this post was submitted on 12 Jan 2024
786 points (94.4% liked)
Memes
45454 readers
2372 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
What was the last book on economics you read?
Progress and Poverty, and you still can't just have everything for free even in a better system.
Wouldn't the LVT+UBI that Henry George proposes effectively cancel rent and then some? We'd be getting paid 100% of the surplus from land use, not just a safety net.
I'll have to add that to my list, always looking to learn more.
It's a good read, makes you realize how swindled we got, and what we might have had if they'd adopted these ideas in the late 1800's.
It's been a few years since my economics minor, but likely more recently than you.
Considering you cant name a book, i doubt it. I'm currently reading The Value of Everything by Mariana Mazzucato and Yurugu by Marimba Ani. I cant recommend both of them enough. Its about culture as much as it is about economics.
This is some hard hexbear vibes. Asking for titles of books read is unbearably cringe.
Anti-intellectualism at its finest folks
Thanks for chiming in
No problem, PatFussy
If one is a student if economics, naming a book on economics to confirm your bonafides is as low a bar to jump over as humanly possible. Books aren't cringe, you are just basic.
Cringe
Says the user, who's last post was wishing for more porn on the internet, bahahaha
Mega cringe you looked at my post history, saw a monkeys paw shitpost and thought I was being serious.
Updoots
🤓
Are we best friends or what. Just goofing around am i right chat? Can I get 5 upvotes and remember to smash that bell
I mean, no. I'm not going to go dig up the syllabus for my econ classes just to prove a point.
You clearly don't understand economics if you think paying for housing for 335,000,000 citizens is even remotely feasible without a major tax increases on everyone.
Communism is a nice thought experiment, but it'll never actually work because humans are awful.
"Humans are awful" is why they call econ the dismal science; did they actually present that as a reason why communism wouldn't work when your classes covered it?
I would imagine that the primary reason anyone thinks communism will fail is that greed is too rampant amongst many people these days. I happen to agree, communism is nice to think about but I have worked for the state of California. I've seen what having a job that you do next to nothing at, get paid a liveable wage on, and basically can't be fired from has done to state govt. It's a fucking mess. These are people who, right now, are complaining about homeless people despite the only thing separating them is the fact that they were lucky enough to know someone who worked for the state. I mean it when I say they quite literally do nothing and get paid for it.
Cali state govt is socialist as fuck, and the outcome is things like millions of peoples information being leaked. We're talking social security numbers, drivers license, where you live, etc. If you can't tell me how you avoid the equivalent of things like this happening in a communist govt (because the outcome with communist govt corruption is worse by a large margin) then I just turn my brain off and stop reading.
I assume that when everyone else in this thread is talking about socialism and communism, they mean like the Wikipedia definitions, not just more government.
Well, considering OP likes to name drop books they're apparently reading on economics I'd say we're dealing with a different class of duning-kruger.
Wait Californians democratically own and manage the means of production? Holy shit.
Oh you mean a liberal state that has slightly higher taxes :(
No, you silly head, I'm talking about the people who work for the state. I'm not talking about the state itself.
Fucks sake, pay attention.
How are the people who work for the state socialist in practice? They work for a capitalist state.
Also are you claiming the state(as in the government and associated entities) is distinct from the employees that make up the state government? How?
Uh, it's hard to explain and I definitely was not using the correct words. I don't know what I was saying, I had a point but I did not use the right words at all.
Having bureaucracy managed by an AI with everything heavily encrypted would put a stop to a lot of bullshit. Just saying
No, it wouldn't, because in order for that to be put in place the union would have to agree to it. The union will do everything and I mean every single thing to make sure everyone knows that this shit is fucked.
The union for state employees (in the state of California) is good at two things: keeping itself alive, and making sure that state employees are protected to insane degrees (like being able to sue your manager for a HOST of reasons).
I'm confused, are we assuming a peaceful implementation of these policies or for them to be put in place by a new government post-revolution?
So you haven't read a book on economics since you graduated, got it.