Marx or Keynes or...
Vložit
- čas přidán 16. 09. 2014
- This talk will address the question "Marx or Keynes?" It will feature David Harvey, Distinguished Professor at the City University of New York (CUNY); Prabhat Patnaik, Professor of Economics at Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi; Duncan Foley, Leo Model Professor of Economics at The New School for Social Research; and Perry Mehrling, Professor of Economics at Barnard College. Serving as discussant will be Sanjay Reddy, Professor of Economics, Barnard College.
Please, free the subtitles. Not everybody in the world has English as a fist language.
Fantastic speech!
Very illuminating short speeches
Thanks to Prof. Patnaik for such clarity of thoughts!
Profound set of analytical thinkers.
The most important point I saw made indirectly was that there is no way to avoid making mistakes; the problem is how to make sure they don't destroy everything. As someone who started working in the markets in 1982, I have seen my share of mistakes and various degrees of success in dealing with their consequences. I prefer seeing more rather than fewer decision makers to distribute the cost of mistakes around. But the madness of crowds seems hard to avoid.
thanks for uploading, I especially enjoyed Patnaik
With poverty so widespread in India , I wonder why there are so few progressive intellectuals in India , I'm glad to see these wonderful Indians
trust me, they're there- the government just represses them.
They are there! Last year there was a strike so big, probably bigger than entire unionized workforce of United States. They are there, we don't hear much unless we dig.
I think its the British colonial influence
Does Hindu Nationalism really stand a chance against Hinduism in the long run? Who shall perish first India or Modi? More rare in history have been the blossoms of intelligent freedom. May this one continue.
Keynes had a serious blind spot in his analysis of what was happening in the world, both as an historical process and during his own era. This was his failure to grasp the effect of Ricardo's law of rent beyond that of agricultural land. Rents had become a primary source of income and wealth redistribution from the producers of goods and services into the hands of non-producing rentier interests. What may have contributed to this analytical flaw in the thinking of Keynes was that most large enterprises were both capitalists and rentiers. Neoclassical economics had done its best to ignore this distinction. Keynes certainly understood the concept of market capitalization of rental income streams (whether actual or imputed) into selling prices for land. Did he simply ignore or simply discount the effect rising land prices imposed on the production of tangible wealth? And, did he not see the effect of cheap and readily accessible credit extended to speculators in land on the extent to which "investors" focused on land gains as a lower risk use of funds than investment in constructing and operating buildings or acquiring the capital goods and employing large numbers of people in manufacturing endeavors?
Marx or Keynes? It's like monkey or monkey! no disrespect to David Harvey (esteemed) - But both Marx and Keynes ignored the biophysical limits of the earth. Both had only anthropocentric interest in mind. Both also failed miserably, in terms of their ideas being successful for a long time. Late capitalism is here and communism, socialism is also done with, because of Overshoot and possible collapse.
@@AudioPervert1 "Marx and Keynes ignored the biophysical limits of the earth." -no they didnt.
@@martinjanecek4950 Their biggest mistake was, imho, not having lived to be 150.
@@maxheadrom3088 That damn revanchist reactionary death.
@48:07 How do you follow THIS? lol Perry M. has a little crisis of his own. Good stuff.
What crisis are they commenting on in the beginning of the video that is happening here? Is it something immediate from around 2015? Or is this the larger wealth inequality problem or something like that?
During the intro, within the first two minutes, the host refers to a crisis of legitimacy, and says it applies to the intellectual framework (I'm paraphrasing) that underpins policy in the broadest sense. He's talking about the neoliberal program of ideology and policy as described most completely and coherently by David Harvey in his writing. It's the program attributed to Milton Friedman and the Chicago School, exported to US client states like Chile in the sixties and seventies, and pursued vigorously in the US and other rich countries since roughly 1980-- though in my opinion, it had already started under the Carter administration. The impetus behind its implementation in the US is expressed in documents like "The Crisis of Democracy," a famous trilateral commission analysis from the mid seventies. Rather than try to summarize the neoliberal program, I'll just say that it dominated US policy for three decades, and then the crash of 2007-8 happened. The crisis of legitimacy they refer to is that nobody can take the claims and the rationale for neoliberalism seriously in light of the crash. Worse, it's clear that this policy agenda created the crisis, and has made the system prone to more crises of deepening severity. And yet, the US and other governments continue pursuing these policies, indeed more intensely than ever, as if there's no alternative (in fact, "there is no alternative" is exactly how Margaret Thatcher put it back in the eighties). Not only scholars see the bankruptcy of neoliberalism. The general public is suffering and alienated, and although they may lack a framework for understanding what's happening to them (because no one who controls mass media and educational institutions is likely to give that to them), they know they're angry, and the system isn't working for them. All of this adds up to a crisis of legitimacy, where the prevailing system cannot justify itself.
@@noisepuppetexcellent explanation, thank you! What are your thoughts on the impact of Russian sanctions on the world economy?
@@lucrativeleadershipconvers5149 looks like it's already driving energy prices up, which usually has a more generalized inflationary effect, and inflation rates were already high. The financial sector doesn't like high inflation, but controlling it by raising interest rates might slow growth unacceptably, given that (afaik) we're still seeing impairments in capital formation and surplus liquidity and all that. We can also expect upward pressure on food prices, which capital hates because it tends to drive up wages. Also Russia is a major supplier of certain metals, and I have no idea what that's going to do to complex global supply chains that are already stressed or dysfunctional. These are just my initial impressions at a distance, and I'm really not sure.
@@noisepuppetThank you! Impairments in capital formation?
Do you mean deploying capital into wise investments or something else?
Is that on the debt and or equity side?
@@lucrativeleadershipconvers5149 As the planet is a finite quarry of resources, naturally a perfect storm of power grab, use of ideology, exponential increase in exploitation aided by tech & pseudo science in the name of progress. Ultimately, to control financial markets, the only shared language (GDP, scale & growth). Took to be revelatory as teen reading Marx, capitalism at its core requires inexorably creating, establishing NEW markets. Stasis or equilibrium is a signal of decline, somehow requiring defense & justification. A question, what happened to the concept of market saturation, inundation, markets for disposables, theories of corruption & waste within systems?
Patnaik is good
what about the service sector of the economy which is actually as big or bigger than manufacturing? How would Marx deal with surplus value there?
In what sense? Marx argued that service sector labor might be non-productive but nevertheless still contributes to the realization of value. Capitalism can't function without warehouse workers, truckers, railway workers, maintenance and repair, clerical work, call center work, etc. none of which constitute productive labor as Marx defined it.
India has produced some very intelligent economists, but I think their country does not take any advice from them? Amartya Sen and many others.
intelligent economics is not good for the status quo or for those in power, I'm sure you're aware...
Marx or Keynes or... Carlyle
Patnaik
The guy who speaks after Harvey is talking shit ... I'd hate to be one of his students lol
I have watched this clip twice now and I still can't extract any sense lol He seems like a nice guy though, but not very much "to the point"! lol
The point of democracy is to achieve equity peacefully. That means 'class struggle' by votes. Otherwise you have revolution, which (almost) always results in fascism. So the real problem is getting that small percentage of voters to the left side of the divide. No easy task.
This guy gets it. Finally an academic who points to the credit-blindspot in Marxist theory. Great talk!
HECK WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO REBUILD NEW YORK. WHAT WILL THAT COST?
Miami Venice San Francisco Charleston SC
Whatever that city was that Sherman started in on his March to burn Atlanta into the dirt. Etc
WE ARE GOING TO NEED TREBLE THE SURPLUS LIQUIDITY. 15 YEARS
didn't understand a single sentece )))
Prabhat Patnaik is obviously not a Marxist. Marx would have called Keynes a reactionary bourgeoisie apologist
Why is Patnaik not a Marxist?
8:43 social zionists?...
Social scientists...
how about Mises, Rothbard, hayek, Bastiat
Bohm Bawerk, Menger, Destut De Tracy, J.B Say, Turgot, Juan De Mariana.
+TheProgressiveParent Mises himself once stated that, regarding his economic praxeology, "Its statements and propositions are not derived from experience. They are, like those of logic and mathematics, a priori. They are not subject to verification or falsification on the ground of experience and facts." Rejecting the scientific method, Mises is essentially stating that he made it all up and that his so-called "theories" are unfalsifiable on the ground of experience and facts. How any sane person can take such "theories" even slightly seriously is beyond my scope of understanding.
mises.org/library/human-action-0/html/pp/638
+P. Lap right, sir, this austrian shit is a religion, not a science, or even a practical engineering discipline.
100% failure rate.
"100% failure rate"?
Lots of defeatism in this panel
"Distinguished economist who worked in the Marxian tradition" and he said that with a straight face? This is like saying there is absolutely no such thing as an absolute truth; it's self-defeating.
huh? what are you on about?
Austrian Economics is the only legitimate school of economic thought. The rest are complete and utter garbage. Classical, and Austrian.. that’s all.
(Ludwig von) Mises and (Friedrich von) Hayek (and Rothbard and Friedman, and their toadies) brought about neo'classical', or Neoliberal economics. It has run its course over forty years (and more, in south America). It, and they, have _already_ failed. Didn't you know this? The whole project failed in 2008. The consequence is Trump, and the rebirth of Fascism in Europe. Or didn't you notice?
Agree, with the inclusion of Henry George's analysis of rent and the role of land hoarding and land speculation. These issues are elaborated on in the writings of professor Fred Foldvary.
I disagree, praxeology is an a priori system, which isn’t useful to someone studying historical patterns in an economy, using various forms of evidence. I could understand shipping lanes(something that is massively relevant to any economy involved) better, if I study the place and the institutions that govern it and the geopolitics in the area, than using an a priori system on its own.
NO.