*blows marxism, socialism and communism the fuck out forever*

>politics

gr8 thread

lefties will never understand
>>9436551
>/pol/
he's too good for /pol/ and he's black anyway

>>9436541
Ancoms have always been devestating Marxists since proudhon

>>9436541
>claims to be a basic textbook
>approaches subject with obvious ideological slant
hmm

>>9436747
>approaches subject with obvious ideological slant
so... this is not like your commie books
also Thomas Sowell was a real economist, not like marx

File: transcontinental.png (2MB, 1125x1636px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1125x1636px

>make a thread about a (anti-commie) book
>gb2 /pol/

every time lol by which I mean kek

>>9436541
>politics
u lose

File: 18157017_1653633474652092_7953044101727388632_n.jpg (32KB, 501x485px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 501x485px

>>9436541
This is so fucking stupid, Sowell sucks, but that's not even the issue.

This is just an introductory econ textbook, it hardly "blows marxism out forever".

If you fuckers want to actually discuss the content of this book rather than talk a bunch of political bullshit, let's do so.

This book (and neoclassical econ in general) makes a number of assumptions, such as a frictionless labor market, Pareto efficiency, rationality, and utility maximization for individuals. These assumptions are unreasonable, and have proven again and again to be wholly inadequate for modeling even the most basic economic phenomena, which is why in basic economics courses the case studies are clearly cherry-picked, when the data/policy they're examining aren't already transparently designed by economists/policy-makers with these spurious and unscientific assumptions in mind.

>>9436834
>writes three massive volumes analyzing an economic system
>not an economist
It's almost as if you have a vested interest in naysaying anything to do with the man...

>>9436881
Didn't mean to post this image, sorry.

>>9436886
I could write 3 volumes about flat earth theory, that doesn't make it correct. Marx was just stupid.

>>9437062
Have you read Marx?

>>9437067
Have you read any books on flat Earth theory?

>>9437071
No. I've also never called one stupid without listening to them first. And I have listened to them - one was even quite intelligent. He had a functional (from what I can tell) theory of optics involving curved light which would allow for the visual phenomena which are normally taken as proof positive for a round earth. He didn't have any evidence, so of course I don't believe him. But he wasn't stupid. Others I've spoken or listened to largely have been.

person without an already existing economic ideology who just recently read this book in order to become more informed about how the economy works so that I could have an opinion on it here

holy shit this book was horrible. even though I know next to nothing about what an ideal economic system should look like and haven't been predisposed to people like Marx to give my opinion of this book bias(I have no dog in this fight), I could still tell this garbage was incredibly one sided and failed to even acknowledge how the real world works.

at one point it literally says the fact some people cant afford to survive is unfortunate but it's a problem with the system so there's nothing we can do. then it completely ignores any downsides of the system after that and pretends as if capitalism is god's gift to mankind.

>>9436541
Not really. Sowell used to be a marxist in his youth. And I'd say that he kept the best parts of it.

E.g. he points out that mountain areas are often backwater areas, because it's hard for a central power to establish a hegemony. Being a lawless or contested area isn't good for any progress at all.

Now, if we disregard geography, how should we explain why this mountain area sucks? That they on an individual level decided to suck? That their genes are bad? Muh IQ?

File: 1493342895244.jpg (277KB, 1800x1200px) Image search: [Google]

277KB, 1800x1200px

>>9436541
>austrian """ economics""""
>BTFOing anything

>>9436541
Marxism is already BTFO by human nature, it didn't need Sowell to do that.

>>9437636
Is Sowell an austrian? I've got the impression that he's neither Chicago nor Austrian. True, he doesn't rely on graphs and diagrams. But on the other hand, he doesn't go down the "if I was a horse, what would I do"-path. No, he writes about horses in flesh and blood.

>>9437596
>person without an already existing economic ideology

An author believed something before writing a book? That's crazy.

Marxists in shambles

>>9437638
>human nature
>>/r/eddit

>>9436834
more like no true shitpost amiright

>>9438313
so you don't have a response?

>>9436847
>mail male
kek

>>9438684

What do you mean? I'm agreeing with your point that people should never believe anything because then that would make them biased.

>>9438549
>not believing in human nature
>only using two meme arrows to link another board
>>>/r/eddit

>>9439897
>believing in human nature
>ever
pls post more

>>9436541

>git money
>git bitches

You're welcome, class dismissed.