Question? Could the Importance of "forgotten" Eugen Böhm von Bawerk come to fruition?

Dublin 4

Donator
Premium Account
Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2015
Messages
17,807
Likes
13,780
Points
313
#1

"Eugen Böhm Ritter von Bawerk (German: [bøːm ˈbaːvɛʁk]; born Eugen Böhm; 12 February 1851 – 27 August 1914) was an Austrian economist who made important contributions to the development of the Austrian School of economics."
"He was the Austrian Minister of Finance intermittently from 1895 to 1904, and also wrote a series of extensive critiques of Marxism."
"He wrote extensive critiques of Karl Marx's economics in the 1880s and 1890s, and several prominent Marxists—including Rudolf Hilferding—attended his seminar in 1905–06."

"He returned to teaching in 1904, with a chair at the University of Vienna."

"He taught many students including Joseph Schumpeter, Ludwig von Mises and Henryk Grossman."

"He died in 1914".

George Reisman has said that he is second most important "Austrian economist after Ludwig von Mises"



"It's entirely conceivable to me that Mises might have described Böhm Bawerk as the most important Austrian economist."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugen_Böhm_von_Bawerk


We live in a time of Crisis were the Non Marxists are making accusations against the Pseudo Marxists re Immigration;-

Did Böhm von Bawerk see through Communism, assessing it as an untenable fantasy which would come to a sad end?

Are we looking today at merely "Bogus Communism"/"Bogus Socialism" existing as Flags of convenience for mainly the Gaystapo, Zionists & aggressive Immigrants?


The Who's Roger Daltrey has spoken out against policies put in place by Tony Blair's New Labour goverment, saying he will "never forgive" the party for allowing mass immigration.


He said: "I will never, ever forgive the Labour Party for allowing this mass immigration with no demands on what people should be paid. I will never forgive them for destroying the jobs of my mates because they allowed their jobs to be undercut with stupid thinking on Europe, letting them all in, so they can live 10 to a room working for Polish wages."

He continued: "I've got nothing against the Poles at all, but that was a political mistake and it made me very angry and the people who get it in the neck are the immigrants, and it's not their fault."

http://www.nme.com/news/the-who/73907

Criticism from "Democratic Demographers" has well paid off! :smilingimp:


"In particular, Böhm von Bawerk argued that the Marxist theory of exploitation ignores the dimension of time in production, which he discussed in his theory of roundaboutness and that a redistribution of profits from capitalist industries will undermine the importance of the interest rate as a vital tool for monetary policy."

As the Rapefugees & ISIS Battalions obliterate Merkel's "Ode to joy" will this enlightening Individual become part of a new, developing Conversation?

Interestingly his Native Austria-Hungary never joined a similar disaster to the Eurozone, the Latin Monetary Union which broke up in 1927, 13 years after Eugen died.

Monetary Union

"The Latin Monetary Union (LMU) was a 19th-century attempt to unify several European currencies into a single currency that could be used in all the member states,
at a time when most national currencies were still made out of gold and silver."


"It was established in 1865 and disbanded in 1927."

"Many countries minted coins according to the LMU standard even though they did not formally accede to the LMU treaty."


 
Last edited:

RockingRock

Political Irish
Joined
Dec 1, 2015
Messages
176
Likes
74
Points
28
#2
I sugggest you read his book [size=small]The Positive Theory of Capital[/size]

[size=small]Some books are read because individuals want to sound like they understand economics, and other books, like this one, actually explain the dynamic processes of the political economy. In it is a comprehensive examination of all previous capital theories, explaining their inadequacies and why they've lead many capable economists down the path of inescapable confusion. He explains that interest (what businessmen and Marxists call profit) is a real and independent economic phenomenon which ultimately determines the length/methods of capitalist production. The fact that goods are immediately undervalued as soon as they enter the market is explained not by mystical arguments appealing to emotion (exploitation), but by the fact that there is a time preference placed on all goods. Current goods are necessarily valued more than future goods, that is, an apple today is worth more than an apple 10 days from now, 10 months from now, a decade from now, ect. He explains the necessary connectedness between the loanable funds market and labor market, and that the factors of production are dependent upon each other for production (all factors are independently infertile). Do not, under any circumstances, skip book 3 (value) or book 4 (price), no matter how well-versed you believe you are in subjective value theory.[/size]

[size=small]The entire book must be read in its entirety, and carefully, if one wishes to understand this ground-breaking theoretical framework. This framework ultimately put Marx to bed, and inspired the likes of Ludwig von Mises, Knut Wicksell, Friedrich von Hayek, Ludwig Lachmann, and others. Unfortunately, the real tragedy is that Bohm-Bawerk's insights have been largely forgotten and obfuscated by the mainstream. John Maynard Keynes, for example, built his framework in the Treatise from Wicskell's work, without understanding that Wicksell's framework was a mere extension of this book--which is why Keynes ultimately misunderstood it and came to incredibly faulty conclusions.[/size]

"Command over a sum of present consumption goods provides us with the means of subsistence during the current economic period. This leaves the means of production, which we have at our disposal during this period, free for the technically more productive service of the future, and gives us the more abundant product attainable by them in longer methods of production."
 
OP
OP
Dublin 4

Dublin 4

Donator
Premium Account
Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2015
Messages
17,807
Likes
13,780
Points
313
#4
Do you think I just Googled Böhm von Bawerk?  :D

I suppose I'm dirty enough for that after seeing how the EU passes, avoids & breaks it's Treaties... :rolleyes:
 
Joined
Oct 30, 2015
Messages
7,798
Likes
9,149
Points
313
#5
The first two Irish Free State governments were unbridled economic liberalism and also an unbridled economic disaster, when Sean Leamas finally decided to catch his government on and move away from such doctrines the Republic of Ireland took off economically. Im always shocked when Irish people therefore start expressing their admiration for the Vienna school. The Soviet Union was an amazing economic miracle under the wise leadership and inspiration of Joseph Stalin that managed to bounce back after two devastating wars (their Civil War and the Great Patriotic War)- economically things only began to get messy after the gradual introduction of the "Market" starting with the Kosygin reforms. Under economic liberalism though the Russian Federation after 20 years remains a shadow of what it was for the majority of the Soviet period.

Today's trendy Lefties generally go by feelings rather than trying to understand the world and the forces at play within. Whatever the intellectual limitations of Marx and Marxism well these people are not applying intellects to be limited.
 
OP
OP
Dublin 4

Dublin 4

Donator
Premium Account
Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2015
Messages
17,807
Likes
13,780
Points
313
#6
SwordOfStCatherine said:
Today's trendy Lefties generally go by feelings rather than trying to understand the world and the forces at play within. Whatever the intellectual limitations of Marx and Marxism well these people are not applying intellects to be limited.
Would you go as far as me then SOSC & say "Marxism" or "Socialism" today is a mainly a "Safe Haven for Shills"?
 
Joined
Oct 30, 2015
Messages
7,798
Likes
9,149
Points
313
#7
Dublin 4 said:
Would you go as far as me then SOSC & say "Marxism" or "Socialism" today is a mainly a "Safe Haven for Shills"?
The Communist Party of Britain Marxist-Leninist opposes mass immigration and the EU (not to be confused with the Communist Party of Great Britain who are another day's work).

Most so-called Marxists in Ireland North and South are nothing of the sort but instead are "Trotskyites". Trotskyism has been about shilling from the word go.

I describe myself as a Socialist but not a Marxist.
 
OP
OP
Dublin 4

Dublin 4

Donator
Premium Account
Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2015
Messages
17,807
Likes
13,780
Points
313
#8
I wouldn't trust too many- mainly contrarian hobbyists & Gaystapo shills.
 

Tadhg Gaelach

Donator
Premium Account
Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2016
Messages
26,857
Likes
24,468
Points
313
#9
I'd say two things about the OP.  One is that Marx himself said "I'm not a Marxist."  That means he did not see his own work as some kind of dogma, but the best analysis available at the time.  And that's certainly true. Marx's theory of capitalism is still correct.  What Marx didn't do ever was set out how Communism would actually work as an economic system.  He looked at the Paris Commune of 1871 as a possible model, but he never said this model had to be followed. Those who say Marx was wrong usually have no idea what Marx actually wrote.

The next thing I'd say is that while the Austrian School offers some very good analysis, in general it is totally unrealistic.  The rich and powerful are not Capitalists, i.e. they are not dogmatists. And we see that in China where the vast majority of billionaires fully support the Communist government. The rich and powerful only care that they are rich and powerful.  And when something like the Austrian School suggests how Capitalism could be fair and logical, the rich and powerful just laugh at people who clearly don't understand what the world is all about, i.e. power.
 
OP
OP
Dublin 4

Dublin 4

Donator
Premium Account
Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2015
Messages
17,807
Likes
13,780
Points
313
#11
Tadhg Gaelach said:
I'd say two things about the OP.  One is that Marx himself said "I'm not a Marxist."  That means he did not see his own work as some kind of dogma, but the best analysis available at the time.  And that's certainly true. Marx's theory of capitalism is still correct.  What Marx didn't do ever was set out how Communism would actually work as an economic system.  He looked at the Paris Commune of 1871 as a possible model, but he never said this model had to be followed. Those who say Marx was wrong usually have no idea what Marx actually wrote.

The next thing I'd say is that while the Austrian School offers some very good analysis, in general it is totally unrealistic.  The rich and powerful are not Capitalists, i.e. they are not dogmatists. And we see that in China where the vast majority of billionaires fully support the Communist government. The rich and powerful only care that they are rich and powerful.  And when something like the Austrian School suggests how Capitalism could be fair and logical, the rich and powerful just laugh at people who clearly don't understand what the world is all about, i.e. power.
The Austrian theories are far from perfect either.

Any upcoming mayhem could be a great leveller, producing highly unstable Governments.
 
Joined
Oct 30, 2015
Messages
7,798
Likes
9,149
Points
313
#12
Dublin 4 said:
The Austrian theories are far from perfect either.

Any upcoming mayhem could be a great leveller, producing highly unstable Governments.
Austrianism strikes me as being similar to Ulster Loyalism in that both present themselves as being supremely realistic and down to earth when in fact both are largely made up of self-destructive romanticism and insane hubris.
 
Top Bottom