"I like to read"

>"I like to read"
>haven't read a single book in pic related

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=2GklCBvS-eI
youtube.com/watch?v=jE7zxo61Xc8
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_flights
youtube.com/watch?v=dzgMNLtLJ2k
youtube.com/watch?v=4sgk0pxmx2o
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

lol

he is highly respectable as an individual, a beacon of black america and america in general but what has he written that is standout in terms of subjects or literature, im curious, never read anything by him, never read in my life in fact

I'm not a numale cuck who hates whiteness

>man among my mentor

>"I like to read"
>is an anarcho-capitalist or American libertarian

>not including intellectuals and society

someone edit this pic and replace all of the posts in the trashbin with books by aristotle

>Being an Uncle Tom class-cuck

Tbqh if anarchism had a chance to work it'd have to be capitalist, and other means of organizing resources would be too decentralized.

But I'm not retarded enough to be an anarchist anyways.

it's more a matter of external interference

>Reading black authors ever
lel

Anarcho-capitalism is one of the more ridiculous forms of anarchism.

There are forms of left-wing anarchism that somewhat make sense but AnCap is just nuts.

He's an economist of a sort of unique Chicago school persuasion. I can't speak for his other books, but basic economics is just that, the base economic models. Supply and demand, utility, prices, elasticity, &c. It's nothing profound, but if you never got the chance to study macro and micro economics it's worth reading. I'd actually like to see it accompany modern college economic text books. He takes the math and mundane explanations of the college textbook and simplifies it.

eh pretty cool guy eh eocon doesnt afraid

>that pic
kek, sorry random visitor here

Sowell is fantastic BECAUSE he actively writes against the blacks' self-destructive attitudes.

Just give him 5 minutes:
youtube.com/watch?v=2GklCBvS-eI

man hes based as fuck makes me sad blacks dont give a rats ass though, or maybe they just dont know anymore, anyways i gave up on america a long time ago fuck them, im rooting for the chinese and russians to speed ahead, as long as they fix human rights issues and shit, little tounge in cheek there but you get my sentiment, random user here

>"books you should read"
>posts nigger books
you are what's wrong with America

see

>sugar coating your propaganda this much

Nigger, I told you to give him 5 minutes. Now go give him 5 fucking minutes.

Ah, yes. Just what we need - another American academic extolling the supposed virtues of common sense.

i can give him 5 seconds to get off my lawn
and even is charity

Seriously?

Whoever made this signed his own infographic?

Am I the only one to notice the alarming pyramid shape in the picture?

>Using the phrase "Uncle Tom"

How to out yourself as being in the grips of ideology: "People who disagree with my consensus are traitors"

is the title of that book "a man among my mentor" or "man among men" or "man among my mentor"

>it is only 12% of the families are not intact!
lol, would love to see this woman react to the current numbers where it is a majority of blacks that grow up in single parent households

as a black man i can confirm that any person who uses the slur uncle tom is a dumb nigger, i think its more offensive than nigger actually, one is instigating for offense on the groundless idea of superiority like any slur, the other forces homogeneity on your thinking and forbids you from critical thinking, much more offensive

Good night uncle tom.

I already read Invisible Man though

This is the most sane and logical POV about welfare. He nails it in in first 10 seconds. Rewards failure + makes you dependent.

I unironically love Dr. Sowell.

Please share how you fine folks were introduced to his works.

Friedman's show, of course.

>Anyone right of center (aka the entire field of economics) is libertarian or ancap

>heritage foundation: the talking points - the man
Does he have anything original to say at all, or is he going to keep retreading points that are older than he is? It's nice to have someone educated offering points for a side, but it's nothing that hasn't been said since the 1920's.

He's one of the cornerstones of the Chicago school. A school dedicated to a revival of barebone Adam Smith economics in direct opposition to marxism.

Of course you'll always hear him long-windedly explaining basic, common-sense shit, if backing it up with hard evidence. Because the opposing "economists" are against said basic, common-sense shit despite their lack of evidence.

Your answer sounds really smug. I'm not trying to pick a fight, it just reads that way.

So,if Sowell and his ilk are about stressing Adam Smith's work in its purest extent, does he comment - or is there commentary - about how, in the chapter of Wealth titled "Profits of Stock" he discusses how higher profits lead to increased prices? He uses the textile industry as an example. It's something I've always wondered about, so it would be nice to see something from the Chicago school about that point.

I'm not trying to be smug, but sorry if I come up that way.

And you're misunderstanding me. No, the Chicago school isn't about stressing Adam Smith's work. It's about going back to Adam Smith's ideas, but overall not directly addressing them. Instead, they address certain economic issues, and explain why these problems, overall, arise from not letting the market take care of itself, backed up by studies.

But if you want some very easy to consume introduction to the Chicago school, go watch Free to Choose. It's a show all about that, that lasts 10 1 hour episodes. This clip comes from it. It's on youtube or your closest torrent tracker.

As for how higher profits lead to increased prices, I'm not entirely sure. I haven't brushed up on economy in a while. But the Chicago school tends to have little concern over prices, due to inflation and different currencies and whatnot. Like, Friedman or Sowell would most likely tell you that amount of money itself doesn't matter, but standard of living and accumulation of inheritance (more as property, businesses and/or education more than as money) does. So that might be the correlation. How higher profits tend to provide a higher standard of living to those involved in a particular industry, which in turn translates into a higher standard of living to those with whom said people deal with in their daily lives, and so on. So you work on the textile industry, get higher profits which allow you to spend more on, say, groceries, causing the grocers to spend more on, say, books, causing the bookstore owners to spend more on, say, cars, and so on. This amount of prosperity will inflate prices up to a point, yeah, because if at some point metal gets more expensive, then the bookstore owner will need to make the books more expensive for his cars, and the grocer will have to make the groceries more expensive for his books, and the textile factory owner will have to make textiles more expensive for his groceries.

Shit, and I just checked, and there's a whole episode about that:
youtube.com/watch?v=jE7zxo61Xc8

Thanks for being helpful. I'll check out Free to Choose and go from there. Any suggestions for somewhere to start with Friedman?

The book he wrote from the show is amazing. It's also called Free to Choose. Capitalism and Freedom, and A Monetary History of the United States, are his other two big ones. But Free to Choose, overall, encapsulates them.

Let me give you piracy in MEGA while I'm at it. The main folder is this one, but you need the keys:
#F!51Q0waSI

Key for Friedman:
!4Ut-eePQr9YSjHJJTQs7Ew!Flo2FQAD

Key for Sowell:
!4Ut-eePQr9YSjHJJTQs7Ew!595knYCQ

or read Milton’s book Capitalism and Freedom
and Klein’s The Shock Doctrine for the opposing view
keep in mind that Milton is a jew.

Friedman is as much of a jew as Yoav Shamir.

Yeah, they're ethnically jews, but they're not jewing you like the rest. They're telling you who is jewing you, hoping for you not to be jewed anymore.

Milton Friedman is the king jew, or at least one of top 5 most influential jews of all time.

As the strongest anti-marxist, he was the strongest anti-jew.

Gotta be bait; he's a fucking right wing economist

Adam Smith invoked many ideas which are now considered Marxist, including the labor theory of value

jew =/= marxist
you have jews on both ends of the spectrum. Their sole aim is to create profit. Friedman did it by liberating the economy and destabilising 3/4 of south america, russia, UK (partially), indonesia, south africa, directly or indirectly back in the 60-80s.
Marxists create slower-paced economic and demographic problems that tend to be equally as destructive long-term.

>muh Chile
Strongest latin american economy fgt.

Guatemalan here by the way.

You know what I mean.

Thanks for the share and answering my questions.

NP.

Enjoy the read.

>strongest latin american economy
it could have been without the american intervention as well. Did all those people really have to die? People were being thrown out of the airplane above the sea

What's the reason for Brazil being a shithole and Chile a success?
Compare it even to Argentina
A dictator is not great but they could have done much worse, I'd rather my country take the path Chile has taken instead of a Brazil

>People were being thrown out of the airplane above the sea
Helicopters. And that had fuck all to do with Friedman.

He didn't destabilize shit. The junta destabilized shit. The difference is, they had the Chicago school to pick up the pieces. On the other hand, when my own country's 35 year civil war, while sure, propitiated by murican intervention, which by the way was a war between marxist guerrillas armed by the USSR against a string of CIA-backed dictators just like Pinochet, we had no Chicago school to fall back on, and nowadays, every single party and candidate self-denominates as a "social democrat" while the standard of living keeps on being shit and deteriorating. On the other hand, Chile, with its own civil war between USSR-backed marxist guerrillas and CIA-backed dictator, went on to become the economic envy of the subcontinent.

But sure, Friedman was all about destabilization. Fucking hell.

you have to view countries as social-spatial phenomena.. A large chunk of how the economy evolves in a country is subject to geographic features
Chile
>morphology: elongated country with easy access to the sea
>large areas of EEZ
>andes are of old orogeny which means there are or were large ore deposits
>smaller population, easier to deal with reforms
Brazil
>compact country where 3/4 of the country is a rainforest
>200m people
>smaller EEZ
>wood is cheap
>technology involving the capture of water’s energy efficiently is still in its infancy

from airplanes too
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_flights
see references

guess why the junta was created and who was there for advice

There are ways of being successful without going full chicago school mode.. Take a look at Sweden, Finland, and several other european countries (Slovakia, Poland, Slovenia, Czech Rep, Estonia, Latvia, ...) that did not liberate the economy like Friedman proposed and are now light years ahead of south america (even chile) despite being quite similar economically just a few decades ago.

>talks about social/geographic differences
>proceed to compare even more distinct countries

nice

>guess why the junta was created and who was there for advice
youtube.com/watch?v=dzgMNLtLJ2k

DUDE, THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH CAPITALISM, BTW I WAS EDUCATED AND TAUGHT BY (((FRIEDMAN))), LMAO

if anything it took more effort for the eastern/central european countries to advance, given their very limited natural resources (at least when compared to the likes of chile, brazil, african countries).
As for social differences, south america is on siesta several hours a day, work ethics are different... but who’s to blame here. If you want to embrace chicago school, change that as well.

it’s obvious Friedman would deny his involvement and not incriminate himself

Yeah. Why would he ever want to counter the character assassination perpetuated on him despite his lack of participation in the whole thing.

>lol you're a little to the right kys ancap fgt xd

When will people stop replying to these threads

He writes for people that don't read his books. Those that do read him already agree. He's still worth reading for the most part.

firing line

Right, explain then how a rock like Singapore with no resources manages to be highly successful?
If I have to believe you it's not about your economic policies, it's about geographics alone, which is plain old wrong

I find this argument
> arise from not letting the market take care of itself, backed up by studies.
always ridiculous. The way we ended up at current crony capitalism is exactly because market took care of itself without no limits from government.

For example, obviously you want a monopoly backed by state laws so you get modern ISPs in U.S. or alcohol stores in Finland.

They took care of themselves alright.
Government should not have entertained them in making them legally above others.

>The way we ended up at current crony capitalism is exactly because market took care of itself
>For example, obviously you want a monopoly backed by state laws so you get modern ISPs in U.S. or alcohol stores in Finland.
You are contradicting yourself and making points for the opposing argument. The crony capitalism you are referring to is possible because of state intervention and too much power being given to the state to act upon the private free enterprise economy. A smaller and weaker state would not be able to provide these comforts for a private company.

>The crony capitalism you are referring to is possible because of state intervention.
Yes, in a way, but you clearly don't see the corollary I'm arguing here. An endgame of a company is to have its monopoly or cartel enacted in law and backed by state violence.

Thus, no one can compete against them according to law.
Thus, they've secured the strongest grip of the market.
Thus, ALKO in Finland, ISPs in U.S. as per my example.

People commonly attribute what I describe to "state intervention" but it's absurd to ignore the other side of this, that once these companies realized they could be signed into a law, they definitely shilled for this through lobbies and corruption.

And this is the market definitely fixing itself when left "alone". Someone's bells should've rang when they were signing monopolies into law in a supposed "free market where market takes care of things."

It's not a free market when you sign into law monopolies.
Not sure what your point is desu

Market took care of itself; it is in the interest of these comapnies to manipulate state into accepting them into law.

The American free market is an illusion. If it were truly free, the state would not intervene.

>that once these companies realized they could be signed into a law, they definitely shilled for this through lobbies and corruption.

Once these companies realized [the corrupted state would intervene on their behalf] Don't you see?

America does not have a free market; yet American corporatism is the argument against free markets.

Government involvement in favor of a certain company is not free market

lais·sez-faire
ˌlesāˈfer/
noun
noun: laissez-faire

a policy or attitude of letting things take their own course, without interfering.

A wretched thinker who was rewarded with a pittance of academic success for his slavish (ironically) adherence to the party line of US pro-capitalism. Not worthy of consideration, except as a prime example of how not to go about things.

I tell you, no party is in line with Thomas Sowell's thinking, and your slavish comment is offensive.

The U.S has strayed more and more from what he thinks it should be the policy, what are you talking about?

>Thus, no one can compete against them according to law
>according to law
>according to law
>letting the market take care of itself
>according to law

Also, Adam Smith's WHOLE thing was about making the brits break free from monopolies. Specifically, he was going hard against state-enforced limitations on imports that gave the local industries a monopoly and thus a way to inflate prices, and created a way for a violent black market to even exist.

That's the whole reason he wrote the damn book.

youtube.com/watch?v=4sgk0pxmx2o

>Chicago school. A school dedicated to a revival of barebone Adam Smith economics
this is your brain on chicago school fundemantalist free market economics

yer a slack jaw nobody pontificating on the american economy on Veeky Forums, youre the definition of a plug, faggot

>he isn't a libertarian.
It's like you hate money AND freedom

The reason that NeoKeynesians BTFO the Chicagoans is because of this smug arrogance that just drips off of everything they write, the NK wrote mathematical tracts instead and LARPed as mathematicians which all the policy maker virgins trusted.

You have never read a history book.

Sowell is more or less exemplary of American libertarianism, in that he doesn't go to the extremity of many in the formal party. I'd say Rand (Paul) is also a pretty good example, although he's definitely takes a harder line on social issues. I mention ancaps because their adoration for Sowell (however hypocritical it may be) is usually surpassed only by their love for Rothbard.

I don't hate money or freedom. I recognize they're both concepts that I can dispense with at my pleasure.

Oh wow look at the too intelligent big brain over here with his superior opinions on the abstract concepts of currency and liberty

Thank G-d for this BASED minority, my political views now have moral valence since a black man agrees with them.

ENOUGH

I grew up having to take care of my sick parents while all my friends had disposable income, upward mobility, and a rich social life. They were able to spit on the idea of welfare from a safe distance as their parents paid for their college. They enjoyed hereditary welfare, but would never call it such. That's all it is. Consolidation of power. The poors can't have access to the same means of upward mobility as me, so call it "too expensive" and insist they're stealing from you, and that safety nets and regulation aren't an integral part of every modern society.


Yeah. It's too bad people only apply this logic to the poor, ignore when it's for illness or natural disaster (and not """failure""" (every fucking time with the meritocracy horse shit)) and REALLY ignore when it's corporate welfare, that is, corporate welfare in the form of bailouts, subsidies, small fines for highly profitable crimes, comfortable prisons for the rich, etc. They'll defend untaxed inheritance without blinking their eye, leaving a million dollars to their kid, while insisting such assistance "breeds dependence" when it's the poor people receiving a much smaller form of it, after having jumped through countless bureaucratic hoops to prove they """deserve it.""" If worse comes to worse, just invoke Reagan's "welfare queen and strapping young buck" stereotype which we all know is a dog whistle for some imagined loathsome black people.

Then there's the typical libertarian right's complete ignorance on the environment, the accumulation of capital, and the accumulation of weaponry. They actually believe a society where companies are totally deregulated and can just do shit like pour industrial waste into rivers with impunity will be sustainable because we'll just innovate our way out of it. They don't see how a libertarian right society decays into an authoritarian right society as the unsustainability of deregulated multinational firms causes them to accumulate power until they are little more than specialized mobile states. They don't see how an anarcho-capitalist haven would just be place for corrupt companies to go to escape the laws and regulations of their own home nations, just to accumulate some arbitrary amount of power needed to be able to stand up to the unincorporated masses. The primary directive of public and private sector balance of power is the goal of the reasonable people in power. Balance of power between public and private sector has become even more important than balance between branches of government. But sure. Deregulate everything. Provide no assistance to poor people in need. Every bit as deluded and utopian as other political outlooks.

It is in the market's own interest to get codified into a law: it takes TWO TO TANGO MATE.

>and that safety nets and regulation aren't an integral part of every modern society.
Regulations to keep monopolies at bay, state charity in the form of food and other basic essentials for those proven to have fallen on hard times, a small state-run socialised healthcare system for the poor and anyone else left behind by insurance companies, state-run comprehensives, academically selected state schools to propel talented people from poor backgrounds forward from a young age, and only requiring those with the means to pay for their third level education to do so, with the bill for any financially disadvantaged person being footed by general taxation.

All of that is doable without the gargantuan burden that is placed on taxpayers in European societies by huge beasts like the NHS which have no business being as big as they are.

You know user you are right (kind of). I don't care about you, I don't care about your sick family, and I don't care about the poor, and I don't want them to care about me either. Now that doesn't mean I hold any negative emotions or ill will towards you, I'm just completely indifferent. I want you all to have the same ability to build yourself up without having to be under the government's thumb. Regulation is strangling small business to death and it is hurting the poorest parts of the country most of all. I want you to be able to start yourself and build your life from nothing, but with the way the laws and regulations are set in place it's just not realistic any more

You're thinking too small. It's not that libertarianism is too utopian, it's that its extremity exposes the necessary utopianism of all fixed political philosophies.

Just because you happened to be born into poverty while others where happend born into wealth does NOT mean you are entitled to anything. You are entitled to NOTHING in life except death. Life is not fair and will kick you in the fucking teeth if you believe otherwise.

I hate corporate welfare. A libertarian free market is not an anarchist system. Dumping waste in rivers would of course be illegal.
Like said, state charity can coexist with a free market.
The regulatory powers that be do not stifle the consolidation of power by large multinationals. Take for example the TPP.

Oh, he's black?
Didn't notice, I'm color blind when it comes to race

should say "gubmint"

Woah.. this post is just vile. First section can literally be discarded as nothing more than
>muhh feelings

Now regarding the second section.. First of all, Libertarians are not Keynesians you fucking idiot. Yet another fucking moron that literally thinks of Capitalism as this disgusting perversion Keynes came up with and that is being implemented right now. Second of all, how can you be so fucking clueless to compare Welfare to Inheritance? The fact that welfare breeds dependency is not the only, or even main, argument Libertarians have against welfare. The Government can't just magically shit out money (Or well.. it can, but this is not the point), therefore welfare is provided through the taxes it collects. Taxation is Theft, end of story. Plus, inheritance is both given and received voluntarily, therefore the decision on whether that will breed dependency to the recipient is to be factored in by both the parent who's giving it and his kid who is receiving it. And lastly, regarding
>Reagan's "welfare queen and strapping young buck" stereotype
it really makes me think how the moment the welfare state was expanded so did almost every factor that is correlated to financial success. Be that single motherhood rate, the rate at which recipients of welfare and/or their kids graduate high school or go on to get a college degree etc. etc.

Now for your last paragraph, you obviously are too much of a fucking brainlet to understand the concept of a purchase as a vote of approval of not only the product but also anything related to its production, from the rights of the workers who produced it, what harm its production causes to the environment and so on and so on. Don't like companies fucking up your rivers mate? Stop sustaining their existence and further expansion through purchasing their products. Enough people do that and the company can't exist anymore or at the very least can't engage in the behavior that caused it to receive your approval in the first place.

>Plus, inheritance is both given and received voluntarily,
I think anons point was that some people will argue that welfare creates dependency and doesn't work, while also protecting the right to do the same with their children on a much larger scale. Not sure I agree wholly with the comparison, but it wasn't that hard to follow.

While I agree welfare needs to be regulated and kept under very strict surveillance, the idea that everyone should just "lmao work harder" is nothing more than a libertarian wet dream describing a reality that just doesn't fucking exist. If you can claim it works in some cases it certainly doens't in the majority, making it a nice daydream but absolute shit in practice. The idea that the free market will solve everything and that the invisible hand will jerk you off each and every day is such an unreasonable improbable pipe dream I can't believe it's not mocked as much as equally retarded socialist ideas. It's exactly that line of thinking that has led to the US being on of the porest rich nations, but for some reason, it's mainly the welfare queens that are the problem.

It is hard to follow because it's nonsensical. He's assuming that defending something necessarily means that you must agree with it, from which he then concludes that Libertarians are hypocrites. In the scenario he brought up Libertarians are not necessarily defending inheritance, they'd instead be defending the right for someone to do with what is theirs as they fit. Where as welfare involves using the power of the state to essentially force someone to give up a portion of what ought to be exclusively theirs for redistribution to a group of people that the Government considers to be deserving of welfare. If the individual disagrees either with a the forcible removal of part of what is his, the size of the portion that is removed from him or to whom what has been removed from him is being invested in then, since money translates into time and effort, that is literally slavery. You're forcing someone to work for a reason which he himself doesn't wish to work for. Where as if the individual is incomplete approval with all that was mentioned above then why is the Government needed? Why isn't private charity a viable alternative that also happens to guarantee the voluntary aspect.

Also, no Libertarian expects people to never be in need of help, they simply believe that a system of private charity is better. Charity can be interpreted as a form of investment through the expectation that the individual who happens to receive help will take advantage of it so as to regain his independence, which translates into going on to become a valuable member of society, because that is the way you gain independence in a Capitalist society. Therefore those most likely to (re)gain their independence the fastest (or rather.. those who are perceived as such) will obviously have a higher chance of receiving help. In-group preference also plays into this. Being able to make a donation implies financial success. Financial success is largely a result of someone's values which manifest themselves in someone's work ethic/lifestyle/etc. So in-group preference makes it so that you are more likely to support someone who holds values that lead to financial success.