[vintageseltzer]

I used to believe that, but yeah, that hasn't happened and is not likely to, because the real world does not operate anywhere close to an efficient market.

Instead, those with the means of production have hoarded the benefits. Despite all of our technological progress after the American industrial revolution, we are working more hours and earning less as a whole. Despite record profits, companies are not increasing wages and prices are not decreasing for anything except cheap, low-quality, mass-market consumer goods.

See: trickle down economics.

[genericpseudo]

> those with the means of production have hoarded the benefits

And, behold, we see someone rediscovering the central tenet of Marxist economic theory.

(Entirely serious; not an insult. HN readers could really do with a more balanced economic diet – reading more Marxist theory and less Chicago School...)

[eropple]

I upvoted you, but I want to also vocally agree with you because I think it's important. Even if you don't come away agreeing with the conclusions of Marxist economists, etc., understanding it is worth the time it takes. Considering theories that are not automatically in agreement with those that currently run the show is valuable.

(This is why I've read a solid chunk of the Austrians. I generally laugh at them. But I've read their stuff and I can think in it once I get into the mindset.)

[TeMPOraL]

I agree. Also, Marxism didn't appear out of thin air - it was a response to real and perceived problems of the people living at some point in the past. So even if solutions don't ultimately make sense, the problems they've observed are worth thinking about.

[eropple]

An argument for learning about history, too? Are we allowed to have this thread on Hacker News? ;)

[TeMPOraL]

Oh. I didn't see the HN Experiment announcement until just now.

I'm promptly shutting up about anything for which the valid answer isn't "Lisp does it better". ;).

[genericpseudo]

Haskell's type system is clearly political dialectic.

[genericpseudo]

> Even if you don't come away agreeing with the conclusions of Marxist economists, etc., understanding it is worth the time it takes

Yes! It's a useful lens – just as Hayek is. No-one has a monopoly on absolute truth in the social sciences, so understanding (and empathizing with) all the framing narratives, most all of which have some kind of a point, is crucial to being able to navigate these kinds of discussion.)

Understanding Marxist (and Hayekian) thought has been very helpful to me in framing my own politics – which, ironically enough, wind up being moderate market/social liberalism in the European tradition.

[eropple]

Sounds similar to my own path. I started off in the libertarian bucket (unsurprisingly, being an affluent white kid) and ended up evolving towards a position roughly summed up as "markets are fine so long as you put the fear of the state in them for antisocial behavior" the more time I spent outside of my CS classes and in my political science and economics classes.

To this day I'm so thankful that I got a B.A. that let me actually leave the CS cage during college instead of just taking more math.

[burkaman]

I think anyone who uses the phrase "means of production" was probably already familiar with Marxism.

[TeMPOraL]

Many people know the phrase - maybe they even remember it from history lessons. But understanding what it means is often absent (as with many concepts one doesn't use) until one for some reason starts thinking about it more.

[lucio]

"those with the means of production have hoarded the benefits"... totally agree, for example, Elon Musk's Tesla should be Nationalized ASAP. </sarcasm>