/lit/ - Literature

>>13374270
The only even somewhat good ideas Thomas Sowell had were naming his book "Basic economics" and pretending it was anything but a political essay in long-form.

>>13374270
One of like 5 good blacks

Actually, he is tens of millennia before his time in terms of mental development owing to his genetic constitution.

>>13374280

Come on man, that's a low blow.

>>13374270
I would be honored if he and Coleman Hughes would watch me impregnate Candace Owens.

>>13374270
Thomas SWOLE is so fucking based I can't even

https://products.kitsapsun.com/archive/2001/08-04/0002_thomas_sowell__risks_of_slave_rep.html

https://www.nationalreview.com/2014/05/sexual-assault-campus-thomas-sowell/

>>13374270
I dislike his frequent gushing about Capitalism and muh freedumb but he absolutley demolishes Marxists

>>13374270
What kind of idiot says stuff like that seriously? It reminds me of that Reagan quote: "it's not that Liberals don't know anything, it's just that they know a lot that ain't so", or something along those lines. A trite insult that would only seem witty to a Right winger.

>>13374277
The funny thing is of his books, that one isn't that political. It just analyzes micro situations and the incentives.

Sounds like you didn't read the book anon.

>>13375438
> "Reality has a left-wing bias"

Yeah this is totally just a right wing thing.

>>13375502
You're incredibly daft to believe it isn't political.

>people still don't realize all action and thought has Ideological framing

>>13375789
Speak for yourself

>>13374277
Every single book on economics is political. The word political is a mean and it isn't just a bad word. If you have anything to say about the role of government you're being political so that would mean every single book on economics that has ever existed is political by nature.

>>13375438
Holy schmoly. I really hope you´re not older than 17. How could you possibly be so disconnected?

>>13375504
That was said by a comedian whose shtick is smug condescension. Reagan may be a cretin, but he's still a politician.
>>13376968
Find me a quote by a leftist politician or by a serious leftist thinker that's as insulting and condescending to conservatives.

>left ideas don't work
>but they are concentrated in some institutions

What did he mean by this?

>>13375502
You have to be literally retarded to believe that.

>>13377611
He's trying to own the libs in a way that seems sophisticated yet simple enough for his hick audience to comprehend. It's an art that every conservative politician and pundit must master.

>>13377611
>>13377622
have you guys read a lot of liberal post-graduate and professor papers/books?

>>13377634
And who let these hacks into academia? Oh the marketization of higher education? wtf i thought right-wing ideas were meant to work.

>>13377634
lol, i meant liberal arts*. Guess it doesn't matter.

>>13377599
Snowflake detected.
Leftist ideas are not out and about in the working world. They are kept in their institutions where they are controlled and maintained alive by artificial life support. That´s a factual claim which you can either agree or disagree with. How is that condescending?

That´s and insult towards the abstraction (or idea) and a poignant critique about it´s lack of pragmatic influence (if that´s where you base your measure of effect) - and is not and insult, or condescending, towards left leaning individuals.

>>13377640
this is opening up so many points of argument that it's impossible to talk it out, even in person. And it doesn't even prove Sowell's point wrong. Jesus, man.

>In Intellectuals and Race (2013), Sowell argues that intelligence quotient (IQ) gaps are hardly startling or unusual between, or within, ethnic groups. He notes that the roughly 15-point gap in contemporary black–white IQ scores is similar to that between the national average and the scores of certain ethnic white groups in years past, in periods when the nation was absorbing new immigrants.

I thought Sowell was meant to be redpilled?

>>13377611
He's saying that bad ideas thrive in institutions or areas where the cost is hidden or less obvious. It might be useful to look at both public and private unions. Generally, unions that operate in private industries like aluminum or steel don't ask for a whole lot of benefits or certain worker protections that keep them from getting fired, and this is because they understand that there's a cost to these things, and if they ask for too much they could find themselves out of a job. Factories that goes out of business don't employ anyone.

This is contrasted with police or teacher unions that have to worry about driving their police station or school out of business. This is because the cost for asking too much is hidden in taxes. This is why it's so hard to fire a bad police officer or teacher. Bad ideas like making it virtually impossible to fire some police officers or teachers thrive because the cost is hidden.

Thomas Sowell believes this same sort of logic extends to most leftist ideas. Nobody found a way to make socialism efficient or even somewhat comparable to the price coordinated capitalist economy which is why nobody really argues for straight up socialism anymore, yet they support socialist programs like universal healthcare because the cost is hidden or less obvious. In my experience many of them won't even acknowledge a cost. They just act like the calculation problem has been solved.

>>13377670
Read black rednecks and white liberals. He's a culture not race guy which is ultimately the correct standpoint

>>13377674
Imagine thinking free healthcare is equivalent to full on socialism. Americans really are stupid.

>>13377710
I don't have a brainlet good enough for you but Jesus this is a stupid post. At what point does he equate socialist policy with full on socialism? If you're just going to shitpost go to >>/b/

>>13377710
>free healthcare
>many of them won't even acknowledge a cost
it took all of 8 minutes to prove >>13377674 was right
nothing is free faggot, especially not doctors.

>>13377710
Reread his post you absolute retard. You probably saw a few buzzwords you didn't like and sperged out.

>>13374270
No, you are decades late. Everyone else has long outgrown the lolberg phase you're just now entering.

Sounds like another dumb NIGGER. Buncha nigger lovers in this thread.

>>13377611
t. retard

>Read BR/WL
>literally the last four chapters have been about jews/middlemen
I thought this book was about black and white people. Why is he talking about jews so fucking much? Such a departure from the advertised premise of the book.

>>13377867
>what is the ol' bait and switch, Alex?

>>13377867
Do you have an epub of that?

>>13374270
Thomas Sowell, the anti-intellectual's anti-intellectual. He frequently makes these broad statements which are mostly bereft of content and only serve to confirm the prejudices of himself and his readers. He's the worst type of critic: the type who doesn't think critically. Isaiah Berlin wrote that the politically-minded Russians of the 19th century securely fastened themselves to certain ideas of foreign import because, unlike the European intellectuals of the time who were familiar with a broad range of ideas, the novelty the ideas lent them a great allure. And so, lacking enough familiarity with competing ideologies, they passionately followed their beliefs to extremes that appeared (and perhaps were) naive to Western intellectuals. Anyway, the point is that I see this with Sowell and his readers. They're unfamiliar with competing ideas and consequently misrepresent the views of their political opponents. Those who have spent more time reading works of philosophy, economics, anthropology, or even sociology probably won't find Sowell very interesting or compelling.

>>13374270
>GET A JOB
Amerishart 'philosophers'

>>13374564
Where?

>>13375438
Conservatism is about practicality and preserving what we know works so we can work within the limitations of harsh reality. Liberalism is about pushing the envelope in the negotiation between harsh reality and the idealism we'd like to make manifest in the world around us. That's the gist. Liberalism is literally a measured exercise in denying reality, and that's not inherently a bad thing. We need dreamers. Because of the nature of their worldview and aspirations, universities will always be home to leftists, because it's (ideally) the place where ideas are kicked around without getting crushed into the earth before they can be refined. The problem arises when the dreamers go out of control, people start thinking disregarding reality completely, and we wind up with fucking clown world.

>>13375504
>Reality has a left-wing bias
I hate that shit. See above for why that's literally the exact opposite of reality.

Nigger nigger nigger nigger lovers nigger nigger nigger nigger lovers

>>13379686

>>13374564
Nop. He didn't understand surplus labor. He is competent as an economist, but like other competent economists, he think labor is just labor. That there is no distinction between necessary labor and surplus labor.
That is ignoring the fact that in the primitive tribe, there was no surplus labor at all. Only necessary labor. Labor in excess of what is needed to renew the condition of existence is surplus labor, and it exist since the neolitic revolution. It has been captured by a small fraction of humans since (slavory, feudalism, capitalism). In capitalism, surplus labor is materialized into what we call profit.

>>13374270
Yeah, too bad it wasn’t him who lied to congress about those WMDs

>>13374280
why are leftists so racist?

>>13380572
I think that was just a regular racist

>>13380608
fuck off butterfly

>>13378919
>Conservatism is about practicality and preserving what we know works so we can work within the limitations of harsh reality
this is what conservatives tell themselves when they see a guy reduced to begging on gofundme for money to buy insulin as a result of their retarded policies

>I hate that shit. See above for why that's literally the exact opposite of reality.
"read my own opinions to see why your opinion is bad. cause my opinion is fact while yours is not. how do I know that? well, because I say so."

>>13378919
>Conservatism is about practicality and preserving what we know works
it used to be, but now it seems like it's mostly about hating leftists.

>>13380572
I’m not left wing you sjw cuck, fucking nigger lover. Nigger Nigger Nigger lover
Nigger Nigger Nigger lover.

>>13380613
See? >>13381152

>>13381157
Nigger

>>13381157
Wait, Butterfly. Are you saying you're racist? But I thought you loved thicc Arab buttocks? How do you think your diminutive Arabbess will feel about this betrayal? Oh, I do hope no one screenshots your treachery...

>>13377599
>said by a comedian
And repeated over and over and over on left-wing political forums for the last decade without a hint of irony or humour.

>>13380526
He seemed to understand it when he talked about it in his book on Marxist. People don't realize that he was a Marxist for years. He studied it academically.

>>13374270
Based nigger economics

>>13375938
I think Sowell’s book is particularly partisan

>>13381539
What do you mean by partisan? He doesn't believe things for no reason. His books are all about explaining the reasons has for believing as he does.

>>13380572
Because Marx was inspired by Darwin and was in fact a Social Darwinist at core.

>>13380697
Everybody hates leftists

>>13381413
>People don't realize that he was a Marxist for years. He studied it academically.
these aren't counter-arguments, you can "study something academically" and still misunderstand it, especially if the guy who is teaching you has misunderstood it as well

>>13381608
The thing you quoted wasn't meant to be an argument, but it's merely a point that supports the argument which is that Thomas Sowell does understand the labor theory of value and the distinction you're making because he literally talks about it in the book he wrote on Marxism. If you're going to assert that he misunderstands it then provide some textual evidence. If you're going to find any evidence it's probably going to be in that book on Marxism.

>>13381608
You act like Marx is hard to understand...

>>13374270
Essentially all progress we've made is "left wing" though. Leftism is about reducing hierarchy, right? Every step towards that goal has been supporting by left wingers and opposed by right wingers. How does this make sense? You can say that the left is going too far in their goal or something, but how could you deny that the world becomes more and more left?

>>13374270
Reminder this guy a just a Hoover Institute uncle tom.

>>13378919
Your "gist" seems pretty questionable when you consider that conservatives (now and/or in the past) support trickle down economics, deny anthropogenic climate change, deny the net economic benefit of immigration, etc. As >>13381677 alludes to, the difference between the left and the right is their approach to hierarchy. The left desires less of it. This is why left wingers support taxing the rich more, raising the minimum wage, etc. They want to reduce the hierarchical gap. The furthest left ideologies (communism and anarchism) have NO hierarchy. It's entirely abolished.
Neither of the "sides" own reality. The whole "conservatism is about practicality" is just what conservatives tell themselves, just like how liberals tell themselves "reality has a left wing bias."

>>13381692
Marx criticized immigration.

>>13381700
Okay? I never said there's no reason to criticize immigration. I said that immigration, in the current capitalist system of the US, provides a net economic benefit. That doesn't mean it doesn't harm other things.

>>13381728
Immigration = Cheaper labor. More profit.

I don't know if you are Marxist, cultural Marxist, or right wing (political economy). Destruction of mono-ethnicity in the west by the Capital is inevitable.

>>13381805
>More profit
Yup, that's what I'm talking about. Doesn't mean it's good for the workers.
I'm a socdem by the way.
>cultural Marxist
What does this actually mean?

>>13381822
Cultural Marxism is LGBT, immigrationists, minority rights etc...
It has nothing to do with Karl Marx.

>>13381822
Is 'the good of the workers' the ultimate goal of society?

>>13381841
>Cultural Marxism
no such thing

>>13381847
Society doesn't have a goal, the people in it do. So whose goal are you talking about?

>>13381841
Not only that, I felt that there's little similarkty between Adorno-Frankfurt school definition of "Cultural Marxism" and JP-Ben Shapiro definition of Cultural Marxism.

>>13374270
>[...] ideas of the political left [...] do not work

Ah yes, God bless neoliberal free market economy, which works perfectly right, amirite?

>>13381692
Literally nobody has ever supported something called "trickle down economics." That's a Democrat strawman. Conservatives have quite a few good reasons to lower taxes and none of them have to do with with some vague hope of wealth trickling down. In principle people should be allowed to keep as much of their own money as possible but even from a purely government perspective it makes sense to lower taxes because it can actually increase the revenue taken in from taxes. There is a thing called the laffer curve and Democrats used to understand what it meant.

John F Kennedy demonstrated his understanding when he said "It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now. This is because investors efforts to avoid tax liabilities make certain types of less productive activity more profitable than other more valuable undertakings and this inhibits our growth and efficiency. Therefore the purpose of cutting taxes is to achieve a more prosperous, expanding economy."

They don't support minimum wage laws because they are disproportionately harmful to unskilled and inexperienced workers because those laws take away their one competitive advantage, which is price. In a free market, an employer might choose to hire a lower-priced and less productive worker and train them for the job. Minimum wage laws make this unaffordable for many employers.

Paul Krugman in his textbook on macroeconomics describes the effects of super high minimum wage laws in European countries like Greece and Spain. The "disproportionately young, from ages of 18 to 30, are locked out of employment without any prospect of finding a good job. In these countries a generation of young people is unable to get adequate job training, develop careers and save for their future, thanks to the minimum wage laws. These young people, moreover, are also more likely to engage in crime."

Also, nobody denies the economic benefit of immigration. What separates conservatives from liberals is the recognition that there is a cost or tradeoff to any benefits that come from it, and conservatives aren't willing to pay it. We don't want our country to be flooded with Mexicans because we don't want our country to become Mexico. We don't want it so bad that we're willing to forgo any economic benefit that might come from letting them in.

>>13381862
People arbitrarily assign spooky words to their political opponents. Marxist is used by some conservatives to describe even privately owned corporations (which makes no fucking sense).

>>13381874
>Conservatives have quite a few good reasons to lower taxes and none of them have to do with with some vague hope of wealth trickling down
That's true of conservative politicians, sure, they're just lying to serve their masters. But there are republican voters who legitimately believe cutting taxes on the rich will help them.
I should note, saying "the republicans aren't actually stupid enough to think that, they just lie about it!" is not a very good defense.
>There is a thing called the laffer curve
What a lazy argument. Don't pretend the laffer curve is a well established and understood principle. No one even agrees on what it looks like, it's purely theoretical. We know it exists but that's all.
>They don't support minimum wage laws because they are disproportionately harmful to unskilled and inexperienced workers
For the record, you can't be unskilled at working at McDonald's. And that's what minimum wage jobs are. They have no effect on employment if implemented gradually.
>super high minimum wage laws
Which is not being proposed by liberals in the US.
>nobody denies the economic benefit of immigration
You are lying through your teeth. Plenty of people bitch about the economic harm of immigration.

>>13381896
I don't read posts that greentext me because I have never seen anyone do it and say anything that's worth a shit.

>>13381915
>not participating in the marketplace of ideas
That's fallacious thinking, by the way. A lot of people greentext here, a lot of people say bullshit here. Of course there's overlap. I've never seen a conservative say something that wasn't dumb or a lie, but I gave you a shot.

>>13374270
I can only assume he's talking about college here. I think it says more about the American university system than it does leftism frankly.

>>13382127
He's certainly talking about schools but it would apply anywhere that the costs of bad ideas is hidden. The government itself is a perfect example of a place where bad ideas can thrive, and this is because politicians or the people voting for whatever policy don't always pay the price or don't realize they're paying the price.

>>13374280
Based lmfao

>>13374280
fucking gottem

>>13374280
Sowell's DNA is 99.9999% identical to your own, you realize. Assuming you are human?

>>13378919
modern """conservatism""" is about hating fags and accelerating the process

>>13377674
Can you can make the reasoning more clear? I understand why the union could fear the closing of private companies because of cost of benefits.

But the next part doesn't make sense to me. The cost of benefits in public domains are hidden in taxes. Why does it follow that it is hard to fire bad workers then?

I see that not being able to fire bad workers is a bad outcome and that people don't take notice because the consequences aren't immediate.

>>13379686
Based

This man is not intelligent. I have no problem with Blacks writing non-fiction, after all I was just reading Ptolemy, who was an African.

I know, I know, you think my posts are boring, but just imagine how I consider you all. You make the same threads over and over and support the same stupid readers over and over.

I am conservative, but I am fucking done with posting authors who say that drugs should be entirely decriminalized. I mean... SERIOUSLY?!

What does he do with the economic system? Does he attempt to describe it? Klein is an economist whose Keynesian econometric model contains 7 different equations with different constants that result in different, interdependent constants as well.

What has Sowell done to progress the very technical field of Economics. What kind of mathematical or scientific literature has anyone on this god forsaken board read lately?

Fuck. You. :3

>>13382268
>I am fucking done with posting authors who say that drugs should be entirely decriminalized. I mean... SERIOUSLY?!
>not wanting freedom

>>13382265
Union members that drive the place they're working at out of business no longer have a job and that's the incentive to be reasonable and not demand too much. Police stations and schools can't realistically be driven out of business so those unions don't have that same incentive, and it allows them to demand too much.

One example of those demands that go too far would be the protections which make it unreasonably difficult to fire bad employees. It's one of those things that would never be acceptable in the private sphere because having lots of bad employees you can't get rid of is so inefficient or uneconomical, and consequently it would make the business noncompetitive, but in the public sphere the cost of bad employees is hidden or less obvious. Police stations and schools will just get more government funding to cover the inefficiency created by those union demands.

>>13382329
This makes sense! But can you show me evidence that bad workers aren't being fired because of push back from the unions? This might be obvious, but I'm pretty detached from society.

>>13382358
I can only give anecdotes of police officers being suspended after doing some really horrible shit and later returning to work or winning a settlement. The case of bad teachers being paid to do nothing because they're too bad to be allowed in a room with kids is much more documented.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/31494936/ns/us_news-education/t/nyc-teachers-paid-do-nothing/

>>13374270
Textbook economist. Doesn't hold a candle to Joseph Schumpeter.
>>13378919
No. Conservatism is about preserving a system that doesn't work because it's "our tradition". Liberalism is about freedom without responsibility, which is a breeding ground for evil.
>>13381822
Cultural Marxist is a term used by neocons to discredit postmodernists without having to actually discredit postmodernism. It has nothing to do with Marxism, but they know that Marxism failed and was bad. Associate the people you don't like with people nobody likes and you've created a somewhat effective rhetorical term.
>socdem
Democracy is for faggots. At least be a natsoc.
>>13381874
Conservatives understand basic free market economics. Liberals don't understand any economics. Free market economics and shitbrain economics are both wrong, but the conservatives sound like they know what they're talking about to the average Joe.

>>13382268
>Ptolemy, who was an African.
Kek

>>13374270
They're getting paid, so their ideas do work.

This is basic economics, Sowell.

>>13381874
"Trickle down economics" was really the talking point back in the day that got Reagan elected. The whole notion of supply side economics is the idea that more money in the hands of private individuals will result in more investment and employment. The idea is if the wealthy aren't taxed they'll invest their wealth which is questionable in an economy based on asset inflation and conspicuous consumption. The sort of long term investments that create safe employment aren't what get you a big return, putting your money in land or pumping up the price of financial assets is.

Arthur Laffer and his career aren't exactly something that are particularly respectable. The guys a political hack. Obviously there's some optimal "level" at which taxation brings back the biggest return but you're thinking of things in totally the wrong terms and obsessed with government surpluses for ideological reasons instead of focusing on more important variables. The right is still obsessed with ancient ideas like monetarism that got respectable in the 1970s when the US was experiencing stagflation without actually looking at the modern world and its issues from any other perspective. The economy of the Kennedy administration was so radical different than what exists today it's not sensible to make comparisons. The impact of cutting taxes depends on a variety of variables, it isn't ipso facto desirable/undesirable unless you're thinking in pure static terms. It's not only the right though, you can look at the logical implication of MMT which would be to abolish corporate taxation altogether for example but that doesn't fit the narrative of the left so they can't really fully politically push it.

All you're claiming with lower wages is it encourages inefficient industries to stay alive and employ people to do things machines should be doing. Employers don't really want to pay to train their employees and they want to push the costs unto others, you have to realize that and deal with it most efficiently. If you seriously think unemployment exists because of the wage rate you need to go back and read your Keynes on that. Also Krugman is another political hack not worthy of respect.

Many people in the Trump administration attempt to claim immigration has negative economic implications theoretically. And no conservatives don't understand tradeoffs because they assume not doing anything isn't doing something. With labour movement especially conservatism gets totally illogical because it should demonstrate their economic theory is useless and shouldn't be taken serious and has to be wrong.
http://econospeak.blogspot.com/2018/06/goebbels-or-gompers-closer-look-at.html

>>13382437
Not a meme bud. All Egyptians are Africans, unless you don't count Egypt as part of Africa you racist pos. :3

>>13382499
"Trickle down economics" is Democrat rhetoric and that's all I'm saying about that phrase. The idea that the rich will invest their money is just one more reason to support lowering taxes, and there's no rational reason to suppose they won't. Even if people take all their money and let it sit in the bank that money is still being invested by the bank itself, and is therefore creating wealth.

Rich people are rich because they're good at deciding what things are worth investing in. They also have an incentive not to invest poorly or inefficiently because it is their money which is at risk, so it makes sense to allow them to keep more of their own money. Bill Gate is better at deciding which ventures are worth funding than Suzy who works at McDonald's.

I don't care about Arthur Laffer. You agree that there is an optimal level of taxation so what's the point of talking about him? I didn't say that we should always lower taxes either, but I'm saying we shouldn't always raise them as the guy I was responding to suggested.

You're being a little silly with this minimum wage talk. You implicitly admit that unemployment is caused by the artificially raised wages when you argue that it keeps inefficient industries alive when they should be using machines. By your logic we should raise the minimum wage to cause the unemployment necessary to make those industries more efficient. If machines were truly more efficient than low cost, low skilled workers in a free market then firms would be using them as much as possible without our interference because that would give them a competitive edge, and the ones that didn't use them would die.

>>13382646
>The idea that the rich will invest their money is just one more reason to support lowering taxes, and there's no rational reason to suppose they won't
They buy back stocks. That's all. This is empirically proven, it happens every fucking time.
>I'm saying we shouldn't always raise them as the guy I was responding to suggested
That's... Not what I said.

>>13382747
See >>13381915

>>13382771
See >>13381933

>>13382782
What are you linking me that post for? I don't see the relevance.

>>13382379
Cool thanks

>>13378738
you ever notice how leftists talk a lot without really saying anything?

>>13382920
>everyone says this about everyone else
I think we have a problem with discourse in this country.

>>13383033
This guy literally just cites someone else to say that Sowell is dumb. Sowell went to an ivy league school and is an expert in his field. He started off as a Marxist and eventually realized that they're full of shit. To say he's unfamiliar with competing ideas is just wrong, it doesn't matter how many soviet "intellectuals" you cite.

>>13383065
And as far as the claims of "misrepresentation" have you ever noticed when you cite a marxist viewpoint or take a broad statement towards their ideology disciples will tell you to "just read Marx" without actually counteracting the point at hand? It's because the ideology isn't being misrepresented, they just don't like what's being said so they provide some meaningless catch-all about what "real communism is" or "what marx actually meant." It's arguing with the dumbest people who use the worst logic.

>>13374270
is this meant to be an intelligent observation? its just wordplay, hes not observing anything

>>13381822
Based. Social Democrats are very respectable.

>>13382920
>you ever notice how leftists talk a lot without really saying anything?
this

>>13382920
The eternal truth

>>13382233
Powerful.

>>13374270
I hope his school owns the left by causing another hella epic depression in Chile.

>>13382233
I am 97% similar to a chimpanzee and 90% similar to many mammals. They are qualitatively distinct.

>>13383249
>hurr durr .000000000001% is comparable to 3 and 10%
based retard

>>13382417
Textbook bilateral competition. You are far too absorbed in two party politics for your own good :3

>>13382646
You're either being a charlatan or willingly stupid. It's not simply rhetoric it's an actual theory as you're demonstrating. You have no understanding of how any bank actually functions and it's obvious. When you put money in a bank it's not "invested". Have you ever actually examined any of their balance sheets?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1057521914001070
What you want is to be making creditworthy borrowers be able to get access to funds but allowing the wealthy to keep a bigger percentage of their wealth isn't the best way of doing that. There's perverse incentives to keep the club as closed to newcomers as possible. Rich people simply own and want more claims on future wealth, regardless of however they got their hands on them, and new investment isn't profitable but causes instability and kills old industries which the old boys have a vested interest in. All those "philanthropists" like Bill Gates or George Soros are great examples of very bad individuals who want to make people dependent upon them.

It's worth looking into Laffer because he actually provided really bad policy advice to government. The dude's crazy and was screaming for interest rates to go up throughout the Obama years and now he wants the Fed to essiently go into negative rates that Trump's in office. Obviously there's an "optimum" taxation rate if you're interested in maximizing return, no one really practically knows what that ever is and everyone will tell you it's lower than it really is, but I don't think that should even be the primary concern of anyone when there's more important variables to be looking at.

Also there's no "optimum" wage rate where you're going to naturally get full employment because unemployment is profitable. Just because everyone can pay less doesn't mean people are going to be able to be profitably employed. I'm not defending a minimum wage as the best policy to prevent a low waged economy but the reality is you don't want a bunch of investment being diverted keeping your economy low tech.

Leftist ideas don’t work. Capitalism works, that’s why it needs a blue haired sjw epic Internet boogeyman to survive in barely life support mode and is quickly reverting to premortem accelerationism. Capitalism works and is mighty yet it is in constant danger.

>>13383371
There's no reason be such a cunt. The point making about the banks is that the money stored is actually being circulated and is used to create wealth. When banks loan money out they're not just making money appear out of thin air, it's coming from somewhere. You don't need to examine a balance sheet to know this.

I'll tell you again that I don't care about Laffer. It's like you're not even paying attention to I;m saying. The Laffer curve refers to a theoretical optimal tax rate. We both agree that such a thing exists. That's it. Whatever opinions you have on Laffer or any of his other work are completely irrelevant. I only brought it up to show that revenue can be increased by lowering taxes.

I've also never said there was an optimum wage rate or that we'll get full employment so I don't know what the hell you're talking about. This is garbage, dude.

It's one thing to talk about perverse incentives without naming them but you're also going into conspiracy territory, which is of course even vaguer with shadow groups keeping poor people down and away from investment opportunities. It's nonsense and coupling that with your shit attitude I've run out of patience with you.

>>13383359
>.000000000001%
changing the goal posts
>comparable to 3 and 10%
Imagine missing the point this hard. As I previously illustrated, measuring genetic similitude strictly by quantitative comparison is useless.

>>13383583
Sorry sweetie, that's not the way genetics works.

>>13383440
>The point making about the banks is that the money stored is actually being circulated and is used to create wealth
Are you claiming this as an empirical truth or simply engaging in "praxeology"?

>When banks loan money out they're not just making money appear out of thin air, it's coming from somewhere.
http://econviz.org/how-loans-create-money/#explore

> I only brought it up to show that revenue can be increased by lowering taxes.
Yes, obviously, and it can by increasing taxes depending on the level but the function of taxation shouldn't be about maximizing revenue but getting money out of the economy if that's necessary for other reasons. The government doesn't need to tax to spend like it doesn't need to spend unless other variables make it so.

>It's one thing to talk about perverse incentives without naming them but you're also going into conspiracy territory, which is of course even vaguer with shadow groups keeping poor people down and away from investment opportunities.
The wealthy have the ear of government and use this to make sure their assets keep inflating in value. How they organize and carry this out is largly transparent. When it comes to business they can generate higher profits by various means of everything from tariffs, freezing-out rival concerns, patent trolling to general corporate collusion. All this stuff happens over and over again and is well documented without getting into the nature of the corporate structures, credit, shares, manipulative accounting practices, etc, etc.

>>13383649
I'm not interested

>>13383622
>Sorry sweetie, that's not the way genetics works.

>>13383440
>but you're also going into conspiracy territory, which is of course even vaguer with shadow groups keeping poor people down
that's not what he said at all

>>13382920
The funny thing is I'm a conservative, which is why I can't stand Sowell.

>>13377756
Under rated post.

is this working? is what we have working? it doesn't seem like it's working, to me.

>>13383819
Oh okay

>>13381413
Sowell was a marine in Korea and earned his doctorate from Milton Friedman's University of Chicago. He was not a Marxist.

>>13383913
>He was not a Marxist.

>>13383913
>earned his doctorate from Milton Friedman's University of Chicago
lmao so there goes his "academic study of marxism"

>>13382920
Are you referring to politicians or just in general?

Some speakers are dull, see Chomsky, but say a lot. So maybe you have a problem listing

Absolutely fucking based Sowell eternally blowing leftists the fuck out.

>>13383913
not who you're responding to but he claims he was for a while, he was definitely familiar with classical economics e.g. he wrote an academic work on says law (which is flawed and I would promptly shit on)

>>13382233
And your DNA will be 100% the same after you die. Surely that will reduce your intelligence by at least half.

>>13383973
>but he claims he was for a while,

>>13381859
This.

>>13381168
No. I was only pointing out that I was right about that anon not being a lefty

>>13383971
Electrical sockets work, the “economy” such as it is, does not.

And this >>13383078

>>13383913
You're empirically wrong
He was a Marxist in his youth before he worked for the Department of Labor for one summer

He attracts a lot of unreasonable hatred from people who disagree with him, and I'm not sure why. He's a good writer and he's easy to read and understand, but all I'm seeing from his opposition is some vague illusions to refutations of positions that Thomas Sowell probably doesn't even hold rather than actual responses to things that were written.

It might be a case of these people having their own positions on economics and being pretty confident in their belief that anything related to the Chicago is wrong so they don't even feel the need to read him. I've read most of his books and I don't recognize him in any of the half baked "refutations" they put out. It really is bizarre and I've never seen it happen to this degree with any other author.

>>13384030
He's literally Milton Friedman in blackface. That's not necessarily a complainant or insult, take it as you will. Not much more needs be said.

>>13384026
I was a Phish fan one summer, that doesn't make me a trained musicologist. Anyway, Sowell is basically running a grift selling black authenticity to white cuckservative audiences. Shouldn't be a surprise if he embroiders his biography a bit.

>>13384045
Yeah it's what I figured. You don't read him and you strawman him.

>>13384053
He's literally filling the same role Friedman did (but black). People who hated Friedman will hate him, except Friedman was a lot bigger and influential.

>>13384078
I understood you the first time. It's the sort of big brain take I expect from his critics who refute things they don't read.

>>13384052
Why are you injecting race into this discussion where it has no bearing?
You're saying he's a liar because you don't like his ideas
Grow up and formulate a real argument

>>13378919
Based. I'm so sick of /pol/tards claiming conservatism yet being full blown revolutionary socialists.

>>13384137
>Why are you injecting race into this discussion where it has no bearing?
Where do you think you are?

This is the most based quote I can think of off the top of my head. The reason activists are faggots is they refuse to acknowledge this.

>>13384137
>Why are you injecting race into this discussion where it has no bearing?

This is 4chan, not some kind of liberal safe space. You grow up. Race is relevant because Sowell is a noted anti-race realist polemicist, and also because his appeal is rooted in his race. Old joke: what do you call a black man at a conservative dinner. Keynote speaker.

Sowell is certainly a more sophisticated artist in this medium than say Walter Williams or Herman Cain, but he's working the same basic routine.

>You're saying he's a liar because you don't like his ideas

I'm saying he was a marine and a Chicago boy, not noted Marxist pursuits. If he was a "Marxist" as a teenager or whatever shit that's hardly relevant. Anyhow Sowell boosters are the ones who brought up that argument from biography anyhow.

>>13382920
Have you ever thought that you have a problem listening?

>>13377599
> Find me a quote by a leftist politician or by a serious leftist thinker that's as insulting and condescending to conservatives.
Anything about being on the right or wrong side of history.

>>13384137
>You're saying he's a liar because you don't like his ideas
he didn't call him a liar for fuck's sake
do you know how to read or what
he said that the fact that he says he was a marxist for one summer back when he was a teen doesn't mean shit, just like him listening to a band for one summer doesn't mean he's suddenly an expert in the whole genre
lying is something you do with intent, you say something you know isn't true
sowell, on the other hand, probably isn't lying, he could think that reading a bit of marx and engels 50 years ago makes him an expert on marxism

>>13374279
Never left your house?

Black people as a group might have tons of problems and may be a net loss (no idea here, it's possible), but there are plenty of good ones which can easily be found out in the wild.

>>13377710
>free
>free
Listen you piece of shit, our healthcare system is completely fucked up by the government's involvement, and you want them involved more?

I and those around me have access to literally the highest quality healthcare imaginable due to not having socialized medicine. My boss/coach is the first known survivor of a rare form of nerve cancer. Literally went through hell. Only reason he made it is because he had access to cutting edge medical facilities.

My father has a rare heart disorder. His situation is made a lot better by again having access to the same cutting edge medical facility. If they were forced to endure "Free Healthcare", my boss would be dead and my Dad wouldn't get any help for his heart condition, probably wouldn't have ever been diagnosed.

>>13382268
What Sowell does is educate stupid voters. That's it. He's good at that. Not everyone has to push the envelope.

>>13386302
lmao your boss got cured but some poor fuck has to beg on gofundme for insulin (very cutting edge!) and that's fine by you as long as your richie rich ass and your boss (what a fucking bootlicker) get the health care you need
you're a living turd that should be flushed down a toilet
and you're lying your ass off about your boss and dad being dad, newsflash, people in other countries get cancer too and they get cured
your healthcare system is a shitshow because it operates on greed and the ideas of simpletons like you

It will always be funny that /pol/'s favourite thinker is black

>>13386661
Who is this /pol/ person and how do you know what authors he likes?

>>13386302
>our healthcare system is completely fucked up by the government's involvement, and you want them involved more
Medicare is vastly more popular than any alternative. Almost every other industrialized country has some form of universal healthcare, and all of them have better health outcomes and lower costs than us.
>gubment bad
Is not an argument.
>I and those around me have access to literally the highest quality healthcare imaginable
And millions upon millions have access to no healthcare. So let's see: you and your dad, or tens of millions. Which one is more important?
>socialized medicine
This is a dumbass misnomer by the way.

>>13386302
>Listen you piece of shit, our healthcare system is completely fucked up by the government's involvement, and you want them involved more?
I agree with you that the government causes most issues (in America largly because they're in the pockets of private interests) but a free market in healthcare just results in the healthy not being insured and when something actually goes wrong being forced to go broke or resorting to voodoo tier cures and people being tricked into chugging bleach (you have no idea how many "intelligent" people fall for stupid woo). Medical care is one area where normal economic logic doesn't really work well since you can't decided not to buy or always put off and wait for prices to decrease like with other commodities.

https://web.archive.org/web/20151002113600/http://home.comcast.net/%7Eromccain/imperative.html

>>13387513
no you see healthcare is just like when I'm hungry and I can choose between a plethora of foods, in the same way someone with kidney failure can choose any procedure he wants, it's all "health care" - he can get a liposuction, chemotherapy, antibiotics, cough syrup, brain tissue biopsy, a vasectomy, and many other procedures that will magically heal his kidneys

economists are people whose job is to make the populace believe that it's their fault a square peg isn't fitting into a round hole

He was wrong though so
Sage

>>13382233
Not true btw. If you're white, asian, or polynesian you can be as distant as 99.5% from people of african descent. Considering chimps are 98% similar that is an astoundingly massive difference. Learn to molecular bio fag.

>>13388707
>Not true btw. If you're white, asian, or polynesian you can be as distant as 99.5% from people of african descent. Considering chimps are 98% similar that is an astoundingly massive difference. Learn to molecular bio fag.
The fact we can reproduce non-sterile offspring between any 'race' renders your sophist bullshit arguing for some divide...sophist bullshit.

Guys, there's just one race. The "Human Race."

>>13388815
Not him, but there are many ways to define 'race', even if we stick just to the field of biology.
Trying to destroy the divides is just as ideological as trying to produce them.

>>13382417
>le both are wrong.

>>13382920
the ironing

>>13384052
Hahhah. This.
>embroidered biography
Nice