NationStates Jolt Archive

Which and why?

I used to like Paul Krugman, now I can't be bothered.

Other 2....... ROFL. I had to vote for it

Hayek and Freidman .... ya gotta love libertarian economics

David Hume, the influence behind Smith.

Marx as all the other ones mainly just kissed capitalism's ass and went on about how good it is.

Marx as all the other ones mainly just kissed capitalism's ass and went on about how good it is.


....

are you kidding?

Milton Freidman. He put "capital" back into capitalist theory.

I used to like Paul Krugman, now I can't be bothered.

Writes well though, even if he is logic and shame impaired.

bump

Marx as all the other ones mainly just kissed capitalism's ass and went on about how good it is.Marx praised capitalism too. I suggest you read his works.

Marx praised capitalism too. I suggest you read his works.


i did.

well, one of them, at least.

and he spent a great deal of it talking about how capitalism has done nothing but bring the wealth into the hands of the elite, and to put the small-time artisans out of work in favor of the conglomerates (kinda like the big fuss many people have with Wal-Mart)

i did.

well, one of them, at least.

and he spent a great deal of it talking about how capitalism has done nothing but bring the wealth into the hands of the elite, and to put the small-time artisans out of work in favor of the conglomerates (kinda like the big fuss many people have with Wal-Mart)He also spends time discussing how Capitalism has unleashed the creative power of humanity, as best shown through the industrial revolution and the technological and scientific progress it engendered. Marx was concerned with the sociological aspects of capitalism. As an economic model, he considered the largest flaw to be the concentration of wealth that inevitably created oppression and gave rise to revolution.

Never mistake what Marx means. Just because he believes Capitalism will fall does not mean he does not admire the system itself. It's a very powerful system, and he respected that.

He also spends time discussing how Capitalism has unleashed the creative power of humanity, as best shown through the industrial revolution and the technological and scientific progress it engendered. Marx was concerned with the sociological aspects of capitalism. As an economic model, he considered the largest flaw to be the concentration of wealth that inevitably created oppression and gave rise to revolution.

Never mistake what Marx means. Just because he believes Capitalism will fall does not mean he does not admire the system itself. It's a very powerful system, and he respected that.

sure he knows it's powerful, but what good is a system that ropes in lots of money if it steamrolls the majority of the population to do so?

i respect a 300 pound rottweiler, but that doesn't necessarily make it a good thing.

....

are you kidding?


He's just young and not sure who all of those people are.

He's just young and not sure who all of those people are.
Give it time.
"He's just a'boy, poor lil feller"- Cartman

sure he knows it's powerful, but what good is a system that ropes in lots of money if it steamrolls the majority of the population to do so?

i respect a 300 pound rottweiler, but that doesn't necessarily make it a good thing.I suppose we have different definitions of admiration. Marx admired the power of capitalism as the economist that he was - as I imagine most economists do. Advances in technology, medicine and manufacturing were all made; the average quality of life for the individual was increased.

And I wasn't making a normative statement about capitalism. I was simply saying it was powerful, and that Marx both recognzied and respected that. He never said "capitalism is a terrible thing! bad bad bad!" He simply said that it was inevitable that it would fall; that it was in it's nature.

He also spends time discussing how Capitalism has unleashed the creative power of humanity, as best shown through the industrial revolution and the technological and scientific progress it engendered. Marx was concerned with the sociological aspects of capitalism. As an economic model, he considered the largest flaw to be the concentration of wealth that inevitably created oppression and gave rise to revolution.

Never mistake what Marx means. Just because he believes Capitalism will fall does not mean he does not admire the system itself. It's a very powerful system, and he respected that.

I knew he was authoritarian, but I didn't know his opposition to capitalism was just a fraud. To think, all that stuff about encouraging the workers to rise against exploitation was just a façade. In that case, I don't like any of them.

I knew he was authoritarian, but I didn't know his opposition to capitalism was just a fraud. To think, all that stuff about encouraging the workers to rise against exploitation was just a façade. In that case, I don't like any of them.
Sarcasm?

I knew he was authoritarian, but I didn't know his opposition to capitalism was just a fraud. To think, all that stuff about encouraging the workers to rise against exploitation was just a façade. In that case, I don't like any of them.*sigh* It's either one way or the other with you, huh? Black or white, up or down?

Nevermind.

I picked Keynes. Too bad we don't follow his economics anymore.

And I wasn't making a normative statement about capitalism. I was simply saying it was powerful, and that Marx both recognzied and respected that. He never said "capitalism is a terrible thing! bad bad bad!" He simply said that it was inevitable that it would fall; that it was in it's nature.


oh, i realize that, but he certainly went about trying to make it happen faster.

*sigh* It's either one way or the other with you, huh? Black or white, up or down?

Nevermind.

I picked Keynes. Too bad we don't follow his economics anymore.
I thought s/he was being sarcastic? Well, I found this interesting test on www.mises.org, you might like it.

Honestly I've never heard of Mises. All I hear are the normal Friedman and Keynes.. Good website, interesting read.

I don't consider Marx and Keynes actual economists. They're "economic systems" were extremely messed up and have led to the poverty of billions. Laissez-faire from economists like Friedman have been proven over and over again.

Adam Smith and his specialisation in thumb tacks baby :D

I don't consider Marx and Keynes actual economists. They're "economic systems" were extremely messed up and have led to the poverty of billions. Laissez-faire from economists like Friedman have been proven over and over again.

Just because you don't agree with them does not mean that they are not economists. If all that was allowed to be an economist was a Friedman clone, the subject would not exist for very long.

Keynes. Keynesiam can work but only if applied worldwide. Otherwise, other countries have resorces that other countries need and so can cause problems, like the stagflation of the 1970's in Britain.

Laissez-faire from economists like Friedman have been proven over and over again.

Oh yes, and of course the 3 million unemployed in Britain under Thatcher with Laissez-faire economics was of course a good thing!

Oh yes, and of course the 3 million unemployed in Britain under Thatcher with Laissez-faire economics was of course a good thing!
Yes, because they were only unemployed because they didn't want to work at their appropriate wage rate! [/sarcasm]

Keynes, then Smith.

Well, I found this interesting test on www.mises.org, you might like it.
Wow, after a bit of looking around, I really like that website, even though I don't fully agree with their political alignment. That's going into my bookmarks, it gave me some interesting ideas.