#1
Post rating: +
ANDREW KLIMAN, I BIND AND ABJURE THEE
#2
Post rating: +
okay hopefully this means he'll register here as he seems to google himself and turn up in comment threads a lot
#3
Post rating: ~
best of luck, OP.
#4
[account deactivated]
#5
Post rating: ~
andrew kliman, isn't he that mormon libertarian economist who teaches in utah and votes for ron paul?
#6
Post rating: +
p. sure he works at pace university where he teaches picante studies
#7
Kurdt
Post rating: ~
he's the supply side marxist
#8
Post rating: +
dude u need a tiny bag and a candle for summon monster I
#9
Post rating: ~

TG posted:
p. sure he works at pace university where he teaches picante studies

even then, he is a purveyor of inferior philosophy, as chunky is obviously the better choice.

#10
Mike Nelson here.
Post rating: ~
quind wrote an article about kliman for the occupy tampa newspaper
#11
Post rating: +++++
well he certainly sounds like a marxist
http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=103859&all=true

The best! I never would've gone to class if it weren't for Kliman! Weekly homework, midterm, and final... pretty easy! Goofy sense of humor and constantly sweats lol... he's a nice man, tho and a great professor!EASY A!!



Cheated the whole time, but the girl I got my answers was smart, but he was easy and he is very lazy, so u can cheat all day, he too fat to walk around the class.



He is a knowledgeable lecturer. Some of the concepts he holds dear are not factually accurate but it is obvious that he prepares for class, as he has examples ready to explain his points. All in all, he is a good professor.

#12
Post rating: ~

gyrofry posted:
he's the supply side marxist



lol what

#13
Post rating: ~
explain
#14
Post rating: +
haha hes just the guy who keeps saying the argument about wage depression being anything to do with the present crisis is stupid, and moreover marxists who see the law of teh tendency of the rate of profit to fall as invalid are being Bad Marxists. he says theres been a secular decline in the rate of profit since like 1970, and neoliberalism did fuck all to prevent it.

also he did a bunch of shit about the transformation problem, coming up with the Temporal Single-System Interpretation Of The Labour Theory Of VAlue in order to get round some stuff nobuo okishio wrote apparently disproving it or something

at least i think thats the brief version of his argument.
#15
Post rating: ~
oh yeah, that guy, i think mccaine has a huge ol' crush for that theory
#16
[account deactivated]
#17
Post rating: ~
The Transformation Problem
#18
Post rating: ~

Duménil: You’re just bullshitting now. We always, you know,

Kliman: year 2005.

Duménil: Yeah, but you know, I cannot hear that. I mean, you cannot just say anything.

Kliman: In your 20-

Duménil:

Kliman: In your 2005 paper, the data are up to the year 2000,

Duménil: No, you said ’97. So now

Kliman: Wait, wait.

Duménil:

Kliman: No, no, you’re not even listening to me. I said your data are through the year 2000. But when you say the rate of profit has recovered, you’re truncating the data at the year 1997. Okay? That’s a reference to the table where you take a certain movement from a certain date up to the year 1997. This is a fact. Okay?

D:

#19
Post rating: ~
Phd. Utah. lookin good
#20
Post rating: ~

dm posted:

Duménil: You’re just bullshitting now. We always, you know,

Kliman: year 2005.

Duménil: Yeah, but you know, I cannot hear that. I mean, you cannot just say anything.

Kliman: In your 20-

Duménil:

Kliman: In your 2005 paper, the data are up to the year 2000,

Duménil: No, you said ’97. So now

Kliman: Wait, wait.

Duménil:

Kliman: No, no, you’re not even listening to me. I said your data are through the year 2000. But when you say the rate of profit has recovered, you’re truncating the data at the year 1997. Okay? That’s a reference to the table where you take a certain movement from a certain date up to the year 1997. This is a fact. Okay?

D:



hahaha whats this from DM?

#21
Post rating: ~
if u google it this comes up:

http://akliman.squarespace.com/storage/Showdown%20at%20the%20HM%20Corral%20pdf%202.19.10.pdf
#22
Mike Nelson here.
Post rating: ~
i'm going to go to historical materialism 2012 in toronto

maybe i'll see him there
#23
Post rating: ~

aerdil posted:
if u google it this comes up:

http://akliman.squarespace.com/storage/Showdown%20at%20the%20HM%20Corral%20pdf%202.19.10.pdf



serious ownage

#24
Kurdt
Post rating: +++++

getfiscal posted:
i'm going to go to historical materialism 2012 in toronto

maybe i'll see him there


its cool that you have themes for your birthday parties

#25
Post rating: ~
There appears to be an internal inconsistency in Makerowner's message. He doesn't like the statement that "charges that a theory is internally inconsistent serve to inhibit, on seemingly legitimate grounds, the public's access to the theory, and the study, discussion, and current development of it." Yet he himself acknowledges that Marx's theory "came under fire for its alleged internal inconsistency"! (my emphasis). Hmm. Why "came under fire" rather than "was praised to the skies for its alleged internal inconsistency"? Why "came under fire" rather than "became a required component of the economics curriculum because of its internal inconsistency"? Why "came under fire" rather than "had its development spurred on by lavish public and private funding of research in it, owing to its internal inconsistency"? andrew-the-k 02:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
#26
Post rating: ~
Makerowner, you are right that the TSSI article is a bad article (though it's a far cry better than everything in WP on related "Marxian economic" topics, which are mostly complete garbage, filled with meaningless statements, trivial errors, irrelevancies, etc.). If you want to know why, the reason is here in front of you--the mistrust of and disrespect shown on WP to people who know what they're talking about, and the Wild West policies that allow others to destroy their work at a moment's notice and that compel them to defend it ad infinitum. Believe me, I have NO intention of exerting myself in order to create good articles on the TSSI and related subjects on WP under these conditions, and neither does anyone else who has the knowledge needed to do so. No one is willing to write a really reputable, proper encyclopedia article on controversial matters only to see it destroyed ("mercilessly edited") and attacked at the drop of a pin. I got onto WP only in order to defend myself and my colleagues against defamation and slander--see Jurriaan Bendien's original version of the TSSI article if you want to talk about a bad article (though his fellow Laibmanite Watchdog07 prefers it to the present one)--and I continue to be on WP for that purpose. I understand and agree with your desire for a better article, especially one that discusses criticisms of the TSSI (which are absent from the present version, though venom directed at its proponents is included), but I will not be the one to draft it. And your way of trying to do it is simply unworkable. You're trying to put together, as opposites, statements which aren't opposites. The opposite of "internally inconsistent arguments cannot possibly be right" is neither "proponents of the TSSI are NOMists who advocate cannibalism and use the blood of simultaneist children to bake their Matzot" nor "while critics have complained that the inconsistencies remain (source)." The only opposite here is "other experts contend that internally inconsistent arguments can be right (source)." If you don't find such a source, then, by all means, stick criticisms of the TSSI into the article--but elsewhere, where they belong, not as if they're the opposite of the "opinion" that "internally inconsistent arguments cannot possibly be right."

i love this man
#27
Post rating: +
this is the modern equivalent of marx's sick footnote burns in capital. first as tragedy, then as farce.
#28
Post rating: ~
post that insane kliman xtranormal youtube pl0x
#29
Hell,
Post rating: ~

statickinetics posted:
There appears to be an internal inconsistency in Makerowner's message. He doesn't like the statement that "charges that a theory is internally inconsistent serve to inhibit, on seemingly legitimate grounds, the public's access to the theory, and the study, discussion, and current development of it." Yet he himself acknowledges that Marx's theory "came under fire for its alleged internal inconsistency"! (my emphasis). Hmm. Why "came under fire" rather than "was praised to the skies for its alleged internal inconsistency"? Why "came under fire" rather than "became a required component of the economics curriculum because of its internal inconsistency"? Why "came under fire" rather than "had its development spurred on by lavish public and private funding of research in it, owing to its internal inconsistency"? andrew-the-k 02:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)



Yeah this shit that didn't happen, why did it happen? Why did it happen, George? I don't hear answers. I don't hear anything. What. What. How you gonna carry this. Yeah. That's what I thought. Freshwater, b!tch.

#30
Post rating: ~
reading this dudes book now (failure of capitalist production) who else has it, let's talk about this fuckin turkey
#31
Dont Mess With Sucess
Post rating: ~
nice bump steg but idgi how someone can read something and not agree with it
#32
Poronto
Post rating: ~
wait i dont get it is he Good or Bad
#33
Post rating: ~
Damn i thought he came in after all
#34
Zinovievist-Trotskyist gang
Post rating: ~
wow that dumenil exchange is interesting. harvey's brief history of neoliberalism is based on a lot of dumenil & levi's data.

kliman's also been going after the monthly review for abusing data:

A recent article of mine scrutinized Fred Magdoff and John Bellamy Foster’s cover-story article in the March 2013 issue of Monthly Review. I showed that they produced no valid evidence in support of their claims that there has been “a long-term decline in the relative power of the working class, with capital increasingly gaining the upper hand,” and that this shift in power relations has produced a long-term “decline in the share of the economy going to labor.”

I noted that one of the many errors in their article was the fact that “their key evidence … on employee compensation as a share of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) …, is obtained by combining data from different datasets in a glaringly invalid way, without regard to whether the datasets are measuring the same thing.” But it turns out that what they did is even worse than I thought.



http://www.marxisthumanistinitiative.org/economic-crisis/monthly-failure-to-review-even-worse-than-i-thought.html

#35
Post rating: ~
im reading the failure of capitalist production. its crazier than a fish with titties
#36
[account deactivated]
#37
Dont Mess With Sucess
Post rating: ~

roseweird posted:

jools' spell didn't work bc he abjured when he shoulda conjured :I

from what i can see, you posted in this thread, and now andrew kliman won't take it seriously.

#38
[account deactivated]
#39
Post rating: ~

stegosaurus posted:

reading this dudes book now (failure of capitalist production) who else has it, let's talk about this fuckin turkey



So what do you think of it?

#40
Post rating: +
This is the best part:

"So the notion of state-controlled capital is an oxymoron, like jumbo shrimp"
Kliman 2012, p. 196