ITT: Non-fiction books that aren't textbooks but still contain useful knowledge

And what's wrong with private ownership and honoring contracts?

they get worshipped by spergs like sowell

Yeah, it is.

that’s not what techno-capitalism is at all

I like this thread

*blocks your path*

>

Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith.

its very readable, no jargon

burn every copy of this printed cancer you can

Shills out in force

You have to be a shill to understand that capitalism is the better, and indeed the only major functioning economic system?

Great argument dude

any non memes? in my opinion this is the most entertaining normie friendly chemistry book out there for example

>supply-side economics

How's that economic calculation problem treating ya?

My Econ teacher made us read this or else drop his class

...

My diary desu

...

why do you say this? I just picked it up

>still shilling this coon's "books"
/pol/acks, everyone

Nothing. The problem is when capital is kept scarce so that the benefits flow to those who supply it rather than those who do the productive work.

The Bible

That's as flawed as what Sowell wrote!

everyone on Veeky Forums should read The Golden Bough

This

>not posting the god tier wealth of nations

thanks
been looking for an alternative to that hack Campbell

What are some of the issues with Sowell's thinking? Why are you guys against him?

>What are some of the issues with Sowell's thinking? Why are you guys against him?
His book is nice, but "basic economics" is retarded. You will learn useful things and also that markets are perfect (since you couldn't study them otherwise), only afterwards can you learn that markets are far from perfect and there is much more to economics than markets.
If you are really interested in economics it might be better to begin with Macroeconomics by Mankiw, and follow with Varian for microeconomics, Gruber for public economics etc... The classic by Adam Smith, Ricardo, Keynes, Marshall, ... are also nice but are not easy to read.

When I say "basic economics" I mean the concept not Sowell's book.

Thanks I was actually looking for a good intro and thought he'd be a good place to start but I'll check out your recs as well. I was particularly interested in Sowell because of his comments regarding the nature of race in relation to economics and would like if anyone could rec something on a similar topic here. Thanks all.

>hurr durr we cant possibly know the outcome of anything that isn't decided purely by the Market
How's that 40 years of a runaway wealth gap treating us?

>All this stupid garbage
There is a tendency for the rate of profit to fall. All the ideology spewed by vulgar economists rests in the shadow of this. And it all functions to obfuscate this.

just read
>The Making of Modern Economics: The Lives and Ideas of the Great Thinkers
and/or
>A History of Western Political Thought
then
> Modern Economics by Jack Harvey

can you post an example?

based /leftypol/rades correcting the record!

die jewish shill

>cites a literal non problem
Good actually, what with all the functioning economy. Sorry sweetie, but red ideals don’t work.

...

/thread

Define capital because the way you're using the term doesn't make any sense to me. If you mean money or property then it can't be anything other than scarce. There's only so much land and we can only print so much money.

Are you a literal retard?
>the benefits flow to those who supply it rather than those who do the productive work

>functioning economy
>at least its not the gulag
You're right. The working class has never had it better. We can't hold all this prosperity.

...

I'm not retarded, I just don't understand what he means when he says the problem is capital being kept scarce so I'm asking for a clarification. Capital is typically defined as a scarce resource so it doesn't make any sense to assert that it's being kept that way by some force.

>I'm not retarded
Yes, you are. The "scarce" amount of capital available is kept away from the people that do the productive work, making it more scarce for them.

What does it mean for capital to be kept away from people who do productive work?

you dumb niggers should go argue somewhere else

should I start with something else before Aquinas? or is it a good starting spot?

they’re not allowed to access it, apple’s source code is for apple only, amazon’s machinery is for amazon only, google’s algos are for google only. idiot

die you fucking bookfag

Are you against private property then? There's no need to insult me by the way. I'm only asking questions to learn what you believe in why so you shouldn't feel like you're under attack.

What is your goal? And how much philosophical terminology do you understand?

The book does a good job of explaining a lot of the terms and relating them to previous philosophers.

If you want to learn philosophy I would start with some introductions on Plato and Aristotle.

However, you can never go wrong with Aquinas. The book does a great job of distinguishing what Aquinas actually argues, from people commonly think he argues. It is also a introductory guide, so you should be okay.

>capitalist society lers me make a living shitting up Veeky Forums
>its bad

I have a compilation of both of these. Also, I just finished Letters From A Stoic. I also own The Nature of Things

Well, definitely give the book on Aquinas a try.

You are correct, standard of living continues to rise, working class indeed has not had it better. Are you going to tell me that the hell of the USSR, was better?

He is against voluntary trade and property. His ideal is born out of envy and jealousy. Literally the thinking of those that pester the hen for her bread.

The runaway wealth gap isn't because of the market, consider the federal reserve.

Who cares if some people are more rich than others? Wealth gap isn't a problem, poverty is. And in countries like America the poor are extremely few and far better off than many well-off people in other countries.

Håller ni med om att det äts för lite katt i Sverige?

Any and every book that is written to help people with social interaction is trash unless you are some rare human being that lacks basic social skills you learn by the time you are a teenager

basic econ isn't going to help most people because most outcomes are also non-deterministic, you only start to learn actually good practices at the higher level, accounting for variance.

If you read Zombie Capitalism carefully, you will have a better understanding of economics than an Econ major. It has wonderful figures and charts describing useful trends. Sure, ‘muh capitalism’, but fuck you. If you are pro capitalism, you don’t comprehend the extent or effect of our levels of wealth inequality. If you have a grasp on wealth inequality, you do not support our present form of capitalism. I’m an Econ major that worked for Art Laffer of the Laffer curve, Reagan’s Economic advisor.

>Read this one book and you'll know much more than somebody who studied it for years.

What a perfect characterization of the typical college socialist you are.

meant for

Wealth inequality doesn't matter in the slightest and you don't have a better understanding of economics than someone that hasn't taken a course, let alone a major.
Working as a janitor in a building with Laffer doesn't change anything.

>nigger nogics

...

>Wealth inequality doesn't matter in the slightes

This. Socialists want equality, but that just means that everyone is in the shit.

It means money.
We can print more money, or cut interest rates to enable the private sector to create more money, but it may require taxation to be increased to control inflation.

As there's only so much land, it makes sense for the burden of tax to be (gradually) shifted onto the unimproved value of land.

>ITT: books that put people on Mt. Stupid

>wealth inequality doesn't matter
until you get 1789'd again

Just print more money so everybody can have some. You would fit right in as an economics advisory to the president of Zimbabwe.

>implying wealth inequality was what caused 1789
If anything, 1776 will commence again.

Equality is really asinine concept. You have to level the playing field but after this is done, with a linear currency scheme, people are going to have more or less again as time moves on. In the future, if ideas are respected more, then hopefully this sort of thing won’t be a problem, but as it is, it is almost like we live in a feudalistic era with the serfs WANTING the ruling class to live recklessly and licentiously instead of abhoring wasteful processes

Any high school calculus book

Guns, Memes, and Steel

No, that's not what I mean.
What I mean is: supplying the money is more lucrative than actually working.

You're displaying your ignorance of economics.

Firstly, it was you, not I, who said "Just print more money so everybody can have some".

Secondly, I mentioned the need to control inflation and the solution that may need to be implemented.

Thirdly, it may surprise you to learn that printing money is never sufficient to cause hyperinflation. All recent hyperinflation episodes have been the result of the government trying (and eventually failing) to hold the currency value above its real value. Zimbabwe also persecuted its main export industry while discouraging foreign investment!

There are other possible causes of hyperinflation. Printing money and immediately selling it to meet foreign currency repayment obligations can cause hyperinflation, and so can the lack of an effective taxation system. But printing money alone won't cause hyperinflation except maybe if the country is blockaded (as the Confederate States of America was).

>Wealth inequality doesn't matter in the slightest
it matters politically. allowing such drastic economic inequality always has repercussions in other areas. it dosen't matter what group it is,but oligarchs will always buy the political system, militant groups, natural resources, communications, etc. allowing anyone group to control these things puts a time limit on civilization.

>if only we control the inflation and hold it to some arbitrary goal, then it will work
You're displaying your ignorance of economics. Central planners cannot know what the "correct" monetary supply would be.

Economic inequality and political inequality are two different things. One is an issue, the other is not. Though Political inequality inherently leads to inequality, and I would consider that a problem.

On Women

'Tis much better than letting central planners, rather than markets, determine the value of the currency!

And so what if central planners can't know what the correct money supply would be? Nor does anyone else! But fortunately we don't need to know in advance - we can monitor the effects in real time. Inflation is one of those effects, and is usually regarded as the biggest problem. Unemployment is sometimes worse, but it's rare for the two to be at significant levels simultaneously (though it can happen when there's a supply shock).

>'Tis much better than letting central planners, rather than markets, determine the value of the currency!
This is historically very wrong. We're seeing a move away from government controlled money to market determined levels as we speak, look at the cryptocurrency movement.
>we can monitor the effects in real time
Except this is what differentiates bad economists and good economists. You only look at the seen (unemployment numbers lowering in the short run), you don't look at the unseen (altering of the stages of production leading to a long term bust).

>Wealth inequality doesn't matter in the slightest

Prove it

ourworldindata.org/a-history-of-global-living-conditions-in-5-charts/
Read this through while keeping in mind that income inequality is increasing. The gap is expanding, but the bottom is raising rapidly.

The economy isn't a zero sum game where if somebody wins it means somebody lost. The simple reality is that some people create wealth better than others and then is why some people have more than others. You're not entitled to the wealth other people create just because they have more than you.

Will give it a read, thanks.

FWIW I've never really thought it was a massive problem, always thought income inequality was worse.

So what level of income inequality should you have?