[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature


View post   

File: 18 KB, 330x499, 41MDRqLIVoL._SX328_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14789284 No.14789284 [Reply] [Original]

Are the legends true? Is this based?

>> No.14789311

>>14789284
You can read that and come away with no idea what marginal utility is or any other basic economic concept lol

>> No.14789485
File: 818 KB, 1000x1558, 151344849707502-42-22-.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14789485

>> No.14789521
File: 49 KB, 935x222, 6E0832E6-5FC0-4849-BEBD-99AF09176070.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14789521

>>14789284
Base as in basic.
But I deficient to hide some of the outstanding problems, as >>14789311 points out

>> No.14789962

>>14789284
Nobody on this board has ever read this book. It's impossible to get a fair assessment here.

>> No.14789971

>>14789485
>he can use the posterize effect and overlay texture with occupacity
NOW WOT

>> No.14789976

>>14789521
t. Hasn’t read Sowell

>> No.14789988

>>14789284
Yes it’s very good. Leftists fear Sowell

>> No.14789994

>>14789976
Ask anon >>14789311

>> No.14790033

>>14789994
He’s obviously lying. You learn most basic concepts taught in university courses from Sowell, from bond investments to inflation rates to even price theory and monetarism.

>> No.14790042

>>14790033
Okay. Now move onto advanced econ with Kapital

>> No.14790047

>>14790042
Seeing as how Marx isn’t taught in any serious economics program form any accredited university, I’d say he’s more outdated than “advanced” lol

>> No.14790081

Its accurate and based. It's also a brick your average person wont pick up. Herbert Gintis said it was accurate, so anyone saying otherwise is a retarded faggot. He also said Sowell has no heart.

>> No.14790091

>>14790047
>My jailers tell me everything is fine, A-OKAY. You’re the delusional one here. Stop rocking the boat!

>> No.14790289

>>14789521
>>14789994
>>14790042
>>14790091
t. Hasn’t read Sowell
Leave the thread you fucking senile clown.

>> No.14790295

word for the wise: a certain tripfriend ITT hasn't actually read Capital

>> No.14790422
File: 20 KB, 289x372, com.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14790422

>>14789284
Sheer basedness.

Sowell is one of the best thinkers of our time.


>>14790295
Doesn't surprise me.

>> No.14790453

>>14789485
Should be expanded to include Evola, Guenon, Ted, Spengler, etc.

>> No.14790511 [DELETED] 

>>14790295
None of you have. And any that try, and maybe finish will likely leave the subject at that without ever challenging the faulty system it tries to explain.
Economists like Professor Richard Wolfe has read it all. What some youtubes to get an overview of ADVANCED ECONOMICS

>>14790422
>quote
Says a guy who never worked a day in his life

>> No.14790518

>14790295
None of you have. And any that try, and maybe even finish, will likely leave the subject at that without ever challenging the faulty system it tries to explain as it crumbles around you yet again.
Economists like Professor Richard D. Wolfe has studied it all. Watch some of his youtubes to get an overview of ADVANCED ECONOMICS

>>14790422
>quote
Says a guy who never worked a day in his life

>> No.14790553
File: 27 KB, 333x500, 416uHuMkxBL.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14790553

>>14789284
My recommendation, if you are trying to get yourself acquainted with economics, or if you for some reason subscribe to Keynsian economics, read the first six chapters of "Economics in One Lesson" and then immediately immerse yourself in "Economic Facts and Fallacies". You won't regret it.

>> No.14790940

>newly added chapter on intersectional wealth disparities
wdhmbt?

>> No.14790993

>>14790047
I mean he is but your argument is as retarded as saying Freud is irrelevant because he isn’t taught uni, in spite of the fact that if I were to tell you 10 of his ideas, 9 would be totally taken for granted. Newton is totally outdated but he’s still taught widely. Nothing of what you’re saying makes sense in any direction. You can be an “irrelevant” thinker especially with pervasive ideas that everybody automatically takes for granted

>> No.14791175

>>14789284
It's basic, but most people could learn a lot from it, especially the leftist/socialist types.
It does have a liberal bias and you can certainly argue with some aspects, but first you need to read it and understand it (most people who criticize it on /lit/ don't).

>> No.14791176

>>14790993
isn't it like freud, newton etc. are right at basics and outdated/wrong on advanced more detailed level, still they give proven facts, while marx basis "burgouis bad, proletariat good" and then continues making statetments basing on his interpretations irrelevant to reality kind of like hegel_

>> No.14791185

>>14789521
eat my cum, brother

>> No.14791197

>>14789962
Nobody on this board has ever read a book. It's impossible to get a fair assessment here.

fixed

>> No.14791201

>>14790553
>>14789284

all books called "basic economics" or "economics in one lesson" is always some libertarian peddling half truths with an immense amount of ideology.

if you're interested in economics, pick up a fucking textbook not boomer libertarian horseshit

>> No.14791215

>>14791201
A "fucking textbook" is not free from ideology.
If you want to learn you should read from different authors and take their ideology into account.

>> No.14791229
File: 17 KB, 360x261, 1581599492727.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14791229

>>14791176
I guess you could say that about Newton (although being right about thr basics and wrong about the advanced physics makes him wrong on some of the basics as well as a consequence, such as in the case of gravity and its relation to planetary orbits), but Freud was mostly just admired as a concept creator rather than being right about anything, basic or otherwise. As for Marx, his critique of capitalism is still appreciated today even if his solutions are deemed unrealistic. Besides, he built on top of theories that were there before him, taken from Ricardo and that other guy who's name I always forget.

>> No.14791236

>>14791215

of course its not free from it but again its not a libertarian propaganda pamphlets either

>> No.14791241

>>14791201
>>14791236
I would much rather listen to a libertarian about economics than someone who works in academia

>> No.14791246

>>14791241
Actual Marxists aren't part of academia either so by that logic they have the same educational value as libertarians.

>> No.14791259

>>14791241

why are you under the impression that a libertarian is going to give you credible information on economics as opposed to academia? bet you watch PragerU videos too.

>> No.14791285

>>14791259
>credible information on economics
It's clear to me that you haven't read much about this subject (don't worry, most people haven't either).
Economics is not a hard science like physics or chemistry. It's a deeply ideological/political field and different people have different views.
If you avoid libertarians (because someone told you they are bad people) you're going to have an incomplete picture.

>> No.14791291

>>14790422
That quote isn't based. It's what you might find on some boomer's Facebook who has never read a book in his life and gets all his views from Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. Sowell is more a propagandist than a scholar.

>> No.14791295

>>14789284
>>14789311
>>14789485
>>14789521
>>14789962
>>14789971
>>14789976
>>14789988
>>14789994
>>14790033
>>14790042
>>14790047
>>14790081
>>14790091
>>14790289
>>14790295
>>14790422
>>14790453
>>14790518
>>14790553
>>14790940
>>14790993
>>14791175
>>14791176
>>14791185
>>14791197
>>14791201
>>14791215
>>14791229
>>14791236
>>14791241
>>14791246
>>14791259
>>14791285
I don't know anything about economics, macroeconomics, supply and demand what's that i ask.
Is Sowell's book a good introduction to economics? (notice: not an american)

>> No.14791298

>>14791295
and after that, can I read Marx?

>> No.14791306

>>14791285

im not one for avoiding libertarians overall, im just against recommending sowell and the likes to someone whos clueless about economics and wants a book to learn about it. cause they wont learn about economics there.

>> No.14791322

>>14791295
Yes. It's not a supplement for formal learning, however. It is not a textbook. It is a citizen's guide through and through. I highly recommend it to those interested in learning about economics.
>>14791298
I would not recommend Marx after Sowell. Sowell will be a comparatively easy read, and you will not find easy connections between the two given they wrote so far apart. Basic Economics is not a Manifesto. I would recommend trying to find something more modern if you're interesting in contrasting Sowell's school of economics. The final chapter of Basic Economics briefly explains the history of economics and how Sowell's school fits in relation to others.

>> No.14791387

>>14791298
No, after Sowell I would recommend Friedmann, Rothbard and von Mises >>14791306

>> No.14791404

>>14789284
/pol/tards saw the title and the fact that it was written by a conservative black man and developed their obsession based on that alone. after all, intersectionality and anti-racism are important, if not vital parts of right wing ideolofy.

>> No.14791589

>>14789284
I found I learned more about economics from writers like Sowell/Hazlitt/Hayek/Friedman than I did while studying economics at the university. Most of our time in school was spent on learning Keynesian models and why they're bad, but on quite a shallow level as you only 'studied' a certain subject for five weeks before moving onto the next.

>> No.14791912

>>14790033
I'm not lying. I'm >>14789311
I did read this book a couple years ago. From what I remember it uses some anecdotes to get the idea free trade is good and such mostly. I don't remember any methods of analysis being introduced until towards the very end and not indepth (because the more familiar you become with such thinking the more you could probably attack some of the earlier premises).
You're right Sowell is a monetarist but that should be embarrassing. Have you been following monetary policy and inflation over the past 10 years? Monetarism is obviously wrong. Have you been following bond markets? Literally noting makes sense if you're a monetarist.

>>14791322
>The final chapter of Basic Economics briefly explains the history of economics and how Sowell's school fits in relation to others.
Except it's a complete joke. If you're in anyway serious you'd read something more thorough.

>>14791295
No it's not a good book at all. You'll literally be dumber. Read Schumpeter.

http://www.urbanlab.org/articles/economics/Schumpeter%201954%20-%20history%20economic%20analysis.pdf

>> No.14791937

>>14791241
Libertarianism is a political philosophy. You probably should be very skeptical of anyone who is deeply committed to a social vision since it might get in the way of understanding reality. Lolberts and Marxists are both doomsday cultists who think political government must necessarily collapse.

>> No.14791996

>>14791937
>Libertarianism is a political philosophy. You probably should be very skeptical of anyone who is deeply committed to a social vision since it might get in the way of understanding reality
As opposed to everyone else who doesn't have a social vision?

>> No.14792020

>>14791996
Ever hear of nihilism? lol dictatorships or anarchy could occur and are options
Detached analysis wouldn't seriously believe people behave in some manner, or even should/can, that guarantees any ideal outcome.

>> No.14792027

>>14792020
>Detached analysis
Doesn't exist, faggot

>> No.14792053

>>14791295
>I don't know anything about economics, macroeconomics, supply and demand what's that i ask.
Read Principles of Economics by Gregory Mankiw. It's literally the first book recommended in any Economics undergraduate program. It's split between Microeconomics (supply and demand) and Macroeconomics (inflation, interest, exchange, etc). It's very easy to understand as it assumes you know nothing about Economics and it actually follows the mainstream. Mankiw is a new-keynesian.

There is absolutely no reason why you should start with any other book. Sowell is good, but Mankiw is the standard choice for undergrads.

>> No.14792764

>>14790453
You're giving the pol too much credit

>> No.14792814

>>14790993
The relevancy of Marx come more from the catastrophic socio-political consequences of trying to estabilish a marxist utopia rather than due to Marx's economic theories, which were ridiculed even back in the day. It's essential to know newtonian physics as a physics major or freudian psychoanalysis as a psych major since they're building blocks of more advanced theories, but there's no reason for an economics major to learn Marx since very little was developed in terms of economic theory based on his models.

>> No.14793035

>>14792053
>inflation, interest, exchange
A guy like Mankiw can't explain that. Look at his absurd political columns attacking Trump over increasing public debt. His fear mongering isn't getting anywhere.

>>14792814
Ridicule isn't exactly scholarly. Marx is still very much a wiping boy even if no one exactly knows what they are angry about. Maybe he's wrong about everything but econ majors are trying really, really hard to seem even stupider lol

>> No.14793051
File: 33 KB, 400x300, karl-marx-fish.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14793051

>>14789284
Its a refutation of the rightwings percieved left wing strawmen.

Its basic idiot stuff like how capitalism creates wealth and innovation by letting loose peoples aspirations for material comfort.

Now is that against Marx?

Marx is very clear that the capitalist mode of production is incredibly effective, productive and above all powerful.

Marx point was never that socialism would make capitalism more effective, only that the internal contradictions within capitalism makes socialism more appealing to the people who does not hold a stake in its operation, which happens to be the great majority of people.

Think for yourself, the great social liberal thinker Meynard Keynes once thought we would work 6 hours a week by now. What happened?

How come the average lifespan lowered 20-30 years after industrialisation?

How come capitalism swings from a major disasterous crisis that leaves tens of millions of people unemployed every 30 years or so?

If you look into it, you will see that Marx was right. Capitalism, beautiful and productive as it is, simply has fundamental contradictions within it that makes it untenable.

>> No.14793104

>>14793051
>Think for yourself, the great social liberal thinker Meynard Keynes once thought we would work 6 hours a week by now. What happened?
Keynes never thought that would "naturally" occur. If you fully read the context he wrote that in you'd know he was expecting a bigger political push to shorten work days instead of increasing consumption. He was wrong because labour unions instead decided to only seek nominal wage increases instead of decreasing work time.

>> No.14793115

>>14789485
lol wtf is this shit

>> No.14793126
File: 72 KB, 800x513, productivity-versus-wages.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14793126

>>14793104
>because labour unions
AHA!

Notice that? That was my whole point. Capitalism itself does not provide workers with anything. If it were up to capital and the market, we would still get 3 dollars an hour 16 hours a day, 7 days a week.

But the only thing that helps the working class is collective bargaining, socialist policies etc.

But the problem is fundanmental within capitalism. Welfare and unions simply give labor more oppurtunity.

Also do you honestly believe Thomas Sowell or even Keynes actually like unions?

Ive not read too much Keynes but enough to know he was not some bleeding heart social democrat...

>> No.14793130

>>14793051
This.
Marx said that capitalism was another necessary step to achieving communism. It is needed to accelerate a society of peasants into making the factories and machines for production, but after this it will start swallowing itself and being torn apart from the inside. Socialist democrats have only halted the process, but the collapse is coming. Look at the growing inequality in all capitalist societies, sooner or later the people will get tired of seeing these billionaires be catered to. Especially when the old geezers who made the money die and its all inherited wealth from then on out. This will hopefully make everyone realize that it doesnt matter what the fuck you do in life for 99% of people, because the rich will simply be born rich and have no other goal in life, but to cling to their wealth like a gold hoarding dragon.

>> No.14793140

>>14793130
>Look at the growing inequality in all capitalist societies,
Why is that a problem when the end result is that everyone has it better off? I'd rather have my current salary and live next to wealthy people than be poor surrounded by other poor people which is what you get with socialist policies.

>> No.14793151

>>14793126
Unions are a part of a free market. People organize how they want. They can have utility but also bring problems. It's a question of pros and cons. Have you actually read sowell?

>> No.14793173

>>14793140
>socialist policies
which do you mean?

Seems to work wonders in the nordic countries. Seems to work terribly in Venezuela. Isnt that intresting? Norway is similar to Venezuela in many ways, oil economies, Norway has a much larger percent of the economy in the state sector, more "socialist"

>>14793151
Then why do liberal politicians always try to bust unions?

As i said i don't know enough about Keynes, but i do know that liberals tend to look at unions as breaks on poductivity.

>> No.14793198

>>14793126
In the 1970s the economy was also moving towards becoming more service oriented. Besides being less unionized how can you compare productivity growth in services to physical production? You can't expect someone to cut hair faster and faster per minute each year.
Ya collective bargaining is good for workers but your ignoring what's being bargained over. Unions didn't work towards decreasing work hours by the mid-20th century, they worked for increasing nominal wages.
Keynes was an elitist and liberal, he wasn't a "social democrat". Sowell is a conservative.

>>14793140
Because it changes what's logical to invest in and may create lower real growth.

>> No.14793206

>>14793140
>>14793140
Everyone is not more well off, we simply shipped horrible labor conditions to third world countries, and now average people are losing their jobs. If it werent for social policiesthat prevented people from dying on the street, there would be massive outrage and heads would be rolling in USA right now.
Also the point of socialist policies is redistribution of wealth. Tell me how you get richer when Jeff Bezos makes more money? Do you believe in Reagan's ass backward trickle down economics? Think about it for one second, what does everything a succesful business / billionaire invest in do? It gives them a return. A return larger than the amount spent investing. This is profit. And if that wasnt the case, they would be losing money and that is not what is happening now.
And their wealth keeps increasing, and the average wages have been stagnant since the 1970's. Isn't that interesting?
Marx was right about class consciousness, and too many people today drink the reactionary koolaid. Just look at how theyre outsourcing jobs to other countries, and you can see how corporations are not benefitting anyone, but the ones in the top. In 20 years automation will make workers obsolete anyways and we will have Communism in some form, so prepare comrade.

>> No.14793240

>>14793198
aha, so the proletariat becomes a precariat. No longer necessary to produce the means of existence. They instead sell trinkets and orgasms to those lucky labor aristocrats who still has a productive job?

>> No.14793267

>>14793173
>Seems to work in nordic countries, not in Venezuela. Isn't that interesting?
It's really not very interesting. In Venezuela, they seized companies that had been heavily invested in by venture capitalists and international finance, dismantled the world-debt-adjascent central bank and replaced it with a national bank that isn't paying into the global honeypot. Hence a blockade that destroyed the country economically. They don't allow countries to do things like this anywhere, and [insert euro-socialist country post-1945] don't do any of that.

Other countries that did similar things re: banking infrastructure? Apart from Nazi Germany and Venezuela, there was Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and North Korea, all similarly destitute and reliant on black markets due to subsequent economic blockades. Isn't that a fun coincidence?

>> No.14793270

>>14793051
>which happens to be the great majority of people.

With how easy the internet has made investing for normal people NOT having income producing investments that give you a stake in the market in this era is a deliberate choice.

>>14793130
The answer is never making it harder for intelligent, motivated people to succeed which is what those trying to 'fix' capitalism seem to love doing. If there are fewer deterrents to success those born with what it takes will do better which is fair and right.

>> No.14793280

>>14793206
the worse off are doing better in the USA right now, Trump is getting a big popularity surge with the black vote because his economic and migration policies gave them more jobs.

>> No.14793282

>>14793206
You're an idiot. Communism doesn't solve the stagnation problem it makes it worse. The whole point of capitalism is free enterprise. If you can't find a good job you should make your own, figure out what needs doing in the world and start doing it. It's like people forgot that they weren't just meant to slave away for some middle manager all their lives. Capitalism allows you the opportunity to achieve something greater.

>> No.14793283

>>14793270
>having income producing investments
You honestly think you are a capitalist cause of your investment savings account?

Having a stake in production means having your livelihood be determined by private property.

Not having 50k in the bank.

>> No.14793305
File: 25 KB, 450x270, 450px-US_Employment_Statistics.svg.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14793305

>>14793280
>hes maga

I have news for you, Trump didn't do shit but supercharge an already hot economy, the consequences you will feel shortly.

Also global warming is real and immigration is non issue and a borderwall is a tremendeus waste of tax payer money.

>> No.14793317

>>14793173
>Norway is similar to Venezuela in many ways, oil economies
Besides being wrong on a million levels Venezuela state owned oil enterprises was issuing bonds in USD lol great socialist geniuses, >>14793267 is schizoid

>>14793270
>With how easy the internet has made investing for normal people NOT having income producing investments that give you a stake in the market in this era is a deliberate choice.
Yes it's a lot easier to gamble today. You can buy magic internet tokens that can become worthless overnight lol
Everyone having a vested political stake in asset inflation may not have desirable outcomes.

>>14793280
What's your point? Tariffs good? Comrade sanders can give everyone a job in a gulag

>> No.14793324

>>14793305
>Also global warming is real

Obviously, and?

Being ethnically replaced in your own country is a huge issue to anybody with any loyalty to their own people. And giving illegals free healthcare with public funds like the insane dem candidates support wouldn't be a waste?

>> No.14793329

>>14789284
Just read Capital vol 1 instead

>> No.14793331

>>14793317
>Yes it's a lot easier to gamble today.
Not him im actually >>14793283 him

Investments are not gambling because they have material bases.

You diversify your stocks in many index funds and invest in obligation funds, that way you get a stake in economic growth instead.

>> No.14793348

>>14793324
>Being ethnically replaced in your own country
Why is this a problem?

Also the wall wont stop that, a wall can be bypassed with nothing with a ladder or even a "can do attitude" the democrats idea of using drones to patrol the border is actually much better way to protect your white ethnostate.

If thats what you want...

>> No.14793369

>>14793324
>And giving illegals free healthcare with public funds like the insane dem candidates support wouldn't be a waste?
Please tell your boomers and trannies to stop traveling overseas inflating foreign medical costs.
Remember if you don't burn the crops or drop them on africa the farmers are going to starve lol

>>14793331
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3451462

>> No.14793377

>>14793369
>https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3451462

What im not saying: everyone can diversify their holdings and at the same time not collapse capitalism (yay)

Im saying its a good way to grow your stash.

>> No.14793401

>>14793369
Individuals spending their money abroad =/= political parties wanting to enact anti citizen policies.

>> No.14793409

>>14793282
You mean, people with capital and wealth can use it to create monopolies, which squash all competition or will be bought up by it eventually?
Is that what you mean?
You speak like you will be a billionaire someday, but youre a fool.
99% of people live to make life better for some billionaire who literally doesnt give a shit if people die making iphones in their factories, all they do is eat steak, invest in whatever their advisors tells them to and try to think of ways to impress other billionaires.
You sound like Trump with his delusional "small loan of a million dollars" as if that is a small amount of money. It shows how fucking out of touch the elites are, and how they have never worked a day in their lives

>> No.14793424

>>14793409
>small loan of a million dollars
Not him but Trump also inherited his fathers sprawling real estate business that was worth around 4 billion if accounted for inflation.

He would be even richer if he sold it all and bought bonds instead.

He is very much not a good businessman.

>> No.14793442

>>14793409
>and how they have never worked a day in their lives

Yet the majority of the wealthy were not born rich and inherited wealth is usually gone within 3 generations. Most people don't have the luck or the inherent talent to become rich, there's nothing wrong with that.

>> No.14793472

>>14793442
>the luck
>inherent talent
Are you baiting me?

>> No.14793473

>>14793442
>inherited wealth is usually gone within 3 generations
you got a source on that?

My reading on this is very different, most people who have "genrational" wealth never lose it, they become powerful families instead of individuals, like the Rothschilds or the Saudi royal family.

It might have been true when people had 5 children a piece, but now a rich family is expected to have around 2-3

>> No.14793491

>>14793472
Most people who become wealthy do so by starting a business or by being an athlete/celebrity. All of those usually require some combination of luck/talent.

>> No.14793513

>>14793491
Most people who become wealthy were wealthy to begin with.
For every star athlete / celebrity there are 1000 people with the same dream, same talent, but not same wealth or luck.
Most billionaires even admit it in various documentaries or interviews they've done and said "money makes money". It's literally that simple, money breeds more money. By investing in a diverse portfolio or just having a lot of actives you can achieve passive income. And that is to the detriment of everyone else, because it limits their own potential for growth.

>> No.14793544

>>14791176
>while Marx basis “burgouis bad, proletariat good”
You haven’t read Marx

>> No.14793580

>>14790422
Engels was an entrepeneur, Marx was a prolific writer and journalist (if you think that's not a real job, look at how massive the Marx-Engels Complete Works german edition is).
Also, where has Sowell workd so far, apart from his stint as a professor?

>> No.14793598

>>14793580
I think the more pertinent question is why does that poster think ad hominem is deserving of an inspirational quote background? It’s not even a good criticism of Marxist thought, and there’s certainly a lot of them.

>> No.14793600

>>14791241
Sowell is an academic, retard

>> No.14793624

>>14793409
You're thinking in terms of money, it's not the same thing as actually doing something valuable. If you had a 100 million dollars to invest I bet you wouldn't even know what to do with it. You commies all want something for nothing. Why should anyone give you jack shit? Yes life is not fair and some people are born rich but when the masses start thinking they can solve all the problems in the world if they just take all the wealth from the billionaires that's when true catastrophe begins.

>> No.14793632

>>14793624
>I bet you wouldn't even know what to do with it.
and yet id bet im better at business than you.

Marxism is a political philosophy not a lifestyle. Ive created a lot for my self.

>> No.14793641

>>14793624
>le “commies want free shit” meme
When will people stop parading around ignorance like it’s a badge of honour?

>> No.14793661

>>14793632
Hey good for you man. I have nothing against you personally, other than you being a communist. You can always share what you have with others voluntarily, capitalism doesn't forbid you from doing that.

>> No.14793667

>>14793377
The point is the consequences of everyone doing the smart thing can end up hurting real growth. Now of course there's all kinds of suckers in reality who will gamble everything but that causes other social issues and costs.

>>14793401
Your relative big spenders costs foreign nations more by allocating scarce professional resources towards serving you than any hypothetical free sex changes for refugees would cost you lol

>>14793624
>If you had a 100 million dollars to invest I bet you wouldn't even know what to do with it
You create a diversified portfolio and not worry and live on easy mode.

>> No.14793686

>>14793641
>NOOOO MARXISM IS WHAT MARXISTS SAY IT IS NOT WHAT IT'S CONSTANTLY PROVEN TO BE IN PRACTICE YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT'S NOT HOW THIS WORKS YOU NEED TO USE BIG WORDS AND ACT LIKE THIS IS HARDER THAN IT IS PLAY MY GAME PLAY MY GAME

>> No.14793688

>>14793661
>You can always share what you have with others voluntarily,

Why would i want to do that? I dont think you understand Marx, maybe read something other than /pol/ sometime.

>> No.14793692

>>14793667
>You create a diversified portfolio and not worry and live on easy mode.
Sure but that's letting the market do the work for you. That's literally the opposite of communism. I was more talking about taking all the wealth and using it to invest in the common good directly, which is what communists want to do.

>> No.14793699

>>14793688
If you don't want to do it then don't do it. I don't get what you're so upset about.

>> No.14793722

>>14793699
OK, i will rephrase this as a question;

Do you believe communism is about the redistribution of money? Or even property?

>> No.14793725
File: 127 KB, 645x729, brain collapsed.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14793725

>>14793692
>but that's letting the market do the work for you. That's literally the opposite of communism

>not having to make decisions and letting everyone else take care of things is the opposite of communism

>> No.14793759

>>14793722
I believe communists support redistribution of money and property. They also support nationalization of industry as a way of achieving this redistribution. They believe this will lead to their ideal post-capitalist society but in practice the results tend to be disastrous. Now if you are going to tell me that communists don't support redistribution and don't support nationalization then I will tell you most of them do. Anarchists will be against nationalization but they support common ownership in some sort still if they are any sort of communist anarchist.

It's always annoying to argue against communists because you always want to make it about the ideal utopian society you have in your head and not what's actually existing I'm the world and what you're going to do with it if you had the power to change it.

>> No.14793784

>>14793725
Hey if your communism is what's already existing then I don't see the issue

>> No.14793788
File: 7 KB, 288x175, rate-of-profit-graph.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14793788

>>14793725
>communists support redistribution of money and property

No, thats simply the revolution. The seizing of the means of production. It has nothing to do with your money (which is already worthless) or your personal property (your toothbrush or your car or even your house)

Its about realising whats inevitable. The realisation of a society beyond things like property or the state. Because these things have a tendency to undermine themselves. Dont believe me? Wait until 2008 v2 comes about within the next 10 years.

>> No.14793790

>>14791589
>Sowell/Hazlitt/Hayek/Friedman
You are become Boomer, destroyer of economies.

>> No.14793796

>>14793198
Sowell is an American conservative, which is a liberal. There's no conserving anything when you deregulate and privatize everything.

>> No.14793806

>>14793796
>Sowell is an American conservative, which is a liberal.
No it's an incoherent jumble. American conservativism is a synthesis of a lot of different things.

>> No.14793818

>>14793796
>>14793806
According to Sir Roger Scruton, the founder of the neoconservative movement, the lions share of those who call themselves conservative today are simply a reacting force to what they consider to be "snobby metropolitan liberal elites"

>> No.14793820

>>14793788
Yeah, ok, cool. Typical commie argument. Nothing that hasn't been said even before Marx was alive.

>> No.14793835
File: 4 KB, 278x181, nedladdning.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14793835

>>14793820
Im sure you will be fine :)

>> No.14793856

>>14793835
Who knows. I don't pretend to see the future but the end of capitalism predictions have the same success rate as predictions of the second coming of Jesus. In my mind you are no different from a madman on the street telling me I'm doomed.

>> No.14793893

>>14791176
That's not the same at all. Outdated figures like Adam Smith or Newton were the originators of the "basics" in their fields, so it makes sense to study them. Can't say the same thing for Marx. Like seriously, can anyone name me one original idea from Marx that's taken seriously by any reputable economist today? You can get through an entire BA program of economics without ever touching Marx, unless you're reading him for historical purposes.

>> No.14793913

>>14793051
That quote makes no sense. Just because people know how to fish doesn't mean you ruin the fish business. Even if I knew how to fish, I would rather conveniently buy them at a store than go out of my way to hunt my own food.

>> No.14794209

>>14789284
Yes, but Hazlitt is better.

>> No.14794248

>>14790042
>LTV btfo
>declining profits btfo
>industrial countries first to revolt btfo
>worsening material conditions for the poor btfo
>scientific resource allocation btfo

Even the many neo marxists don't take Kapital seriously anymore. Are you LARPing or just retarded?

>> No.14794261

i'm studying econ in a 2nd year undegrad and it's the most boring shit imaginable.

>> No.14794269

>>14791295
Go with Hazlitt's economics in one lesson. It covers everything Sowell does but it's much more concise. Sowell takes much longer but he has interesting anecdotes and is the better writer.

>> No.14794293

>>14791912
Schumpeter is great but he's probably not who I'd recommend to someone who has never studied economics before. Better of starting with the earlier Austrians before moving on.

>> No.14794303

>>14793051
At least the accelerationists seem to understand this. The Marx fags claim socialism is the inevitable next step in a material process but at the same time have been screeching about how we need a workers revolt for 150 years.

>> No.14794319

>>14793126
Is this graph supposed to be evidence that people have been steadily working harder year after year?
And it's not what happened in the mid 70's it's what happened in 71.

>> No.14794341
File: 212 KB, 1218x1015, 1567820543481.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14794341

>>14793818
>Founder of the neocons
>Roger Scruton

>> No.14794358
File: 41 KB, 560x366, AD7D2420-CC05-4F27-9CB6-E46A18EBA75F.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14794358

>>14794248
>LTV btfo
Keynes & co were btfo in 2007 and continuously btfo on the daily since then. Economists are reading tea leaves while the LTV is rock solid.
>declining profits btfo
Pic related. COPE harder

>> No.14794368

>>14793835
>falling rate of profit
Literal nonsense

>> No.14794632

>>14789284
>>14789962
I read it. Just boomer liberal free market stuff. The arguments are very well put forward but you have to be willing to do things like define equate quality of life with consumer choice and low prices which is a bit reductionist.

>> No.14794983

>>14793051
>How come the average lifespan lowered 20-30 years after industrialisation?

What do you mean?

>> No.14795013

>>14789311
Economics is a pseudoscience.

>> No.14795397

>>14794983
One would think a productive revolution and new found democratic freedom "liberty brotherhood and equality" would mean higher living standard for the average man.

But instead the average lifespan shrank, children died in mines or on factory floor, and social relations atomised.

Its almost as if the commodification of labor made humans more disposable than slaves.

If only people knew how much class struggle it took too give people the standard they have today.

>> No.14795407

>>14790453
Ted is based.

>> No.14795411
File: 13 KB, 300x400, blacc.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14795411

If you're going to read black economics at least do it right.

>> No.14795414
File: 46 KB, 350x342, 208F4D14-9ABA-4A30-A031-1582487DA31B.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14795414

>>14794248
Do some research on this, anon.

>> No.14795441

>>14794319
refer to this
>>14793240

>> No.14795559

>>14795397
>Its almost as if
Go back.

>> No.14796164

>>14793051
>Think for yourself, the great social liberal thinker Meynard Keynes once thought we would work 6 hours a week by now. What happened?
he was wrong. happens to the best.

>> No.14796183

>>14791404

Everybody has seen sowell in interviews btfo’ing dumb lefties, that’s the source of the popularity, not whatever retard narrative you salty leftists tell yourselves

>> No.14796340

>>14796183
Your assertion is wrong, as I have not seen Sowell "btfo'ing" anyone. If you have any further information on the matter, now would be the time to provide it.

>> No.14796354

>>14796183
I'm struggling to understand how a 90 year old man made his career OWNING libtards with FACTS and LOGIC. Considering he wrote most of his acclaimed works in the 60s and 70s