• Study finds belief in free market economics predicts rejection of science
    94 replies, posted
free market just means the pricing and distribution of goods is based primarily on supply and demand. social democrats are still free market advocates, even though they believe in restrictions on that market for "the public good".
[QUOTE=Nebukadnezzar;40381148]True free market is the dumbest thing ever one company eventually getting a monopoly on, say, laptops, and charging 10 times the manufacturing cost because they can: you need a laptop and have to get it from them[/QUOTE] It doesn't happen all the time (and all companies eventually lose monopolies), but better examples would be utility companies, railways, or somebody who holds a large reserve of a finite resource. In those cases, that's where the state comes in to force them to stop doing that.
Stupid "study"
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40381175]It doesn't happen all the time (and all companies eventually lose monopolies), but better examples would be utility companies, railways, or somebody who holds a large reserve of a finite resource. In those cases, that's where the state comes in to force them to stop doing that.[/QUOTE] That's not a TRUE free market then
[QUOTE=Nebukadnezzar;40381263]That's not a TRUE free market then[/QUOTE] yea it is.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40380120] We still have fuckwitted religious economic types though[/QUOTE] [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5b/South_park_margaritaville.jpg/230px-South_park_margaritaville.jpg[/IMG] "We have mocked the economy! And now the economy has cast its vengeance upon us all!
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40380120]I don't think that free market has the answer for everything. But to underestimate it's importance is just as bad. For instance, railroad companies competing with two lines between the same two towns is pretty stupid, but subsidizing a railroad to operate when it's barely used anymore is equally as awful. [editline]22nd April 2013[/editline] It was pretty much philosophy and had a lot of religious traits until the marginal revolution. We still have fuckwitted religious economic types though, such as Marxists and modern Austrians.[/QUOTE] Very bad over generalization here. Any Marxist that actually understands and agrees with Marx may or may not be right. While a forced switch to communism has proven to be a losing strategy, Marx believed that the changeover to communism would happen naturally. Trying to implement communism actually goes against the ideas put forth in the works of Karl Marx.
[QUOTE=Nebukadnezzar;40381263]That's not a TRUE free market then[/QUOTE] I don't think the study was talking about true free markets. True free markets and true capitalism are just as impossible as true socialism and true communism are.
^pure*
[QUOTE=Appellation;40381292]Very bad over generalization here. Any Marxist that actually understands and agrees with Marx may or may not be right. While a forced switch to communism has proven to be a losing strategy, Marx believed that the changeover to communism would happen naturally. Trying to implement communism actually goes against the ideas put forth in the works of Karl Marx.[/QUOTE] There's also seventy billion other schools of Marxist thought (most of which formed after prior schools fractured) which would probably call you a traitor indoctrinated by the bourgeoisie for saying this. The problem with Marxist economics, is that it hasn't found a strong rebuttal for marginal utility yet (which is when economics began to actually become more of a science than a philosophy), and instead still likes sleeping with the labour theory of value.
[QUOTE=Appellation;40381292]Very bad over generalization here. Any Marxist that actually understands and agrees with Marx may or may not be right. While a forced switch to communism has proven to be a losing strategy, Marx believed that the changeover to communism would happen naturally. Trying to implement communism actually goes against the ideas put forth in the works of Karl Marx.[/QUOTE] this isn't completely true. marx said it would be "natural", but natural in the sense that workers would slowly be compelled to revolt against the capitalist systems in place and take over political power of the system. marxists who believe in communism as an end goal will work to try and spur the workers into revolt. [editline]22nd April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;40381350]There's also seventy billion other schools of Marxist thought (most of which formed after prior schools fractured) which would probably call you a traitor indoctrinated by the bourgeoisie for saying this. The problem with Marxist economics, is that it hasn't found a strong rebuttal for marginal utility yet (which is when economics began to actually become more of a science than a philosophy), and instead still likes sleeping with the labour theory of value.[/QUOTE] some say the idea of marginal utility came about as a response to marxism, in fact.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40381350]There's also seventy billion other schools of Marxist thought (most of which formed after prior schools fractured) which would probably call you a traitor indoctrinated by the bourgeoisie for saying this. The problem with Marxist economics, is that it hasn't found a strong rebuttal for marginal utility yet (which is when economics began to actually become more of a science than a philosophy), and instead still likes sleeping with the labour theory of value.[/QUOTE] There are schools of Marxist thought that would see me dead for owning a pair of glasses, but that doesn't make it any less silly to lump them all together when the foundation of Marxism (the works of Marx) don't support such things.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40381360]this isn't completely true. marx said it would be "natural", but natural in the sense that workers would slowly be compelled to revolt against the capitalist systems in place and take over political power of the system. marxists who believe in communism as an end goal will work to try and spur the workers into revolt. [editline]22nd April 2013[/editline] some say the idea of marginal utility came about as a response to marxism, in fact.[/QUOTE] It started development in the mid 19th century when Marx was still relatively obscure, so I'm not too sure if it's in response to him.
Yes, the whole the revolution will be bloody thing, but trying to spur them in any way other than educating them isn't quite right (For example every attempt at a communist changeover for a country has been forced on the masses) I'm no communist, but I am a fan of getting things right.
[QUOTE=Appellation;40381457]There are schools of Marxist thought that would see me dead for owning a pair of glasses, but that doesn't make it any less silly to lump them all together when the foundation of Marxism (the works of Marx) don't support such things.[/QUOTE] The works of Marx never found a strong rebuttal against marginal utility though. He wrote, and whilst he had some interesting ideas, Marxist economics is still outside the mainstream. Pretty much all the Marxists I have seen, disagree with marginal utility.
That doesn't make it a religion. Is string theory a religion? Epigenetics?
[QUOTE=Appellation;40381555]That doesn't make it a religion. Is string theory a religion? Epigenetics?[/QUOTE] This post doesn't even make any sense. You seem to have no problem with me calling Austrian economists "religious", but take offense when I throw in Marxists as well.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40381521]The works of Marx never found a strong rebuttal against marginal utility though. He wrote, and whilst he had some interesting ideas, Marxist economics is still outside the mainstream. Pretty much all the Marxists I have seen, disagree with marginal utility.[/QUOTE] Were they educated Marxists or fedora Marxists?
The same people most likely also thinks [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_social_responsibility"]Corporate Social Responsibility[/URL] is daft.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40381589]This post doesn't even make any sense. You seem to have no problem with me calling Austrian economists "religious", but take offense when I throw in Marxists as well.[/QUOTE] I'm not here to educate you, there are books for that, I just pointed out [I]one[/I] dumb thing you said. Don't assume that just because I don't express my disapproval of one of your opinions that I agree with you or have no problem with it. It'd be much safer to assume that I usually think you're wrong.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40381521]The works of Marx never found a strong rebuttal against marginal utility though. He wrote, and whilst he had some interesting ideas, Marxist economics is still outside the mainstream. Pretty much all the Marxists I have seen, disagree with marginal utility.[/QUOTE] [quote]Because Marxism could be employed only in opposition to such a state of affairs, it had to be ignored, or emasculated in favor of evaluations supposedly based on scarcity, utility, or demands; for behind such terms, not only real but also assumed utility, scarcity, and demand can be hidden and justified. The “utility” of the one or other social function or labor is first of all the “utility” it has for the safeguarding of existing class relations and its corresponding mode of production. Not social needs will determine “utility,” but groups interests. The class structure of society comes to light precisely in its need for such evaluations. Just as little as the privileges of the capitalists results from their “utility” but from the fact that they control the means of production and are thus able to exploit the workers, so little does “utility” explain the privileges of the Russian bureaucracy. Those privileges are also based on the conditions of the control of the means of production by the bureaucracy. A theory justifying class rule and exploitation is necessary in Russia, and its acceptance of the defense theories of capitalism does not, as the editors of Common Sense believe, indicate the faulty character of Marxism, but its continued usefulness in the class struggle of the Russian workers against their present masters.[/quote] [url]http://www.marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/1939/marginal.htm[/url] this is from "living marxism" i guess. the whole page talks about marginal utility.
[QUOTE=Appellation;40381611]Were they educated Marxists or fedora Marxists?[/QUOTE] I decided to use the most official Marxist site I could find. (I can't really use Marx himself because he didn't really talk about marginal utility). [url]http://www.marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/1939/marginal.htm[/url] [quote]However, what is brought forward here as an argument against Marxism is in reality only another confirmation of it.[/quote] [quote]The marginal utility school arose in defense of capitalism, and its apology consisted in the construction of a value concept which justified the prevailing class and income differentiations. [/quote] Doesn't sound religious at all.
lol you got the same source as me
[QUOTE=Appellation;40381653]I'm not here to educate you, there are books for that, I just pointed out [I]one[/I] dumb thing you said. Don't assume that just because I don't express my disapproval of one of your opinions that I agree with you or have no problem with it. It'd be much safer to assume that I usually think you're wrong.[/QUOTE] Well do remember that you weren't criticizing my view of Marxist economics, but rather talking about something else. You didn't really talk about Marxist economics at all in that post.
[QUOTE=Appellation;40381163]Wha? That's an...interesting way to divide up schools of economic thought.[/QUOTE] well you could divide it up between monetarists, austrians, neoclassical, etc but perhaps the exception of the austrians, they don't meaningfully disagree on epistemic matters like the scientific method I was intentionally looking at the fringe because of their wildly contrarian views
[QUOTE=Van-man;40381650]The same people most likely also thinks [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_social_responsibility"]Corporate Social Responsibility[/URL] is daft.[/QUOTE] Why? CSR is a huge gimmick
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40381665][url]http://www.marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/1939/marginal.htm[/url] this is from "living marxism" i guess. the whole page talks about marginal utility.[/QUOTE] does that actually pass for reasonable scholarship it's a horrible mass of strawmen, question begging and shameful unfalsifiability
In fact I'm pretty sure the labour theory of value is integral to Marxist economics. Refute it and the rest of it starts to wobble precariously.
I like how no one is discussing the topic at hand but it has descended into a discussion on why capitalism is better than communism. What a microcosm for the internet this is. [quote]Those who rejected climate change appeared to be more accepting of conspiracy theories in general. Belief that the moon landing was actually staged on Earth, that the government allowed the 9/11 terrorist attacks occur so they could invade the Middle East, and other conspiracy theories predicted rejection of climate change.[/quote] Interesting but again somewhat tautological. Accepting conspiracy theories about climate change means you have a higher propensity to accept conspiracy theories meaning you accept conspiracy theories. I'll play hypocrit and descend into the discussion [QUOTE=Sobotnik;40381814]In fact I'm pretty sure the labour theory of value is integral to Marxist economics. Refute it and the rest of it starts to wobble precariously.[/QUOTE] The whole people of the labour theory of value is meant to illustrate the differential that occurs in capitalist societies between the value the man is given for his labour and the value that the product he is employed to create sells for. Its the integral part of capitalism that makes it possible. Capitalism without profit isn't capitalism.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;40381801]does that actually pass for reasonable scholarship it's a horrible mass of strawmen, question begging and shameful unfalsifiability[/QUOTE] idk it's also from 1939 so i don't know how up-to-date it is. it was also being written primarily about the soviet union and their "capitalist bureaucracy" or w/e. post-marxism or modern marxism might have taken into account marginal utility, but i really don't know. i'm not a marxist or post-marxist.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.