Articles - Journaltalk

Join this discussion.

1 comment

1. How on earth did this paper make it to the JPE? This comment is not about ideology but about simple logic.

   Let us assume, for simplicity, that their empirical tests were conducted correctly. How does their results relate to their conclusion AT ALL? The rise in Ngram shows an increase in fame, not academic statue. The authors provide no justification for the leap in their logic.

   Moreover, let us assume that every tests the authors ran are correct, and that Marx’s fame and consequently academic status did rise as a result of the revolution. How on earth does this suggest that Marx is NOT worthy of this? (I’m not saying he is or isn’t. I just cannot toloerate the lack of logic)

   Suppose Marx’s work in any field is trash. Why do researchers in other field keep discussing Marx and his work? Is it because all other fields are stupid?

   Or, perhaps, there is a perfect economic explanation. Due to the lack of, well, the internet, and the fact that French and Germen were arguably the more important scientific languages, the work of Marx did not receive it’s desired attention IN CERTAIN FIELDS. (Obviously, Marx’s econ theory in capital iii was wrong, but his other ideas could be useful). In other words, there was a market failure. The war as well as the revolution introduced the work of Marx to many, thus resolving the inefficiency in the market for ideas due to cost of information.

   Perhaps the best annecdotal evidence to reject the authors’ claims is the fact that van Gogh only sold one painting when he was alive. The authors might believe that van Gogh’s fame is accidental and completely attributable to the exhibition of his work organized by his sister eleven years after his death! Why was van Gogh’s work well received after the publicity? Why was Marx’s work well received after the publicity? The authors don’t seem to bother. They are completely statisfied some statistical artifact.

   posted 21 Oct 2024, 10:54 PM by Aiqi Sun