February 2019

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28    
Blog powered by Typepad

« Congratulations to Pete Leeson --- 2011-2012 Emerging Scholar Award | Main | Ten Years After - Don Lavoie (1951-2001) »

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

"Karl Marx's own income (in 1866) puts him into the top two percent of British households."

That's a quote from the video. Just WHERE did Karl Marx EARN an income in 1866, let alone one that put him into the top 2%????????

Regards,
Don Kirk

Looked it up in Kamenka's book; certainly an admirer of Marx:

Marx only worked through January and February of 1865. By May, he was "in financial distress." In September, Engels sent him 95 Pounds.

1866: More "financial embarrassments," Engels sends Marx another 60 pounds in February.

Still not employed by October. "Marx in great financial need; creditors threaten to sue; Marx's wife pawns clothes." By the way: the clothes Jenney pawned were their winter clothes. In OCTOBER, she is pawning their winter clothes! Engels sends 75 pounds.

In January 1867, Marx is "threatened with eviction" (Again - so many times. No wonder he hated landlords.)

The actual history is hardly an account which jibes with the video's income quote: "top 2% of British households."

@Don:

I think the quote in the video is wrong. It was after 1869 when Marx entered that bracket. But even the sum of money you quote was a lot: 230 pounds wasn't small penny in those times. In fact Marx entered that "top 2%" because he got an annuity of 350 pounds from Engels. In 1866 he was also doing good, got money from his wife's estate, made some money in some speculations.

If I remember correctly he had only something like 6 years of extreme poverty in his life, period in which he went to one interview, let three of his children die of malnutrition, fathered a boy with his maid and insisted on keeping a secretary (I'm not so sure about this one, I've read about it in only one source).

What were landlords supposed to do if Marx did not pay his rent?

Some thoughts on the hermeneutic turn in economic methodology. In summary, too much Gadamer and not enough critical rationalism. Looking forward to discussion in Washington this month!

http://www.criticalrationalism.net/2011/08/27/peter-boettke-on-1985-as-a-defining-year-for-austrian-economics/

I know that "genius" is Nasar's stock in trade now, but she abuses the word so badly as to deprive it of meaning. I'll go to my grave before I believe that Marx or the Webbs were geniuses.

Did she manage to explain what Nash contributed to the science of economics?

While I am all for economic prosperity, social justice, and individual freedom those things will
continue to be the perogative of the more well-to-do until we change our economic system as described in the ebook referenced below.

Please review the economic principles proposed in the following ebook
http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/povertyandthefoundationofeconomics
and comment on any errors that you find. If you do not have the time to do
this, I would appreciate your assigning the task to your friends as an exercise.

As long as we continue to use the western credit system as the primary driver of
economic production the wealthy will continue to control the means of economic
production and poverty will be a guaranteed result. The link above describes an
alternative economic system that will eliminate poverty and maximize economic
production.

Thank you for your time and attention in this matter.

Howie Fischer made the point on Horizon last Friday that the bid process was so badly handled that it looked like it was more than an open meeting law violation and rose to the level of bid rigging. All this to pick a Democratic mapping firm. Does that meet a duty of upholding public confidence and impartiality?


The comments to this entry are closed.

Our Books