CAPITALISM

[Dari]

It's an economic book 4 pages shy of 1100 pages. I've been reading it on and off for the past 6 months because I'm a fan of Ludwig Von Mises, one of the most conservative economists you've never heard of. The author, George Reisman, was also a good friend of Ayn Rand before she became famous.

Anyway, the download is free so check it out.

link

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Dari
It's an economic book 4 pages shy of 1100 pages. I've been reading it on and off for the past 6 months because I'm a fan of Ludwig Von Mises, one of the most conservative economists you've never heard of. The author, George Reisman, was also a good friend of Ayn Rand before she became famous.

Anyway, the download is free so check it out.

link

I might also recommend this.

Say Dari, I could swear you used to lean heavily to the left. What happened?

 

[misle]

Looks interesting. Thanks for the link.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Dari
It's an economic book 4 pages shy of 1100 pages. I've been reading it on and off for the past 6 months because I'm a fan of Ludwig Von Mises, one of the most conservative economists you've never heard of. The author, George Reisman, was also a good friend of Ayn Rand before she became famous.

Anyway, the download is free so check it out.

link

I might also recommend this.

Say Dari, I could swear you used to lean heavily to the left. What happened?

I'm fiscally conservative and socially liberal, most of the time. At the same time, I'm my own person and don't like to be boxed into any particular ideology.

 

[Craig234]

Economics books from good friends of Ayn Rand come about as highly recommended as investment books from George Madoff. What is it with these cults?

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Economics books from good friends of Ayn Rand come about as highly recommended as investment books from George Madoff. What is it with these cults?

Oh please introduce us to your favorite economics books!?

 

[BoberFett]

LOL, Craig.txt

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Craig234
Economics books from good friends of Ayn Rand come about as highly recommended as investment books from George Madoff. What is it with these cults?

Oh please introduce us to your favorite economics books!?

Oh, great. Cue the thousandth mention of Naomi Klein's amazingly naive ramblings in written form.

Edit: Actually, let me step in and do it to save Craig234 the time and trouble.

Buy this book. It contains heavy-hitting investigative journalism, such as the completely harebrained link between the massacre at Tiananmen Square - are your eyes welling up with tears on cue as enlightenment demands of you - and the Chinese dictatorship's attempt to instill Milton Friedmanesque economic reform to the country. Let's allow Ms. Klein to speak directly:

What we're starting to hear from what's being called China's New Left, and people like Wang Hui, who's a wonderful academic, is that this was a vast oversimplification of what was driving the pro-democracy movement in 1989 in China. What was driving it was that the government of Deng Xiaoping was radically restructuring the economy along with the lines that had been prescribed by Milton Friedman -- economic shock therapy -- and people were seeing their quality of life devalued. Workers were losing their rights. And they were taking to the streets and demanding democratic control over the economic transition.

So democracy wasn't an abstract idea. It wasn't just "We want to vote." It was, "We want to control this transition. We want to have a say in it." It was a direct challenge to the Fukuyama formulation, which, by the way, was made that same year: the idea that you would have these two streams and that they wouldn't intersect.

I just want to read one other thing, which is another one of these paths not taken, because we know how that one ended in Tiananmen Square: that dream was crushed.

For more information on how thoroughly and repeatedly you will be punched in the brain by reading this book, see the Naomi Klein smackdown roundup. Oh, and all of you are horrible people because you're not enlightened!

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Craig234
Economics books from good friends of Ayn Rand come about as highly recommended as investment books from George Madoff. What is it with these cults?

Oh please introduce us to your favorite economics books!?

Oh, great. Cue the thousandth mention of Naomi Klein's amazingly naive ramblings in written form.

Have you read it yet? Didn't think so. The voice of ignorance?

Naomi Klein's excellent book is not an economis book. It's a current events book that contains history - history including psychology, politics, economics and other matters.

It discusses the actual history of the application of Milton Friedman's 'Chicago schools of economics' over decades in various nations, showing how catastrophics its effects are.

It's closely related to Randian economic views.

I don't have 'favorite economics books'. I tend to support Keynesian policies; books that agree with that I'd tend to support, ones like the Friedmans approach I oppose.

If you would like though, I'll name a favorite - Paul Samuelson. Another is John Kenneth Galbraith (his son is good too).

But I find popular books on the issues - the economic policies in the context of our society - more useful. Writers such as Paul Krugman, Joseph Stieglitz, Thom Hartmann, David Cay Johnston, Simon Johnson and many others, some economists some not, I find very useful to read.

But why am I bothering to give this info to lovers of ignorance who can't be bothered to read one book, much less use a longer selection?

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Dari
It's an economic book 4 pages shy of 1100 pages. I've been reading it on and off for the past 6 months because I'm a fan of Ludwig Von Mises, one of the most conservative economists you've never heard of. The author, George Reisman, was also a good friend of Ayn Rand before she became famous.

Anyway, the download is free so check it out.

link

I might also recommend this.

Say Dari, I could swear you used to lean heavily to the left. What happened?

I'm fiscally conservative and socially liberal, most of the time. At the same time, I'm my own person and don't like to be boxed into any particular ideology.

shens. based on your posts you are fiscally center left/facist hence i always rail on you for supposedly being an econ phd candidate.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Dari
It's an economic book 4 pages shy of 1100 pages. I've been reading it on and off for the past 6 months because I'm a fan of Ludwig Von Mises, one of the most conservative economists you've never heard of. The author, George Reisman, was also a good friend of Ayn Rand before she became famous.

Anyway, the download is free so check it out.

link

I might also recommend this.

Say Dari, I could swear you used to lean heavily to the left. What happened?

I'm fiscally conservative and socially liberal, most of the time. At the same time, I'm my own person and don't like to be boxed into any particular ideology.

shens. based on your posts you are fiscally center left/facist hence i always rail on you for supposedly being an econ phd candidate.

Example?

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Craig234
Economics books from good friends of Ayn Rand come about as highly recommended as investment books from George Madoff. What is it with these cults?

Oh please introduce us to your favorite economics books!?

Oh, great. Cue the thousandth mention of Naomi Klein's amazingly naive ramblings in written form.

Have you read it yet? Didn't think so. The voice of ignorance?

Naomi Klein's excellent book is not an economis book. It's a current events book that contains history - history including psychology, politics, economics and other matters.

It discusses the actual history of the application of Milton Friedman's 'Chicago schools of economics' over decades in various nations, showing how catastrophics its effects are.

It's closely related to Randian economic views.

...

But why am I bothering to give this info to lovers of ignorance who can't be bothered to read one book, much less use a longer selection?

I have read it, and it's trash. It amuses me greatly that you repeatedly mention it as if it actually has value outside of a sort of distressing feeling one gets that a book this idiotic sells well.

You see, some of us read people like Naomi Klein, Noam Chomsky and even Michael Moore because we actually look at both sides of an issue. Don't stress your brain trying to wrap it around that idea.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: yllus

For more information on how thoroughly and repeatedly you will be punched in the brain by reading this book, see the Naomi Klein smackdown roundup. Oh, and all of you are horrible people because you're not enlightened!

What a pathetic 'rebuttal', an apparently anonymous post with some weak points; it says the beefiest criticism contains this question, for example:

Moreover, wasn't FDR's attempt to pack the court and his signing legislation that was later found to be unconstitutional evidence that he tried to force policies on the country by subverting the democratic process?

So, let's take that one apart as a sample.

When an elected leader is at odds with the constitution, it tends to be *because* of democracy, not in spite of it - it's most often when the 'tyranny of the majority' is in conflict with some rights for minorities in the constitution. Of course, it's also possible that democracy has failed, and the elected leader is trying to violate the constitution to harm the public interest. But in the cited case - FDR - it has a lot more to do with a popular leader with a popular mandate running into barriers that are the opposite of what the question implies. When FDR wanted to pass measures the public generally supported, the opposition he ran into with a right-wing Supreme Court was not exactly him running into 'democracy' as his opposition, but rather life-appointed Justices who were blocking him (rightly or wrongly).

To try to be clear, I'll make an example on the other side - if George Bush had created wildly popular internment camps for all American Muslims, that's not an example, as the question suggests of his 'subverting the democratic process', it's an example of the interests of democracy being allowed to run wild and trample on the individual rights of a minority, with a cheering mob.

The question lacks any meaningful content, but is illogical in what it says. That's what you have to offer...

 

[yllus]

Yeah, The Economist is an anonymous blog. Way to be well-read, Craig234.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: yllus

I have read it, and it's trash. It amuses me greatly that you repeatedly mention it as if it actually has value outside of a sort of distressing feeling one gets that a book this idiotic sells well.

You see, some of us read people like Naomi Klein, Noam Chomsky and even Michael Moore because we actually look at both sides of an issue. Don't stress your brain trying to wrap it around that idea.

How ironic - you make the false insinuation you are so careful to try to say you are against being made.

The issue here is simply that I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you were not so clueless that you would fail to appreciate the book if you read it.

I assigned you the lesser sin of spouting baseless conclusions without having read it, not wanting to suggest you would be this bad as to read it and post what you did.

We'll just agree to disagree, I think. I made an example of one of your 'beefiest' arguments attacking the author - it's clear to me more would be a waste.

I'll leave it up to the others to judge for themselbes.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: yllus

I have read it, and it's trash. It amuses me greatly that you repeatedly mention it as if it actually has value outside of a sort of distressing feeling one gets that a book this idiotic sells well.

You see, some of us read people like Naomi Klein, Noam Chomsky and even Michael Moore because we actually look at both sides of an issue. Don't stress your brain trying to wrap it around that idea.

How ironic - you make the false insinuation you are so careful to try to say you are against being made.

The issue here is simply that I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you were not so clueless that you would fail to appreciate the book if you read it.

I assigned you the lesser sin of spouting baseless conclusions without having read it, not wanting to suggest you would be this bad as to read it and post what you did.

We'll just agree to disagree, I think. I made an example of one of your 'beefiest' arguments attacking the author - it's clear to me more would be a waste.

I'll leave it up to the others to judge for themselbes.

Man, every day in your life must be a great one. Full of unwarranted egotism and a strident belief that critical analysis of one's own ideas is wholly unnecessary.

I love that you make two examples of a president abusing his position and mark one as good - because he's doing something you've judged the people wanted, and that the "right-wing Supreme Court" didn't - and the other as bad. Surprise surprise, it's because your personal ideology falls in line with one and not the other!

Let us summarize this lesson:

Abusing the system when (you think) the people need it = Good

Abusing the system when Craig234 judges you to be a right-winger = Bad

Of course, the idea that abuse of the system is bad no matter your political affiliation is never to appear in Craig234's head.

What's even funnier is that FDR did exactly what Naomi Klein purports as her grand conspiracy. See if you can figure that one out with the big hint I've given you and redeem a shade of dignity.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: yllus
t contains heavy-hitting investigative journalism, such as the completely harebrained link between the massacre at Tiananmen Square - are your eyes welling up with tears on cue as enlightenment demands of you - and the Chinese dictatorship's attempt to instill Milton Friedmanesque economic reform to the country.

LMFAO! :laugh:

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: yllus
Man, every day in your life must be a great one. Full of unwarranted egotism and a strident belief that critical analysis of one's own ideas is wholly unnecessary.

I love that you make two examples of a president abusing his position and mark one as good - because he's doing something you've judged the people wanted, and that the "right-wing Supreme Court" didn't - and the other as bad. Surprise surprise, it's because your personal ideology falls in line with one and not the other!

Let us summarize this lesson:

Abusing the system when (you think) the people need it = Good

Abusing the system when Craig234 judges you to be a right-winger = Bad

Of course, the idea that abuse of the system is bad no matter your political affiliation is never to appear in Craig234's head.

What's even funnier is that FDR did exactly what Naomi Klein purports as her grand conspiracy. See if you can figure that one out with the big hint I've given you and redeem a shade of dignity.

An excellent summation of Craig's entire belief system.

 

[MotF Bane]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: yllus

I have read it, and it's trash. It amuses me greatly that you repeatedly mention it as if it actually has value outside of a sort of distressing feeling one gets that a book this idiotic sells well.

You see, some of us read people like Naomi Klein, Noam Chomsky and even Michael Moore because we actually look at both sides of an issue. Don't stress your brain trying to wrap it around that idea.

How ironic - you make the false insinuation you are so careful to try to say you are against being made.

The issue here is simply that I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you were not so clueless that you would fail to appreciate the book if you read it.

I assigned you the lesser sin of spouting baseless conclusions without having read it, not wanting to suggest you would be this bad as to read it and post what you did.

We'll just agree to disagree, I think. I made an example of one of your 'beefiest' arguments attacking the author - it's clear to me more would be a waste.

I'll leave it up to the others to judge for themselbes.

Man, every day in your life must be a great one. Full of unwarranted egotism and a strident belief that critical analysis of one's own ideas is wholly unnecessary.

I love that you make two examples of a president abusing his position and mark one as good - because he's doing something you've judged the people wanted, and that the "right-wing Supreme Court" didn't - and the other as bad. Surprise surprise, it's because your personal ideology falls in line with one and not the other!

Let us summarize this lesson:

Abusing the system when (you think) the people need it = Good

Abusing the system when Craig234 judges you to be a right-winger = Bad

Of course, the idea that abuse of the system is bad no matter your political affiliation is never to appear in Craig234's head.

What's even funnier is that FDR did exactly what Naomi Klein purports as her grand conspiracy. See if you can figure that one out with the big hint I've given you and redeem a shade of dignity.

:laugh:

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: yllus

I have read it, and it's trash. It amuses me greatly that you repeatedly mention it as if it actually has value outside of a sort of distressing feeling one gets that a book this idiotic sells well.

You see, some of us read people like Naomi Klein, Noam Chomsky and even Michael Moore because we actually look at both sides of an issue. Don't stress your brain trying to wrap it around that idea.

How ironic - you make the false insinuation you are so careful to try to say you are against being made.

The issue here is simply that I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you were not so clueless that you would fail to appreciate the book if you read it.

I assigned you the lesser sin of spouting baseless conclusions without having read it, not wanting to suggest you would be this bad as to read it and post what you did.

We'll just agree to disagree, I think. I made an example of one of your 'beefiest' arguments attacking the author - it's clear to me more would be a waste.

I'll leave it up to the others to judge for themselbes.

Man, every day in your life must be a great one. Full of unwarranted egotism and a strident belief that critical analysis of one's own ideas is wholly unnecessary.

I love that you make two examples of a president abusing his position and mark one as good - because he's doing something you've judged the people wanted, and that the "right-wing Supreme Court" didn't - and the other as bad. Surprise surprise, it's because your personal ideology falls in line with one and not the other!

Let us summarize this lesson:

Abusing the system when (you think) the people need it = Good

Abusing the system when Craig234 judges you to be a right-winger = Bad

Of course, the idea that abuse of the system is bad no matter your political affiliation is never to appear in Craig234's head.

What's even funnier is that FDR did exactly what Naomi Klein purports as her grand conspiracy. See if you can figure that one out with the big hint I've given you and redeem a shade of dignity.

:laugh: craig pwned
:thumbsup:

 

[Phokus]

Here's a very good book on economics:

http://www.amazon.com/Bad-Sama...&qid=1244569647&sr=8-1

Even libertarians are hard pressed to be critical of the book (especially since real world examples pretty much back up the economist's claims)

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

The ownage of Craig234 is strong in this thread.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: JS80

:laugh: craig pwned
:thumbsup:

This coming from the guy who readily admits the financial markets in wall street are inherently corrupt and broken yet wants to profit off of it?

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Phokus
Here's a very good book on economics:

http://www.amazon.com/Bad-Sama...&qid=1244569647&sr=8-1

Even libertarians are hard pressed to be critical of the book (especially since real world examples pretty much back up the economist's claims)

Phokus.pdf

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
The delusion of Ryan is strong in all threads.

Corrected.