Political Economists: Adams Smith, Karl Marx, John Stuart Mills

Dec 2017
294
Florida
Marx was only incidentally talking of politics
his main contribution was the oldest and biggest question in economics.... the transformation of "value" into "price"
the main result being "profit" as a motor of the economic activity
he wrote in German , a particularly involved language with many nuances this include five different concept of "price"

for profit to rise above the average can only be done by decreasing the "labor reward" in the value
because the price is out of the control of the producer , it is determined by the market

That's simply not true. A majority of Marx's earlier works were discussions of humanities & politics. It is only the later stages of Marx that are fully economical and it's really the economics that most people read when talking about Marx. His earlier humanities work wasn't really read/published compared to things like Das Kapital.
 
Dec 2017
294
Florida
Maybe so, but which of the two, Blanqui or Marx, had a greater influence on future historians?
What does that have to do with anything I stated before? You stated that after Marx historians started to look at economic factors, I've shown that to be untrue. Now you want to quibble about who is more famous?
 
Dec 2017
294
Florida
Yes indeed , Marx times were marred by some of the most horrible conditions for the workers in the new industries
the work was brutal and destroyed many , body and soul
The standard of living rose through the industrial revolution. Your immiseration clause has been disproven, even by Marxists themselves. There is no scientific backing to what you are saying, now it is just mealymouthed mush which argues present-day sentiment with the past.
 
Apr 2014
189
New York, U.S.
What does that have to do with anything I stated before? You stated that after Marx historians started to look at economic factors, I've shown that to be untrue. Now you want to quibble about who is more famous?
Simply put, it was Marx and not Blanqui who had the the most influence on the development of the study of economic history.
 
Dec 2017
294
Florida
Simply put, it was Marx and not Blanqui who had the the most influence on the development of the study of economic history.
"Precisely correct. After Marx, historians began to identify economic factors as one of the many causes for historical events."

This is your quote from before.

"Historians had been looking through the lens of classes as an answer to historical events decades before Marx. Marx himself attributes his influence/use of classes to the works of French Classical Liberals."

This is my quote.

You stated that after Marx, historians began to identify economic factors as causes for events. I have shown that such a statement is untrue, that "historians" had looked at economics as a cause for events long before Marx. Now you are quibbling "Well he is the most popular" Who cares who is popular. It is about who is right.
 
Apr 2014
189
New York, U.S.
"Precisely correct. After Marx, historians began to identify economic factors as one of the many causes for historical events."

This is your quote from before.

"Historians had been looking through the lens of classes as an answer to historical events decades before Marx. Marx himself attributes his influence/use of classes to the works of French Classical Liberals."

This is my quote.

You stated that after Marx, historians began to identify economic factors as causes for events. I have shown that such a statement is untrue, that "historians" had looked at economics as a cause for events long before Marx. Now you are quibbling "Well he is the most popular" Who cares who is popular. It is about who is right.
Not the most popular- the one who had the greatest influence on the development of economic history.
 

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
5,338
Sydney
as far as I know , modern economics started in the Spanish university of Salamanca

"In the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, clerics gave lectures at the University of Salamanca on such topics as the varying purchasing power of money, the morality of money, and how price is determined. "
Francisco de Vitoria (1485-1546) is the most proeminent in classic medieval dialectic he used his predecessor thinking in an iterative dialogue
on the problem of price , most of their inquiries was of a mercantile nature , the crux of the discussion being the moment of exchange

"They went on to explore almost all aspects, moral and theoretical, of economic science. For a century, these thinkers formed a mighty force for free enterprise and economic logic. They regarded the price of goods and services as a consequence of the actions of traders. Prices vary depending on the circumstance, depending on the value that individuals place on goods. That value in turn depends on two factors: the goods’ availability and their use. The price of goods and services are a result of the operation of these forces. Prices are not fixed by nature, or determined by the costs of production; prices are a result of the common estimation of men.
"
Martn de Azpilcueta Navarrus (1493-1586), a Dominican monk, the most prominent canon lawyer of his day, and eventually the adviser to three successive popes.
Using reasoning, Navarrus was the first economic thinker to state clearly and unequivocally that government price-fixing is a mistake.
When goods are plentiful, there is no need for a maximum-set price; when they are not, price control does more harm than good.
In a manual on moral theology (1556), Navarrus pointed out that it is not a sin to sell goods at higher than the official price when it is agreed to among all parties.

Navarrus was also the first to fully state that the quantity of money is a main influence in determining its purchasing power.
“Other things being equal,” he wrote, “in countries where there is a great scarcity of money, all other saleable goods, and even the hands and labor of men,
are given for less money than where it is abundant.”

during the "Silver age of Spain the country became poorer as the New World silver was pouring in , learned men discussing this contradiction became known as " Economistas"
they were the butt of ferocious jokes

Jean Baptist Colbert , minister of finances from 1665 to 1683 believed that trade was a nearly zero sum game and developed protectionism theories
government investment to develop import replacement industries
French in the 18th century developed mercantilism with charts of money flows and the first attempt ( how French ) to quantifies the economic process


There is absolutely nothing wrong with pursuing an intellectual endeavor from past thinkers ,
it doesn't mean the new theories are void of interest , even if they are not fruitful

Adams Smith theory presuppose an infinity of sellers to an infinity of buyers both in a perfectly informed situation
he put profit as the main motor of trade , that had been said for century ,
his "invisible hand" is the biggest intellectual dodge in the field

Marx main contribution is to identifies the labor component as the main source of the margin of profit
all the industries relocating to places where the labor is cheaper would agree with him
 
Last edited: