/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.22253944]

>continues to mog every new theory of economics
>manages to formulate theory of morals which combines a strict necessity of the divine with Humean skepticism
>despite lucid and engaging style, never, ever read by midwits, an ultimate filter

[Anonymous No.22254098]

You are either a troll or a retard. Read an advanced micro textbook if you actually want to know anything about economics, and read something on contemporary ethics. no one is a sentimentalist anymore except Slote and there are pretty good reasons for that.

[Anonymous No.22254111]

>>22253944
No one reads smith including the neo-libs who wank about him. See his writings about land lords being parasites that no one that claims him as an influence ever mentions

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.22254136]

>>22254098
>read a (((textbook)))
fuck off. if you want a solid grasp on micro just study psychology
>>22254111
neolibs only wank about (((friedman))) and couldn't care less about classical economics aside from malthus to push eugenicist/degrowth agitprop

[Anonymous No.22254338]

>>22254136
You're a fucking retard. The replication crisis has hit psychology more than any other discipline in the world. 3x more econ papers replicate than psych, but I'm supposed to choose the latter? Fuck off retard. You have NO idea what you're talking about. Completely retarded. No grasp of methodological principles. Read a fucking textbook you mouth-breathing drooling retard.

[Anonymous No.22254452]

>>22254111
Adam Smith is not popular with neoliberals specifically because of his critique of landlords but also for his insistence that a healthy society is more reflected in higher wages than in a bigger economy, and his theory of labor as the rough basis of exchange value.

[Anonymous No.22254463]

>>22254452
He’s a staple of neoliberal education and myth making actually. I know since I’ve been swimming in that soup since middle school. Don’t get hung up on the fact that he argues points they disagree with, ideology is flexible like that

[Anonymous No.22254484]

>>22254338
>3x more econ papers replicate than psych
choose neither

also, obligatory NTA because I know you're too stupid to tell the difference

[Anonymous No.22254499]

>>22254484
You're telling me to choose neither now? you just told me to choose one, idiot.

[Anonymous No.22254548]

>>22254463
Education but they don’t read him?

[Anonymous No.22254558]

>>22254548
Most authors are heavily curated in how they’re taught. You’ll read excerpts chosen to make a point the curriculum is trying to get at and anything external to that is elided

[Anonymous No.22254612]

>>22254558
I kind of noticed that with Malthus when I read him and his solution to overpopulation was distributism since he saw birth control as “vice”.

[Anonymous No.22254618]

>>22253944
The funny thing about all the commies that hate him is they don’t get he would’ve been on their side and they’re too blinded by people they don’t like, claiming they read his book.

Besides the whole extended anti-Chinese rant and a pinch of old-timey “noble savage” weirdness about the Americas, he wrote EXTREMELY progressively, not only for his era, but pretty much for the next 200 or so years, and arguably still is today
>massively against slavery both on principle and utility
>massively against colonialist action both on principle and utility
>vigorously opposed the genocide of the native Americans
>vigorously anti-feudal and anti-rent seeking, and dedicates an entire fascinating book to analyzing all of European history post-Roman collapse to criticize the exploitation of the serf-landlord-king dynamic and in general shit on rentiers, primogenture-based entailment of land, and warlordism
>was hyperaware of rich people in urban cores exploiting the politically uninformed against their own interests, and spoke at length about how one needs to stop any and all cooperations by business interests to exploit the laborer
The hilarious tragedy is the book doesn’t even advocate FOR capitalism, really. It’s 80% just a long-form game theoretic discussion of how ANY economy with a market will work, how individuals and governments can make money if that’s their goal, and when it leans into advocacy it’s actually about how
>markets are great but markets need to ACTUALLY be competitive or people will get exploited or things won’t run well
And therefore, because this was his primary line of attack,
>we need to stop doing over-regulated mercantilist shit to fuck over other nations or give individual players in a market massive advantages, because the game theory doesn’t work out on it, you just get shit outcomes
It’s hilarious to me that he’s demonized for writing a book essentially more progressive than the nation’s actual founders and many to most of its future citizens.

[Anonymous No.22254633]

>>22254618
But he explains Africans as in a lower state of civilization purely due to environmental factors, and China’s stagnation purely due to their economic policy (and used it to indicate that even a massive economy results in misery for most people, whereas a smaller economy with better conditions for labor is more prosperous).

[Anonymous No.22254676]

>>22254633
Yeah he hit those points, but I personally felt like he had a little extra animus talking about China than the rest of the book, passages like the below hit different than a bunch of game theory
>The poverty of the lower ranks of people in China far surpasses that of the most beggarly nations in Europe. In the neighbourhood of Canton, many hundred, it is commonly said, many thousand families have no habitation on the land, but live constantly in little fishing-boats upon the rivers and canals. The subsistence which they find there is so scanty, that they are eager to fish up the nastiest garbage thrown overboard from any European ship. Any carrion, the carcase of a dead dog or cat, for example, though half putrid and stinking, is as welcome to them as the most wholesome food to the people of other countries. Marriage is encouraged in China, not by the profitableness of children, but by the liberty of destroying them. In all great towns, several are every night exposed in the street, or drowned like puppies in the water. The performance of this horrid office is even said to be the avowed business by which some people earn their subsistence.

It kinda goes on like that for a while and while it essentially is building up a case for what you're saying and for the long-term surpassment of the UK by China due to a number of combined structural factors - but my point is even if he's progressive, Smith wouldn't make it on modern Twitter.

[Anonymous No.22254690]

>>22254618
All this is in The Wealth of Nations? If it is, I might give it a read

[Anonymous No.22254696]

>>22253944
>1000+ pages
>"it is just le invisible hand"
>"just don't do shit and laissez faire"
I could listen to "Let it be" and that would be quicker

[Anonymous No.22254702]

>>22254676
He goes on much longer talking about the poverty of Scotland

Talking about problems in China is not considered politically incorrect on twitter, nor was Smith a progressive in the twitter sense

[Anonymous No.22254703]

>>22254618
Chomsky used to harp about all this. It’s not specifically communists, it’s that 2016 rendered everyone online with an interest in politics retarded

[Anonymous No.22254710]

>>22254676
Imagine putting this much substance into a single paragraph.
He was truly a great writer.

[Anonymous No.22254714]

Anyone read Friedrich List?

[Anonymous No.22254743]

>>22254690
And way more, I'm leaving shit out because he's basically wielding MAXIMALLY WEAPONIZED autism to build a system by which to analyze individuals and nations wealth from first principles, in a world where basically none exist yet. It's kinda magical unironically and people like >>22254696 who skipped straight to book 4 and didn't even get the message right from it sadden me (he wasn't really that laissez faire, he was FIRMLY in support of legislation to protect the populace by ensuring markets are actually competitive, it's just that Britain at the time mostly ruined market competitiveness via mercantilist over-regulation, particularly in having favored domestic industries and international trade) and in doing so missed the actually great part of the book in which he slowly and methodically builds economics from the ground up in front of your eyes. You get the feeling you're watching the great pyramids emerge in front of you, there's a hard-to-capture GRANDEUR to the work in the thoroughness of Smith's autism and the gifts it produced.

Power through book 2 when reading it though - especially the parts on debt and currency. It's insanely dry shit, but it's important because it's where he takes book 1 and generalizes his system from individuals in society to societies at the global stage, which sets the stage for the entire rest of the book, which INSANELY speeds up once it hits book 3.

[Anonymous No.22254757]

>>22254743
Smith was against a ton of state policies that favorites the wealthy like state monopolies and anti-union laws and called the hoarding of the wealthy without increasing wages or helping the poor “vile”

[Anonymous No.22254763]

>>22254136
>nobody called out the butterfly bait reference
This place is gone...

[Anonymous No.22254765]

>>22254743
>textbook
>NOOOO YOU CAN'T READ LE TEXTBOOKERINO
>YOU HAVE TO TOTALLY READ LE BULLSHIT ALTURHO ROGINAL WORK
>IT MAKES A LOT OF DIFFERENCE
I'm not reading that crap. If it can't be made to fit in a textbook, it is not like it is worth it for me to learn it anyway. It is that simple. Why would I read a 1000 page book just so that I can seethe on the internet? I would rather read some literature.

[Anonymous No.22254778]

>>22254765
Adam Smith is about a hundred times as interesting as an economics textbook

[Anonymous No.22254792]

>>22254778
Ok, convince me, post a bunch of "quote highlights" of it. Because I'm considering reading an economics textbook, but it is going to be either that or that book.

[Anonymous No.22254799]

>>22254763
>butterfag trip
Is it not the same attention seeking faggot from before? I’ve been on sabbatical from this place for a bit

[Anonymous No.22254804]

>>22254778
When it comes to economics the more interesting it is.. the more I assume it’s inaccurate. There may be exceptions to that rule but as a general concept I find it to be true.

[Anonymous No.22254892]

>>22254804
Interesting postulate and therefore false

[Anonymous No.22254897]

>>22254765
It's pretty much the inspiring work bootstrapping the entire field from
>economics basically doesn't exist
to
>someone is gonna write a textbook based on this book someday
you kinda owe it to yourself if you like economics to read it at some point.

Also, with the exception of the part of book 2 I called out, it's entertaining as hell - wanting textbooks instead is like just getting a handjob when you've got a 10/10 prostitute begging you to do whatever you want. Smith's an absolute monster of a man and has an encyclopedic list of historic and contemporary examples and justifying reasons for any assumption he makes, it's impressive, it's scary, and you get to learn about a lot of really, really weird and interesting historic trivia.

>>22254792
Read book 1. If you don't like it, you're not going to like the rest.
>still too long, narrow it down for me
I'd read a chapter,
>CHAPTER X. OF WAGES AND PROFIT IN THE DIFFERENT EMPLOYMENTS OF LABOUR AND STOCK,
which is Smith taking a brief aside in book 1 from establishing his theory of wealth to talk at length about
>Common sense says good professions should just get flooded by interlopers until wages equalize, but obviously some jobs get paid more
>Everyone wants to get paid more, why are jobs are paid different, and how can rational individuals exploit this?
It's pretty representative of how he talks about everything - he breaks down both all the rational and irrational reasons any job gets paid more or less, both due to the nature of those employments and due to British fuckery, and gives a thousand interesting examples of how this affects different professions, my favorite being his discussion of the lottery of the sea. https://www.econlib.org/book-chapters/chapter-b-i-ch-10-of-wages-and-profit-in-the-different-employments-of-labour-and-stock/ had the best online typesetting I could find.

>all that shit's common sense, why would I read this?
If the answer is common sense to you today, it's in no small part because a chapter like the above so thoroughly knocked the subject out of the park it became folk wisdom for the next 250 years.

[Anonymous No.22255328]

>>22254799
nope. It was a dike, actually.
She mentioned Updike once, an anon made a legendary joke, and she left in shame never to be seen.

[Anonymous No.22255464]

>>22254452
Nah he's popular because when taken out of context when he's shitting on mercantile systems, you can clip him out of context and make him sound like he supports lolbertarian business-friendly capitalism, which he would've brutally spat on if it existed at the time.

Basically all of his deregulation focus was focused on eliminating market failures that could make a market "business friendly". To the extent corporations had to exist (he genuinely HATES them, and his tear-down of the British East India company is LEGENDARILY savage), he wanted them starving, hungry, desperate, and brutally subjected to the public so as to force them to maximize wages for the worker, limit the political influence and power of business, maximally deny businesses' right and ability to cooperate and form cooperations, deny them rights to exploit monopolies, and in general serve to enrich the public and society at large, rather than exploit the populace to enrich a minority of the public.

[Anonymous No.22255499]

>>22253944
i'm sure he would stab people if he woke up today and found America as it is.

starting with the britishers and the catholics who constitute this group: >>22254111
>the neo-libs

>No one reads smith
I do, he's ok.

[Anonymous No.22255515]

>>22255464
>Basically all of his deregulation focus was focused on eliminating market failures that could make a market "business friendly". To the extent corporations had to exist (he genuinely HATES them, and his tear-down of the British East India company is LEGENDARILY savage), he wanted them starving, hungry, desperate, and brutally subjected to the public so as to force them to maximize wages for the worker, limit the political influence and power of business, maximally deny businesses' right and ability to cooperate and form cooperations, deny them rights to exploit monopolies, and in general serve to enrich the public and society at large, rather than exploit the populace to enrich a minority of the public.
AMEN SIR, AMEN SIR

[Anonymous No.22255572]

>>22255515
>Literal enlightenment era scholar and philosopher writing in an era with literal royalty acting with absolute impunity, responding to regulations and conditions in his home country so bad for the poor that the advice for Scottish highlander women is "have twenty children: you want two to make it, don't you?"
you, after 250 years of society restructuring itself based on his work to implement basically everything he suggested and it being an overwhelming success on all metrics:
>omg smith saying we should make things better??? heckin le based soijack cringeeeee!!!
Your brain is massively irony poisoned, when setting policy, you have to discuss ideals. Smith's very explicitly included "the worker and commoner deserves a good society".
>Is this improvement in the circumstances of the lower ranks of the people to be regarded as an advantage, or as an inconveniency, to the society? The answer seems at first abundantly plain. Servants, labourers, and workmen of different kinds, make up the far greater part of every great political society. But what improves the circumstances of the greater part, can never be regarded as any inconveniency to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, clothe, and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, clothed, and lodged...
>The liberal reward of labour, therefore, as it is the effect of increasing wealth, so it is the cause of increasing population. To complain of it, is to lament over the necessary cause and effect of the greatest public prosperity.

[Anonymous No.22255603]

didn't adam smith hate landlords

[Anonymous No.22255623]

>>22255603
He hated renting in general

[Anonymous No.22255654]

>>22255572
>you, after 250 years of society restructuring itself based on his work to implement basically everything he suggested and it being an overwhelming success on all metrics
What on gaias earth are you talking about? America, in Smiths time, was still the land for small rural farmsteaders with low centralization. The notion that "you're on track today" (you fucking idiot whoever you are speaking for the Clintons) is an absurdism on several obvious fronts,

ah what the hell,
1) TARIFFS : designed to 'limit' imports and encourage national production in surplus has become the single largest source of revenue for ...not only the american government, but many east india company model governments, at obvious costs to all parties but the governments themselves, this single issue is what neo-liberalism and "free trade" has been about in the last century, at every angle it can be traced back to this one single thing. Are you suggesting that this was his idea? If so it didn't exist, such was the insanity of it, until the early 1900's.

speaking of early 1900's insanity,
2) FEDERAL RESERVE LLC.
Not only do we start heavily debasing the currency (moreso than Lincoln) but 'we' hand this sovereignty to a private company. If 1) was bad 2) is nearly as bad.

3) THE CONTROLLED PRESS
Something Washington made a point to denounce in the 1700's and which the founding fathers, all people really, held in common trust was the free press; which was dissolved by Abraham Lincoln to stifle dissent during his various wars and purges of the indians.

4) THE DELUGE OF THE THIRTEEN COLONIES WITH CATHOLIC IMMIGRANTS
goes without saying

5) THE DELUGE OF THE FRENCH COLONIES WITH CATHOLIC SPANIARDS
also goes without saying


I'm not sure what point you were trying to make but modern America is far from the virginia that it was at the time of the relevant parties, much debased and abused, and I would agree with Marquis Lafayette that for such scope of abandon and criminality there is only one sure culprit: religion.

> Smith's very explicitly included "the worker and commoner deserves a good society".
AMEN SIR, and yet you deny The People this at every opportunity by claiming that they possess this already! Britishers! Catholics! ha, such simpleminded slovenly political sophistry, sir, may fly amongst the Catholics but not amongst the civilized races.

[Anonymous No.22255692]

>>22255654
based goldbug schizoposter can't handle being fiat'ed lol

[Anonymous No.22255732]

>>22255692
>fiat
if you like it so much I'll write £5,000,000 on a sheet of toilet paper and exchange it with o for your house. you can choose the colour of the crayon i will use.

Now imagine that you own a small nation and that this toilet paper is being used by dozens of persons to enter your treasury and withdraw your gold bullion.

you see the horror

[Anonymous No.22255772]

>>22255732
Hmmm... is your toilet paper capable of being used to purchase wage labor and fixed and movable commodities, as protected and ensured by the world's greatest military power?

Gotta see if I'm getting a better deal with your toilet paper than mine, kinda like mine, tee bee H

[Anonymous No.22255790]

>>22255772
>Hmmm... is your toilet paper capable of
Absolutely, I am a mad man with a gun, they'll do as I say or I'll shoot them in the stomach, they'll learn. It is the same with any paper currency.

[Anonymous No.22255805]

>>22255790
I’ve heard rumors “they” have a few more than one gunman, seems like it might be a tall order for you to keep up, buckaroo.

Besides what are you even gonna do with gold, use it for decoupage? Seems a little out of your skillset, frankly.

[Anonymous No.22255820]

>>22255805
difference is, timmy, with my money you come to me direct like, not go through no middle men like the polis does.

Now, before you go on, I will merely add that AM FEDERAL RESERVE LLC. ALL ALONG and
metaphor
and
bored with this

[Anonymous No.22255952]

>>22255820
nta but complaining about Catholics in 2023 is like complaining about Zunes, they have no current impact and their time is past. the free press is freer than its ever been in the internet era (anyone anywhere can publish anything), tariffs suck shit and probably causes the great depression, the fed’s not an LLC, gold and other precious metals are dogshit as a modern reserve currency (google asteroid mining, the universe basically throws an inexhaustible supply of them at us, there just isn’t much incentive to collect any of it since we went fiat), santa claus isn’t real, and your mother is a prostitute.

[Anonymous No.22256011]

>>22253944
>continues to mog every new theory of economics
Anon he was against rent and usury.

[Anonymous No.22256024]

>>22254618
>The funny thing about all the commies that hate him
Actual commies have read Das Kapital and know just how much of OG Marxism is built on Smith.

[Anonymous No.22256044]

>>22253944
he does not really mog on the economic aspect desu

[Anonymous No.22256283]

>>22254098
I’d argue the contrary that most laws regarding sexual conduct are based on sentimentalism

[Anonymous No.22256298]

>>22256024
> Actual commies have read Das Kapital
Bruh, most commies didn’t even sit through the manifesto. You had too much weed at your DSA chapter if you think even 0.1% of commies slogged their way through Das.

[Anonymous No.22256311]

>>22256024
>Actual commies have read Das Kapital

Bruh moment.

[Anonymous No.22256409]

>>22256298
>>22256311
actual not most
some dedicate the time, the rest shitpost on social media and pretend they've read it
most libertarians also probably haven't even read mises
same goes for any ideology and their respective canon, sadly
actual actual commies organize :^)

[Anonymous No.22257169]

>>22253944
Adam Smith bros, now that I've finished Adam, I feel lost and wayward on my economics journey. Who do I need to read next?

[Anonymous No.22257182]

>>22254763
>LOOK GUYS A WOMAN LOOK GUYS THERE'S A WOMAN HERE
pathetic

[Anonymous No.22257187]

>>22255328
what was the joke anon

[Anonymous No.22257189]

>>22257169
marx obviously. but learning economics as a science by reading adam smith is retarded, if you actually want to study economics as a science you'd be better off picking up intro econ textbooks. however all those are super simplified because they're intro books so they present things as fact that are actually way more complex, like minimum wage law, rent control, labor unions, origin of money, etc

[Anonymous No.22257263]

https://www.ineteconomics.org/education/courses/the-economics-of-money-banking


Perry G. Mehrling

Learn to read, understand, and evaluate professional discourse about the current operation of money markets at the level of the Financial Times.

>1: The Four Prices of Money
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLmtuEaMvhDZbmfO7rtVLBGJ4Eu_iFBtSU
>2: The Natural Hierarchy of Money
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLmtuEaMvhDZbVJfl0Se-1eQncA_2ZB4bs
>3: Money and the State: Domestic
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLmtuEaMvhDZZyyAkEniNUMTTnlJj6qiKW
>4: The Money View, Macro and Micro
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLmtuEaMvhDZYfVv95KDQWd8-7UrJCJ9Pm
>5: The Central Bank as a Clearinghouse
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLmtuEaMvhDZZh6zLsntFVt3UIgQ3VqvVv
>6: Federal Funds, Final Settlement
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLmtuEaMvhDZapRsqgacn0gLLO-5zQkcwU
>7: Repos, Postponing Settlement
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLmtuEaMvhDZZJrTj6tyB41ollE3V9ICDZ
>8: Eurodollars, Parallel Settlement
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLmtuEaMvhDZZ0iHoJmCN30Qm0PgyiD4c9
>9: The World that Bagehot Knew
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLmtuEaMvhDZYdsq2xV-XMH_BktZzORjM2
>10: Dealers and Liquid Security Markets
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLmtuEaMvhDZa6t0f1aooC1QzPJmupu1Lg
>11: Banks and the Market for Liquidity
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLmtuEaMvhDZYlJeLypSZ5px_JnVHgFmOq
>12: Lender/Dealer of Last Resort
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLmtuEaMvhDZaBnW0RhzOOk6FO91MdsSEc
>13: Chartalism, Metallism and Key Currencies
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLmtuEaMvhDZa7lHhyQgkwSIhFy9VRF3my
>14: Money and the State: International
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLmtuEaMvhDZZT848wo0fKzpjMm0FcOTv2
>15: Banks and Global Liquidity
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLmtuEaMvhDZZfzK2aL4YHCgJDHIvicnkZ
>16: Foreign Exchange
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLmtuEaMvhDZaxgF-8EmoGUox54zLH6PC6
>17: Direct and Indirect Finance
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLmtuEaMvhDZYoo6ou5q3LQBC34hqw1A_G
>18: Forwards and Futures
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLmtuEaMvhDZZk--VcZIQCbki7JiVt4-hF
>19: Interest Rate Swaps
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLmtuEaMvhDZb_WqDkpWLvzOmROPXf8bzL
>20: Credit Default Swaps
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLmtuEaMvhDZYv1g1Yp_AE5gFqJ7Ny80Hc
>21: Central Banking for Shadow Banking
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLmtuEaMvhDZYl_kIW7KgBDCBNoUraW8zU
>22: Touching the Elephant: Three Views
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLmtuEaMvhDZYAHtKBvxC7dL-eL8apCOGD

[Anonymous No.22257265]

>>22257189
Economics is not science.

[Anonymous No.22257327]

>>22253944
>The interest of the dealers, however, in any particular branch of trade or manufactures, is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public. To widen the market and to narrow the competition, is always the interest of the dealers. To widen the market may frequently be agreeable enough to the interest of the public; but to narrow the competition must always be against it, and can serve only to enable the dealers, by raising their profits above what they naturally would be, to levy, for their own benefit, an absurd tax upon the rest of their fellow-citizens. The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it.

Eternally based Adam Smith

[Anonymous No.22257403]

>>22257265
Yes it is you cur
>does experiments with hypothesis
>collects data on results
>tries to determine if hypothesis was correct
Textbook. Science.

[Anonymous No.22257430]

>>22254111
>land lords are parasites
The land lord takes the risk of buying the property whereas the renter only pays for the privilege of living there temporarily. If an earthquake destroys the house, the landlord, not the renter, suffers. If the housing market crashes, the landlord suffers. The principle is no different than a hotel: you don’t want to, or you can’t afford to, buy the hotel, so you pay for the privilege of living there temporarily. The renter doesn’t want to, or can’t afford to, buy the house, so he pays for the privilege of living there temporarily. If landlordism was such an easy and guaranteed way to make money, then surely everybody would do it, and the level of competition would so saturate the market that rent prices would drop astronomically; thus the market would adjust itself in the favour of renters and landlordism would no longer be so easily profitable.

[Anonymous No.22257441]

>>22254714
I have. He’s decent.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.22257448]

What a stupid retard you are. You dont know anything about economics until you read Friedman

[Anonymous No.22257451]

>>22257448
No. Read the Austrian Economists. Particularly Rothbard’s What Has The Government Done To Our Money? It exposes how Friedman and his type predicted that the dollar was actually propping up gold, and when we move onto a fiat system, the price of gold will fall drastically to its “natural” price. In fact the opposite happened: we’ve seen massive inflation just as the Austrian libertarians would have predicted

[Anonymous No.22257609]

>>22257430
>would drop
that's the whole crisis.
people need the homes, so the prices don't actually drop, they're just extorted.

reminds me of a commie theorizing a rich person could basically rent to workers, take a very small cut to keep increasing his housing ability, and reinvesting the rest on the houses; he would, then, make better conditions for all of those people, and tip the market that way by offering a cheaper and better service than all the others.

[Anonymous No.22258424]

shiiiit

[Anonymous No.22258438]

>>22257403
Or the jews control everything and what economics posits diverts attention away from the fact.

[Anonymous No.22258474]

>>22257430
Stories about "risk" are just meant to justify wealth. The de facto reason a landlord, or anybody for that matter, commands a certain cash flow or capitalized value is because of their competitive position. That's basically it. Some people do see an advantage to renting, most people just rent because they can't afford anything else. Because of their lack of power/competitive position relative to their landlord, they resent the landlord because they feel like the landlord forces their hand. Which, the landlord basically does in that arrangement. It is what it is.

[Anonymous No.22258523]

>>22258474
Incidentally if you have the liquid cash to outright buy rental properties, they can be very profitable because their price includes a cost of capital. The typical assumption for the expense ratio on rental properties is about 50%, though most developers really seek expense ratios between 30-40%. So the actual operating costs of a property are assumed to be rather low, half of the market rent is just returns to capital. But the vast amount of small real estate investors usually don't have the money to buy a property outright, and the large real estate investors want to leverage their capital as much as they can to grow their asset value quickly, which over time with payments on their debts turn into equity they can tap into through sales or more leverage. So most landlords aren't going to get a 50% profit on a property since they either don't want to (because its more lucrative in the long term to leverage) or are incapable of doing so because they don't have enough money. But that is also why there are lots of small landlords with a couple of properties that just coast on that money. They either paid off the properties a long time ago or maybe inherited them in the family or something, and they make a fat margin on a couple of properties that basically allows them to be comfortably lazy. Not really "rich", just making a modest income for not doing much.

[Anonymous No.22258549]

>>22255952
>complaining about Catholics
Nah, you all need to be subjugated because you oppose the necessary inquiry into the root psyche and politics 'of' Catholicism, which is at the heart of what is broken in Europe.

e.g. you'll oppose a true refutation of Religion, Judaism and Islam, because of you identity with that cult, for example, and this is true for many other errors in Catholicism which animate you against self-betterment; the nihilism, sexual-hang-ups, etc., when these fundamental things are addressed you stand in the way and attempt to demoralize and undermine the inquiry, being motivated purely and entirely by religion.

Even here in this direct response to an economic matter you are found to be undermining inquiry and contradicting reality,
>the free press is freer than its ever been
you belong in a bomb-collar, charging to your death against others like you.

[Anonymous No.22258802]

>>22254484
Then choose what, pray tell?

[Anonymous No.22258899]

>>22257430
The main risk of owning land is that someone will take it from you, which is a risk borne by the state and society at large.
>If landlordism was such an easy and guaranteed way to make money, then surely everybody would do it, and the level of competition would so saturate the market that rent prices would drop astronomically;
There is a limited amount of land

[Anonymous No.22259175]

>>22258549
And you belong in a mental hospital if you think the biggest problem, or even a top 100 problem, facing Europe in 2023 is “Catholics”

[Anonymous No.22259488]

>>22259175
Oh yeah I know right, "because (out-group) is the focus," you stupid cunts don't want to understand that (in-group) is only abused by (out-group) due to cultural idiocy; when you oppose correction of the in-group, you're the one making it impossible to deal with the problems faced by the in-group, so you're the impediment in the way of solving those problems.

But more than this, you're english language and defending catholicism, which we english were the first to recognize and drive from the land at knife point. You're a traitor and an enemy agent, serving the synagogue of satan; just on general principle there can be no mercy for this.

[Anonymous No.22259717]

>>22259488
>you're english language and defending catholicism, which we english were the first to recognize and drive from the land at knife point. You're a traitor and an enemy agent,
Lol you still think England and France are war, the Normans called, they want their retard back

[Anonymous No.22259759]

>>22258474
>Stories about "risk" are just meant to justify wealth
They're not stories. They're real. If you thought there was no risk you would invest all you have right now into property and become rich. Clearly you do think there is risk. Put your money where your mouth is or shut up.
>Because of their lack of power/competitive position relative to their landlord, they resent the landlord because they feel like the landlord forces their hand
The landlord didn't make them poor. They were already poor. The landlord simply gives them a place to live for a fee so instead of buying a house, which they can't afford to do, they decide to pay a lesser amount for a temporary right to live in someone else's property. Nobody is wronged here. The landlords are in fact providing a great social service since they fund the construction and development of properties for people who would never be able to afford to buy something like that but get to live there anyway thus improving their quality of life.
If you don't believe in private property you can move to a communist country where nobody owns anything but all are entitled to live in disgusting commie blocks.

[Anonymous No.22261281]

>>22259717
>angleterror vs francopan
not sure what the fuck that has to do with your traitoriousness, jon-jon

[Anonymous No.22261312]

>>22259759
>disgusting commie blocks
every major city on planet earf

[Anonymous No.22261335]

James Soll, Free Market: the History of an Idea.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-_nI1ZipY4

[Anonymous No.22261366]

>>22257403
Economics do have an issue with conducting experiments in controlled environments with unbiased interpretations.

[Anonymous No.22261394]

>>22257430
>If landlordism was such an easy and guaranteed way to make money, then surely everybody would do it
You need seed capital for that, which >95% of the people simply don't have.

>The land lord takes the risk
Thing is - you are not even wrong, even if you are exaggerating the risk. But this does exactly absolutely fucking nothing to balance the economy - it only serves to make the system less balanced, as instead of everyone owning some property and using/renting it out, it is dominated by a few people who gambled and scored a jackpot (at which point they no longer need to take excessive risks with all-or-nothing investments), while the overwhelming majority of people who try and bridge the gap end up losing everything and returning to poverty. Curiously, when they end up losing everything - they lose it to the abovementioned whales.

Which essentially means that the system is effectively a casino, where a few actors are the house, and the rest of them are customers. The house can only get richer, and the totality of the gamblers can only get poorer - even when one more wins the jackpot, he scores at the cost of other gamblers, so the whales totality gets bigger and richer, while the rest only gets poorer.

The most curious thing here is that it means that the whales are actively interested in keeping the whole process a casino. What are the main actors that cause the risk? Are they man-made? If they are man-made, then what men do make them? It's sure as fuck not earthquakes.

Also
>>22257430
>If an earthquake destroys the house, the landlord, not the renter, suffers.
If an earthquake destroys the house where the renter lives it would typically make the renter fucking dead.

[Anonymous No.22261540]

>>22261394
>You need seed capital for that, which >95% of the people simply don't have.
No you don't. There are many companies out there which allow you to buy shares in property and pay out dividends from the rent collected. You don't need to be rich enough to fund the construction of an entirely new property by yourself.
>Which essentially means that the system is effectively a casino
You can only get rich in a capitalist country by satisfying some economic demand. So if you build a successful business it almost follows necessarily that you have provide a great service to society. If your business fails it means you did not provide a good enough service since nobody wanted to use your business.

[Anonymous No.22261739]

>>22261394
>>22261540
these re good arguments for the legalization of child porn, child sex (snuff variety), selling heroin in candy form,

it's just the market innit

I think that's the proper way to look at these debt-borrowing currency debasing speculators; doing great harm all the time, only because it's not explicitly outlawed.

[Anonymous No.22261807]

>>22261540
>shares in property
laughable, as laughable as the stock market; notice that no wealth is created by this process of coin-clipping and inflation of the value of junk goods, moreover from a business owners perspective you're now answerable to a horde of cunts who believe you owe them a living; actual value plummets, value inflated back up for the purpose of selling shares before bailing, worthless companies, stock market crash, currency worthless, jobs lost.

just complicated enough to befuddle the by-stander who thinks they're being smart by "getting into stocks" - which is where the only profit occurs; short-selling etc.

>>22257265
>>22257403
>>does experiments with hypothesis
>>collects data on results
>>tries to determine if hypothesis was correct
>Textbook. Science.

Doesn't much matter anyway, there's no central body able to control what goes on; to control anything if the findings are bad, if it existed it would be "socialistic" today and monarchistic yesterday; profit motive of business nullifies any negative results and the revolving door of the corporate body itself ensures that if a problem is too costly to remedy it will be ignored and denied for as long as possible, at the cost to the health of the state (or household).

i.e. it's not in mummys interest to make sure you get a good nutritional intake, it's in mummys interest to fill your belly,if you crap the bed and go mad from lack of vitamins, well shit nigger, that's a LONG TERM problem, not of any interest to mummys short-term business

>>22261394
>>22257430
>>land lords are parasites
>The land lord takes the risk
In a lot of ways the new business owner and new landlord are the marks of the banking system; as in: idiots being fleeced, if a business or property is up for rent or opens for the public whatever, and it closes, who wins? The bank gets the borrowers house when the loan they business owner has taken out can't be paid back.

It's just a mortgage scam moreso than a casino game. Maybe the government solution would be to tax banks rather than storefront businesses, tax the moneybox rather than taking a few coins from the idiot who takes a handful of money from the box. You'd soon see currency strengthen if that was the case, by presenting a commercial interest in banks 'having' a record of non-defaults.

[Anonymous No.22261816]

>>22261540
> There are many companies out there which allow you to buy shares in property and pay out dividends from the rent collected
Write up the expectancy for this model, will you?

>You can only get rich in a capitalist country by satisfying some economic demand
Literal casinos are satisfying an economic demand?

Anon, you're not putting forth arguments - you are coping.
>"N-no, it CANNOT be just a grift, they HAVE to be productive THEY MUST"

[Anonymous No.22261872]

>>22261816
NUH UH I borrowing $250,000 to buy shar in microsop, bill gates got to listen to me know i have powor :F

[Anonymous No.22262629]

>>22261816
>Write up the expectancy for this model, will you?
google REITs, plenty of people have done the write-up already.

[Anonymous No.22262693]

>>22261739
Heroin and porn should be illegal because it's a great poison to society. But the landlord provides value to society by funding the construction and development of properties so that people who can't afford to buy these sorts of houses get the right to live there temporarily for a fee. It is impossible to argue that this is evil or unproductive. Porn and heroin are evil and unproductive, but shelter is decidedly not.

[Anonymous No.22262936]

>>22262693
shelter and comfort is child porn and heroin, at least, you would make this argument if those things had been legalized.

[Anonymous No.22263096]

>>22254452
Why isn't Malthus super popular with landlords since he defended them the most as a net positive for spurting aggregate demand? lol

>>22255603
>didn't adam smith hate landlords
Smith had some bias towards landed wealth politically I think. What was Adam Smiths opinon on property rights generally? He whines about mobile wealth and obviously thinks landed interests are better in some sense. He was attacking mercantilist and physiocratic ideas on wealth but there's still a physiocratic streak in there.

>>22257451
The problem is Rothbard is an outright liar. No one (from left to right) in the early 70s actually thought liberalizing the price of gold would cause anything but an increase in it's dollar value. You didn't have to be sophisticated to understand that that if the gold peg was maintained all of Americas gold reserves would of been drained and transferred to Europe/Japan quickly and they wouldn't keep playing friendly. The politicians understood defaulting on the gold IOU was a good way to screw foreigners over, Friedman thought a system of free floating currencies would lead to his ideas on monetarism being implemented (although they were obviously unworkable).
Austrotards unironically thought the international gold standard would be reimposed quickly because floating rates couldn't work, that never happened and never will by this point obviously. There's some very funny book with collected essays on mises.org I can't find right now published shortly after Nixon abandoned the gold standard and most everyone in it is predicting hyperinflation and the return to gold within a decade (Rothbard contributed). Adjust gold to the rate of inflation and what do you see? Things started normalizing in the early 1980s... and I'm talking official inflation rates here... if you go by kooky Austrotard made up higher rates gold has relatively massively declined in real value since than lol

[Anonymous No.22263952]

>>22263096
The gold standard is objectively superior to fiat (though inferior to crypto) because it represents a real check to government control over the money supply. You can't print gold, though the alchemists tried. Now the situation in the 70s WAS precarious, but that was only after a long attack on gold by the banker/state cartel which led to all foreign currencies redeeming in dollars instead of gold (as the original idea of a bank was), and only dollars redeeming in gold. This is all explained by Rothbard.

Friedman and his ilk must have a tough time explaining why giving the bankers and State the ability to rob the whole of society by printing money (that is what inflation is: robbery) is actually "necessary" and good for us.

[Anonymous No.22264142]

>>22263952
It always failed, every currency ever pegged to gold ended up breaking the peg eventually therefor it's objectively inferior. There's zero reason to trust a government or private corporation telling you some IOU is worth some fixed quantity of gold in perpetuity, it always leads to bankruptcy. America just grew in power after abandoning trying to fix the price of the dollar despite doomers. Rothbards whole issue was with the entire idea of floating exchange rates and crypto just expands on that lol
The gold standard didn't just impose fiscal burdens on governments but the private sector as well, the private sector has way more control over the "money supply" (whatever that is) today than under the gold standard obviously so the private sector won't rebuild it and you can't get even a plurality of governments interested so it's promoted by crank pseudointellectuals