/lit/ - Literature

>>21671225
t. Barney fan

>>20050933
>Darwin guessed

>>19063372
Amusing (as good to laugh at)... more so than the typical Austrotards who ostensibly use "logic" and not theological arguments.

He claimed bitcoin was a ponzi scheme which surely should get a number of lolbertarian panties in a twist:

https://www.garynorth.com/public/11828.cfm

>>18461753
>not for selfishness or pride, but because he believed so deeply in the beauty of the Aryan race.

His last action was to try to salt the earth and destroy everything when he failed, if you don't think that's selfish you're a retard

>>18458710
Ya I did skim it and it's the typical Mises Institute nonsense. He cites Joseph Salerno for his monetary claims and goes all in on the ridiculous Julian Simon claims about resources actually being unlimited (so buttcoin can actually just use an infinite amount of energy no problem as needed)

>The belief that resources are scarce and limited is a misunderstanding of the nature of scarcity, which is the key concept behind economics. The absolute quantity of every raw material present in earth is too large for us as human beings to even measure or comprehend, and in no way constitutes a real limit to what we as humans can produce of it. We have barely scratched the surface of the earth in search of the minerals we need, and the more we search, and the deeper we dig, the more resources we find. What constitutes the practical and realistic limit to the quantity of any resource is always the amount of human time that is directed toward producing it, as that is the only real scarce resource (until the creation of Bitcoin). In his masterful book, The Ultimate Resource, the late economist Julian Simon explains how the only limited resource, and in fact the only thing for which the term resource actually applies, is human time. Each human has a limited time on earth, and that is the only scarcity we deal with as individuals. As a society, our only scarcity is in the total amount of time available to members of a society to produce different goods and services. More of any good can always be produced if human time goes toward it.

>>18459032
"Stock to flow" doesn't actually determine real demand. It's meaningless

>>18428634
When everything you believe is a purely schizoid morality narrative you kind of lose track of reality. Austrotards spent decades teaching the unviability of floating currencies and how governments would be forced to return to a gold standard any day now and than some autistic retard unleashed a cryptographic fiat currency and remarkably leaped frogged Austrotards practically and now the majority are insisting floating currencies can work after all and an infinite amount of them can compete.

>>18160096
Imagine actually believing looking at attractive women gives you brain damage

>>17985480
>my statements are true regardless of reality

>>17812541
>S2F is not the sort of thing you entice /lit/ with
worse than voodoo economics

>>17409578
Imagine being so fucking retarded you seriously believe in loanable funds in 2021

>>17359901
The Physiocrats were getting at macro circular flow and sectoral balance proto-models whence Smiths tiny brain reverted to God invisibly guiding production no one could possibly understand

>>17352432
>here's his blogposts (not book) on the moon landing, never been refuted

>>16833191
>being embarrassed by what you read

>>16754005
Let me guess... you're a creationist as well? Most of their epistemological concern with the theory of natural evolution coincide nicely with the same home schooled independent thinkers who want an a priori theory of human action. I agree mainstream economics is flawed but people like Mises and Rothbard are even worse. Why are you even including Sowell in there? He was a student of Milton Friedman (see Friedmans "Essays in Positive Economics") and never rejected his (retarded) methodology which worked with real world data to derive (false) knowledge.

>>16754381
>Macroeconomics is a more advanced topic because its mostly different ideologies.
Oh look, it's a mental midget who draws non-ideological curves with crayons to explain shit

>>16704648
You seem to just be claiming as if it wasn't questionable all wars (or even genocides) are a bad thing... but perhaps there exists some market determined optimum level of self-inflicted mental retardation like you seem to be implying which we should embrace.

>>16623818
Marx thought exploitation was structurally necessary historically, liberals claim stuff like slavery was always and everywhere wrong and "free exchange" if not operative was either because of ignorance or conspiracy. Not to mention the end state. No exploitation to a liberal just means everything is owned by someone and everyone else respects that so obviously the end of exploitation could just mean one man literally owns everything and no one could question that state of affairs.

>>16619419
>Economics only refers to disciplinary marginalism and post-marginalism.

[citation needed]

>>16376225
Yes. Why the fuck would anyone think Britain would let a single power dominate Europe? There's was no precedent of them just capitulating like that. America already transferred massive amounts of soldiers overseas to fight in WWI and anyone not stupid enough to believe in the "stabbed in the back" myth would of understood they couldn't have won out against that sort of manpower and possible industrial output they could muster. Hitler was an idiot. He formed an anti-communist alliance with Japan, went behind their back and made an alliance with the Soviet Union then broke that again without coordinating with Japan at any point so they would be doing their own shit which eventually got Hitler to unnecessarily declare war on America. If Hitler wanted to upset the global balance of power he needed to work closely with Soviet Russia or Japan, neither of which he could do because he was a megalomaniac who seriously believed his own propaganda.

>>16368079
>Foucalt would be a Trump voter and possible Qanon poster were he alive today

>>16320689
>anything beyond midwit vernacular is "poor wordchoices"

>>16058177
No, maybe look into pop-up books

>>16055941
>He ultimately won, regardless of what happens to him in the future. His ideals have already spread wide and far. We will see the fruits of his work in the next generation of writers.

Sorry but he even lost the pronoun wars, any inspired writer ain't going to be able to accomplish much since they'll end up in the same state

>Soviet defectors
Is there any group of other such pathological liars

>>15743396
>naturalist fallacy