Marxian Economics vs. Neo-Classical Economics

I accept. Preliminarily, I point out that some of the definitions and words used by Pro require further clarification. The Pro side fails to define "value." Value = the estimated or assigned worth of something that is either tangible or intangible. [1] The Pro side defines labor relations as "[t]he relationship between those who control the means of production and the workers." I will assume that my opponent really means "the relationship between business owners and their workers." To Marx, the "means of production" meant tangible objects used to produce goods. [2] My opponent's definition of "labor relations" itself shows the outdatedness of Marx's theories. Marx wrote at a time when markets were dominated almost entirely by the production of *goods.* Marx did not even see *services* as being part of the economy. Since Marx's time, we have shifted from producing almost 100% goods to being a primarily services-based economy . [3] Marx also wrote at a time where intangible property (such as a license to use software code) did not exist. Without updating my opponent's definition to modern times, the vast majority of workers in the US would not be considered to be in a "labor relationship" with their bosses because they are either in the services industry or make intangible intellectual property. [3] For "market structure," I would simply like to add that "conditions" in markets are typically measured by the relative strength of buyers and sellers. [4] There are four quintessential examples of market structures: (1) perfect competition, (2) oligopoly, (3) monopoly, and (4) monopsony. [4] Markets generally fall on a scale somewhere between the extremes of a complete monopoly/monopsony and perfect competition. Lastly, before we begin, I would just like to set a simple framework for the debate. Both theories of economics are judged by their explanatory power. They both use models to help us understand the world. The model that better explains why certain things happen in the world is the better model. But no model is perfect. They aren't meant to be. A perfect model would have so much complexity that it would no longer serve its purpose as a model, which is to *simplify* certain processes in order to aid us in understanding them. As an example, picture the model of atom that you learned in chemistry. The depicted rotation of electrons is drastically over-simplified. But this over-simplication was to aid you in understanding and conceptualizing how an atom worked. The same is true for economic models. Therefore, proof that an assumption of one of the models is not completely true (such as proving that people do not always act fully rationally) does not invalidate the model unless it deprives it of its explanatory power (for example, by proving that as a result, supply and demand have no explanatory power). Lastly, to aid my opponent in writing his next round, I will do him the service of warning him that I intend not only to defend neoclassical economic's ability to better explain why our current economy works the way it does, but also to explain why Communism fails. Therefore, if he intends to defend Marx's theories, it would behoove him to offer his defense of how Marx would explain the failure of his ideas in the USSR. And with that, I turn the debate over to my opponent. [1] http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [3] http://ftp.iza.org... [4] http://www.businessdictionary.com...