MMT: overcoming the political divide.

It is known to be quite good. The really cretinous idea is that peer-reviewed papers in Marxist-friendly economics journals aren't worse.

No, what Marx had to say that was correct was not new, and what he said that was new was not correct.

You can find "economists" who will say almost anything, especially in Marxist-friendly peer-reviewed economics journals.

No, it's your delusional misinterpretation of their non-Marxist property rights approach.

BWAHAHAHAAA! That's the "only" debate?? What silliness.

<yawn> More of your "Georgist" script. "Cretinous" does not do it justice.

 

What we the 99% are consigned to is more like a treadmill, because unlike the gerbil wheel that just dissipates the animal's energy, the labor we expend on the capitalist treadmill goes to power the escalator the privileged ride up at their leisure.

 

Chortle, chortle, you're sounding like a Trumpster again. Are you really that right wing reactionary?

Marx's property rights analysis led the way. So much so, that even the New Institutionalists utilised a 'lite' version. Imagine if you actually weren't reliant on Wikipedia to pretend knowledge? You could contribute

Hahahaha! I reckon Trumpsters are actually even more knowledgeable than this.

Please inform me how the New Institutionalist approach differs from Marx's initial input. Will you dodge or will you copy and paste from Wikipedia? Hmmmm.

Tut tut, look at you trying to use one liners to hide from your inability to respond. I referred to the disconnect between New Institutionalism and the Austrian economic perspective. The former is used to celebrate the 'visible hand' of management; the latter coughs into its coffee and refers to the horrors of economic planning. Its Marxism which allows the two to debate, given class conflict necessarily will harm information flows and give the Austrians a boost. Gosh, its as if you don't know anything about this stuff

 

Are you pretending economic knowledge to insinuate Marxist fallacies into debate again? Tut, tut.

No, it is a non-Marxist version, except to the extent that Marx's version is unoriginal. But your loyalty to Saint Karl is appreciated in the right quarters, I'm sure.

Imagine if you weren't married to false and evil Marxist doctrines and monomaniacal anti-geoism. You could contribute.
.
.
.
Naaaahhhhh....

The New Institutionalists emphasize how assignment of property rights can resolve conflicts and internalize externalities through market processes, concepts of which Marx was completely (and ineducably) ignorant.

Neither. I just proved you wrong. Again.

Tut, tut, look at you childishly trolling to hide behind the forum's rules against identifying lies as such.

I.e., realizing you were being demolished and humiliated again, you were trying to change the subject again. I have not mentioned and could hardly care less about the Austrian approach, whose only discernible virtue is its superiority to a Marxist one.

Or would, if it were not a Marxist fabrication.

Gosh, its as if you don't know anything about this stuff

 

Childish non-content.

Hahahaha! This is an example of why your Wikipedia reliance is so unfortunate. How are they internalising externalities? I'm assuming you're butchering the Coase Theorem; itself an approach to highlight the importance of transaction costs and why the invisible hand is therefore likely to fail. Gosh, we're pretending you know stuff

Back to one liners to hide. Let's try again. Do you support the New Institutionalist celebration of the 'visible hand'. If so, how are you going to discount the Austrian understanding of dispersed information? Check out Wikipedia

 

What an admirably accurate description of your "contribution." Again.

You mean it is unfortunate for you that even Wikipedia suffices to demolish all your absurd and risible pretensions to economic understanding.

Sorry, not falling for that one. I already proved you wrong again. Leading you by the hand through the analysis would only intensify my nausea, and would certainly not result in you learning anything.

I proved you wrong again, so you have to deny, deflect and dissemble. No surprises there.

Gosh, we're pretending you know stuff

Back to false accusations that prove you have nothing to contribute, ever.

I.e., you are going to try to evade again.

You first.

 

Crikey, just one liners to hide from content. You really are struggling, advertising a knowledge hole. Why did you abuse New Institutionalist use of the Coase Theorem, failing to appreciate its focus on transaction costs? Why can't you understand the Austrian rebuke of its application of the visible hand? Why are you reliant on a Trumpster hatred of evidence? No need to respond (although I know you'll just give one liners offering no content) if you can't answer my simple questions.

 

Even the Australian Labour Party, supposedly a Left-wing outfit, has succumbed to neoliberalism's siren call to public austerity.

https://www.theage.com.au/politics/...ing-policy-platform-20200506-p54qfi.html?btis

Labor poised to ditch big spending, taxing policy platform

....as a result of massive (but still inadequate) covid 19 rescue-package public debt.

 

Anglo-Saxon economies are indeed typically in the headlock of neoliberal coercion, with political consensus skewed to the right. Here you're on a strong footing. Macro conservatism does reflect abusive use of microeconomics: "We have to run the economy according to Auntie Mildred's building society account; the financial elite know what they're doing".

 

Every sentence of that filth is a gratuitous personal attack.

Disgraceful.

 

Chortle, chortle, even more petty dodge. Come on now, have a go. Are the Austrians correct over dispersed information, making the New Institutionalist 'visible hand' a red herring? Alternatively, are the Marxists right that the New Institutionalist 'Marxist lite' property rights approach is behind their logic error?

 

They are all wrong.

 

That's the level of your standard comment. However, I'm after content. Try again. We have three schools of thought here. Do you dispute Austrian dispersed information? If so, how? Do you dispute the New Institutionalist visible hand? If so, how? Do you dispute the Marxists acknowledgement that New Institutionalist property rights analysis is actually Marxist-lite? If so, how?

Watching you dodge is entertaining. Its like a dad trying to dance.

 

The fact that information is dispersed is not "Austrian." It's just a fact. The Austrians' big error is their explicit anti-empiricism, which prevents them from understanding the New Institutional approach.

No, I dispute your assumption that dispersed information makes the visible hand a red herring.

No, you have disingenuously changed the question again. The Marxists -- apparently including you -- are wrong in claiming that New Institutional property rights analysis is Marxist at all.

You continue to heap disgrace upon yourself by such despicable behavior. How can you even stand to be in the same room with yourself?

 

Look at you trying to know stuff! Chortle, chortle, its just a fact that dispersed information was used by Hayek to understand the threat of economic planning.

This says nothing, only advertising the consequences of your Wikipedia approach to economics. New Institutionalism and Austrian economics are of course automatically incompatible. The former refers to the replacement of the invisible hand with the visible hand. For the Austrian it leads to an anti-market approach.

Hahahaha, you forgot an argument. I wonder why

Consider a multinational. We have companies which are bigger than small economies. We are naturally in the same realm as the socialist calculation debate. To the New Institutionalist there isn't really a limit to the size of the company. While you can refer to Williamson's analysis into asset specificity, the diversification process can be repeated again after again. Indeed, diversification is the only means to ensure full exploitation of knowledge. The Austrian, in contrast, highlights that mistakes will only multiple such that the company will eventually kill itself.

This is cute! You provide no actual economics and then go into emotional rant. I've referred to the research into the history of economic thought. Economists don't agree with you? Surely you should be used to that by now?

 

Hahahaha, the quality of your debate is spellbinding

 

In contrast to you, refusing to know stuff...

It's just a fact that you do not know how to do anything but sneer. Have you found a way to make a living at it? You are certainly practiced. But how can you stand being in the same room with yourself?

Tut, tut. My Wikipedia approach is to you, not economics. Try to learn the difference.

Maybe because it was your fallacious, absurd, and disingenuous garbage?

You are aware that is false.

Oh, I am, don't worry. I'd be worried if the liars for hire agreed with me. Watch "Inside Job." You might learn something.
.
.
.
Naaaahhhh...

 

You seem to be attracted to it, as the moth to the flame.

 

Zero content again. We already know you're clueless over Marxism. Let's add New Institutionalism and Austrian Economics to the mix

 

I've set myself a challenge. I will get you to actually come out with some valid economic comment eventually. So far, no dice. However, I'm an optimist. Let's try again. What are your views on the Coase Theorem? (I realise you'll need to read Wikipedia before replying)

 

How can you stand even being in the same room with yourself?

The absurdity of its required assumptions makes it useless if not outright deceitful, as with most of the other silly "proofs" of neoclassical economics. AFAICT it is just another disingenuous rationalization for legal grants of property in other people's rights.

 

You haven't realised that the Coase Theorem is actually about highlighting the importance of transaction costs? Oops!

 

You are certainly reliable in your wrongness.

 

An admirably accurate description of your "contribution." Again.

So, nothing but more of your overpracticed sneers. Again.

Disgraceful.

 

No content again. I won't give up mind you. How does Coasian analysis into transaction costs impact on our understanding of markets as drivers of allocative efficiency?