Immigration is bad because it causes a net loss in education, policing etc

>Immigration is bad because it causes a net loss in education, policing etc.
>Immigration is good because it cases a net gain in work, taxes etc.

Why is everything today, both culturally and spiritually spoken in economic terms?

What books can I read about this retarded mental condition otherwise known as "Left vs Right", "Liberal vs Conservative" and "Socialist vs Capitalist"?

Thanks for any recommendations in advance.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Happiness_Report#2017_World_Happiness_Report
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/robert-anton-wilson-left-and-right-a-non-euclidean-perspective
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

>Why is everything today, both culturally and spiritually spoken in economic terms?
Because the only alternative is
>immigration is good because muh feels
>immigration is bad because muh feels

>Because the only alternative is
>>immigration is good because muh feels
>>immigration is bad because muh feels


Economics is entirely based upon muh feels, brainlet.

Why did you include the immigration bit? You could've had a thread with recommendations, but now you'll have a bunch of frogposting Nazis and falseflaggers pretending to be neo-Nazis ruin this thread

>Why is everything today, both culturally and spiritually spoken in economic terms?
How dumb must one be to not know the answer to this question

Why didn't you give me recommendations?

That's really all that people know how to articulate at this point. We've become so materialistic that most people can only think in certain terms. That's why the argument is always lolbertardians vs marxtards.
And it surely doesn't help that the average citizen has been drilled and disciplined from the age of four or five to react hysterically to everything concerning race.

>Why is everything today, both culturally and spiritually spoken in economic terms?
radical physicalism. Indirectly the result of the (((enlightenment))) and thinkers such as kant, but much accelerated by modernist and postmodernist thinking

Because you created a shit bait thread.

Birth and Tragedy

politics is inseparable from philosophy. Nat soc is the only viable option for someone with a non-physicalist ontology

Immigration is okay as long as the minorities are high IQ

>Nat soc is the only viable option for someone with a non-physicalist ontology
End yourself

Because economic benefits is something you can attempt to quantify and lead a discussion on a factual basis with, which is a lot simpler than talking about each other feels and convincing the other person that their feels are wrong. At some topics, there isn't even a chance to get to right/wrong.

With economic benefit, you have the chance to show the numbers, take something like EU migrants, something we already know is economically a benefit. If the person argues otherwise, you can tell them to suck a dick and check the facts. If the person argues for muh culture, you're wading into a completely different debate about muh values and muh beliefs.

The economy is, the economics aren't.

>not restoration of medieval guilds

no

>frog
>Nazi

You watch anime too and piss in jars, right?

>The economy is, the economics aren't.

Yes, it is. Much of the study of Economics has been based upon the principle of Utility. Also, the 'theories' that surround economics are entirely arbitrary even when using statistical methods as they too can be interpreted in different ways.

Economics is entirely muh feels.

This right here is a good example. You need a way to dismiss centuries of great culture and thinkers, so you just claim that it's all "feels" and "subjective." But then how does one sustain one's own side? Simple, it's economics, specifically gdp.

>muh IQ

Lmao, like clockwork. I suppose you don't care if they're black either huh?

pepe is the modern archetype of smugness. I don't watch cartoons because I'm not a manchild.

>If the person argues otherwise, you can tell them to suck a dick and check the facts. If the person argues for muh culture, you're wading into a completely different debate about muh values and muh beliefs.

This brainlet is so wrapped in ideology that he thinks only the market matters and level of production matters.

But if you ask him, higher production, higher output, better standard of living...for what? Watch him as he pulls back, as he croaks, as he shrieks in horror when the sudden realisation hits his feels...

"I too was basing it on muh feels"

>I'm not a manchild
>calls the frog 'Pepe'

Imagine if you will two countries with equal populations. One has a GDP of $1 trillion. However 99% of that GDP is composed of dildos and Taylor Swift T-shirts.

The second country has a gdp of $100 billion, but it is mostly composed of military equipment, housing, food, etc.

Which is more successful? This is the flaw of muh markets.

capitalism BTFO

That's it, I'm a communism now. Brainwashed retard liberal

Hint: the west is country 1, russia/eastern europe resembles country 2

I'm nat soc you retard.

>People have progressively developed the habit of thinking, in all domains, only in terms of being “in favour of” or “against” any opinion, and afterwards they seek the arguments to support one of these two options. This is an exact transposition of the party spirit. … Just as within political parties, there are some democratically minded people who accept a plurality of parties, similarly, in the realm of opinion, there are broad-minded people willing to acknowledge the value of opinions with which they disagree. They have completely lost the concept of true and false. … Others, having taken a position in favour of a certain opinion, refuse to examine any dissenting view. This is a transposition of the totalitarian spirit.

>Nearly everywhere—often even when dealing with purely technical problems—instead of thinking, one merely takes sides: for or against. Such a choice replaces the activity of the mind. This is an intellectual leprosy; it originated in the political world and then spread through the land, contaminating all forms of thinking.

>The spirit, overcome by the weight of quantity, has no longer any other criterion than efficiency.

Read On the Abolition of All Political Parties by Simone Weil

This

Brazil has enormous GDP, but anyone who isn't braindead would rather live in any other small euro country

>muh individualism
Of course it needs to be a roastie

Read The Leviathan, by Thomas Hobbes instead

The problem is that GDP and other quantitative measures of economic output basically just take the word of buyers on how much an item is worth, ie the market sets the value. The problem is the market is composed of fucking retarded imbeciles who pay $1K for a smartphone or $3K for yoga lessons. What you end up with is a lot of value that is meaningless when you realize what it represents in real life.

Just because the interpretation and valuation of information can differ and be feel based, doesn't mean the information gained is.

What is feel-sy about "5% net gain"?

>only the market matters and level of production matters.
Where did you get that? These are the things you can quantify. There are tons of things you can't quantify that still matter, just discussing them is quite a mess.

>better standard of living...for what
Is self-explinatory, and based on our needs, not feels. Besides, since we'd be still talking about economics, it'd be all quantifiable too, so save the "negros make me feel unsafe" excuse.

It's not like there are other metrics, like iHDI as the most obvious one.

iHDI or even fucking GDI would confirm it to be a better decision.

>unironically believing in collectivism

Yall niggas need Catholicism
>Goodness alone is an end. Whatever belongs to the domain of facts pertains to the category of means. Collective thinking, however, cannot rise above the factual realm. It is an animal form of thinking. Its dim perception of goodness merely enables it to mistake this or that means for an absolute good.
>The power of the social element. Agreement between several men brings with it a feeling of reality. It brings with it also a sense of duty. Divergence, where this agreement is concerned, appears as a sin. ... The state of conformity is an imitation of grace.

Unironically Dugin

>Just because the interpretation and valuation of information can differ and be feel based, doesn't mean the information gained is.

Yes, it is because you have to pick a manner in which that information is gathered, moron.

How do you think GDP is determined? You do realise there are different 'mechanisms' for collecting GDP results, right?

You're just a brainlet that hasn't studied the actual mathematical formulas behind these operations and take them on their word.

>What is feel-sy about "5% net gain"?

5% net gain for what? That's the question. What are you gaining 5% *for*?

The answer to that question reveals that yes, indeed, economics is entirely feels based.

>can't quantify non-economic measures
That's because people rarely try. Qualia could absolutely be quantified if scientists put in even the least bit of effort.

>iHDI
i.e. fag marriage, number of minorities and provincial safe mediocrity.

>Is self-explinatory, and based on our needs, not feels.

What does that mean? Needs are feels, moron.

The simple answer is that people have always framed political and intellectual debate in terms of whatever they perceive to influence their life the most, and for us, that's money.

Modern Muslim scholars argue in terms of adherence to the Quran because for hundreds of years being labelled an apostate would get you ostracised from your community or beheaded.

Philosophers during the Chinese Warring States period argued in terms of number of people having children and agricultural output because the roaming armies and civil wars were constantly causing famines.

Modern Westerners argue in terms of the economy because, in a capitalist society, the figure in your bank account determines almost everything in your life, from what hobbies you can do, to how long you will live, to who will fuck you.

>they talk about money because it's important
Well said faget

>based on our needs
This phrase is pure feels. What "needs?" Will we starve if we don't replace ourselves? All of your objective "facts" are useless unless you can show that they point to some equally objective good for us.

All you've said is that societies talk about what they care about which is simply obvious.

The real question is how did we get to this stage.

To the stage of money being the primary concern, or to the stage of debating primarily about our primary concerns?

Clearly that country loves dildos and taylor swift so it's doing its job right

Not often have to care about that

>because you have to pick a manner in which that information is gathered
Or even look at multiple ones. In the end you still have a clear result more often than not.

>You do realise there are different 'mechanisms' for collecting GDP results, right?
That all tend to come to a reasonably similar end-result. It's easier to agree on one here than going to feelsville with shit that doesn't deliver any information.

>Qualia could absolutely be quantified if scientists put in even the least bit of effort.
Not going to happen in our lifetime, user.

>5% net gain for what
Whatever was measured, the fiscus for example. Or muh GDP.

>Will we starve if we don't replace ourselves?
The likelihood to starve rises when the economy is pure shit. After not eating for couple weeks your priorities will switch from "MUH WHITE RAEC" to "please feed me, somebody" pretty fast.

Great. Now you just have to show that it's probable we'll be starving without your migrants. That certainly doesn't appear to be the case in Japan, which is demographically much worse off than we are.

Because the more confusing the world becomes the more people shut themselves off from trying to refine and live by real values.

Google Barthes

% net gain for what

That's not the question, moron. The question is, why is gaining 5% more desirable and the answer is entirely based upon feels.

ITT: a bunch of faggots who have never opened an economics textbook spout a lot of nonsense about things they don't know anything about.
>but what about muh feels
This is why your ideologies aren't taken seriously by anyone with half a brain.

>I don't care about facts because it hurts my feefees
>Why doesn't everybody agree with me waaa
>But what about muh telos what about muh spirituality
Economics isn't normative you spastic American.

>Natsoc
>lives in a fantasy world and has never opened a book on the subject at hand
It's almost as if economics doesn't stop at GDP... Mmm...

>Muh fetishization of the thinkers of the past
This might sound unfamiliar to you: but a claim doesn't become true simply because an important thinker made it. There's a reason why, for example, Aristotle's physics is vastly ignored and his logic isn't. No one stops you from reading them, but you have to think critically and not idolize them. Also reading them doesn't mean you can ignore empirical data. And again, Economics isn't normative.

But, user. That's where the feels start. You can show whether migration lowers the likelihood or not. There are many other factors one can adjust to achieve the result. Some economical, some feels based and eventually you reach feels when it comes to deciding which to take.

Economics can answer you whether migrants are a benefit for the economy, not whether you should take them.

If you want to be overly anal and qualify hunger for feels.

>idolize them
What does any of this have to do with my post? When the greatest men who have lived see the world in a certain way, it takes more than muh gdp bump to dismiss them. Prove that your gdo bump is increasing happiness more than an actual culture would or gtfo

This is pure trash, buddy. Can't you think at all? If all economic growth is a step away from starving, we ought to mandate 14?hour workdays while we're at it.
Show that it is likely we'll starve or gtfo

>ITT: a bunch of faggots who have never opened an economics textbook spout a lot of nonsense about things they don't know anything about.
>>but what about muh feels
>This is why your ideologies aren't taken seriously by anyone with half a brain.

Anyone who has actually read a proper Economics textbook (no, not Thomas Sowell) but an academic one that goes behind the formulas used in economic theories realises that Economics is completely based upon muh feels.

Higher production for what?
Higher GDP...for what?
Higher Utility...for what?
Higher efficiency...for what?

And even ignoring those questions:

You selected that method of measuring GDP...why?
You selected that method of calculating inflation...why?

>happiness
Kek.

If we go by surveys, we can see that countries with decent economy are doing better at it though.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Happiness_Report#2017_World_Happiness_Report

>that it is likely we'll starve
Raising or lowering the likelihood of something doesn't mean it's likely. Staying indoors during a lighting storm makes it more likely to avoid getting stuck by lightning but even if you're fucking around outside, the chance is still pretty low. You're missing the fucking point.

>we ought to mandate 14?hour workdays while we're at it
Is pretty dumb for the economy. If anything lowering it to 4-6h would do much more good. Productivity goes to shit for most jobs after few hours. The likelihood for accidents and stress induced issues rises, which would be a net drain. Etc, etc, etc.

LMAO this brainlet thinks economics is deductive

LMAO

>If you want to be overly anal and qualify hunger for feels.

Hunger is feels, moron.

>If we go by surveys, we can see that countries with decent economy are doing better at it though.

>Top 10 countries are majority Socialist

Hm, really made me think...

You're still missing the point. I never asked you about economics in general, I asked you about migrants. Prove that the economic benefits your influx of migrants will make people happier. If you can't, gtfo
And my other point was meant to a reductio ad absurdum. Show me we're likely to starve without migrants

Literally everything is economics.

LMAO at these Scientism and Positive dorks that think simply calling out something for being based on 'feels' discredits it as though the individual making the claim doesn't realise they are basing it on their feelings

LMAO at these Positivist dorks for thinking they can form economic theories or solutions without muh feels

Lol at this cretin calling out dorks for calling out faggots

Obviously, just it's also a need, not something you can reason away or ignore for too long like the feels we're talking about. Having scary brown people talking their scary languages next to you, won't have quite the same effect as stopping to eat. Although you're welcome to conduct a personal study of course.

>Prove that the economic benefits your influx of migrants will make people happier.
Not starving will make people happier. A stronger economy makes starving less likely. Migrants are a factor that makes the economy stronger. So if you want to lower the likelihood to starve, they are a viable option to look into.

Just because there are other viable options, doesn't change anything about this.

>When the greatest men who have lived see the world in a certain way, it takes more than muh gdp bump to dismiss them.
What the fuck does this even mean? There's a "great thinker of the past" for every possible worldview.
>Prove that your gdo bump is increasing happiness more than an actual culture would or gtfo
Again, this fucking GDP meme. I already said that Economics is not normative. You get it? Not
Fucking
Normative
Also measuring happiness isn't not economics' job.

>Anyone who has actually read a proper Economics textbook
Clearly you haven't
>no, not Thomas Sowell
I don't read trash Amerilard authors.
>Higher production for what?
>Higher GDP...for what?
>Higher Utility...for what?
>Higher efficiency...for what?
How fucking retarded have you have to be to not grasp the difference between normative and positive? Holy fuck
>You selected that method of measuring GDP...why?
>You selected that method of calculating inflation...why
mmmmmmmmm.... really makes ya think doesn't it....


Never said that.

>mmmmmmmmm.... really makes ya think doesn't it....

Not an argument.

Better luck next time. I win. ;)

Left and Right: A Non-Euclidean Perspective by RAW

theanarchistlibrary.org/library/robert-anton-wilson-left-and-right-a-non-euclidean-perspective

>What books can I read about this retarded mental condition otherwise known as "Left vs Right", "Liberal vs Conservative" and "Socialist vs Capitalist"?
Big Ideology man

Great. Now prove we wouldvstarve.
If you can't comprehend the question after this, I'll just give up in deference to your extra chromosome.

...

>Science = Positivism amirite goys??
Another proof that philosofags on lit don't actually read philosophy.

Here's my argument: ur a faget

Why would I prove a point I never made?