• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Best Economist?

Best Economist?

  • John Keynes

    Votes: 3 16.7%
  • Adam Smith

    Votes: 10 55.6%
  • Karl Marx

    Votes: 5 27.8%

  • Total voters
    18

Comrade Brian

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
1,239
Reaction score
0
Location
NE, Minnesota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Out of these three which do you think is overall, the best?

I picked the three which are probably the most recognizable.

You all know mine.
 
Last edited:

128shot

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Messages
1,258
Reaction score
31
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Easily adam smith.


Laid the ground work for a peaceful economic transition.


Karl marx was a violent psychopath who hated jews and called for killing at every corner.



I have no idea who the other guy is.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
How can you even claim Karl Marx was an "economist"? He was WRONG about virtually everything he proposed, and didn't use any empirical evidence to back his beliefs. While he might be a nice figure for your cult to rally around, he didn't know the first thing about economics. Angry rantings about how the world SHOULD work, rather than how it DOES work, are not the trademarks of economists. If Karl Marx was an economist, then Jerry Falwell is a scientist...:roll:

I also pick Adam Smith.
 
Last edited:
T

The Real McCoy

Kandahar said:
How can you even claim Karl Marx was an "economist"? He was WRONG about virtually everything he proposed, and didn't use any empirical evidence to back his beliefs. While he might be a nice figure for your cult to rally around, he didn't know the first thing about economics. Angry rantings about how the world SHOULD work, rather than how it DOES work, are not the trademarks of economists. If Karl Marx was an economist, then Jerry Falwell is a scientist...:roll:

I also pick Adam Smith.


Couldn't have put it any better myself.
 

Comrade Brian

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
1,239
Reaction score
0
Location
NE, Minnesota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
128shot said:
Karl marx was a violent psychopath who hated jews and called for killing at every corner.



I have no idea who the other guy is.

Karl Marx didn't call for killing at every corner, and I have never seen evidence of him hating Jews, but he was Jewish when he was growing up.

Keynes, is sorta the economist for liberals, he believed that capitalism couldn't sustain itself unless, there was the govt. helping businesses a lot, he figured out a solution for when the economy goes to something like the G. Depression, the New Deal was based around Keynes ideas.
 

Comrade Brian

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
1,239
Reaction score
0
Location
NE, Minnesota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Kandahar said:
How can you even claim Karl Marx was an "economist"? He was WRONG about virtually everything he proposed, and didn't use any empirical evidence to back his beliefs. While he might be a nice figure for your cult to rally around, he didn't know the first thing about economics. Angry rantings about how the world SHOULD work, rather than how it DOES work, are not the trademarks of economists.

You have obviously not read any of Marx's works, he used considerable evidence, but because of the time they were written, he was treated as an idiot. Also the basis for much of his economics, did stem mainly from Smith, but he developed it a lot more.

He also was the person who had developed the business cycle the most. Alienation of worker, Smith also noted something like that, but didn't develop it as Marx did.
Marx also developed the theory of class warfare the most, and historical/dialectical materialism.
 
Last edited:
T

The Real McCoy

Thanks for the lesson on Keynes as I had no idea who he was either. I guess my views would fall somewhere between his and Adam Smith's. I don't advocate a 100% unrestricted free market but I feel government intervention should be minimal. Anti-trust laws and several New Deal programs like the SEC are necessary to keep the market in check but generally, when the gov't steps in it tends to hinder economic growth.
 

128shot

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Messages
1,258
Reaction score
31
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Comrade Brian said:
Karl Marx didn't call for killing at every corner, and I have never seen evidence of him hating Jews, but he was Jewish when he was growing up.

Keynes, is sorta the economist for liberals, he believed that capitalism couldn't sustain itself unless, there was the govt. helping businesses a lot, he figured out a solution for when the economy goes to something like the G. Depression, the New Deal was based around Keynes ideas.



Before you bitch about us not knowing marx maybe you should try and learn marx.


You suppose a revolution is a peaceful transition? No. He described it as a violent uprising against your master. Plain and simple.


He hated jews, and he wasn't fond of his own jewish hertiage. He was an anti semite, and he hated religion. Its all written well within his own books.
 

128shot

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Messages
1,258
Reaction score
31
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Comrade Brian said:
You have obviously not read any of Marx's works, he used considerable evidence, but because of the time they were written, he was treated as an idiot. Also the basis for much of his economics, did stem mainly from Smith, but he developed it a lot more.

He also was the person who had developed the business cycle the most. Alienation of worker, Smith also noted something like that, but didn't develop it as Marx did.
Marx also developed the theory of class warfare the most, and historical/dialectical materialism.


Considerable evidence such as?



He was a philospher first and an economist second, thats why his "system" isn't around in his form anymore.
 

Comrade Brian

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
1,239
Reaction score
0
Location
NE, Minnesota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
128shot said:
Before you bitch about us not knowing marx maybe you should try and learn marx.


You suppose a revolution is a peaceful transition? No. He described it as a violent uprising against your master. Plain and simple.


He hated jews, and he wasn't fond of his own jewish hertiage. He was an anti semite, and he hated religion. Its all written well within his own books.

I know more of Marx than you, I still have lots to learn, but I'm still more knowledgeable in that area than most, including you.

Revolutions can be peaceful, and most turned violent when the other side reacted, counter-revolutionaries.

Whether he hated religion or not, is debatable, he described it as "opium", because many turn religion when extremely distressed to relieve them of pain.
 
Last edited:

libertarian_knight

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
997
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I picked Smith, only because Mises was not there, or Friedman, or Hayek, or Sowell, or a hell of a lot of others.

Smith suffered the same flaw marx did, by basing much of his understanding on the flawed "labor thoery of value." Labor makes things, but does not make things valuable. Consumers subjective understanding of the thing, is what give the thing value.

Marx was NOT an economist, he was a half-assed philospher.
Keynes is a statist-pig, and studied economics as a means to promote the state, not promote the economy.

Want to really understand economics, take econ 101 and 102, and read Human Action by Ludwig von Mises http://www.mises.org/humanaction.asp .

http://www.mises.org
 

123

New member
Joined
Nov 26, 2005
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
This is just sad, what youve written on Marx. Its not only obvious that you havent taken any time to understand the complex historical and theoretical background to the whole Marxist issue, but you also know nothing about contemporary Marxist theories and numerous left-oriented Marxist philosophers, artists, thinkers who have given enormous contribution to modern humanism.

Marx' economist theories may not be that relevant any more indeed, but essentially humanistic message of Marx still lives in his legacy.

This is coming from somebody who doesnt consider himself a Marxist.

So, sorry to say this, but youre just ignorant, arrogant twats who have very little sense of criticism. Being against Marxist conceptions (whatever these "conceptions" might be) is OK , being skeptical about it (like i am) is OK, making some intellectual jokes about occasionally naive optimism of Marxist thinkers is OK, but calling Marx a bloodthirst antisemite and so, its just under a par of any halfway decent discussion.

Since i expect nothing but more of your arrogant narrominded know-how bullshiting i believe i will sustain from replying in this topic any further. Read Althusser, Eagleton, Bloch, Lefevre, Brecht and many more, just to see Marxism is not about killing Jews and spilling blood. Moreover, in the context of this horrible capitaslim were living in, one could hint some Marxist ideas should be warmly welcome.

Finally, read Marx; dont take some out-of-context quotes, or cling to your highschool or university readings, but go back to Marx, if you want to formulate competent opinion. Just like Nietzsche and Freud, Marx is yet another serious thinker whos being unfairly misuderstood/missinterpreted, especially in the States.
 

123

New member
Joined
Nov 26, 2005
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Of course, i am not refering to libertarian knight whose post is obviously knowledgable and fair.
 

libertarian_knight

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
997
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The Real McCoy said:
Human Action is a GOOD ****ing book (pardon my French.) It's on my shelf and I should read more of it but I haven't had the time lately.

Yeah... my sentiments exactly. It makes an excellent bathroom book, because one can only take him in small doses, since he provides soooooooo much insight on every page.

and 123, I honestly think marx is a waste of time, unless one wants to learn ways not to think. However, it's good stuff to read, before reading how Mises and Hayek obliterate him.

A philosophy that is not in accordance with Human History, Human Psychology, and Human Action, will only produce misery.

His Idea, first comes capitalism, then comes socialism, then comes communism, I think is right in essecnce wrong in substance. It will not come at the hands of the workers, but through the minds of the inventors. (when I say Communism, I mean the Marxist anarchic-state)
 
Last edited:

123

New member
Joined
Nov 26, 2005
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I just felt like thanking you for giving us this Ludwing von Mise link, theres plenty of interesting stuff to read on this website.

Unfortunately, you simplified Marx as much as you could. Marx is vast, he has a huge and not so coherent opus, so he cant be written off just like that. I for one know very little about him, but i can tell you such thing as "Marxist discourse" exist, there are many people discussing this stuff on scientific level, i know that. Maybe it is not like that in States, but in Europe, marxism is still vivid. So, to say "Marx" today its not to say communism, or revolution, or material base... etc. It has all changed and accomodated to modern ideas (again more philosopic than economic as far as i know). Many serious people, while not having much illusions, gather around the idea of more just and equal society, recognizing Marx as one of numerous inspirations and sources. "Marx" is just a name of the problem, it has little to do with historical person and him being "wrong". Firthermore, i dont see how on earth some 40s economist can be right and fully relevant today, which seems to be implied in your point about Von Mise. I believe Von Mise as well has been "obliterated" as you said.

Then again, im not sure anyone can be "obliterated" so easily. "Human History, Human Psychology, and Human Action" - these are highly discussable terms, and i dont see how come anyone would be entitled to know what our real nature is like. Thats to be re-interpreted over and over again. Besides, i dont tend to idealize anything with "human" adjective. Theres some pomposity and forced grandeur to it so i dont share such a concept. I know very little about economy, but what i know is that im unhappy and pretty much disillusioned about the whole human thing, so i hope youll understand if not appreciate my skepticism.
 

libertarian_knight

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
997
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
123 said:
I just felt like thanking you for giving us this Ludwing von Mise link, theres plenty of interesting stuff to read on this website.

Unfortunately, you simplified Marx as much as you could. Marx is vast, he has a huge and not so coherent opus, so he cant be written off just like that. I for one know very little about him, but i can tell you such thing as "Marxist discourse" exist, there are many people discussing this stuff on scientific level, i know that. Maybe it is not like that in States, but in Europe, marxism is still vivid. So, to say "Marx" today its not to say communism, or revolution, or material base... etc. It has all changed and accomodated to modern ideas (again more philosopic than economic as far as i know). Many serious people, while not having much illusions, gather around the idea of more just and equal society, recognizing Marx as one of numerous inspirations and sources. "Marx" is just a name of the problem, it has little to do with historical person and him being "wrong". Firthermore, i dont see how on earth some 40s economist can be right and fully relevant today, which seems to be implied in your point about Von Mise. I believe Von Mise as well has been "obliterated" as you said.

Then again, im not sure anyone can be "obliterated" so easily. "Human History, Human Psychology, and Human Action" - these are highly discussable terms, and i dont see how come anyone would be entitled to know what our real nature is like. Thats to be re-interpreted over and over again. Besides, i dont tend to idealize anything with "human" adjective. Theres some pomposity and forced grandeur to it so i dont share such a concept. I know very little about economy, but what i know is that im unhappy and pretty much disillusioned about the whole human thing, so i hope youll understand if not appreciate my skepticism.


Very little has changed in out economic system since the 1940's, other than the size and scope of the 1910's and 20's "Middle way." (Which Keynes supported, and Mises reproached). Some of the mechanisms and technology have change, but the primary functions and elements are the same: Federal Reserve, Fraction Reserve Banking, Partial-fiat and fiat monies, Regulatory resource control boards, cronyism, stock market, money markets, Limited-liability corporartions, command theory of law, etc.



We can understand out nature, quite well, if we take the time. There are behaviors, good and ill, that cross cultural lines, and even show up prior to rational choice making in children. Some are also logical, and have been born out by survey, study, and the market.

Things such as ALL VALUE IS SUBJECTIVE. There is no thing on this planet, that all people at all time value equally. A thirsty man values water more than a drowning man. The Consumer values the money less, than the product they purchased. The Seller values the money more, than the product they sold. If an exchange is set up and the trade is one thing, for the same thing (or thing of equal subjective value) the trade will not occur. Typically both parties to a trade, must gain (however, in a few circumstances, on party to a trade may gain, and the other remain nuetral gain-wise).

The Law of Diminishing marginal utility, the more one has of one thing, the less they value the "last" individual thing. (same things). If I have 50 apples, and loose one, I will value that 1 lost apple less. If I have 49 apples now, and loose one more, I would value that next missing apple, more than the first missing apple.

All Humans are always individuals. Humans have unlimited wants. Humans survival is based on reason and toolmaking. Humans need food, water and shelter. Man is not compelled to act, until he percieves some uneasiness. All action is aimed at making life for the living, less uneasy. All peole value some things with the notion it will improve their state of being, though they may be incorrect because of poor information or application (drug addict. The addict values more, in their current addicted state, the drug, than sobriety, with the idea that the drug is preferable to sobriety (or at least to a state without the drug), even though the drug is a poison and will kill them).

Every act is done by the actor, because the actor thinks there will be a benefit, even if not to themselves, but most often, the benefit is to themselves. Even Mother Teresa gained from her chosen life of poverty and charity, or at least, she thought she would.

Just a few thing all people have in common. (all these assume of course, the person is of sound mental and phyiscal being to make the choice and implement it of their own will. Mental instability or insanity, physical incapablity or disability, can create variations of these ideas, but they are the exception to the rule.)
 

128shot

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Messages
1,258
Reaction score
31
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
123 said:
This is just sad, what youve written on Marx. Its not only obvious that you havent taken any time to understand the complex historical and theoretical background to the whole Marxist issue, but you also know nothing about contemporary Marxist theories and numerous left-oriented Marxist philosophers, artists, thinkers who have given enormous contribution to modern humanism.

Marx' economist theories may not be that relevant any more indeed, but essentially humanistic message of Marx still lives in his legacy.

This is coming from somebody who doesnt consider himself a Marxist.

So, sorry to say this, but youre just ignorant, arrogant twats who have very little sense of criticism. Being against Marxist conceptions (whatever these "conceptions" might be) is OK , being skeptical about it (like i am) is OK, making some intellectual jokes about occasionally naive optimism of Marxist thinkers is OK, but calling Marx a bloodthirst antisemite and so, its just under a par of any halfway decent discussion.

Since i expect nothing but more of your arrogant narrominded know-how bullshiting i believe i will sustain from replying in this topic any further. Read Althusser, Eagleton, Bloch, Lefevre, Brecht and many more, just to see Marxism is not about killing Jews and spilling blood. Moreover, in the context of this horrible capitaslim were living in, one could hint some Marxist ideas should be warmly welcome.

Finally, read Marx; dont take some out-of-context quotes, or cling to your highschool or university readings, but go back to Marx, if you want to formulate competent opinion. Just like Nietzsche and Freud, Marx is yet another serious thinker whos being unfairly misuderstood/missinterpreted, especially in the States.



I will, go out of my way to address how I addresed marx.


I'm not a big fan of marx, and I'm not a big fan of marxist, and I certainly did go out of line calling him a blood thristy maniac.

I apologize if anyone feels offended.



Never the less, I still believe he is wrong.
 

galenrox

ROCK AND ROLL MASTER
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
1,571
Reaction score
38
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I picked Adam Smith.
Both Marx and Keynes were geniuses, no denying that.
Marx was an economist, but he let idealism overtake what he knew about actual economics. Keynes's ideas have lead to many great things, but more terrible things (and namely the US has been the one nation most ****ed over by Keynes), and Adam Smith was one of the most brilliant men in the history of the world.
How the hell were Hayek and Friedman left off this though?
 

nkgupta80

DP Veteran
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
1,720
Reaction score
59
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
galenrox said:
I picked Adam Smith.
Both Marx and Keynes were geniuses, no denying that.
Marx was an economist, but he let idealism overtake what he knew about actual economics. Keynes's ideas have lead to many great things, but more terrible things (and namely the US has been the one nation most ****ed over by Keynes), and Adam Smith was one of the most brilliant men in the history of the world.
How the hell were Hayek and Friedman left off this though?

finally a person who understands marx's genius. his "Das Kapital" is a work of genius and gives you a unique insight into economics. I would personally pick hayek. I haven't read up much on his work, but some of his ideas are truly enlightening (critiques of socialism, price mechanism, etc).
 

Comrade Brian

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
1,239
Reaction score
0
Location
NE, Minnesota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I agree that all 3 were geniuses. But I simply agreed with Marx the most.

But the reason why I chose only these 3, was because they are all highly recognizable, and represent entirly different ways to run economy.
 

Comrade Brian

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
1,239
Reaction score
0
Location
NE, Minnesota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
nkgupta80 said:
finally a person who understands marx's genius. his "Das Kapital" is a work of genius and gives you a unique insight into economics.

Unfortunatly, that book, is extremely long and hard to read. I'm still on Vol. 1 after 2 years. But most who read it would say its a work of genius.
 

123

New member
Joined
Nov 26, 2005
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Some good points made, i thought there were some interesting things in your post, you seem pretty confident about your knowledge, lk. Do you think American form of capitalism is the best/optimal economic solution one can possibly suggest, at least given the contemporary global context?

128shot, i think it was very fair of you to accept the criticism. That was a fair gesture and very nice of you...

As for Marx...
What tends to be my problem with some Marx' followers is right that - theyre merely followers who dont seem to realize Marxism today is not that much about right or wrong, and about communist banners and Manifesto, but about constructive elaboration of some Marx' ideas.

I dont think of Marx that much as of a genius. IMO, he was a serious, disciplined and not so naive as some may think philosopher/economist/thinker. Thats a different (perhaps even more valuable?) thing from being an inspired genius. So, to me, Marx' seriousness cant be questioned. Degenerated Marxist ideologies are one thing and Marx and his overall work the other. He did make a number of utterly false claims, and he also got idealistic along the way, but as i said, he was not stupid and he knew what he was talking about. If you read his letters to Engels youll possibly reveal another very skeptical and reserved side of his intellect.

I have to admit (no reason for me to be ashamed - i am not an economist) i know nothing about Hayek, Friedman and Keynes. While checking this website i crossed some ideas of theirs and i also saw their bios, but im really a newbie to that field. So, if you feel like enlightening me with some basic facts about these men's work, it would be warmly welcome by my side:)
 
Top Bottom