Why aren't you reading Sowell?

RumChicken
RumChicken

Why aren't you reading Sowell?

Attached: Thomas-Sowell-2.jpg (234 KB, 540x540)

Other urls found in this thread:

auburn.edu/~garriro/a1abc.htm
youtube.com/watch?v=G_sGn6PdmIo
youtu.be/BWvNBnZzdBY
inequality.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/media/_media/pdf/key_issues/gender_research.pdf

BinaryMan
BinaryMan

i don't care about economics. mostly because i don't even know what they are.

StrangeWizard
StrangeWizard

Will reading about economics make me rich?

New_Cliche
New_Cliche

me as well, econ is one big fenticil

Spazyfool
Spazyfool

Sowell is absolutely based
Race and Culture: A World View was my first reading of his.
Where should I branch out next?

Harmless_Venom
Harmless_Venom

'We know that the war against intelligence is always waged in the name of common sense.'

cum2soon
cum2soon

The useful thing about Sowell's writings is that they explicitly articulate why exactly capitalist economies succeed in contrast to socialist economies. They also provide the logical background which people need to understand to come to accept capitalism as the best option for our economy, such as when he explains the need to think in terms of trade-offs and benefits, as opposed to leftist thinking which usually occurs in terms of "problems" and "solutions", and fails to account for everything that needs to go into our political calculus.

He's useful for someone who wants to move from left-wing thinking to liberal or right-wing thinking, but beyond that there's not much other use, because much of what he says is actually implicit in mainstream Western politics or agreed upon in mainstream economics And everything else he says is just silly.

You might think he's useful in another way if you think it's worth our time to debate socialists, but I don't think it is. Real socialism is dead. At most, people go for Bernie "socialism". And who really cares about that in the grand scheme of things?

Attached: 1497086993352.jpg (82 KB, 555x703)

SniperGod
SniperGod

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

BunnyJinx
BunnyJinx

I don't read boring shit. My life is already boring af.

Skullbone
Skullbone

the need to think in terms of trade-offs and benefits
I already got this. Do I really need to get into Sowell, if I already did Road to Serfdom?

I like looking into heterodox economics and see if there are bits and pieces that seem useful. Like Shaik's "real competition" idea.

Dreamworx
Dreamworx

Do I really need to get into Sowell, if I already did Road to Serfdom?

No you don't. You've read a book that vaguely sort of advocates laissez-faire while critiquing socialism therefore you know everything there is to know about laissez-faire philosophy.

happy_sad
happy_sad

I don't why people act like he's just an economist or that's all he writes about. He has probably written more on sociology than economics throughout the years.

Attached: 9780465089956.jpg (18 KB, 258x400)

Poker_Star
Poker_Star

You probably don't need to read Sowell's Basic Economics book, but I wouldn't call Road to Serfdom a replacement for an economic book.

I also wouldn't call Sowell heterodox by any stretch, he's taught at places like Cornell and UCLA. If you want heterodox laissez-faire economics, read Ludwig von Mises or Murray Rothbard.

TalkBomber
TalkBomber

Sowell is pretty much neoclassical/Chicago school, not heterodox

RumChicken
RumChicken

Redpilled beyond the memes. Love Sowell, especially when he criticises the acceptance of elite dogma. Was a great way to introduce myself to critical thought. Gets too much flak for being black with his views, which tells you a lot.

RumChicken
RumChicken

They also provide the logical background which people need to understand to come to accept capitalism as the best option for our economy, such as when he explains the need to think in terms of trade-offs and benefits, as opposed to leftist thinking which usually occurs in terms of "problems" and "solutions", and fails to account for everything that needs to go into our political calculus.
AKA he's good at giving you prepared arguments for capitalism, like this "he thinks LIKE THIS and leftists think LIKE THIS" crap

AwesomeTucker
AwesomeTucker

I went beyond basic economics a long time ago

PurpleCharger
PurpleCharger

laissez-faire capitalist economics was pushed by rw billionaires and spooks. keynesianism is pushed by left liberal billionaires and spooks, economics is not a science, the market is not beneficial to the species. David Rockefeller was mentored by Hayak and the Hunts and Koch, Coord and Mellon-Scaife families funded the CATO institute, Milton Friedmand worked with Paul volcker and Alan greenspan who engineered the 2008 crash. Don’t read or research any of this, if you’re involved with econ get out now

Stark_Naked
Stark_Naked

I refuse to read niggers

viagrandad
viagrandad

Because I realize that due to the pervasiveness of information assymetries, incomplete markets and negative externalities, Pareto-improving tax interventions almost always exist.

Crazy_Nice
Crazy_Nice

You're a certain if you think markets haven't greatly benefitted mankind.
I agree that economics is not a science though.

lostmypassword
lostmypassword

Didn't mean to imply Sowell is heterodox. And I'm not looking for heterodox laissez-faire theory. The guy I meantioned (Shaik) is actually a neo-Ricardian of sorts. I just like looking for outside the box stuff.

Crazy_Nice
Crazy_Nice

Anyone have his new book?

Attached: Untitled.png (22 KB, 188x294)

Methnerd
Methnerd

economics is not a science

A subject which has about as much mathematics as particle physics and deals with concrete social phenomenon isn't a science? Huh.

Crazy_Nice
Crazy_Nice

Human action has too many variables to work with the scientific method, which is a requirement for something to be a science.

SomethingNew
SomethingNew

Human action has too many variables to work with the scientific method
But the universe doesn't?

And if we are going by predictability of behavior, are pharmacology and metereology sciences?

takes2long
takes2long

The universe has too many variables therefore science doesn't exist.

hairygrape
hairygrape

A subject which has about as much mathematics as particle physics
it doesn't and its nothing like particle physics
deals with concrete social phenomena
a business cycle and demand are not concrete
You're a certain if you think markets haven't greatly benefitted mankind
they're killing the species

Poker_Star
Poker_Star

Natural sciences have repeatable tests to prove or disprove a hypothesis. In economics this does not happen.
Pharmacology and meteorology can isolate variables for repeatable tests.

Snarelure
Snarelure

Kek

Firespawn
Firespawn

a business cycle and demand are not concrete
Concrete in what sense? There is pretty significant literature on what causes cycles, just not the exact length. Demand being a schedule of one's preferences is true a priori.

SniperGod
SniperGod

But nature has too many variables so it can't be a science. That's what you said.

WebTool
WebTool

But that is not what I said.

DeathDog
DeathDog

the point here being that even pseudosciences like pharmacology and meteorlogy, two of the lowest iq, most absurd and least consistent sciences, provide a standard of rigor that econ cannot meet. I think even cognitive psychology, another ridiculous "science" has better rigor in its ability to experiment, use controls

Garbage Can Lid
Garbage Can Lid

There is pretty significant literature on what causes cycles, just not the exact length
not a single large economic crisis was predicted by the dominant economic schools of thought, no one knows why or what investors will do who control huge portions of the financial markets, the government and firms can influence demand and supply arbitrarily without warning. Political factors are literally part of the gaps in economic predictability models, so there is no precedent like it in any of the other natural sciences.
Demand being a schedule of one's preferences is true a priori.
very smart, excellent, now predict how many people tomorrow in Seattle want coffee, go ahead and do it, and then test it and try to get within 1000 consumers. You can't do it, because its a pseudscience. In fact you can't tell me anything even remotely as accurate as a genomics assay or a particle physics study or a chemistry experiment because you're not a scientist and what you study is not scientific in any way. Population genetics is science, evo bio is science, molecular psychiatry is almost science, neuroscience is a science, what you do is allegedly related to these things, but you see it uses abstract mathematical variables with no physical correlate and thus is not a science, it is in fact a form of theology.

Boy_vs_Girl
Boy_vs_Girl

I own 2 of his books and just the thought of them on my shelf let alone opened before me is so boring that I have never bothered

Spamalot
Spamalot

Black rightism apologists wish they weren't ever taught to write so I don't see why I should disrespect their feelings by reading the things they say

Bidwell
Bidwell

I know shit's fucked.
I don't need a a 300+ page book to tell me just how fucked it is.

Techpill
Techpill

it doesn't and its nothing like particle physics
Sigh. Last time I'm going to do this okay? The first time I did this over in /sci/ they were talking about economics did have some validity as a science. Please note we ARE in Veeky Forums, and however much I push mathematical LITERATURE in Veeky Forums, the fucking sped retards don't want to participate. Anyway here goes. Verbatim from Irving Fisher's Mathematical Investigations in the Theory of Price and Value, Part II, chapter III.

Mechanics versus economics

A particle "corresponds to" An individual
Space "" Commodity
Force "" Marginal utility or disutility
Work "" Disutility
Energy "" Utility

Work or Energy = force x space
Disutility or Utility = marginal utility x commodity

Force is a vector (directed in space)
Marginal utility is a vector (directed in commodity)

Forces are added by vector addition ("parallelogram of forces")
Marginal utility are added by vector addition. (parallelogram of marginal utility)

Work and Energy are scalars
Disutility and utility are scalars

Carnalpleasure
Carnalpleasure

hasn't read austrian business cycle theory
auburn.edu/~garriro/a1abc.htm
thinking economics is supposed to be predictive
It's not predictive, it's based on actions taken. I don't consider it a science, and I don't get why you think I claim it to be otherwise.

Sharpcharm
Sharpcharm

Mechanics versus economics
A particle "corresponds to" An individual
Space "" Commodity
Force "" Marginal utility or disutility
Work "" Disutility
Energy "" Utility
Work or Energy = force x space
Disutility or Utility = marginal utility x commodity
Force is a vector (directed in space)
Marginal utility is a vector (directed in commodity)
Forces are added by vector addition ("parallelogram of forces")
Marginal utility are added by vector addition. (parallelogram of marginal utility)
Work and Energy are scalars
Disutility and utility are scalars
you should be shot in the head for trying to do this kind of stupid shit

Evilember
Evilember

austrian economics is funded by billionaires who have rigged the stock market and purposefully depress oil prices I'm not reading that shit

TurtleCat
TurtleCat

Mathematically analyze sociological phenomenon?

You know, you get much further with mathematical analysis than you do without.

For instance, Carl Menger's Principles of Economics and Leon Walras' Elements of Pure Economics go over the same thing: marginal utility. But Walras ended up go in much more detail through a layered, variable analysis.

BlogWobbles
BlogWobbles

t.

Attached: 1513812069891.png (53 KB, 403x448)

LuckyDusty
LuckyDusty

this isn't science this is disgusting

space=commodity
no space is an expanse, a commodity is an item
particle equals an individual
no a particle is a particle, an individual is an abstract idea of a nondescript human whose genetic makeup and neural correlates are undeterminable until studied
marginal utility=vector
no
work and energy are scalars
no they're work and "energy" in the sense you're using it. you'd get eaten alive if you said this on /sci/ link the thread

CouchChiller
CouchChiller

No he's right. Austrian economics is a fucking joke. It's complete shit. You should realize that people who are actually intelligent, God-fearing people, rationalize economics from a top-down, bottom-up approach through recursive variable analysis. So that independent variables exist in the midst of the economic phenomenon itself, like the psychological property of rarete, a Walrasian defined term, that Pareto generally uses. Like numeraire, as well, which is a mathematical term.

BinaryMan
BinaryMan

'I can't post in /sci/ because I think they're smarter than me' the post

Dreamworx
Dreamworx

Mathematically analyze sociological phenomenon?
does not mean what you want it to mean
You know, you get much further with mathematical analysis than you do without
normative statement, disregard
For instance, Carl Menger's Principles of Economics and Leon Walras' Elements of Pure Economics go over the same thing: marginal utility. But Walras ended up go in much more detail through a layered, variable analysis
DnD systematics, has nothing to do with physics which studies the natural world, all the maths in physics that we care about has a physical correlate and can be tested for validity
the price of oil was manipulated by Oil oligarchs at the end of the Obama years and by OPEC in the 70's this was not predicted by economics models. Austrian economics is chiefly funded by the Mellon-Scaife, Hunt, Coors, Koch families all of whom manipulate oil and natural gas prices when it suits them. Austrian economics is a brain child of a Volcker-Greenspan associate, Milton Friedman and other disgusting kikes. Its not a science at all and business cycles have never been accurately predicted by the dominant school of economics. I'll repeat myself for both of you nerdic cuck bugs:

Mathematical models that are not pure maths or related directly to physical systems are fucking useless nonsense, economists are not mathematicians they take existing mathematics and try to use them to create elaborate and exotic models which they use to explain after the fact results, economists do not make accurate predictions and this is why Finance people are paid more than they are. Austrian economics is pushed by the chicago school of economics and the CATO institute both funded by elite oil and business magnates who manipulate the stock market and commodity markets arbitrarily for political and personal reasons. An example of this would be the devaluation of russian oil in the early '10s and the Oil crisis of the 70's which were arbitrary and had political motivations. Lastly economists cannot create controls, they cannot falsify their theories, they cannot predict demand in an accurate manner.

They are essentially court sorcerers who firms and governments keep around to get an edge up on one another. Economists do not build economies, firms and consumers do, economists do not build economic policy, people make stupid decisions that we call fiscal and monetary policy and they are the one's who hold responsibility for inflation, taxation, tax credits, subsidies (another random measure) not economists whose input is valued but have no direct hand in anything. Lastly, the behavior of finance and business titans is largely occulted to economists and thus they can do all kinds of things that effect supply or demand or political measures which have a huge effect on economics. For instance an Arab oil shiek can fund terrorism in India or Spain or America that has an effect on the market which cannot be predicted This does not happen in particle physics

Nude_Bikergirl
Nude_Bikergirl

Oh wow golly a nigger who validates my beliefs
Who the fuck cares about a niggers thoughts on tax policy lmfao. All these Hitler worshippers not so deep down are just Hank Hill boomer conservatives screaming to get out.

Attached: brendan-nigger.jpg (66 KB, 577x711)

Sir_Gallonhead
Sir_Gallonhead

You suck at reading comprehension, have you ever read Menger or Walras?

farquit
farquit

friedman
austrian
Holy shit do you have no clue what you're talking about.

cum2soon
cum2soon

He's retarded or something. This is proof that 'a large post an intelligent poster does not make'.

BinaryMan
BinaryMan

The only people I ever see bringing up his race are leftists.

iluvmen
iluvmen

Half of what he writes about is race and its relation to economic and social interactions, so naturally people bring up his race.

ZeroReborn
ZeroReborn

Because Sowell's writings are mostly introductory in nature and targeted at the common man who is trying to educate himself out of left wing indoctrination. It's a good strategy for promoting one's ideas from a political perspective but not a whole lot in his corpus is really interesting from the perspective of someone who is already educated and aware of the need to remove all those who support socialism and non-family oriented lifestyles from society by coercive force if necessary.

Attached: stylin'-hoppe.jpg (47 KB, 425x640)

FastChef
FastChef

unregulated free-market capitalism is a family-oriented lifestyle
oookkay

Fried_Sushi
Fried_Sushi

Nobody advocates for "unregulated free market capitalism."

Attached: Untitled.png (32 KB, 787x301)

Raving_Cute
Raving_Cute

read Schumpeter

Garbage Can Lid
Garbage Can Lid

So? His race has nothing to do with it. I'm sick of seeing leftists attack him just because he's black and doesn't think like they want him to.

Crazy_Nice
Crazy_Nice

he's black
yes, goyim, (((black)))

BlogWobbles
BlogWobbles

those who support socialism and non-family oriented lifestyles

It is not socialism but capitalism which supports non-family oriented lifestyle. Why? People have children when they are young, but they also receive the lowest amount of market income when they are young. Their incomes then go up later on in life when they receive promotions and raises and whatnot, but as people become older they also become less capable of procreating. Capitalist market institutions distribute the national income in a way which is hostile to child-bearing.

whereismyname
whereismyname

I'm waiting for the anime adaptation

Methshot
Methshot

reading Soywell

WebTool
WebTool

I'm not a neo-liberal status quo perpetuating uncle tom.
Fuck off, uncle tom.
There are no 'left liberals'.

RavySnake
RavySnake

Because he's a neoliberal shill and doesn't understand macro.

He's the most over-celebrated "Economist" of all time for obvious reasons.

Thinks you can explain all of economics with Cold War platitudes (' if you don't let a man keep his house, then he won't build one, durrrr, etc. '). It's called 'Basic Economics' because he doesn't understand anything more complicated than introductory Neoclassical Micro, which is itself ideology.

Read something real like Irving Fisher, Frederick Soddy, Steve Keen or Richard Werner and then wonder 'Why the fuck aren't these concepts being discussed by every economist alive right now?'

haveahappyday
haveahappyday

This, Sowell is basically a product of affirmative action. His understanding of economics is based on simplistic and outdated neoclassical models while most of his ideas have already been expressed by more intelligent (and whiter) people before him. The only reason why Sowell has acquired such a cult status is because he can be used by conservatives to deflect accusations of racism.

Inmate
Inmate

everything I don't like/understand is ideology

fuck off zizek

StonedTime
StonedTime

Is there anything more absurd than complaining that a book called "Basic Economics" is too simple?

King_Martha
King_Martha

The gender pay-gap is still front page news in the UK even though Sowell was slapping these arguments around decades ago to hilarious effect.
youtube.com/watch?v=G_sGn6PdmIo

Carnalpleasure
Carnalpleasure

Cuz he's a reactionary

TurtleCat
TurtleCat

Keep reading economics (Classical, Marxist, Historicist, Keynesian, Post-Keynesian, Heterodox, etc.) of all flavors, not just Neoclassical / Chicago & Austrian and then you'll understand.

CouchChiller
CouchChiller

Are there any shows like this being made anymore? I don't even like watching TV because people talking over each other annoys me so much. There never seems to be any arguments either, just some rhetorical exchanges.

Attached: 765.jpg (68 KB, 253x360)

CodeBuns
CodeBuns

So are you saying economics is not a science because we don't have the means and methods to make it so? Or can it not be a science because of it's actual topic/content?

The former is unfortunate but understandable, the latter is completely untenable.

Stupidasole
Stupidasole

So your definition of science is essentially useless?

Dreamworx
Dreamworx

lol but that isn't actually true user

Booteefool
Booteefool

I'm certain that you have.

5mileys
5mileys

Rightists implicitly are making an argument about race whenever they bring up or shill Sowell, because he confirms their ideas about blacks, welfare and big government being interconnected and therefore validating why whites and model minorities are superior.

massdebater
massdebater

His resurgence solely has to do with those of a certain ideology pushing him to the front in a show of "see, this black man also thinks like I do", which you think might be reason enough to invalidate the argument, but it's actually what it says on the tin albeit in a disingenuous manner.

iluvmen
iluvmen

Volcker
kike
kys. not all foreign sounding names are jewish

idontknow
idontknow

It's hard to find good discussion between right and left. On TV it's usually people shouting the same partisan talking points over each other. Nobody learns anything, nobody gets smarter, nobody changes their mind. Sowell could change minds but he would never be booked on a mainstream show with a large audience. Ben Shapiro could change minds. If he ever gets on The View - and he was campaigning for it - that would be fun!

likme
likme

This.

kizzmybutt
kizzmybutt

But capitalism hasn't succeeded and true socialism hasn't being tried. It may be a meme answer but it`s the truth nonetheless.

Methnerd
Methnerd

Fuck off. Right wingers need to be banned. We need to reclaim our board.

Emberfire
Emberfire

that's what laissez faire is in practice or, worse, its using the state to enforce unregulated free market capitalism, which in practice translates into pro-corporate policies

TalkBomber
TalkBomber

Yeah, except that pretty much all empirical research shows the gender pay gap persists in all developed countries even if you take into account differences in hours worked, occupations chosen, education, job experience etc.

GoogleCat
GoogleCat

An employer advertises a job. You go to an interview. They offer you a contract, which includes a salary. You accept it or you don't. If you are worth more than they're offering, go get what you are worth elsewhere. If nobody else is offering what you think you are worth, then you aren't worth that amount.

Stupidasole
Stupidasole

I despise this type of thinking. Why do you want to see people's mind's changed on a TV spectacle? If you have to watch infotainment to begin with, then you're not going to learn much or at best you're simply learning to spout talking points for a certain point of view the Rich TV oligarch wants you to learn. You know the best way to learn and adjust your point of view? Read a book!

Dreamworx
Dreamworx

when you're this high on market ideology

Lunatick
Lunatick

Only if you take into account the filthy rich though.

Garbage Can Lid
Garbage Can Lid

You're talking nonsense.

Lord_Tryzalot
Lord_Tryzalot

t. nerd
Why don't you read a book that teaches you how to stop being a virgin?

Sir_Gallonhead
Sir_Gallonhead

Nah, you're just plugging your ears with dried cum

iluvmen
iluvmen

Did I touch a nerve? If you really think some media corporation will fund your talk show entertainment with reasoned debate and some epiphany of understanding will be reached you're a fool.

Gigastrength
Gigastrength

Why do you want to see people's mind's changed on a TV spectacle?

I would like to see Shapiro on, for example, Jimmy Kimmel. He can actually argue conservative positions and it would be interesting, in my opinion, to see how that goes.

Methshot
Methshot

Real socialism has never been tried
Because it's an impossible system to try, maybe? I guess you're ignoring the Soviets before the NEP in the Soviet Union, Catalonia during the Civil War, and Mahkno's Ukraine?

I mean for some reason state socialism doesn't count for socialists, why this is I have no idea

PackManBrainlure
PackManBrainlure

Why would I read some cherry picking uncle Tom?
youtu.be/BWvNBnZzdBY
He's literally just the Republican's black friend.

Firespawn
Firespawn

Succesful black people are all Uncle Tom's
Das rite brothas an kweenz , a real nigga don't read n shit. A real nigga lives on da streetz

StonedTime
StonedTime

state socialism doesn't count for socialists

that's why it's called state socialism and not socialism

New_Cliche
New_Cliche

Right, in the same way libertarian socialism isn't really socialism... Hey... Wait a minute...

Stark_Naked
Stark_Naked

Pinker thinks he's underrated. That's how you know he's a hack.
BAYSICK ECCYNOMIX

Nude_Bikergirl
Nude_Bikergirl

Because socialism is anarchistic, you stupid fucking neoliberal.

Sir_Gallonhead
Sir_Gallonhead

socialism
anarchistic
Not inherently, you dullard. Trotskyism and Leninism are both forms of socialism that have been tried, don't play dumb and push the goal post.

cum2soon
cum2soon

Because socialism is anarchistic
Only according to libertarian socialists you dipshit

Poker_Star
Poker_Star

Black people who make their success purely from making a show of how white they are and undermining their fellows are uncle Toms, nice strawman fallacy though.

Deadlyinx
Deadlyinx

doesn't believe in global warming
ok that's a red flag
watch autoplay video after that
he sincerely believes Barrack Obama is the worst US president in history
...and dismissed.

TreeEater
TreeEater

socialism is anarchistic
t. never read Marx

Attached: 1518216846824.png (1.62 MB, 1200x1721)

Carnalpleasure
Carnalpleasure

BAYSICK ECCYNOMIX

Where is the concept wrong?

Firespawn
Firespawn

When you conflate whiteness with civility and blackness with barbarity without even realizing it
L M A O

CouchChiller
CouchChiller

being civil makes you succesful
another strawmawn, bravo retard, take another bow
I'm not talking about his personal behavior, it's his "professional career" that's being discussed, you'd understand that if you had an argument beyond hysterical subjective appeals

Stark_Naked
Stark_Naked

it's his "professional career" that's being discussed
All you did was call him an uncle tom then posted a video where he says he doesn't believe in global warming then says that the same president who lead to the rise of the Libyan Slave Trade and success of ISIS alongisde his failed healthcare reform that ended up shilling for insurance companies one of the worst presidents in our history.

Wtf are you talking about? This is all about his personal choices and mannerisms to you, you're just thinly veiling ad hominem attacks against him

Shit dis nigga acts white n shit
Shill!!!1!11!

girlDog
girlDog

Calls him an uncle tom
Says he acts too white and undermines black people
"This has nothing to do with him personally"
Wut

5mileys
5mileys

Ah, of course, I forgot that the labour market is frictionless, that jobseekers have perfect information, that the bargaining power of employers is not determined by institutional arrangements and that the marginal product of labour is a valid concept. Thank you, le free market man.

idontknow
idontknow

all black people I don't like are ghetto niggers!
this is the mentality of sowell fags, everony

TreeEater
TreeEater

I'm not sure which part of that addresses my post. Are you saying that employers should pay somebody more than they're worth, or that employees sign contracts against their will?

StonedTime
StonedTime

most complex math is literally vector addition
as much math as particle physics
holy shit lmao

BinaryMan
BinaryMan

So who here linked this thread to /leftypol/? The leftists native to this board are usually far more coherent.

Nojokur
Nojokur

I’m saying that the wages are typically not determined by a bargaining process with no frictions and information assymetries in which the Walrasian equilibrium is reached.

Raving_Cute
Raving_Cute

The gender paygap was the topic of discussion, Dr. Minsky. The only thing that you listed which might be relevant in explaining a net difference are social institutions, and yet this is still not borne out by the data.

Lord_Tryzalot
Lord_Tryzalot

See, where I work, the company advertised a job, I went to an interview, they offered me the role and a starting salary, and I accepted. This happened in every case for every position in the company, and the company is doing well. It's a pretty good system!

girlDog
girlDog

this is still not borne out by the data

It clearly is: inequality.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/media/_media/pdf/key_issues/gender_research.pdf

iluvmen
iluvmen

Wages are not bargained for because competitive equilibriums are mostly not reached
Since when has bargaining for wages been determined by reaching competitive equilibriums?

kizzmybutt
kizzmybutt

You didn’t address any of the problems with the neoclassical model of the labour market which I listed.

Gigastrength
Gigastrength

Pretty much never, that’s exactly what I’m saying.

Emberburn
Emberburn

Moron spotted
Liberals aren't socialists.
I've read more Marx than you.
Recognizing that people make this conflation does not mean one is making this conflation.
People only take Sowell seriously as a "even a stupid nigger understands this, so le libcucks are le even dumber xddddd"
It also helps them avoid looking like white supremacists. See: Pinker, who is basically a white supremacist but doesn't say so many mean things.

BinaryMan
BinaryMan

Pinker, who is basically a white supremacist

If anything, Pinker is a Jewish supremacist.

likme
likme

imagine being this ideologically cucked you can't even comprehend what you're disagreeing with

takes2long
takes2long

Veeky Forums is my right wing echochamber. everyone else should leave

Playboyize
Playboyize

pinker
x supremacist
where are you getting this from? I mean i hate the guy's smugness but how do you come to this conclusion?

Methshot
Methshot

His main argument is that unmarried childless women are paid the same as men, so all that shit you posted is irrelevant.

SniperGod
SniperGod

economics is the pseudoscience religion of mathematics poorly misunderstood by brainlets.

it's like when spiritual people talk about quantum tunnel their chakras or something. except with billions of dollars on a global scale.

the real 'economic power' is in the issuance of currency and military juntas/dictatorships. since everyone works to get paid.

Spamalot
Spamalot

why would you put your name on a shill image?

Harmless_Venom
Harmless_Venom

I'm curious about the courses some people here have taken on economics. I did Foundations of Macroeconomics and Macroeconomics in college (also Micro) and it was quite straight-forward.
What I studied:
AD-AS and IS-LM models
different methods of calculating GDP
Phillips Curve
monetary and fiscal policies and their relation with the sustainability of the budget deficit
Mankiw-Romer-Weil's improved Solow model
Harrod–Domar model
Ramsey growth model

It's applied math. You don't like them? Fine, then show a useful model that adjusts better to the available data, it's like that for most serious scientific fields. I don't get the hate for economics.

GoogleCat
GoogleCat

Well the reasons behind seeing complex mathematics discussed is because there are a lot of people who like economics that could discuss circles around people that have gone to college for economics. The point is, you may go to college to learn things that are applicable, but when you read real mathematical economics on your own, you are doing something very important as well, and usually you can find new ideas solely from doing this.

You can even go back in time and read economics from very long ago and find most of it to be applicable.

Stark_Naked
Stark_Naked

Let's assume I'm a total economics babby (though I know money is used to purchase items). What would I read before Sowell?

Need_TLC
Need_TLC

Nothing. He is entry-level.

You are like a babby. Here, watch this

Attached: 51Iy9rvIkAL.-SX345-BO1,204,203,200-.jpg (42 KB, 347x499)

Crazy_Nice
Crazy_Nice

nothing. he's below entry level. maybe Hayek, but if you read Hayek you don't really need to read Sowell

cum2soon
cum2soon

Oh okay, thanks both.

whereismyname
whereismyname

le west is le best
everybody must be like le west
That's white supremacy without explicitly saying "fucking niggers need to be civilized like us classy white people or were gonna fuckin kill them"

Emberfire
Emberfire

I said compared to the leftists NATIVE to this board.
Adjusted gap of under 10%
Remaining difference explainable by maternity
Stop baiting anytime.

Stupidasole
Stupidasole

How far Veeky Forums as fallen. Years ago this thread would have been made ironically, as we were all aware of Sowell's unscholarly propaganda. Thanks to the culture wars of the last few years nearly everyone has been dragged down and now people here actually take him seriously.

Sir_Gallonhead
Sir_Gallonhead

well sowell is a stanford professor (affirmative action case obviously) rather than some think tank tool, so hes not complete shit, his black rednecks book actually had a good critique of african american culture, his books on economics are probably dumb tho since thats not his field

farquit
farquit

fenticil
2018 word of the year

Playboyize
Playboyize

but the west is the best and if youre going to come here you better assimilate.

Burnblaze
Burnblaze

Steven Pinker isn’t even white

idontknow
idontknow

Capitalism doesn't "succeed" It functions, there's no "failures" of Capitalism just inherent flaws in some form of implementation.

happy_sad
happy_sad

Why doesn't the attitude your espousing not get called supremacist when said by members of other cultures?