Why aren't you reading Sowell?
Why aren't you reading Sowell?
i don't care about economics. mostly because i don't even know what they are.
Will reading about economics make me rich?
me as well, econ is one big fenticil
Sowell is absolutely based
Race and Culture: A World View was my first reading of his.
Where should I branch out next?
'We know that the war against intelligence is always waged in the name of common sense.'
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?
>still shilling this coon's "books"
I don't read boring shit. My life is already boring af.
>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.
>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.
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.
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.
Sowell is pretty much neoclassical/Chicago school, not heterodox
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.
>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
I went beyond basic economics a long time ago
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
I refuse to read niggers
Because I realize that due to the pervasiveness of information assymetries, incomplete markets and negative externalities, Pareto-improving tax interventions almost always exist.
You're a certain if you think markets haven't greatly benefitted mankind.
I agree that economics is not a science though.
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.
Anyone have his new book?
>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.
Human action has too many variables to work with the scientific method, which is a requirement for something to be a science.
>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?
The universe has too many variables therefore science doesn't exist.
>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
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.
>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.
But nature has too many variables so it can't be a science. That's what you said.
But that is not what I said.
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
>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.
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
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
I know shit's fucked.
I don't need a a 300+ page book to tell me just how fucked it is.
>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 Veeky Forums 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
>hasn't read austrian business cycle theory
>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.
>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
austrian economics is funded by billionaires who have rigged the stock market and purposefully depress oil prices I'm not reading that shit
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.
this isn't science this is disgusting
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
>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 Veeky Forums link the thread
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.
'I can't post in Veeky Forums because I think they're smarter than me' the post
>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
>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.
You suck at reading comprehension, have you ever read Menger or Walras?
Holy shit do you have no clue what you're talking about.
He's retarded or something. This is proof that 'a large post an intelligent poster does not make'.
The only people I ever see bringing up his race are leftists.
Half of what he writes about is race and its relation to economic and social interactions, so naturally people bring up his race.
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.
>unregulated free-market capitalism is a family-oriented lifestyle
Nobody advocates for "unregulated free market capitalism."
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.
yes, goyim, (((black)))
>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.
I'm waiting for the anime adaptation
I'm not a neo-liberal status quo perpetuating uncle tom.
Fuck off, uncle tom.
There are no 'left liberals'.
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?'
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.
>everything I don't like/understand is ideology
fuck off zizek
Is there anything more absurd than complaining that a book called "Basic Economics" is too simple?
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.
Cuz he's a reactionary
Keep reading economics (Classical, Marxist, Historicist, Keynesian, Post-Keynesian, Heterodox, etc.) of all flavors, not just Neoclassical / Chicago & Austrian and then you'll understand.
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.
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.
So your definition of science is essentially useless?
lol but that isn't actually true user
I'm certain that you have.
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.
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.
kys. not all foreign sounding names are jewish
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!
But capitalism hasn't succeeded and true socialism hasn't being tried. It may be a meme answer but it`s the truth nonetheless.
Fuck off. Right wingers need to be banned. We need to reclaim our board.
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
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.
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.
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!
>when you're this high on market ideology
Only if you take into account the filthy rich though.
You're talking nonsense.
Why don't you read a book that teaches you how to stop being a virgin?
Nah, you're just plugging your ears with dried cum
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.
>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.
>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
Why would I read some cherry picking uncle Tom?
He's literally just the Republican's black friend.
>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
>state socialism doesn't count for socialists
that's why it's called state socialism and not socialism
Right, in the same way libertarian socialism isn't really socialism... Hey... Wait a minute...
Pinker thinks he's underrated. That's how you know he's a hack.