# favorite economist?



## Game master arino (Jul 5, 2021)

Who is your favorite economist and why?


----------



## Fentanyl Floyd (Jul 5, 2021)

Adolf Hitler, because fuck niggers


----------



## Game master arino (Jul 5, 2021)

Fentanyl Floyd said:


> Adolf Hitler, because fuck niggers


not an economist though


----------



## LupinIII (Jul 5, 2021)

Game master arino said:


> not an economist though


He theorized the economy would be better off if Jews and the homosex were completely removed from it. Sounds pretty economisty to me.


----------



## Jonah Hill poster (Jul 5, 2021)

Does Thomas Sowell count?


----------



## Jann_Hörn (Jul 5, 2021)

von Hayek, cool name and cooler book



			https://ctheory.sitehost.iu.edu/img/Hayek_The_Road_to_Serfdom.pdf


----------



## Systemsprenger (Jul 5, 2021)

In no particular order, the sincere list:

*Thomas Sowell - *Principled, empirical, one of the few people whose work I've seen IRL break the adage of 'you can't reason with irrational people'.


*Irwin Schiff - *Peter Schiff's father, an economist who refused to pay federal taxes on principle (akin to John McAfee), ended up in federal prison for 13 years before dying (RIP to them both). Definitely not a strategic choice, but I cannot pretend that his steadfastness isn't worth some respect.


*Aaron Clarey - *a.k.a. 'Captain Capitalism', an ex-economist who got burnt out and built his own eclectic brand ('Asshole Consulting'), pro-minimalist, pro-crypto, anti-fiat, has a lot of useful content for young Western bachelors trying to make sense of the world they operate in (minus the Manosphere bravado).
The comedic list:

*Richard Wolff - *Pro-communist economist, was a darling among the strange Bread people on Youtube, seemingly less so after a very bizarre 'debate' with everyone's favorite Runescape-playing stripper, Destiny


*Peter Schiff* - The gold-bug somehow bit him harder during the ascent of cryptocurrency - Still respect him on some level, though his hard-headedness towards the hypothetical and practical use-cases of crypto - alongside the doubling-down for gold - is pretty stupefying to see. He suffers from the same Molyneux-type orbit around Planet BTC (doesn't care to significantly acknowledge the altcoins).

*Donald Harris - *Kamala 'Not Real Black' Harris' Jamaican father, who bluntly admonished her loudly in public for cynically deploying thuggish tropes of Jamaicans on The Breakfast Show (eg. cannabis use, listening to 2Pac well before he become Number One Number 1 in Serbia)


----------



## Blue Screen of Death (Jul 5, 2021)

Systemsprenger said:


> *Aaron Clarey - *a.k.a. 'Captain Capitalism', an ex-economist who got burnt out and built his own eclectic brand ('Asshole Consulting'), pro-minimalist, pro-crypto, anti-fiat, has a lot of useful content for young Western bachelors trying to make sense of the world they operate in (minus the Manosphere bravado).


Looked this guy up to see what he was about, just because I liked the idea of someone operating doing his own thing like that.
Won me over with this video about quitting jobs on short notice.


Spoiler: Reasons You SHOULD Burn Bridges


----------



## Systemsprenger (Jul 5, 2021)

Zulu Warrior said:


> Looked this guy up to see what he was about, just because I liked the idea of someone operating doing his own thing like that.
> Won me over with this video about quitting jobs on short notice.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Reasons You SHOULD Burn Bridges



Indeed, Aaron Clarey is good people. His emphasis on minimalism, strategic life and personal decisions and financial self-reliance has enriched me quite well over the years. He has quite a few books out - Bachelor Pad Economics and the Book of Numbers are worth checking.

Glad to have shared him on, friend!


----------



## tehpope (Jul 5, 2021)

Gregory Mannarino is the only guy I really pay attention too. He seems to know his head from his ass. Sam Hyde recommended him.


----------



## byuu (Jul 5, 2021)

That's like asking who my favourite woman studies major is.


----------



## Game master arino (Jul 5, 2021)

albert chan said:


> Does Thomas Sowell count?





Systemsprenger said:


> In no particular order, the sincere list:
> 
> *Thomas Sowell - *Principled, empirical, one of the few people whose work I've seen IRL break the adage of 'you can't reason with irrational people'.
> 
> ...


sowell is a reddit core pick but at least you did not pick krugman


Jann_Hörn said:


> von Hayek, cool name and cooler book
> 
> 
> 
> https://ctheory.sitehost.iu.edu/img/Hayek_The_Road_to_Serfdom.pdf


true CHAD option. fun fact hayek owned a samurai sword


----------



## hexx (Jul 5, 2021)

older pick: mises, basically took a dump on communism back in the 20s
contemporary pick: george selgin, runs an interesting blog I occasionally read


----------



## Adolphin (Jul 5, 2021)

Gottfried Feder. One of the first to understand the dangers of financial speculation and of giving monetary control to private banks.
Comparison of the industrial capital to the loan-based capital.


----------



## Jonah Hill poster (Jul 5, 2021)

Game master arino said:


> sowell is a *reddit core pick* but at least you did not pick krugman


I thought that was Milton Friedman


----------



## Game master arino (Jul 5, 2021)

albert chan said:


> I thought that was Milton Friedman


sowell=1 reddit 
Friedman=2 reddits 
marx=tranny faggot pick
krugman/keynes=turbo bugman


----------



## Stormy Daniel's Lawyer (Jul 5, 2021)

Milton Friedman is the godfather of modern economic theory. He was also one of the first economist to argue for school vouchers back in the early 1960's.


----------



## El Goblina (Jul 5, 2021)

Gary North. Wrong about Y2K and open-borders-free-trade, but that's about it. He wrote a commentary on the Bible explaining how the Bible teaches free-market economics. Used to advise Ron Paul, back in the day. Developed the Ron Paul curriculum used by many homeschoolers. Et cetera.

He is my favourite boomer.


----------



## JJLiautaud (Jul 6, 2021)

David friedman does really interesting work regarding the economics of law


----------



## Nathan Higgers (Jul 6, 2021)




----------



## Fastest Hand In The East (Jul 6, 2021)

>no one is name Hjalmar Schacht

dat nigga be making money out of the thin air for years and years
literally financial con artist on the global scale, based as fuck, intentionally balancing the whole country on the brink of banking collapse the whoel time
without him Hitler would've never had anything to wage the war with


----------



## Carlos Weston Chantor (Jul 6, 2021)

Fastest Hand In The East said:


> >no one is name Hjalmar Schacht
> 
> dat nigga be making money out of the thin air for years and years
> literally financial con artist on the global scale, based as fuck, intentionally balancing the whole country on the brink of banking collapse the whoel time
> without him Hitler would've never had anything to wage the war with


Yikes sweatie this ain't it chief. Schacht was a kike plant like Canaris, he stole all the good ideas from GOTTFRIED FEDER, but removed all the stuff that would be too based because he didn't want the Reich to become too powerful. The real author of the economic success of national socialism was GOTTFRIED FEDER, hjalmar schacht more like gaymal shathimself lol

Btw lmao at kike-lovers sucking the uncircumcised dicks of niggas like (((friedman))), (((von hayek))), (((von mises))), (((rothbard))) etc


----------



## Fastest Hand In The East (Jul 6, 2021)

Carlos Weston Chantor said:


> Yikes sweatie this ain't it chief. Schacht was a kike plant like Canaris, he stole all the good ideas from GOTTFRIED FEDER, but removed all the stuff that would be too based because he didn't want the Reich to become too powerful. The real author of the economic success of national socialism was GOTTFRIED FEDER, hjalmar schacht more like gaymal shathimself lol
> 
> Btw lmao at kike-lovers sucking the uncircumcised dicks of niggas like (((friedman))), (((von hayek))), (((von mises))), (((rothbard))) etc


My precious dude, Feder was an old-school party member- barely educated underclass member. He wanted to nationalize banks and abolish an interest- this is basically communism.


----------



## WhoIsSutterKane (Jul 6, 2021)

Thomas Sowell (reading Basic Economics saved my life)
Robert Kiyosaki (Rich Dad, Poor Dad taught me the difference between assets and liabilities)


----------



## Alex Krycek (Jul 6, 2021)

I’ve always been partial to Alexander Hamilton personally.


----------



## Demonslayer1776 (Jul 6, 2021)

Karl Marx or Bill Kristol


----------



## A Gay Retard (Jul 6, 2021)

Charles Murray could be called an economist


----------



## Thomas Highway (Jul 6, 2021)




----------



## Autistic zoomer (Jul 20, 2021)

Keynes because everybody knows him as "neolib printy money bad man" and it makes people seethe


----------



## CAPTAIN MATI (Jul 20, 2021)

What about Max Keiser?


----------



## Buttigieg2020 (Jul 20, 2021)

Paul Krugman, a real expert changes his positions solely based on who’s in power.


----------



## Jabroni (Jul 20, 2021)

Nathan Higgers said:


> View attachment 2321026


This guy is actually pretty cool. He tried to help
dismantle the welfare state through experiments where poverty stricken families are given a lump sum as opposed to the typical weekly or monthly payout. this made them scared shitless so they had to ration money and learn how to make more back through work or starting businesses.


----------



## Nathan Higgers (Jul 20, 2021)

Jabroni said:


> This guy is actually pretty cool. He tried to help
> dismantle the welfare state through experiments where poverty stricken families are given a lump sum as opposed to the typical weekly or monthly payout. this made them scared shitless so they had to ration money and learn how to make more back through work or starting businesses.


I guess you could say Guy Standing is a stand-up guy who stands for something.


----------



## Bassomatic (Jul 20, 2021)

I will chime in here, with my professional (I'll spare a power level) view.

Seriously, and no meming, Mother fucking Adam Smith. He IS modern economics, anything is based off him, he is the corner stone of the field still. Many of the things he wrote about are outdated unrelated but the core is still there, were we get the splits of the schools come from him, it's all based on his understanding of the market it self.

While I love love LOVE people like Sowell, and have a signed Hans Herman Hoppe on my work desk, Smith founded my field period and you need to have a serious education, to understand how to still grasp something from him. Not to say, you can't read him green or unversed. But imho you read Smith because "he's the guy who started it" then go on to other people and kinda ignore him and think well who cares about 1700s grain price and how does that matter? Then you start thinking back and re read Smith educated and damn.. he was THAT good.

Also Paul Krugman is a faggot and literally wrong on everything always, I hope suffering upon him everlasting.


----------



## Lodoss Warrior (Jul 20, 2021)

John Maynard Keynes. No, not a joke.

Besides instantly being better than most Austrians by simply not buying into praxeology and "Muh axioms of human activity", he wasn't delusional like many neoclassical economists think he was about rationality in the markets. He perfectly understood that subjective perceptions of the market matter much more than whatever abstract equilibrium between supply and demand you can create with a flawed conception of how people operate.

Plus, he was actually ahead of his time by being _behind _in the times. He was critical of free-trade and the theory of comparative advantage; as a result, advocated for protectist policies like immigration control, tariffs, and internal industry, which China and Japan would use to grow into dominating economies. He also pointed out how ridiculous the Labor Theory of Value was--both Ricardo's and Marx's iterations.

His big problem was having intellectual descendents completely butcher his original theories. You can thank them for why Stagflation occured in the 70s, and why idiots like Krugman still have a job.


----------



## Bassomatic (Jul 20, 2021)

Lodoss Warrior said:


> John Maynard Keynes. No, not a joke.
> 
> Besides instantly being better than most Austrians by simply not buying into praxeology and "Muh axioms of human activity", he wasn't delusional like many neoclassical economists think he was about rationality in the markets. He perfectly understood that subjective perceptions of the market matter much more than whatever abstract equilibrium between supply and demand you can create with a flawed conception of how people operate.
> 
> ...


Imma hit you with a winner fren, not because Keynes is a good school. But youre 100% correct on people mis using his shit (in fact one of his tarrif things was told as a "what if" then brit gov went and enacted it) 

Keynes, was a lot better than most give credit for and while I still don't go too deep in his way he is a MUST read and props to him. 

You legit understand econ better than 95% of the world to grasp what you did.

His denial of said axioms is a sticking point where I don't root for him too much, soicoeconmics is it's own field for a reason (and again much like Keynes butchered ideals)


----------



## Honk Hill (Jul 20, 2021)

Get to the Hoppe


----------



## Thomas Highway (Jul 20, 2021)

Its fun to dunk on Keynes, but he is still Lord Keynes and we are still nobodies.

Edit: Hoppe is literally useless and only appeals to the cripplingly autistic and/or psychopaths.


----------



## Bassomatic (Jul 21, 2021)

Being I am an economist, by default am tismo af. Aside my leanings, I'll disagree because if you don't like Hoppe, you can still learn a ton from him and see faults flaws etc, much like say someone sees err in Marx etc. 

Clearly Dr. Hoppe, is an extremist, I don't pretend to think what he wants isn't real or happening soon. Now if you are against this stuff, he should stand as a lynch pin of someone to study to see his "faults"

I won't side track too much on my anti gov shit but, HHH really plans what it would be like with no gov, privatized everything and really aside that spin, he very well explains the simple, supply demand ideas.  Sadly, no other even people like Friedman, expanded on the concept, what goes away will come back privately. I fully thing this is true again see Axioms.

Either way, I'm super happy to see people here grasp and talk about the concept of the field.


----------



## Bussyking7 (Jul 21, 2021)

Bassomatic said:


> Being I am an economist, by default am tismo af. Aside my leanings, I'll disagree because if you don't like Hoppe, you can still learn a ton from him and see faults flaws etc, much like say someone sees err in Marx etc.
> 
> Clearly Dr. Hoppe, is an extremist, I don't pretend to think what he wants isn't real or happening soon. Now if you are against this stuff, he should stand as a lynch pin of someone to study to see his "faults"
> 
> ...


Hahahaha. Sweatie, reading Rothbard during your Mcdonalds lunch break doesn't make you an economist.

Shitty "economists" whose thoughts should never be read:
Mises
Hayek
Sowell
Rothbard
All the rest of Austrian retards
Ha-Joon Chang
Richard Wolf
Stephanie Kelton
All the rest of the MMT retards

If you have ever read an "economics" book that isn't a textbook, please go out and become an hero.

Go out on the beach, read some classic Lucas, enjoy a nice Romer paper, and have a laugh with Christiano.


----------



## Thomas Highway (Jul 21, 2021)

Hayek's writings are fine if you take them into the context of personal responsibility when trying to apply them to life in 2021. There are some genuinely valuable lessons to be learned in them.


You're being a little unfair.


----------



## Lodoss Warrior (Jul 21, 2021)

Bussyking7 said:


> Shitty "economists" whose thoughts should never be read:
> Mises
> Hayek
> Sowell
> ...



Lmao what. I can get being salty about MMT, with all the money printing going on and rising unemployment. But where exactly did a pretty protectionist, mixed-market Korean economist touch you to result in such triggering?


----------



## Bussyking7 (Jul 21, 2021)

Thomas Highway said:


> Hayek's writings are fine if you take them into the context of personal responsibility when trying to apply them to life in 2021. There are some genuinely valuable lessons to be learned in them.
> 
> 
> You're being a little unfair.


So he's a self help guru.


Lodoss Warrior said:


> Lmao what. I can get being salty about MMT, with all the money printing going on and rising unemployment. But where exactly did a pretty protectionist, mixed-market Korean economist touch you to result in such triggering?


Deep in my tariff hating, NAFTA loving soul.


----------



## Thomas Highway (Jul 21, 2021)

Bussyking7 said:


> So he's a self help guru.



Still somewhat unfair but better.


----------



## Bassomatic (Jul 21, 2021)

Bussyking7 said:


> Hahahaha. Sweatie, reading Rothbard during your Mcdonalds lunch break doesn't make you an economist.
> 
> Shitty "economists" whose thoughts should never be read:
> Mises
> ...


I've powerleveled before and have vouches to back. I literally am a doctor of the field ffs.

Just because you don't like some views doesn't negate them. I also mentioned my personal leanings match my professional. 

I don't even know why this got under my skin but you sound like that guy who needs a proper stuffing in a locker.

It could be part because I have a torn pec muscle and drowning my sorrows. 

Either way now I feel like a faggot bragging but will leave this for mockery of my stupid drunk actions.


----------



## Bussyking7 (Jul 21, 2021)

Bassomatic said:


> I've powerleveled before and have vouches to back. I literally am a doctor of the field ffs.


I hate it to break it to you bro, but your PhD from hamburger university doesn't really matter much. 


Bassomatic said:


> Just because you don't like some views doesn't negate them. I also mentioned my personal leanings match my professional.


Except, you know, there's literally zero empirical evidence to back your autism up. At least come up with a model. But I forgot, who cares about evidence when you have praxeology on your side.


Bassomatic said:


> Either way now I feel like a faggot bragging


You're a LRM at best and most probably a CC 
grunt with dreams of getting a non tenure track position at GMU. Sorry to say, but it's not much to brag about.


----------



## Thomas Highway (Jul 21, 2021)

@Bussyking7 You really need to calm down.


----------



## Gay_Frog (Jul 22, 2021)

Thomas Highway said:


> @Bussyking7 You really need to calm down.


Fuck you, I am starting to like this spat. 
@Bussyking7  and @Bassomatic go on you won't be like to be prove wrong on internet.


----------



## Akashic Retard (Jul 22, 2021)

Ludwig von Mises because he said Milton Friedman was a socialist.


----------



## Akashic Retard (Jul 22, 2021)

Bussyking7 said:


> If you have ever read an "economics" book that isn't a textbook, please go out and become an hero.





Bussyking7 said:


> I hate it to break it to you bro, but your PhD from hamburger university doesn't really matter much.


----------



## RageCageChamp19 (Jul 22, 2021)

Milton Friedman because you are more invested in spending your money on things you need/want than a politican who's spending your money.


----------



## Stoneheart (Jul 23, 2021)

Well Hjalmar Schacht was the smartest banker with his Mefo Bills.

Also he was no Nazi, an allied court found him not guilty.


----------



## Ragnarlodbrok (Jul 23, 2021)

Bassomatic said:


> I will chime in here, with my professional (I'll spare a power level) view.
> 
> Seriously, and no meming, Mother fucking Adam Smith. He IS modern economics, anything is based off him, he is the corner stone of the field still. Many of the things he wrote about are outdated unrelated but the core is still there, were we get the splits of the schools come from him, it's all based on his understanding of the market it self.
> 
> ...


Sowell? *Scoffs*
Have you even read Loki?




No but seriously is Sowell a good read? I have never read his books or anything i always tought he was a token black man.


Thomas Highway said:


> Edit: Hoppe is literally useless and only appeals to the cripplingly autistic and/or psychopaths.


So its an ideology for Karing farmers? Based!


----------



## Lonely Grave (Jul 24, 2021)

if finance ministers count then Paul Keating

dude tanked the polls so much to force-feed Australia a recession but it was a recession hiding an unprecedented 30-year nonstop growth that was barely challenged in 2011 (and another Labor treasurer fixed that crisis as well) in addition to fixing taxation and establishing most of the welfare state that would destroy the opposition if they tried to undo it 

dude doesn't even have a economics degree but saves the country anyway, what a chad


----------



## MAPK phosphatase (Jul 24, 2021)

Ragnarlodbrok said:


> No but seriously is Sowell a good read? I have never read his books or anything i always tought he was a token black man.


You can find samples of his stuff online and judge for yourself.


----------



## Bassomatic (Jul 24, 2021)

Sorry for being a faggot. I don't know why I got butt mad (wait I do called being drunk and having bad health week).

For basic econ texts, Samuleoson wrote a ton including text books.


----------



## Terrorist (Jul 24, 2021)

Though I'm not big into economics, I like Henry Clay and Friedrich List.


MAPK phosphatase said:


> You can find samples of his stuff online and judge for yourself.


That's not economics, though. The video is just bullet points about slavery everyone with a working forebrain who isn't a complete indoctrinated simp already knows. You mean whites weren't the only ones to enslave people and races other than whites were complicit in African slave trade? Wow, what a revelation.

My read on Sowell is that he's a pop-economist, like Jordan Peterson is a pop-psychologist. He doesn't seem to have contributed many original ideas to the field and his most significant work has been in sociology. I don't think he can be grouped with heavyweights like Hayek, Friedman, Mises etc.


----------



## MAPK phosphatase (Jul 25, 2021)

Terrorist said:


> That's not economics, though.


Alright




I agree that he's more someone who's communicated economics than "done" economics.


----------



## Bassomatic (Jul 26, 2021)

While Dr. Sowell, does focus on social issues etc, if you find his college work etc (all public domain mind you) he's fucking bright. 

I don't want to kiss ass too hard because I think, it's such a mystery and looked at like some kinda rocket science as well as snooty to the public. But I think branching out and talking about your views and ideas has a lot of merit.

Also, If you ever see the episode of Murdoch Murdoch with Willie Pierce, seeing basic economics set on fire as "nigger garbage" is fucking hystrical.

I really don't mind him as a brand manager, to the field. Esp when cockheels like Bernake, Yellen (who personally I think sold out more than inept) and that FAGGOT Krugman are the "face" of the field of study.


----------



## Jonah Hill poster (Jul 26, 2021)

Surprised no one mentions Adam Smith that much



I remembered when this book was at one point touted by the first ever love for budding economists


----------



## Bassomatic (Jul 26, 2021)

Smith isn't the easiest read, as I said, in my career, I read him early on and re read after I was into the field and educated, that second time where you have a back round, shows you he was a fucking master mind.


----------



## Mukhrani (Jul 27, 2021)

I like Schumpeter. His counter to Marx in Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy was really insightful, with chillingly accurate predictions of a completely different collapse of capitalism on the horizon. Heinrich Pesch is also good, though finding extant copies of his work in English is very, very difficult. His historical analyses of the rise of banking/industrialism in Europe were informative.

Schumpeter's prediction of the collapse of the family in _1942 _is spot on:


> To men and women in modern capitalist societies, family life and parenthood mean less than they meant before and hence are less powerful molders of behavior; the rebellious son or daughter who professes contempt for “Victorian” standards is, however incorrectly, expressing an undeniable truth. The weight of these facts is not impaired by our inability to measure them statistically. The marriage rate proves nothing because the term Marriage covers as many sociological meanings as does the term Property, and the kind of alliance that used to be formed by the marriage contract may completely die out without any change in the legal construction or in the frequency of the contract. Nor is the divorce rate more significant. It does not matter how many marriages are dissolved by judicial decree—what matters is how many lack the content essential to the old pattern. If in our statistical age readers insist on a statistical measure, the proportion of marriages that produce no children or only one child, though still inadequate to quantify the phenomenon I mean, might come as near as we can hope to come to indicating its numerical importance. The phenomenon by now extends, more or less, to all classes. But it first appeared in the bourgeois (and intellectual) stratum and its symptomatic as well as causal value for our purposes lies entirely there. It is wholly attributable to the rationalization of everything in life, which we have seen is one of the effects of capitalist evolution. In fact, it is but one of the results of the spread of that rationalization to the sphere of private life. All the other factors which are usually adduced in explanation can be readily reduced to that one.
> 
> As soon as men and women learn the utilitarian lesson and refuse to take for granted the traditional arrangements that their social environment makes for them, as soon as they acquire the habit of weighing the individual advantages and disadvantages of any prospective course of action—or, as we might also put it, as soon as they introduce into their private life a sort of inarticulate system of cost accounting—they cannot fail to become aware of the heavy personal sacrifices that family ties and especially parenthood entail under modern conditions and of the fact that at the same time, excepting the cases of farmers and peasants, children cease to be economic assets. These sacrifices do not consist only of the items that come within the reach of the measuring rod of money but comprise in addition an indefinite amount of loss of comfort, of freedom from care, and opportunity to enjoy alternatives of increasing attractiveness and variety—alternatives to be compared with joys of parenthood that are being subjected to a critical analysis of increasing severity. The implication of this is not weakened but strengthened by the fact that the balance sheet is likely to be incomplete, perhaps even fundamentally wrong. For the greatest of the assets, the contribution made by parenthood to physical and moral health—to “normality” as we might express it—particularly in the case of women, almost invariably escapes the rational searchlight of modern individuals who, in private as in public life, tend to focus attention on ascertainable details of immediate utilitarian relevance and to sneer at the idea of hidden necessities of human nature or of the social organism. The point I wish to convey is, I think, clear without further elaboration. It may be summed up in the question that is so clearly in many potential parents’ minds: “Why should we stunt our ambitions and impoverish our lives in order to be insulted and looked down upon in our old age?”
> 
> While the capitalist process, by virtue of the psychic attitudes it creates, progressively dims the values of family life and removes the conscientious inhibitions that an old moral tradition would have put in the way toward a different scheme of life, it at the same time implements the new tastes. As regards childlessness, capitalist inventiveness produces contraceptive devices of ever-increasing efficiency that overcome the resistance which the strongest impulse of man would otherwise have put up. As regards the style of life, capitalist evolution decreases the desirability of, and provides alternatives to, the bourgeois family home. I have previously adverted to the Evaporation of Industrial Property; I have now to advert to the Evaporation of Consumers’ Property.



Also a very salient take on how capitalism eventually undermines itself and public respect for property in democracies:


> A very common type of social criticism which we have already met laments the “decline of competition” and equates it to the decline of capitalism because of the virtues it attributes to competition and the vices it attributes to modern industrial “monopolies.” In this schema of interpretation, monopolization plays the role of arteriosclerosis and reacts upon the fortunes of the capitalist order through increasingly unsatisfactory economic performance. We have seen the reasons for rejecting this view. Economically neither the case for competition nor the case against concentration of economic control is anything like as strong as this argument implies. And, whether weak or strong, it misses the salient point. Even if the giant concerns were all managed so perfectly as to call forth applause from the angels in heaven, the political consequences of concentration would still be what they are. The political structure of a nation is profoundly affected by the elimination of a host of small and medium-sized firms the owner-managers of which, together with their dependents, henchmen and connections, count quantitatively at the polls and have a hold on what we may term the foreman class that no management of a large unit can ever have; the very foundation of private property and free contracting wears away in a nation in which its most vital, most concrete, most meaningful types disappear from the moral horizon of the people.
> 
> On the other hand, the capitalist process also attacks its own institutional framework—let us continue to visualize “property” and “free contracting” as _partes pro toto_—within the precincts of the big units. Excepting the cases that are still of considerable importance in which a corporation is practically owned by a single individual or family, the figure of the proprietor and with it the specifically proprietary interest have vanished from the picture. There are the salaried executives and all the salaried managers and sub-managers. There are the big stockholders. And then there are the small stockholders. The first group tends to acquire the employee attitude and rarely if ever identifies itself with the stockholding interest even in the most favorable cases, i.e., in the cases in which it identifies itself with the interest of the concern as such. The second group, even if it considers its connection with the concern as permanent and even if it actually behaves as financial theory would have stockholders behave, is at one remove from both the functions and the attitudes of an owner. As to the third group, small stockholders often do not care much about what for most of them is but a minor source of income and, whether they care or not, they hardly ever bother, unless they or some representatives of theirs are out to exploit their nuisance value; being often very ill used and still more often thinking themselves ill used, they almost regularly drift into an attitude hostile to “their” corporations, to big business in general and, particularly when things look bad, to the capitalist order as such. No element of any of those three groups into which I schematized the typical situation unconditionally takes the attitude characteristic of that curious phenomenon, so full of meaning and so rapidly passing, that is covered by the term Property.
> 
> ...


----------



## Akashic Retard (Jul 27, 2021)

Ragnarlodbrok said:


> No but seriously is Sowell a good read? I have never read his books or anything i always tought he was a token black man.


Sowell is a good read if you don't know much about economics. Basic Economics is very digestible and fairly comprehensive. Haven't read any of the other more niche books.


----------



## Buttigieg2020 (Jul 27, 2021)

Bassomatic said:


> Also Paul Krugman is a faggot and literally wrong on everything always, I hope suffering upon him everlasting.


That’s what makes Krugman great, he’s so obviously full of shit and yet he constantly falls upwards. 
I was reading our state mandated textbook written by him (god help us) where he claimed the banking structure and free trade agreements of the US would lead to tremendous prosperity, *right after the 2008 housing crisis. *I hate to use the term, but what a redpill. To see everyone’s lives collapse around me because of these policies, while the state claimed it was “progress.” It was obvious the “experts” were full of shit after that.


----------



## Mukhrani (Jul 27, 2021)

Buttigieg2020 said:


> That’s what makes Krugman great, he’s so obviously full of shit and yet he constantly falls upwards.
> I was reading our state mandated textbook written by him (god help us) where he claimed the banking structure and free trade agreements of the US would lead to tremendous prosperity, *right after the 2008 housing crisis. *I hate to use the term, but what a redpill. To see everyone’s lives collapse around me because of these policies, while the state claimed it was “progress.” It was obvious the “experts” were full of shit after that.


My favorite Krugman tard moment was his internet prediction:

"The growth of the Internet will slow drastically, as the flaw in 'Metcalfe's law'–which states that the number of potential connections in a network is proportional to the square of the number of participants–becomes apparent: most people have nothing to say to each other! By 2005 or so, it will become clear that the Internet's impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine's."


----------



## Archie_Kimkicker (Jul 31, 2021)

The Rules of Aquisition are what I live by. The rest is astrology.


----------



## Mr. Zed da Robot Poon Fed (Aug 16, 2021)

Ragnarlodbrok said:


> No but seriously is Sowell a good read? I have never read his books or anything i always tought he was a token black man.


A very good read. I actually read _Black Rednecks and White Liberals_ and _Basic Economics_, and am about to read _Discrimination and Disparities_.

One thing that kinda frustrates me is that he's criticized for taking use of the GI Bill during the Korean War and not being well-receiving of handouts, particularly on places like TheColi. The GI Bill didn't even help black people that much, hence it being called "affirmative action for white people". Sowell also had this pretty good argument against them:

(Link)
(Archive)



> Finally, the argument that anyone who has benefitted from affirmative action should never oppose it is as illogical as it is ignorant of the facts. I certainly benefitted from the Korean War, which led to my being in the military and therefore getting the G.I. Bill that enabled me to go to college.
> 
> Does that mean that I should never be against any war? Was it wrong of me to be against the Vietnam War after I had personally benefitted from the Korean War? Are the duties of a citizen, not to mention the duty to be honest and truthful, to be over-ridden by what happened to benefit me personally?
> 
> ...





> *Thomas Sowell*
> *Silly letters*​Most of the letters and e-mails I receive are a pleasure to read and my only regret is that I cannot answer even one-tenth of them. However, there are certain e-mails and letters that repeat the same fallacies again and again. Let me try to answer one of those fallacies now, once and for all.
> 
> One of the silly things that gets said repeatedly is that I should not be against affirmative action because I have myself benefitted from it.
> ...


----------



## DerKryptid (Aug 19, 2021)

Dugin


----------

