Are these guy's books worth reading if I'm not American?

>>9292059
>Are these guy's books worth reading if I'm not American?
I don't think you should be reading anything with that grammar, friendo.

>>9292071
Literally nothing waa wrong with my grammar

>>9292076
>these guy's
I didn't realize that Tom Sowell had clones whom also wrote.

>>9292076
>these guy's

if it's just one guy, it should be this guy's

if it's multiple guys, it should be these guys'

>>9292059
He thinks climate change is a Leftist conspiracy

>>9292094
>>9292101

Lol where did you too go two school?

WE

>>9292059
It's only worth reading if your desperate to rationalise and learn to love the ongoing assrape capitalism has condemned you to

>>9292851
WUZ

File: 1489655107626.gif (930KB, 220x165px) Image search: [Google]

930KB, 220x165px

>>9292111
>>9292903

>>9292111
Because it is.

>>9292903
This is cute considering Sowell started out as a pro-government Marxist and quickly realized how wrong he was about everything when he actually entered into the government.

>>9292059
If you're not American read Wealth Poverty and Politics, Basic Economics, and Intellectuals and Society

>>9292908
DIARY

File: 1489029321414.jpg (21KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 480x480px

Yes he is worth reading. Disregard the leftists handwringing knobs. They read Al Franken books...

Sowell's personal favorite among his works is "A Conflict of Visions". Start there.

>>9293525
Knowledge and decisions are goat tier shizzle

>>9292059
>what can I do for you?

>I want to pretend the dumb fox news tier opinions I have were developed from reading books
>But I also don't want to look like they're based on me being a bigot

>Say no more pham

File: c4a.jpg (23KB, 600x484px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 600x484px

>>9293857
>thomas sowell = fox news
>thomas sowell = bigot

>>9293977
>thomas sowell = fox news

He really is though

>>9293857

You've allowed your own political aspersions to warp your attitude toward learning now: you are now character assassinating people who simply ask a general question about a black intellectual on the off-chance that they are from your boogeyman board.

And what if they are? Does it even matter? Whether they agree of disagree with Sowell at least they'll be more informed about the thoughts of a black intellectual. Is that really some damnable thing now?

You are worried that they are racist but then conversely become outraged when they express an interest in reading black intellectuals. Or should they just read the specific works of black intellectuals that you fascist allocate to them as "approved"?

You have become the memes too, m8.

>>9294015

Whether they agree or** disagree

>>9292111

I'm pretty sure he's just labeled a denier the same as anyone who objects to more government regulation as a solution to climate change. They don't actually deny that the climate is changing, they just recognize that there are legitimate questions to asked which the prevailing orthodoxy doesn't allow, especially pertaining to the political aspect of the debate. When Sowell or some other "denier" says that maybe we shouldn't tax carbon emissions because it'll destroy our economy and send a lot of people into poverty and on top of that it won't help at all in stopping climate change, the leftist literally hears "climate change isn't real" which then causes them to repeat their mantra of "the science is settled." It's like their brains are broken and they can't listen to what other people are saying.

>>9293857

What are Fox News opinions?

>>9292116
>huehuehue my epic trolling showed them

>>9294074
>they're not denying climate change
>they just ignore the clear consensus of climate scientists conclusions because they don't like its implications

>>9294074
>It's like their brains are broken and they can't listen to what other people are saying.

The irony

>>9294493

I would agree that the science of the matter, like the measuring and temperature taking is essentially settled. It becomes a problem when you start to conflate the actual science with the climate or economic models which have been completely ineffective and predicting the future. These models that predict doom are not in any way "scientific conclusions."

>>9294074
When you essentially deny the existence of externalities as a valid economic concept you're a kook and shouldn't be taken seriously.

>we shouldn't tax carbon emissions because it'll destroy our economy
The thing is the costs of carbon emissions to the public are not factored into market prices. Increasing private investment into alternative R&D and infrastructure will not "destroy our economy" but not doing so might in the long run.
Also a carbon tax isn't a "regulation", it was advocated as a market oriented solution by conservative groups back in the 1980s but since then they have gone off the deep end and now deny market activity can have negative ecological consequences at all. A carbon tax is a neoliberal idea, the point is to make alternative low carbon energy production more competitive for private investment by costing the negative externalities generated to the public. To think a carbon tax can work you need to believe that markets can fix the problem without any intervention beyond costing externalities into price.

>>9294515
>It becomes a problem when you start to conflate the actual science with the climate or economic models which have been completely ineffective and predicting the future. These models that predict doom are not in any way "scientific conclusions."

Except that's totally wrong, private modelling of future global temperatures have been going on back to the 1970s internally by oil companies and they have been highly accurate. None of the recent developments are a surprise to the industry.

https://real-economics.blogspot.ca/2017/02/shell-knew-about-climate-change.html

>>9294515
Any prediction will always be subject to variables.The basic fact that humans are releasing carbon into the atmosphere, we can predict the effects certain quantities will have on the global temperature and we can predict the effects such a rise in temperature will have.
Heating gas in a chamber is not complicated chemistry irrespective of scale.
You're right however that predicting the exact effects that rise of temperature will have on human civilization is subject to huge variability on the dynamics of how much will actually be released and the geographical affects that will occur.
The very fact of the matter is though is that certain or not on the extent the effects of climate change will have devastating effects for much of the worlds nations and there is very much a possibility that it could end human civilization.

>>9292059

No not really. If you're interested in economics go with relatively known, respected and 'mainstream' writers/economists to start off with. Here are some recs:

Tim Harford's Undercover Economist books (some solid macro and micro 101 in pop form, from a FT journo)
Acemoglu and Robinson's Why Nations Fail (developmental econ)
Deaton's Great Escape (development)
Reinhart and Rogoff This time is different (economic cycles)
Lewis The Big Short (financial crisis)
Heilbroner The Worldly Philosophers (older econ thinkers, smith, marx, ricardo etc)
Krugman Accidental Theorist (90s collection, general stuff, krugman is a trade specialist)
Piketty Capital in the 21st Century (modern inequality)
Friedman Capitalism and Freedom (muh freedom, someone more on the sowell end of the spectrum but actually respected and influential)

>>9292059
This man looks like he should be in the Land of Confusion music video.

>>9294522
In no way does Sowell deny externalities. There's a huge difference between "while climate change is real we need to balance contradicting risks and enact incremental change over the long term" and "climate change will wipe out all human civilization by next Saturday and only the kyoto protocols can save us."

And while maybe some conservatives spend too little time looking at unintended costs, many statists refuse to acknowledge that the free market is providing a solution in the form of successful alternative energy companies. Tesla is doing great right now which proves that people will pay a premium to help the environment. Now perhaps you could say that these companies are only successful due to subsidies, or that this is not nearly enough to turn back climate change, or blah blah blah. But let's not act like a guy with a Ph.D. In economics doesn't know what an externality is

If you are more interested in a conservative perspective on the decline of blacks in the U.S. than Sowell is the man. Basic Economics is a good starting point but please read other things to further nourish your understanding. Don't fall for reductionist models of capitalism; the marketplace is essentially a living, breathing computer that transfers data far more efficiently than any program and this cannot be replicated via the old "lemonade stand" example. Read some Marxists authors as well.

>>9294074
So... basically he's a shill for those big corporations that are destroying the world? Nice.

Hopefully he will burn in Hell forever and ever.

>>9294074
Choosing to check on Aunt Sally toward the middle was a nice touch, but you're still just trying to cover up the argument with a deflection.

>>9292059
I would argue they could be useful in learning about orthodox conservatives in the US, as that's really his primary audience. I'm not sure how well that translates to issues abroad, though. Still - if you want to learn about one of the prevalent political/economic viewpoints in the US, it's a good start.

>>9293977
After Buckley faded from public view and later died, who do you think became the intellectual guidance of the Republican party? Fox News has borrowed heavily from Sowell, especially in its early years when people like Krauthammer and such were frequent guests and commentators.

>>9292059
Are HIS books worth reading if I'm not AN American?


You're welcome. And no, pls start learning english.

He's the black economic version of Alan dershowitz. Literally went from anticapitalism to "the market will fix everything", he is absolutely fox news tier

>>9295093
>"the market will fix everything",
he's not wrong, depending on how you define 'everything'

>>9295112
I hate Americans so much

>>9295112
>if I make a sweep broad enough I'll eventually be right about it all
Does this tactic ever fail? It seems the laziest and yet also most effective thing to do.

read christopher lasch instead

>>9294825
>In no way does Sowell deny externalities. There's a huge difference between "while climate change is real we need to balance contradicting risks and enact incremental change over the long term" and "climate change will wipe out all human civilization by next Saturday and only the kyoto protocols can save us."
If you acknowledge externalities exist but have no idea what should be done about them then that's even more pathetic.
The entire point of a carbon tax is to rise the market prices to reflect the actual costs associated with burning fossil fuels e.g. medical/ecological clean up/etc/etc which today are just cost shifted onto others... it won't shut down industries just make them less competitive for investment against alternatives when all costs are factored into the prices. In theory it should cause investment to flow away from high carbon industries to low carbon. Now that's just the market approach to externalities if you want a more radical option you go down the route of an actual regulatory approach e.g. something along the lines of outlawing the production/importation of internal combustion engines within a short time frame... that would force alternatives into existence quickly and give no other option.

>>9295289
Why do statists/Marxists always talk about externalities like they are extremely complicated or arcane? Literally everyone who has taken an Econ 101 class "acknowledges" what an externality is. It's not something that's a matter of acknowledging or not. It's a super easy concept to understand and it in no way condemns the entire concept of capitalism, like so many try to claim.

Lots of times nothing should be done about an externality because the cost is small in comparison to the benefits. Specifically in regards to climate change I'm not commenting on the efficacy of a carbon tax, rather on this all or nothing mentality that so many have. Either you're a denier or you agree with every single policy choice put forward to stop it. Again look at the concept of externalities. Things have unintended consequences that affect 3rd parties. Why is it so hard to imagine that policy XYZ on climate change could potentially have negative impacts on the economy?

>>9293086
>Marxist
>pro-government

These are very separate things. I'm pretty sure you don't know anything about Marxism.

Anyway, neoclassical apologetics like Sowell is absolute garbage, I can't believe people still buy into shit like "market equilibrium". Pseudoscience at its finest.

>>9292094
>whom

File: whomstd.jpg (55KB, 445x629px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 445x629px

>>9296835

poo

>>9292903

Most of the problems that people blame on "capitalism" are actually conservative socialism, i.e. aggression against private property for the sake of the nation or class in power.

>>9295137

Give me a break. Europeans are so spineless today because social democracy has destroyed their perception of government over-reach. They will accept anything as long as it's "for the public good". Americans have not yet been exposed to that complete and utter garbage, although we're on the way.

Europeans hate on Ameicans for actually wanting to defend their private property. What a joke.

>>9292059
Absolutely not, and perhaps not even if you ere an American

He's a N I G G E R, so not.

>>9299981
Why?