more books like this

[Anonymous No.14616376]

I'm looking for books defending globalist capitalism,mainly from a historical and moral perspective.

[Anonymous No.14616379]

>>14616376
>defending the indefensible

big yikes there buddy

[i DEFEND yikes No.14616389]

>>14616379
I read that book, I agree with everthing except the first chapter.

[Anonymous No.14616408]

>>14616376
Jeez, are you sure of what you're doing man? I mean, there must be something else that is worth defending other than a system which will suck you dry, and this is coming from someone who isn't a leftie. Either way maybe read Capitalism Realism by Mark Fisher and see how it goes from there

[Anonymous No.14616434]

>>14616408
I DO have a thing for defending hated ideas.but this is actual honesty rather than contrarian-ness

[Anonymous No.14616442]

>>14616379
>>14616408
But to be honest capitalism isn’t an innate evil, only an extrapolated one based on a few predicates. See it as a system first then you can create an opinion on its general nature.

[Anonymous No.14616450]

Why would you want to defend global finance?

[Anonymous No.14616459]

Is this the kind of stuff you were looking for OP?

[Anonymous No.14616460]

>>14616434
That wasn’t honest. Saying something sucks you dry is a rather broad statement without nuance.

[Anonymous No.14616475]

>>14616459
not really,more scholarly stuff,but that book seems fascinating

[Anonymous No.14616511]

>defending globalism

Seriously, I thought we had sufficiently evolved in the last 20 years to understand certain things.

The peak of lowliness of this board has been touched.

[OP No.14616527]

>>14616511
manchesterian-libertarian globalism,no less!

[Anonymous No.14616558]

>>14616376

>having to defend the statu quo

Seems to be you have been statu cucked.

[Anonymous No.14616567]

>>14616558
???
being ideologically pro-capitalist is very unpopular today

[Anonymous No.14616573]

>>14616567
Of course it is, you dumbass.

[Anonymous No.14616581]

>>14616573
i defend child labor.
i have unpopular opinions

[Anonymous No.14616587]

How are people on this board so retarded now they think that the only reason anyone would read a book is because they agree with its thesis

[Anonymous No.14616620]

>>14616587
I don't think that, I usually read anything, left or right doesn't matter. But why the hell would anyone care about a book that defends an outdated retarded idea that has been proved wrong and harmful by the last 30 years of history?

[Anonymous No.14616648]

>>14616567

>being ideologically pro-capitalist is very unpopular today

I didn't know anybody was still working on Wall Street nowadays, sorry, my bad.

[Anonymous No.14616690]

>>14616376
Most of them are just going to go over average global living standards improving and people can buy larger televisions for less today. I don't know why you'd want to read the same thing presented slightly differently over and over. Most people just want more things and that's all the morals you need. Maybe ask different questions.

>>14616620
Globalization despite all the political opposition isn't slowing down none really and capitalism and monetization of everything is only going to get easier and worse. Someone working at the Cato Institute is most likely a hack and disingenuous but the past 30 years wasn't overall harmful, I say that as an anti-liberal.

[Anonymous No.14616703]

>>14616690
>the past 30 years wasn't overall harmful
You must be joking.

[Anonymous No.14616745]

>>14616511
>Reddit spacing
>alluding to The Myth of Progress
Go back

[Anonymous No.14616750]

>>14616690
>past 30 years wasn't overall harmful

LMAO ... you the type that believes government statistics I guess

[Anonymous No.14616778]

>>14616703
No. Real living standards in the most populous country, China, is much higher today... but that has more to do with a rejection of the Washington Consensus model of globalization. Also technological advance has allowed more social control and such but it's still in its infancy, it can still get a lot worse.

[Anonymous No.14616793]

>>14616778
So the past 30 years of destabilization were actually alright because Chinese peasants can now afford two servings of bat soup as opposed to one

[Anonymous No.14616851]

>Niall Ferguson. Historian.
The Ascent of Money
Civilisation

[Anonymous No.14616895]

>>14616793
I never said that. It's just population wise e.g. there was a lot more Chinese peasants 30 years ago than Russian factory workers or anyone else like that who got hit hard. China made a form of globalization work for them obviously and they're the most populous so that's the main story of the past 30 years.
When you're talking about "destabilization" you're probably talking about the results of stupid policies e.g. making homes a primary store of financial wealth, not taking unemployment serious, etc, etc but still the relative tiny amount of individuals in America that got foreclosed on isn't the main story of the past 30 years and you have a distorted sense of history if you think that.

[Anonymous No.14617157]

>>14616376
>Why, yes, I defend global capitalism, how did you know?

[Anonymous No.14617165]

>>14617157

[Anonymous No.14617189]

>>14616376
>more books like this
Literally any book written by an employee of a mainstream anglo-american (((economics))) department.

[Anonymous No.14617683]

>>14617189
THIS. All of (Western) economics is the advocation Globalism at the expense and cost of all else.

[Anonymous No.14617758]

>Why yes I do prefer common morality to be based upon a relitively free medium of exchange ensured by the relation between any level of indivigual and group that can be opted out of in large part if one wills it, rather than a direct government enforced master-slave system That is directly instead of indirectly controlled by that very same government in question, making it a commanding instead of regulatory body, how did you know?

[Anonymous No.14617806]

Basic Economics
Why Nations Fail
Human Action
The Great Contraction
Individualism and Economic Order
Defending the Undefendable
The Housing Boom and Bust

[Anonymous No.14617937]

>US increasingly sucking all the high-end talent from around the world
>puts them into a low fertility environment
>retards breeding in record speeds
yeeeee boiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

[Anonymous No.14618014]

>>14616376
>defending global capitalism
>global
>mainly from a historical and moral perspective
>historical
>moral
10/10 bait

[Anonymous No.14618032]

Guns, Germs, and Steel is a good one but not sure it touches the specifics you're looking for. Whatever, people are globally mobile now and that means that national economies need to evolve to meet the migratory needs of today's human. If that means people aren't gonna look like how they used to look then that's what it means. At least we're all gonna be richer and have a better standard of living.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.14618040]

>>14616442
Its corruption itself

[Anonymous No.14618100]

>>14618032
>At least we're all gonna be richer and have a better standard of living
Uh - Anon, I...

[Anonymous No.14618143]

>>14618040
Indeed.

[Anonymous No.14618215]

>>14616778
>half the planet is literally destroyed
>NOO HAHA LE 30 YEARS MMMH GUD HAHA
>CHINESE BUGMAN MORE MONY NOW TIS IS GOOD
I'm done with this board