Marxism is old news, based on outdated science. It assumes that economic inequities are the result of intentional exploitation of the masses by an evil minority. While there may be some truth to that presumption, there are also other forces at work. For example, Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand" theory suggested a more positive interpretation of self-interest inadvertently producing unintended social benefits.This one is a biggie. In Marxist economics it essentially means that the labor force is starved from the means of production, reentering, and blatant and merciless exploitation starves the economy pool, that you end up with a plutocracy holding 90+% of all wealth. — Wallows
Armed with this mathematical information, economists and politicians, plus national and world banks, can work together to tweak the economy to maintain a better balance. — Gnomon
It assumes that economic inequities are the result of intentional exploitation of the masses by an evil minority. — Gnomon
Marxism is old news, based on outdated science. — Gnomon
For example, Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand" theory suggested a more positive interpretation of self-interest inadvertently producing unintended social benefits. — Gnomon
Both are "old news". Any 21st century solution to the problem of economic inequality will have to take into consideration the "invisible left hand" of the market casino. — Gnomon
a new mathematical theory of economics surprisingly concludes that wealth inequity is inherent in any free market. — Gnomon
I suspect that Marx may have been talking about a problem that was endemic in Europe prior to the French Revolution. "Under the ancien régime, ennobled families were granted privilege in the literal sense; that is, they answered to a different set of laws ("privy": private, "leges": laws). In particular, they were exempt from taxation." [see the article below]. The rich and powerful have always enjoyed special exemptions not available to the hoi poloi. And vice versa : The article quoted James Baldwin, "anyone who has struggled with poverty knows how extremely expensive it is to be poor."Basically this “new” research is just reinforcing what Marxists have always been saying. — Pfhorrest
Sorry, I have no training or aptitude for economics or politics. So this article was news to me. I was surprised to hear that laws of physics also apply to metaphysics, i.e. economics. :smile:I see nothing in the paper nor in what you present to lead to the conclusion that such a numerical simulation is needed to arrive at the conclusion (just as numerical simulation wasn't needed to find Neptune or to tell us the sun will rise in the East tomorrow, though will simply confirm these conclusions). — boethius
Maybe now kids on the short stack of the Monopoly bank will be able to calculate their way out of poverty. :joke:Someone should invent a game to illustrate this startling novelty. "Monopoly" has a nice ring for a name — unenlightened
The article says, " these mathematical models demonstrate that far from wealth trickling down to the poor, the natural inclination of wealth is to flow upward, so that the 'natural' wealth distribution in a free market economy is one of complete oligarchy. It is only redistribution that sets limits on inequality." Now, the masses will have the authority of mathematics on their side of the debate about "confiscation" versus "redistribution".The neocons are having an orgy given that they convinced the masses that trickle-down works. — Wallows
Is Inequality Inevitable : https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-inequality-inevitable/
Rigged Economy : https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-american-economy-is-rigged/ — Gnomon
Basically this “new” research is just reinforcing what Marxists have always been saying.
— Pfhorrest
I suspect that Marx may have been talking about a problem that was endemic in Europe prior to the French Revolution. "Under the ancien régime, ennobled families were granted privilege in the literal sense; that is, they answered to a different set of laws ("privy": private, "leges": laws). In particular, they were exempt from taxation." [ ... ]. The rich and powerful have always enjoyed special exemptions not available to the hoi poloi. And vice versa : The article quoted James Baldwin, "anyone who has struggled with poverty knows how extremely expensive it is to be poor."
The article reveals that the inequalities of economies is as old as bartering. So, the question now is, what are we going to do with this new insight? Join the class revolution, and hope the "inevitable" dialectic is swinging in our direction? Or join the political system and work together for a more equitable tomorrow? Pessimists will choose one solution, and optimists another. But the laws of statistics will always prevail. And the same law will apply to the Many and to the Few. Since mathematics is amoral, the "law" will be on the side of those who know the Law. At least now we know that the Casino is inherently rigged, and can make human laws to offset the "natural" physics of power . . . along with the artificial leverage of of politics : Privilege.
. . . and the dialectic goes on . . . :smirk: — Gnomon
Perhaps I'm wrong, that Marx has the right conclusions for preposterous reasons and this casino model finally brings us the right conclusions for the right reasons, but that seems far fetched. — boethius
Armed with this mathematical information, economists and politicians, plus national and world banks, can work together to tweak the economy to maintain a better balance — Gnomon
A new cri du cœur for rabble everywhere: "With mathematics (e.g. statistical mechanics) for us, who can stand against us?" — 180 Proof
Marxism is old news.... It assumes that economic inequities are the result of intentional exploitation of the masses by an evil minority. — Gnomon
"Marx's systemic critique of the long term behaviour of capitalism is wrong, except for its central predictions, and how they assert themselves" — fdrake
No amount of statism and legislation can correct inequality, and worse, we risk burying ourselves beneath more regulations and rules designed by technocrats, most of which already hinder our chance at income mobility. — NOS4A2
The political system, coupled with high initial inequality, gave the moneyed enough political influence to change laws to benefit themselves, further exacerbating inequality
The linked articles make the opposite argument: That State intervention is necessary, because there is no intrinsic mechanism in a capitalist economy to keep inequality from rising.
How do you account for that finding?
So you support some kind of libertarian socialism then?
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.