Obama's War

[Michael Tee]

<<If you find and agust teacher , teaching students all about the flat Earth on the back of a turtle , would you let me know?>>

You'd be the first guy I'd tell, plane.  I'm sure whatever you could learn from him or her would fit in well with all the "knowledge" you've already acquired about communism, the role of the U.S.A. in world politics and American "democracy" at home.

[Amianthus]

Here is EXACTLY what you wrote:

<<Teaching Marxist economic principles? As current, rather than historical, theories? Pray tell, please let us know who these professors are.

<<*No* current economist that I have read considers Marx anything other a curious footnote in history. Most of his theories were invalidated or subsumed within his lifetime.>>

Pray tell, please let us know what reader of average intelligence would NOT take this as a denial that Marx was still being taught as economic theory today and a challenge to find at least one professor who was doing so.

Well, it obviously means that I have not read any works by current economists that do not say that Marx's theories were internally inconsistent (ie, wrong).

And, actually, even the guy you brought up says that - he just suffixes it with a "but we should believe it anyway, because it (communism) is the right thing to do."

[Michael Tee]

<<Well, it obviously means that I have not read any works by current economists that do not say that Marx's theories were internally inconsistent (ie, wrong).>>

There is nothing "obvious" about that.  Your original reference (and mine) was to the TEACHING of Marxist economics, but now you say that your reference was "obviously" to current Marxist economists whose books you happen to have read.  (Obviously.)

<<And, actually, even the guy you brought up says that - he just suffixes it with a "but we should believe it anyway, because it (communism) is the right thing to do.">>

Again, not being an economist, I don't plan to jump into a debate on how right or wrong Kliman may be, he's a Marxist in some aspects of his teachings, he teaches at Pace University, and he proves the point I was making, that contrary to plane's absurd belief that Marx knew nothing of economics, his theories, or at least some aspects of them, are still being taught today as economics.

[Amianthus]

There is nothing "obvious" about that.  Your original reference (and mine) was to the TEACHING of Marxist economics, but now you say that your reference was "obviously" to current Marxist economists whose books you happen to have read.  (Obviously.)

Yeah, you even quoted it: "*No* current economist that I have read considers Marx anything other a curious footnote in history." Or did you forget quoting that? What do you think that statement means?

Again, not being an economist, I don't plan to jump into a debate on how right or wrong Kliman may be, he's a Marxist in some aspects of his teachings, he teaches at Pace University, and he proves the point I was making, that contrary to plane's absurd belief that Marx knew nothing of economics, his theories, or at least some aspects of them, are still being taught today as economics.

Did you read the paper that he wrote that I linked to? The paper explicitly states that Marx is internally inconsistent which is normally considered wrong. Then he goes on to say that regardless, because Marx advocates communism, we should just believe him, whether or not his work is inconsistent.

[Plane]

 The paper explicitly states that Marx is internally inconsistent which is normally considered wrong.

I didn't konw about internal inconsistancy, are these substantial mistakes?

[Amianthus]

I didn't konw about internal inconsistancy, are these substantial mistakes?

Two of his fundamental theorems in Das Kapital contradict each other. They cannot both be true. And most of the rest of his work is derived from these.

[Plane]

I didn't konw about internal inconsistancy, are these substantial mistakes?

Two of his fundamental theorems in Das Kapital contradict each other. They cannot both be true. And most of the rest of his work is derived from these.

Amazing , this contradiction can't be obvious.

[Michael Tee]

<<Yeah, you even quoted it: "*No* current economist that I have read considers Marx anything other a curious footnote in history." Or did you forget quoting that? What do you think that statement means?>>

What's the difference  WHAT that statement means?  It was SUBSEQUENT to your challenge to find a professor still teaching Marxist economics.  Did somebody limit you to one statement per post?   What a lame and childish attempt at distraction!

Here, try this on for size:  you challenged me to find a professor who was still teaching Marxist economics and then you told us about your reading habits.

I responded to your challenge and found you the economist.  (Believe me, it was not hard; the search turned up many others as well.)

I did not respond to your second statement.  How the hell could I?  Who would know better than you what books you have read and what books you haven't read?

[Michael Tee]

<<Amazing , this contradiction can't be obvious.>>

LMFAO

As obvious as the contradiction between "turn the other cheek" and Augustine's "the just war?"

Give it up, plane - - contradictions or no contradictions, some Marxist theory is still being taught and Marx DID know a little bit about economics, some claim he even knew almost as much about it as Ami.

[Amianthus]

Amazing , this contradiction can't be obvious.

Well, in the words of the august Dr. Kliman:

In the standard interpretation of Marx's value theory, distinct price and value systems exist, and the inputs and outputs in each are valued simultaneously. Another distinctive feature of this interpretation is that it construes wages in the price system as the price of the wage goods workers receive, and wages in the value system as the value of these wage goods.

Employing this interpretation, Okishio (1993a, 1993b) discovered a set of theorems that Morishima (1973) later dubbed the `fundamental Marxian theorem' (FMT). The FMT is often said to have shown that surplus labour is necessary and sufficient for positive profit when no joint products are produced (see, e.g., Howard and King, 1992: 230, 239).

Yet some versions of the FMT hold only if all producers' profit rates are equal in every period. This is a very particular case; if profit rates are only approximately equal, or only equalized over a span of time longer than one period (two days instead of one, for instance), these versions of the FMT no longer hold. The analysis below considers instead the general versions of the FMT (e.g., Okishio 1993a: 33; Okishio 1993b: 80-81; Roemer 1981: 47-50), which prove that the theorem holds for any set of positive market prices, not just for 'normal' prices. Yet these versions of the FMT rely crucially on an equally restrictive condition: in every period, a positive physical surplus of every good must be produced.

Physical surplus is output net of both consumed inputs and workers' consumption, and, in this interpretation, profit is simply the vector of physical surpluses valued at end-of-period (replacement) prices. Using the usual input-output notation,2 the column vector of physical surpluses is psi = (I - A - bl)x, so profit is

Unless the net products of all goods are non-negative, the aggregate price of the net product, and thus sigma, can be negative, even in highly productive economies. Imagine that net products of almost all goods are positive and large, and only a few are slightly negative. If the prices of the latter group are sufficiently high, the aggregate price of the net product will be negative. Thus, an economy that would have a positive sigma under certain prices could have a negative sigma under different prices. Even a slight change in prices could lead to such a reversal.

A couple of other perverse implications of these interpretations are noteworthy. When sigma is negative, equation (5) implies that a fall in the money wage rate will lead to a fall, rather than a rise, in the amount of surplus labour extracted. As an anonymous referee has noted, moreover, necessary labour (the labour-time equivalent of money wages) is defined here as (l/sigma) w/x, so it is negative when sigma is negative. Workers supposedly produce an equivalent of their wages in less than no time! No oddity of the labour market or technology underlies this result-workers' wages and the amount of work needed to reproduce their means of subsistence are both positive, and necessary labour might well be positive if only relative prices were different.

All of these paradoxes disclose a serious conceptual flaw in the claim that the monetary expression of the value added by living labour can be measured by the price of the net product.4

The proportionality of surplus labour and profit also fails to imply that surplus labour is necessary for profit to exist. As Dmitriev (1974) discovered, if we imagine a fully automated economy that produces a positive net product of all goods -- and if, in addition, prices in such an economy exist and are positive - then profit as defined above is positive, even though no labour or surplus labour is extracted.

Apart from this case, the interpretations in question do imply that, when the price of the net product happens to be positive, positive profit and positive surplus labour will coexist. The relevant issue, however, is not whether they coexist, but why. Unless a theory denies that profit could be positive if no human labour were employed-and those under consideration seem not to do so-then we must conclude that it admits the possibility of positive profit without surplus labour. Putting the same point differently, the only way to refute Dmitriev's challenge to Marx's theory of profit is to deny that the physical surplus of a fully automated economy is effectively the same thing as profit under capitalism. This requires that one deny either that the price of the physical surplus constitutes profit, or that this surplus could have a positive price under complete automation.no. 73 (Spring 2001): p. 97-112 The definitions of profit given above do not do so.

I wouldn't want to contradict Mikey's source, after all.

[Plane]

Hahahahahahahaha..!!


That is not obvious , I don't even get it .


What I get is that "from each according to his ability , to each according to his need" absolutely requires that earning count for nothing.

This is an internal contradiction that is too simple to explain.

[Plane]

<<Amazing , this contradiction can't be obvious.>>

LMFAO

As obvious as the contradiction between "turn the other cheek" and Augustine's "the just war?"

Which was wrong?

[Michael Tee]

<<I wouldn't want to contradict Mikey's source, after all.>>

Since I'm not an economist and don't pretend to be, I don't get involved in theoretical arguments between them.  Ami has no such problem and jumps in with both feet, but that doesn't mean he's right, only that he has chosen to support one of two sides in an argument between the experts, IMHO a pretty foolish and arrogant stance to take.

[Michael Tee]

<<What I get is that "from each according to his ability , to each according to his need" absolutely requires that earning count for nothing.>>

Instead of "earning," substitute "production" to see how ridiculous your conclusion is.  Or, better yet, define "earning" and "counting for" - - if you're careful in your definitions, you might be able to salvage your conclusion from its current state of meaningless absurdity.

<<This is an internal contradiction that is too simple to explain.>>

Well, why don't you humour me anyway, plane, and "explain" it to me?  I'm a very simple fellow.

[Plane]

<<What I get is that "from each according to his ability , to each according to his need" absolutely requires that earning count for nothing.>>

Instead of "earning," substitute "production".... of meaningless absurdity.

No no no , production is not the same as earning!

Taking someones earnings has to be justified and have due process.
And Communism assumes it belongs to others in the first place on the basis of their need.

Abe Lincon had to go to war to wean us from liveing on the sweat of anothers brow , Marx proposed a retrograde step to bring us back to livein on that others sweat.



Giving to each according to his need is even worse than confiscateing the earnings of an earner for frivolous reason .

Who is going to decide what I need , and reconcile this with what is availible? Ineed a king to tell me what I need like a need a hole in the head but anything less than a despot will be unable to tell me what I need and make me accept it as the correct amount .

Marxism is therefore an inescapable road to serfdom if not slavery , it cannot operate its most basic tenant without a despotic leader and has nothing to offer without robbery of earnings from those able to earn .

Fortunately the same sort of flaws also keep Communist nations from realiseing their full potential for strength , Communism is itself a handicap to its own propagation.