What is on his bookshelf Veeky Forums?

Shush you! that idea might make him learn something valuable.

let hear them then

Here's a free PDF to get your started. By Milton Friedman

hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/friedman-government-problem-1993.pdf

>Btw OP, if you support this guy and want to read books which relate to his political stance, at least read some of the critiques of his politics so you understand why it doesn't work

t. american

Check out Milton Friedman, maybe not that PDF but read one of his books. I can recommend "free to choose". Or watch him on youtube:

youtube.com/watch?v=MRpEV2tmYz4

He is probably the best right-wing libertarian economist

Nope.

Free to Choose is a good start, watch the whole series.

youtube.com/watch?v=D3N2sNnGwa4

If you've got any doubts wait till the end of the episode and watch the debate.

We all know to read people of more than one opinion you jumpy autist.
Return to Reddit my passive-aggressive little friend.

If you aren't American and you still cite meme economics like Friedman, then something ha gone drastically wrong, mon ami

Mein Kampf

I could have cited Hayek or Mises or even Rothbard but that's not a sensible place to start when dealing with the left.

I think the orange one on top shelf is 120 Days of Sodom.

Why is right-wing economics so bad?

>Friedman
>Hayek
>muh markets equals liberty
>unions lead to slavery and shit
>there should be no collective bargaining whatsoever

Regardless of your political view, if you believe there shouldn't be essential public services and ways to organize labour st all you're deluded as fuck.

People can organize themselves. A centralized power put in charge of organizing everything leads to waste and corruption, necessarily.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_order

>people can organize themselves

Like in anarcho-communism?

>americucks afraid of a government where poor people are not dying in the street

I think your use of 'bad' misses the point that right wingers arent trying to please left wingers, and honestly neither of those are right wingers.

I don't think many people in contemporary society are all that familiar with the actual right wing, just conservatives. Serious right wingers don't have any interest in things like liberty, the public exist to serve, not be served.

seriously can someone explain me why americans are so obsessed with capitalism?

Why do ancap memesters only mention work by literally five people? It's either those german cunts or Tomas "House Nigger" Sowell

Those cunts are all right wingers. I don't get it anymore, people claim Hitler wasn't a right winger, now AnCaps aren't right winger, next you'll tell me Marx and Bakunin were and that the GOP was the real revolutionary party all along?

Because it's one of those memes that's central to their countries identity

Yes the principle is the same but no population is going to voluntarily organize themselves in that manner (no private property, shared means of production), which is why any form of communism requires dictatorship.

Spontaneously organised societies aren't forced to give share anything or making profits or competing with each other.

Any more strawmen you want to smack around a bit without addressing the comment whatsoever?

It's literally in the book

>What produced the current wave of homelessness around the country, which is a disgrace and a scandal? Much of it was produced by government action. Rent control has contributed, though it has been even more damaging in other ways, as has the governmental decision to empty mental facilities and turn people out on the streets and urban renewal and public housing programs, which together have destroyed far more housing units than they have built and let many public housing units become breeding grounds for crime and viciousness.

Because they're the most famous, and for a reason -- they cover the general topics. If you want to talk about specific areas I can quote more specialized economists.

Because the Civil War never truly ended, and capitalism allows for Fed to maintain its hegemony. Socialism and other such egalitarian ideas reinforce power at the individual state level and devalue the federal government.

Because they know nothing about the current debates in economics. They're citing memesters who have no mathematical component to their work and don't actually analyse any real life situation. Free market liberals are lazy people in search of a justification of their creed. Don't believe the hype.

The protestant ethic.

>He is probably the best right-wing libertarian economist
That sounds like a quote by Pinochet

Is Nicholas Nassim Taleb mathematical enough for you? He's a minarchist which is pretty much ancap + military and police.

C O M P L E X I T Y E C O N O M I C S

>ancap + military and police
sounds familiar

...

Try the redpill, if you want the truth of capitalism against socialism, whiteness against nonwhites, and masculinity over feminity.
When Kekistan rises you'll be the first to be put to death

Unironically this

>Get to study for free now, have to pay it back when I'm way older in a comfortable career derived from my education

Does the writer really see a problem with this?

>When Kekistan rises

Good thing that's never going to happen

I agree with your central point, but mental facilities would have fallen apart to public pressure eventually anyways, and the care was so terrible it's hardly a good case for lack of government intervention.

What is Kekistan similar to? Fascism? Do all followers of Kekistan understand what Fascism is? Do they read Fascist literature? I do not get the impression they do.

Trump was memed into office by /pol/ its already happening, kike

Left-Right is an economic distinction. Taken as such, the positions are pretty clear and historically consistent, only people uneducated in political economy confuse the two. The problem is when you use left and right for other areas, like social issues. There, it can pretty much mean whatever the fuck you want. Is Friedman suddenly left-wing because he isn't a social conservative? Was USSR right-wing because it wasn't liberal? It makes no sense outside of economics.

Not much of an intellectual heavyweight are you

Donald Trump is a neo- liberal Zionist demagogue.

>When Kekistan rises

Unironically kill yourself

youtube.com/watch?v=AiGhhylUb4M

Try the redpill

>Not much of an intellectual heavyweight are you

I can just smell the motza balls from this post

you're pretty far off then because I'm almost certainly "whiter" than you. I bet you even have brown eyes you fucking faggot, ayy lmao

Wrong, and I can gaurantee I have one more foreskin than you schlomo

shaliday my dude
redpilling the masses huh

Everyone should be sent to a literary gulag and forced to read "Contending Economic Theories - Neoclassical, Keynesian, Marxian" by Wolff and Resnick before discussing politics on the Internet.

You have no proper frame to understand the previous two centuries of politics if you can't differentiate between what left and right meant during the keynesian consensus and what they mean for neoliberalism.

>being proud of having a dick so small your foreskin is doubled in length

wew

I can only echo the thoughts of my fellow Kekistanis in the comments:

>The more I learn about Kekistan, the more I feel the love of Kek in my heart. Praise Kek!
>Every religion is "mythological". Kek is as real as any other deity and Kekistan could be real if we make it so. Praise Kek.
>Peterson should be recognised by the Great Nation of Kekistan for what he is. Surely his voice and intelligence are signs that he is Kek's Prophet, the reincarnation of Kermit; the only man to truly know how to make the day more Shadilay.
>Kek has answers. Those who seek the truth, find Kek. Shadilay and may Pepe bless all your memes.

PRAISE LORD KEK

I live in a country with hardly any truly homeless people. Some are classed as homeless because they live in a shelter, or are still with parents or friends or whatever, but less than 0.01% actually "sleep rough", as they say. So you think that's pretty good, right?

No. I used to be homeless myself (I lived in a shelter). They give you everything: food, showers, toiletries, clothes, all for free. So what's the problem? Almost literally everyone there is an addict -- most commonly cocaine, heroin or alcohol. Those that aren't get out of there in a matter of weeks (since you can get a job as long as you have an address), everyone else spends their days begging. That's right, beggars beg for drugs, because everything else is free.

So our taxes and are charity is funding their drug lifestyle. You might say that's fine too, "if drugs makes them happy, let them have them". That would be a good argument except the left (who apparently cares so much about the homeless) keeps claiming that the government isn't doing enough! What the fuck more do you want us to do? We've paid for everything INCLUDING their drugs.

This is why I have zero empathy for the "homeless" today. Wanna solve the homeless problem? Stop giving money to beggars and drug test every person that needs homing. If you have a drug problem you can go to the hospital, get a detox, then come back, otherwise pay for your addiction with your own money (suck a dick).

Thanks for the admission numbhead

>Red books

but theyre all innocent victims user, dont you know???

in reality i think our society needs to wake up to the idea people are not equal in terms of intellectual capability, homeless lifers are just stupid and theres no hope for them

Why do you get so buttblasted about government supporting the needy, but not about deregulated corporations leeching more surplus than they were ever able to in the history of capitalism? Why do you fall for the "big government" meme when it's clearly a distraction for the massive inequality caused by unregulated markets and forced austerity?

It always baffles me how libertarian types are so wary of government getting too much power, but when a huge multinational corporation wants to get even bigger or expand into other sectors, it's like "no, that couldn't present any problems, the Free Market™ will fix everything".

I honestly tried to make friends with some of them, tried to understand their story. They were all really dumb, and I don't mean uneducated...

>Why do you get so buttblasted about government supporting the needy

I'm not, I'm annoyed at the fact that no matter how much undeserved help they get, you liberals will still complain that it's not enough. Again, what the fuck do you want us to do about dumb drug addicts who live for one thing and one thing only: their next hit? That's the lowest priority for me.

>but not about deregulated corporations

Because it lowers prices for us which is good. All those regulations cost literally billions, which you pay for when you buy something, and do next to nothing. Safety regulations are especially retarded and assume that the average person is a mongoloid.

1. Monopolies have only ever existed because of government power giving special privileges to one company. Monopolies abusing their market dominance don't exit in free market. It's pretty simple.

2. Corporations get bigger because they provide value to their customers. If they weren't, nobody would buy their goods/services and they'd die. Again, pretty simple.

They're just ignorant as fuck. I feel like right-wingers completely missed the last crisis and the continuing fallout. I mean we had a fucking IMF paper questioning the dogma of austerity and neoliberal policy as a whole. We finally have movements in the western world that are breaking the mold of every party having the same economic position. Corbyn's popularity is just the beginning. We could conceivably formulate a more humane market economy with enough pressure.
But no, these idiots are lost in their tired debates about free market economics like we haven't been doing that shit since the 70s. The only thing I can recommend is to read history.

>Safety regulations are especially retarded
>t. Triangle Waist Company

>Monopolies abusing their market dominance don't exit in free market.
Of course they do. There is no serious competitor to Amazon or Google, just to pick two obvious examples, and the latter has started doing extremely shady things with user data.

We are losing white women to apes because of leftism and degeneracy

b u l l s h i t

More people die because of safety regulations than deaths are prevented.

Explain why I see women with blacks every day then and I have no one?

Markets tend towards monopoly you dumb fuck, it doesn't magically go away if you abolish the state (which constantly has to fix market inefficiencies as it is). This equilibrium dream is the most laughable theory in mainstream economics, it's divorced from reality.

That's an assertion which definitely requires some good evidence user

You are free to use Bing. People use Google because it has the best search algorithm. That doesn't necessarily mean they're involved in any antitrust practices.

You are also free to go to B&N and pay 10 times more for a book. Again, nothing wrong with being so good at something everyone comes to you. It's just the jealous mentality of the left that criminalizes excellence.

>the latter has started doing extremely shady things

Nobody gives a fuck. If they did, DuckDuckGo would be more popular.

Is this an /int/ meme?

Higher Res.

Yeah it has nothing to do with cheap labour being necessary to keep western economies in motion, it's all a jewish conspiracy by jew corporations who support communism.

LMAO markets tend towards perfect competition! The advantages that monopolies have, namely 1. first to market and 2. intellectual property, are eradicated in the long run. Uber was a monopoly because they were the biggest share-economy taxi app, but now we're seeing lyf and halo getting bigger and bigger.

FDA takes 6 years to approve a drug. In those six years thousands of people die. Without the FDA only a handful would die from taking untested drugs, but pharma companies would shit their pants because they'd go down with them due to massive fines.

(You)

It's because of leftism, retard, not for cheap labor, i.e. to genocide whites

>Stalingrad
>The (Continuous? Contemptuous?) Alliance
>Staying Alive
>Political Quotations
>Parliamentary Socialism
>Thesaurus

Shelf 2

>Men Who Made [something]
>The State We're In
>Great Women's Lives
>Red Not-[rest of word blocked]

lol so many ppl are gonna be "the first" to die, how are you gonna decide who's the actual first

I think I see Roget's Thesaurus in the top right

Easy, you tally up how many first declarations they got

>Without the FDA only a handful would die from taking untested drugs
I don't follow here. One of the points of testing is to determine side effects. You cant say that very few people would die from untested because you have no idea at what rate the side effects occur.

Monopolies also, by way of larger market share, tend to have more resources and benefit better from economies of scale. Sure, businesses with low entry costs like uber are more at threat from new competitors, but look at how standard oil undercut its smaller competition by use of its size until it had more then 80% of the market

People having leftist ideas is what causes social conflict, not underlying economic structures

This is why you'll always remain a spooked idiot.

>People having leftist ideas is what causes social conflict
I agree with this, retard. Notions of equality destroy whiteness, masculinity, and freedom
Women are so fucking disgusting in how they have sex with nonwhites

>You cant say that very few people would die from untested because you have no idea at what rate the side effects occur.

Pharmaceutical companies would exercise extreme caution. Here's how a drug gets to market:

Phase 1: test on animals
Phase 2: test for safety on humans (5 people)
Phase 3: test dosage/side effects on humans (10 people)
Phase 4: test for efficacy (20-50)
Phase 5: clinical trial (100+ people)

Do you think a drug company would get to last stage using a drug that kills people? That's asking for a billion dollar lawsuit.

>tend to have more resources and benefit better from economies of scale

There's also diseconomies of scale. It really depends on the market, the demand, and the age in which we live (technology makes a big difference).

This, I spent some time in the USA, and frankly it is fucking creepy.

You people are so cringey you make reddit seem sophisticated.

But the fact is that in some markets monopolies can develop and sustain themselves. Do you disagree with this?

I see your point about testing but I still would be concerned about the risk of less stringent trials resulting in another Thalidomide. How much extra testing does the FDA require anyway? (as a non american). I think we've both ignored the idea of opening developing drugs to terminal patients as well.

It also gets away from the main points about safety regulations and that was about workplace safety laws and are a different beast to pharmaceutical laws

You're right, it's not a utopia, and I don't claim that lack of government regulation/intervention is free of side-effects, but it's certainly better than heavy regulation in most cases.

The main point about the FDA is that once the pharma industry gets past them (which they usually do with their ridiculous clinical trial methodologies) they're pretty much exempt from liability. Without the FDA the pressure to product useful drugs is passed onto the corporations themselves.

More importantly people need to educate themselves because neither the gov't nor capitalism is going to save them from pills. They should be a last resort, not as the go-to for every little fucking headache you have.

Workplace safety regulations can indeed save lives, but the state of them at the moment are literally bringing worker wages down by 5-10% because companies now need a safety consultant making sure there are no loose cables on the floor and other petty shit. You tell me, if you're earning minimum wage would you rather make one more dollar an hour and maybe be a bit more careful around?

I understand you, the answer is probably in between no regulation and heavy regulation, but I originally posted to point out that government, no matter their intention, usually impact us negatively.

You're ignoring what I stated and just throwing a fit about the current issue. I never said that what's going on now is the best solution, but money and resources were already going to homeless people anyways and the public would eventually cry foul play at the living standards they were in.

The current system has a bit better rehabilitation rate which is what the focus should be on if you want cleaner streets. If you just take away the hand outs it will have the same effect emptying those institutions had. Unless you are willing to kill homeless people they'll exist and need a treatment plan that doesn't violate the values of too many voters.

Actually, no let's just let a company set the standards on how they'll treat anyone that gets admitted, and when/if they'll be discharged great idea thanks for defending my tax money.

This whole kekistan thing is completely irrelevant to me and I come to Veeky Forums pretty often. I can't believe how utterly non-existent it must be to others. Are you at least aware of this?

Free education means retards will study random degrees which can't get them a job. Waste of time and money for everyone involved, especially since the tax payer has to pay for their meme degree. At least with the current system you have to study a degree that is somewhat in demand to have any hope of paying pack your student loan.