If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Aged 16-25? Share your experience of using the discussion boards and receive a £25 voucher! Take part via text-chat, video or phone. Click here to find out more and to take part.
Options
Comments
Well if you read his profile. youd see it claims PHD in economics, he seems knowledgable about it so Ill take his word for it.
Blagsta any chance of you answering my question,
Name me one system or point in History where these the general economic "existing social structures" didnt exsist,
I am aware of that. Does it make it fact? I could, with this marvelous internet, probably find hundreds of websites from people with PHD's claiming otherwise...
Yeah but he knows his stuff so he would have to probably have a degree at least, I just couldnt see the milage in a lie about a PHD
Ill beleive it as Ive seen evidence to support it but none to contradict it
Go on then.............
Yes economic theory is based on assumptions.
For a start every theory is built on different axioms and assumptions, any of them can be varied, relaxed etc to get different results. Thus it is pointless to talk about economica having a single set of assumptions for a start.
Granted there are some common assumptions that most models would have but these do not relate to social structures in any direct way i can think of.
Frankly modern economic science is interested for the most part in very different questions to Marxist analysis.......
The most fundamental assumptions of economics relate to peoples preference structure and hence to their utility functions. Nowt to do with social structures......
Because all knowledge is situated in a particular context and discourse of power. Modern economics is situated within a neo-liberal ideology and the discourse of capitalism.
I am aware of this line of Marxist thinking but it has never made a lot of sense to me.
Where did Marxist theory itself come from then if the capitalist system is so prevalent in shaping the debate?
No, no, no. Modern capitalism has only existed for a few hundred years. If you think, as you seem to be suggesting, our current social structures and economic organisation has been the same for thousands of years (which it quite obviously hasn't), then we haven't got enough common ground to have a discussion. I might as well be talking to a martian.
"growing/hunting/making things and people selling/buying things" does not necessarily equate to capitalism.
As I said - we can't even have a discussion on this, we need some common ground. Try reading some history books.
Errrr...its all around you. Ask anyone who knows the first thing about philosophy and they'll tell you.
Obviously. Its not just Marxist btw. What the hell did you learn in uni btw?
Marxism was a product of its time, Hegel was a direct ancestor. Marxism is shaped by capitalism as in fact, it is an analysis of capitalism.
A PhD?
i been at work, fool
See above.
Oh, so you agree with me now? Make yer mind up.
Yes. However, most economics doesn't question the underlying relationships of capitalism. For very good reason - they exist to serve the market.
So economics has no basis in the social? :eek: Good one!
Yes, this is entirely my point.
So the way that people come to these decisions has no basis in society? Errrr...what the fuck?!?!?!?!
Because it happens to be true.
Which is why the GDP is such a useless thing, and has little or not genuinely empirical basis.
In the words of one key economist, the GDP's best friend is a terminal cancer patient going through a costly divorce. I'll find out who said it later.
If the cornerstone of this empirical basis you talk of is described in such terms, then it doesn't bode well for the rest of the argument.
I have studied some economics, by the way, but from the political aspect of it.
Well, I work for a social care charity, so my situation is slightly different. But I am well aware of my role in supporting the needs of capital in my job, yes.
Dear dear dear, and you accuse of others of not following the debate.
His point was not that these things equate to capitalism but that these are the things assumed at the start of economics.
Thus your point that these things are not capitalism rather kills your own argument.
Well done
standards are slipping it seems...
GDP, has no empirical basis..........
Are you still trying to say that people are worse off, I thought we sorted that out a few pages back...........
Maybe we are getting confued here.
What exactly do you mean by social structures?
:banghead:
This is becoming pointless, because the points Blagsta is making are being wilfully (or otherwise) ignored.
The implication of yourmum's post was that the current way of dealing has been the way of the world since forever, when it actual fact it has not. There has always been trading, but not in the current economic model, which is what economics assumes.
You really haven't read a word of anything I've written or posted have you? You have soooooo got the wrong end of the stick.
Oh Christ.
*bangs screen*
Basic social relations. How we organise our society. How we organise and direct resources. How we relate to each other, as friends, acquaintances, workers, managers, bosses. How we support people in need etc etc.
Blagsta maybe you should read some more books, try reading "The Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith, so youve read Marx and other political/Economic analysis that agrees with what you think, isnt that a bit like just watching Fox news and saying Im informed about the world,
What have you read thats not a confirmation of Marx ?
Adam Smith was writing over 2 hundred years ago, thats the start of modern economics as a seperate subject, but not the start of economic theory or economic fact.
If I debated like you Id say theres no point in talking any more go and read wealth of nations, Marx read it didnt he, and thought highly of Adam Smith and used it as the basis for a lot of his theories.
"growing/hunting/making things and people selling/buying things" does not equate to modern capatalism but equates to the basis of economics
So I should read some history books should I, then doubtless youl know all about "mercantalism" the medeivle economic theory that funnly enough has a lot in common with modern economics, eg, it said trade is good and as high a preportion of goods should be made in country as possible to provide work income and goods to sell, sound familier its over 1000 years old.
Supply and demand are the basics of economics, people producing things people want and people consuming things people sell,
A trader in the Roman empire would find almost everything in A level economics relevent to him,i.e. more supply = lower price etc Investment, monopoly pricing, fixed, total , marginal, and average costper unit ?
These are the basis of economics when have they ever not exsisted ?
The basis for medican is curing sick people, not magnetic imaging equiptment or X-rays.
When has there aver been a time and place apart from 20th century comunism, where people havnt produced and sold things, prehistory the Celts mined gold and traded, produced jewlery and traded corn, basicly everything Adam smith wrote aplied to them.
communism is the only time in history peole wernt free to do this
Yes the current way hasnt been that way forever, in the past their wasnt "futures" "portfolio managment" "junk Bonds" other communication and financial managment.
Nor was there when Adam Smith was writing, because that may be the basis for modern world commerce and investment, but its not the basis for economics.
Why are you banging your head moron?
I am not ignoring what anyone is saying, I am simply telling you that you are wrong, and I know that you are wrong because I know far more about the asumptions made by economic science than you do.......
You and Blagsta repeatedly make the arrogant assumption that if someone disagrees with you then they are ignoring what you are saying, i.e. you are assuming that you are completely right...........
Please then diretc me to the capitalist element of these that is assumed by economics.........
Quite the hard man. If you're going to raise the debate to that level then
I know you are, you said you are, so what am I?
Yes, you are.
You haven't actually listened to any of the points raised, you've just gone "eww, you're wrong" and wagged your thumb against your nose.
Your point is that the study of economics is the study of all economics, and Blagsta's point was that it assumes capitalism is the basis of economics. Instead of trying to engage this debate, you've gone "LOOK AT ME I HAVE A PHD!!!" and gone off abusing people.
My opinion is that the study of economics assumes that capitalism is the sole way of trading and dealing, when it is not. The very foundation of the study of economics is, in my opinion, to do with GDP, when GDP is a largely meaningless term that is entirely based on the capitalist system. But whatever- if your clinching argument is going to be "BUT I HAVE A PHD!!!" then its not something I can win, as I only studied some economics as part of a course in IPE.
yourmum, you are completely wrong in your comments about communism, and it does show a lack of understanding. First of all, we actually haven't had a communist country yet- the countries that have labelled themselves as communist were simply state-controlled capitalist countries. Instead of private finance owning the means of the production, the state did- it has the same effect.
Secondly, communism does not state that trading is wrong. To infer that is not understanding the basic theory. Trading and bartering is quite clearly important, because people cannot do everything themselves, and never can do. But what capitalism does is exclude the labourers from the benefit of their labour, and prevents them gaining the full benefit of their labour.
I have yet to come across a theory that can adequately explain why this is not the case. There are umpteen theories on the merits of private capital, and how "entrepeneurs" should gain the full value of their "risk", but in my opinion none have come reomotely close to explaining why it is morally acceptable to prevent people from enjoying the full value of their labour.
I believe that using Adam Smith to illustrate that economics is not simply the study of capitalism is misguided, as classical liberalism is all about capitalism. The theory is quite strong on dealing with markets in real life goods, such as televisions, but does not deal with the labour market at all adequately.
I believe the closest the classical liberals came to dealing with labour was Thomas Malthus, who basically said we should let the poor starve to death. Even people like Jeremy Bentham did not deal with labour and the rights of people, he simply felt that paying them enough to keep them happy was a more productive way of making money.
I have not mentioned once the fact that I am studying a Phd, someone else, did, find the post where I have mentioned it , you won't.....
I can engage the debate if you want, once you have a made any kind of coherent point, you haven't as yet.....
You point out the assumptions about capitalism which you beleive that are made 'in your opinion' and I will debate with you, so far you have not made any substantive point at all relating to that issue....
You are making the mistake that there is something to debate about, there isn't you are wrong.
As for the GDP stuff, you are making yourself look silly really.........
And don't pretend that if someone came along talking complete arse about law etc you wouldn't be dismissive about their 'arguments'..........
Tell me the assumptions of capitalism you are talking about and we can start, my guess though is that you have no idea what you are talking about, name me some economic assumptions then?
As I said - come back to me when you actually have a clue what you're on about.
But you are ignoring what we're saying aren't you?
:banghead: Errr...that's quite implicit in what I wrote, I can't believe that you can't work it out!!!! :eek: Everything we do is moulded by our economic system. The fact that we have to pay mortgages, rent, sell our labour to survive, relate to people as bosses, watch adverts etc etc etc etc etc etc.
Where the hell did you study economics? :eek2:
This has already been dealt with. If you're not going to follow the thread then just don't bother at all.