Good economist, or best economist?

Go back to your /leftypol/ discord, nigger.

Sage.

but he hasn't been proven wrong

>Good economist, or best economist?

kikeroach piece of shit

youtube.com/watch?v=k2dbF7SK4KI

>because it was not really socialism!
It's easy never being wrong when your fans keep retreating from every failure

Because he is a well of excuses for people who are stupid, lazy and emotionally damaged, and more specifically those angsty teenagers who think in line with "Man this world sucks, fucking assholes controlling us, we should just work all together man".

>proving several philosophical positions wrong by pointing to failures of a given political entity
I'm sure reductivists like you loved to point out the failures of liberalism in the 18th century too.
>Hurr durr only faggots want democracy, french revolution proved that wrong a long time ago hurrr

He was absolutely retarded and his insane theories have been debunked a million times.

If you want a real economist look at this guy.

What does socialism have to do with his economic contributions? He barely even discusses socialism, especially in his prolific work. His largest contributions are to historical analysis of capitalism.

Better than pic related guy

marxism and socialism is slavery though
I'm glad the human race has moved on such a poisonous ideology.

>His largest contributions are to historical analysis of capitalism.
and history and countless economists after him have proven him wrong

his theories were insane metaphysics.
Modern marxists don't even accept human evolution or human instincts.

>this guy

kikeroach piece of shit

youtube.com/watch?v=RbgT4BrsNI4

His retarded ideas were proven wrong by this glorious man >muh LTV
kys

...

this video is retarded FUD

Enjoy being wrong
Fuck you and fuck central banking.

His writings were a rejection of metaphysical approaches to economics/politics for a historical approach based on the rational interest of participating groups/individuals... that really shines through on The German Ideology and The Poverty of Philosophy

> and history and countless economists after him have proven him wrong

How tho?

the "austrian school" explanation in that image is just a reiterance of the falling rate of profit, which is a marxist idea.

>t. never read marx

>the "austrian school" explanation in that image is just a reiterance of the falling rate of profit
no it's not, it's just explaining how economic growth raises real wages

>His writings were a rejection of metaphysical approaches to economics/politics
bullshit lol dialectical materialism is metaphysical garbage. It's pseudoscience to it's very core.
It assumes all human action is the result of economic forces, which is incredibly false.
>muh laws of history
lol

>How tho?
LTV debunked, muh "living standards for workers will constantly decrease to a subsistence level" debunked, DM debunked
If you are an ironic marxist after knowing about these things then you are probably retarded.

>t. never read marx and is a preteen that unironically wants to be enslaved

Marx actually wanted a central bank, you people are so incredibly stupid lol
enjoy being enslaved and poor

We have central banks right now under capitalism; we have an organization called the World Bank. Are you sniffing glue?

He was no different than Porkie kikes

>We have central banks right now under capitalism
Capitalism is an extremely vague and useless terms.
According to your retarded definition, the most economically unfree shitholes on earth are still "capitalism".

What matters is economic freedom vs economic slavery or free market vs unfree markets.

Central banks are a function of UNFREE markets, all which MARX wanted.
Fuck off with your shit language.

>we have an organization called the World Bank
Yes, all government control over the market.
Unfree markets.
All things which marxists more or less want.

You are saying, retard?

>Porkie
hi leftypol trash

> no it's not, it's just explaining how economic growth raises real wages

Thats what the falling rate of profit is... The ratio of profit/wages decreases, which increases the purchasing power of wage earners.

> It assumes all human action is the result of economic forces, which is incredibly false.

What does this even mean? What's an "economic" force here? What's not an economic force?

> muh "living standards for workers will constantly decrease to a subsistence level"

this is literally the opposite of what marx thought

> LTV debunked

LTV isn't "debunked", its completely compatible with the ideas that tried to 'replace' it (e.g., marginal value) and the synthesis of the two is the basis for contemporary, neoclassical economics.

t. Marshall's scissors

Where's Feder

>muh free market
ah, the true idealism rears it's ugly head

What about Volks Economie?

>Thats what the falling rate of profit is... The ratio of profit/wages decreases, which increases the purchasing power of wage earners.
LOL That's not what the section in that image was saying AT ALL though.
Mises and austrians never said profits would fall, only that prices in general would fall.

>What does this even mean?
You want me to explain your own ideology to you?
I don't know how I can make it more clear.
>What's an "economic" force here?
The forces of feudalism, capitalism, socialism etc.
>this is literally the opposite of what marx thought
Wrong, he said that living standards for workers would constantly fall and this would lead to capitalism going into crises and the workers revolting. He said this was inevitable.
You people ALWAYS lie about what you believe, talk to 100 marxists and they will always tell you contradictory things about their ideology.
>LTV isn't "debunked"
It was debunked ages ago by bomh bawerk and others
then you faggots started talking about useless things like use value vs exchange value
>its completely compatible with the ideas that tried to 'replace' it (e.g., marginal value) and the synthesis of the two is the basis for contemporary, neoclassical economics.
No, they contradict each other.

Capitalism is fucking cancer and will beset the death of mankind

The wealthiest 100 people could lift the poorest billion out of poverty. A billion starving human beings. But wealth redistribution is immoral.

Get a fucking grip you scum.

neither

this nigga couldn't even feed his family yet had the balls to tell people about workers

marx was badass neet genius,

from appendix to manifesto:
Demands of the Communist Party in Germany “Workers of all countries, unite!”

10. A state bank, whose paper issues are legal tender, shall replace all private banks. This measure will make it possible to regulate the credit system in the interest of the people as a whole, and will thus undermine the dominion of the big financial magnates. Further, by gradually substituting paper money for gold and silver coin, the universal means of exchange (that indispensable prerequisite of bourgeois trade and commerce) will be cheapened, and gold and silver will be set free for use in foreign trade. Finally, this measure is necessary in order to bind the interests of the conservative bourgeoisie to the Government.

>muh capitalism
>muh socialism
>muh I don't need to use clear descriptive language when describing things
ah, the true idealism rears it's ugly head

>Capitalism is fucking cancer and will beset the death of mankind
>The wealthiest 100 people could lift the poorest billion out of poverty. A billion starving human beings. But wealth redistribution is immoral.
>Get a fucking grip you scum.
HOLY FUCK ARE YOU PEOPLE EVER STUPID
If you took the wealth from the top 100 richest people and gave it to the poor it would only cause massive inflation because the top 100 richest people consume extremely tiny amounts of consumer goods compared with the rest of the world.

It would amount to virtually nothing.
You're an idiot.

>Marx
>Capitalism is evil, some people have more than others
>let's make it so nobody has anything and we are all miserable together
>problem solved

t. fake internet money enthusiast

>10. A state bank, whose paper issues are legal tender, shall replace all private banks. This measure will make it possible to regulate the credit system in the interest of the people as a whole, and will thus undermine the dominion of the big financial magnates. Further, by gradually substituting paper money for gold and silver coin, the universal means of exchange (that indispensable prerequisite of bourgeois trade and commerce) will be cheapened, and gold and silver will be set free for use in foreign trade. Finally, this measure is necessary in order to bind the interests of the conservative bourgeoisie to the Government.
Holy shit he was so fucking evil lmao

He literally wanted the state to enslave the population through central banking.

> LOL That's not what the section in that image was saying AT ALL though. Mises and austrians never said profits would fall, only that prices in general would fall.

As usual, they only paint half of the picture.

> The forces of feudalism, capitalism, socialism etc.

Sure. Can you give an example of something that is 'outside of those forces', i.e., "not economic"?

> Wrong, he said that living standards for workers would constantly fall and this would lead to capitalism going into crises and the workers revolting. He said this was inevitable.
You people ALWAYS lie about what you believe, talk to 100 marxists and they will always tell you contradictory things about their ideology.

How about you quote him, then?

> It was debunked ages ago by bomh bawerk and others

it wasn't tho. Subjective value theories are perfectly compatible with LTV since LTV is looking at the price of commodities when demand and supply are at equilibrium. Subjective theories of value are looking at how changes in supply and demand impact price.

>communism is stateless guys
>we just need to create the most authoritarian state in human history to socially engineer people to be anarchists and then the state will magically wither away

If you are stupid enough to believe this, you deserve to be poor and enslaved.

...

clearly an authoritarian state isn't necessary, as communism exists right not in autonomous regions like Rojava and Chiapas :3

> you deserve to be poor

I'm worth 50 btc

Y'all be excused

using the term "free market" like it could exist in the real world any more than "true communism" could is laughably naive. You people have the exact same argument pattern as tankies, have you realized that? All problems in capitalist countries boil down to the maxim "it wasn't true capitalism". fucking kek'd mate.

>As usual, they only paint half of the picture.
But the "other half of the picture" is wrong.

>Sure. Can you give an example of something that is 'outside of those forces', i.e., "not economic"?
Human biological instincts and brain science. Marxists deny these when they are the most important in terms of human behavior.

>How about you quote him, then?
Are you saying that marx never predicted that living standards for workers will fall and this will lead to a socialist revolution?
Marxists all over the internet say this.
If he never said this then why would socialism/communism EVER happen?

>it wasn't tho.
Yes, just ignore the fact that both sides of this debate constantly argue with each other and think the other side is retarded.

kys fencesitter.

>Rojava and Chiapas
Literally who?

Also you are unable to defend marxists stupid goal of an authoritarian state which would create an anarchist one.
It makes no sense and you know it, bootlicker.

>I'm worth 50 btc
No you're not lmao

This is the correct answer.

>using the term "free market" like it could exist in the real world
Free markets have existed in countless places in history to varying degrees. USA during the late 1800s which no central banks would be pretty close to a free market. Sweden and Switzerland during the 1800s would be another example.
Calling economically unfree shitholes "capitalism" because you can't come up with an actual argument and must use sloppy nonsense language just makes you a retard.

How fucking stupid are you?

>You people have the exact same argument pattern as tankies
But we don't, you ideological and braindead marxist.

>All problems in capitalist countries boil down to the maxim "it wasn't true capitalism"
KEK but these are clear examples when YOUR SYSTEM ie. government interventionism in the market has failed and you're trying to pass the blame on us.
Don't get so asspained when we call you out on your bullshit.

Using the socialism/capitalism false dichotomy makes no sense.

>I WANT AN IPHONE!

It's so amazing to me that there are unironic marxists still around.

How the fuck is this shit even possible.
The religion of marxism makes no fucking sense at all and denies human biological instincts and neuroscience.

They actually want an authoritarian state to socially engineer people to become communists.
They don't even accept human nature and get asspained when you bring it up.

> But the "other half of the picture" is wrong.

The purchasing power of wages can't go up unless the purchasing power of profits go down... wage earners can make more than they did without profits dropping, but all that would mean is a reduction in purchasing power.

But regardless, of whether you actually understand the implication of shifting purchasing power in wages, the conclusion reached, which is whats actually explored in that image, is identical to the conclusion reached by austrians.

> Human biological instincts and brain science. Marxists deny these when they are the most important in terms of human behavior.

It's human biological drives which direct them towards economic goals. Marxists aren't denying that.

> Are you saying that marx never predicted that living standards for workers will fall and this will lead to a socialist revolution?

Yes.

> Marxists all over the internet say this.

If you actually read the texts rather than just arguing with brainlets on the Internet then you'd know that they're idiots.

> If he never said this then why would socialism/communism EVER happen?

Because Marx also pointed out contradictions of capitalist production which make it unsustainable. The falling rate of profit plays into this, as it requires equity holders to constantly expand the rate of the use of resources in a system with limited resources.

> Yes, just ignore the fact that both sides of this debate constantly argue with each other and think the other side is retarded.

One side argues that the other side is wrong. The other side argues that the former isn't actually introducing contradictory ideas. The latter side is composed of both all left wing and orthodox economists.

A free market exists if i sell you a lawnmower for something, cash or otherwise.
A free market exists when a pot dealer sells a high schooler some pot.
A free market exists when i have you come out to my ponds and trap the goddamn beavers fucking my shit up and then pay you with litecoin. Yeah my beav trapper accepts litecoin.

> No you're not lmao

you've fallen for my trap card

What message do you want me to sign with my eth trezor wallet?

Are you even replying to me? I never tried to pass any blame for socialism on to capitalism you mong. I'm not so retarded as some people to argue Stalin wasn't a commie. You're arguing against you're straw commie that you built up in your head; this is pure animus. My point is that the free market is a meme, and you cherry picking trite examples is literally what did. see how the patterns of argument line up here too? Even Fukuyama isn't a Fukuyamist man; you haven't figured out the recipe for utopia. If you really think that you did, you might as well be a dialectical materialist.

fuck it

{
"address": "0xa8b9f65c9d089ad947ac1b654cb43053d6480370",
"msg": "0oJ8tQM5 who created Veeky Forums post No.7773054 on 02/18/18(Sun)18:38:53 is a brainlet",
"sig": "0x0b16ec36776ac3193cf4dfdce79760dba1eaa4a002af2e987573e59ef44a4d276919d1880627498204626a6b6032a2b9bc3c9af5b4f3ac084a61099d139684291c",
"version": "2"
}

>The purchasing power of wages can't go up unless the purchasing power of profits go down
This is wrong.
As mass production increases it causes the prices of goods and services to go down thus real wages increase.
If all of the capitalists gave all of the profits to the workers instead of themselves, real wages for workers would stay exactly the same because no new resources have been produced.
>which is whats actually explored in that image, is identical to the conclusion reached by austrians.
Wrong.
>It's human biological drives which direct them towards economic goals. Marxists aren't denying that.
Yes, marxist manchildren ARE denying this.
Marxists believe that the economic system of the time is what drives human beings to action and that neuroscience and human instincts have nothing to do with this.
This is exactly why marx wanted an incredibly authoritarian socialist state to "socially engineer" people to become communists.
If he and marxists understood that this was IMPOSSIBLE thanks to human instincts then marx and marxists wouldn't believe in it.
Idiot. Stop lying.
Also "human biological drives which direct them towards economic goals"
This is precisely what mises believed in praxeology, not marx.

>If you actually read the texts rather than just arguing with brainlets on the Internet then you'd know that they're idiots.
>all internet marxists are IDIOTS except for ME, I'm the real true marxist.
Hilarious.
>contradictions of capitalist
Don't exist.

>The falling rate of profit plays into this.... of resources in a system with limited resources.
Businesses don't have to constantly expand anything. If they can only make profit on the same renewable resources then that's what they will have to do.
>in a system with limited resources.
This is true for ANY system though, this is solved by asteroid mining and advanced recycling.

>actually introducing contradictory ideas
wrong, they argue the other side is wrong

reminder to sage and hide all leftpol threads

Marxists don't like crypto.
If you do, then you are a traitor to your comrades.

>I never tried to pass any blame for socialism on to capitalism you mong.
This is exactly what calling modern economies like USA or Germany "capitalist" when they fail does.

>My point is that the free market is a meme
But it's not.
It has existed many times in history and of course we don't have free markets now but different countries have different degrees of economic freedom.
The ones which are lacking in economic freedom tend to be absolute shitholes.

You're wrong and are an ideological marxist brainlet.

meanwhile automation is going to kill capitalism in the next 15 years
btw did you know that being able to eat cooked meat is one of the reason our brains are so big?

Remember when Bohm Bawerk absolutely destroyed Marx?

>I'm worth 50 btc

You don't need 50 btc. Your wealth needs to be divided among the poor. :^)

>muh biology and neuroscience
don't talk about things which you know nothing about. The most accomplished evolutionary psychologists and neuroscientists will tell you this is a bullshit argument meant to be dismissive. Human culture is very malleable, hence why the pre frontal cortex does not finish developing until age 25. There are many instances of egalitarian societies amid primate species that are more successful than their counterparts. Success defined as the collective well being of each individual.

>meanwhile automation is going to kill capitalism in the next 15 years
TOP LUL
I love when leftists say this and think they're intelligent or something.
Living standards have gone down the past 40 or so years because of central banking destroying any gains in real economic productivity. This isn't the fault of automation.

We're not even CLOSE to fully automating SHIT right now.
Automation is a good thing in a free market with no central bank, prices go down for consumers and less people have to work.
More jobs are created because less people are working and the price of capital decreases.
You people said the same thing when cars replaced horse drawn carriages.

>btw did you know that being able to eat cooked meat is one of the reason our brains are so big?
Yes, marxists don't though.

> As mass production increases it causes the prices of goods and services to go down thus real wages increase

Which also decreases rate of profit.

You don't have to agree with that, though, to know that the image you posted was literally retarded.

> Marxists believe that the economic system of the time is what drives human beings to action and that neuroscience and human instincts have nothing to do with this.This is exactly why marx wanted an incredibly authoritarian socialist state to "socially engineer" people to become communists.

"we cannot here go either into the actual physical nature of man, or into the natural conditions in which man finds himself — geological, hydrographical, climatic and so on. The writing of history must always set out from these natural bases and their modification in the course of history through the action of men."

"Hunger is hunger, but the hunger gratified by cooked meat eaten with a knife and fork is a different hunger from that which bolts down raw meat with the aid of hand, nail, and tooth"

this is ultra low tier bait

> all internet marxists are IDIOTS except for ME, I'm the real true marxist.

I'm not even a marxist.

> If they can only make profit on the same renewable resources then that's what they will have to do.

Problem is that their rate of profit falls over time. Competing businesses which DO expand have lower marginal cost of production, which drives prices down. That means lower rate of profit per sale, unless you expand.

> wrong, they argue the other side is wrong

read kevin carson

>don't talk about things which you know nothing about.
Yet YOU don't know about these things you absolute brainlet.

>The most accomplished evolutionary psychologists and neuroscientists will tell you this is a bullshit argument
No they won't lol.
Anyone with a brain understands the human nature/human instincts arguments. It's only marxists that get butthurt when you point this out.

>Human culture is very malleable
The degree of malleability is limited though you fucking retard.
Only marxists think the human brain is a blank slate that can believe ANYTHING.

>There are many instances of egalitarian societies amid primate species that are more successful than their counterparts. Success defined as the collective well being of each individual.
Collectivist societies tend to be impoverished.
Individualist societies have much higher living standards.
You people legit want to be enslaved.

>automation is going to kill capitalism in the next 15 years

Lmao, we would need Skynet-level tech for that. We are no where need automating complicated manual tasks. If you think everything can be easily automated, you've clearly delusional.

I'm just in it for the money and the beauty of the math/technology.

"It doesn't take much time to {participate in capital investment], and, if you are willing to risk a little bit, you can grasp money away from your opponents." -Marx

Go verify the message I signed.

both hobbes and rousseau were wrong. The truth lies in the middle.

Why are all of the most brilliant scientists on the planet strongly left leaning? People far more intelligent than some shitposter on biz (you). Not an appeal to authority, simply a question.

>Which also decreases rate of profit.
Then why did Henry Ford make so much money while providing cheap cars for everyone?
Why does walmart make so much profit when they have the lowest prices.
You're falling apart here kid.

>"we cannot here go either into the actual physical nature of man, or into the natural conditions in which man finds himself — geological, hydrographical, climatic and so on. The writing of history must always set out from these natural bases and their modification in the course of history through the action of men."
It's hilarious that he wrote this and then contradicted himself with his other writings.
Marx was KNOWN for constantly contradicting himself.

>this is ultra low tier bait
Yet you're STILL wrong.
Explain why marx thought we should create an ultra authoritarian state to socially engineer people to be communist if you claim he believed in human instincts?
Explain this.

>I'm not even a marxist.
>I'm not even a marxist. I only defend his theories and glorify marxist cultures like Rojava and Chiapas
lel

>Problem is that their rate of profit falls over time.
But it doesn't. It's only seemed to increase.
>That means lower rate of profit per sale
But their real profits are worth more than before as they can buy more things with them. Just as real wages are worth more than before.
Problem?

>read kevin carson
Read mises and rothbard

Dude just stop, you argue as if you only read wikipedia articles.

>standard of living meme

why are you more likely to die of suicide in the US than of a car accident?

>Peter engles
LOL

You mean friedrich?

>I'm just in it for the money
Then you're not a very good marxist are you?

>"It doesn't take much time to {participate in capital investment], and, if you are willing to risk a little bit, you can grasp money away from your opponents." -Marx
Yet ANOTHER one of marx's contradictions.
You're really shooting yourself in the foot here.

>Why are all of the most brilliant scientists on the planet strongly left leaning?
Mainly because academia is state funded and thus going to be more left leaning.
Doesn't mean you're correct, just means that you people are the equivalent of the catholic church centuries ago.

Because they're isolated from reality. They only see social economic problems as abstractions.

>why are you more likely to die of suicide in the US
completely irreverent to anything we're talking about
nice strawman though,
you couldn't respond to anything in my post really lol

...

>prove
>economics

Economics is based on logic
>logic cannot be proven
lel

I really wasn't paying attention to the debate you're having.

I'm just here to tell you that capitalism is responsible for every major woe in society.

isnt that the guy that wants everything to be free and whites to die out because they are 'evil'?

>economics is based on logic
hahahahahahahah

Capitalism is also slavery

>I'm just here to tell you that capitalism is responsible for every major woe in society.
If it wasn't for "capitalism" you would make $300 a year and die at age 45.

Enjoy being horribly wrong and wanting to be enslaved and poor.

> Then why did Henry Ford make so much money while providing cheap cars for everyone?
> Why does walmart make so much profit when they have the lowest prices.

Because, as I pointed out in my previous post, their marginal cost is small due to their scale. I.e. massive expansion. This gives them a huge advantage over potential, smaller competitors.

> Read mises and rothbard

I have read Mises and Rothbard. Early on Rothbard actually had some interestingly left wing things to say, and he actually leaves the door wide open for left wing analysis even in his later work:

"The only genuine refutation of the Marxian case for revolution, then, is that capitalists' property is just rather than unjust, and that therefore its seizure by workers or by anyone else would in itself be unjust and criminal. But this means that we must enter into the question of the justice of property claims, and it means further that we cannot get away with the easy luxury of trying to refute revolutionary claims by arbitrarily placing the mantle of "justice" upon any and all existing property titles. Such an act will scarcely convince people who believe that they or others are being grievously oppressed and permanently aggressed against. But this also means that we must be prepared to discover cases in the world where violent expropriation of existing property titles will be morally justified, because these titles are themselves unjust and criminal."

Mises doesn't really develop any critiques of Marx' economic ideas... he develops critiques of regimes that called themselves Marxist (correctly or incorrectly.) Those critiques, most notably the calculation problem, are perfectly valid. But they also work as critiques of centralization in capitalism too.

>freedom is alvery
AHAHAHAHA

>if we raise the minimum wage to 9999999 trillion dollars an hour then everyone would be super rich
>you can't prove me wrong because economics isn't based on logic and supply and demand doesn't exist
t. brainlet

>slavery
sure whatever but you can get out of it

did you know that in a free market (with complete informations, perfecty competitive and rational consumers) the profits are equal to zero? REALLY makes you think, didn't it?

>being forced to wage cuck for Henry shekelstein so you can pay the kike bank for the roof over your head and the kike supermarket owners for the food you eat is freedom
L
M
A
O

> Explain why marx thought we should create an ultra authoritarian state to socially engineer people to be communist if you claim he believed in human instincts?

How can I explain that, when he didn't?

> I'm not even a marxist. I only defend his theories and glorify marxist cultures like Rojava and Chiapas

The dude can be right about some things. Doesn't mean I worship him or agree with everything. I'm not a ricardean or 'smithean' either, and yet, no one would accuse me of being either for simply defending some of their ideas.

> But it doesn't. It's only seemed to increase.

Because production expands to counteract falling rates of profit

> Then you're not a very good marxist are you?

Like I said, I'm not a Marxist. Not that participating in the accumulation of capital would make someone a "bad marxist", whatever that means.

> Yet ANOTHER one of marx's contradictions.

> You can't both critique something and also use it to your advantage!!

>muh strawmen arguments lol see how right i am

>Because, as I pointed out in my previous post, their marginal cost is small due to their scale. I.e. massive expansion. This gives them a huge advantage over potential, smaller competitors.
Ever since then, profits for big companies like ford have only gone up.
I thought marx said they would decrease.
What happened marx?

Also respond to my criticism of real profits increasing because what you can buy with them are worth more.
Same with real wages.

>Mises doesn't really develop any critiques of Marx' economic ideas... he develops critiques of regimes that called themselves Marxist (correctly or incorrectly.)
>NOT REEEEAAALLL SOOCCCIIAALLLISSSMM
Every fucking time.
Do you know why EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE PLACES are "not real socialism"?
because socialism IS impossible and nonsensical

>But they also work as critiques of centralization in capitalism too.
No, they don't.

>being able to get out of cucking for Henry Shekelstein is slavery
>being kept down forever by the State is better
L
M
A
O