Are there any contemporary Marxian economists who are considered reputable? I want someone with a modern perspective on global economic issues who I can point to when neoliberals say something stupid. Citing Marx, however correct he was, makes you look like a first year sociology major in most serious economic discussions.
Pls no Richard Wolff; I love the man, but he's not exactly considered prominent in academia and, as far as I can tell, he has put forth no major original theories or ideas.
Other urls found in this thread:
old.reddit.com
old.reddit.com
old.reddit.com
old.reddit.com
old.reddit.com
noahpinionblog.blogspot.com
old.reddit.com
academia.edu
hollaforums.com
libgen.io
twitter.com
does cockshott count?
also ask on >>>/marx/
I'm sure Ismail could point you to a few.
Seems like he's a bigger deal in the computer science field than economics. Am I wrong?
Why not cite Marx? Seriously, capitalists talk about people like Smith, Ricardo, etc. Just because he is old does not make him any less right.
His economics work is extremely important and promising. He has a YouTube channel too, so you can link people videos if they don't like to read.
Of course not, but in any given economics discussion, people are much more likely to cite Friedman, Krugman, etc. than Smith or Ricardo. I want a Marxian alternative to contemporary neoclassical economists.
Cool, I'll check it out.
Anwar Shaikh, Ulrich Krause, Leonid Kantorovich, Viktor Glushkov, Emmanuel Farjoun. These are some off the top of my head
Ben Fine, Andrew Kliman, Samin Amir, David Harvey, Alfredo Saad Filho
You also have "Heterodox" ones like Anwar Shaikh, Michael Hudson, Ha-Joon Chang, Christoph Binswanger, they're good for debunking neoliberal ideas.
Shit, thanks friends. I didn't expect to see so many names. Pleasantly surprised!
Heterodoxy for the sake of heterodoxy shouldn't be encouraged; sometimes ideas that are mainstream are for a reason, and blind heterodoxy can create problems. That aside, those latter thinkers are not Marxists and as such should be treated with a grain of salt for those who wish a better grasp of Marxian economic theory.
Also don't forget the Pauls Sweezy and Baran.
Everyone in that 'heterodoxy' list is superior to everyone in the 'fine' list. I don't even know what's with Shaikh and Hudson being in 'heterodox'.
LOL
Shut the fuck up seriously.
Maybe I'm misunderstood, Heterodox means any economist who isn't part of the mainstream economics / Neoclassical school, right?
How about any left leaning, possibly Marxian scientists? It can't just only be Cockshott.
Cockshott's comrades, Allin Cottrell and David Zachariah
Isn't the Greek economist Yannis who worked for Steam a marxist who is on good terms with Wolff?
If he was, he probably would be a neoclassical or keynesian
I dunno about Wolff, but Varoufakis is literally talking with Corbyn in Edinburgh in a few weeks.
does this have any special significance?
There is literally nothing wrong with adopting reformist tactics, at least in part, if you live in the first world.
David Harvey is not to be recommended. He somehow managed to become a pre-eminent "Marxist" without even understanding Marx. He has written that Marx didn't have a labor theory of value. Both Michael Roberts and Paul Cockshott have written responses to him.
Michael Hudson is good but I don't think he's a "Marxist" economist but rather an economist who understands Marx.
Andrew Kliman has challenged the entire narrative of neoliberalism and financialization of the economy, which seems clearly wrong, but I won't pass judgment on him yet since I haven't finished his book on the financial crisis.
My recommendations are:
Steve Keen (not Marxist)
Michael Hudson (not Marxist)
Andrew Kliman (Marxist)
Michael Roberts (Marxist)
Second on Ha-Joon Chang: his understanding of western development is immensely important for restructuring how MEDCs should interact with LEDCs.
user you have me the wrong way around, I am happy about this development. Corbyn has literally never ever done anything wrong and Varoufakis' plan for Europe are pretty damn important.
What promiment economic authors do right wing libertarian/fascist/ancaps have?
Friedman, Hayek, Von Mises.
keynes
-Ludwig von Mises (1881 – 1973) (Austrian School, hard libertarian)
-F. A. Hayek (1899 – 1992) (Austrian School, moderate Libertarian, laureate in Economy Nobel Memory Price)
-Milton Friedman (1912 – 2006) (Chicago School, even more moderate Libertarian, laureate in Economy Nobel Memory Price)
-Murray Rothbard (1926 – 1995) (Austrian School, ancap, social views changed drastically throughout life)
-Hans-Herrman Hoppe (1949–still living) (Austrian School, ancap, socially very right-wing)
(Only the first three are really popular, the other ones are not accepted by the mainstream. Especially von Mises is also not very esteemed by most.)
man i want hoppe to die so bad
Is Varoufakis worth reading or not? I keep getting mixed signals about him
aren't all of them pretty well accepted in libertarian circles other than hoppe (which seems to only be accepted in retarded memelord circles who want to pander to fascists from what i can tell)?
From what I know he worked for Valve and Zizek likes his "DiEM25" movement, if you're into that that stuff.
Tbh Varoufakis' takes on Europe today are FAR more useful than his theory per se. I would recommend looking at anything longform he is in on youtube; interviews, panels, ect.
Also his independant preface to the CM for the 200th birthday of Marx is pretty damn good.
I'm going to check out his Foundations of Economics book
as someone who isn't leftist, unironically none to my knowledge, at least noone mentioned in this thread is
lmao brainlet none of those are respected, especially ha-joon chang and anwar shaikh are absolutely reddit tier
also steve keen is 0/10
old.reddit.com
old.reddit.com
old.reddit.com
old.reddit.com
old.reddit.com
true he is respected ill give you that
lolbergs? friedman is respected, thats it. hayek is a literally-who in economics, he wrote something for price theory once thats it. he is more of a philosopher, although there his influence is also near-zero (I think nozick cited him? i forgot)
.unoronically. look up noah smith's blog he has a few good pieces of criticism
you fucking brainlets jesus christ
out of that list only friedman is "respected", in a vaguely broad sense,never worshipped as much as leftists claim
noahpinionblog.blogspot.com
I can resolve to remove Shaikh, but Glushkov and Kantorovich were fundamental in the development of information sciences - the latter winning a Nobel prize
Ill give you that, sure.
But my main points remain, there are no "schools of thought", see
old.reddit.com
some tards on here think the Mises institute is mainstream economics
he literally is a nobody in economics, he is literally not an economist.
We're in total agreement on the absolute separation of groups like the Mises Institute from common economic practice. The existence or non-existence of substantive delineations between groups dedicated to the modeling, theorizing, and development of economic theory, however, does very little but to create a division by nomenclature between orthodox and heterodox economists - Its of very little interest except in matters rhetorical
Then what political theorists do you "respect", per chance?
Then who are the reputable economists for you? Stiglitz? Krugman?
...
This.
Where does Hoppe live?
Turkey I believe.
I'll contact some of my friends. Thanks.
Bill Mitchell and Paul Cockshott
yes, those are factually speaking, respected, judging by reactions from other economists. you forgot piketty btw. those 3 are the most dominant public economists. revisionists tend to forget economics always was keynesian and egalitarian, friedman was an exception with his massive public political activism, he was a completely different person in private, not as optimistic about markets as in public, his status among lolbergs is only by pure ignorance
Isn't Piketty meme tier?
Samuel Bowles, David Kotz, and Ben Fine are a few more.There's plenty.
he's not a big deal in economics. He's definitely not an economist. I doubt he's even relevant in computer science.
What does it mean to be a reputable economist? Being respected among economists? Are economists good at economic predictions? No? Well then, what's the point of having respect from those guys? It's like respect from Scientologists.
I've heard of the others, but not Ulrich Krause. Can you give a tl;dr on that guy?
What did he mean by this?
>old.reddit.com
Just repetitive statements that Shaikh is unworthy without any argument:
old.reddit.com
Nothing about anybody else than Marx.
>old.reddit.com
German whose work included accurate modeling of the creation and derivation of Marx' concept of abstract labor. Also does a great deal in the pursuit of stochastic models of the economy. It is for the most part very very austere and dry reading, but is of prime importance in the way of economic calculation and mathematics - though I'd only really recommend it if it were within your area of study or particular discipline (as it might end up being more trouble than it is worth to you, unless you're terribly interested in the material). But hey, if you are acutely interested in mathematical modeling or the terribly specific acerbities of Marxian economics then he's your guy
How is Varoufakis respected tho? He worked in heterodox departments and mosly wrote stuff on deconstructing orthodox game theory.
He retains some novelty amongst the extant order of economics by his treading lightly. I wouldn't use the word 'respected' as much as tolerated, as he maintains some particular standing with certain centre-left parties in European parliamentary politics as economist plenipotentiary and advisor. Beyond that, he has not done much and doesn't concern the more vigilant and circumspect of the capitalist guard, so to say.
But hey, fuck game theory so more power to him, i guess
Hayek is known because he participated in the economic debates in the 20s and 30s (vs keynes and sraffa) while Friedman was pretty conventional dude in the 60s, and we know both of them because of their pro-market "political philosophical" shitposting in the 70s (and also swedish bank prize for hayek). But their actual policy positions are not autistic as in modern libertarians, like academia.edu
He was asking for economists revered in Ancap/Lolbert circles, in which case this chart is absolutely accurate.
Also:
I'll add Michal Kalecki to this list. Geoff Pilling is also good and underrated (although much more philosophical, if you're looking to intimidate people with numbers and equations he's not your guy).
So wait why is he still considered a hero of free markets?
I believe it's because of Hayek's business cycle theory. I think it's something like: the economy would sort itself out during recessions if not for central banks. And libertarians like the idea that the economy will always correct itself.
Kalecki is really underappreciated, he was much better than Keynes and has some really interesting ideas
Those links are the most retarded pile of laughable garbage I wasted reading. No wonder that autist post on Reddit, that "take down" or "explanation" of most of those authors are so fucking stupid I don't even know where to start. Do you actually think any of that sperg blog post can be used as credible sources? At least come up with your own reasoning of why you think those authors are wrong.
...
No, Cockshott doesn't count.
Andrew Kliman and Alan Freeman. Don't fall for le ebin David Harvey meme
You keep posting quotes by actual /r/Neoliberal posters. I don't know what to tell you buddy.
Yes.
Here's a botspam archive of a prior thread on Kliman (and he doesn't look good there): hollaforums.com
