Current Events > Are Thomas Sowell's books any good?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Do they consist of insulated right wing talking points or does he discuss uncomfortable stats and data that pisses off liberals?
---

The former.
---

who
---

Prestoff posted...

who

Black right wing economist who writes books on race relations.
---

Prestoff posted...

who

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GklCBvS-eI" data-time="

They're fantastic, and it's the latter. Read them for yourself and see.
---

Basic Economics isn't really "basic" at 653 pages, plus index.

If you want an easy (but probably very cognitive dissonance inducing) five or ten minute read, there's always Trickle Down Theory and Tax Cuts for the Rich. It's thirteen pages of text.
https://www.tsowell.com/images/Hoover%20Proof.pdf

is he the guy who can't think of a more pressing issue with housing than the allocation of beachfront homes
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

Basic Economics isn't really "basic" at 653 pages, plus index.

If you want an easy (but probably very cognitive dissonance inducing) five or ten minute read, there's always Trickle Down Theory and Tax Cuts for the Rich. It's thirteen pages of text.
https://www.tsowell.com/images/Hoover%20Proof.pdf

Piggybacking off of this: Disparities and Discrimination is a short book and packed with interesting information.
---

Black Rednecks and White Liberals turned my social/political/economic views upside down.
---

TheMikh posted...

Black Rednecks and White Liberals turned my social/political/economic views upside down.

Haven't read it, will buy!
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

They're fantastic, and it's the latter. Read them for yourself and see.

"Labor is worth what it produces. No wait it's worth however saturated the labor market is. Oh no I can't even stay logically consistent in one post!"

Proudclad who exactly is trying to control the citizens

clearaflagrantj posted...

"Labor is worth what it produces. No wait it's worth however saturated the labor market is. Oh no I can't even stay logically consistent in one post!"

why not both

labor is worth what value it can deliver relative to other labor or lack thereof delivering the same value within the same or similar context
---

TheMikh posted...

clearaflagrantj posted...

"Labor is worth what it produces. No wait it's worth however saturated the labor market is. Oh no I can't even stay logically consistent in one post!"

why not both

labor is worth what value it can deliver relative to other labor or lack thereof delivering the same value within the same or similar context

clear isn't particularly bright so you don't even need to waste your breath tbqh. Just wait till you see his "technical stock analysis" lmao
---

TheMikh posted...

clearaflagrantj posted...

"Labor is worth what it produces. No wait it's worth however saturated the labor market is. Oh no I can't even stay logically consistent in one post!"

why not both

labor is worth what value it can deliver relative to other labor or lack thereof delivering the same value within the same or similar context

So, how come labor isn't compensated for what it's worth? I thought no one was owed other people's money?
---

averagejoel posted...

is he the guy who can't think of a more pressing issue with housing than the allocation of beachfront homes

in case anyone was wondering: yes. and he uses it as an argument for why things like healthcare and housing should not be considered basic human rights

The inherent reality is that there are not nearly enough beachfront homes to go around and prices are just a way of conveying that underlying reality. When people bid for a relatively few homes, these homes become very expensive because of supply and demand. But it is NOT the prices that cause the scarcity. Even if Congress were to declare that beachfront homes were a basic right of all Americans, it still would not change the realities of the situation.

---

Anti-245 posted...

TheMikh posted...

clearaflagrantj posted...

"Labor is worth what it produces. No wait it's worth however saturated the labor market is. Oh no I can't even stay logically consistent in one post!"

why not both

labor is worth what value it can deliver relative to other labor or lack thereof delivering the same value within the same or similar context

So, how come labor isn't compensated for what it's worth? I thought no one was owed other people's money?

Labor is a thing to be bought and sold just like anything else that is exchanged, thus its value is the price agreed upon by a laborer and whoever purchases that labor.

Anti-245 posted...

TheMikh posted...

clearaflagrantj posted...

"Labor is worth what it produces. No wait it's worth however saturated the labor market is. Oh no I can't even stay logically consistent in one post!"

why not both

labor is worth what value it can deliver relative to other labor or lack thereof delivering the same value within the same or similar context

So, how come labor isn't compensated for what it's worth? I thought no one was owed other people's money?

because the means of production are owned privately rather than publicly, allowing the owner to garnish people's wages as they see fit and affording them a massive amount of control over their workers' lives
---

averagejoel posted...

because the means of production are owned privately rather than publicly

nothing wrong with that

averagejoel posted...

because the means of production are owned privately rather than publicly, allowing the owner to garnish people's wages as they see fit and affording them a massive amount of control over their workers' lives

Labor is the means of production. It's utter tyranny when labor is not privately owned.

FLUFFYGERM posted...

TheMikh posted...

clearaflagrantj posted...

"Labor is worth what it produces. No wait it's worth however saturated the labor market is. Oh no I can't even stay logically consistent in one post!"

why not both

labor is worth what value it can deliver relative to other labor or lack thereof delivering the same value within the same or similar context

clear isn't particularly bright so you don't even need to waste your breath tbqh. Just wait till you see his "technical stock analysis" lmao

Shut the fuck up proud "what is a head and shoulders" clad

TheMikh posted...

why not both

labor is worth what value it can deliver relative to other labor or lack thereof delivering the same value within the same or similar context

I can't even decipher your word salad. The point I'm making is being something like a police officer, emt, soldier, teacher, day care workers, hospice care, clerical, secretarial, and 90% of blue collar work is demanding and provides an invaluable service to the community, yet since they are relatively low skilled and the labor market is oversaturated with people capable of working these jobs they are paid absolute dogshit. Not enough for a living wage. Their salaries aren't fair based on the value they produce, they are a reflection of the shitty job market.

"But Clear! That's the free market at work! If there are that many people competing for the work that is the amount their work is worth!"

Okay then, let's get rid of minimum wage and have 100% globalism. Cops can make $4/hr, teachers $2.50, no worker protections, 7 12 hour shifts a week, no health insurance, no vacation, no retirement contributions, let the invisible hand of the free market fist our asses, go fucking wild.

Questionmarktarius posted...

Anti-245 posted...

TheMikh posted...

clearaflagrantj posted...

"Labor is worth what it produces. No wait it's worth however saturated the labor market is. Oh no I can't even stay logically consistent in one post!"

why not both

labor is worth what value it can deliver relative to other labor or lack thereof delivering the same value within the same or similar context

So, how come labor isn't compensated for what it's worth? I thought no one was owed other people's money?

Labor is a thing to be bought and sold just like anything else that is exchanged, thus its value is the price agreed upon by a laborer and whoever purchases that labor.

Absolute nonsense. No laborer today has as much control as you insinuate.
---

averagejoel posted...

Anti-245 posted...

TheMikh posted...

clearaflagrantj posted...

"Labor is worth what it produces. No wait it's worth however saturated the labor market is. Oh no I can't even stay logically consistent in one post!"

why not both

labor is worth what value it can deliver relative to other labor or lack thereof delivering the same value within the same or similar context

So, how come labor isn't compensated for what it's worth? I thought no one was owed other people's money?

because the means of production are owned privately rather than publicly, allowing the owner to garnish people's wages as they see fit and affording them a massive amount of control over their workers' lives

I'd rather the workers own them than the state but sure.
---

Favorite posted...

averagejoel posted...

because the means of production are owned privately rather than publicly

nothing wrong with that

except that it's ultimately the source of exploitation under capitalism
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

They're fantastic, and it's the latter. Read them for yourself and see.

For reference, what was the book that you were reading awhile back that you made a topic about?
---

Anti-245 posted...

averagejoel posted...

Anti-245 posted...

TheMikh posted...

clearaflagrantj posted...

"Labor is worth what it produces. No wait it's worth however saturated the labor market is. Oh no I can't even stay logically consistent in one post!"

why not both

labor is worth what value it can deliver relative to other labor or lack thereof delivering the same value within the same or similar context

So, how come labor isn't compensated for what it's worth? I thought no one was owed other people's money?

because the means of production are owned privately rather than publicly, allowing the owner to garnish people's wages as they see fit and affording them a massive amount of control over their workers' lives

I'd rather the workers own them than the state but sure.

owned by everyone and operated by the workers is ideal imo
---

Anti-245 posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

Anti-245 posted...

TheMikh posted...

clearaflagrantj posted...

"Labor is worth what it produces. No wait it's worth however saturated the labor market is. Oh no I can't even stay logically consistent in one post!"

why not both

labor is worth what value it can deliver relative to other labor or lack thereof delivering the same value within the same or similar context

So, how come labor isn't compensated for what it's worth? I thought no one was owed other people's money?

Labor is a thing to be bought and sold just like anything else that is exchanged, thus its value is the price agreed upon by a laborer and whoever purchases that labor.

Absolute nonsense. No laborer today has as much control as you insinuate.

Laborers lack control as they've been complacent with the state filling the role that collective bargaining was intended to, resulting in far less freedom and opportunity as a direct consequence.

It is not a coincidence that the decline of the old left came hand in hand with state-provided social services/policy, such as Bismarckian state socialism in Germany, or the New Deal in the United States. Not only has the state made such collective activities seemingly irrelevant in the eyes of most workers, but it has also made such activities far more difficult from a legal standpoint, while simultaneously strangling the economy more and more. This has created increasing dependence on (you guessed it) the state, rather than more voluntary social mechanisms.

On a related note, proponents of the "Scandinavian model" of economics are often surprised to learn that countries like Sweden, Finland, and Denmark have no minimum wage - because they have collective bargaining. Whether unionization is economically optimal is another discussion.
---

TheMikh posted...

Anti-245 posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

Anti-245 posted...

TheMikh posted...

clearaflagrantj posted...

"Labor is worth what it produces. No wait it's worth however saturated the labor market is. Oh no I can't even stay logically consistent in one post!"

why not both

labor is worth what value it can deliver relative to other labor or lack thereof delivering the same value within the same or similar context

So, how come labor isn't compensated for what it's worth? I thought no one was owed other people's money?

Labor is a thing to be bought and sold just like anything else that is exchanged, thus its value is the price agreed upon by a laborer and whoever purchases that labor.

Absolute nonsense. No laborer today has as much control as you insinuate.

Laborers lack control as they've been complacent with the state filling the role that collective bargaining was intended to, resulting in far less freedom and opportunity as a direct consequence.

It is not a coincidence that the decline of the old left came hand in hand with state-provided social services/policy, such as Bismarckian state socialism in Germany, or the New Deal in the United States. Not only has the state made such collective activities seemingly irrelevant in the eyes of most workers, but it has also made such activities far more difficult from a legal standpoint, while simultaneously strangling the economy more and more. This has created increasing dependence on (you guessed it) the state, rather than more voluntary social mechanisms.

On a related note, proponents of the "Scandinavian model" of economics are often surprised to learn that countries like Sweden, Finland, and Denmark have no minimum wage - because they have collective bargaining. Whether unionization is economically optimal is another discussion.

So, you're saying that laborers gaining laws to protect themselves against business abuse is why they lost their bargaining power? Not the fact that the elite came in and overturned most of these laws in U.S. and spread propaganda to convince laborers that this was best for them? Talk about revisionist history.
---

averagejoel posted...

Anti-245 posted...

averagejoel posted...

Anti-245 posted...

TheMikh posted...

clearaflagrantj posted...

"Labor is worth what it produces. No wait it's worth however saturated the labor market is. Oh no I can't even stay logically consistent in one post!"

why not both

labor is worth what value it can deliver relative to other labor or lack thereof delivering the same value within the same or similar context

So, how come labor isn't compensated for what it's worth? I thought no one was owed other people's money?

because the means of production are owned privately rather than publicly, allowing the owner to garnish people's wages as they see fit and affording them a massive amount of control over their workers' lives

I'd rather the workers own them than the state but sure.

owned by everyone and operated by the workers is ideal imo

So, then collective ownership rather than state ownership?
---

Shadowplay posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

They're fantastic, and it's the latter. Read them for yourself and see.

For reference, what was the book that you were reading awhile back that you made a topic about?

Disparities and Discrimination.

https://www.amazon.com/Discrimination-Disparities-Thomas-Sowell/dp/154164560X
---

I can't even decipher your word salad.

My condolences.

The point I'm making is being something like a police officer, emt, soldier, teacher, day care workers, hospice care, clerical, secretarial, and 90% of blue collar work is demanding and provides an invaluable service to the community, yet since they are relatively low skilled and the labor market is oversaturated with people capable of working these jobs they are paid absolute dogs***. Not enough for a living wage. Their salaries aren't fair based on the value they produce, they are a reflection of the s***ty job market.

Wage stagnation seems to have occurred around the same time as (1) the death of Bretton Woods and (2) the loosening of immigration policy in the mid-to-late 1960s. Just a thought.

That aside, are their wages really too low, or are prices too high?

"But Clear! That's the free market at work! If there are that many people competing for the work that is the amount their work is worth!"

Okay then, let's get rid of minimum wage and have 100% globalism. Cops can make $4/hr, teachers $2.50, no worker protections, 7 12 hour shifts a week, no health insurance, no vacation, no retirement contributions, let the invisible hand of the free market fist our asses, go f***ing wild.

Just because we're not living in Venezuela doesn't mean we have any semblance of a free market.

With that said, globalism is a joke, as most countries have some form of protectionism or another, and even "free trade" deals are big corporate shams.
---

TheMikh posted...

Wage stagnation seems to have occurred around the same time as (1) the death of Bretton Woods and (2) the loosening of immigration policy in the mid-to-late 1960s. Just a thought.

Also after a period of historic inflation and women entering the labor force. Slowing down from historic inflation and having to compete with more people in the labor market both suppress wages.
---

Anti-245 posted...

averagejoel posted...

Anti-245 posted...

averagejoel posted...

Anti-245 posted...

TheMikh posted...

clearaflagrantj posted...

"Labor is worth what it produces. No wait it's worth however saturated the labor market is. Oh no I can't even stay logically consistent in one post!"

why not both

labor is worth what value it can deliver relative to other labor or lack thereof delivering the same value within the same or similar context

So, how come labor isn't compensated for what it's worth? I thought no one was owed other people's money?

because the means of production are owned privately rather than publicly, allowing the owner to garnish people's wages as they see fit and affording them a massive amount of control over their workers' lives

I'd rather the workers own them than the state but sure.

owned by everyone and operated by the workers is ideal imo

So, then collective ownership rather than state ownership?

If "collective" ownership isn't voluntary, it's basically state ownership of the worst kind. Inevitably, "delegation" mechanisms emerge, and you end up with a Soviet style oligarchy with total control of the economy.
---

TheMikh posted...

Wage stagnation seems to have occurred around the same time as (1) the death of Bretton Woods

Connect those dots for me, please.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

a period of historic inflation and women entering the labor force. Slowing down from historic inflation and having to compete with more people in the labor market both suppress wages.

Ah, that slipped my mind, but it was another major factor.
---

Anteaterking posted...

TheMikh posted...

Wage stagnation seems to have occurred around the same time as (1) the death of Bretton Woods

Connect those dots for me, please.

Pure fiat did not benefit the working class, but rather the government and its cronies. The longer issued money is in circulation, the less it is worth as prices adjust accordingly - and those who receive it last tend to be the working class. The working class is also more inclined to have their savings in fiat, rather than inflation-resistant equity.
---

Boy, I love this. Wages kept up with production until economists like Sowell and Friedman came in with their theories, which, of course, destroyed the "middle class" in America. Then they use colorful language to do what all elites do: shift the blame. Incredible, really.
---

Anti-245 posted...

TheMikh posted...

Anti-245 posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

Anti-245 posted...

TheMikh posted...

clearaflagrantj posted...

"Labor is worth what it produces. No wait it's worth however saturated the labor market is. Oh no I can't even stay logically consistent in one post!"

why not both

labor is worth what value it can deliver relative to other labor or lack thereof delivering the same value within the same or similar context

So, how come labor isn't compensated for what it's worth? I thought no one was owed other people's money?

Labor is a thing to be bought and sold just like anything else that is exchanged, thus its value is the price agreed upon by a laborer and whoever purchases that labor.

Absolute nonsense. No laborer today has as much control as you insinuate.

Laborers lack control as they've been complacent with the state filling the role that collective bargaining was intended to, resulting in far less freedom and opportunity as a direct consequence.

It is not a coincidence that the decline of the old left came hand in hand with state-provided social services/policy, such as Bismarckian state socialism in Germany, or the New Deal in the United States. Not only has the state made such collective activities seemingly irrelevant in the eyes of most workers, but it has also made such activities far more difficult from a legal standpoint, while simultaneously strangling the economy more and more. This has created increasing dependence on (you guessed it) the state, rather than more voluntary social mechanisms.

On a related note, proponents of the "Scandinavian model" of economics are often surprised to learn that countries like Sweden, Finland, and Denmark have no minimum wage - because they have collective bargaining. Whether unionization is economically optimal is another discussion.

So, you're saying that laborers gaining laws to protect themselves against business abuse is why they lost their bargaining power? Not the fact that the elite came in and overturned most of these laws in U.S. and spread propaganda to convince laborers that this was best for them? Talk about revisionist history.

I'm saying that when they delegated their responsibilities to a centralized monopolistic entity run by psychopaths that they had no control over, they got screwed accordingly.

It was a deal with the devil.
---

So, technically, we agree more or less?
---

Anti-245 posted...

Boy, I love this. Wages kept up with production until economists like Sowell and Friedman came in with their theories, which, of course, destroyed the "middle class" in America. Then they use colorful language to do what all elites do: shift the blame. Incredible, really.

Global competition and economic strangulation by the government created a double whammy in the 1970s. Fact of the matter is, the middle class was already experiencing difficulties well before the New Right took control in the 1980s. Economic liberalization began under Carter because it was necessary given the circumstances.
---

TheMikh posted...

Anti-245 posted...

Boy, I love this. Wages kept up with production until economists like Sowell and Friedman came in with their theories, which, of course, destroyed the "middle class" in America. Then they use colorful language to do what all elites do: shift the blame. Incredible, really.

Global competition and economic strangulation by the government created a double whammy in the 1970s. Fact of the matter is, the middle class was already experiencing difficulties well before the New Right took control in the 1980s. Economic liberalization began under Carter because it was necessary given the circumstances.

I'd argue it began after the new deal itself passed as the business community never once wanted to give away such power. They even proposed a takeover of the country similar to hitler's regime to gain "their" wealth back. I think global competition was just a facade they pulled for when they pulled the trigger.
---

Anti-245 posted...

gan after the new deal itself passed as the business community never once wanted to give away such power. They even proposed a takeover of the country similar to hitler's regime to gain "their" wealth back. I think global competition was just a facade they pulled for when they pulled the trigger.

That sounds an awful lot like a grand conspiracy theory.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Shadowplay posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

They're fantastic, and it's the latter. Read them for yourself and see.

For reference, what was the book that you were reading awhile back that you made a topic about?

Disparities and Discrimination.

https://www.amazon.com/Discrimination-Disparities-Thomas-Sowell/dp/154164560X

Much appreciated. Definitely looks like the kind of book that tears down the conventional wisdom.
---

TheMikh posted...

Anti-245 posted...

gan after the new deal itself passed as the business community never once wanted to give away such power. They even proposed a takeover of the country similar to hitler's regime to gain "their" wealth back. I think global competition was just a facade they pulled for when they pulled the trigger.

That sounds an awful lot like a grand conspiracy theory.

It's what happened so you can it a conspiracy if you'd like.
---

Anti-245 posted...

TheMikh posted...

Anti-245 posted...

gan after the new deal itself passed as the business community never once wanted to give away such power. They even proposed a takeover of the country similar to hitler's regime to gain "their" wealth back. I think global competition was just a facade they pulled for when they pulled the trigger.

That sounds an awful lot like a grand conspiracy theory.

It's what happened so you can it a conspiracy if you'd like.

The opposition to the New Deal was real, and I'm also acquainted with claims of a secret plot to implement Fascism, but as far as I know the latter remains unsubstantiated.

But to claim the entire malaise era of the 1970s was a plot by "the elites" is over the top.
---

clearaflagrantj posted...

The point I'm making is being something like a police officer, emt, soldier, teacher, day care workers, hospice care, clerical, secretarial, and 90% of blue collar work is demanding and provides an invaluable service to the community, yet since they are relatively low skilled and the labor market is oversaturated with people capable of working these jobs they are paid absolute dogshit. Not enough for a living wage. Their salaries aren't fair based on the value they produce, they are a reflection of the shitty job market.

You admit that it doesn't take much to be able to do the jobs in your examples and that lots of workers do, in fact, do those jobs, yet you still think they have more value than what is currently paid to them.

Are you sure you've really thought this through?
---

TheMikh posted...

Anteaterking posted...

TheMikh posted...

Wage stagnation seems to have occurred around the same time as (1) the death of Bretton Woods

Connect those dots for me, please.

Pure fiat did not benefit the working class, but rather the government and its cronies. The longer issued money is in circulation, the less it is worth as prices adjust accordingly - and those who receive it last tend to be the working class. The working class is also more inclined to have their savings in fiat, rather than inflation-resistant equity.

You can't have endless growth of the welfare/warfare state without fiat currency backed by nothing. It's also why the financial sector is so bloated and "too big to fail". As much as I like Thomas Sowell I think his views on monetary policy are not libertarian at all. That's were people like Mises and Rothbard are much better IMO.
---

tennisdude818 posted...

TheMikh posted...

Anteaterking posted...

TheMikh posted...

Wage stagnation seems to have occurred around the same time as (1) the death of Bretton Woods

Connect those dots for me, please.

Pure fiat did not benefit the working class, but rather the government and its cronies. The longer issued money is in circulation, the less it is worth as prices adjust accordingly - and those who receive it last tend to be the working class. The working class is also more inclined to have their savings in fiat, rather than inflation-resistant equity.

You can't have endless growth of the welfare/warfare state without fiat currency backed by nothing. It's also why the financial sector is so bloated and "too big to fail".

When I say "cronies," I'm primarily referring to the financial sector and to contractors for the government and military.

But yes, absolutely correct.
---

Anti-245 posted...

So, then collective ownership rather than state ownership?

in the final stage of socialism (i.e. Full Communism) the worker's state becomes obsolete and ceases to exist. so yes, eventually.
---

Lorenzo_2003 posted...

You admit that it doesn't take much to be able to do the jobs in your examples and that lots of workers do, in fact, do those jobs, yet you still think they have more value than what is currently paid to them.

Are you sure you've really thought this through?

I don't think you're understanding what he's saying.

You're divorcing the "value" of the work from the "value" of what the work produces.

To use his example of police officer, you derive a certain amount of value from the presence and work of the police in your area, and your personal valuing of that should be relatively independent of how much they are paid.
---