A contribution to the critique of Krugman's Ricardo paper 

Krugman: "The idea of comparative advantage -- with its implication that trade between two nations normally raises the real incomes of both -- is, like evolution via natural selection, a concept that seems simple and compelling to those who understand it".

--- Sorry but almost all aspects/concepts in economics is on a extremely higher abstraction level than molecular or cell-level biology, and biology is void of a conflation between statistical and political "biology" which is not even biology, but political philosophy.

Krugman:  I am not talking here about the problem of communicating the case for free trade to crudely anti-intellectual opponents, people who simply dislike the idea of ideas".

--- Geez, we do not have free trade in any Geo-economic jurisdictions that is even partly industrialized, what we have is politicized- regulated/legislated/managed/administered/governed trade. Same goes for the expression: "free market(s)".

Krugman: "At the shallowest level, some intellectuals reject comparative advantage simply out of a desire to be intellectually fashionable. Free trade, they are aware, has some sort of iconic status among economists; so, in a culture that always prizes the avant-garde, attacking that icon is seen as a way to seem daring and unconventional."

--- We do not have "free trade", not for several hundred years. And not even in the days and place of the Roman Empire was it totally laissez fair. You couldn't take a "noble man" or patrician as your slave, and not even a plebeian, if he/she was a roman citizen.  Everywhere there was dense populations, there were power asymmetry. An emperor or his bureaucrat, or a feudal lord, if you had substantially more than other citizens (economic agents), you were prone to be "assessed" by the anthropogenic powers that were. And you had to bring tribute to the power in charge, or move elsewhere.

Krugman: "After all, economists are familiar with a number of reasons why the gains from free trade may not work out quite as easily as in the simplest Ricardian model."
 --- We do not have free trade, not even a slight resemblance of free trade.

Krugman: "Or consider the recent anti-free-trade writings of James Fallows,".
--- Are you not anti-free-trade professor Krugman? What is your views on the minimum wage?

Krugman: "Free trade is a sacred cow of economists, who are well-known to be boring, stuffy types; what could be a better way to reinforce one's credentials as a radical, innovative thinker than to skewer their most beloved doctrine?"
--- Doctor Krugman, you do not believe in free trade, and you don't want to open that door. Don't go there Mr. Krugman. I'm warning you...! 

Krugman: "free trade is old hat".
--- How much free trade was there in old China 3000 years ago, and in the Roman Empire 2000 years ago? How much free trade was there 100 years ago in the USA and in Europe? How much free trade will there be in the future? The answers depends, among other things on what level of judicial and legal institutions there will be in the future, and on the power range of the national assemblies.

Krugman: "Two goods, two countries, one productive factor, perfect competition."
--- Which is never the case in the real world, aka the economic terrain where agents do business.
Does Krugman really believes this conceptualization has any relevance to the real world?? 
Dr. Krugman, have you heard of "state of affairs"? How bout' economic/financial state of affairs?

Krugman: "that in the long run the economy has a natural self-correcting tendency to return to full employment."
--- And what is the long run? 100 years? 200 years, 500 years or more? A "natural" tendency, does this involves elections, politicians and national assemblies??

 Krugman: "evolutionary theory -- the real thing -- is based on mathematical models; indeed, increasingly it is based on computer simulation."
--- Nonsense! Biological evolution is observable, and falsiefieable. It is not at all based on mathematical models more than the laws of thermodynamics and the gravitational theories is based on mathematical models. It is based on observable falsiefieable facts!! And empirical data which for the natural sciences is both observable and falsifiable. Not so with most economic theories.
We have experimental physics, and we also have some experimental biology in laboratories. Don't confuse mathematics with science.  A great economist would never make imbecile statements about elementary epistemological methods.
Almost all science in natural science is based on full empiricism, except theoretical physics, which is mostly based on experimental physics, which is laws of the universe, by the way and quite different from statistical correlations in the realm of economics.

 Krugman: "justify modeling: Do not presume, as I did, that people accept and understand the idea that models facilitate understanding. Most intellectuals don't accept that idea, and must be persuaded or at least put on notice that it is an issue. It is particularly useful to have some clear examples of how "common sense" can be misleading."
--- What facilitate science way more than understanding, is empirical data based on observable findings with small confidence intervals.

 Krugman: "a simple model can clarify matters immensely".
--- Empirical data thoroughly examined and cross-checked can clarify matters. Does Krugman adhere and follow the rationalistic method rather than the scientific method used by physicists, biologists and chemists? Does Krugman think that he can think and reason himself to clarity without empirical observations?? Does not Krugman pertain to be Teh Empiricist-economist?

 Krugman: "Ricardo's idea is truly, madly, deeply difficult. But it is also utterly true, immensely sophisticated -- and extremely relevant to the modern world".
--- What is extremely more important than Ricardo's idea of comparative advantage in relation to managed, legislated, administered trade, is comparative advantage in relation to political economy in general, and especially the distribution profiles on a macro level.  Which countries had most financial/economic comparative advantage in the context of payoff-probability for
Geo-econ-jurisdictions from 1950 until today, or even from 2007 and until today? Was it not the social capitalistic countries that applies the Nordic model, aka Rhine Capitalism??

 ---
We humans are not first and foremost economic agents or trade/trading agents, not anywhere near the way economists perceive people. We are individuals, family members, group members, society members, workers, retirees, students etc. I will remind the naivist's that it didn't take a long time from literacy was invented until societies became so culturally complex that any economic activity had to comply with local law or common law or formal law. You can't trade what you want to trade, unless you comply with the people's cultural construction and social construction in whatever society and economic sphere that we want to roam. Basciat's negative railroad is a good example of this. And of course, the falling profit rates between countries is the most important aspect in this.

Some last words on David Ricardo and free trade; One way of interpreting this concept is that we assume that there would be as much free trade between two or more countries that it is inside a country...!!! lolz. Was it this plan that Marx and/or Ricardo had in mind? Because then it makes sense at least in theoretical logic...! And then there would be no worry about "socialism/communism in one country". There would then be whatever capitalism or (free trade) socialism in a big country that earlier existed as several smaller countries...!
And there would be equilibrium...! Hallelujah and amen :-] :-}

Kommentarer om Rødt's partiprogram 

 Fra Rødt's partiprogram: "Arbeiderklassen kan ikke styre samfunnet etter sine egne interesser innafor rammene av kapitalismen og den private eiendomsretten. Derfor må det skje en revolusjon der arbeiderklassen gjør staten til sitt redskap for grunnleggende systemendringer, og tar styringa over bankene, de store selskapene og de sentrale institusjonene i samfunnet. Historisk har makthaverne brukt alle tilgjengelige midler for å holde på sine privilegier. En sosialistisk revolusjon vil ikke kunne seire uten at borgerskapet avvæpnes og folket tar kontroll over militærmakten. Rødt vil arbeide for at maktovertakelsen skal skje fredelig, og med demokratiske midler."
---
Min versjon: "Arbeiderklassen og flertallet i befolkningen kan bare delvis styre samfunnet etter sine egne interesser innenfor rammene av asymmetrisk capitalisme og den corporative eiendomsretten. Derfor må det skje en reform der arbeiderklassen og samfunns-borgerne gjør staten til sitt redskap for betydelige modellendringer, og tar enda mer demokratisk styring over bankene, de store selskapene og de sentrale institusjonene i samfunnet.
Historisk har makthaverne brukt alle tilgjengelige midler for å holde på sine privilegier. En sosialistisk demokratisk reform vil muligens ikke kunne seire uten at makt-eliten blir utfordret mht. demokratiske maktfordelings-prinsipper, inkludert fortsatt demokratisk konstitusjonell kontroll over militærmakten og politiet.
Rødt vil arbeide for at maktovertakelsen skal skje fredelig, og med demokratiske midler, fortrinnsvis direkte demokrati".

(på flyer: Vi bringer Joseph Schumpeter's creative destruksjon et par steg videre. vil du delta i den fremtidige økonomiske egalitære evolusjon?).

Merk: Begrepet "evolusjon" har en affinitiv connotasjon som gjør at "evolusjon" minner litt om "revolusjon", men ikke for mye... :-}

Fra Rødt's partiprogram: "For Rødt er kapitalismen bare en bestemt epoke i menneskehetens historie. Da kapitalismen feide føydalsamfunnet til side, representerte den en progressiv kraft som har brakt menneskesamfunnet et langt skritt framover. Den har ført til en enorm utvikling av menneskehetens produktive evner, og den har, spesielt i enkelte deler av verden, medført store materielle og sosiale framskritt. Men nå blir det stadig tydeligere at kapitalismen som system er blitt en trussel mot menneskene og naturen.
Vi kan ikke lenger leve med at et lite mindretall eier produksjonsmidlene, utbytter de som skaper verdiene og ødelegger livsgrunnlaget for framtidige generasjoner for å bygge opp sin egen rikdom og makt. Det er en skjærende kontrast mellom den kolossale produksjonsevnen og det faktum at forskjellen mellom fattige og rike i verden er større enn noen gang. Kapitalismen har overlevd seg selv. Nå haster det å bli kvitt den. Det tjener interessene til et stort flertall av verdens befolkning.
Arbeiderklassen,- kvinner og menn - som gjennom sitt arbeid skaper de verdiene som kapitalen utnytter, må være den drivende og avgjørende kraften i det opprøret som skal føre menneskeheten ut av kapitalismen og inn i det nye samfunnet: sosialismen. Den må stå i spissen for organiseringen og styringen av dette nye samfunnet.
Vi lever i en tid der mye forandrer seg fort og overraskende. Vi ønsker å bidra til at de store omveltningene går i riktig retning: At de leder til likeverd, frigjøring av menneskene og bevaring av naturgrunnlaget for menneskeheten, slik at våre etterkommere kan oppleve et samfunn uten nød og fattigdom".
---
Min version: "For Rødt er de fleste av dagens økonomiske modeller bare en tidsbegrenset variabel  epoke i menneskehetens historie. Da kapitalismen feide føydalsamfunnet til side, representerte den en progressiv kraft som har brakt menneskesamfunnet et langt skritt framover. Den har ført til en enorm utvikling av menneskehetens produktive evner, og den har, spesielt i enkelte deler av verden, medført store materielle og sosiale framskritt. Men nå blir det stadig tydeligere at de fleste av dagens økonomiske modeller er blitt en trussel mot menneskenes generelle velstand og naturen. Vi kan ikke lenger leve med at et for asymmetrisk mindretall eier en for stor andel av  produksjonsmidlene, ekstraherer/høster de som er ansatte og reduserer finansøkonomiske muligheter for framtidige generasjoner for å akkumulere sin egen økende rikdom og makt. Det er en skjærende kontrast mellom den kolossale produksjonsevnen og det faktum at forskjellen mellom fattige og rike i verden er større enn noen gang. Kapitalismen har overlevd seg selv ved å være veldig tilpasningsdyktig og fleksibel. Nå haster det å få reformert og demokratisert dagens kapitalisme ytterligere. Det tjener interessene til et stort flertall av verdens befolkning.
Arbeiderklassen,- kvinner og menn - som gjennom sitt arbeid skaper mesteparten av de verdiene som kapitaleiere høster/ekstraherer, må være den drivende og avgjørende kraften i det opprøret som skal føre menneskeheten ut av dagens asymmetriske kapitalistiske modeller og inn i det nye samfunnet: demokratisk sosialisme, fortrinnsvis direkte-demokratisk sosialisme, en meget egalitær og horizontal form for capitalisme. Den må stå i spissen for organiseringen og styringen av dette nye samfunnet.
Vi lever i en tid der mye forandrer seg fort og overraskende, hovedsaklig pga. exponentiell vekst. Vi ønsker å bidra til at de store omveltningene går i riktig retning: At de leder til likeverd, frigjøring av menneskene og bevaring av naturgrunnlaget for menneskeheten, slik at våre etterkommere kan oppleve et samfunn uten nød og fattigdom, og et mer egalitært og symmetrisk samfunn som incrementalt nærmer seg equilibrium".

A reply to Taleb's comments on Piketty and C21C and political economy. 

Taleb: "Within population wealth creation is a series of small probability bets. So it is natural that the pool of wealth (measured in years of spending, as Piketty does) increases with wealth".
--- No Mr. Taleb, it is not natural, it is a cultural proximate variable, and politically decided. Within population, wealth creation is a series of anthropogenic decisions.

Taleb: "Inequality of outcome is not the problem, inequality of opportunity is". --- Taleb hinting that some type of economic inequality is a problem, which is a surprise. 

Taleb: "A wealth tax meaning to punish the wealth generator is absurd: since the payoff is severely clipped on the upside, it would be a lunacy to be a risk taker with small probability bets, with wins of 20 (after tax) rather than 100, then disburse all savings progressively in wealth tax."
--- It would be productive&constructive for the >90%'s if the risk was smaller because of higher minimum level and higher general equality of outcome.
What is a wealth generator apart from being a tautology and/or circular reasoning, or is a "wealth generator" just a finance capital extractor as in a "finance capital anthropogenic harvester"?

Taleb: "Compare someone with lumpy payoffs say an entrepreneur who makes $4.5 million every 20 years to a professor like Krugman who earns the same total over the period ($225K in taxpayer-funded income)."
--- Anecdotal examples, how many professors are there in the US and how many entrepreneurs makes >$4 million every 20 year? 0,1%, 0,01% or 0,001%?

Taleb: "The entrepreneur over the VERY SAME income ends up paying 75% in taxes, plus wealth tax on the rest while the rent-seeking tenured academic who doesn't contribute to wealth formation pays, say 30%.)".
--- What kind of wealth formation theory (WFT) would Taleb suggest?
What is Taleb's theory on wealth formation? And what is Taleb's definition/theory of a wealth generator?
Taleb: "Sorry, if you don't like it but that is purely mathematical". --- Sorry if you don't get it, but it is (almost) purely [anthropogenic] political economy...! Mr. Taleb, do you need to read a wikipedia entry on what a political assembly as the US Congress does and what it does not decide?? And state governments, what is their range of power compared to the federal government/congress entity in the system? Or are you an epistemological anarchist??

Taleb: "Worry about skin in the game, not inequality." --- With what payoff probability? Do you see the mismatch between the Nordic countries vs the US in payoff probability per capita?
Taleb: "Worry about equality in opportunity not outcome". ---  Did you know that there is a strong statistical correlation and causality relation between opportunity equality and equality of outcome??

Taleb: "Worry about the powerful corporations taking over the system via lobbyists and blocking artisans. Worry about the class of privileged mandarins-WNSITG (with no skin in the game) taking over the system via "grandes ecoles"..."
--- In other words, worry about the current plutocratic neo-feudalism that rules the US for some years now? Did you know Taleb, that if the US had equality of outcome levels close to current Germany or France, we would perhaps not be having this debate?? And especially not if the distribution statistics were closer to the Nordic countries?

Taleb: "The top in the US is not the same in 2014 as it was in 1984, and it is a healthy system. In places with cronyism (Europe), the top is sticky."
--- Compared to the Nordic countries + Switzerland, Lichtenstein and Luxembourg? Shall we call the Nordic countries for utopian or semi-utopian countries if you define current US percentage(share) asymmetrical payoff as healthy? And how bout the bottom 10% or bottom 20% in the US vs Europe, is it sticky or is it elastic?

Taleb: " And this is largely the aim and result of low-interest rate policies by central banks since 1987, in the aftermath of Black Monday." --- If the US had only slightly higher interest rate from FED this would do very little, substantial higher FED rate would curb and slow the GDP growth, would that be a good thing mr. Taleb?

Taleb: "the ratio Kapital/NonKapital exploded right there... And had Piketty looked at his "inequality" and Debt-to-GDP he would have perhaps seen the real evil: asset inflation with-stop-from-Central-banks"
--- And 46 million food stampers is not the real evil? Unemployment rates in the US from 2010 is not a real evil? Accumulation of finance capital and real economy assets which buys political power is not the evil? Not taxing the 1%'s substantially more than current level is a real evil, yes?

Taleb: "Rethinking about Piketty's book, and his "data", one wonders whether pages and pages of correlation-implies-causation can sway economists when the message fits their agenda (dispossess the risk-taking money by nonrisktakers is something that dissgusts me) but more rigorous work can leave them indifferent".
--- The correlation data does not imply causality, rather, it tells a story of political economy through decades and generations. Mr. Taleb, do you doubt that the data that Piketty has published is caused by the anthropogenic economy?

Taleb: "One reason I left data out of The Black Swan (except for illustrative purposes) is that it seems to me that people flood their story with data in the absence of logical argument."
--- The empirical data in Piketty's book is what caused it's success, apart from that the empirical data is a result of the politically wielded economy. And there is no absence of logical argument in Piketty's book, nor is there any absence of political argument. Mr. Taleb, would you say that the empirical data in "Capital..." is too close for comfort? Or too asymmetrical for comfort?

Question to Taleb: If you lost everything tomorrow, what would you do?

"This is the ethos of Antifragile: thinking about such an event every day so you reduce fragility to adverse events. I've lived in preparation for that possibility. Plan B is to move to college dorms. But nothing would be more devastating than reduced access to a technical library".

---This answer by Taleb is clearly showing the profitability of a high level of the welfare state. The answer is implicitly implying a social democracy where you can and should make bold attempts for success, if you fail, then the Nordic model, the Rhineland capitalism will pick you up so you have a decent level of material living standards. And then you can make another try to climb up the ladders again, if that is your game. There is also much more social mobility in the Nordic countries, which means that the meritocracy is on a much higher level than in the US. This is adaptive for more than the 51%'s. You could take a look at the Norwegian payoff probability statistics and see for yourself Mr. Taleb. But that would render useless most of what you have said earlier about the macro economic policies that you would support. If you like statistics and comparative advantages, then compare your "healthy" US system against Norway, especially the last 20 years...!

Taleb's theorizing on the airplane industry vs the finance industry; Taleb implies here that he is an epistemological anarchist. Taleb: "Failure saves lives. In the airline industry, every time a plane crashes the probability of the next crash is lowered by that. The Titanic saved lives because we're building bigger and bigger ships. So these people died, but we have effectively improved the safety of the system, and nothing failed in vain." 

--- Mr. Taleb, did you know that it is in the interest of all parties that it is safe to fly? Whether it is the flight attendant, or me, or you, or the pilot, completely regardless of what amount of income or wealth we happen to experience? We have a common and genuine, bona fide self-serving interest that it shall be safe to fly..!!! 
When this is the case, or rather, *that* this is the case to a large extent in the airplane business, the fact that some pilots make more money, that some passengers are poor, has no effect because of the power mechanisms (feedback mechanisms) that is the deciding essential factor in this.
 

If a business executive sits beside an employee, and the executive is en-route to a meeting to get rid of a lot of employees, this doesn't alter the fact that both the employee and the executive has a genuine common interest that the plane lands safely on the ground, even if it is the exact employee that is sitting beside the very executive, that will be fired in the name of cost cutting. 

They are in the same "boat" or "ship", or even better, as the prospect of a rich peoples 

life-boat-project happened on Titanic is impossible on an airplane. 

Parachutes for business class seats, but not for the rest, is not a probable scenario. But what would happen if it was profitable that airplanes crashed much more prevalent than is the case today? And that this practice is well within the law? What would happen to safety and security in the aviation industry?
 

Perhaps a morbid thought experiment, but you get the picture.
But on a macro level, there is a struggle of resources, no? We're competing over money, Mr. Taleb, did you know that? Have you taken financial/economic positions earlier in your life, in the hope of, and within the mechanism of, that you would profit more than your opponents, Mr. Taleb? That kind of "games" is a competitive conflict of interest game.
 

You shouted "fraud" or rather "moral hazard" Mr. Taleb, but you did not address the cause of the moral hazard, and that is power asymmetry. you did not shout "fallacious democracy", or "political power asymmetrical imbalance", nor did you criticize the 51% democracy in the US that is caused by
mathematical dysfunctional election laws, first-past-the-post electoral laws.
Mr. Taleb, you are guilty in severe sins of omission.  

Some comments on the theories of Steve Keen 

Steve Keen: "Having failed to understand the mechanism of money creation in a credit money world, and failed to understand how that mechanism goes into reverse during a financial crisis, neoclassical economics may end up doing what by accident what Marx failed to achieve by deliberate action, and bring capitalism to its knees."
--- The main reason why this happens, is power over the money machine, and the asymmetrical distribution economy. These mechanisms are self reinforcing.
Current capitalism will fail, capitalism in it's current model, but it will fail by Schumpeter, not by Marx.

Steve Keen: "Notably the “labor theory of value”, which argues erroneously that all profit comes from labor, the notion that the rate of profit has a tendency to fall, and the alleged inevitability of the demise of capitalism".
---Since not all profit comes from labor, then are there synergy effects that causes more profits from other sources. The main issue, and the deciding factor when it comes to the LTV by marx, is that he quantified it on a binary level. When marx said that everything except 50-50 is explotation and deviation from this is destined to fail, then he himself dig his own grave, that he constructed by arbitrary and binary slippery-slope thinking fallacy. But still, the profit rate will fall regardless of a labor theory of value or no labor theory of value, or even no value theory at all.

Because we will never be able to avoid the thermodynamical theory (not a value theory). It says that whatever is of value, it cannot be decoupled from the laws of thermodynamics.


 Steve Keen: "At this point, Marx is triumphant. He has established the source of surplus value, and has done so without any initial presumption that labour was the only source of value, an achievement which had eluded his classical antecedents. But at this stage, all he had established was that labour was a source of value. To prove that it is the only source of value, he had to apply the same conceptual framework to the means of production, and find that the presumption of the strict labour theory of value, that the means of production only transfer their value to the product, is confirmed. In this second endeavor, he failed".
-- In this statement, I agree with Steve Keen.

Steve Keen: "therefore there is no a priori reason why issues pertaining exclusively to production itself - such as the ratio of capital to labor - should cause a divergence between rates of surplus value and rates of profit. there is thus no reason why a higher capital/labour ratio than average should be associated with a lower rate of surplus value than average, no technical problem in converting values into prices of production, and no reason why prices should systematically diverge from values (or rates of surplus value from rates of profit) solely on the basis of differences in capital intensity".

---For the first sentence, this is mostly psychology that is the reason why there is divergence between surplus value and rates of profit. and a high rate of arbitrage does not necessarily lead to a lower rate of surplus value ratio. On converting values into prices of production; agree, except this has an
expiry date when interpreting "values" as resources, leading to the tendency of the profit rate to fall as resources are effectively extracted.

Steve Keen: "the tendency of the profit rate to fall suffers a similar fate. this "tendency", like the transformation problem itself, was founded on the proposition that labor was the only source of value, and that there was a tendency over time for the ratio of capital to labor (measured in value terms) to rise. Since surplus can be garnered from all inputs to production, there is no reason why an increase in the ratio of commodity to labor inputs should lead to a decline in the overall rate of surplus".
---Except that this trend can not go on for very long, it has to stop, because the ratio of commodity to labour inputs cannot reach a percentage share in which commodity is 100% and labour is 0%. Then there is no human economy, not even a Robinson Crusoe economy.
The tendency of the profit rate to fall globally is a certain fact within the laws of thermodynamics + human psychology. Lest we try to decouple from the physical world by attempts at "decoupling" or "detachment" that was tried during the Weimar republic and Zimbabwe some years ago.

The tendency of the profit rate to fall will be "re-discovered" before or during the downward slope of the global Hubbert peak oil scenario which perhaps will start sometime around the year 2030. I can promise you that the rate of profit will fall many places quite often. But most of all it will fall when we reach the global thermodynamic limits around hundred years from now.

Steve Keen: "since Marx 's theory of value in fact provides the philosophical foundation for an absolute theory of value, consonant with Sfraffian analysis, in which commodities in general in a system of commodity production are regarded as the source of surplus value. Further development of the method discussed in this paper provide many worthwile additions to the intellectual weaponry of Marxian analysis. In this new tradition, which can exist cooperatively with Sraffian and Kaleckian economics while containing the superior concepts of dialectics and value, it should be to Marx's credit that he provided the analysis by which the labour theory of value could be transcended, and labour and commodities together regarded as the joint  sources of value".
---
I agree with the last sentence, humans create more labor and more value by using technology and by doing business transactions that involves commodities, that is according to thermodynamic economics.

I totally disagree with dialectics, since it is not a half decent way of doing science with. Empirical data, empirical observations, conventional epistemology and conventional philosophy of science is what I adhere to. It is the same method as in natural science.
For me it is obvious that there is a reflexivity between prices, labor, energy and commodities, and these connections can never break entirely, there can only be grades of plasticity/elasticity.

Labor has inherent genuine value, a value that can not be decoupled from economics, and if so, then that economy/economics is itself decoupled from the laws of thermodynamics. 

Steve Keen do not address the power issue. One cannot have a thoroughly assessment
of macro economic causes and correlations, or a serious attempt at social science unless the power questions are examined. and this goes far beyond the simple notion of the grand qualitative assertions of the asymmetric power distribution, as a generalized percentage equation. but this last point, can be a good place to start.

Steve Keen's emphasis on (Marx's) LTV instead of asymmetric power relations, and the lack of semi meritocratic feedback mechanisms when he gives a lot of blame on the LTV for the comparative disadvantage of the former soviet autocracy. He is certainly correct in a isolated point of view, but when we look at the causes and the effects of the failed experiment, it is obvious by conventional  historical and epistemological standard, that it was the autocratic central planning part that caused more than 80% of the aggregate problems that ended in the demise of the soviet empire. 

And finally, the steady state model (macro economics) by Steve keen. If it does not address the power issues, it is no good for a debate on any economy, regardless if the economies are exponentially growing or in a stable state.