What are some good economics books besides this one? No loopy leftist shit like Keynes or Marx

File: 15 KB, 329x500, 31dAaWOs9cL.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Tue Jun 2 13:25:29 2015 No.6628465 [Reply] [Original]

What are some good economics books besides this one? No loopy leftist shit like Keynes or Marx

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 13:26:59 2015 No.6628468 >>6628465 >Keynes >Leftist letrashman.jpg I bet you're American

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 13:27:50 2015 No.6628472 It's pretty funny how most people who want to be introduced to economics here already have an idea of what is the right and what is the wrong one before they start.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 13:27:55 2015 No.6628473 The theory of money and credit - Ludwig von mises

Anonymous Tue Jun 2 13:29:59 2015 No.6628476

>>6628468

Keynes is pretty obviously left.

>>6628472

Well of course, we know what's right. We know that right wing economics have led to the wealthiest countries on Earth and left wing economics have led to poverty and misery. So yeah I don't want any of that insane leftist trash shoved in my brain, sorry.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 13:34:40 2015 No.6628492 >>6628476 >I don't want any of that insane leftist trash shoved in my brain In your case, trust me, you won't run out of space there anytime soon.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 13:35:33 2015 No.6628497 >>6628465 Start with the Classical Economists

Anonymous Tue Jun 2 13:35:38 2015 No.6628498
File: 228 KB, 1000x700, success_breeds_jealousy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6628476
Left of von Mises, Smith, and Friedman sure. But Keynes is pretty solidly centrist considering that actual, honest to God, leftists are Marx, Bakunin and that lot.

>We know that right wing economics have led to the wealthiest countries on Earth and left wing economics have led to poverty and misery

TOPKEK
O
P
K
E
K

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 13:37:20 2015 No.6628508 >>6628465 >good economics books besides this one >Thomas Sowell Why don't you go ask /pol/ if you're afraid to learn something that you cannot easily fit into your worldview?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 13:37:27 2015 No.6628510 >>6628465 You should check out Rostow. If you like that then check out Kuznets and you'll be all set to work at the World Bank. >>6628476 >Wealthy >For you Them SAPs sure worked mane

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 13:41:48 2015 No.6628520 >>6628476 >We know that right wing economics have led to the wealthiest countries on Earth and left wing economics have led to poverty and misery Uhuh. Stick to meme economists like Walter Block and Bob Murphy then.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 13:44:37 2015 No.6628530 File: 11 KB, 297x317, 1328928044802.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6628476 Jesus Christ.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 13:46:59 2015 No.6628533 Check out Gary Becker. >No loopy leftist shit You're a pleb though.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 13:47:03 2015 No.6628534 File: 82 KB, 450x680, Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_Century_(front_cover).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] The only economics book you'll ever have to read.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 13:49:30 2015 No.6628539 >>6628534 outdated theory

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 13:50:24 2015 No.6628543 File: 131 KB, 480x800, Screenshot_2015-06-02-10-49-08.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] This is in an Amazon review for the book, on what the author left out

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 13:51:03 2015 No.6628546 >>6628539 Could you elaborate?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 13:55:10 2015 No.6628558 File: 130 KB, 480x800, Screenshot_2015-06-02-10-52-11.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Wouldn't rent control keep the prices down?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 13:56:55 2015 No.6628564 >>6628498 If nordic countries were states in the USA, they would be part of the poorest states (except for oil-rich norway) This "nordic countries are great" maymay is complete misinformation.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 13:57:11 2015 No.6628566 >>6628465 Mises, his students, and his intellectual ancestors.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 13:57:47 2015 No.6628567 >>6628546 The reality today is neoliberal, so you have to take into account things like human capital even if you want to critique neoliberalism.

Anonymous Tue Jun 2 13:58:25 2015 No.6628572

>>6628558
is this from the sowell book?

i suppose it might indirectly cause higher prices if higher demand increases prices for any flats that aren't already at the rent ceiling

landlords could also start looking for ways to indirectly increase prices (so that the rent stays at a legal limit but there are certain other charges)

I'm just speculating though

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 14:00:02 2015 No.6628577 >>6628564 You do understand that "larger wealth" doesn't mean better social standards, right?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 14:01:06 2015 No.6628581 >>6628564 Whatever is the case, "poorest states" isn't the same as "poorest societies".

Anonymous Tue Jun 2 14:01:46 2015 No.6628584

If you've even considered reading Sowell, Keynes is beyond your comprehension. You're wrong that he's a leftist, but who cares? You wouldn't understand it anyway. The General Theory is not a book for a general audience.

Read an introductory macro and micro textbook, those are for a general audience.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 14:05:50 2015 No.6628596 >>6628465 Refute Say's law. Please, just do it.

Anonymous Tue Jun 2 14:07:13 2015 No.6628603

>>6628577
It usually correlates pretty well...

Regardless, the average swedish standard of living is inferior to the american standard of living.

>>6628581
Once again, it usually correlates pretty well.

Here's a video from Stefan Memelyneux about the subject. Whatever you think about the guy his stats are sound and this will perhaps change your opinion about nordic countries, which you've gobbled up from mainstream american leftist propaganda.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNtyV0CXfzU

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 14:09:14 2015 No.6628605 >>6628476 You realize the modern consensus is a synthesis of keynesian and neoclassical thought, right?

Anonymous Tue Jun 2 14:33:24 2015 No.6628677

>>6628603
That's not what you said though. You said that right wing economics leads only to prosperity and that what you consider leftist economics (which isn't leftist at all) leads to only poverty and misery. That is your position. Which is, after all, wrong. Also, I think it's hilarious that you link to a Stefan Molyneux video, who studied history, not economics. So, for every voice like Molyneux, there are hundreds of others who virulently disagree. The consensus isn't always right, but it can at least point in the right direction. Read real economists. And that includes Keynes and other centrists. But since you won't because ideas to the left of Genghis Kahn seem to make you uncomfortable.

Anonymous Tue Jun 2 14:41:08 2015 No.6628709

>>6628603
Molyneux continues to be the funniest accidental comedian on YouTube

"living in Scandanavia is actually better than living in the US, because of capitalism there. but also, its actually worse to live there, because of the socialism."

if this guy is at all convincing to you, seek help, not books

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 14:48:56 2015 No.6628759 >>6628543 This is just disgusting. I don't even know how can anyone read this and think it's good.

Anonymous Tue Jun 2 15:03:49 2015 No.6628828

>>6628564
Norway fag here. What you say is correct, except the part where you say oil-rich Norway is an exception. It certainly is not. Even though, with the help of the oil industry, we did manage to reach the income levels of an average American state, about 65 percent of our income is taxed. Sweden is far worse and they will certainly see a rapid decline in standard of living in the coming decades. Don’t believe all the hype, the average Scandinavian lives in cheap apartment blocks.

Anonymous Tue Jun 2 15:18:19 2015 No.6628904

>>6628476

>left wing economics have led to poverty and misery
the sure fire way to identify someone who has no idea about modern economics (you clearly think socialism and keynesianism = collectivism (pic related))

>USA is currently the world's biggest economy
>only reason it survived the wall street crash was through left leaning economics like the New Deal

>China is the fastest growing economy and second largest
>the Chinese use market socialism
>Germany is the strongest European economy
>they use a social market economy (a form of market capitalism combined with social insurance)

>The Nordic model (Nordic social democracy) refers to the economic and social models of the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Norway, Iceland, and Sweden), which involves the combination of a free market economy with a welfare state
>these countries have the highest happiness in Europe and are some of the wealthiest nations in the world

Get the fuck outta here with your pathetic lackluster education ya pleb.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 15:19:52 2015 No.6628909 File: 41 KB, 561x419, collectivist economics.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6628904 forgot pic

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 15:23:48 2015 No.6628941 >>6628904 /thread

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 15:27:42 2015 No.6628965 >>6628465 Seriously, if you haven't read marx you have no idea how economy works... every serious economist, YES EVEN THE ULTRA RIGHT WING ONES, have read it... seriously, your desire to be rebellious to your parents makes you unable to learn

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 15:35:39 2015 No.6629017 >>6628476 you're a special kind of ignorant

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 15:36:05 2015 No.6629019 >>6628965 >>6628904 these tbh

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 15:36:40 2015 No.6629023 >>6628759 >>6628572 It's not from the book, it's from an Amazon reviewer on what the book left out Like I said

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 15:43:30 2015 No.6629062 >>6628543 what a load of bollocks >>6628558 I suppose landlords, whilst keeping in line with legal rent limits could charge for other services to increase profit as they are in their legal right to do so

Anonymous Tue Jun 2 15:47:30 2015 No.6629085

>>6628904
>only reason it survived the wall street crash was through left leaning economics like the New Deal>only reason

America would have made it through the depression without introducing leftist policies. Even during the depression it still had the largest economy in the world compared to any other country, even adjusted for population.

>China is the fastest growing economy and second largest
>the Chinese use market socialism

I don’t see why China is a good example. They have four times the population of America, yet they only barely surpass the American economy and the wealth inequality is even worse. Living standards in China are awful.

>Germany is the strongest European economy
>they use a social market economy (a form of market capitalism combined with social insurance)

Germany is strongest European economy because of the German people’s ability to work efficiently, it takes a particularly bad system to fuck up it’s economy. Despite this, the German economy still doesn’t perform as well as the American.

>The Nordic model (Nordic social democracy) refers to the economic and social models of the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Norway, Iceland, and Sweden), which involves the combination of a free market economy with a welfare state
>these countries have the highest happiness in Europe and are some of the wealthiest nations in the world

The economy in these countries (except Norway) are all stagnant and not nearly as decent as the American. You have to look at other factors to determine why they have the degree of happiness as they do.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 15:48:40 2015 No.6629096 Landsberg: The Armchair Economist

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 15:52:02 2015 No.6629110 >>6628904 >>6629085 this is a piss-poor level of debate, please fuck off to /pol/

Anonymous Tue Jun 2 16:13:43 2015 No.6629226

>>6628677
>/lit/ is one person
this was my first post in this thread : >>6628564

Although I do agree with his statement

> That is your position. Which is, after all, wrong.
Why? Do you have any counter examples? I'm all ears.

>Also, I think it's hilarious that you link to a Stefan Molyneux video, who studied history, not economics.
Appeal to authority. His statistics are all sourced.

> Read real economists.
I've read rothbard.

But tbh economics bores me.

>>6628709
Did we watch the same video?

He doesn't claim that it's better to live in Scandinavia. In fact towards the end of the video he makes it pretty clear that standards of living are inferior in scandinavia compared to the USA.

All he says is that the scandinavian welfare state was built upon some of the richest countries in the world at the time, and all it's achieved since then is cause them to economically regress.

>>6628828
That bad eh? How the fuck can they justify a 65% income tax when they have so much oil money?

Anonymous Tue Jun 2 16:15:20 2015 No.6629233

>>6628904
There are many errors in your post.

>these countries have the highest happiness in Europe and are some of the wealthiest nations in the world
is blatantly wrong. However much you repeat that scandinavian countries are "happier" (how the fuck can you quantify happiness?) and "wealthier" (which is clearly false) won't make it true.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 16:17:13 2015 No.6629237 >>6629233 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Happiness_Report read up fag

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 16:17:35 2015 No.6629240 >>6629226 >> Read real economists. >I've read rothbard. lol

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 16:23:08 2015 No.6629266 I'd generally recommend anything written by Hayek. Guy knows what's up.

Anonymous Tue Jun 2 16:24:24 2015 No.6629268

>>6629237
Yes, I've heard of the world happiness report before.

It's a complete farce. If you think it holds any value whatsoever you are a braindead moron.

>>6629240
You know, for someone who holds economics degrees at such a high esteem, I don't think Marx was a trained economist.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 16:27:20 2015 No.6629278 >>6629268 He wasn't, you can see that in his writing. Guy was an idiot.

Anonymous Tue Jun 2 16:29:52 2015 No.6629287

>>6629085
Plus many economists nowadays belive the New Deal actually lengthened the duration of the Depression, and we only pulled out of it because World War II pulled loads of men out of the labor market while sumultaneously forcing us to develop new industry

Anonymous Tue Jun 2 17:26:54 2015 No.6629558

>>6629278
Marx and Rothbard are pretty much two sides of the same coin. Both arrived at their conclusions before they started to do any "research."

>>6629287
I do not think a single respected economist holds this position but I would be happy for you to prove me wrong.

Anonymous Tue Jun 2 17:29:18 2015 No.6629576

>>6629558
>I do not think a single respected economist holds this position but I would be happy for you to prove me wrong.
he's probably gonna argue that academia is corrupt and that harvard is an illuminati conspiracy but he knows a very respected economist who also happens to be his inbred uncle, that supports his theories

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 17:34:16 2015 No.6629615 >>6629558 > Both arrived at their conclusions before they started to do any "research." hahahahahahahahahaha

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 17:35:13 2015 No.6629623 >>6629558 >Marx and Rothbard are two sides of the same coin. Come on now.

Anonymous Tue Jun 2 18:14:50 2015 No.6629844

>>6629615
>>6629623
Marx's dialectical work had already convinced him that capitalism's demise was imminent; his project in Capital was to figure out how, exactly he was right.

Look, Marx was brilliant and Capital is worth reading for many, many reasons, but it's silly to imagine that it paints a more accurate or useful picture of economics than...pretty much everything written since them.

Anonymous Tue Jun 2 18:27:42 2015 No.6629918

>>6629558
>Both arrived at their conclusions before they started to do any "research."

Very good point. The difference being, Rothbard never pretended to be scientific. The austrian's whole school of thought is based around economics being a philosophy, not a science.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 18:28:50 2015 No.6629921 >mfw social democrats think that the Scandinavian countries are in some way left-wing economies

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 18:29:55 2015 No.6629925 >>6629918 Different anon here, marxism is not an economic science, either, but a critique of the political economy, meaning both a critique of the academic discipline and of the actual conditions it analyses.

Anonymous Tue Jun 2 18:44:01 2015 No.6629976

There is none. Economics shouldn't be taken seriously until there is a general consensus within the field. There's to many different methodologically approaches and most different schools of economic thought don't even ask the same basic questions. Don't waste your time on a pseudoscience.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 19:24:56 2015 No.6630175 >>6629576 >I have no arguments, better resort to insults!

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 19:29:40 2015 No.6630194 >>6629558 >>6629918 Yeah they're idiots, back to the main question, what economists would you recommend this guy read? I'd say Keynes, Hayek, and Friedman would be pretty good starts

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 19:30:54 2015 No.6630196 >>6630194 >Keynes Why poison your mind uneccesarily?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 19:31:18 2015 No.6630197 >>6628476 Keynes is taught in any economics class, you dummy.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 19:31:29 2015 No.6630198 >>6630196 Good context for Friedman. Plus whether you agree or not his writings are interesting.

Anonymous Tue Jun 2 19:33:57 2015 No.6630204

>>6630194
I posted this once before: an intro macroeconomics textbook and an intro microeconomics textbook.

Then move on to reading a handful of good blogs regularly, and if you're still into it you can move on to primary sources but I'm guessing he won't still be into it by then. Keynes and Hayek were not writing for general audiences, and they are frequently difficult to read even for people with advanced degrees in economics. (Friedman did write for general audiences, but I would still recommend basic textbooks instead.)

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 19:41:32 2015 No.6630227 You all know there's a business board, right? Lemme help: >>>/biz/

>>	Thomas !!2DZ1MGd6kEU Tue Jun 2 19:42:40 2015 No.6630232 File: 52 KB, 777x209, Untitled.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Divine Economy: Theology and the Market

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 19:47:35 2015 No.6630255 >>6630227 >economics isn't literature What the fuck do you want to talk about, Harry Potter? Jesus fuck, you ">>>" fags need to die. Anything pertaining to the written word is relevant to this board, faggot.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 19:50:54 2015 No.6630277 >>6630255 >lyrics are /lit/ >manga is /lit/ >comics are /lit/ >homework is /lit/ >vidya is /lit/ >scripts are /lit/ >shit with an entire board dedicated to it also belongs on /lit/ Not sure if there's a board for your brand of stupid though.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 20:01:19 2015 No.6630329 >>6629925 marxism purports to be scientific. When of course its not. >>6630194 Nope, the austrians have got it right. Economics is a philosophy.

>>	Thomas !!2DZ1MGd6kEU Tue Jun 2 20:04:07 2015 No.6630342 >>6630329 The term "science" was far less narrow in the Victorian Period than it is today, it meant more than natural philosophy.

Anonymous Tue Jun 2 20:06:30 2015 No.6630355

>>6630329
"Mises insisted that economic theory itself was an a priori discipline. What he meant is that economists shouldn't ape the methods of physicists by coming up with hypotheses and subjecting them to empirical tests. On the contrary, Mises thought that the core body of economic theory could be logically deduced from the axiom of "human action," i.e., the insight or viewpoint that there are other conscious beings using their reason to achieve subjective goals."

You can never be wrong if you don't care about being right, either.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 20:25:38 2015 No.6630438 >>6630355 Logic can be applied to philosophy. Its quite easy to reason what is right and wrong in economics, without using experiments of any kind. Never the less, the austrian's theories have been proven correct when applied to the real world.

>>	Thomas !!LO4w5ewivJQ Tue Jun 2 20:27:40 2015 No.6630447 >>6630438 If labor didn't contribute to value, employers wouldn't pay for it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 20:29:18 2015 No.6630455 >>6630438 If this is your view, you don't actually care to learn anything about economics, so whether you're OP or not, it doesn't really matter what I tell you.

Anonymous Tue Jun 2 20:39:54 2015 No.6630490

>>6628904
>>6629085
Modern economics explain the depression following the crash as largely related to deflation; the New Deal had only a slight (negative) affect on the economy of the time; most of the economic issues of the time were due to mis-applied protectionism, higher interest rates, and their resultant decreased money supply.

>China is the fastest growing economy and second largest
In the places it's growing, China is practicing a brand of Capitalism more ruthless than any ever seen before on this earth. In fact, its older socialist institutions are largely holding the Chinese economy back, and haven't been liquidated because the Party is afraid of losing its stranglehold on the economy. See: the iron rice bowl, and the Chinese banking sector

>Germany
Germany is ahead because of an unhealthy amount of work, a penchant for heavy industry, and intentionally depressed wages. For comparison, look at historical PPP-adjusted per-capita income in West Germany and the DDR.

>Sweden
Trust me, we don't want to be like Sweden in any way.

>Norway
Semi-wealthy nation found oil.

>Finland
Depressive shithole.

>Denmark
More to do with lack of corruption and rule of law than "social" economic policy (most measurements rate Denmark as the least corrupt country in the world). Additionally, look at their historical economic development; they only became so rich when they moved _away_ from social policies in the late 1980's.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 20:57:40 2015 No.6630576 >>6630447 Yea... >>6630455 What do you mean? I study economics all the time.

Anonymous Tue Jun 2 21:00:35 2015 No.6630593

>>6630576
>Never the less, the austrian's theories have been proven correct when applied to the real world.
No one who actually studies economics would say this. If you talked to anyone, literally anyone in the world with an econ PhD or their home country's equivalent, they would laugh at you.

>>	Thomas !!2DZ1MGd6kEU Tue Jun 2 21:04:18 2015 No.6630618 >>6630576 >Yea... Therefore the Austrian idea of labor not contributing to value is wrong

Anonymous Tue Jun 2 21:18:32 2015 No.6630676

>>6630593
Nope. Lower taxes and less regulation always produces more economic growth. Tenured economic professors want there to be problems, that's how they get paid.

>>6630618
Nope, that's not their idea all. They just reject the labor theory of value, just like every other sane person does. How could you have possibly thought your statement was true?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 21:27:35 2015 No.6630717 >>6630676 Yeah, chemistry professors know you can make gold out of lead too, they just pretend it's not true so they can get paid to teach you bullshit.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 21:30:10 2015 No.6630734 File: 34 KB, 260x393, 9780465043552_p0_v2_s260x420.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6628465 Mandelbrot

>>	Thomas !!2DZ1MGd6kEU Tue Jun 2 21:30:22 2015 No.6630736 >>6630676 You do realize that by saying labor contributes to value, as you did here, >>6630576 you are admitting the labor theory of value is at least partially true?

Anonymous Tue Jun 2 21:30:29 2015 No.6630738

Nudge by Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein.

Freedom as development by Amartya Sent.

Well written books that I believe get to means that produce good outcomes for all humans, not just a few.

Noted, there need to be a lot hashed out before implemetation but FFS let's try something new.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 21:31:22 2015 No.6630744 >>6630717 Eh, I see, rather than making a counter argument you'll just say something stupid. Works every time.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 21:32:00 2015 No.6630748 >>6630736 It isn't worth arguing with marginalists.

Anonymous Tue Jun 2 21:32:39 2015 No.6630754

>>6630736
You're not helping dude. Austrians (and literally everyone but Marxists) subscribe to marginalism, i.e. things are worth what people will pay for them. So your labor has value if someone will hire you. Not at all the same as the LTV.

And has basically nothing to do with Austrian economics either, which is a bunch of batshit a priori stuff about how if you use paper money instead of gold your economy falls apart and also anarcho-capitalism is good or something

Anonymous Tue Jun 2 21:34:10 2015 No.6630761
File: 328 KB, 2101x2800, IncetoTaleb4Bundle6.17A.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6628465
Taleb. Don't listen to anti-anti-marxists. Thomas Sowell is great as well.

Just like the /sci/ post yesterday about /fit/ness was pure garbage, /lit/ is not /econ/ and generally should not be asked for their opinions on the subject.

>>	Thomas !!2DZ1MGd6kEU Tue Jun 2 21:35:22 2015 No.6630764 >>6630754 I reiterate: if labor adds no value to matter, then employers would not pay for it.

Anonymous Tue Jun 2 21:35:33 2015 No.6630766

>>6630736
Subjective theory of value covers the value of labor too. That's why some people like shitty kids finger painting more than Monet. Labor theory of value is categorically incorrect, the only reason anyone still believes in that shit is because they are thralls.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 21:36:36 2015 No.6630769 >>6630748 Just stay in your echo chamber. History has already left you idiots behind.

Thomas !!2DZ1MGd6kEU Tue Jun 2 21:38:13 2015 No.6630776

>>6630766
Subjective theory of value is literally nothing more than literal relativism applied to economics. Try telling an appraiser he's wrong about the value of your house by saying it's all subjective, then tell the government that when your property taxes are due.

Anonymous Tue Jun 2 21:38:38 2015 No.6630778

>>6630754
Austrians are all about competing currencies. I could be gold, it could be wampum, whatever. Its just best to let the market decide what is the best currency. If it wasn't for the state backing it up with violence, fiat currencies would be abandoned.

>>	Thomas !!2DZ1MGd6kEU Tue Jun 2 21:39:20 2015 No.6630787 >>6630776 *liberal relativism

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 21:41:19 2015 No.6630794 >>6630764 That's not proving any point. Why do you keep repeating that. lol. >>6630776 Yea, the government distorts markets. What is your point?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 21:41:46 2015 No.6630797 File: 66 KB, 850x400, how-do-you-tell-a-communist-well-it-s-someone-who-reads-marx-and-lenin-and-how-do-you-tell-an-ronald-reagan.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] daily reminder

>>	Thomas !!2DZ1MGd6kEU Tue Jun 2 21:43:33 2015 No.6630804 >>6630794 >professional property appraisers wouldn't exist without the government

Anonymous Tue Jun 2 21:46:45 2015 No.6630823

>>6630778
So you're saying if there was no state, there would be no state currency? Fucking brilliant. Anyway, this is equivalent to assuming away money because you only want to deal with the "real" economy instead of the monetary economy. But basically everything since Keynes has been about why this doesn't work. (It's also why Austrians have no theory of unemployment other than, "Uh, it's probably because of minimum wage laws.")

>>6630794
This is why Austrians are as dumb as orthodox Marxists. Everything that happens they immediately interpret as "government intervention must have caused the problem." You can show them shit that disproves them (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/13/no-marco-rubio-government-did-not-cause-the-housing-crisis/)) and they just plug their ears.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 21:47:10 2015 No.6630825 ALL YOU LEFTIST FAGGOTS NEED TO FUCK BACK OFF TO LEFTYPOL

>>	Thomas !!2DZ1MGd6kEU Tue Jun 2 21:48:25 2015 No.6630835 >>6630825 I'm an orthodox Anglo-Catholic, I do not belong on any atheist-riddled board.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 21:48:25 2015 No.6630836 >>6630797 >that's why we need to spend billions of dollars on state propaganda so that people won't read them

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 21:49:01 2015 No.6630838 >>6630797 What a bad ass.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 21:51:14 2015 No.6630849 >>6630804 Yea, markets should set the value for everything. Markets = subjective theory of value.

Anonymous Tue Jun 2 21:52:09 2015 No.6630852

>>6628904
>Left leaning economics like the New Deal

I can't believe people still believe this. It's been econometrically verified that monetary factors were the majority of the recovery. Of course, this is what I get for going to an economics thread.

Look up "What Ended the Great Depression?" on google by Romer. Until then, keep the high school analysis to a minimum.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 21:52:37 2015 No.6630855 File: 784 KB, 997x1681, Zentralbibliothek_Zürich_Das_Kapital_Marx_1867.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 21:53:42 2015 No.6630861 >>6630835 there's a /christian/ board

>>	Thomas !!2DZ1MGd6kEU Tue Jun 2 21:55:07 2015 No.6630866 >>6630849 Markets can't set values, markets can only reflect values.

>>	Thomas !!2DZ1MGd6kEU Tue Jun 2 21:56:18 2015 No.6630868 >>6630861 /lit/ has more to do with the serious Christianity I'm interested in, as opposed to "Judeo-Christian" Protestantism

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 21:58:54 2015 No.6630875 >>6630852 This is nowhere near to a consensus view among economists, but at least now we're into something that is actively discussed and debated, unlike the Austrians and Marxists ITT.

Anonymous Tue Jun 2 22:00:16 2015 No.6630888

>>6630823
I have no idea what your first point even means. You're just putting words together and hoping they make an argument.

>It's also why Austrians have no theory of unemployment

Wow, you're really talking out of your ass now. The austrians are all about studying business cycles, you fucking retard.

Government policy is what caused the housing bubble to form and to burst. And the bail out means we'll have either a long recovery or another bubble forming. This is all very basic economics 101. Government soft money policy following the collapse of the tech bubble meant over investment in a traditionally safe assets (housing) which created a new bubble, over regulation of the financial sector meant that bad companies couldn't fail enough to go out of business, so they couldn't handle a big shock. Without the government all those companies would have went bust long before they could have created the bubble, and with the bail out they are still alive to create another bubble.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 22:02:03 2015 No.6630900 >>6630836 Why waste our time with bullshit? Besides, the majority of state propaganda about marxist has been pro, not con.

Anonymous Tue Jun 2 22:05:29 2015 No.6630916

>>6630888
No theory of structural employment. Because they don't. They think all employment will eventually be resolved by the system itself if the government just deregulates and gets out of it.

No one in academia takes Austrian economics seriously. It's popular on places like 4chan and Reddit, which doesn't by itself mean it's wrong but should tell you a lot.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 22:07:52 2015 No.6630934 >>6628465 >keynes >leftist Spotted the economics aficionado. Go to uni fucking lumpenproletarian.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 22:13:06 2015 No.6630950 File: 197 KB, 620x930, 1432771547106.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6628476 >>6628465 >obvious cherry-picking >"I want to learn, but only things that strengthen my confirmation bias" Go back to Econ 100 and stay there.

Anonymous Tue Jun 2 22:18:16 2015 No.6630970

>>6630916
Full employment isn't possible, that's all they say on the matter. There is nothing really to say beyond that.

Yea, academia is controlled by statists, of course they are opposed to antistatist ideas. Are you claiming that no smart people visit 4chan and reddit? If that was true, wouldn't that invalidate your claim? This sentence is false.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 22:19:24 2015 No.6630975 >>6630950 Does one really need to read all the religious lit before they can realize its all bullshit? All leftist economics is just wrong, why waste our time reading it?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 22:19:58 2015 No.6630979 File: 14 KB, 288x287, 1376571987648.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6630329 >marxism purports to be scientific.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 22:21:15 2015 No.6630982 >>6630900 >Besides, the majority of state propaganda about marxist has been pro, not con. This has to be bait.

Thomas !!2DZ1MGd6kEU Tue Jun 2 22:22:25 2015 No.6630991
File: 34 KB, 266x400, 496701.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6630970
Full employment is perfectly possible if the workday is lowered without decreasing pay. Back when the workday was 16 or 12 hours, it was a real pain to get lowered, but it was, through serious uprisings on the part of the workers.

Anonymous Tue Jun 2 22:24:45 2015 No.6630999
File: 96 KB, 772x475, lib9.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6629085

>America would have made it through the depression without introducing leftist policies.

Where in the hell did you read that?

FDR was pulling from the left because when he went conservative in 1937, it depressed the economy again. Notice who has made the deficit larger, and why.

Reagan tripled it. Bush doubled it. Liberal politics can help pay down the debt, but it's beyond ridiculous to claim that it's the fault of "leftist policies" when that's exactly what pulled the country OUT of the Depression and information shows that conservative policies pull us INTO a depression.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 22:25:47 2015 No.6631002 My problem with Marx is he conflates economics with logistics. Post Nash economics is mostly rationality and game theory.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 22:26:28 2015 No.6631004 OP if you're still here please post your top three most browsed boards, I want to know which places to avoid.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 22:28:17 2015 No.6631009 >>6630991 Full employment is necessarily underemployment. You need frictional unemployment for efficiency in the labor market.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 22:28:37 2015 No.6631010 >>6631002 Which is weird because Marx spends all his time on distribution on commercial arrangements not transport, and transport is dealt with in a summary manner (M—C…P…M') under production. I think you've not actually read Marx.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 22:30:11 2015 No.6631015 >>6628465 You're an idiot; Keynes is first of all, not leftist, and second of all, pretty universally accepted in contemporary economic thought, along with neoclassicism. And this is coming from someone working toward an MA in Economics at UChicago.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 22:32:48 2015 No.6631029 >>6631010 Fair enough. I still consider it sisyphean. I do like Marx's contributions to philosophy, however.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 22:34:43 2015 No.6631035 >>6631010 >I think you've not actually read Marx. People who critique Marx don't read him. They tend to even admit it openly.

Anonymous Tue Jun 2 22:34:54 2015 No.6631036

TBH though you're better off starting with economics principles books (I recommend Bernanke's Principles of Microeconomics), and then moving into mathematical economics (Mas-Colell's Microeconomic Theory) if you really want to understand economics. Economics is based on constrained optimization, so you need to understand the math to really get what contemporary economists are talking about.

Anonymous Tue Jun 2 22:37:41 2015 No.6631051

>>6630979
It doesn't?

>>6630982
Communism ruled over 1/3 of the world not that long along. They taught marxism in grade schools. I didn't hear anything about marx, either pro or con, till I a man grown, out of school. Pictures of marx were in the public squares of all the towns of all the communist nations. The west now don't care enough about marx or communism to even pay attention to it. History has left it behind.

>>6630991
Lowering the hours per worker while keeping wages the same would just drive up prices. Productive output would decrease, you still have to pay the price of people driving into working, taking breaks, etc. And your second point is just wrong. The drive for the 40 hour work week was started by Henry Ford, unions and the government took credit for it retroactively.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 22:39:25 2015 No.6631061 >>6631035 see >>6630797

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 22:40:02 2015 No.6631064 >>6630738 The book is called Development as Freedom and the author's last name is Sen, not Sent It's a decent book that presents a very dynamic view of development and inequality

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 22:40:13 2015 No.6631065 >>6630999 Federal debt isn't bad

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 22:40:59 2015 No.6631070 >>6631051 In America maybe, but America doesn't have a labour party. When the government intervenes it is very likely to intervene against workers, therefore the American worker is very disenfranchised indeed.

Anonymous Tue Jun 2 22:42:04 2015 No.6631076

>>6630999
The depression didn't end till resources flowed back to the private sector after WW2. Early recessions, like the one in 1921, didn't become depressions because the state sat back and let it resolve. It was the interventionist policies of Hoover and later FDR that caused a recession to become a recession.

Reagan needed money for an arms race to bankrupt that USSR, which totally worked too. If Carter got that idea he would have done the same. Bush needed money for pointless wars to seem like we could do something for 9/11. Gore would have done the same, but perhaps invaded North Korea rather than Iraq.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 22:42:11 2015 No.6631077 >>6631051 >Communism ruled over 1/3 of the world not that long along. Strange that the value form circulated in an expanded reproduction given that it was "communism."

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 22:43:11 2015 No.6631081 >>6631061 An argument from one's own idiocy and ignorance is cogent only in demonstrating one's own idiocy and ignorance.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 22:44:36 2015 No.6631089 >>6631035 Sowell was a marxist before he went classical liberal. You're just wrong. You need to keep feeding yourselves lies, so you don't realize how much of your life you've wasted on total garbage.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 22:45:17 2015 No.6631095 Is economics just applied philosophy?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 22:46:32 2015 No.6631100 >>6631095 It's a tautology.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 22:47:53 2015 No.6631107 >>6631095 No

Anonymous Tue Jun 2 22:52:09 2015 No.6631121

>>6631070
Both parties are the "labor" party to some extent. The Republicans used to be proto-communist, actually. But if you really think any political party has the interests of others in mind, there is little we'll agree on.

>>6631077
Try to pretend its something else as much as you want, but communism simply means state control of the economy.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 22:53:30 2015 No.6631126 File: 15 KB, 256x197, marxistsbtfo.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6631081 you clearly haven't understood what you've read.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 22:54:05 2015 No.6631128 >>6631095 Yes.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 22:54:11 2015 No.6631129 >>6631076 Are we entirely sure bankrupting the entire USSR was a good thing? If the Melian dialogues are any guide we should be more afraid of our subject nations than our enemies.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 22:54:53 2015 No.6631132 >>6631121 >but communism simply means state control of the economy. Not the guy you are talking to, but if you think that's true then Nazi Germany was communist as well. Same as Mussolini's Italy. And that ain't true nigga.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 22:55:30 2015 No.6631136 >>6631121 Labour is the actual spelling.

Anonymous Tue Jun 2 22:56:23 2015 No.6631140

>>6631129
I would have played the Cold War much differently. The US being the one world power just lead to them making lots of stupid mistakes. But that wasn't my point, my point being that Reagan borrowed a lot of make an arms race to bankrupt the USSR, and it worked!

Anonymous Tue Jun 2 22:56:55 2015 No.6631143

Its funny how American liberals think eruopes society will work in the U.S. They fail to realize that the U.S. gives each country we have a base in millions upon millions of dollars per year, thereby the agreement is we will unconditionally go to war with any of those countries that we have a base in. With this agreement, the money yuropoors would invest into their military can be invested into education or medicine or whatever.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 22:58:04 2015 No.6631150 >>6631136 I don't speak cuck. Go back to your cesspool, smoke your fags and be content with low level violence being your only entertainment.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 23:00:01 2015 No.6631156 NGDP target with direct transfers to citizens when? Why doesn't everyone fucking love that idea? > full employment > capped inflation

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 23:00:18 2015 No.6631158 >>6631150 What language do you speak then? It begins with "E" I believe.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 23:00:40 2015 No.6631161 >>6631132 The Nazis were just socialists that rejected marxism. Mussolini was heavily influenced by marx, which he says himself in some of his writings. Communism is just a form of socialism, and all socialism is government control of the economy.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 23:02:25 2015 No.6631167 >>6631158 I speak English, where labor is spelled labor and color is spelled color. You speak cuck.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 23:03:47 2015 No.6631171 >>6631161 Socialism is worker control of the economy for the good of the community instead of profit You're thinking of state socialism (sometimes called state capitalism), which is the model nations like the USSR and Cuba followed.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 23:04:10 2015 No.6631174 >>6631161 Yes, but Hitler admitted to not knowing what socialism was, he just liked the sound of the word. Aside, Germany basically revived through massive deficit spending funded by government scrip.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 23:04:52 2015 No.6631176 >>6631174 Keynes strikes again

Anonymous Tue Jun 2 23:04:53 2015 No.6631177
File: 24 KB, 425x209, lolbertariansunited.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6630970
Fucking autistrians, top lel.

I'm not going to refute your "points", I'm just going to insult you, because frankly, that's all these ideas deserve.

Austrian "economics" fails repeatedly to make predictions, it desperately tries to find a state-based rationale for every ailment known to man, it spends its time pulling models out of their collective assholes which may or may not have bearing on reality, and it is only palatable to the most fuck-tarded of the modern generation who think we will solve the evils of the state by submitting to firms instead.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 23:05:46 2015 No.6631180 >>6631171 "The workers" is just weasel works for the government. "the good of the community" and profit are interchangeable. Stop trying to hide behind nice sounding words.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 23:05:53 2015 No.6631181 >>6631089 I actually read Sowell's book on Marxism. You know it half bad, he tries to be "objective" until the end where he reveals his critique of it. I found his critique pretty weak, mostly a critique of Stalinism and the way the USSR ran.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 23:06:15 2015 No.6631184 >>6631167 Spoken the words sound the same. I write English, as in the commonly accepted international medium of communication, as defined by common, not idiosyncratic, usage.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 23:07:10 2015 No.6631190 >>6631180 >the workers is just weasel words for the government No, I'm talking about workers directly controlling the results of their labor democratically. Think workers cooperatives

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 23:08:45 2015 No.6631199 >>6631180 >>6631190 Also lol at profit being interchangeable with the good of the community. Jesus.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 23:09:22 2015 No.6631202 File: 17 KB, 226x346, 41rp4fJoHgL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Das Kapital by Karl Marx

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 23:10:49 2015 No.6631212 >>6631180 >being this ignorant about socialism yet still feeling the need to discuss it on a Zimbabwean fly fishing image board Why do people do this?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 23:33:49 2015 No.6631291 >>6631167 That's not English. Obviously you speak burger.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 23:45:00 2015 No.6631327 >>6631140 Then you must concede that it was short sighted, in the same way kicking a fellow pall bearer in the nuts is short sighted.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 23:46:57 2015 No.6631337 >>6628473 >pretending austrian economics is even viable >the laughing stock of the entire academic community >mfw internet fucklords as bereft of economic knowledge as most marxists fall for this shit hook line and sinker

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 2 23:58:40 2015 No.6631366 If Marx is the thesis, Austrians are the antithesis, then mainstream economics is the synthesis.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 00:06:13 2015 No.6631385 >>6631337 No, anything that holds the labour theory of value to be accurate is the laughing stock. Austrians use the correct methods amd terminology.

Anonymous Wed Jun 3 00:10:20 2015 No.6631399

>>6631174
Nope, the Nazis were socialism. Fascism is just a kind of socialism.

>>6631181
The USSR is a good example of communism. That's what you get when you support democracy.

>>6631190
Yea, I understand that. Anyone can read the first wiki paragraph on socialism. Worker control of the economy is just another form of government.

>>6631199
Profit is the value of a completed being greater than the value of it's inputs. Apple trees are better for the community than apple seeds, steel than ore, etc.

>>6631212
I understand socialism. Its not that complex of an idea. (Which is why it spreads through idiots faster than herpes.) Nothing I've said so far is incorrect.

>>6631327
Maybe, we'll see. Putin has been much less psychotic than the Soviets.

>>6631337
Academia is controlled by statists...

ΟΥΤΙΣ Wed Jun 3 00:17:55 2015 No.6631422

>>6631399
>Nope, the Nazis were socialism. Fascism is just a kind of socialism.
The Nazis weren't fascist. Notice that when the Grand Council of Fascism removed Mussolini from power, and Hitler had to give him a puppet state, Mussolini, now a full Nazi, no longer called himself or state "fascist", but rather "socialist"

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 00:18:33 2015 No.6631424 >>6631399 Fascist economics are still Capitalist. The USSR was state capitalist.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 00:19:52 2015 No.6631429 >>6631424 Nope, state control of all property is not capitalism. In fact, capitalism is not even possible as long as states exist.

ΟΥΤΙΣ Wed Jun 3 00:19:57 2015 No.6631430

>>6631399
>The USSR is a good example of communism.
And no, they weren't.

>ocialism is at odds with Liberalism only on the question of the organization of production and of the division of wealth. In religious, intellectual, and moral matters it is liberal, as it is liberal and democratic in its politics. Even the anti-liberalism and anti-democracy of Bolshevism are in themselves purely contingent. For Bolshevism is opposed to Liberalism only in so far as the former is revolutionary, not in its socialistic aspect. For if the opposition of the Bolsheviki to liberal and democratic doctrines were to continue, as now seems more and more probable, the result might be a complete break between Bolshevism and Socialism notwithstanding the fact that the ultimate aims of both are identical.
-Alfredo Rocco, fascist theorist

>>	ΟΥΤΙΣ Wed Jun 3 00:21:33 2015 No.6631438 >>6631429 Capitalism is defined by a predominance of wage labor and credit.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 00:21:57 2015 No.6631440 >>6631430 The USSR is what you get when you make property communal. Or even attempt to.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 00:23:20 2015 No.6631452 >>6631438 Capitalism is private property. Private property is not possible as long as states exist, because no one own property, they are just leasing it from the state.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 00:25:10 2015 No.6631458 >>6631366 Fallacy of middle grounds.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 00:26:37 2015 No.6631467 >>6631452 Property is what you can defend. The state is used to defend property at large, without it property could still exist, as people will still defend their land

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 00:26:41 2015 No.6631468 >>6631452 Private property cannot be respected if there is no state. How will you prevent your land/factory from being used at will by others without an organized body of armed men?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 00:28:17 2015 No.6631475 >>6631452 >actual pure ideology

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 00:28:38 2015 No.6631477 >>6631424 >>6631429 you are both retarded

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 00:31:21 2015 No.6631485 >>6631475 Do you have anything meaningful to say, or will you just spout buzzwords used to defend Marxist ideology?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 00:32:20 2015 No.6631491 >>6631485 you're just making up your own definitions of things so that you can't be wrong

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 00:34:12 2015 No.6631496 >>6628465 Progress and Poverty by Henry George

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 00:34:20 2015 No.6631499 >>6631491 And so is everyone who claims that the USSR wasn't "real" socialism, frankly.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 00:34:29 2015 No.6631500 >>6631491 Private property is what defines capitalism. Capital is private property used in the production process. Computers, forklifts, robots, etc are all capital and are all private property.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 00:35:26 2015 No.6631505 >>6631500 Henry George would disagree Google Henry George Henry Georgevolution

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 00:35:49 2015 No.6631506 >>6629085 The new deal did not get us out of the depression. It arguably made it worse. One thing that FDR did that is generally regarded as beneficial was loosening the gold standard.

Anonymous Wed Jun 3 00:36:05 2015 No.6631508

>>6631467
>>6631468
I assume both these posts are the same anon. How to maintain private property without violence is a difficult question, one in which if we had the answer the state would vanish over night. There is an answer, its simple yet hard to achieve, which is simply we respect each other. We're still in the statist paradigm, so of course you can only imagine private property being violently defended. When we all respect each other's property property will not need to be defended, and the state will be unnecessary.

>>6631475
How was my statement anymore "actual pure ideology" than the one I was responding too?

>>6631477
How so? I "own" my house now. What would happen if I made a meth lab in the backyard?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 00:37:14 2015 No.6631515 >>6631491 That's what marxists do...

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 00:37:42 2015 No.6631516 >>6631505 I don't care what he thinks, I'm speaking in terms of facts. >>6631508 >just don't commit crime :)

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 00:38:22 2015 No.6631523 >>6631499 I agree. The USSR was a socialist/communist country. Its successes and failures should be evaluated without the word games.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 00:38:53 2015 No.6631524 File: 36 KB, 500x333, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6631515 Marxists even think capital means money.

Anonymous Wed Jun 3 00:42:06 2015 No.6631532

>>6631523
And your definitions and terms are fucking stupid.

The entire communist movement agrees that the value form is fundamental. No, let's ignore that, let's ignore actual relations between people, in favour of an idealistic game.

Sounds exactly like the field specification of marginalism.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 00:42:11 2015 No.6631533 >>6631516 A non-violent society would be a good first step towards statelessness. >>6631524 I'm not a marxist, and I know what capital means.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 00:43:57 2015 No.6631537 File: 59 KB, 915x220, Screen Shot 2015-06-02 at 11.43.39 PM.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] back to /leftypol/

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 00:44:52 2015 No.6631544 >>6631533 >I'm not a marxist, and I know what capital means. I actually have that line on my business card.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 00:44:57 2015 No.6631545 File: 9 KB, 255x251, 1431474030873.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6631537

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 00:45:55 2015 No.6631550 >>6631533 Of course you would, it's only Marxists who use the word to describe wealth.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 00:46:13 2015 No.6631551 >>6630490 This guy gets it

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 00:48:15 2015 No.6631561 >>6628476 you dont fit here because youre right have you checked smith and hume?

Anonymous Wed Jun 3 00:48:34 2015 No.6631563

>>6631532
You're still playing word games. The USSR abolished pricing and markets in capital goods, with national production and distribution directed by committees, that were more or less democracy elected. And it was a total failure. This is true of every communist nation. (That isn't 20 miles from the biggest economy in the world, lol.) Socialism is a failure, it can never produce abundance, thus marxism is just wrong. Wrong.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 00:49:22 2015 No.6631567 >>6628546 falls apart if you take account real state, literally google it, some kid in college BTFO the bok

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 00:49:43 2015 No.6631568 File: 52 KB, 211x255, 1432966896367.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6631561

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 00:51:03 2015 No.6631575 >>6631550 Marxists use a variety of words to describe wealth, such as hydraulogical products, dike, fealty / tribute, capital and social production.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 00:53:12 2015 No.6631578 >>6631563 >The USSR abolished pricing and markets in capital goods They didn't, friend. Fitzpatrick and Andrle ought to help disabuse you. Wrong in evidence, wrong in conclusions. QED.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 00:53:22 2015 No.6631579 >>6631399 >worker control of the economy is just another form of government Define government. Also, what would private control of the economy be?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 00:53:51 2015 No.6631583 >>6631575 I don't get the joke?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 00:56:02 2015 No.6631591 >>6631583 Read more. Try Anti-Dühring for starters.

Anonymous Wed Jun 3 00:57:19 2015 No.6631594

>>6631399
>The USSR is a good example of communism. That's what you get when you support democracy.

The USSR was at best a state socialist country, at worst state capitalist. Communism is by definition a stateless, classless society. Being run by the "communist party" =/= communism.

As for democracy, there wasnt much of it in the USSR.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 00:58:42 2015 No.6631599 >>6631422 It doesn't matter what he called himself, national socialism and fascism are functionally very similar. They are both identified as: 'the fusion between corporate and state'.

Anonymous Wed Jun 3 00:58:58 2015 No.6631602

>>6631578
Yea they did. Consumer goods were the only products that were priced. You've never studied Soviet history.

>>6631579
Government is the communal control of property, enforced over a geographical area up till that claim bumps into another state. Government is claiming control over property it had no part in creating. Anarchy, private property, is individual creation and control of property, us exercise use or trade in whatever fashion they choose to.

>>	ΟΥΤΙΣ Wed Jun 3 00:59:00 2015 No.6631603 >>6631452 No, private property predates capitalism

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 01:01:05 2015 No.6631610 >>6631591 I have read "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific" and yes, I was laughing my ass off the whole time.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 01:01:41 2015 No.6631616 >>6631599 So the US military industrial complex was fascist? So Napoleon III's republic was fascist? So Australia during the Accord was fascist? So Rogernomics was fascist? So Whig government during the French wars was fascist?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 01:02:41 2015 No.6631621 >>6631602 How are you going to individually create property? Are you going to build a factory all by yourself?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 01:03:09 2015 No.6631625 >>6631616 All dogs are mammals but not all mammals are dogs.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 01:03:16 2015 No.6631626 >>6631610 I'm glad you were laughing at the evidence presented from New Lanark, it shows cretinism.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 01:04:25 2015 No.6631632 >>6631625 So your "definition" is inadequate. Corporatism wasn't much on display in Spain, Portugal, Hungary under Horthy or Arrow Cross, and only marginally present under Peron. Under Pinochet there was no corporatism. Try harder, Lenny.

Anonymous Wed Jun 3 01:04:27 2015 No.6631634

>>6631594
Communism is not stateless. Sure its classless, but only because classes already don't exist. But yea, its not stateless, because at it's very core would be the most powerful government possible. Democracy itself is the state. marxists don't understand what the state is.

>>6631603
Sure, in prehistory. A state existing means private property can't exist.

Also, when did capitalism "start"?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 01:05:57 2015 No.6631640 >>6631632 I'm not the guy you were talking to. I just had to point out your error.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 01:06:58 2015 No.6631645 >>6631616 All states are socialist, so sure all those were fascist. >>6631621 Pay people to help me with anything I can't do myself. >>6631626 Lol, it wasn't "evidence". marxism is a big pile of shit.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 01:09:35 2015 No.6631662 >people just need to start respecting private property kek

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 01:12:17 2015 No.6631670 >>6631662 Why would mutual respect form under one property form and not another? Why would people respect each others possession but not each others property?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 01:19:57 2015 No.6631700 >>6631670 Because one is exploitation and the other isn't.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 01:23:57 2015 No.6631709 >>6631645 >Lol, it wasn't "evidence". marxism is a big pile of shit. Quoting Robert Owen at length on his own practice's deficiencies isn't evidence? Good to know. Ladies and gentlemen, the marginalist.

Anonymous Wed Jun 3 01:24:24 2015 No.6631711

>>6631700
How is having to ask the community for permission to do anything not exploitation?

Exploitation hypnosis is probably the stupidest part of marxism. That's also why idiots tend to bring up it as an argument the most, its the easiest marxist concept to understand.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 01:28:34 2015 No.6631731 >>6631711 >How is having to ask the community for permission to do anything not exploitation? collective subjectivity

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 01:30:40 2015 No.6631737 >>6631731 Mutual enslavement is a better term.

ΟΥΤΙΣ Wed Jun 3 02:01:23 2015 No.6631863

>>6631634
>Sure, in prehistory. A state existing means private property can't exist.
Yes it can, the private property of the ruler of the land which comprises the state.

>Also, when did capitalism "start"?
Gradually, I'd say its very first watermark was the City of London Corporation, and it came into full bloom with the end of mercantilism.

Anonymous Wed Jun 3 02:06:10 2015 No.6631883

>>6631863
Even than the ruler is at the mercy of the army, the nobility, etc. What the mob gives it can take away.

I asked that question to prove a point, related to the vagueness of when capitalism "started". Capitalism isn't a "system", its an observation of human interaction. Without government control, in one form or another, capitalism will reform, no matter what. People want to be free.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 02:49:05 2015 No.6632002 >>6631883 Capitalism didn't "form" as a complete system of observable human relationships until 1776 mate. Prior to that, it didn't exist. >people want to be free I guess that's just human nature. Nothing personnel kid.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 02:53:05 2015 No.6632011 These are pretty good: Wage Labour and Capital Outlines of the Critique of Political Economy Critique of the Gotha Programme Capital: Critique of Political Economy

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 02:56:45 2015 No.6632022 Fuck this thread OP read this: Start with the greeks Continue with the germans End with the anglos

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 03:11:58 2015 No.6632076 >>6632002 I love it when people have an arrogant tone, and end up actually saying nothing.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 04:05:08 2015 No.6632203 >>6631634 You are an abject fucking moron. Leave.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 04:32:46 2015 No.6632282 Economics for dummies ironicly enought is a very good book. Economics the user guide to get a more broad perspective wich includes economic histroy and economic systems.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 04:34:30 2015 No.6632289 File: 97 KB, 600x450, Jeremy_Morlock_pulling_dead_Afghan_boy_by_his_hair_in_2010.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6628476 >right wing economics

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 04:35:31 2015 No.6632290 File: 36 KB, 350x258, article2_genocide.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6632289 >right wing economics

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 04:36:58 2015 No.6632296 File: 468 KB, 1600x1462, Slavery.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6632290 >right wing economics

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 05:12:47 2015 No.6632385 File: 47 KB, 637x351, PinochetFriedman.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6632296 >right wing economics

Anonymous Wed Jun 3 05:54:32 2015 No.6632486

As expected this thread went into shitpost.
For OP, you may read :

Formation and Distribution of Riches, by ARJ Turgot
A treatise on political economy, by J.B. Say
Capital and Interest, by Eugen von Böhm Bawerk
Elements of Pure Economy, by Leon Walras
Principles of Economics, by Alfred Marshall
Manuel of Political Economy, by Vilfredo Pareto
Risk Uncertainty and Profit, by Frank Knight

Fritz Machlup is good too.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 06:10:42 2015 No.6632524 >>6630855 Recommended

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 06:27:54 2015 No.6632565 >>6631065 Neither is taxing the rich. So what's the point to your argument?

Anonymous Wed Jun 3 06:36:58 2015 No.6632588

>>6631076

>The depression didn't end till resources flowed back to the private sector after WW2.

Glass Steagall was implemented, the New Deal changed banking and the nation fundamentally, and Wall Street was off Main Street, so you're factually inaccurate and being intentionally misleading about how the private sector was the problem in the first place.

You're also ignorant on how the states got money and worked on public projects like libraries and schools over any form of blood money such as wars, bullets and bombs, which Hoover and others wanted until FDR cleaned house.

>It was the interventionist policies of Hoover and later FDR that caused a recession to become a recession.

The graph shows you exactly that Hoover had no answers for four years and FDR was paying down the debt. So your belief is ignorant.

>Reagan

You're full of it on him too. This is the man with the Iran Contra scandal who decimated the black community and started the Drug War on a Race Panic to fund Nicaraguan Death Squads to "get rid of the Commies" and sold missiles to Iran to get it. He decimated the US just to fund his wars and was just as bad, if not worse, than Nixon.

So how in the hell can you say Bush needed money for pointless wars when his cabinet learned it from either Reagan or Nixon since that's where most of them worked?

And don't get me started in how the FBI and CIA didn't connect dots on 9/11 to make bigger haystacks of spying needles...

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 06:39:42 2015 No.6632593 >>6631506 >This faggot is delusional and has nothing to back up their argument You realize that some aspects of the New Deal are still giving dividends to this day? http://livingnewdeal.org/

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 06:41:09 2015 No.6632598 >>6632486 Don't forget Wage Labour and Capital and Capital: Critique of Political Economy

Anonymous Wed Jun 3 10:05:36 2015 No.6633014

>>6632593

The 1970s showed us that fiscal policies were inadequate to address all crises. The book for which Friedman won the Nobel prize argued that contractionary monetary policy in anticipation of market collapse worsened the outcome when it did collapse. When the strings were loosened he demonstrated that this had a positive effect. Ever since, the fed has been adopting the same strategy to great effect. The former chairmen of the fed was a scholar of the great depression and he learned from it that same lesson.

Neither you nor I are experts in the matter, so we have no business dicussing finer points. General consensus understands the great depression to be a monetary phenomena.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 10:21:16 2015 No.6633059 >>6633014 What about the unsung intervention of the early fed during the 30s?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 11:10:06 2015 No.6633190 >>6628543 I have Sowell's 'Intellectuals and Race' and he says a lot of weird intellectually dishonest shit like this

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 12:23:23 2015 No.6633490 >>6632203 lol, nope.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature