ITT: Books that brainlets will never understand

...

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=vNhkYXhYSSs
calculatorsoup.com/calculators/geometry-solids/sphere.php
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality
fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=cLvl
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

take the fucking redpill marx was the worst thinker of all time, and managed to destroy western civilization with it

>Marx.

Summarize 3 general (but maybe profound, or at least important points) that everyone (including and especially brainlets) should know or would learn from this book:

If you cannot do this, you must return your Shill member (and rewards) card, and get your Anti-Brainlet badge revoked

>take the fucking redpill
lmao

...

the bible

There are a lot of ideas he talks about. Its not very fresh since I read it two years ago but off the top of my head:
>The top tax bracket should be like 70% and progressive taxes are good.

>Lowering taxes, especially the top marginal tax rates, which has been the trend in Anglo countries (esp. USA) since after WWIII, then more rapidly during Reagan years, increases income inequality. This is not only from the obvious (paying less tax), it also makes it easier for CEOs and top executives to negotiate higher salaries. Normal theories of labor supply and marginal productivity would say that the lower taxes reduce the tax wedge, causing workers to increase their labor supply and increase their effort. But this doesn't explain the explosion of income inequality, esp from CEO and executive salaries. Lowering taxes has transformed the way salaries are determined. When tax rates are high, its a lot harder to convince the board that a extravagant salary is justified if over 70% of any additional pay is going to tax. When rates are lowered there is an incentive to bargain for higher salaries - and due to the ambiguous nature of executive/CEO jobs its very hard to determine their 'marginal product', or accurately measure their contribution to output. As a result, its really fucking easy to get super high salaries.

>Wage and income inequality is not caused just by differences in human capital (skills).

>Estate taxes should be higher.

>Inequality is not a prerequisite for entrepreneurial dynamism, contrary to what Americans think.

>Capital should be taxed.

>Invest in education and make it easier for low income earners to access.

>Can't remember in detail the other stuff.

Piketty's work is completely trivial, not to mention incorrect. Inequality is of no concern whatsoever.

what an idiot. the following scheme is the best:

>privatize everything
>keep markets perfectly 'free' (they must remain competitive, patents must be enforced on drugs etc.)
>broad based progressive income tax
>cash payouts to the 'losers' in whatever measure is 'just'

welfare maximization in the absence of higher purpose lmao

Nice thanks.

Why do all those points sound 'progressivey'?

Take the REAL Redpill, there is no such thing as methodological monism, a scientific method or Economics, they are all forms of life which exist to solve problems created within these forms of life but are all groundless (not that it matters):


youtube.com/watch?v=vNhkYXhYSSs


WAKE UP

>Inequality is of no concern whatsoever
lmao how old are you and how often do you leave your basement?

Metaphysics.

well well well if it isn't reddit!

>Why do all those points sound 'progressivey'?
because progressivism is good

>lets tax the producers of worth heavily so the bureaucrats can have extravagant salaries

If anything Piketty is far too bourgeois why not abolish wage labor and private property?

Are the literally, non-ironically people on Veeky Forums who are shilling for capital and the status quo? Out of all places, this is the one I expected people to be knowledgeable about this stuff.

try reddit or /leftypol/

oh wait you're coming here from there to promote your cuck degenerate lifestyle.

there's nothing wrong with the status quo you cuck. we're all very happy with the way things are

Capitalism, is the only system of organization to have produced results in the modern era. True socialism has never existed anyway, right?

What's the socialist position on mass immigration and offshoring? That seems to have pretty much wiped out America's working class.

nice try, Schlomo, but the status quo is actually marxism, cuckoldry and white genocide

No it isn't, you fucking retard. There are precisely zero socialist countries in the world today. Not even the DPRK is Communist anymore. Seek truth from facts, as Deng would say.

no, you try it. I think you'd like the_donald, it's a progressive sub for people like you, where you can talk about your sexual fetishes all day. this is a fetish-free zone.

what is "marxism", exactly?

I just agree with some of his economic ideas, not his stances on the wider political/social issues like immigration, PC, social justice, LGBT etc.

And according to you there are actual capitalist countries in the world?

...

sounds like you know all about it. might that be because youre a fucking reddit cuck?

Yes, all of them except the DPRK. Who even knows what the DPRK is any more, but they formally renounced Marxism-Leninism.

Consider going to wikipedia and reading up on capitalism.

Ew, really? That book is the greatest farce of our time. Merely hollow eloquence sold to pseudointellectuals looking for selfgratification

Piketty is literally a mental midget though it's slightly amusing to see him try and discredit Marx when he can't.

>wikipedia
it's painfully obvious that's the extent of what you read

Every fucking country in the world has private property with production for profit. Socialism entails no private property, no money, no state, and production for use.

Please, show me a country whose economy is dominated by production for use, not for profit, has no private property, and no money.

>ITT /pol/
pol stop trying to colonize our board. Veeky Forums is a communist board we don't buy into your anti marxist bullsh*t

Add the entry on socialism to the reading list.
Likewise, if even that's too much for you.

>reading a book that has wrong formulas in it
My favorite part was when Piketty was confronted about how the book had wrong formulas he said it didn't matter

If you want a real economics book here ya go

Do you think I'm some retard Communist trying to make a "no true capitalism!" argument, here? Practically every country is capitalist except the DPRK and this is an extremely good thing.

I think you are clearly underage which is demonstrated by your repeated use of 'retard' and can't even read a short wikipedia article to educate yourself even on the most basic level about the things you're attempting to shitpost about.

>i can'texplain why you're wrong, just go read wikipedia LMAO

psuedo detected maybe these boards would better suit your interests

My favorite part is where you aren't even capable or saying what he got wrong and why it was relevant without looking it up on google.

Ok, please show me a non-capitalist country outside of the DPRK, or an existing socialist country, outside of the DPRK.

It's pseud /pol/ newfriend, try to lurk a bit more before posting.

>Add the entry on socialism to the reading list.

you claim your so smart just curious what the size of your head is?

Mine is 25 inches and according to this calculator calculatorsoup.com/calculators/geometry-solids/sphere.php that means I have a 263inch volume of brain size.

I'm asking you to measure around your head with a tape measure and tell me the length so I can calculate it.

If your not up to do that then I think that says everything we need to know.

>i can't refute you
:^)

if 'cultural marxism dont real'. then how do you explain THIS?!?

I can't read an article that long :^(

A 1 word answer will do.

It's only 2 cubic inches. I am very dumb so I need a 1 word answer to the question in

>political tomes are literature!

The wikipedia article I mentioned refutes you, it's not my fault reading it is too difficult for you.

I'm sure it does friendo

boy do I stand corrected, you sure are smart for reading that fancy wikipedia article.

Until you can show me a country in which workers control the means of production, you're literally losing an argument to a retard. Sad!

Sure thing, I only hope you can muster up the strength and read it yourself, maybe try one paragraph a day if the whole thing is too long.

Left-wing words are all too big and intellectual for me. I just want a fucking country name so I can learn about the glorious continued successes of worker control of the means of production through Marxism.

You can find them on the aforementioned wikipedia page, give it a shot.

if your goal is soulless welfare maximization ive outlined the optimal program. i never said it was my preferred program.

ok I just checked it out and I totally see how you might think you're right but actually I also just read something that refutes your argument it's somewhere on this wikipedia page

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality

read the whole thing and you will see I am the one who is right

Looks interesting, I will give it a read. Thanks!

Nice ad hom fag

>because progressivism is good
But taxation is theft. 'progressivism' via taxes is attempting to fix a flat tire with a bandaid. What you need to do, is shoot one of the poor people in your trunk, weighing your car down, skin them, let their skin leather on the hood of your car in the noon day sun, and then fashion that into a tire.

It hasn't.

In case the writers of this book are arguing against the existence of minimum wage (which may or not be better for this place or that place) it would be fun for them to be forced to work minimum wage (or less) jobs for a year (or more), just to see if their minds change.

On the off chance the authors of this book espouse a position I disagree with (in a vague enough form that I won't be called upon to justify my disagreement) it would make for quite the humorous situation if they were placed in a position where they experienced circumstances related to that position for a year (or more), for the sake of observing any differences in their approach to economics between the beginning and the end of that time period.
I assume, of course, that they never thought through the full ramifications of their proposals while carefully writing an academic book on the subject, otherwise my entire hypothetical is deflated.

>taking pills
absolutely degenerate.

Can someone give me a general definition of brainlet?

their brain is under 6 bogdanoffs large in volume.

thank you kek, I feel famous

I presumed there would be more of a need and reason to argue for the non existence of minimum wage, than for... I couldnt imagine why someone would say "this thread, and this world, needs to know that there are a lot of arguments as to why the minimum wage should exist", so I assumed that was not the case. I am on the phone with my lawyer as we speak, as I am also assuming you are going to sue me

I tend towards the idea that the position I hold is the default one and requires less defense than its inverse... It is beyond my capability to grasp the reasoning behind some imaginary Person X speaking aloud like so: "the general corpus currently lacks a plethora of arguments made in favor of the position that I (person X) hold" - please note here that I, the author, do not hold and indeed directly oppose the position of this hypothetical Person X, and Person X exists solely as a thought experiement - ergo, I found myself led to the counterpositioned conclusion. Also, to further reinforce my distaste for the position that you hold - please note that I do not know the position you hold, and am only assuming that it is opposed to my own to further my rhetorical goals - I should mention that I am currently engaging legal representation preemptively, so as to guard against any attacks you should make on me through the courts. This is, of course, hyperbole, nonetheless I feel it sums up my position well and so I shall include it on the end of my statement.

It's no coincidence that many of the works are economics books, but this one takes the cake. The number of people I've seen on the internet either misinterpreting pic related or just complaining because it is too confusing is astounding. Clearly only people who like resource distribution because of its simplicity want a system not materially defined and balanced on the principle of free trade and free trade only.

AYYYYYYYY

There are two problems. Problem 1: If you don't have strong re-distributive measures and set up your system so that capital is free to move wherever you can get the best returns, you wind up with massive wealth inequality that winds up poisoning politics and the consumer economy. People who own their own homes and cars and have spare money? Remarkably unlikely to be Marxists. People who don't own property? Tend to be more receptive to the idea of socialism.

Problem 2: If you do set up strong re-distributive measures and target full employment through trade barriers and strong worker protection, you wind up in a 1970's style stagflation. Which is politically toxic, as people watching endless strikes and general malaise will get behind some well funded reactionary, who will proceed to balloon the debt, dismantle all trade barriers, and sell the assets of the state to foreign pension funds for pennies on the dollar.

The thing is Keynes and Piketty were talking about the same thing. We've been through the entire cycle from laissez-faire global capitalism to nationalist protectionism and back (possibly back again if Trump actually starts trade wars). Question is how do you manage a political economy such that you neither stifle growth nor set the stage for a political backlash that destroys whatever system you set up.

Personally, I'm a Socred.

When the philosophy of a single person is built into the system of his charts, you know the philosophy is a valid one.

For instance. Keynes noted the very apparent possibility that not all variables are independent, and some like employment, depend entirely on other, independent, variables. You have to understand he viewed the interest rate as continually going upward as well, constantly increasing, this could feasibly be the only thing that kept the marginal efficiency of capital above zero at near full employment or at a Keynesian 'bottle-neck' (resource depletion).

fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=cLvl

Also, Piketty is just "Why pic related?"; you may disagree with his conclusion, but with 50% of the population about to be thrown out of work by robots, we need to figure something out before Marx starts seeming plausible again.

What this means is, you need to keep the interest rate down, artificially. Morally, this could be viewed as something good for everyone overall. I believe in God, and I think a very simple rule was no usury. The natural tendency of the interest rate to increase is usurious, definitely a moral dilemma.

So the question is how. How do you manage the interest rate?

Well, Keynes gives two answers:
1) lower money-wages
2) lower the interest rate directly

Either way, the investment rate is going up. But Keynes was especially partial for the first, because the lowering of money-wages raised the marginal efficiency of capital at the same time that it lowered the interest rate. A tremendously beneficial effect, but sadly no politician wants to run on this platform because people don't understand the basic problems of economics - some of the most important problems of the world.

Good post btw

>post something brainlets would learn from this book
What part of "books that brainlets will never understand" did you not understand, brainlet?

So when people say that Keynesianism is simply printing more money and QEs, they lose the bigger picture.

A QE is just the Fed lowering the Fed Funds rate so they can buy more Treasury Bills and trade them faster around the circle of financial institutions. The problem is that the interest rate lowering is only a part of the overall issue here, and Keynes even said he was extremely displeased with the remedy of simply lowering the interest rate of the financial institutions. And not only that, but artificially inflating output without decreasing wages first ensures a further depreciation of the monetary unit, considering a portion of the effects of issuing further bank credits to increase output is a growing in the marginal value in terms of wage-units and a growth in the wage-unit in terms of the monetary units.

A Manlet is lacking height.

A brainlet is lacking intelligence.

I haven't read the book obviously, but from what I can gather about it, it seems to boil down to some basic and fairly obvious points, and it seems superfluous to capital. What is even the point of such a book?

Yes, capital still dominates in the 21st, the poor are getting fucked, inequality is bad, wealthy people don't want to give anything up, need more tax, etc. They seem like such simple points, that could be make in so much less pages. Why bother writing so much about it, when he doesn't have that much to add to Kapital?

It'd be cool if he had some novel, off the wall ideas that could be added to the French social theory corpus, but I doubt ideas this anodyne will make much of a lasting impact.

I now assume the book in question, is entirely unopiniated, and inconclusive, they got the data from different countries, and studied the a/effects of minimum wage, maybe in some places its good, maybe in some places its bad, I do not know because, I dont want to read the synopsis yet, its in another tab, and in several responses, it has not been made clear on whether or not a substantial conclusion was reached, so I will further assume, that I must not read that book, as it reached the same conclusion, I did; that is, one of: in.

In conclusion; minimum wage law can be good, to prevent employees from taking advantage of potential workers.

Minimum wage law can be bad, because workers might outsource the work or insource immigrants to do it off the books.

Raising the minimum wage law by 7 dollars at a moments notice because some liberals started a facebook argument and it got a thousand likes, and so now 'moms against mad low minimum wage its the current year yo' are extorting every business in their state by gun, to pay their employees 6 dollars more an hour, because the elites also thought this would be a fun distraction in the news cycle, to fuck with those faggy small buisness owners tryna get their new money, and show everyone how dangerous democracy can be.

Luddite Fallacy? On my Veeky Forums??

>Problem 2
Does this imply welfare state is better than even trying to approach approaching full employment?/ the masses are paying for it either way, either welfare taxes or if not that, then consumer goods? But are you suggesting they would/should rather pay for welfare/paying welfare is cheaper for them

When you speak about interest rate, you are speaking about the FED, the interest rate the banks owe the FED on the money they get from them?

And/or, the Interest rates banks charge people?

>letting the state do anything except protect citizens from aggression, theft, and breach of contract
>thinking an authoritarian state is in any way conpatible with ANY economic system, and by extension prosperity

Why are statists such monumental brainlets?

This is why post-his Veeky Forums sucks, only naive communists and the occasional dumb pollack.

Kind of a shame because initially it seemed that there was going to be some decent discourse post-his, with a few fantastic conservative posts emerging to balance the echo chamber.

They smartened up though and left to better spend their time.

Ok, I am guessing, Feds rates, dictate what banks rates will be.

What are the important things here. How do banks make profit. On interest of loans they give, fees, and allowing traders/investors trade/invest their money? (any other general things I am missing?)

So when interest rates are high... it is said banks dont want to give out loans... because banks dont want to accept the loan from FED... implied?

And people dont want to accept loan from bank (to start their business), and have to pay it back high interest rate.

So this interest rate stuff is how to get it attractive for people to take loans to start business... but not so low rate, that the "crazy failure loons" start coming to the bank, and compel the bank to make loans that cant be paid back?

And so really the banks are the communes of capitalism, and they are the bureaucrats that decide which business deserves funding.

Turning_away_from_the_computer_thumbs_up.gif

Problem is never of equality. It's of respect (or lack thereof) or injust division.

>Problem is never of equality. It's of respect (or lack thereof) or injust division.
yep, I love and hate to say this, but its not the first time ive said this; Satan is right guys.

Its about the humane dignity of life, struggling to escape death

Oooh! A libertarian in the wild! Let's see if this one can comprehend that only a deeply, if not totally authoritarian state could possibly implement libertarian principles. Maybe then we can see if they can deal with really advanced concepts, like the fact that there are other forms of coercive power besides that vested in the state.

It's a logical fallacy to rebut someone's argument by pointing out their use of a logical fallacy or non argument within their argument.

Right, which is why the investment rate goes up whenever any of the two following situations occur

1) the interest rate goes down
2) the marginal efficiency of capital goes up

Sorry, investment in general goes up. The investment rate is essentially the interest rate so that post didn't make too much sense.

Basically anything I don't like.

I'm basically a filthy neoliberal and have plenty to disagree about with Marxism and many anti-capitalist positions, but use words to mean things damn it.

Piketty was most against generational wealth right? I had a hard time with that book, but his solution is heavy, almost anti-trust estate taxes on high networth individuals to break up economic dynasties.(?)

Someone higher up NEEDs to run on a platform for that, wealth consolidation is the source of one of our biggest problems financially.

Economists have been saying that for centuries now.

In J.S. Mill's Principles of Political Economy, he talks about the ameliorative effects of completely socializing inheritance.

In Keynes' General Theory, on of the two points he makes in the very last chapter is that a much higher tax on estates is necessary for the beneficial effect of making people productive.

Hell, even in Smith's Wealth of Nations, Primogeniture is looked upon unfavorably because it puts far too much wealth in one individual's pocket.

It comes down to what you consider to be "real" coercive power; just fighting off burglars doesn't require authoritarianism, but if you're concerned with social coercion that's another ball game.

>tfw the level that activates estate taxes is like 3 million

That is a moderate life insurance policy for a comfortable working man. It should be closer to 20 and should apply to stock holdings. And it doesnt answer the problem of foreign asset purchases (piketty's example of a particularly smart and successful sheikh family buying exponentially in some US market).