I'm a shitlib who just got recommended this by some lolbertarian...

good book, easy to read, examples from around the world

the book was recommended to you by a libertarian, of course it's shit
read it if you want to, and then google some critiques

>is this just the right's version of identity politics?
Why would it be? It's just a book that argues for a neo-classical interpretation of economics. Everything is logically and rationally argued, and I honestly didn't find any fault with the conclusions Sowell draws. Personally I disagree with the assertion that availability of cheap products constitutes quality of life which the book builds a lot of its arguments on, but that's more of an issue with the culture of consumerism than with the free-market economy, which I agree is probably the most efficient way of allocating scarce resources.

>the assertion that availability of cheap products constitutes quality of life

This is how politicians (corporations) sell globalization and offshoring to conservative dupes.

>it´s ok to punch nazis
>spencer is a nazi it´s ok to punch him
>pewdiepie is a nazi it´s ok to punch him
>everyone who disagrees is a nazi it´s ok to punch everyone
i´m sitting here being comfy and laughing about the retards running on us streets
i pity you who are not retarded for having to live with such degenerate scum

Conservatives generally don't give a shit about race. Thomas Sowell is loved by the right because he's an incredibly smart self made man that knows what he's talking about. You don't even need to support free market economics to appreciate what he brings to the table.

People are going to buy these goods anyway. And they are better off if those goods are cheap. I don't see how the argument is false. People can either earn more in wages or the goods they buy can be cheaper. Same effect.

...

...

>Conservatives generally don't give a shit about race
>the conservatives literally just elected a president whose entire platform was "fuck spics and sandniggers"
>mfw

I know you hear "spics and sandniggers" when people say "illegal immigrants" or "terrorists" but that's not what people are actually saying.

Either he's stupid or he hates sandniggers/muslims. The ban obviously doesn't make anyone safer from terrorists. Please just be open about the hatred and don't pretend these policies are intelligent in any way. It would be so much less gross.

bump

I think you're projecting your own racial insecurities into other people, that you yourself tend to have racist thoughts. I'm sure you don't like that you have these thoughts, and like a good leftist you have spent a significant amount of time become "not racist" through education. This is why it's so easy for you to ascribe racism as the primary motive of other people, because if you're racist then everybody else must be racist too. But in your head the difference is that you're working to fix your racism while those dumb conservatives are embracing theirs.

You're wrong though. Not everybody is racist, or at the very least it doesn't manifest in the way that you think it does. Conservatives want a wall and a ban because they think it will be useful in solving some problems. You can disagree with the effectiveness of these things and that's wonderful, just stop ascribing the worst motives to people that you don't even know.

Here's a little thought experiment. Since you believe Trump is racist, imagine we live in an alternate universe where Trump is actually not racist, but he still wants to pursue the same policies. How would tell the "racist" trump of this universe and the non racist trump apart?

>libertarianism
youtube.com/watch?v=qLWuwicKgh4

Most americans have an unhealthy neurotic relationship with 'race'. Even conservatives feel compelled to seek out token blacks in order to prove they are Not Racist, ie. Sheriff Clarke, Ben Carson, Sowell. White libs have a consumer relationship with blacks and black culture as fetishised authenticity, often alluding to black people to justify views that are clearly their own. Even Pop music videos often have a group of black people that follow the popstar around, signalling his/her 'street cred'.

I always had a hard on for the Kowloon walled city. What a incredible place, I was born to late to experience it.

One day user you'll grow the fuck up and cringe at how you used to use terms like libshit and lolbertarian.
But yeah Sowell is pretty good desu. Unapologetically honest and extremely insightful and his writing is smooth and easy to keep up with.
If there's one thing I don't like about this particular book is that it's not as much an introduction to economics as much as it is a guide to how to vote right in the next election. For example, it doesn't talk about the business cycles, currency wars or the petrodollar system. But yeah it's still good nonetheless. Definitely go for it.

Sowell is a conservative worth reading.

It's like you didn't read my 5 line post. I said "either he's stupid or he's [racist]."

I left the possibility of him being not racist very open. Thwt just makes him stupid because his policies don't really solve the problems they claim to; they just keep the sandniggers out. So he's either horribly mistaken, making him stupid, or he knows these policies won't keep terrorists out, and if anything increase the risk of terrorism, meaning he has ulterior motives, like racism.

>imagine we live in an alternate universe where Trump is actually not racist, but he still wants to pursue the same policies. How would tell the "racist" trump of this universe and the non racist trump apart?

In one universe he's a racist genius, in the other he's a well-intentioned dumbass (policy-wise).

>against identity politics
>white identitarian

Hey everybody, look at this retard

I'm new here. Has this place always been full of /pol/ shitheads?

Please don't reproduce
I met many retarded people in my years on this site but you easily made it into the top 10 with this

You actually don't understand shit, so please let me give you this one advice, and please take it:
You are horribly stupid and it hurts, don't ever try to spread the shit you believe to know about anything ever again.

Now please try to think about the shit you're telling us here for at least 5 minutes and maybe you find the giant flaws in your logic all by yourself.
No one is here to give you private lessons. Maybe google "Does trump hate muslims?".
If you still don't get it then, just kill yourself

I don't see anybody claiming that a limited immigration ban is going to stop terrorism or that wall will completely stop illegal immigration. We believe the ban will make it harder for terrorists to come here and we believe the wall will make it harder for people to illegally cross the border. When you characterize the opposition as believing the wall will completely stop illegal immigration it's no wonder you think its stupid. Nobody is under the impression that these things will completely solve anything, we believe they will help. Are you prepared to argue that digging a tunnel across the border is just as easy as walking overland without obstruction? The goal is to make it as hard as possible to cross the border illegally and a wall would help that.

It's the same deal with the "Muslim ban," an easy way to prevent terrorists from entering the country is to stop letting people immigrate from countries that are riddled with terrorists. Nobody believes that because of this ban, no terrorist could ever enter the country.

>republicans are conservatives
>even then, thats the main reason why people voted Trump

Turn off the television

you missed a big point... some of the worst muslim terrorists come from countries which were not in the list, and also are "friendly" to the US. in fact, some of these terrorists are actually sponsored by the governments of the countries not listed in the banlist.

Yeah I don't believe the ban goes far enough. It should be all Muslim counties, including Sweden.

>When you characterize the opposition as believing the wall will completely stop illegal immigration it's no wonder you think its stupid.

I swear you keep talking past me, do you know how to fucking read? I never characterized them that way, I characterized them as thinking it would be effective in combatting terrorism. Look up terrorist attacks post 9/11 (which are already practically nonexistent, in terms of threat to your average person), then look up the countries Trump banned. There's barely any overlap, his countries seem to be chosen at random. However, such a ban (against refugees in many cases) does do a great job at painting America as anti-muslim, which is about the best propaganda tool you could give to terrorists.

So yeah, it doesn't make us any safer, and if anything has the opposite effect. The only reason to support it (if you're not a dumbass) is for racial/religious reasons. Which, fine, go ahead, just know that the blood of innocent refugee children is on your hands.

Not him, but this is the single most cringe-tier post I have seen on this board in the last week.

You aren't nearly as clever as you think, and you're trying too hard to fit in.

Not him, but aren't these the same countries that Obama limited immigration through in early 2009?

applied economics was pretty terrible. Chapter after chapter of "it's good because dis stat" type leading on with little nuanced discussion

Oh boy it's like you've been rehearsing this shit for weeks just to btfo some "leftist" when an opportunity presented itself.

>like a good leftist you have spent a significant amount of time become "not racist" through education.
Learn how to write faggot.

>Here's a little thought experiment. Since you believe Trump is racist, imagine we live in an alternate universe where Trump is actually not racist, but he still wants to pursue the same policies. How would tell the "racist" trump of this universe and the non racist trump apart?
Here's how you can you dense piece of shit: you look at his foreign policy. He's willing to befriend America's arch enemy, Russia, but at the same time, he's escalating against a country that has a fuckton of common interests with the US, Iran. (Keep in mind that Iran is the only Muslim country where people went down to the streets in protests condemning the 9/11 attacks).
What does that tell you? Isn't it obvious that his entire foreign policy is Russia/Israel are white and therefore good, Iran/China are brown and therefore bad?
And the Muslim ban is fucking retarded. The guys who did 9/11 were mostly from Saudi Arabia, a safe country that is openly pro US. the fact that he banned people from 7 states whose citizens had never committed terrorist attacks on US soil while citizens of the world's largest terror sponsoring state are allowed to come and go as they wish only shows that he's desperate to just ban brown skinned people, no matter where they come from and regardless of how irrational that might be.
Also the wall is a dramatic overkill. If "conservatives" as you say, truly want to fix "some problems", then why don't they demand that America pull its troops from Europe or fucking Africa so they can secure the borders and you know, maybe actually protect american citizens? Why build a fucking wall when a much, much cheaper alternative exists? What do you think that tells us about the inner workings of his mind?
Look the guy is racist, if I was american I would've voted for him (only because he's not Hillary), but we cannot deny that he's an emotional bigot with a shallow understanding of the world around him.

>Having moral convictions is so cringey XDD

Stop worrying about looking genuine you fucking tool

You literally said "that makes him stupid because his policies don't really solve the problems they claim to," when we don't claim that they solve anything. I'm not talking past you when I'm responding to exactly what you say.

Obama selected those countries because he believed those people are the ones that present the most threat. I disagree with him and believe that the ban doesn't go far enough, and that it should cover all Muslim countries because it is impossible to tell the good from the bad during entry, and it's becoming increasingly common for even the "good ones" to raise second generation "homegrown" terrorists. The easiest and safest solution is just not have dealings with them at all. If appearing anti-Muslim is enough to turn regular Muslims into terrorists then we should absolutely not let any of them in. Because then those people, by your own admission, should not be trusted.

>he's escalating against a country that has a fuckton of common interests with the US, Iran.

I giggled

Who do you think is killing Isis in Iraq and Syria right now kiddo?

>we don't claim that they solve anything

Then why support them. Seems like a waste of time if it doesn't solve any problems, right?

>appearing anti-Muslim

I think you mean "being anti-Muslim," you fucking faggot. In Trump's America, we are what ISIS claims we are, which is pretty fucking sad when you think about it.

>then we should absolutely not let any of them in. Because then those people, by your own admission, should not be trusted.

Oh come on, if you antagonize any group, the risk of violence from that group rises. Maybe we should just deport the entire American population.

>appearing anti-Muslim is enough to turn regular Muslims into terrorists
this is the kind of thinking that passes for common sense in America

you know you can hate something/someone and still share interests, right? you could have your reasons to hate them... in fact, your reasons could be related to how the person/group you hate fucked up and damaged your interests

the US paints itself as "progressive", "liberal", etc, but its foreign policy says otherwise... the US govt keeps using the most horrible tactics against those who dare present a different political agenda than that of big capitalists, even if that means, say, supporting saudi arabia against most progressive govts, or right-wing extremists in europe.

ISIS and Iran are allies when it comes to the infidels The true clash is a clash of civilisations: on one side Europa with it's liberal enlightenment values, on the other the uncompromising hordes of mahometanism. This is a battle for the very soul of the west. you can't reason with a zealot who believes in the absolute truth of the Quran.

>the free-market economy, which I agree is probably the most efficient way of allocating scarce resources.

->8/10 humans working in jobs no one needs (supervising, finance etc)
->people starving all over the place
->millions unemployed, when there is always work to do

As I've said before, we don't believe the wall will solve illegal immigration or that the Muslim ban well solve domestic terrorism. We believe they will alleviate the problems. The wall will make it harder to cross the border and that banning Muslim countries will help prevent terrorists from coming in through those countries. Most of the countries that are on the list are places where we can't any real background checks, so that's one reason to prioritize those but as I've said, I don't think the ban goes far enough.

I don't think that if we banned all immigration from Canada that they would suddenly start attacking us. If it were, like you believe it is with Muslims, then that reason alone would justify a complete ban on Canadians right now.

>Oh come on, if you antagonize any group, the risk of violence from that group rises
>if you solve your problem you lose
Sup Justin?

>America's arch enemy, Russia
why does this meme continue

See kid you can't ban all Muslims. You just can't. Gulf Muslims has billions worth of investment in america and trump knows that, and he knows that these same gulf countries are financing terrorists, yet he chose to ban refugees from poverty stricken countries that America itself had fucking destabilized in the first place. All he did, is that he now made it more okay for Muslims to hate america.
The man is a double digit IQ monkey. You can tell that he's not very bright and I doubt anyone would say otherwise. Just look at the way he talks. Why do you think that we can assume that such an intellectual midget he has national interest in mind when taking decisions? Isn't it obvious that it's all about emotions and guts with trump?

It is an ok book but New Keynesian economics is actually correct, not neoclassical forms.

You dumb shit there's no place for ideology in global politics. It's all about balance of power and economic incentives. Iran doe not want to destroy america because they think Allah wants them to do so . Stop lying to yourself.

>He's willing to befriend America's arch enemy, Russia

Not really, Trump's already rattling sables with Putin on Crimea. The Russian collusion theories are almost alex jones tier absurdity. Liberals will go to any lengths to avoid dealing with issues of political economy. The deep state depends on a constant threat of war for its survival. Remember Obama ran on 'peace' back in 2008? nothing came out of it. Bannon is a nutcase who wants war with China within the next four years or so. That probably means the end of civilisation as we know it.

Americans, regardless of their political orientation, have entered a weird sadomasochistic relationship with the security state. Even Liberals look to the CIA as a source of political legitimacy. While Trump doesn't even try to hide the fact he's building a police state.

no you see when you ban some poor bastard from yemen whose house was decimated by saudi bombs that they got from the americans it increases the safety of joe blow

also killing children during special ops is a foolproof way of getting the locals on your side, no way they're gonna start listening to the doofus spouting religious claptrap about killing yourself for allah when they're all depressed after burying little coffins

stop

One second you say that Trump selectively chose which countries to ban based on national interest but then you say that he's too stupid to have the national interest in mind when he makes decisions. You're off the rails.

why do leftists love radical islam so much, when they are the ones throwing gays of rooftops?

I'll be honest user, you didn't posit anything. All you did was call him names and tell him to google something.

>also killing children during special ops is a foolproof way of getting the locals on your side, no way they're gonna start listening to the doofus spouting religious claptrap about killing yourself for allah when they're all depressed after burying little coffins

Then lets stop bombing them, and for good measure let's not let them move into our country just in case they're out for revenge. Sound good?

>also killing children during special ops is a foolproof way of getting the locals on your side, no way they're gonna start listening to the doofus spouting religious claptrap about killing yourself for allah when they're all depressed after burying little coffins

Books for this feel?

I mean ones from the perspective of someone becoming a terrorist because of this stuff (preferably fiction).

Spencer talking about his pepe pin sounds almost like Chris Chan talking about his Sonichu medallion.

>Leftist thugs assault autistic gay man in brutal hatecrime

Where did I say that he the ban was based on national interest?

>replying to pasta

When you said "Gulf Muslims has billions worth of investment in america and trump knows that, and he knows that...yet he chose to ban refugees from poverty stricken countries..."

Some people are so misinformed that it's not worth arguing with them, and you're better off just telling them to read a book.

You can't always play the role of the 1st grade teacher

I butchered that quote but you get the idea

Regardless of whether Trump is 'racist', he's definitely creating a police state.

>Conservatives generally don't give a shit about race.
but that wasn't what he was saying. he was saying conservatives push Sowell because he's black and that's an easy shield from criticism. like what young conservatives do with Milo cause he's gay

>Then lets stop bombing them, and for good measure let's not let them move into our country just in case they're out for revenge. Sound good?
Better yet, we should pull the fuck out of the middle east, give the people there education instead of bombs, stop supporting dictators, force the Saudi royal family to pull the plug on wahabism, stop giving Jihadis tow missiles, stop antagonizing a feeble country like Iran that can never be a threat to our national interest here or abroad and finally, take refugees in.
We need the middle east. In fact we need it more than Europe. And for that reason we should win back the goodwill of people of that region. Banning Muslims won't get us there.

just caught the thread early and is fighting le meme war by shoving his paranoid world view on us.

Everything in Sowell will make perfect sense to someone who has no grasp of methodology, that's why it's such great propaganda. Neo-classicalism is based on such competently flawed premises that it should be dismissed as a joke but it still holds complete hegemonic control in academia. You can read his economic works if you want but follow it up by reading a solid critique:
amazon.com/Critique-Neoclassical-Macroeconomics-John-Weeks/dp/0333493826
gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=91F93F3D8FBECB9297BD137AA76273AB

The prospect of losing Saudi investments isn't really a threat to the national interest. after all, america is not a third world country that collapses the moment a foreign investor pulls out.
He didn't ban Saudis because of their lobbying efforts. The Saudi lobby is as powerful as the Israeli.

Yes, but planned economies are even more wasteful. Notice I said most efficient not perfect.

I'm with you up until the "take refugees in." Doing so will just create a "brain drain" where the smartest or most motivated of their people will manage to make it into the west. Those are precisely the sort of people it takes to rebuilt a nation and make it great. Additionally the cultures are much to different which will cause them to ghettoize and because they're foreigners who don't speak the native tongues it's going to be hard for them to find jobs in the west, as we're currently seeing with the refugee populations in Europe. They're much too reliant on government assistance and that's no recipe for happiness.

I'm all for helping them build a country that's so nice they won't need to move away, and I believe accepting them as refugees is detrimental to this cause. This concept of "brain drain" is very interesting I recommend looking into it.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_capital_flight

>I'm with you up until the "take refugees in." Doing so will just create a "brain drain"

>refugees
>brain drain

Yeah I've seen people on places like r/the_donald do that. I don't believe this is the case with Sowell because he is a giant among men, and to say his success is due to race would be to diminish his accomplishments. If anything you could say he was successful in spite of his race, because hes been loved by conservatives from as far back as the 60's. I've seen literal stormfags express admiration.

They may not be the smartest group of people but they're certainly young and motivated.

I like how you're listing all those reasons that the poor refugees won't feel good in the west while forgetting that you're leaving them in a country that looks worse than dresden did after the bombings.
I think they'd rather get ghettoized in the west than roast rats in Syria.

The economy depends on constant growth in order to keep paying debts. it's not sustainable. And not a rational way to distribute resources in any way. If you want to defend modern capitalism, you'd have to get into propietarian ethics or spooky dissertations on human nature and the inherent virtue of the property owner. Stalinist planned economies where not democratically run, but run for the benefit of the state.

Well I'm thinking of the long term. Japan rebuilt their country extremely quickly once peace was established, there's no reason to think that Muslims can't do the same.

Libertarian economics appeal to ppl with a daddy complex who want to be dominated by the capitalist class.

It's okay, and I'd definitely recommend you read it. As the title says, it's about BASIC economic theory, it's not a definitive text (those don't exist) and Sowell's examples tend to be pretty heavy-handed. But, overall, it's a good starting point if you're interested in economics. The best thing you could take away from this book is the desire to dig deep into the discipline.

Don't worry, famalam, I am prepared. Maybe i can get in a few pages in between gunning down commies

I don't know if you're aware of this but Trump was not running to be president of Mexico.

If it's not in the Americans' interest to import literal truckloads of Mexicans and Muslims why should they allow them in?

...

>common sense

spot the ideology 101

The one on the left is extremely unlikely to hurt anyone with her weapon
The one on the right is extremely likely to kill anyone including women or children with her weapon if she doesnt blow herself up trying.
If you're trying to say they are the same, you are more than beyond completely fucking retarded

>If you're trying to say they are the same

Maybe i can get in a few pages in between gunning down commies

>ancap
thats all I needed to know Im never reading it now, thanks m8

Pic related
doesnt make what i said wrong though, when confined to the picture in question

trump supporters were promising literal civil war if they lost the election

dey wuz trollin

see

this is closer to reality. also real men dont immediatly fix their haircut after getting punched

You certainly are adding a lot to the discussion.