tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post888130881082080763..comments2024-03-28T04:13:36.779-04:00Comments on Mike Norman Economics: Chris Dillow — In defence of conservative Marxismmike normanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03296006882513340747noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-41378435833177276102019-02-12T11:52:54.416-05:002019-02-12T11:52:54.416-05:00Thanks, Peter. Means a lot coming from you.Thanks, Peter. Means a lot coming from you.Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-84172922196027852962019-02-12T11:41:58.913-05:002019-02-12T11:41:58.913-05:00And thanks also for the link to Chris Dillow's...And thanks also for the link to Chris Dillow's post. Cheers.peterchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01617954484867427637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-32440984108506492812019-02-12T11:32:20.123-05:002019-02-12T11:32:20.123-05:00Outstanding post, Tom. Thanks for taking the time....Outstanding post, Tom. Thanks for taking the time.peterchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01617954484867427637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-25442241072919596162019-02-11T14:23:37.972-05:002019-02-11T14:23:37.972-05:00#1 Egmont Kakarot-Handtke, fake scientist
https://...#1 Egmont Kakarot-Handtke, fake scientist<br />https://axecorg.blogspot.com/Noah Wayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12012500819097539976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-80281568181534845542019-02-11T04:28:09.938-05:002019-02-11T04:28:09.938-05:00Marxism is one of four instances of Derponomics
Co...Marxism is one of four instances of Derponomics<br />Comment on Chris Dillow on ‘In defence of conservative Marxism’<br /><br />Economics is a failed science. The four main approaches ― Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism ― are mutually contradictory, axiomatically false, materially/formally inconsistent, and all got the foundational concept of the subject matter ― profit ― wrong.<br /><br />As a result, since Adam Smith/Karl Marx economic policy guidance NEVER had sound scientific foundations.#1 This, of course, holds also for Marxism.<br /><br />• Marx’s profit theory is provably false.#2<br />• By consequence, the concepts of exploitation and classes are false.<br />• Marx lacks the concept of cross-over exploitation.#3, #4<br />• Because the foundational concepts are false, Marx’s whole analytical superstructure is false.<br />• Because the theory is defective, Marxian economic policy guidance was bound to fail from the very beginning.<br />• After-Marxians have not spotted Marx’s foundational blunder to this day.#5<br />• Marxians are scientifically incompetent just like non-Marxians and all together are only employable as clowns and useful idiots in the political Circus Maximus.<br /><br />Forget the whole Capitalism/Socialism thing. Neither left-wing nor right-wing economists ever knew what profit is and how the actual monetary economy works.<br /><br />Egmont Kakarot-Handtke<br /><br />#1 Karl Marx, fake scientist<br />https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2017/08/karl-marx-fake-scientist.html<br /><br />#2 Profit for Marxists<br />https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2414301<br /><br />#3 Capitalism, poverty, exploitation, and cross-over exploitation<br />https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2018/04/capitalism-poverty-exploitation-and.html<br /><br />#4 If we only had classes<br />https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2018/10/if-we-only-had-classes.html<br /><br />#5 Economists simply don’t get it<br />https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2018/08/economists-simply-dont-get-it.htmlAXEC / E.K-Hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10402274109039114416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-26776631770771403382019-02-10T11:50:47.872-05:002019-02-10T11:50:47.872-05:00He points out that there are two Marxes, so to spe...<i>He points out that there are two Marxes, so to speak, one radical and the other conservative. </i><br /><br />Neither of which is necessarily good.<br /><br />I.e., one can be wrong innumerable ways, e.g. Marx was a gold-bug, e.g Marx's "labor theory of value" is obsolete in that automation is eliminating the need for human labor to produce value.<br /><br />Besides Tom, wrt world history: "been there done that". How about something new, such as ethical money creation rather than returning to proven folly?Andrew Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14296407661618321637noreply@blogger.com