• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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
I've been slacking off in the economics dept. the last few years, and forget much of what I learned. Isn't Keynes half-assed approach to capitalism much more prevalent today than Marxism or Laissez Faire Capitalism? If that's the case then then maybe Keynes would have my vote even though Adam Smith's is the system I most believe in. I've got reading to catch up on!!
 
Re: Karl Marx

In a remarkably prescient few pages, Marx quite accurately described the current state of globalization as being the ultimate result of free markets and capitalism. Lets see, now if I can find that in a linkable form...back soon with that, I hope.

Re: Keynes

Perhaps one of Keynes most oft-repeated quotes, heard often in economic debates especially those with short-run vs long-run implications, is "In the long run, we are all dead." Now if I can find that in a linkable form...back soon, I hope.
 
Keynes (in a nutshell) is a state-economist, and believed that the state can act as facilitator of the economy, rather than impedement (I think he is wrong). As such, the State should follow simple guides, especially regarding taxation and spending (fiscal policy). Basically, save in the good times, to spend the extra in the bad times, and use those spending on public works, or the like, to stimulate the economy. Keynes ideas help promote "the middle way," "the New Deal," and the soviet and Chinese numerous "Five Year Plans."

Keynes is the primary model statist economist and politicians "use" (not becuase they know anything of economics or keynes, but, ebcause they are the government). However, it's hugely corrupted a way diverted away from Keynes intentions even. Government has further corrupted a corrupt economic philosophy. States typically SPEND in the good times, and BORROW and SPEND in the bad times.

Milton Friedman, is know as a monitarist, of the Chicago School of Economics. Very free trade, but they tend to focus on money and money supply issues, and the ways they can assist or injure an economy. Federal Reserve Rates, Fractional Reserve Banking, inflationary policy and problems tend to be their focus. Friedman is often considered a supply sider, though I don't think it's accurate, and definately not a Reagan-Supply-Sider. He's also very critical of the state's ability to actually manage an economy, becuase of the "lag effect." By the time state planners get the information on the economy and interpret the information, economic situations and circumstances have changed. As they then plan, and yet implement that plan, the economy has changed yet again, and the application of the plan is often inappropriate for the new situation, and causes harm.

F.A. Hayek, and his mentor Ludwig Von Mises are of the "Austrian School." In my opinion, these are the TRUEST writings of economics. They explain and study what economy, trade, money, prices, interest, savings, and the like are really about, the benefits and their problems. They also explain economics devoid of any state apology, and often note and recognize the adverse effect states and state planning have on economies. They are very very free-traders, and lay the foundation of understanding necessary for anarcho-capitalist economic systems. They also solved the classical problem of the water/diamond paradox, through use and promotion of the subject theory of value.

It is my recomendation, that one visits www.mises.org for the best study of economy. NUMEROUS texts and lessons are available online and free. If you're feeling courageous, Human Action by Mises, is the best (and quite difficult, only because he's Austrian, and wrote like an Austrian) economics text I have read so far.

Not to mention, Mises, Hayek, Rothbard and Sowell offer many historic and current criticisms of Marx, Keynes, Soviet or Chinese economic systems, and a host of current American and international policy issues by a range of other contributing authors.
 
Last edited:
123 said:
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:)



Criticism is great. It either makes me out to be wrong or make you look like an utter fool.

Anyhow.


Hayek-Was an Austrian Economist, converted by Mises from his socialist backround, and basically viciously attacked socialism. Many notable books include "The road to Serfdom" and "Individualism and Economic order"

Friedman-I do believe he can from the Chicago school, wrote many notable books also such as Capitalism and Freedom.

Another Note on economist is Ludwig Von Mises, he's got a whole site devoted to him and other Austrian Economists, scroll down for further information on mises and others



www.mises.org

http://nobelprize.org/economics/laureates/1976/friedman-autobio.html

and

http://hayekcenter.gregransom.com/friedrichhayek/who.html



Books on economics: http://www.mises.org/store/Books-C1.aspx


if you want more I'm sure others know more than I do. This is just the tip of the ice berg
 
And, even in my Signature, you're notice two great links, hosted by the Mises insitute.

FYI, Mises is pronounced MeSEEs
and Keynes is Canes (walking cane)

Arg, Me Sees 'e was right 'bout economics. </pirate>
 
123 said:
128shot, i think it was very fair of you to accept the criticism. That was a fair gesture and very nice of you...

Yes, I thought so too, very few people would have enough courage to admit they went to far, and then apologize.
 
123 said:
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:)

I do admit that I am skeptical on some of Marx's theories/ideas.

He did get a bit idealistic along the way.
Everyone should question their own intelligence and ideas.

I haven't heard of Hayek before either.
 
That comic strip was most helpful, I agree with almost all of it, kind of reminded me of Stalin's rise to power, and Hitler of course. You could say I had most of these ideas before I read it.
 
I didn't really want to put it in, ebcause it is so short. And usually short things are either too vauge or too rigid, but I think those guys summed up TRTS pretty well, and right, Hayek was a comtemporary of Hilter and Stalin, and they were certainly some of the reasons he wrote that, along with the trend of other Western Democracies to tentativly stroll down that road (FDR).
 
=libertarian_knight And usually short things are either too vauge or too rigid

But they still usually are good for introductions and usually get foundations mosly correct.
 
I like Marx because of the humor value in his work; he keeps me entertained all night long. (That sounded wrong)

For economics, I really don't care for libertarians, so I will have to go with Keynes. I don't think any ONE economist always gets it right, though. Amalgamations of ideas help paint a big picture.

I put little stock in organizations like CATO or the Mises institute; they are extremist right-wing think tanks; quite biased. It's punditry almost as bad as the Ayn Rand Institute. You always know where they are going to stand and what they are going to say; they never deviate a second.

I have read some of their stuff, and I don't agree with half of their postions. Among some turds, though, you find something valuable.
 
I like CATO, but not enough to cite or endorse them anymore, they took a nocitable, and somewhat apologetic shift afer jan 2001.

As for Mises and the Austrian school, would you care to suggest one of the turds your don't agree with, and we can determine where teh wrongess is?
 
One of the recent turds they put out was an ethical support and justification of Ebeneezer Scrooge. After that, I gave up on them. I thought it was a holiday joke, but it wasn't.

I know WHY they are saying he was ethical and good, but I don't agree. It makes sense from their point of view, though, but I disagree with their ethical system. That's why I am not a Libertarian.

I also listened to some of their audio clips; while some are informative, I had to laugh at their depiction of anything socialistic. I thought their historical (and I use the term loosely) discription of early colonial America during the time of the pilgrims was very funny to the point of total inaccuracy. Some of their stuff on socialism is ok, but then again some is a bit off base.

They tend to go overboard with a lot of things, and their stuff is very one-sided. It's not a balanced institute. I usually only go to edu's or mainstream accredited foudnations for information.
 
Last edited:
A really interesting thread! Kudos to Brian, lib_knight, techno, and all who contributed. Good stuff!

Have always been a fan of Hayek. Never read Mises seriously enough to get a feel, but will do so now. Keynes, of course, has to be read to better understand fiscal policy in the depression and war years.

Benjamin Friedman (Harvard) has a new book that looks interesting, titled "The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth". He basically distinguishes times of generally rising living standards from those of pervasive stagnation to illustrate how rising incomes render a society more open and democratic. A particularly good topic in this age of globalization.
 
Technocratic_Utilitarian said:
One of the recent turds they put out was an ethical support and justification of Ebeneezer Scrooge. After that, I gave up on them. I thought it was a holiday joke, but it wasn't.

I know WHY they are saying he was ethical and good, but I don't agree. It makes sense from their point of view, though, but I disagree with their ethical system. That's why I am not a Libertarian.

I also listened to some of their audio clips; while some are informative, I had to laugh at their depiction of anything socialistic. I thought their historical (and I use the term loosely) discription of early colonial America during the time of the pilgrims was very funny to the point of total inaccuracy. Some of their stuff on socialism is ok, but then again some is a bit off base.

They tend to go overboard with a lot of things, and their stuff is very one-sided. It's not a balanced institute. I usually only go to edu's or mainstream accredited foudnations for information.



Hell, I'm a fan of the Austrians and I agree, sometimes they go overboard, and they are one sided, that is not to say they don't make a hell of a case.


The best thing you can do is to learn as many theorys as you can, even if you don't agree with them a whole lot.


I don't like marx-yet I still find myself buying his stuff just to learn-if anything I might find something insightful I didn't before.



Knowledge is the one thing people can't take away from you.
 
128shot said:
Hell, I'm a fan of the Austrians and I agree, sometimes they go overboard, and they are one sided, that is not to say they don't make a hell of a case.


The best thing you can do is to learn as many theorys as you can, even if you don't agree with them a whole lot.


I don't like marx-yet I still find myself buying his stuff just to learn-if anything I might find something insightful I didn't before.



Knowledge is the one thing people can't take away from you.

Karl Marx said a lot of interesting things, and he was clearly a brilliant guy, but the actual applications of his economic theories have been repeatedly proven to be awful. That being said, there has probably never been a guy who influenced economics and sociology more.
 
Thank you all for your info, i unfortunately happened to slip off the topic and i dont have much time to catch up on it now. I just have to say i tend to agree with Utilitarian Technocratic; i too could spot pretty dogmatic antisocialist position De Mise institut leaders seem to hold.
 
123 said:
Thank you all for your info, i unfortunately happened to slip off the topic and i dont have much time to catch up on it now. I just have to say i tend to agree with Utilitarian Technocratic; i too could spot pretty dogmatic antisocialist position De Mise institut leaders seem to hold.

I assume you meant Mises right?

I disagree it's Dogmatic. Mises and the heirs used and use very systematic and logical approaches to their understanding of Economices. It takes a very ground up approach to understanding economics, by treating it as a real social science. Mises devoted a significant portion of Human Action to explain the methodology, observations, and techniques used to examine the economy.

Mises used the scientific method and historical record to reach the premises he laid down. They continue to do so, for the conclusion they reach. granted, they are human themselves, and suffer the failabilites all humans do from time to time, but that is what makes science great, is that these failabilities can be overcome.

Premises like: Subjective Theory of Value, what is Price, what is Money, what are savings and credits, what is interest, what is inflation, etc

They use models and concepts like: evenly rotating economy, all things the same except (has a nice latin phrse I forgot).

Furthermore, they have "lessons" if you will, on how and why they reach these conclusions. Books and historical records are made public on their site, open to scrutiny of all people.

They also observe realities of the real world. We are all, every human, individuals, and we are social Animals also. We are all self-interested. These are things that transcend cultures. The difference in Cultures in not these things, but the way they are manifest. We all make choices from available options, and the choices made, are always the ones we percieve (though not necessarily correctly) to give us the most benefit. We all suffer from imperfect or incomplete information. That people who have a interest, either financial or owned, will care for the thing better, than someone else who has no stake.

These are things dogmatic statists and socialist often neglect to recognize. They imagine "the workers" or "the planners" can know all, or enough, to make desicions for everyone else affected.

They are not Gods, and do not know all things, but they have done a hell of a lot to understand most things regarding economics.
 
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.

Well marx was right in that the workers did rebel and overthrow the capatalists. Look at russia
 
all things the same except (has a nice latin phrse I forgot).

'ceterus paribus', or sometimes spelled 'ceteris paribus'
 
Red_Dave said:
Well marx was right in that the workers did rebel and overthrow the capatalists. Look at russia

New Boss same as the old Boss. Well not really, the new boss sucked, at least compared to the imediatley prior bosses (not that the prior bosses were any good either). Seems to be a problem with Bosses huh? Capitalist Boss, Worker Boss, Czar/King Boss, Communist Boss.

See that's why Marx was wrong, and a great many other revolutionaires, they imagined new bosses will make it all better. It doesn't. And the workers will never give up wanting some boss, which is of course, why they are workers in the first place. It's like telling Night to Give up Day. White to give up Black, Cat to give up Dog.

A man who identifies himself as "a worker" knows that part of his identity is based on the relationship of cooperation and antagonism to his counterpart, "the Boss." So the solution, is for no man to identify themselves as a worker or a boss, and workers can not unite and revolt if they are not "workers."

Read "The Nature of Man and His Government" Below.
 
I think Hayek should definately get more attention, because he was by FAR the most courageous economist.
 
galenrox said:
I think Hayek should definately get more attention, because he was by FAR the most courageous economist.



I must ask-what do you mean?
 
128shot said:
I must ask-what do you mean?
He promoted conservative economics in a day when you could get blacklisted from schools of economics for holding those views. He was a brilliant man, and he was an integral part in building up the University of Chicago as one of the most prominent schools of economics in the world.
 
Back
Top Bottom