[TheIronist]

(Original post by Gremlins)
I went for Marxism, although I think Marxist economics is largely inaccurate. Then again I find pretty much all of economics as a body of social scientific thought inaccurate - International Political Economy (IPE) offers much more satisfactory models of economic behaviour IMO (even the ones I disagree with still flesh out their ideas of human behaviour better than most of the economics literature I've written).

What?

[anarchism101]

It's probably worth noting that quite a few influential post-Keyensians, like Robinson and Kalecki, were also Marxists.

Unlike the others, post-Keynesians analyse actually existing economies.

[Drapetomanic]

I'd say probably Marxist because I agree with his general critique of capitalism, although I wouldn't identify myself as a communist any more. Also, I'd argue there's overlap between Marxist and post-Keynesian economics.

[anarchism101]

(Original post by Drapetomanic)
I'd say probably Marxist because I agree with his general critique of capitalism, although I wouldn't identify myself as a communist any more. Also, I'd argue there's overlap between Marxist and post-Keynesian economics.

This is the problem I have with seeing Marxist economics as a 'school of thought'. Marx only critiqued 'free market capitalism' in Capital, though he did point out that what he was critiquing didn't actually resemble a real economy.

[Destroyer25]

I'm pretty much an Austrian, although I'm most definitely not a Libertarian. I'm a big fan of Friedman and Sowell, although I certainly don't agree with everything they believe in. I'm more in favor of having both private and public healthcare, rather than just the former, and most certainly not only the latter.

Economically I'm very Neoliberal (which is ideologically pretty similar to the Austrian school). Both Libertarians and real Conservatives share pretty much the same pro Free Market Capitalism economic views, most of the differences are in foreign policy. If I didn't hold the foreign policy views I do I'd essentially be a Libertarian.

[TheIronist]

(Original post by anarchism101)
It's probably worth noting that quite a few influential post-Keyensians, like Robinson and Kalecki, were also Marxists.

What makes one a Marxist?

[Rakas21]

I am somewhere between neo-liberal and Austrian myself supporting Classical and monetarist economic theories.

[Acerbic]

Pedantic note: Marxian, surely?

[anarchism101]

(Original post by TheIronist)
What makes one a Marxist?

Well, given that both the examples I mentioned explicitly considered themselves influenced by Marx and wrote papers in which they praised Marx's economics, I'd consider it fair to say they were Marxists or at least Marxist-influenced.

[TheIronist]

(Original post by anarchism101)
Well, given that both the examples I mentioned explicitly considered themselves influenced by Marx and wrote papers in which they praised Marx's economics, I'd consider it fair to say they were Marxists or at least Marxist-influenced.

Weak.

If one does not hold the LTV to be true, if one does not hold the theory of the declining rate of profit to be true, if one believes that mass unemployment can be dealt with through fiscal and monetary policy, in virtually no sense can one be called a Marxist. Robinson affirmed all of the above therefore Robinson was not a Marxist. She was definitely influenced by Marx but that doesn't make her a Marxist. She was probably more influenced by Marshall but that doesn't make her a Marshallian either.

BTW, she was critical of Marxian economics and her essay on Marxian economics as well as her letter to Meek (a Marxian economist) demonstrate that.

[TheIronist]

I apologise for not distinguishing enough for you between being a Marxist and being Marxist-influenced in a passing comment. But if you need to make it into an argument then all you're doing is attempting to enhance your ego

Being a Marxist and being influenced by Marx are HUGELY important distinctions which you failed to make in your original post. As I said, Robinson was very much influenced by the quintissential neoclassical economist, Alfred Marshall. Nevertheless she was highly critical of neoclassical economics later in life (I can quote specific passages from both the essay and the letter as well as her other books which I have next to me btw). The same could be said of Marx. She was highly critical of his theories and in fact the "only" two insights which she thought were important about Marxism were A) that workers and capitalist interests are not in harmony and B) market economies are inherently unstable. But as it is evident from the letter to Ronald Meek, upholding those does not make one a Marxist.

If I start going around in threads calling her a neoclassical economist because she "considered herself influenced by Marshall and wrote papers in which she praised Marshall's economics", and someone said "yeah no that doesn't make her a neoclassical economist", he would be right in a non-pedantic way.

[Classical Liberal]

(Original post by anarchism101)
Well, given that both the examples I mentioned explicitly considered themselves influenced by Marx and wrote papers in which they praised Marx's economics, I'd consider it fair to say they were Marxists or at least Marxist-influenced.

Marxist economics is essence assumes the Labour Theory of Value to be true. Does not use marginal analysis. And does not use opportunity cost.

There are no economists I can think of who take such notions seriously. The economic ideas of Marx have been thoroughly debunked. Some economists might agree with some of the conclusions of Marx but they do not agree with his methodology. And when it comes to economics it is methodology that is important.

[Classical Liberal]

(Original post by Destroyer25)
I'm pretty much an Austrian, although I'm most definitely not a Libertarian. I'm a big fan of Friedman and Sowell, although I certainly don't agree with everything they believe in. I'm more in favor of having both private and public healthcare, rather than just the former, and most certainly not only the latter.

Economically I'm very Neoliberal (which is ideologically pretty similar to the Austrian school). Both Libertarians and real Conservatives share pretty much the same pro Free Market Capitalism economic views, most of the differences are in foreign policy. If I didn't hold the foreign policy views I do I'd essentially be a Libertarian.

Friedman would go under the Chicago school (really just another brand of methodological Keynesianism) rather than the Austrian school. And I suspect the same could be said for Sowell.

[Destroyer25]

(Original post by Classical Liberal)
Friedman would go under the Chicago school (really just another brand of methodological Keynesianism) rather than the Austrian school. And I suspect the same could be said for Sowell.

The Chicago School is the complete opposite of Keynesianism, so I'm not sure what you mean by that. And the Chicago School really doesn't differ a whole lot from the Austrian School anyway. The Chicago School's roots are in the Austrian School. They both advocate for the same free market capitalist economic theories.

[Classical Liberal]

(Original post by Destroyer25)
The Chicago School is the complete opposite of Keynesianism, so I'm not sure what you mean by that. And the Chicago School really doesn't differ a whole lot from the Austrian School anyway. The Chicago School's roots are in the Austrian School. They both advocate for the same free market capitalist economic theories.

Schools of economic thought are more to do with methodology rather than policy recommendations.

The Chicago school and Austrian school are very different in how they approach economics. They just come to the same conclusions in the end. They get to similar destinations via a different track.

[anarchism101]

(Original post by Classical Liberal)
Marxist economics is essence assumes the Labour Theory of Value to be true. Does not use marginal analysis. And does not use opportunity cost.

Neo-Marxians reject the LTV yet are still Marxists. On the other hand, most mutualist economists support the LTV, but they're still not Marxists (also, it would be worth noting, they also support marginalism - they're not mutually exclusive).

Classical liberalism also supported the LTV. Do we therefore conclude that you must support the LTV to be a classical liberal?

(Original post by TheIronist)
Being a Marxist and being influenced by Marx are HUGELY important distinctions which you failed to make in your original post.

Well, that varies hugely. And may be right in this case, but my point was that there is a reasonable influence by one on the other.

[Classical Liberal]

(Original post by anarchism101)
Classical liberalism economics also supported the LTV. Do we therefore conclude that you must support the LTV to be a classical liberal?.

Fixed.

[Destroyer25]

(Original post by Classical Liberal)
Fixed.

Classical economics is Classical Liberal economics. All the great Classical Liberal thinkers supported the economic theories of Smith, Say, Ricardo, Malthus and Mill.

[dreadnaut]

Can one of you cool cats link me to a recent paper that is "austrian" in its methodology. I am genuinely curious to see what these differences actually are.

[anarchism101]

(Original post by dreadnaut)
Can one of you cool cats link me to a recent paper that is "austrian" in its methodology. I am genuinely curious to see what these differences actually are.

Basically anything on mises.org