Why Not Utopia?

[crazy canuck]

None of my professors have ever mentioned that term, nor have any of my texts, nor any of the articles assigned in class.

Wait a minute, I thought you had an undergraduate degree and some form of graduate education in the field of economics.  In all that time you never encountered the words "historical materialism" in any of your course materials?  Just how narrow was your education?

[Valmy]

Eh it is a bit of an antiquated concept. I mean I didn't hear much about Toynbee's Universal History stuff either.

[crazy canuck]

Eh it is a bit of an antiquated concept. I mean I didn't hear much about Toynbee's Universal History stuff either.

Given the impact that Marx's writings had in the 20th century one would think that the term would be used at least once in a course which provided some kind of historical overview of the topic.

Besides Yi is, I think, a bit older than I am and so he likely did his undergrad during a time the term was more relevant than it is today. 

[Valmy]

Given the impact that Marx's writings had in the 20th century one would think that the term would be used at least once in a course which provided some kind of historical overview of the topic.

Sure. Usually to say that this was a theory that was important but has been shown to be insufficient for blah blah reasons. But lots of other historians and economists also had influential ideas in the 20th century, at least at the level of scholarship.

Besides Yi is, I think, a bit older than I am and so he likely did his undergrad during a time the term was more relevant than it is today.

Well that's true.

[crazy canuck]

Given the impact that Marx's writings had in the 20th century one would think that the term would be used at least once in a course which provided some kind of historical overview of the topic.

Sure. Usually to say that this was a theory that was important but has been shown to be insufficient for blah blah reasons. But lots of other historians and economists also had influential ideas in the 20th century, at least at the level of scholarship.

Sure.  That is why I think it is odd that Yi was never exposed to the term in his studies - especially in the field of economics. 

[Siege]

And since wealthy people don't spend nearly as high a percentage of their incomes as poor people do, much wealth is sitting around not doing its job.

I stopped reading here.
What a complete tool and uneducated fool.
Are you really tellign me this dude think rich people keep money out of the economy?

Even if rich people do the worst possible thing they can do, which is putting their money in a bank, that money would still be creating wealth by increasing the bank's loan base. Most rich people, however, put their money on profitable investments, and if many of these investments are not job creators, it is a policy issue rather than a purely economic issue, because it is goverments who double tax for using "their" manpower.

[Valmy]

He is saying rich people do not use their money consuming. Which an economy needs, in addition to investment. When us poor folks have more money we spend it.

And the purpose of investments is not to create jobs. If to be profitable the investment does not need to create jobs it won't. And that is precisely the point about the brave new world with all its mighty machines.

because it is goverments who double tax for using "their" manpower.

Yes I keep forgetting. Economics and supply and demand and labor and all of that matters not at all in how many jobs there are. It is entirely taxes. Economics = taxes.

[Siege]

Cooperation instead of competition?

What a fool, dude.

Capitalism is cooperation with your up and downs (suppliers and customers) and competition with your left and right (other companies in the same market). This is what have created all the wealth that produced the succesfull western liberal democracies. Anything less means 3rd world authocracies/dictatorships.

[Berkut]

You are living in "anything less" right now, dumbass.

[Valmy]

Cooperation instead of competition?

What a fool, dude.

He is a commie.

This is what have created all the wealth that produced the succesfull western liberal democracies.

I addressed this a bit but the big ideas he is excited about creating this utopia were created by the very system he is cursing. But that is typical. Marx himself said that they would use capitalism to build wealth first and then make the Commie utopia.

[Siege]

He is saying rich people do not use their money consuming. Which an economy needs, in addition to investment. When us poor folks have more money we spend it.

And the purpose of investments is not to create jobs. If to be profitable the investment does not need to create jobs it won't. And that is precisely the point about the brave new world with all its mighty machines.

because it is goverments who double tax for using "their" manpower.

Yes I keep forgetting. Economics and supply and demand and labor and all of that matters not at all in how many jobs there are. It is entirely taxes. Economics = taxes.

Rich should be free to use their money however they want.
If they consume it all, then natural selection will select them out of the rich pool of people, as have happened to so many trust fund kids.
If they are smart and invest it all, they will create taxable wealth and more economic opportunities.
Business create more business, as wealth creates more wealth.
It is very simple.

[Siege]

You are living in "anything less" right now, dumbass.

Yes. The west became wealthy and succesfull using free market principles, then decided to become a wellfare state and squander all the advantages they had, and now China has catched up.
So yes, I do realize we don't have a free market economy, and we will eventually become a 3rd world hellhole.

And fuck yo bitvch.

[Siege]

because it is goverments who double tax for using "their" manpower.

Yes I keep forgetting. Economics and supply and demand and labor and all of that matters not at all in how many jobs there are. It is entirely taxes. Economics = taxes.

Supply and demand of labor is HIGHLY impacted, I would say defined, by whatever tax code applies to it.
The more expensive labor is the more dificult for companies employing large numbers of workers to make a profit, and the more investments will tend to move towards businesses who are less labor intense.

[Berkut]

You are living in "anything less" right now, dumbass.

Yes. The west became wealthy and succesfull using free market principles, then decided to become a wellfare state and squander all the advantages they had, and now China has catched up.
So yes, I do realize we don't have a free market economy, and we will eventually become a 3rd world hellhole.

And fuck yo bitvch.

We have *never* had the "free market" economy you are babbling about. Not ever.

[grumbler]

Sure.  That is why I think it is odd that Yi was never exposed to the term in his studies - especially in the field of economics. 

I can't recall any of my economics professors using the term, either.  We did a lot of Marxism, but "political economy' is the phrase used for what he described as historical materialism.  the latter term may be important to you lawyers but not, i think, to economists.  Yi also could have heard the term once or twice as an obsolete term and just not remembered it.  Much like a history student may hear the term filibuster and never associate it with pirates.