Is this the top ten most influential economists of all time?

Opposing Views put this out. I thought I would see what everyone thought:

10) John Locke – A pioneer in discussing the accumulation of private property (within God’s laws) in the mid 1600’s.

9) David Ricardo – Major writer in the early 1800’s on free trade (specialization and comparative advantage) and the rise of capitalism.

8) Irving Fisher – An American monetarist in the first half of the twentieth century, wrote ‘The Debt-Deflation Theory of Great Depressions’ in 1933, also wrote ‘The Theory of Interest’.

7) Joseph Schumpeter – Austrian economist specializing in business cycle theory, wrote ‘Business Cycles’ in 1939.

6) Friedrich A. Hayek – Member of the modern Austrian school, along with Ludwig von Mises, defenders of democracy and free-markets against socialist thought in the mid-twentieth century. Best books: The Road to Serfdom (Hayek, 1944) and Human Action (Mises, 1949).

5) Alan Greenspan – A pioneer in macro-economic modeling and forecasting, also a pretty good FED Chairman for almost two decades.

4) Milton Friedman – Recently deceased, modern day monetarist. A staunch defender of free markets and limited government intervention, he will be missed.

3) Karl Marx – Father of socialist economics. Very influential from mid-1800’s to mid-1900’s, but losing steam today.

2) John M. Keynes – Father of Keynesian economics. He introduced modern macro-economics in both theory and policy to the world. Keynes died in 1946, but is still intensely debated today.

1) Adam Smith – Revolutionized economics by writing ‘The Wealth of Nations’ in 1776. He is still revered today as father of economics, political economist and moral philosopher. Smith taught that pursuit of individual self-interest acts as an invisible hand to contribute to the common good. My hero!”

Now, of course, talking influential this is probably a very good list. I would imagine that if this is ranked by most compared to least. If this is true, I would imagine Smith would be much lower. Keynes would probably be number one next to Marx. If it was true that Adam Smith was more influential and Milton Friedman was number four, you would imagine our world would be more classically liberal than it is now. I wish it was the case that the most influential was Smith, Hayek, Mises, and Friedman.

This is a good thought in mind, when we think about who to read. Everyone should probably read at least 5 of the above, whether they agree or disagree and explore those thoughts. Of course, beware Greenspan is very different then the stuff he wrote with Ayn Rand.

~PCCapitalist

Advertisements

An Obese Proposal

In the 21st Century, the United States along with much of the world has been accused of being plump and over-indulged. The facts are that only 1 in 6 Americans are obese, which means 5 out of 6 Americans are walking around fit and lean.  Current trends only show that the people who are overweight are only getting bigger. How could they not when they walk around and every 5th Americans they see eating at the same restaurants they are, are fit and lean?

Karl Marx is best known for saying, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” This has been the slogan for redistributional practices all of the world. To use this for income only is unjust. Like income many people are born with different speeds in which they metabolize food. This is why we must ask our future President has said spread the wealth. Those who have attempted to diet know that lean people having a quick metabolism is a great wealth we can only dream of. We must transfer the fat from the people who are born with quicker metabolism than others.

People cannot choose who they are born to and there are two types of people in the world. It is those who are naturally faster at metabolizing food and those who are not. The faster metabolism allows some people to enjoy foods like donuts, greasy burgers, and other wonderful flavorful foods. The Declaration of Independance calls for the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Someone who has to eat foods that they do not like it not pursuing their happiness. If we were to redistribute the fat directly, as mentioned before, this would be more efficient way to use the faster energy and lower the health care cost.

Those who eat the greasy burgers and donuts without flinching or counting the calories. They do not understand the stress that is involved in worrying day to day whether you are going to gain a pound and whether that will send you over into a heart attack. The slow metabolized person tries to switch to low fat foods but when they join their friends over for dinner they cannot help but indulge. This is a receipt for disaster in which there is no cure.

If Barack Obama wants a real plan to fix health care costs in America, he must follow this plan of redistribution. This plan will bring happiness to those who have been disenfranchised by skinny people across America and finally give them what the founders entailed. To the critics that call will call this plan inefficient, I say live a day in the life of a fat man shoes.

~PCCapitalist

Published in: on December 28, 2008 at 2:24 pm  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , , ,

Marxs or Mises Quiz

I am not sure if this is an insult to the Austrian Economists are just general statements about the economy and one supporting it while the other defend it. The quiz can be found here and here are some of the examples:

  1. “The revival of trade… was the dawn of a new industrial epoch. The repeal of the Corn Laws and the financial reforms subsequent thereon gave to English industry and commerce all the elbow-room they had asked for… The colonial markets developed at an increasing rate their capacity for absorbing English manufactured goods… China was more and more being opened up. Above all, the States United then, commercially speaking, a mere colonial market, but by far the biggest of all them underwent an economic development astounding even for that rapidly progressive country… And in proportion as this increase took place, in the same proportion did manufacturing industry become apparently moralised. The competition of manufacturer against manufacturer by means of petty thefts upon the workpeople did no longer pay.”


    Marxist Friedrich Engels
    Austrian Eugen von Bohm-Bawerk

  2. “[The world economy today] is characterised by its highly modern anarchic structure. In this respect the structure of world economy may be compared with the structure of [national] economies typical till the beginning of [the 20th century], when the [economic planning] process, briskly coming to the fore in the last years of the nineteenth century, brought about substantial changes by considerably narrowing the [previously] unhampered “free play of economic forces.” … Still, notwithstanding the fact that modern world economy as a whole represents an anarchic structure, the process of [planning] is [occuring] even here, expressing itself mainly in the growth of international syndicates, cartels, and trusts.”

    Marxist Nikolai Bukharin
    Austrian Peter Leeson

Enjoy!

~PCCapitalist

Published in: on December 7, 2008 at 11:32 pm  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , , ,

Karl Marx vs. George W. Bush

~PCCapitalist

Published in: on November 2, 2008 at 4:16 pm  Comments (2)  
Tags: , , ,

What are you diet-Socialism?

As most people know after Joe the Plumber, Obama and McCain’s tax plans have been in the news as of late. On Sunday, McCain called Obama’s tax plan socialist. So what does that make him, Diet-Socialism? A progressive tax is socialist. The whole point of a progressive tax is to redistribute money from the rich to the poor. That is where this Marx quote comes from:

From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.” -Karl Marx

I mean if McCain was a true non-Socialist, he would support some kind of flat tax. Sure, most people do not think that the lower class should have to pay taxes, but they don’t now. This has more than just a “trickle-down” effect. It also has the effect that as you get more and more responsibility at work and you get paid more, you will be more likely to take that higher job.

A Progressive tax does discourage work. This makes sense when you think of the margin. Being higher up in your business is not always as perfect as some people make it out to be. You have more responsibility, which means that you become more important. This increases your chance of getting fired and possibly more time at the workplace.

So John McCain, if you want to criticize socialist policies, why don’t you start first by removing yours out of your platform? Like carbon credits, calling gas companies greedy,….etc.

~Marxsevelt

Published in: on October 20, 2008 at 11:39 am  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , , , ,

Was Marx right?

This is from my former Professor that is now teaching at James Madison University, Dr. Subrick. He is the one who actually sparked my interest in Economics with the great books he assigned. For if it wasn’t for him this blog would not exist.:

“As I was preparing for my history of economic thought course, I came across the following prediction from Karl Marx.  Marx claimed, as communism emerges from capitalism, a number reforms will take place.  The following caught my attention.

5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.”

This is an interesting point he brings up. Are we moving towards Communism? From what I understand Marx thought that we needed Capitalism to move towards Communism.

Are we on F.A. Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom?”

In place of individual liberty, socialism offers security. It promises protection from personal economic necessities and restraints, and an equality of economic well being.”

Aren’t we socializing the destroying individual liberty by wishfully providing security? Isn’t that the exact job of the FDIC?

Dr. Subricks blog can be found here. It is called the “Stationary Bandit.” If anyone can name what that is, they get extra points.

~PCCapitalist