EPTFriedman- A Monetary History of the United States
Schumpeter- History of Economic Analysis
Bring something to drink along for the ride because shit's gonna get dry.
Ask and answer stupid questions here! - Page 185
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
farvacola
United States18856 Posts
Friedman- A Monetary History of the United States Schumpeter- History of Economic Analysis Bring something to drink along for the ride because shit's gonna get dry. | ||
|
ThomasjServo
15244 Posts
| ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On January 24 2015 06:00 farvacola wrote: Hayek- Road to Serfdom Friedman- A Monetary History of the United States Schumpeter- History of Economic Analysis Bring something to drink along for the ride because shit's gonna get dry. Hehe, yeah  Thanks! | ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9859 Posts
Reading Friedman's work, as well as that of von Mises is an absolute treat, and provide a nice contrast, very recommended. Don't really like Schumpeter, although I have not read "History of Economic Analysis". I have been exposed to a bit of his theory of "Creative Destruction" though. Either way, his values don't accurately model sympathy for people, which is something the societies of today value. Simply put, he's too fond of capitalism and democracy, and feels too much like American propaganda (outdated text), whereas today we appreciate the need for a balance. Not to say he's awful, I'm sure he has some powerful arguments, as some of his work is still used today - I just think better and more exciting options are available. | ||
|
Skilledblob
Germany3392 Posts
| ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9859 Posts
Look at Canada, USA, Australia, Germany, Norway, etc... It's not all about profits. People want enough money to have necessities, have time for leisure. We care for the the environment, our relationships and families. Yeah, maybe in 1867 when everyone was dirt poor, it seemed like people only wanted money, but what people really want, is a good (okay, I know that's an awful word to use here, and it is very general... But I mean they want to do what fulfills their purpose, the one they get to decide, not the purpose that is decided for them) life with little regret. Wealth has exponentially decreasing marginal utility above certain threshold, and while there are selfish people who are built of pure greed, there are also many rich philanthropists, or people who try to create wealth to create a better world for their kids than themselves. Also: John Maynard Keynes referred to Das Kapital as "an obsolete textbook which I know to be not only scientifically erroneous but without interest or application for the modern world". Maybe I've been completely brainwashed by what I've learned in Canada, as a lot of what is learned is fundamentally Chicago school and Keynesian, and then branches into hypermodern theory, like Paul Krugman, but man... I read 8~ chapters, and it's awful. I haven't looked into many readings of a truly socialist regime, just dabbed with welfare and environment as well as resource policy; as that's desired in our societies. But please, if you're going to read a socialist text, read something else, maybe something more current that has a more complete theory, and can give better explanations for its' reasoning. There's a reason why people who could put food on the table opposed communism, and usually it was the starving ones that went that route because they wanted the government to help them. Communism doesn't work, while modern socialism is a legitimate form of government, that in my opinion, can be learned from a lot. Many European countries have been going down that route, and from the viewpoint of my beliefs and morals, they've done quite well in terms of quality of life even though their GDP/capita or Standards of Living haven't been increasing at the rate of some Asian countries. | ||
|
ThomasjServo
15244 Posts
| ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On January 24 2015 15:40 IgnE wrote: Marx is a good writer. Considering that you think Marx treats people like sheep driven purely by profit and that you set up the Chicago school as an alternative I think we can safely say your opinion isn't the most elucidating. I've only read translations of Marx--but I don't disagree with Fiwi | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
Zess
Adun Toridas!9144 Posts
| ||
|
corumjhaelen
France6884 Posts
By the way, Marx greatest economic influences to whom he confesses his admiration are the horrible leftists propagandists also known as... Adam Smith and David Ricardo. The intellectual indigence certainly was more palpable in my academic economic courses, even though the marxist movement certainly has had its fair share of idiots, leaving aside bloody dictators who have nothing to do with Karl despite the usual association - Staline & co. | ||
|
Skilledblob
Germany3392 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18856 Posts
 Folks seem to forget that Marx is one of the fathers of sociology, and lemme tell you, he's a better writer than Max Weber! | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On January 24 2015 09:28 FiWiFaKi wrote: I'd also recommend reading "Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith if you haven't already On January 24 2015 09:48 Skilledblob wrote: might as well make the economics circlejerk complete and try to read "Das Kapital" from Karl Marx. Super dry, tough to read, but a great analysis of capitalism. Doesnt matter if you agree with Marx's further ideas, his analysis is sound. Just answering in general: I have read Das Kapital and most of Wealth of Nations. I don't think Marx is worthless though, and I think it's disingenuous and very close minded to call his immensely influential works "garbage". As others have said, reducing Marx and Das Kapital to the apology of communism is just wrong. I came here to ask for help mostly because I wanted to read Hayek (and then decided that it would be good to read others too). I was given a very basic understanding of Hayek, that I'd have trouble putting into words because it's confusing to me and I've read conflicting accounts. At this point, I've heard it said a hundred times that people both on the right and the left are misunderstanding Hayek. The "liberals" are underestimating him and act like Hayek is some idiot because the "conservatives" are misrepresenting him in silly arguments, making him say dumb things he's never said. Recently, in a debate about the merits of market regulation vs. free market, it actually came down to "has anyone here actually fucking read Hayek", turns out a lot of people, myself included, were working off of bastardized summaries that were pulled from someone's ass at some point. Turns out you can have 8 poli sci M.A.'s talking out of their asses and it just takes 1 undergrad from the econ department to put them back in their place. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18856 Posts
| ||
|
corumjhaelen
France6884 Posts
 | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23885 Posts
| ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9859 Posts
On January 25 2015 01:12 Djzapz wrote: Just answering in general: I have read Das Kapital and most of Wealth of Nations. I don't think Marx is worthless though, and I think it's disingenuous and very close minded to call his immensely influential works "garbage". As others have said, reducing Marx and Das Kapital to the apology of communism is just wrong. I came here to ask for help mostly because I wanted to read Hayek (and then decided that it would be good to read others too). I was given a very basic understanding of Hayek, that I'd have trouble putting into words because it's confusing to me and I've read conflicting accounts. At this point, I've heard it said a hundred times that people both on the right and the left are misunderstanding Hayek. The "liberals" are underestimating him and act like Hayek is some idiot because the "conservatives" are misrepresenting him in silly arguments, making him say dumb things he's never said. Recently, in a debate about the merits of market regulation vs. free market, it actually came down to "has anyone here actually fucking read Hayek", turns out a lot of people, myself included, were working off of bastardized summaries that were pulled from someone's ass at some point. Turns out you can have 8 poli sci M.A.'s talking out of their asses and it just takes 1 undergrad from the econ department to put them back in their place. Definitely very respectable that you are taking your time to read textbooks and getting your information through primary means, most people can't be bothered. I expressed myself poorly. Rather, what I should have stated is it's not the most applicable, in the same way that Wealth of Nations is not very applicable, it's interesting for the history. The thing about Karl Marx, is he spent far too much time discarding the notion of pure capitalism, and why it wont work. And that is true, he argued that labor will just be another resource, and because of property rights, the workers will not have any rights to what they create. Also, firms try to maximize profit, so therefore salaries will decrease until the salary is at the lowest it can be, which is the salary needed to sustain the individuals basic necessities. These, along how items have use values, and exchange values, were the big arguments Karl Marx started his text with. I'm sure it wasn't a poorly written book if it caught the attention of so many, but you need to see how it's outdated. Unlike Neoclassical, Keynesian, Austrian School, they can all be applied in contemporary situations, unlike Marxism. I just don't think it aged well, because the system he was rejecting, isn't the system we use today... As in we use governments and intervene in the economy to give our workers more power, etc. So yeah, he might have been right about pure capitalism and democracy being bad, but we knew that long ago. Not to mention, we have clear examples of not one country, but over 30 countries attempting to embrace communism, or socialism in similar form, and failing with it. I was born in Slovakia, so I have some second hand experience from all of my family prior to 1991, and at the end of the day, it really comes down to 3 things. -Government corruption -Inefficiencies (Lack of incentive for R&D, wrong allocation of resources for projects, little variety, things take a long time to get done etc, etc) -Social vs Individual Interest (People act mostly in their own self interest, however it's crucial that what people do is in the best interest of them and society, hence those two things need to align. In communism, they don't). Anyway, I do think that the most significant change in economic/political structure in the last 30-50 years. It's about aligning the individual incentives with social incentives, so when people act in their self interest, they will also benefit society. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
I think his designed utopia (and the way in which he predicted it was going to come about) are outdated, although some of his predictions, more modest ones, did happen to be correct. What bothers me is how people act as if Marx was somehow a villain for coming up with those ideas which despite the problems with their application are profoundly human. Now many other economists have argued that it's very cocky of us to think we can "engineer" a society which is better than one that'd come about from capitalism, but in spirit, the notions of equality are good ones and you can't fault a person for wanting them. I'm not accusing you, FiWiFaKi, of thinking Marx was a malicious person, but I know that to many, he was. As for your 4 other points, I have to make myself the devil's advocate: A- Countries which tried to embrace communism or socialism failed: Yes, but let's not forget how hard it was for communism to compete with the massive international pressures from the capitalist world. Yes, capitalism will produce more and do better. I think a problem we have, if we were to compare, is that we've never had a communist regimes living in peace. We've never had a communist regime which could develop itself. Revolutions happened and they were instantly forced to be in war mode. 1- Government corruption: This is stupidly prevalent even in capitalism, there's just more shit to steal because we produce more. 2- Lack of incentive for R&D: Absolutely true, especially in time of peace. This may be a hippie argument but I'd say that communist countries, should they exist today and if their people had not been raised to like owning material objects so much, might be better suited to actually deal with the next big enemy we're going to face: climate change. Perhaps I'm getting a bit off topic but it goes into the next point... 3- Individualism and collectivism: People assume, like I used to, that individualism has always been a thing, and to an extent it's true... everyone has always been selfish to an extent, but it's especially true today and people like to assume, I'd say wrongly, that the human behaviors that we witness today is just "human nature". No, we've been conditioned to be this selfish. This is why the return to a communist government is impossible IMO, we're fundamentally incompatible, in our current state, with communism. I could ramble on, in the end talking about the human nature is going to be highly speculative, but there you go. These are my opinions which, in my mind, attenuate the common idea that communism is outright evil. I think it isn't. I think it failed in large part because it couldn't keep up with capitalism's ability to pump out cool swag like washing machines and cars, and also because their economies couldn't keep up with the strain of being at war (or in indirect conflict, ideological or otherwise) with an economic powerhouse for decades. | ||
| ||
