Quite the opposite. Everyone praises Karl Marx and Keynes, although they been proven wrong many times. Most Millenials think that Capitalism and freemarkets are evil, while Socialism is good. History has proven otherwise
I subscribe to the Chicago school way of thinking way more than Marx or Keynesian economics, but I totally disagree. Everything about economics can be wrong. You can't control for every variable in a market. It just isn't possible. Even economic "laws" like supply and demand have counter examples like Giffen goods.
Counter examples only show that something does not work in all cases. It isn't a proof that something doesn't work in any case. Supply and demand is going to hold true in the vast majority of cases despite the existence of counter examples. In a similar vein, you can't say that an economic model is invalid in all cases because there are counter examples.
There are a ton of external factors that lead to the success or failure of a market. Culture, politics, resources, and industrialization play a huge role in shaping the market. These things are ever changing. Argue against the model, not its success or failure.
>You can't control for every variable in a market. It just isn't possible. Even economic "laws" like supply and demand have counter examples like Giffen goods.
That's the whole point. Markets are decentralized brains, while Socialism advocates that a government as a central planner will be more efficient (it could be more efficient in specific cases like total war or natural disasters) and lead to Communism where we won't even need a government because society will behave as one being.
I don't think you know much about Marx or Keynes, if you conflate them like this. Keynes has been proven right as thoroughly as it is practically possible to prove an economist right. The greatest economic expansion in the modern world happened during the poswar period in the US, western European and certain Asian economies when those economies were entirely under the influence of Keynesian policies. When Keynesian policies started being moved away in favor of Friedman's monetarist policies, in the mid 80's growth promptly slowed.
South America rejected Keneysian policies for what they believed were more "free market" policies. They suffered greatly, and they did not experience the massive postwar growth the Western world and the Asian Keynesian countries (Japan, Taiwan, S Korea) experienced. This was a great tragedy, because south america should have done great as they were the only corner of the world not affected by WW2. But they remained mired in poverty.
It is difficult to prove an economist right or wrong because it is difficult to run experiments in macro economics. But as much as it is possible to prove an economist right, Keynes has been proven right.
The current US government debt has nothing to do with Keynes. The current debt is the result of our ruling classes thinking they could have endless multi-front war and tax cuts at the same time. If this was a Keynes debt it would be spent on massive infrastructure projects within the US, to make our economy much more efficient.
Furthermore, you probably do not remember this, but the Clinton administration was paying back the debt and had America on a path to being debt free. But Bill Clinton, scumbag as he was, wasn't stupid. The wars he started were very short and very cheap.
The only country in South America that kept loyal to the Chicago School was Chile and its results really show.
The rest is very Keynesian and it shows. I'm from South America, trust me. Saying that you're a libertarian here is taken as if saying you're a fascist. Guess who they blame for our own failures? Capitalism and imperialism, of course.
I'm against reductive poles like "free market/no regulation/efficient market" VS "socialism/communism". That whole axis of either you're pro-capitalism OR pro-socialism does not make sense. It is a false dichotomy. The fact that socialism failed does not magically make capitalism is perfect, and the fact that I criticize some fallacies brought by simple models of economics does not make me a socialist!
One can criticize the current system without implying socialism/communism is the way to go!! I believe the current system has many flaws and they can be reformed. All systems have flaws, and instead of throwing our hands up and saying "welp this is the best system we can do!" we can choose to shape the market when it is good for society.
The market exists to serve society, not the other way around. It is only a tool.
Every succesful first world country is built with social-democratic provisions to unconstrained markets, those are very indebted to Keynes in particular.
Counter examples only show that something does not work in all cases. It isn't a proof that something doesn't work in any case. Supply and demand is going to hold true in the vast majority of cases despite the existence of counter examples. In a similar vein, you can't say that an economic model is invalid in all cases because there are counter examples.
There are a ton of external factors that lead to the success or failure of a market. Culture, politics, resources, and industrialization play a huge role in shaping the market. These things are ever changing. Argue against the model, not its success or failure.