191–200 of 457 posts
His economics are sound, but I often find that his takes on social issues are extremely reductionist. His social views a lot of the time are just standard conservative views (and wrong IMO), I wish he wasn't being praised for that. One example being his view on systemic racism, which he described as: “It does remind me of the propaganda tactics of Joseph Goebbels in the age of the Nazis, in which he was supposed to h…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're offering commentary, not a counterargument. What specifically is Sowell wrong about?
What specifically is he right about? Why do we require evidence when someone says he is wrong, but we do not require evidence for the numerous times in this thread where people say his book is “required reading”? First, everyone here who likes Sowell can put forth specific, concrete examples where he is right, instead of making vague statements about how brilliant he is and then demanding evidence only when someone d…
Why? The positive argument already exists. It's Sowell's writing. What are you asking for a cliff's notes? The disagreement you're talking about must obviously stem from something in the source material we're talking about. So what is it?
More important than the specific facts and arguments in his books is that he checks up on the results of theories and policies. That's not common enough among social scientists and certainly not among politicians.
Does "the peace process" produce peace? Do anti-poverty programs raise people out of poverty? Surely some do, and surely some don't. Figuring out which is which is critical to success -- preferably by learning from others' mistakes, but if not, at least learning from your own mistakes.
It's too easy to get a sense of moral superiority just by supporting a policy with a noble intent, and then move on before the consequences arrive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For this community? Das Kapital. For something less rigorous and more accessible, probably something by Richard Wolff, but I'm not familiar enough w/ his writings to recommend anything specific.
I see you recommended the heavy work, not just the propaganda pamphlet - good. I haven't read Das Kapital and I should. However... My question: an oft repeated refrain, when Marx is touted as a reasonable alternative, is that any time anyone tried his ideas out, it was a total disaster (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Chavez). I have watched some Wolff on Youtube, as well as other lectures on Marxism, because I'm interested an…
A couple things. Chavez is of a different category from the other three just on the amount of death under the other regimes. The question of the results of socialism and capitalism is complex. It's worth reading both historical and economically focused works to get a more nuanced view than the one that you've laid out. For a few suggestions:
On historical critiques of the US-centric perspective:
The Jakarta Method, Vincent Bevins
The Darker Nations, Vijay Prashad
A People's History of the United States, Howard Zinn
Economic works:
Competing Economic Theories, Richard Wolff
Seventeen Contradictions and the End of Capitalism, David Harvey
There are more authors (Kliman, Moseley, Shaikh, etc.), but these two would be a good start.
These are works with particular perspectives and should be read as such. If you want competing ideological works, read a standard history book and Hayek, Mises, Friedman, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right, but I had no idea HN people were huge fans of the guy too.
Must be hard. Hating it when the ideas of a black author are supported, admired, and shape the political leanings of a white audience.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The New Yorker is an upper-middle class publication. That is its target audience. Other magazines owned by the same media conglomerate, Conde Nast, are broadly similar in orientation: Vogue, Bon Appetit, Vanity Fair, GQ, Architectural Digest. I don't think they 'advocate for the lower classes', subjectively or objectively. I read very few socialists and communists in the New Yorker!
Do socialists/communists really advocate for the lower classes?
Thomas Sowell has had a huge impact on me and my views on economics. I'm from a poor working-class background and am often irritated by the needless language barriers of academics. > “Too many academics write as if plain English is beneath their dignity,” Sowell once said, “and some seem to regard logic as an unconstitutional infringement of their freedom of speech.” Sowell is unique in this respect. He's book, "Basi…
Thomas Sowell has had a huge impact on me and my views on economics. I'm from a poor working-class background and am often irritated by the needless language barriers of academics. > “Too many academics write as if plain English is beneath their dignity,” Sowell once said, “and some seem to regard logic as an unconstitutional infringement of their freedom of speech.” Sowell is unique in this respect. He's book, "Basi…
Overall, I like his writing, but his style can also come across as dismissive; as though he is obviously right, before he has really addressed all lines of criticism. When used to explain something, this style is great, because he gets his point across efficiently and provides enough backing so that you can remember it. And if you read enough of his writing, he brings out the nuance in other books and the intellectua…
Is he genuinely objective and data-driven? How many of his studies have been replicated? How many competing studies - which he fails to mention - disagree with his conclusions?
It's easy to be right when you simply assert your idea of truth. But that's rhetoric, not science. Science is peer review and open debate, and I don't see him engaging in that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not that I disagree with his use of statistics, but my own philosophical framework (particularly inspired by the ideas of J.E. Roemer, Gerry Cohen, Nitzan & Bichler, and more recently Roberto Veneziani) sees serious problems (I think exploitation, domination, alienation, and insufficient focus on capabilities qua equality of opportunity) with not only capital in general but the state too. I can't easily recall t…
What do you think of Nassim Nicholas Taleb's claim that Piketty basically has his math all wrong? https://medium.com/incerto/inequality-and-skin-in-the-game-d... >>with not only capital in general but the state too Why should capital in general be a problem? Isn't it crony capitalism the actual problem? If you are very rich, that isn't usually a problem to your neighbor. But if you are very rich and can thus get away…
I see capital as a problem precisely not as a matter of quantity (one person having more than another), but as a matter of quality. While 'crony capitalism' is obviously a problem, I don't think it's the root of the problem, philosophically speaking. I'd still think that a system in which a rich person can't get away with tax evasion has serious problems. This is where I likely diverge from, say, Warren's or even Sanders' platform (speaking as someone not from the US).
I think deep issues (exploitation, domination, and alienation) deserve a look, even if they seem to be an alien perspective from the outset.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd second the other response's recommendation of Richard Wolff's work. He's a marxist and democratic socialist, so read his work understanding his perspective in relation to your own, whatever that might be. That being said, I found his book Competing Economic Theories on neoliberalism, keynsianism, and marxism to be very fair to all sides.
Richard Wolff's primary argument in favor of socialism is that your employer is stealing from you by making a profit off of your labor. He fundamentally does not understand how markets work. I am a software engineer. I have a rate of pay that I consider to be more valuable than my labor, for which I will gladly exchange my labor and feel as though I have profited from the transaction. Prospective employers have an am…
I can assure you that the Harvard and Yale educated professor that's written textbooks on the subject knows how markets work. He might be heterodox in his adherence to marxist economics, but he fully understands the orthodox position, almost certainly in more detail than you or I ever will.