC(N) (derivative of the consumption function) much lower than dI(N) (derivative of the net income function) at quantity point N.

I wouldn't waste my time, many people have not even read Ricardo here.

Thats is so far from the truth
Its not what the people are willing to lay for them its what the people on top what to charge for it

Every time i read some retard saying something like "b-b-b-but what if someone takes more time to produce something" i get an ulcer. Stop discussing shit you haven't read anything about.

If the people on top are charging more than what the consumer is willing to pay for it, then the consumers don't buy whatever it is. Then, it is very likely some competitor springs up who will provide the same good or service for less, unless there are some sort of high barriers to entry, in which case a monopoly or an oligopoly is likely to result.

On the other hand, if the people on top are charging less, well, they'll miss out on profit and will probably start charging more when they think they can get away with it.

>implying that consumers can/will stop buying things

>unless there are some sorts of high barriers to entrance
There always are

>implying that consumers can/will stop buying things

Implying they can't. Not every good is a necessity, and people who have been priced out of A will often go for an A substitute.

>There always are

Not really. It's pretty easy to start your own business, and to get funding for it if you have a good business plan.

You'd be fired. Then you starve to death.

>then the consumers don't buy whatever it is
Yeah like clothes, food, medicine, housing, water, electricity, heating...

in which first country would that happen in today?

>leftists can't pick up a book so hard they actually think anything that isn't regurgitated from a hundred year old german philosowank's opus (MUUUUUHH DAS KAPITALLLL) is just "mystical voodoo shit"

lol that's why /leftypol/ never has any viable economics threads that aren't just circlejerking over Marx 24/7

PROTIP: you can't refute your opponent's arguments unless you actually read them, head up ass

>You'd be fired. Then you starve to death.

Only if he wouldn't find another job or would not be helped financially either by his relatives or his friends. Most people in the developed countries are not starving to death after they have been fired.

>conversion
Jesus, even /pol/ is less disgustingly serious about their political deathcult.

End yourself

If I as consistently late then I could deserve to be fired. As to starving to death, we have this thing called "welfare" that makes such a thing near impossible. Now remind me again, what would happen to me in a socialist regime, if I refused to work? "No work, no food" is the party line, is it not?

/pol/ thinks they're doing it for the betterment of le white race.

/leftypol/ thinks they're doing it for the betterment of the WHOLE OF MANKIND. They're on a whole other scale of sheer delusion.

While there are certainly many white supremacists on /pol/, the dominant ideology there is civic nationalism. This model would benefit everyone, making /pol/turds at least as demented as /leftypol/cuntrags.

No, they're doing it for the whole of the proles. Kill porky.

You can say the same thing about any of the humanities

Sociology is far more intertwined with political ideology than economics.

>This model would benefit everyone
>making /pol/turds at least as demented as /leftypol/cuntrags.
I'm not sure if I understand you. Are you in favor or civil nationalism or against it?

>kill porky
don't spread their memes, even ironically. It's disgusting

>I'm not sure if I understand you. Are you in favor or civil nationalism or against it?

If /leftypol/ shitpipes are retarded because their ideology is utopian, so are /pol/ pissbabbys.

Ok, but you said
>This model would benefit everyone
Were you referring to civic nationalism or marxism?

According to the people who follow them, both.

I think our communicational shortcomings may be a problem of syntax. I will push this no further, sir

I try not adopt labels of any kind, they are tremendously corruptive and the whole-sale adoption of ideological badges is at the root of much of our contemporary political foolishness.

So I don't identify with either marxism or civic nationalism, tho I reserve the right to agree with one or both on various specific policy stances.

Why should you take politics seriously?

Nationalism doesn't benefit citizens except making those who are nationalist feel good. Nationalism generally only enriches its demagogues, who almost universally lead their supporters to death and destruction.

Most nationalist movements are predicated on making others suffer. If it isn't an ethnic or social minority, it's whoever country a nationalist leader decides to invade to affirm his own strength.

>If you're /pol/ please fuck off
leftypol shill calling for a safe space, cute