Rand and Marx

[G-Max]

Instead people in that group support frequent economic depressions and far less wealth creation in the first place.

As usual, you present a nonsensical hyperbole with no supporting evidence.

Are you a parody account trying to make leftards look even dumber than they actually are?

Moderator Action: Warned for flaming/trolling
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Luckymoose]

Both are equally useless and anti-monarchist scum! Bring back monarchy!

 

[Cutlass]

As usual, you present a nonsensical hyperbole with no supporting evidence.

Are you a parody account trying to make leftards look even dumber than they actually are?

Moderator Action: Warned for flaming/trolling
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

It's called knowing the economic history of the US. Laissez-faire, or the closest the US has ever come to it, consistently produced a far more unstable economy and less growth. And then we had the Bush years, where we got far closer to Laissez-faire than at any time in 80 years, and we got far more instability and less growth. Now, in theory, that makes perfect sense. Conventional economic theory tells you that that will happen.

So economic theory and observation of the real world tell you the same thing. Why would anyone choose the greater instability and lesser growth?

 

[_random_]

(also, the poll results expose the absurdly leftist bias that plagues this forum)

No it doesn't. I mean, there's no denying that we lean towards the left here, but the fact is that Marx is a giant among left-wing thinkers and Rand is pretty stupid among right-wing thinkers. You can recognize this independently of personal politics.

 

[Hygro]

It's called knowing the economic history of the US. Laissez-faire, or the closest the US has ever come to it, consistently produced a far more unstable economy and less growth. And then we had the Bush years, where we got far closer to Laissez-faire than at any time in 80 years, and we got far more instability and less growth. Now, in theory, that makes perfect sense. Conventional economic theory tells you that that will happen.

So economic theory and observation of the real world tell you the same thing. Why would anyone choose the greater instability and lesser growth?

I actually want to make a counter argument here, and you know me Cutlass I appreciate the Keynesian regulation mode and its benefits. But while the second most growth in USA occurred during the more guided economy of 1945-1965, the most actually happened in 1890-1913. The interesting thing about that earlier time was that it also enjoyed significant wage growth on the lower economic strata. While we were prone to more severe and frequent recessions/depressions, and while growth was not always good, our best period for growth was one portion of our 60 years or so of unbridled industrial capitalism.

 

[Cutlass]

I actually want to make a counter argument here, and you know me Cutlass I appreciate the Keynesian regulation mode and its benefits. But while the second most growth in USA occurred during the more guided economy of 1945-1965, the most actually happened in 1890-1913. The interesting thing about that earlier time was that it also enjoyed significant wage growth on the lower economic strata. While we were prone to more severe and frequent recessions/depressions, and while growth was not always good, our best period for growth was one portion of our 60 years or so of unbridled industrial capitalism.

The real question about that is, what was wiped out in the resulting depression? In the long run the growth wasn't lower just because there wasn't a lot of growth, but because the periods of good growth were interspersed with periods of the destruction of wealth known as economic depressions.

 

[Hygro]

The real question about that is, what was wiped out in the resulting depression? In the long run the growth wasn't lower just because there wasn't a lot of growth, but because the periods of good growth were interspersed with periods of the destruction of wealth known as economic depressions.

The following depression was the Great Depression, which basically reversed a lot of the gains of the 1920s. So the short answer is none, since that was a whole generation later. But unlike the current depression, the Great Depression was a time of massive non-GDP growth. We had great innovations in technology and processes that helped allow the humungous war/post-war boom.

You are correct that the violent cyclical nature of pre-macroeconomics did a lot to effective reduce growth (if you lose 10%, to break even you need to gain 11%, and worse at higher losses etc). That period however enjoyed economic gains by grasping low-hanging industrialization fruit combined with the opportunity of kicking poor people into western states the moment they got discontent (Europe's answer to this was to colonize Africa) so even with the mega busts, we still had overall about 3% growth per year when you smooth over the peaks and troughs.

Since we created the heavy industries of mid 20th century, finished settling the land, ended imperialism, and watched the world catch up to us, we long passed the point of being able to get away with raw capitalism, which is one of the reasons I of course argue against the laissez-faire doctrine.

 

[ParkCungHee]

No it doesn't. I mean, there's no denying that we lean towards the left here, but the fact is that Marx is a giant among left-wing thinkers

Marx is a giant among thinkers, period. Schools of thought today are generally divided into Marxist and Anti-Marxist, not "Marxist and somebodyelseist". In many fields it really takes the collective work of all opposed scholars to match him. There is almost no field that Marx isn't relevant to. He certainly comes up in my studies of 16th Century Ireland and I can't think of any systems of thought that do similar.

 

[Glassmage]

They are both cool, but I like Rand and her no-nonsense.

 

[G-Max]

Laissez-faire, or the closest the US has ever come to it, consistently produced a far more unstable economy and less growth. And then we had the Bush years, where we got far closer to Laissez-faire than at any time in 80 years, and we got far more instability and less growth.

This would be a great argument if not for two inconvenient facts. The first is that our economy expanded more rapidly during the Gilded Age than it did during any other period of our history. The second is that the Bush II administration was so ridiculously far away from laissez-faire that even bringing it up exposes an unbelievable ignorance of the very subject matter that you claim to be so familiar with.

You are correct, however, in saying that our economic growth during the Gilded Age was unstable, with frequent and prolonged albeit extremely shallow recessions.

 

[Cutlass]

The following depression was the Great Depression, which basically reversed a lot of the gains of the 1920s. So the short answer is none, since that was a whole generation later. But unlike the current depression, the Great Depression was a time of massive non-GDP growth. We had great innovations in technology and processes that helped allow the humungous war/post-war boom.

You are correct that the violent cyclical nature of pre-macroeconomics did a lot to effective reduce growth (if you lose 10%, to break even you need to gain 11%, and worse at higher losses etc). That period however enjoyed economic gains by grasping low-hanging industrialization fruit combined with the opportunity of kicking poor people into western states the moment they got discontent (Europe's answer to this was to colonize Africa) so even with the mega busts, we still had overall about 3% growth per year when you smooth over the peaks and troughs.

Since we created the heavy industries of mid 20th century, finished settling the land, ended imperialism, and watched the world catch up to us, we long passed the point of being able to get away with raw capitalism, which is one of the reasons I of course argue against the laissez-faire doctrine.

There was a major recession in 1913–1914, 1918-1919, a depression in 1920-1921, recessions in 1923-1924 and again 1926-1927. The mildest of them had about twice the reduction in business activity as the Great Recession of 2007-8. The worst around 6 times as severe.

 

[Cutlass]

This would be a great argument if not for two inconvenient facts. The first is that our economy expanded more rapidly during the Gilded Age than it did during any other period of our history. The second is that the Bush II administration was so ridiculously far away from laissez-faire that even bringing it up exposes an unbelievable ignorance of the very subject matter that you claim to be so familiar with.

You are correct, however, in saying that our economic growth during the Gilded Age was unstable, with frequent and prolonged albeit extremely shallow recessions.

This would be a great argument if not for THREE inconvenient facts. The first is that long run growth in the gilded age was only about 3/4 of the long run growth after it.

The second is that I didn't say that the Bush administration was laissez-faire, just that it was the closest to it that the US has been since the 1930s. Which is true, and the reason that the economy crapped out at the end of it.

And 3rd, not only were the recessions and the depressions of the Gilded age more frequent, they were also an order of magnitude more sever on average. Not the mild that you claim.

 

[G-Max]

The chart is crap because everything from 1800-1865 was NOT part of the Gilded Age.

The Bush example is crap for the reason that I already mentioned, plus the fact that it was not even as laissez-faire as the Reagan era, much less the most laissez-faire administration since the 1930s.

The Wiki link is crap because they're using different metrics for each of those 3 periods in U.S. history, and they provide no definition of "Business activity" for the "Free Banking Era to the Great Depression" period.

 

[Cutlass]

The chart still says that the Gilded Age had less growth than the time following it. Bush deregulated far further than Reagan. And by any and all measures, the frequent depressions of the Gilded Age were far worse than the trivial recessions of the time following it. You have no facts to back up your points.

 

[G-Max]

The chart still says that the Gilded Age had less growth than the time following it.

It says nothing of the sort. 1800-1904 was not the Gilded Age. Period.

Bush deregulated far further than Reagan.

Nope. Just look at the size of the Federal Register in terms of number of pages during their respective terms.

And by any and all measures, the frequent depressions of the Gilded Age were far worse than the trivial recessions of the time following it.

Please tell me what these "any and all measures" are, and provide numbers for them. Wikipedia hinted that the outrageous numbers presented were more likely due to dramatic drops in prices than drops in actual production or employment.

You have no facts to back up your points.

Ironic statement of the year.

 

[Cutlass]

It says nothing of the sort. 1800-1904 was not the Gilded Age. Period.

So you can't look at part of a chart?

Nope. Just look at the size of the Federal Register in terms of number of pages during their respective terms.

As a proxy for the fact that there was no actual regulation of finance during the Bush years, while there was during the Reagan years, your chart is worthless.

Please tell me what these "any and all measures" are, and provide numbers for them. Wikipedia hinted that the outrageous numbers presented were more likely due to dramatic drops in prices than drops in actual production or employment.

Depression > recession.

 

[G-Max]

So you can't look at part of a chart?

As a proxy for the fact that there was no actual regulation of finance during the Bush years, while there was during the Reagan years, your chart is worthless.

Depression > recession.

Moderator Action: Not willing to engage in civil discussion? Enjoy your fortnight and bring back some manners with you.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Ajidica]

1800-1904 was not the Gilded Age. Period.

Then when did the Gilded Age occur?
My US history textbook places it between the Civil War and the Turn of the Century. If you feel like sticking the Gilded Age in the Pleioscene, be my guest, but nobody will have a clue what you are talking about.

 

[amadeus]

The Bush example is crap for the reason that I already mentioned, plus the fact that it was not even as laissez-faire as the Reagan era, much less the most laissez-faire administration since the 1930s.

Reagan? Laissez-faire? Stop getting your history straight from the GOP. Reagan signed into law more tax increases than cuts, never submitted a balanced budget, raised tariffs and lowered import quotas, bullied the Japanese into "voluntary" export quotas, increased farm subsidies, tried to rescue the inherently bankrupt Social Security system with, you guessed it, tax hikes, increased foreign welfare, bailed out the S&Ls, bailed out the communists, and even strengthened the departments and agencies he campaigned to abolish.

 

[Traitorfish]

Minimum wages was the one topic Marx repeatedly wrote on, in depth, as opposite to, you know, how communism would work. I'm surprised that you could have missed it.

*snip*

Alright, fair point, let me rephrase: where did the mature Marx make any claim of that sort, with a firm grounding in the economic theories which he developed in the 1850s, '60s and '70s, rather than in his early work, which was limited both by his own limited economic thought, and the limits of economic thought in general at that time. Where, put simply, did Marx make such a claim as an economic Marxist, rather than as a Riccardian communist?

Coming back the Critique of the Gotha Programme. I think you misunderstood Marx. He did not mean the Iron Law was invalid as applied to the capitalist mode of production. He meant it's not "iron", as in it's not an absolute truth, and it would not applies to some societies i.e. communism. He saw the Iron Law as a consequence of the wage system, so if you abolish the latter, the former "would disappear of itself." Lassalle was wrong not in that Iron Law was wrong, but in that he was attacking the wrong target, the Law itself. This is a very fine distinction common in Marx's attacks against other socialists of his time.

I'm sceptical of this interpretation, given that communism was quite specifically concieved of, from Marx's earliest thought on the subject, a society in which wages would not exist. Unless Marx made some temporary detour from the greater body of his thought, I think that he can only be understood as saying that while there is a tendency for wages to fall towards a subsistence level without the application of contrary force, it is not an economic law. (The question of whether this claim is itself true is of course debabatle, even with the terms of Marxian economics, but as it's relatively peripheral, it's not particularly relevent.)

Marx is a giant among thinkers, period. Schools of thought today are generally divided into Marxist and Anti-Marxist, not "Marxist and somebodyelseist". In many fields it really takes the collective work of all opposed scholars to match him. There is almost no field that Marx isn't relevant to. He certainly comes up in my studies of 16th Century Ireland and I can't think of any systems of thought that do similar.

Studying history at a university level has certainly been an education in that regard. There are no other thinkers that I can think of who lecturers have veered off course for five minutes to critique and/or whinge about.