Guesting starring: Eugen Ritter von Böhm-Bawerk
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200904/hitchens-marx
I found the article unintelligible due to how bombastic it was. I'm hoping someone could decipher it.
It has nothing worthy in it. Piece of complicated vocabulary with nothing substantial to boast of. Forget it!
So if build a table and price it at $1 trillion, and no one buys it at that price, did I over-produce? What if I re-price the table to $4 and it sells at that price, did I still over-produce?
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
The writer seems to be name dropping only those names are for the most part dead. The writer mentions over production but does not mention what created that situation that is malinvestments of resources in areas of production that are not consistent with the time preferences of consumers. The writer mentions a conceit but it is the wrong one. The only conceit that matters is the fatal one. That is a presumption of knowledge. The write knows little of economics as the pricing system, that great deliverer of knowledge is absent. In place of the price system we have feelings. In place of savings we have capital being created from thin air. In place of contracts we have exploitation. In place of economic arguments based upon axioms of human behavior we have blather.
I think Hitches (isn't he the Aussie?) had a similar essay linked to a few months ago in these forums. He actually showed up to defend his work. I'll try to locate it...
============================
David Z
"The issue is always the same, the government or the market. There is no third solution."
He's technically an American citizen, although he originates from the UK. And yes, whilst his work is usually very flawed he at least has the decency of showing up to defend it.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
the Hitch was actually on this forum ? noway! where/when/how?
It would be awesome to reach him. he is a very effective writer even if he is wrong on many issues.....
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Chris Hitchens is the British-born pro-war atheist. Steve Keen is the anti-marginalist Australian economist.
It was Keen who visited the Mises forums and attempted to defend his critique of Say's Law.
Irish Liberty Forum
Hitchens hasn't been on there to my recollection. If he was, he and I would have had words. He is a racist warmonger.
His brother Peter is actually a decent human being and has some liberal values.
A nice piece of bull....
Yep - now that you mention it, i remember the Say discussion, that's what I was thinking of.
Capital Pumper: I found the article unintelligible due to how bombastic it was. I'm hoping someone could decipher it.
Translation of Article:
Marx was 'right' about capitalism and the current economic downturn vindicates him therefore there may be a chance that Marx's work comes back from the philosophical graveyard to eat our bourgeois brains.
Repent Capitalists! The Marx is near!
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
I don't mind him to be honest, and this should sound strange coming from somebody who stands almost at the opposite end of the spectrum on every issue possible. I suppose it's because he has a sense of humour and is at least willing to defend his views. I've seen him debating on religion and war, both times I thought he "lost" the debate. Nonetheless, he's a very competent debated and a smart guy.
MatthewWilliam: Chris Hitchens is the British-born pro-war atheist. Steve Keen is the anti-marginalist Australian economist. It was Keen who visited the Mises forums and attempted to defend his critique of Say's Law.
david_z: Yep - now that you mention it, i remember the Say discussion, that's what I was thinking of.
I missed this, could you possibly link to it? Thanks
GilesStratton: I've seen him debating on religion and war, both times I thought he "lost" the debate.
I've seen him debating on religion and war, both times I thought he "lost" the debate.
He doesn't go the distance on morality or science, but nonetheless he still trashes his opponents. His opponents always fall back on arguments from ignorance, strawmen ("Scientists claim that something came from nothing"), or some misconceptions about science.
GilesStratton: Nonetheless, he's a very competent debated and a smart guy.
Nonetheless, he's a very competent debated and a smart guy.
Yes, I've learned alot more from him on the middle east. His argument for the war is most cogent and makes Ron Paul's "blowback" conjecture sound ridiculous and ahistorical.
liberty student: racist
racist
That's a new one.
I find Hitchens most useful as a journalist as a historian. He knows so much about so many things, and can put a human context, with references to myriad real events and people, on a lot of issues. He is not an economist, as this article demonstrates. But I won't begrudge him that because I like so much of his work.
Conza88: MatthewWilliam: Chris Hitchens is the British-born pro-war atheist. Steve Keen is the anti-marginalist Australian economist. It was Keen who visited the Mises forums and attempted to defend his critique of Say's Law. david_z: Yep - now that you mention it, i remember the Say discussion, that's what I was thinking of. I missed this, could you possibly link to it? Thanks
http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/7596/131096.aspx#131096
Capital Pumper: Yes, I've learned alot more from him on the middle east. His argument for the war is most cogent and makes Ron Paul's "blowback" conjecture sound ridiculous and ahistorical.
Can you summarize Hitchens' position here? All that I can surmise from Wikipedia is that he's an interventionist non-neo-conservative.
Christopher Hitchens is a dude with a cool accent, flamboyant writing and speaking style, and some good arguments against religion and the belief in God. He is no economist.
Political Atheists Blog