What does Veeky Forums think of this book?

FUCK DRUMPF AND FUCK WHITE """"PEOPLE""""

Please stop.

See
You are a retard, who doesn't understand how to be. Objectivism is flawed, and inherently not conducive to a collective culture.

It's honestly a great book. Brainlets and le redditors hate it but have never read it.

Elite. Only brainlets hate it

Slit your throat, samefag cuntbitch.

Isn't didactic a positive adjective? It means something that teaches. I'd use "preachy" instead.

We believe in God?

...

Kill yourself

Yes, and we hate Objectivism

Only people who hate it are people who haven't read it

I'm a believer now! Praise God!

*tips*

Which ideas or quotes did you like from it?

Stop. We've all read it. It sucks.

Go read The Holy Bible and John Maynard Keynes.

>John Maynard Keynes
Is this satire or what

Any nonbeliever is now synonymous with fedoras?

Read it at 15. Hated it by 16. 24 now and still hate it. Ama if you don't believe.

No, and neither is the Bible.

Get to it.

*tips harder*

It would be tastier to kill you, poor man. Are you a god lover as well? Just answer yes or no.

Keynes's work is massively outdated retard

I might as well read Adam Smith

John Galt speech and the cigarette part on the mountain diner are exceptionally good as the contemplation of human might in the form of big cities is. At lesst read part one. It has some beautiful parts but it does get kinda repetitive

It's not and I literally just talked to someone the other day who was in France doing mathematical economics work highly influenced by Keynes. Keynesian economics is still taught in colleges.

You should read Adam Smith because he is also a very influential thinker.

So, have any economists here read Leon Walras' work on economics? What do you think?

I've been reading it, and I do like it... it's just... I'm not averse to proofs and there is something about this book....

Leon Walras will introduce a set of new variables and define them and through logic, the new variables indeed make sense. But then something happens.

He introduces two matricies. For each matrix there will be a column of one variable he will take out of one matrix, and substitute it into the first equality by multiplying this one variable he took out by the variable representing equality with that row of the matrix.

Then he will proceed to do the same thing with the other equation. In other words, here is what Leon Walras does.

Blahblahblahblah, so x = this and y = that

Then he follows it up with a quantity matrix

aX + aY + aZ = qAlpha
bX + bY + bZ = qBeta
......
zX + zY + zZ = qZeta

And then watch out here comes the other matrix. This is usually the price matrix

p(a) = (a)Alpha + (a)Beta .... + (a)Zeta
p(b) = (b)Alpha + (b)Beta .... + (b)Zeta
....
p(z) = (z)Alpha + (z)Beta .... + (z)Zeta

Anyway these are the two matrices. Now he will proceed to take X Y, and Z out of the first three columns of the matrix respectively and again respectively multiply them by p(a), p(b), and p(z) (the left side equality of the second matrix)

Then after that, he takes Alpha, Beta, and Zeta out of the following matrix, and again respectively multiplies them by the first three equations, this time on the right side.

Anyway, he then adds them all up and says he is genius because

p(a)X + p(a)Y + p(a)Z + p(b)X + p(b)Y + p(b)Z + p(z)X + p(z)Y + p(z)Z = qAlpha + qBeta + qZeta

WOAH MIND BLOWN AND YOU CAN CANCEL OUT THE COUNTLESS a+b+z ON BOTH SIDES OF THE EQUATION BECAUSE GUESS WHAT.... THEY EQUAL EACH OTHER....

I mean, Walrasian economics has its strong points but this, and the fact that he thinks somehow scarcity is equal to value are the worst.

Yeah, my friend in law school once mentioned keynesian economics

new keynesian economics is one of the dominant schools of econ today. janet yellen, stiglitz, makiw, etc. are all new keynesians.

Threadly reminder to read The Fountainhead instead of AS

>Battlefield Train
The less you think about it, the better the book is.

I'm not saying keynesian economics hasn't had an impact on modern macroeconomics, but the difference between what mainstream economics teaches and Keynes' theories is actually quite large. The New Keynesian school is essentially 40% Keynes and friends, 40% Classical, 20% Monetarism

I'm talking about macroeconomics in regards to the %. Keynes never touched Micro and Micro is essentially 100% Classical

It's a good book to include in your 15 year old edgelord starter kit

hayek btfo keynes a while ago lad

threadly reminder that ayn rand was a self-loathing pig who hated her vagina and wanted to be raped by a great man i.e. howard roark

Say what you will about the meme worthy book of hers, her life was fucked up by leftists for her work tho.

This. Boy i felt so edgy back then that when i read this book, and "God Delusions" right after, i got accute fedora poisoning for the next five years.

Nothing wrong with leftists when it comes to believing in God and righteous economics. Not even socialism. A lot of passages in The Holy Bible and The Republic imply the loss of private property.

But Marxism is absolute shite. Communism is inherently an atheistic philosophy because of him.

it's shit

Fanfic about Capitalism
>Misunderstood main female character
>Spends entire life working and loves it
>Fucks every mysterious and intelligent dude she comes across

Read it last year, it sucks famb. It's just a self help book with a veneer of shitty philosophy and economics

Trite garbage written by a hypocrite with a laughable grasp of outdated economic theories

wtf, I love Ayn RAND now

I don't think 99% of the people who criticize it have read it because they always say the exact same things. They're always very vague too like they're afraid of being exposed.

Just because a certain group you dislike follows certain works does not sufficiently discredit the work itself, although the work having been written by a woman might; you have a point there, user.
But still I'd argue that its important to read works, at least the large ones, even if you know beforehand that you will disagree with much of it.
For example: Assuming you follow the Christian God, and if you are studying religion and religious philosophy it would be wise to also read the Koran, the Vedas, and many other religious texts. Another example is with reading blatant propaganda, like Communist Manifesto or Mein Kampf; you may disagree with everything in them, but it still important to read them if one wishes to understand the mind of the persons who wrote it as well as the people who follow it. Just a thought

It honestly shocks me to this day how many religious people exist on an otherwise intelligent board

The only people who criticize Ayn are smelly/ugly leftist failures who are resentful and hateful towards any kind of success or hard work, like most of Veeky Forums

>we

Maybe you're the dummy for now knowing why.

I stated exactly why, are you slow?

>rich people work hard
>what is inheritance
>what is feudalism

>written by a woman
DROPPED

This guy gets it

Hey man, understanding economic systems has nothing to do with a correct moral compass. It's one of those things that could be done by a psychopath and technically be correct.

I personally believe John Maynard Keynes is burning in hell for his infatuation with gays, but at least we have a document that is rather impressive. Economics can be a complex, sprawling business. And so can faith and the objects of worship, but trust me I'm no Christian. Those monotheists you hear floating around are right: Islam is the way to go, logically.

Just because you think worshipping God is dumb, doesn't make it so, plebe.

Only people who have read it will appreciate it's greatness

um no sweaty x

>considered a joke by every respectable economist, philosopher and literary criticism
>b-but muh leftists

>Yeah we believe in God here, but we hate Objectivism
Rand hated people who believed in god and it killed her relationship with the other objectivists.