HOLY SHIT

Government is bad

Quick rundown?

Too bad supply side economics has been shown to primarily benefit high income earners. The correlation between increasing income inequality and decreasing top tax rates is very strong.

>Freshwater
kek. its clear you get all your knowledge of this from reddit and wikipedia. sort yourself out before you discuss economics, bucko.

>leftism is retarded
>capitalism is the best system
>races should live separately
>women should stay in the kitchen
>women should remain virgins till marriage

redpill approved

You obviously don't know what you're talking about.

Reality benefits high income earners too

You literally made up the last three things.

What? It's not a disparaging term. I can explain it to you.

Neither is Slavoj Zizek or anything outside neo-liberal consensus, they don't have much trouble being talked about.

You either weren't alive in 2008 or are an ideologue.

Literally no serious economists use the term, or even think in terms of economic "schools".

He's literally one of the most respected economists alive. You can't just write him off because you disagree with his views, buddy

What is it that "serious economists" actually do except

1. Preach that a crash is coming for 20 years at a time and when a crash comes go on TV bragging about it
2. Teach for 50k a year
3. Wear terrible suits
4. Use bad analogies to describe economic theories

He's the Stephen King of economists.

Nigga if there's one thing economists love it's talking in terms of schools

So economics are useless hacks? Do you unironically believe that?

Alright then name a couple of economist you deem worthy of appreciation.

I believe economists are sociologists hiding behind math formulas.

>I believe mathematicians are spergs hiding behind math formulas.

Well kiddo that's because economics is not the same as natural science. you cannot bump three trillion dollars into an economy as an experience to prove a certain theory. The best economists wish to achieve is coming up with formulas that can help us understand the world around us.

>Alright then name a couple of economist you deem worthy of appreciation.
suggestion: look at the list of Nobel-winning economists, for a start

As an experiment *

>argue economics from a very biased standpoint
>name the book 'basic economics'
>get both people who agree with you and morons who think you're right due to the title of the book to create lots of controversy about your book
>$$$$$$$

pretty good strategy desu

Sowell is influenced by Hayek and Milton Friedman, two Nobel prize winners, you dumb fucking shit.

>argue economics from the standpoint of neo classical economics, the principles of which almost all economists regard as valid
>back your arguments with data, facts, and crystal clear logic
>have some edgy larpers on a Taiwanese child pornography site call you a fraud because lol you're biased

You're embarrassing yourself itt.

How?

I recommended this weeks ago, glad you liked it user

My writing is inspired by Nobel Prize writers.
Does that make my writing Nobel -tier?

I've read OP's book and pic related. What should I read next? I'm considering The Wealth of Nations.

Why do people still bother with the Chicago School economists? If you've paid any attention to recent economic history, especially the last four decades, you'd realize the work of Friedman, Sowell, et al. have been rendered obsolete, not to be taken seriously. It's thanks to their influence that so many economies have begun to fail, or already failed. Even Ha-Joon Chang and Richard Wolff are more credible economists. At least with them you can say their understanding of economics is grounded in the real world.

Capital

You need to have read WoN to understand Capital.

Correct

I unironically love Thomas Sowell

Look at this dense piece of shit. He's not writing novels buddy, he's writing about economics, something based on rigorous studies and scientific models. When I say he's influenced by two Nobel prize winners, I don't mean that he writes in a similar prose, but rather that he shares their ideas, the ideas that made them win these prices in the first place.
But regardless, in this particular book, 90% of the things Sowell discusses are things that the overwhelming majority of economists agree upon. He introduces the most basic principals of neo classical economics, which most of our modern economic wisdom is built upon, so whether you think he's a respectable economist or not is completely irrelevant. If we're talking about just this one book, then it's as valid as any, even if Sowell doesn't have a Nobel prize on him.

Did you unironically claim that a Marxist economist is more credible than Friedman, the guy whose ideas had led to a 9% growth rate in Estonia once and who helped to transform Chile into a first world country?

They're worse than hacks economists are a fucking drain they leach more than they contribute

You're the Stephen King of people

Bait thread with bait posters.

same. I may not agree entirely with the chicago school of thought but I love freidman and sowell for their dedication to free choice in schools. They really see the value and potential of individual responsibility.

Nobel prize in economics is not a real Nobel prize. It is given out by a bank, not the same trust created by Nobel.

Wtf Sowell BTFO im a Marxist now??

regardless, it is still the most prestigious prize in that field.

>neoliberalism

read Ha Joon Chang and swallow the final redpill

protectionism

holy FUCK ((((((milton friedman))))) eternally BTFO

youtube.com/watch?time_continue=20&v=72ntkmdF9Yk

>ancoms writing about economics
into the trash it goes

He's really a smooth redpill. Very informal but easy to digest. It should be required reading in high school.
In a good way.
I love how he starts out with a post hoc ergo propter hoc regarding protectionism and then effortlessly brings up the nazis, slavery, and colonial Haiti out of nowhere as though they were remotely relevant.

Chomsky is one of the biggest charlatans of all time.

>who helped to transform Chile into a first world country.

You are such a fanatic you are deluded. I didn't know they murder their own citizens in first world countries.

>Made me redpilled I have to say
>the first book I ever read about economics agrees with me! It defiantly is red pill!

Phenominal book, glad I read it early.

Intellectuals and society + Vision of the annointed are also incredible. I like his rhetorical style and honestly we need to throw these into a Liberty Classics reading thread.

The largest intellectual grub of all time? At least Marx had some logical consistency & intellectual rigour behind his opinions.

Definitely do Wealth of Nations before bouncing back to any of the more modern classics like Hayek's Use of Knowledge in Society or Marx.

> create a theory designed to influence policy in the 1930s
> call it "The General Theory"
> knowing precisely that it wasn't
> convince the entire world you just redifined the field of economics

What's sad about the state of Veeky Forums is that most users will interpret this as an ironic post and, viewing the clip uncritically, automatically assume Chomsky is wrong and shouldn't be taken seriously. In fact history is on Chomsky's side.

> In fact history is on Chomsky's side.
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Not an argument.

Neither are Chomsky's ramblings.

I can bet my entire life savings that neither of you got a coherent argument against Chomsky.

You'd lose it, Chomsky in his old age is quite fond of throwing out opinions not backed by historical fact, he is too lazy to research deep into anything which I guess comes from the vulgar pride of being an intellectual.

For example he says the cause of the GFC (08) was unregulated capitalism which is factually incorrect because the sub prime bubble was created due to government forcing banks to lend to people they normally wouldn't due to not meeting the servicing criteria. (Read: dey racisss!)

Keep your $20.

Have you heard of the United States of America?

Except that's wrong.
It was caused by the incorrect assumption that mortgage defaults were independent events, leading to wildly incorrect risk assessments of mortgage-backed securities.

youtube.com/watch?v=4xeebU8VhmY

Anyone read this one? It's a little gem designed to enlighten the average Joe.

mises.org/library/anti-capitalistic-mentality

It was the one that got me on track to find other econ books like OP's one.

Economics isn't even real. There's literally no such thing as an economy. You idiots are wasting your time on one giant spook.

>because lefists are notorious for leaning heavily on serious economics, you know with their marxism and shit

What?

Well that's a shame, I was starting to look forward to reading the book

It's just how to efficiently allocate scarce resources. That's all economics really is. It wouldn't need to exist if we had an infinite amount of all resources, but it needs to exist in this world because we have lots of people and finite resources.

After the sub prime was inflated by the government. Its a timeline & regulated capitalism is the source of the economic distortions once again.

supply side economics and the free market work in theory, but not in practice
people had the best increases in living standards (this goes for the majority of the population, nobody cares about your ''''''miracle of chile'''''' which is just a miracle for the very rich) under keynesian social democracy
neoliberalism has been a trainwreck

reality doesn't give a fuck about your autistic graphs and models and ''muh competition will drive prices down''

Pay stopped rising with productivity because over regulation & an inflexible labour market has distorted the supply of employers & jobs compared to the number of people looking for jobs putting a downward pressure on wages despite rising productivity.

There are other ways to measure living standards, you dumb fuck. Wages don't matter if the price of goods have been falling too. Who measures living standards based on "compensation" and "wages"? And in what world would wages need to continually increase in line with productivity? The extra wages being paid would just end up being tacked onto the price of the product, meaning the increase in wages is essentially meaningless.

Word salad

just give me the cliff notes, boys

Still not throught, but I love it.

> Too many people lookin fo job
> not enough job
> government restrict supply of employers
> high supply of labour + low supply of employer + high demand for job = lower pay

Easy enough for you kiddo? Have you honestly never heard of these words before or is english your second language?

>what is globalization
>what is technology
>what is women entering into the workforce
>what is pareto principle

Austrian economics and, to a lesser extent, Chicago school economics are pretty straight forward. Economics is pretty much all just opinions most of the time, but if any economic theory is going to be true it's probably going to be the one that makes sense.

And not some jerk off theory about spending and animal spirits and how people's sweat and labor makes products valuable and how governments do a good job at spending other people's money on things for other people they don't really care about (lel).

Of course the one based on observable behavior is more accurate than the one that tries to apply arbitrary aggregate measures to something as complex as human behavior.

> if i pull this lever to increase inflation slightly everyones lives will now be better, I know cos keynes says so

Except that wages weren't really stagnating and as previous user said the price of goods was falling (piie.com/blogs/realtime-economic-issues-watch/growing-gap-between-real-wages-and-labor-productivity). Holy shit, you lolberts are like a cult with an answer to everything.

> real wages
> wages werent stagnating
> prices were falling
> page not found

For what time period are you talking about?

Just the claim that wars abroad keep the american economy running is more than outrageous.

He literally describes in this book how the market disadvantages employers who discriminate against women and minorities.
Holy fuck lefties are dumb.

>haha look at this graph that I found on the internet more than two hundred years of economic thought eternally btfo

that split in the Carter era is right around the time the west turned into a services economy and the East became the major industrial center of the world

marketing and HR departments dont exactly add value

thats not a big stretch for chomsky considering the economy is run on debt rather its GDP

the reality is 80% of the entire worlds economy is intangible electrical signals sitting in server rooms of Banks and stock exchanges

I haven't read this book, but chances are it spouts Neoclassical bullshit.

Am I right?

should i major in economics now?

>EVERYTHING IS FINE EVERYTHING IS FINE PLEASE BELIEVE ME DON'T LISTEN TO CRITICISM MY BILLION JILLION GORRILION

As an Econ Major, not unless you're really interested in it. Thomas Sowell is shit for anyone seriously interested in the academic discipline.

You're not wrong