The Problem of Economic Ignorance

The fact that economic ignorance is widespread is really a big problem in our view. Unfortunately even what is broadly considered the economic mainstream thought is riddled with stuff that we think just doesn't represent good economics. This is not meant to say that there is absolutely nothing worthwhile offered by the so-called mainstream. Often one comes across valuable insights and stimulating ideas. Still, there are a number of very fundamental issues on which various schools of economic thought don't agree  – beginning with basic questions of methodology.

Regarding the place economics should have in our lives, Ludwig von Mises once wrote: 


“Economics must not be relegated to classrooms and statistical offices and must not be left to esoteric circles. It is the philosophy of human life and action and concerns everybody and everything. It is the pith of civilization and of man's human existence.”


We agree wholeheartedly with this sentiment. There is little harm in leaving astronomy to astronomers and quantum physics to experts in theoretical physics. With economics it is different, because even though it is supposed to be wertfrei (value-free) as a science, economics necessarily has a political dimension, since politics is all about the acquisition and distribution of property by political (as opposed to economic) means. In other words, economic policy is the main topic around which politics revolves.

When Mises wrote the above words, he thought of economics as a more or less unified science, in broad agreement on basic concepts. In a way that is still true, but it is less true than it once was. For instance, to briefly come back to the point about methodology, Mises spent a lot of effort on systematizing the economic method and discussing the epistemological problems of economics. However, while doing so, he never doubted for a moment that it was quite clear to all economists that the science had to proceed by means of deductive reasoning and logic. He probably didn't expect that positivism would eventually conquer economics. As an aside, if one looks closely, one soon realizes that even the most committed positivists and econometricians secretly agree that there actually is such a thing as the laws of economics, and that these laws are not necessarily all derived from empirical observation.


Be that as it may, there is definitely a great deal of economic ignorance out there. Partly it is actually furthered by statist propaganda and obfuscation. For instance, the average citizen is not supposed to question the centrally planned monetary system, and neither is he supposed to actually understand how it works (hence what is actually a pretty straightforward operation has become a fairly complex variation of the Three Card Monte, designed to obfuscate the system's inherently fraudulent nature).

How much ignorance there is regularly becomes evident by things such as e.g. the enduring popularity of protectionism (it is almost as though consumers enjoy harming themselves).

Another glaring example is the still widespread idea that socialism – or rather, communism (i.e., full-scale socialism as opposed to its milder 'democratic' version) – would be 'the best possible system of social and economic organization if only it were implemented correctly', or the variant ' … if only human nature were different and we were morally more advanced than we actually are'.

The main problem with this train of thought is that it is actually completely wrong. When confronting supporters of socialism with the total failure and murderous nature of the communist system in the real world, a common retort is that 'this wasn't real socialism'. In other words, if Lenin, Stalin, Mao and their followers had only implemented everything according to the precepts of Karl Marx, then things would have been perfectly fine, and the communists would have erected a king of land of Cockaigne.

However, not only did they in fact follow the precepts laid down by Marx and Engels, but even if e.g. Stalin had been a veritable angel, the system would still have failed. Socialism is literally impossible as Mises has already proved in 1920. In brief: it is a system in which rational economic calculation becomes impossible, because there are no longer prices for capital goods once private property in the means of production is abolished. A system bereft of economic calculation can no longer allocate scarce resources efficiently. It cannot really be called an economy anymore. It a system that is doomed to break down in short order, and the only reason why it survived as long as it did in the former Eastern Bloc was that the COMECON planners were able to observe the price system in the capitalist countries and so could engage in a rudimentary form of economic calculation. Had the whole world become socialistic, the economy and division of labor would have completely collapsed within a few years and people would have been forced to return to a hand-to-mouth existence, barely able to subsist. Life would once again have become 'nasty, brutish and short'.


No, It Was Not Meant to Be a Satire …

In other words, it seems quite important that people really understand why socialism cannot work. After all, bad ideas have a habit of coming back after a while and an example for this has just been delivered via an editorial in the 'Rolling Stone', penned by one Jesse A. Myerson, a former 'Occupy' movement organizer.

At first many people mistakenly thought it was meant to be a satire, but it soon turned out it actually wasn't. On Twitter, Myerson runs the hashtag #FULLCOMMUNISM (anything less than the 'full' version apparently won't do), so there can be no doubt as to his ideological proclivities.

Anyway, in his article, couched in 'hip' language (the word 'blow' or 'blows' is used frequently, as in e.g. 'work blows'), he argues that millennials should make five economic demands, namely:

1. Guaranteed work for everybody, 2. a basic income for everybody (he calls that 'social security', but he actually means that everybody should get a government salary in exchange for – nothing. Being able to fog a mirror is sufficient reason), 3. the expropriation of landowners (it is not 100% clear if he merely argues for a Georgist land tax or full-scale expropriation), 4. the abolition of private property and nationalization of the means of production, and 5. a 'public bank in every state'.

The last demand sounds like he has picked up the ideas of the Greenbackers and associated monetary cranks, who hold that the monetary system could be improved if money printing were left to politicians directly rather than a central bank (for a trenchant critique of Greenbackism, read Gary North, who correctly notes that the ideology is at the root indistinguishable from Hitler's economic program).

So essentially, this leader/hero of the 'Occupy' movement proposes an economic program that is a jumbled mixture of Marxism/Stalinism, Georgism and National Socialism. Whoa!

Luckily not even the readers of Rolling Stone are falling for this stuff, judging from the comments section below the editorial. However, we have once again come across many comments that show that the problem discussed further above continues to persist – i.e., many people still seem convinced that communism would actually work if only it were 'done right'. That this is a fundamental error needs to be pointed out at every opportunity.

Not surprisingly, Myerson has become a target of ridicule all over the media landscape by now. Especially conservative columnists had a field day. However, Myerson of course stands by his nonsense, and attempted to defend it on Twitter and elsewhere. One of the more interesting conversations revolved around the accusation that what he proposed amounted to a defense of the system practiced by the Soviet Union. Since it has clearly failed there, there was really nothing left to discuss. As one might expect, Myerson retorted that of course, the Soviets never implemented his demands. In other words, the leftist trope that the 'communists never really tried communism' was predictably dug up by him. If only they had done so, they would of course have succeeded, so the story goes.

Unfortunately for him, there are a great many fact checkers out and about these days.  One of them proved that not only had every single one of his demands been implemented by the Soviets, but they were actually without exception part of the Soviet constitution. On the Drew Musings blog an article entitled “Advocate For #FULLCOMMUNISM Says Soviet Union Did Not Try #FULLCOMMUNISMhas all the details and quotes from the Soviet Union's constitution. As Drew concludes, the only thing that still needs to be mentioned regarding the communists is that


“They did succeed at one thing…killing million upon millions of people in their efforts to remake society and maintain their control. #FULLCOMMUNISM = #MILLIONSDEAD. Always has, always will.”


That is not exactly an unimportant detail. Since the expropriation of private property necessarily involves force, it cannot be implemented without killing and imprisoning people. Once the system is established, it must continue to use force to ensure that the new ruling class won't be challenged and that the system remains in place.



It is heartening that so many people, including the readership of the generally leftist Rolling Stone magazine, have vehemently disagreed with Myerson and heaped ridicule on his vile editorial. However, keep in mind that as time passes, the ignominious collapse of the communist system will become an ever more distant memory. In fact, that such an article is published at all is already a sign that this is happening. It is also concerning that the idea that communism would be just fine if only implemented correctly continues to be held by so many people. This is a result of widespread economic ignorance. It is more important to challenge the ideas propagated by Myerson on theoretical grounds than by merely citing historical events. Only if it is widely understood by people that socialism is indeed impossible will the danger posed by the Marxist ideology truly be banned.



communistsThe fathers of the Marxist ideology, Marx and Engels and two important leaders of the Marxist reality, Lenin and Stalin – briefly resurrected by the 'Rolling Stone'. Let us make sure they are interred again.

(Image source unknown – The Web)





Emigrate While You Can... Learn More




Dear Readers!

You may have noticed that our so-called “semiannual” funding drive, which started sometime in the summer if memory serves, has seamlessly segued into the winter. In fact, the year is almost over! We assure you this is not merely evidence of our chutzpa; rather, it is indicative of the fact that ad income still needs to be supplemented in order to support upkeep of the site. Naturally, the traditional benefits that can be spontaneously triggered by donations to this site remain operative regardless of the season - ranging from a boost to general well-being/happiness (inter alia featuring improved sleep & appetite), children including you in their songs, up to the likely allotment of privileges in the afterlife, etc., etc., but the Christmas season is probably an especially propitious time to cross our palms with silver. A special thank you to all readers who have already chipped in, your generosity is greatly appreciated. Regardless of that, we are honored by everybody's readership and hope we have managed to add a little value to your life.


Bitcoin address: 12vB2LeWQNjWh59tyfWw23ySqJ9kTfJifA


10 Responses to “Karl Marx Gets Resurrected at the Rolling Stone Magazine”

  • Crysangle:

    No apology for erring off topic here PT as you are free to edit this entry … I will try to get away with a lateral association to a blog posted by KarlreMarks (who’s reputation I cannot vouch for though it seems inspired , at least from what I have read) . What brings me to a post of his are the remarks of General Al-Sisi in Egypt .

    Quoting the BBC :

    Egypt’s army chief Abdel Fattah al-Sisi will run for president if the people request it and the military supports the bid, state media quote him saying.

    “If I nominate myself, there must be a popular demand, and a mandate from my army,” state paper Al-Ahram quoted him as telling Egyptian officials.

    The general feels he could not stand aside if there was palpable demand for him to run, an official told AFP.

    Brought to mind the following satire :

    Or if we are looking for something slightly more transcendental (still satire ) :

    While not forgetting the original :

  • worldend666:

    I’ve often wondered if completely the wrong curriculum is taught in schools. Here are some of the things I wish I was taught:

    – how to spot a con man an how to take care of your savings to old age when you will need them
    – how to cook and the problem with processed foods
    – how to stay healthy and how to take care of myself
    – to carry around a healthy dose of cynicism, especially for people who have no skin in the game
    – that the government is not benevolent and is self interested, and that power does not mean legitimacy
    – the value of honesty, dignity and integrity
    – respect for others instead of respect for authority
    – hollywood romance should be kept in Hollywood and divorce is the most expensive thing you will ever do

    – and of course human nature and how it relates to business, finance and politics.

  • Vess:

    These stupid ideas truly won’t die…

    There is apparently a movement these days (they are trying to get 1 million signatures, in order to force the European Parliament to consider the proposal) that says that every EU citizen must be provided by a “basic income” of 400-1000 euros per month.

    That by itself is sufficient to make you start looking for a wall to bang your head onto, but it gets even better. I read an article by a professor of economics who supports that idea with “economic” arguments.

    You see, this guy claims that implementing such an idiocy would be beneficial for the economy. First, it will get rid of the whole bureaucracy that currently handles unemployed. Have you ever heard of a bureaucracy anywhere dismantling itself?

    Second, he argues, most recipients of this basic income are likely to spend it on consumer goods, thus stimulating the economy.

    Meanwhile, back on Earth. My monthly salary is about 220 euros. Now, pray tell, if even the lowest proposed limit of “basic income” is implemented, what stimulus would I have to keep working instead of quitting work and doubling my income?

    OK, you might argue that with a salary like that, my production is probably not vital for the economy, so let’s drop that line of thought. Let’s approach it from the other end. Where would the money for this basic income, uhm, *come* from?? You can just print it, of course, but that won’t really be income, it would just be dillution of the income of the others (and of their savings). The professor says that it can be obtained “via the tax structures” – in other words, it can be *taken* (by force) from those who actually produce enough valuable things to have enough money so that 400-1000 euros can be taken from their paycheck.

    So, implementing this brain-dead moronic idea would (a) discourage people from working, thus reducing the economic output and (b) steal captial from the people who are actually working, thus reducing the economic output even further. And that is supposed to be a good idea?!

    There was recently an article about Norway, saying that their government had invested the proceeds of the North Sea oil money into a sovereign wealth fund and now every Norwegian is a “millionaire” (albeit in Norwegian krone) – i.e., has at least 1 mil. NOK to their name that would be used for retirement, social security, etc. The article mentioned in the same breadth that every 5th Norwegian already gets some kind of hand-out from the government…

    • bubbly:

      The idea with basic income is that everyone would be receiving the money, regardless of their work-income. So if your current salary is EUR220, with a basic income of EUR400, you would be getting EUR620 and thus, you would not be discouraged from work. That is the theory. Of course, in the real world, someone with a salary of 220/month would likely still not bother working. To this, many proponents of basic income respond that robots are going to replace all human work anyway, so this is a good thing.
      I am not endorsing basic income, just reporting what I found out when looking deeper into the issue.

      What I find interesting is that this idea is being promoted not only by socialists, but also by people who claim to be classical liberals (euro-libertarians).

  • The question is, who is going to drive the slaves?

  • No6:

    Unfortunately, after the next inevitable devastating economic crisis is seen to be a result of capitalism, the above described hell is likely to be resurrected.

Your comment:

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Most read in the last 20 days:

  • India’s Experiments with COVID-19
      Shooting from the Hip [ed. note: the tweets linked below mainly show videos from various lockdown phases]   Reminiscent of his demonetization effort in 2016, on 24th March 2020, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, appeared on TV and declared an immediate nationwide curfew. No one was to be allowed to leave wherever he or she happened to be. All flights, trains (after 167 years of continual operation) and road transportation came to a complete, shrieking...

Support Acting Man

Austrian Theory and Investment


The Review Insider


Dog Blow

THE GOLD CARTEL: Government Intervention on Gold, the Mega Bubble in Paper and What This Means for Your Future

Realtime Charts


Gold in USD:

[Most Recent Quotes from]



Gold in EUR:

[Most Recent Quotes from]



Silver in USD:

[Most Recent Quotes from]



Platinum in USD:

[Most Recent Quotes from]



USD - Index:

[Most Recent USD from]


Mish Talk

    Buy Silver Now!
    Buy Gold Now!