If not Keynesianism why not Marxist economics

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28922406/

How did you miss that news? Too busy making digital images of empty suits?

 

How does that account for ALL children? There are more than four million uninsured children in America.

 

And assurance that future generations will grow up indebted to the central bankers.

Maybe if Obama wasn't an empty suit he would bring all the troops home from overseas so maybe we could actually afford decent healthcare for those who need it.

 

You sound like a Tory. I know, because you spoke before you understand the facts.

Are you saying that you are displeased that four million children now have medical insurance, because there are more than four million children uninsured in America?

Have you no shame? This is a terrific thing! Lighten up a little!

4,000,000 children have state-funded medicine.

This is only the beginning of a plan to make sure that all children have healthcare, like Obama said in his address to Congress last week.

 

LOL. Once Obama reverses the Bush tax cuts he will be able to afford universal healthcare, in fact, even with Iraq and the USA still has the funds to afford universal healthcare - it's costing you more than 15% of your GDP to keep up with the healthcare system you have, and millions of people aren't even insured. The lack of social services in the USA is repulsive. IT's like, below many underdevloped third world nations.

But cripes, it's no wonder everyone fears the government like an enemy. The government never provides any necessary services to you.

 

Aris

In every book on general economic I’ve ever read Marx was there, along side Adam Smith and Keynes. I mean just go to the Economic page on Wiki and Marxism is right there.

*

Try here for some insights into economics - http://www.dollarsandsense.org/index.html

 

Motion,

Please tell me what is the point of replying to any of your comments if you haven’t the common decency to reply to my posts?

I mean I’ve been through this before you were not willing to defend you neo-liberalism then why should I think you would be anymore willing to defend them now?

*

Basically (and only basically because I don’t expect a reply so what is the point for anything more)

The neo-liberal arguments put forward for a free market system have turned to shit.

They clearly were not going to work and they didn’t work, but a lot of people (including you it seems) were fooled along the way.

If you want more Motion why not go back to the other threads where I’ve set this out before that you’ve run away from.

 

The economy in recent years has moved too far toward lazie fair/ corporatism. That's the problem. Obama's now moving it more toward socialism. Hopefully not too far. Capitalism/Socialism does work for the people. Americans are still rich compared to others in the world.

I agree with you on corporatism. I recently read the Shock Doctrine.

 

Yeah, but Naomi Klein, like many people, is unable (or unwilling) to differentiate free market capitalism from crony state capitalism (corporatism). So-called Laissez-faire capitalism and state capitalism are two different things. I think it's mostly the media that is to blame for such confusion.

 

That's because Marxism is a social theory that critiques economic models and capitalism. But Marxism is by no means an economic model. What does a Marxist economy even look like?

It doesn't exist.

 

I am posting this mostly for the quotes near the bottom.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/sociali...free-market-ideology-for-economic-crisis.html

 

But yes she is.

She has a theory on Chicago-led liberalism and global dominance.

 

http://www.alternet.org/workplace/1...off_rescue_plans_for_the_economy/?page=entire

 

That is the same article cited in the article I posted a few posts up.

 

You omitted to quote what she actually said and in which context. You only posted a review and critique of what she said.

I feel that people don't have to be "dumbed down" and be told what someone's opinion is of what Naomi Klein speaks out against.

Maybe you should let them judge for themselves instead of hand feeding people what to think about for once.

 

Aris

Marx[FONT=&quot]⋅[/FONT]ism
the system of economic and political thought developed by Karl Marx, along with Friedrich Engels,
Randon House Dictionary [my bold]

Marx·ism
n. The political and economic philosophy of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels
The American Heritage® Dictionary [my bold]

marxism
the economic and political theories of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels that hold that human actions and institutions are economically determined and that class struggle is needed to create historical change and that capitalism will ultimately be superseded by communism
WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University. [my bold]

I could go on and on every dictionary and encyclopaedia I’ve looked at clearly states that Marxism is an economic theory.

I find it strange that you seem to have a problem with that?

If you are asking that you clearly haven’t read anything about Marxism?

I suggest starting with the ‘The Communist Manifesto’ then a general book on the subject.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Communist-Manifesto-Karl-Marx/dp/0850364787

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Marx-Beginners-Rius/dp/0375714618

Neither have any of the other economic models.

There has never been a perfect Keynesian system or a perfect neo-liberal system or perfect Marxist system although elements from all of these models have been tried.

Try reading - John Kenneth Galbraith’s A History of Economics
http://www.penguin.co.uk/nf/Book/BookDisplay/0,,9780140153958,00.html

*

 

Basically free markets create plutocratic oligarchies, because free market systems favour the wealthy, the freer a ‘market system’ becomes the more wealth takes over power –

Very few or no taxes or regulations on banks or the wealthy, little or no state welfare, education or training systems, and the repeal of all controls on wages, prices, rents, profits, production, and the abolition of employment laws

- all these things favour the already wealthy and powerful left unchecked they would become even more dominating that they are now and so wealth would re-orders things to their own interests and form a tyranny of the wealthy.

Anyway there has never been a totally and completely ‘free market’ because long before that could be achieved wealth would have taken over and taken control, subverting the weaker government to do its bidding.

Oh wealth and it’s cronies claim that is a ‘free market’ is what they want, all those well financed free market think tanks and well paid lobbyists who have been claiming for the last few decades that if only the system were ‘more free’ and less regulated everyone would be happy have only ever resulted in wealth becoming more wealthy and powerful and the ‘freer’ system coming under there control and corrupted to their interests.

The mirage of a totally free market is a trap set up by wealth to capture the gullible.

In my view wealth’s power needs to be weakened and restrained by taxes and laws not increased by a completely deregulation system.


*

 

Right now taxes on the wealthy are the lowest in decades. This has led to the greatest wealth disparity since the late 1920's. Economists now say there is a 50% chance we're entering another depression.

I also read an article in the Economist that links wealth concentration to bubbles. Interesting.

 

Christ.... what about Austrian Economics....

 

Good point. I forgot about the intricate history of Libertarian economic history.

Apparently, they have "Libertarian Economics" classes in the USA colleges, which I find rather amusing.