what do you think of people reading large books in public?
>tfw have pic related
>have a book which is the collected works of oscar wilde
>have infinite jest
>30 minute train ride to work
>i'm a slow reader
i usually just read on my e-reader, but have been buying more physical books lately.
I consider them pseuds.
well what should i do instead during my commute?
most people sleep, listen to music, or are on their phone (normiebook or texting). i don't do any of these things, except sleep
Just read your book, nobody but losers with something to prove will care.
i'd say if:
1) you can read on these places
2) you can carry the large book around
3) you can understand what you're reading
you should just do it
>well what should i do instead during my commute?
Masturbate
>well what should i do instead during my commute?
considerations about kantian philosophy
Instead of reading Capital just get something by Thomas Sowell instead
>what do you think of people
I don't, you arse.
marxist economic theory =/= libertarian economic theory
gotta catch em all
Literally Rebbit: The Book.
>won the Financial Times (literally the only good newspaper) best book of the year award
>Financial Times (literally the only good newspaper)
Okay, champ.
This. You can cry about it being popular but probably should read it rather than sticking your head in the sand.
I don't
next
>
It actually has a lot wrong with it. Piketty's been called out all over the place for fiddling his figures/etc. Anyone trying to peddle a neo-Marxist creed must necessarily bend the truth, so it comes as no surprise.
As long as you're not waving it around like "HEY CHECK OUT HOW INTELLECTUAL I AM" no one can reasonably be upset at you.
I do read on public transit and sometimes they are big books but it's not to get attention and no one has ever treated me any differently than any other reading/silent passenger.
Piketty's method is much closer to Sowell's than Marx's. You can't really substantially call Sowell a libertarian since he believes a free banking system wouldn't function and governments gotta control the growth of the money supply, he's a "libertarian" like Friedman i.e. only superficially
And every such accusation of "fiddling figures" has been debunked again and again. Piketty's central evidence of the rich getting richer at a greater rate since the liberalization of economies is so bland and self-evident his work is just pointless. Some people are just pathologically afraid of admitting this obvious empirical process has been occurring and no amount of statistics is ever going to convince them.
>rich getting richer at a greater rate
>People who are good at making money are better at making money than people who are bad at making money
>People paid to read this
My issue with Piketty is not his research but his purposed solutions just come off as generic, liberal European policies; it felt like a really lackluster conclusion to such a well researched and presented book.
You're completely missing the point of the fact: the return on wealth ownership > the rate of economic growth
The rich don't magically "make money", they passively sit on assets and get a certain return for doing so. If a larger mass of societies resources are progressively going towards passive rentiers to consume, largly imported luxury goods, instead of being reinvested in the economy to employ and expand societies productive forces this will over time have all kinds of negative sociological and economic consequences.
The growth of wealth inequality will probably over the longer run lead to an establishment of a firm power elite (perhaps of close kinship). This type of development has always historically tended to have led to political collapse or authoritarian regimes establishing themselves.
So what you're saying is that people who are good at making money (the rich) are better at making money (the return on wealth ownership) than people who are bad at making money (those whose assets only increase at the base rate of economic growth).
>The rich don't magically "make money"
So how did they get rich?
nothing wrong with that, if you think otherwise you are pseud
NOBODY GIVES A SHIT
are you really this insecure and self-conscious?
People who "make money" are just functionaries in the system.
Millions of peoples lives in the 20th century were dramatically improved because of large investments being made in fixed-capital that required employing a lot of people and a general progressive taxation and regulation framework.
Fordism is dead today however.
Daily reminder that Piketty is wrong
economics.mit.edu
imf.org
Just read your book, nobody in real life actually cares.
This
You realize Piketty has made extensive responses to his critics right? You're not just mining from Wall Street Journal articles trying to one up him are you?
pubs.aeaweb.org
You should take any consensus amongst "experts" (i.e. a lot of learned ignorance) in a social "science" as being pretty much worthless. You really have to try actually understanding the data yourself.
I'm sceptical of Piketty mostly because of his methodology and sticking to a very narrow naive neoclassical framework.
read small books
Btw, I don't know why this needs to be said but Piketty is not a marxist and has never read Marx.
He just wanted to make money so he used the name, kind of cringe thing to do to be honest.
Happens in every single book, no one wants to say
>so this is why we should eat the rich
because it wouldn't be published but it's always implied.
>He is took pleb to read Piketty.
>He doesn't understand intermediate to advanced economic theory/thought.
>He hasn't studied economics enough to appreciate how good the book is.
>He's to pleb to understand the significance of Piketty's work.
Whenever I see a doorstopper in public I always think that the person reading it wants to show off. Carrying big books around isn't practical, and thats how simple my reasoning is.
But it's just a thought, I don't really care about strangers at all.
t. Studied economics and math
Faggot