Why do economists disregard Marxist economics?

>So, they're gentrifying cunts.
why dont you pay somebody to study marx?

Not an argument. I hate Marx and Marxism, that doesn't mean I'm going to suck off some economists.

Because it's outdated
Ignore all retards above me

any recommended abridgements of das kapital? I am a bit curious but ain't no way in hell I'm reading the whole thing

Marxism is mandatory in all schools in the west from 1st grade till graduation. That's why the white world is crumbling now through immigration and political correctness. You don't know what you're talking about

Because economics has moved beyond Marx's ideas and assumptions.

>I don't know what marxism is

Marxists run academia and they teach marxism throughout the educational system everywhere and for all ages

There are different schools of economics. Your question is "why are non Marxian economists non-Marxian?" Which is like asking why a Christian isn't Jew or Muslim, or why aren't realists materlialists or idealists.

it's a bait you scum don't reply

You know the answer, because of the tautological nature of the marginal utility school they see no need to investigate value as such

marxists.org/archive/camatte/capcom/index.htm

>Why do biologists disregard Lamarck?
Because Neo-Darwinism constrains their research programs?
sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/07/170717100548.htm
>Why do physicists disregard Aristotle?
Because their brainlets who don't read anything historical beyond textbooks?
faculty.fordham.edu/klima/SMLM/PSMLM10/PSMLM10.pdf

Why's his head so big
I always imagined Marx to be a fatass

Economists are mostly careerists who serve the ruling order, and the ruling order doesn't want people preaching things so fundamentally contradictory to its ideology. Economics isn't a real science so there's room to make up abstract bullshit divorced from reality (like neoclassical econ) and assert it as unquestionable orthodoxy. Most economists don't need to bother with high-level macroeconomic speculation/theorizing in practice anyway, so they can just accept the orthodoxy and go about their day.

was marx white? that nose makes it look like he was a negro which would explain the low quality of his ideas.

>because of the tautological nature of the marginal utility school they see no need to investigate value as such
explain this. genuinely curious.

what is "value as such"? how is value not just how much I want something?

The real question is why do universities not teach Leibnizian economics (The American System of Economics or Cameralism)

>explain this. genuinely curious.
You're explaining behaviour in terms of preferences... preferences which are in turn defined only by behaviour. Utility is unobservable, no amount of evidence can refute the theory that agents are maximizing (or minimizing) some hidden variable. It's all a big circular circle jerk.

>what is "value as such"? how is value not just how much I want something?
Production is obviously regulated by something. The real developments in natural science, competition, and all the other factors that determines the socially necessary labour time, all the complex social mediation of the whole process.

youtube.com/watch?v=-e8rt8RGjCM

>what is "value as such"? how is value not just how much I want something?
because to get that thing you want, you have to DO something, and most of things you want exit because somebody else DID something.
Marx begins with DOING as the primary variable - that's where all value ultimately comes from.

>socially necessary labour time
okay. so there's a materiality to things. I get that.

but isn't that *economically* irrelevant unless it is wanted by someone first? for example, if no one in the world liked apples, then apples wouldn't be a part of the economy. the socially necessary labour time to make apples is some x>0, but how can you say the apple isn't worth 0 if literally no one wants it?

okay... but the marginal theory says people only DO things [emphasis yours] because they themselves or others WANT something from that. so, like above, in a world where no one likes apples, no one will bother growing apples. if one day a very rich, powerful man suddenly wanted apples, only THEN would someone start growing apples. doesn't WANTING come before DOING?

ITT: Assblasted /pol/tards who don't know anything about marxism

Like, just go back to /pol/ you plebs

t. leftypol retard who also knows nothing about marxism.

replace "apples" with "food". people are always going to want food. there is a certain amount of work that just HAS to be done. Marxism is all about trying to cut out all the redundant shit by sharing the work around more, as it were; lowering the work week, getting more leisure time, etc. there are some people around today saying we could plausibly only work 10 hour work weeks today and with sacrificing any productivity.

>okay... but the marginal theory says people only DO things [emphasis yours] because they themselves or others WANT something from that. so, like above, in a world where no one likes apples, no one will bother growing apples. if one day a very rich, powerful man suddenly wanted apples, only THEN would someone start growing apples. doesn't WANTING come before DOING?
this is kind of philosophical and there are a few ways it could be answered.
Hegel (Marx was Hegelian) claimed that a lot of your wants were decided by your environment. e.g. fidget spinners weren't invented because people wanted them; they were invented and THEN people wanted them - they had to be shown to people before they could even have the want.

*without sacrificing any productivity

Marxism made sense in its historical context (early industrial capitalism), but not anymore. Organizing the economy around the working class is too narrow.

Thanks for confirming that you've never gone to school

We don't even have much manufacturing in the West anymore. It's completely different than in Marx's time.

Apparently even Chinese labor is getting too expensive now so manufacturing is outsourced to places like Bangladesh or Malaysia instead.

That, and the gap between the poor and the wealthy has dramatically grown to the point where the average college graduate is having a difficult time finding work. Professionals are starting to feel it.

marxists.org/archive/ruhle/1939/capital.htm

>people are always going to want food
alright I'm with you friend but imagine the following. (bear with me here, I'm just trying to clarify)

for sure people have needs. material conditions. I'm with you there. but the assumption that it necessarily requires organized work to fulfill people's needs is not an absolute. for example people need air in much they same way they need food. they need a certain kind of material to circulate through their body to keep it running. that's the nature of living organisms. however, there is just so much air that no one really needs to do any work to acquire or maintain it. (from the opposite direction, in space that's not the case. you're constantly running out of air. so in space capitalism, you'd have businesses essentially farming air, either cleaning it or producing it somehow. it all as to do with how much stuff is available.)

so, imagine a situation where food is as abundant as air. in this situation is everything now just equal to leisure time? or would there still be a desire to continue to build and create things of ever-increasing scale and complexity?

and in this case, when no one dies of starvation, we pursue things only out of pure WANT, since our biological needs are still met, I think there would still be the appearance of inequality and the desire to "spread work around" in order to work less, because it's not going to be lack of food that is considered extreme poverty but lack of something like an iphone.

Finally, we can repeat this argument ad infinitum imagining a world where iphones grow on trees.

people's needs are insatiable. are you saying communism is fundamentally based on feeding people and stopping there? because in many ways that's achieved, given how cheap food is. but the idea that the economy would just stop there isn't plausible I think.

Economist here, there is stuff here and there in his work that can be analyzed and critiqued. Any "legitimate" marxist in economics is under the neo-ricardian or neo-keynesian schools.
They're still pretty much get no respect because they're wrong on fundamental levels as was Marx.

i think the only good insight that actually has "uses" today is the idea that profit ultimately comes from labor not capital, the more capital intensive an industry becomes the lower the profit margin, this has implications for future ai/robot economies where there is almost no labor

Marxist sociology is preddy good. Marxist economics is pseudo-metaphysical claptrap. This was basically Pareto's opinion.

>Marxist sociology is preddy good.

i'm less sure of this as i get older and read more shit and get more life experience, is class conflict really the driver of human history? not really, technological innovation is what changes things, which is still in line with historical materialism, so it's compatible with marxism, but only rich people really look out for their own class interests, sort of like how only jews look out for their own ethnic interests, i'm not saying that's good or bad only that proletarians rarely struggle for their own class interest, the most progressive times in america was when jewish ethnic interests and working class interests overlapped, once the jews rose to middle class and they had israel labor activism was no longer in their interests and the left died off

This is something that is incorrect though and at a time at which capital goods was going through visibly rapid increases. His take on capital goods was purely sociology and antithetical to very much constrained economic distinction of "efficiency", which is seen as output for given input. A lot of efficiency comes from capital goods, or what he calls means of production. During the industrial revolution, efficiency was increasing due to unprecedented technological inventions finding root in capital goods. There was a growing disparity between labor and capital goods. Economics is value free, what Marx did was not. This is why I said most of his work was sociology.
The future of ai/robot economies is just another dagger to Marx on profit.

efficiency != profit my dude

That is not what I said? Efficiency, in economics, is output for a given input.

i wasn't talking about output, i was talking about profit

Profit != efficiency

no shit, so going on about "efficiency" was orthogonal, to use a sperg favorite

I was using efficiency in a very narrow sense and you still needed it to be written out so you wouldn't be confused. Just admit that you're a dullard and carry on.

you are the dullard since you never even addressed the point but just starting talking about efficiency like a sperg that doesn't' know shit. the dullard is u

Because smart people disregard all of economics.

You really don't need a proper historical background to understand current physics. It would be a waste of time. Same with biology, or any science for that matter. It is unlike literature in that regard.

They don't. I'm sure a lot of them do, but there's no rule that says 'economists' as such disregard Marx. Why do you make specious claims?

ITT: Anons who never read a single econ textbook.

>INB4 that was bait too

one of the worst threads. of all time

why do Veeky Forums users always start threads using loaded questions?

Here we go again.

Because modern economics is the study of how to make capital move more efficiently. Marx stepped outside of that boundary and critiqued the system as a whole.

Maybe because a couple hundred million people died thanks to him.

Not really. Even at uber liberal berkeley you're not going to get Marx. Its taught in political science classes though

>in this situation is everything now just equal to leisure time? or would there still be a desire to continue to build and create things of ever-increasing scale and complexity?
I don't really understand what you're saying here. why does leisure time preclude the desire to build new complex things?
>and in this case, when no one dies of starvation, we pursue things only out of pure WANT, since our biological needs are still met, I think there would still be the appearance of inequality and the desire to "spread work around" in order to work less, because it's not going to be lack of food that is considered extreme poverty but lack of something like an iphone.
In a socialist society the need/want distinction starts to blur. Marx was of the opinion can work can be fun and desirable if it's done voluntarily, and Marxism tries optimise that by letting the workers own their own labour (not owning their own labour produces "alienation"). the "needs" thing was kind of just an example. the point is that by giving workers control of production the economy becomes biased towards labour, i.e. the work that actually produces shit, as opposed to the current system that is biased towards owners who hoard all the wealth while barely doing anything.
>people's needs are insatiable. are you saying communism is fundamentally based on feeding people and stopping there? because in many ways that's achieved, given how cheap food is. but the idea that the economy would just stop there isn't plausible I think.
it's fundamentally based on letting people own their own work.
this is why the Soviet Union wasn't really communist: because the fruits of the worker's labour went to the state, rather than to themselves.

is this justthe first volume? if so are there abrigdements of the others or is this supposed to be it?

>Bangladesh or Malaysia instead.
Vietnam and India too, more so than those two.

Automation removes a lot of this though, China is heavily heading into vast automated production. It is likely that more production will return to other countries as there is little cost difference between domestic and outsourced when you have robots. You gain a lot of control over your product with domestic production.

Berkeley grad; the Econ dept is fairly conservative

Real answer: because they have a vested interest in remaining employed by capitalists
Meme answer: BCUZ MARX SUCKS LMAO

Econ major here, it's because it is highly primitive and easily leads to absurd theoretical outcomes.

>two otherwise identical objects may have different values because one was made in a less efficient environment

Doesn't make sense, but is consequence of his theories.

all commodities of the same type have the same value but they may be sold for different prices
don't want to start a 5 hour discussion though

>all commodities of the same type have the same value

Not according to Marxian theory. Which is the absurdity.