anemoiac

I can see what you've written, but I'm having trouble with the level of certainty you ascribe to what is surely a highly-subjective claim. It's not at all clear that Malthus is not (or hasn't been), at least partially, a "butt joke of economics", nor is it clear that Marxian economics' heterodox status today has any bearing on the quality of Marx's critique of Malthus.

Both Marx and Malthus have present-day adherents, though current positions have evolved well beyond those of their progenitors, but they've both also been widely panned. Obviously, the fact that neither mass global starvation nor global communism have overwhelmed humanity makes it easy to critique the pair, at least on a superficial level. You might suggest taking a more nuanced examination of their legacies, but I think that would reveal this entire discussion's lack of intelligibility. Perhaps you'd like to take a nuanced view of Malthus, but view Marx superficially?

> No, I meant exactly what I said.

Ah, well then I will continue to be puzzled by your response - i.e. why you think any of the classical "economists" you've named are so much better qualified than Marx to critique Malthus (going back to the original premise of this discussion).

Adam Smith is, of course, famous for being the first "economist," but his legacy isn't the result of him being particularly accurate (nor are his actual economic views very clear or citation-worthy). What did Bastiat even produce that could be cited by economists today? Of course the broken window fallacy is popular in Econ. 101 textbooks, as well as with the Austrians and in the free-market blogosphere, but it's not citable research. Ricardo was a seminal figure in the development of modern economic thought, but he was also a product of his era who was wildly wrong about lots of things. Moreover, Marx was familiar with his work, both adopting and critiquing parts of it throughout his career, so it seems a bit peculiar to lionize Ricardo while portraying Marx as incapable of offering a critique of Malthus.

It sounds like you mean to say that Smith, Ricardo, and Bastiat are more popular in casual online discussions of economics or economic history, because they aren't any more relevant to contemporary academic economics than Marx is. In fact, as products of the same classical era, they shared some of the same problematic views, including adhering to the labor theory of value, that would discredit Marx's economics.

Of course, any of those names would necessarily be more agreeable to modern economists by nature of not being inherently anti-capitalist, but that's no credit to their scholarship. If anything, extending the our gaze beyond the realm of the contemporary field of economics would reveal that Marx far outpaces these other names in citation value.

> Marx’s “Capital” is the bullshit kind of economics. If anything, it is the butt joke of economists today.

Compared to what? Not other mid-19th century economic works... Marx published Capital prior to the so-called "Marginal Revolution" that presaged the emergence of Neoclassical economics - i.e. the first era of economic thought generally compatible with modern theory, so it's basically meaningless to claim that his views are derided by economists today.

> That this was written by "Diana Furchtgott-Roth, former chief economist at the U.S. Department of Labor", is worrying.

This isn't coincidental, FWIW. Our political and economic systems self-perpetuate by encouraging the concentration of power among individuals with views that reinforce that status-quo.

Are these assumptions based on your personal experience? I ask because mine has been completely different than what you describe.

This comment will add zero value to this discussion, but I feel compelled to mention that I always seem to mix this guy up with Jeremy Bentham for a minute or two before realizing why I'm confused.

Is this what being good at writing is - stringing together paragraphs and paragraphs of words that don't end up saying anything?

MXroute is an option. I've used the service minimally, but haven't had any issues within that limited context.

Are you ever tempted to blatantly acknowledge the attention-seeking nature of these displays?

*Setting: A handful of executives gather around an oblong conference table on a quiet Tuesday afternoon*

tluyben2: Gee, Big-Watch, is everything alright?

Big-Watch Bob (startled, looking slightly confused): W-what are you talking about?

tluyben2: Well, Big-Watch, it's obvious to everyone here that you'd like us to notice your expensive watch. Are you feeling insecure about yourself? Don't you know you'd still be a valued team member even if you could only afford a $4,000 Tudor?

Other execs (looking up from their phones, gasping, horrified): A Tudor?!?!

and so forth...

^Whatever this is... not that.

> when I realized this thing is definitely for sheltered rich people.

Isn't that a basic requirement of a luxury vacation?

I hope you’re right. I’ve been driving wagons for years, but the US market for them has been shrinking consistently since crossovers became a thing. Europeans seemingly have oodles of options, but God forbid automakers allow Americans a sporty AWD wagon with a manual transmission…

Sounds like he may have had ADHD. I wonder how being medicated with stimulants might have impacted him.

What’s extreme about them? Does being outside the American Overton Window automatically make one an extremist?

Wouldn’t it make more sense to build the “City of the Future” in a place with more of a future, I.e. not in the middle of a desert?

Not the OP here, but the answer seems like an obvious “yes” to me.

It sounds to me like you're unaware of (or dismissive toward) the existing discourse around the topic of neoliberalism. Mises.org may view the term as a meaningless epithet leveled against their ideological kin by ignorant or irrelevant onlookers, but one can't simply hand-wave away the existing literature on the topic. Redefining existing terms to suit one's own goals, perhaps through the use of arbitrary purity tests, is unhelpful at best. As you acknowledged, "the incentives for distortion are clear."

Moving on, I'll reiterate that Hayek is widely considered a (very significant) neoliberal. This isn't a controversial viewpoint - check out neoliberalism's entry in Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism) or the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/neoliberalism/) for the mainstream perspective on his role in its development. The notion that Hayek is not a neoliberal, however, would seem quite controversial to most in this space.

> In practice neoliberalism does not represent the free-market as presented by Hayek.

Keep in mind that Hayek was a theoretician, so his ideas represent a starting point, not a conclusion, when it comes to enacted policy. What are some good examples of neoliberalism in practice that you find wholly incompatible with Hayek's views?

> Take the example of neoliberal negotiated "free trade" agreements and contrast that to laissez-faire unilateral free trade.

While I can appreciate the differences between unilateral free trade and "neoliberal negotiated 'free trade' agreements," I'm not sure how the existence of those differences removes Hayek's prominent role in the history of neoliberalism. I'll also point out that the (confusing) catch-all use of the word "neoliberal" to describe American center-left politics from Carter onward shouldn't be conflated with academic use of the term.

> Mises was also a founding member of the MPS, will you have me believe that he was a neoliberal?

While I probably wouldn't primarily characterize Mises as a neoliberal, he had a huge influence on Hayek and maintained many views that are compatible with neoliberalism.

> Neoliberalism is distinct from liberalism insofar as it does not advocate laissez-faire economic policy but instead is highly constructivist and advocates a strong state to bring about market-like reforms in every aspect of society.

This is from economic historian/philosopher Philip Mirowski, I believe, and should be viewed in that context. He's describing an existing neoliberal political and economic system in toto, as opposed to the theoretical principles that Hayek or Friedman would have discussed. While one might discuss policies intended to increase economic freedom as if they could be overseen by a small, limited government, and would result in universally-increased freedom, actually implementing them could require a powerful and oppressive dictatorship like Augusto Pinochet's in Chile.

> Next, she labels Hayek as neoliberal. It is hard to take an article seriously if it cannot distinguish between laissez-faire capitalism and neoliberalism. This is a surprisingly common inaccurate generalization. I cannot help but wonder if the author is sincere.

Respectfully, I think you may be out of your depth here. You critique the author for associating a major player in the development of neoliberalism with... neoliberalism? Hayek was a founding member of the Mont Pelerin Society (sometimes considered a symbolic birthplace of the ideology) and his contributions to the field of economics helped lay the foundation for neoliberalism's global ascendance. Neoliberalism's Wikipedia entry is littered with mentions of his name. It's difficult to think of someone more qualified to don the label.

Some may be, but others are realizing the opposite.

>> Sanders accused companies such as Walmart and McDonald’s of relying on “corporate welfare from the federal government by paying their workers starvation wages.”

>This relies on a mistaken theory on how wages get set. No one gets paid based on what they need.

Is that what Sanders' statement implies - that wages are set based on worker needs? I don't think he needs to be interpreted that way.

> It is kind of selfish to be raised by past generation but not paying it back by raising the next generation.

What would you say to those who consider having children the selfish decision?

The article doesn't explain how this woman supposedly became homeless. Was she evicted from a property she was renting to live in? Did her bank foreclose on her residence?

Given the moratorium on foreclosures and evictions, I'm not sure how a lack of money due to her tenants' unpaid rent could cause her to become homeless.

For the collapse community, that complexity is viewed as a major vulnerability. A classic text in their lexicon is anthropologist Joseph Tainter’s “The Collapse of Complex Societies,” which discusses complexity’s role in collapse (the TL;DR is that diminishing marginal returns to social complexity are to be avoided if you’d like your society to prevail).

If I only had a downvote button… [sung to the tune of the scarecrow’s “If I Only Had a Brain,” from The Wizard of Oz]

Of course, but that’s a simplistic perspective. Economics textbooks may presume that growth is always good, but growth must be balanced with its social and environmental impacts in the real world.

I think the controversy here lies in assuming that "the economy" == society and that, therefore, anything that is "bad for the economy" is also bad for society.

I'm not claiming this is your perspective, but the quote provided by the comment you responded to seems to suggest it is the article's.

You’re not referring to North America, which has spent the past century propagandizing against socialism, I presume?

The comment you’re responding to suggests that implementing certain societal changes would dramatically reduce crime. Your reply completely ignores their considerations and offers the status quo, I.e. a world completely lacking the changes they mention, as a supposed counter-argument.

Concentration of power wasn’t really possible when human nature, rather than technology (I.e. culture, civilization, the steam engine, etc.), was the primary determinant of human behavior.

Anecdotally, most people’s perspectives on “human nature” appear to be little more than an exercise in confirmation bias, vis a vis their social/economic/political inclinations, which limits the utility of these discussions.