The word “basic” might give you a hint about its value…
A quick google search also shows an author that might not exactly be trying his best to describe economics, but rather his political views, as well as presenting a very simplistic view on economics.
The problem is, and it is sadly a very common one, when people try to make simplistic introductions to economics, they always start with classical economics.
And it makes sense… You start at the beginning of course, since later developments stands on the shoulders of those economists who came before.
Just as if you want to make a book about philosophy, you start with ancient Greece.
However, when you start with the classical economics, and never move beyond it, you only get introduced to all the flawed economic thinking that has since been abandoned. Because it turned out it wasn’t a remotely accurate description of the real world.
Or in some cases, it was a real description, but a few hundred years of human development meant that the world it described no longer existed.
Anyway, point just was; no, “free markets” (in so far as they can even be considered to exist) do not, in any way, ensure equal pay, or no discrimination, in the workplace.
2 Likes
If you actually had read Sowell, you wouldn’t hold the beliefs you do.
What you wrote is an opinion, mixed with some name-calling. Because you are not arguing in good faith, there is no reason to continue talking to you.
4 Likes
unless they are refusing to promote more qualified people because of their gender
1 Like
First, being simple, doesn’t make something wrong.
Second, name calling doesn’t prove the point.
Third, repeating a statement with a “no” attached, does not disprove it.
3 Likes
Had to read him when I went back for my business degree a decade ago and agree with Free. It’s just token conservatism wrapped in a basic understanding of economics. The fact that he believes poor people are poor because they don’t produce and not due to socioeconomic issues or systemic racism is all you need to know about what this man is about. He comes off as a typical FU got mine type.
But hey, if you only want one viewpoint keep seeking that out. If you have and believe he’s right, then I’m sorry you feel that way.
1 Like
It’s not black and white. It really never is. One could hold tons of progressive ideals but still believe women are lesser people.
2 Likes
yea but that still makes them regressive xD
Okay. You said:
"The fact that he believes poor people are poor because they don’t produce and not due to socioeconomic issues or systemic racism is all you need to know about what this man is about. "
Since I have both the Economics and the Wealth books lying around, I challenge you to back your statement (for the audience here) with accurate page numbers. Let’s see who is telling the truth!
2 Likes
You. I swear talking with you is like talking to myself as a kid.
Pretty sure if you read Wealth, Poverty, and Politics, you would have picked up on it. Of course it’s more of a historical observation that does not take into account any relevant modern changes. But this is a typical conservative trap. Show me the direct quote or it’s not true. But it’s all spelled out in the book.
3 Likes
Some might have said too fun.
I would have gone with Milton Friedman. Thomas Sowell tends to spend more time on the societal aspects of economics. Socialists won’t accept either of them. You might as well recommend F. A. Hayek to Bernie Sanders.
No, but it means it might be lacking important nuances.
Huh? Pretty sure I have done no name-calling. But mistakes happen, so maybe…
The world we live in disproves it. On a daily basis.
Arguing that there isn’t a discriminatory wage gap between people, because magical free markets prevent it, is akin to arguing earth is flat.
Dear lord. No wonder I had never heard of him. Or if I have, happily forgotten him.
How the heck was any of his books in the curriculum in a business degree? Unless it came with a warning sign attached.
This guy is goldmine of funny quotes (none of which have a whole lot to do with economics it seems; of course economists are welcome to have opinions about other stuff).
He also seems to be a self-proclaimed libertarian… so yeah, what would you really expect.
"One can cherry-pick the factual studies, or cite some studies that have subsequently been discredited, but the great bulk of the studies show that gun control laws do not in fact control guns.
Or even just promotes the people they connect the most with, or who have the best connections in their network. Who all ‘just happens’ to be white men.
3 Likes
my god you are the definition of clueless
I’m afraid I did read him, and I do not, and never have, agreed with his conservative brand of nonsense. His idea of economics is a lot like literary criticism before intersectionality, or political philosophy prior to the Frankfurt School. It’s an incredibly narrow approach to the study of how a thing works in cultures and society, with very little understanding of the other disciplines that detail the other interconnected bits. I even suffered through his more recent book, The one I mentioned previously. It was good for a lot of laughs, and even more outrage, but I’m afraid he doesn’t do any better of a job at proving his points.
Now here’s the real question, which I see you’ve conveniently dodged. Have you read the author’s I mentioned? If not, I hope you will, because they offer far more substantive thought about economics, free markets, and the problems inherent in those ideas then I am able to condense into this thread.
4 Likes
Marx and Engells are seriously outdated and not up to speed with how different cultures adopt economy. The Utopias derived from their work have impoverished and starved many populations in the name of equality. Those are sad historical facts.
4 Likes
It’s hard for me to take what you’re saying seriously. Marx was the first person to discover the means by which capitalism generates profits, and Engels’s work on labor conditions in the textile and manufacturing industries of his period helped usher in radical labor reform and paved the way for significant changes in mechanized industry. Much of what is discussed in Capital is still relevant to contemporary socioeconomic situations around the globe. To say they are outdated, despite their age, is simply not true. It might be more accurate to say that we have improved upon an advanced a lot of their philosophy, and that they didn’t live long enough to see how many of their philosophies would be integrated into real world governments.
And on that note, you’re not wrong when you say that many of the governments based on their ideologies have gone horrifically awry. But you are wrong to have called them utopias. They weren’t any more than free market economies are utopias. And they often go wrong in ways very similar to the ways in which supposedly well-oiled and totally beneficial free market capitalist systems go wrong. After all, plenty of people starve in capitalism, and not through a lack of working hard.
Of course, the best criticism one can levy against them is that there is no substantive proof that they’re models of economics and government would work because no such pure example has ever been attempted in history. But no one is actually recommending that we take Marx and Engels at their literal word and attempt to implement that in an economic government structure. But their work still remains remarkably relevant even today, and the people who have studied them and expanded upon their ideas, some of whom I mentioned above, are even more relevant to contemporary situations. You might want to read up on that.
2 Likes
They are. But so are all other old school economics, which was my point earlier. Classic economics only gets you so far. They are definitely not irrelevant, and has shaped all economics that came afterward, but it would also be crazy to take them as gospel.
6 Likes
Thank you for making that point. I’m still a little baffled when people seem so resistant to reading marks and angles, particularly when they seem equally enthusiastic about criticizing them. And I’m even more baffled when people criticize them for the exact same things that capitalism is also guilty of.
1 Like