Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CBS News)   How did a 700-page book on economics surge to No. 1 on Amazon? Here comes the math   (cbsnews.com) divider line 53
    More: Interesting, Amazon, Thomas Piketty, economics, New York Review of Books, e-books, Lawrence Mishel  
•       •       •

12443 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Apr 2014 at 11:46 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2014-04-26 12:27:49 PM  
5 votes:
Haven't read it yet, but wonder if Piketty took into account the biggest demographic upheaval in history.  Places like Brazil and India have seen their fertility rates plummet drastically to about 2.5 kids per woman, just above replacement level.  The US is already below replacement, and in many industrialized countries like South Korea or Germany, it's just above 1.0 kids per woman.  Every time I see a picture of third-worlders in National Geographic or somewhere, they're all holding smartphones--usually of newer vintage than my cellphone--and it's obvious that women in the third world are catching on to the idea that there's more to life than sitting in a hut and popping out babies like a Pez dispenser.  Women in the industrialized countries would rather have a career than lie back and think of England.

Truth is, the only real scam that's ever existed is the 1% of the 1% (most 1%ers are doctors, engineers, or other people who actually contribute to society) have always depended on a never-ending supply of peasants to keep the price of labor low.  And if there's too many of us, they throw a war or two.  In spite of their self-serving objectivist crappola, they really depend on us peasants more than we depend on them, and it takes a lot of us to support the lifestyle of one of them.

Most people are limiting the number of kids they have mostly in their own self-interest.  They're prolly just out of college and with a huge loan debt, working some crappy non-paying internship, and simply can't afford kids.  Or, perhaps the 'greed is good' mentality has gotten to them and they went Galt on society by deciding that stocking their wine cellar is more important than having a child.  If the meme ever gets out that cutting back on kids is the only real way to hit back on the plutocrats, expect long lines outside of Planned Parenthood clinics.  And I doubt that the plutocrats will ever take away all our birth control without risking a revolution--and remember that women are about 51% of the voting population in nearly every country.  Either way, I think this is going to make for a massive demographic upheaval in the long run, say in a generation or two...
2014-04-26 11:08:34 AM  
5 votes:

BalugaJoe: If economists knew what they were talking about then they would have all of the money.


In the exact same way that physicists can travel faster than light and students of english literature can all write classic novels.
2014-04-26 09:18:53 AM  
5 votes:

BalugaJoe: If economists knew what they were talking about then they would have all of the money.


One has nothing to do with the other. You have to be a psychopath who is willing to screw over your grandmother.
2014-04-26 02:56:24 PM  
4 votes:

cwheelie: A left wing French socialist comes out against capitalism? color me shocked. Also, show me a better system.


If you'd read so much as a short summary of it you'd know that's not what it's about. Delay posted a link to a review above; you could skim it and not seem like an ignorant asshat.

cwheelie: if you look at the 400 richest people 20 years ago, I believe there is only 1 name on the same list today.


You might believe that but it's farking nonsense.
2014-04-26 12:52:46 PM  
4 votes:
It is no.1 because it's the cold hard truth, backed up with facts, figures, charts, graphs and plenty of research. It's the kind of book that should not only be standard reading in ALL college economics courses (and AP high school as well), but mandatory for every member of congress, every state governor, and every state legislator.

This book rips the lid off the bullsh*t the republicans have been pumping for the last 30 years, and they are scare. All the more reason for everyone to read it.
2014-04-26 12:17:27 PM  
4 votes:
I'm not sure if I'll read it or not, but I do find it delicious that a book about income inequality and the 1% by a left-leaning French academic becoming a surprise best seller in the US public is freaking American conservatives right the fark out.
2014-04-26 03:48:28 PM  
3 votes:

BalugaJoe: If economists knew what they were talking about then they would have all of the money.



Read it, it is a deeply researched analysis covering a great deal of history about how capital has always concentrated over time into the possession of a small group of people with mostly inherited wealth.

The usual way to be rich is to be born rich and over time that becomes more ever more true.
Knowing this doesn't help you to be born rich and "have all the money" it only helps you understand the world you live in.
2014-04-26 03:34:08 PM  
3 votes:
Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of the smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organised political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights. (Albert Einstein, 1949)
2014-04-26 03:14:02 PM  
3 votes:
cwheelie - Name 1 person who became wealthy without the support of society. When you have wealth you are dependent on a multitude of public resources to create, amass, and maintain it. The sooner people stop pretending that wealth is "self made", the sooner we can stop the petty arguing and try and fix things so that society is better off as a whole.
2014-04-26 12:49:04 PM  
3 votes:

neon_god: TheHighlandHowler: So the top limit on investment yields should be capped at the country's rate of growth?

No, because it's good that people can earn outsize returns for backing good ideas. In particular, risky projects can only get capital because of the possibility of huge returns. And anyways, with the globalization of financial markets and the increasing role of technology in the economy, capital will probably inevitably become more important, and so better paid, relative to labour. Cutting off returns in any one country would just push a lot of money elsewhere.

Income inequality is not such a bad thing in and of itself, provided those on the bottom are taken care of. Higher capital gains taxes and a stronger welfare state are probably the best that can be done. In particular, healthcare and education need to be available to all.


It is a problem in and of itself insofar as it it undermines democracy.

Even if there is an adequate safety net for the poor and working class, concentrating an ever increasing proportion of wealth in the top 1% means concentrating an ever increasing share of political power in that tiny group.

And it's not like there is much social mobility either up and down the latter. Sure you can always point to ordinary people who struck it rich, but these are rare exceptions, and in any case, the increasing concentrations of wealth in the top 1% means that that wealth is becoming increasingly hereditary, not self-made.

We are headed to a society where the levers of power are going to be increasingly wielded by a few super-rich, politically powerful dynastic families. And that undermines democratic and meritocratic ideals.
2014-04-26 12:42:51 PM  
3 votes:
Holy crap, has anyone looked at all the right-wing 1-star reviews on amazon for this book?
Not even having a verified purchase. :)

Also, see this:
Krugman's the Picketty Panic

Krugman, you genius.

Piketty Panic.
Picketty Panic.

Say it with me.
Piketty Panic.

So when the right-wing gets their panties in a bunch it'll be a Pilketty Panic. :)
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-04-26 09:43:03 AM  
3 votes:

BalugaJoe: If economists knew what they were talking about then they would have all of the money.


They do.  This one has a bestseller on Amazon.
2014-04-27 10:32:36 AM  
2 votes:

Hardy-r-r: I have not read the book but its description from the article leads me to think all I have to do is look at the disparaging gap that is increasing at an increasing rate between the wealthy & the rest of us.



You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.  - bob dylan.
2014-04-26 04:02:53 PM  
2 votes:
TWO COWS ~{Matthias Varga}

SOCIALISM
You have 2 cows.
You give one to your neighbour

COMMUNISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and gives you some milk

FASCISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and sells you some milk

NAZISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and shoots you

BUREAUCRATISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both, shoots one, milks the other, and then
throws the milk away

TRADITIONAL CAPITALISM
You have two cows.
You sell one and buy a bull.
Your herd multiplies, and the economy
grows.
You sell them and retire on the income

ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND (VENTURE) CAPITALISM
You have two cows.
You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using letters of credit opened by
your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a debt/equity swap with an associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax exemption
for five cows.
The milk rights of the six cows are transferred via an intermediary to a Cayman Island Company secretly owned by the majority shareholder who sells the rights to all seven cows back to your listed company.
The annual report says the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more. You sell one cow to buy a new president of the United States , leaving you with nine cows. No balance sheet provided with the release.
The public then buys your bull.

SURREALISM
You have two giraffes.
The government requires you to take harmonica lessons.

AN AMERICAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You sell one, and force the other to
produce the milk of four cows.
Later, you hire a consultant to analyse why
the cow has dropped dead.

A GREEK CORPORATION
You have two cows. You borrow lots of euros to build barns, milking sheds, hay stores, feed sheds,
dairies, cold stores, abattoir, cheese unit and packing sheds.
You still only have two cows.

A FRENCH CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You go on strike, organise a riot, and block the roads, because you want three
cows.

A JAPANESE CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce
twenty times the milk.
You then create a clever cow cartoon image called a Cowkimona and
market it worldwide.

AN ITALIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows,
but you don't know where they are.
You decide to have lunch.

A SWISS CORPORATION
You have 5000 cows. None of them belong to you.
You charge the owners for storing them.

A CHINESE CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You have 300 people milking them.
You claim that you have full employment, and high bovine productivity.
You arrest the newsman who reported the real situation.

AN INDIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You worship them.

A BRITISH CORPORATION
You have two cows.
Both are mad.

AN IRAQI CORPORATION
Everyone thinks you have lots of cows.
You tell them that you have none.
No-one believes you, so they bomb the ** out of you and invade your country.
You still have no cows, but at least you are now a Democracy.

AN AUSTRALIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
Business seems pretty good.
You close the office and go for a few beers to celebrate.

A NEW ZEALAND CORPORATION
You have two cows.
The one on the left looks very attractive...


CRONY (American) CAPITALISM: you have two cows. you agree to give free milk for life to your state's Congressman as long as he agrees to look the other way whenever you ask him to. also, he agrees to do you favors that may hurt the community, but will help you. he also agrees to go to bed with you if you are gay. and he agrees to tell you he loves you, even if he does not. he also agrees to tell the community/Nation what an outstanding citizen you are and how much you love America and Freedom.
2014-04-26 02:48:09 PM  
2 votes:

DrPainMD: The subject isn't economics?


You seem really eager to dismiss the book this thread is about out of hand.

You'd prefer we discuss obscure Austrian economists whose theories have been debunked. So lets do that. Milton Friedman showed definitively that Austrian economics bears no resemblance to reality in the 60's and the predictive failure of it since the financial crisis hit in '08 should really have nailed the coffin shut. The people that still cling to it remind me of Harold Camping's followers trying to rationalize their prophet's failure after the world stubbornly continuted to exist in 2011.
2014-04-26 01:37:29 PM  
2 votes:
My book, "Serving The Rich" is not 700 pages long.

Some chapters:
Boiled Rich
Fried Rich
Beer Battered Rich
Butterflyed Rich
2014-04-26 01:31:07 PM  
2 votes:
Economics in 'murica:  where's my goddamned money/stuff and f*ck you!


stay classy and civilized, 'murica.   your future looks bright.
2014-04-26 01:07:55 PM  
2 votes:

DrPainMD: rewind2846: It is no.1 because it's the cold hard truth, backed up with facts, figures, charts, graphs and plenty of research. It's the kind of book that should not only be standard reading in ALL college economics courses (and AP high school as well), but mandatory for every member of congress, every state governor, and every state legislator.

This book rips the lid off the bullsh*t the republicans have been pumping for the last 30 years, and they are scare. All the more reason for everyone to read it.

Have you read it? If you're looking for the cold hard truth, backed up with facts, figures, charts, graphs and plenty of research, I would suggest "Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis" by Ludwig von Mises


I am on chapter 4 on my Kindle.
And as I said, any book that has conservatives as scared as you are is worth a weekend's read.
I especially like reading their kneejerk reactions and hearing the cries of "SOSHULIZMZ" and "MARXISISMZ".
I especially enjoy the squirming.
/he's gonna sell a lotta books
2014-04-26 12:35:05 PM  
2 votes:

TheHighlandHowler: So the top limit on investment yields should be capped at the country's rate of growth?


No, because it's good that people can earn outsize returns for backing good ideas. In particular, risky projects can only get capital because of the possibility of huge returns. And anyways, with the globalization of financial markets and the increasing role of technology in the economy, capital will probably inevitably become more important, and so better paid, relative to labour. Cutting off returns in any one country would just push a lot of money elsewhere.

Income inequality is not such a bad thing in and of itself, provided those on the bottom are taken care of. Higher capital gains taxes and a stronger welfare state are probably the best that can be done. In particular, healthcare and education need to be available to all.
2014-04-26 12:20:58 PM  
2 votes:

DrPainMD: And it wouldn't have been needed because the economy wouldn't have crashed in the first place.


Because politicians are known for listening to broad economic consensus and not cherry-picking the "experts" that tell them what they want to hear.
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-04-26 09:44:04 AM  
2 votes:
PreMortem:
One has nothing to do with the other. You have to be a psychopath who is willing to screw over your grandmother.

 Or just be born to the right grandmother.
2014-04-26 08:48:04 AM  
2 votes:
Well, if it's about the current economic system, there'll be a lot more rape in it than other books that have topped the Amazon best seller lists, like the Song of Ice and Fire books.  Figurative rape, to be sure, but rape nonetheless.
2014-04-27 01:49:32 PM  
1 votes:
"When the rate of return of return on capital exceeds the rate of growth of output and income, as it did in the nineteenth century and seems quite likely to do again in the twenty-first, capitalism automatically generates arbitrary and unsustainable inequalities that radically undermine the meritocratic values on which which democratic societies are based," Piketty writes.

He says that like the societal collapse is a bad thing....

OK, so presuming it is -- could a country evade this selection pressure by adjusting capital gains taxation policy, such that the effective rate of return on capital would be based from the measured rate of growth in output and income?
2014-04-27 10:07:29 AM  
1 votes:
Tax 'em

Then tax the tax

Then tax the Rich 'till there are no more.

That is what society is "supposed" do do. Apportion resources fairly to all.

We are reaching the point where our remaining resources are the Rich' holdings, squirreled away to perpetrate their personal "Dynasty".

They did it wrong!
Time for a correction.
2014-04-27 05:08:48 AM  
1 votes:

Gunther: Good article. I was expecting a fluff piece but there's some focus on the reasons why we're seeing this concentration of wealth that most people would prefer to ignore.

Capital tents to flow towards people who already have a lot of it. It's a virtuous cycle - when you're rich you have all sorts of advantages that help you become richer, and the more money you have the greater the advantages. Meanwhile the poor have to deal with  poverty traps.

We've systematically destroyed a lot of the ways we used to keep this in check (progressive taxation, welfare, cheap tertiary education, unions, etc) since 1980 or so, meaning that social mobility happens less and less and classes are becoming stratified. We're already seeing the same level of inequality we had pre-WW1 in the US, a few more decades without change and we can experience the joys of the feudal system all over again.


probably sooner.
2014-04-27 04:17:58 AM  
1 votes:
Good article. I was expecting a fluff piece but there's some focus on the reasons why we're seeing this concentration of wealth that most people would prefer to ignore.

Capital tents to flow towards people who already have a lot of it. It's a virtuous cycle - when you're rich you have all sorts of advantages that help you become richer, and the more money you have the greater the advantages. Meanwhile the poor have to deal with  poverty traps.

We've systematically destroyed a lot of the ways we used to keep this in check (progressive taxation, welfare, cheap tertiary education, unions, etc) since 1980 or so, meaning that social mobility happens less and less and classes are becoming stratified. We're already seeing the same level of inequality we had pre-WW1 in the US, a few more decades without change and we can experience the joys of the feudal system all over again.
2014-04-26 05:15:43 PM  
1 votes:

cwheelie: A left wing French socialist comes out against capitalism? color me shocked. Also, show me a better system.
for all the folks yapping about the 1%, the interesting thing there is the 1% is not static - if you look at the 400 richest people 20 years ago, I believe there is only 1 name on the same list today. fortunes come, fortunes go. I don't begrudge anyone who invented something, started a company, etc, who became wealthy from their ideas and efforts.


With your already displayed bias, it doesn't matter what you're shown, you'll state it could never work and claim only the status quo is possible.

Also, the changing in and out of a few extremely wealthy people on the top 400 list is an irrelevant variable. It has no reflection on the current social mobility of the middle class, nor does it mean that wealth inequality isn't a highly corrosive force in our brand of capitalism.
2014-04-26 04:35:29 PM  
1 votes:

Tigger: BalugaJoe: If economists knew what they were talking about then they would have all of the money.

In the exact same way that physicists can travel faster than light and students of english literature can all write classic novels.


Economists spend a lot of time in the abstract, which does have value, but it's not usually practical. Ceteris Paribus is a common phrase in textbooks and very unusual in the real world.

Anyone looking for a great book about major economic thinkers should check out 'The Worldly Philosophers' by Heilbroner. It's also very accessible.

BA Economics '00 Mizzou.
2014-04-26 03:48:33 PM  
1 votes:
i am reading it now. it is quite interesting
2014-04-26 03:47:00 PM  
1 votes:

Gunther: cwheelie: A left wing French socialist comes out against capitalism? color me shocked. Also, show me a better system.

If you'd read so much as a short summary of it you'd know that's not what it's about. Delay posted a link to a review above; you could skim it and not seem like an ignorant asshat.

cwheelie: if you look at the 400 richest people 20 years ago, I believe there is only 1 name on the same list today.

You might believe that but it's farking nonsense.



all those Trillions are passed to Family and extended Family, numb nuts.  that is how you build an Aristocracy in 'murica.  ain't Freedom great!!
2014-04-26 03:38:53 PM  
1 votes:

ForeRight: DrPainMD: PreMortem: One has nothing to do with the other. You have to be a psychopath who is willing to screw over your grandmother.

Yoko Ono is worth $500 million. Who did she screw over?

Music fans.  You may have a point on the other ones.


the vast majority of wealth in 'murica is inherited wealth, dinky.   and they loves them some GOP too.  bush jr himself got rid of the estate tax.  the estate tax's purpose was to prevent an Aristocracy from getting a firm foundation in 'murica.

course. bushie boy knows better.  you can't fool him.
2014-04-26 02:56:44 PM  
1 votes:
Amazon's best-seller list depends on sales rate, not sales volume. A couple of years ago a relative of mine wrote a lengthy but well-received historical biography. A few days after it came out he did a long interview on NPR to discuss the topic, and at the end of that interview every university librarian in the US ordered a copy from Amazon. The result: his book was number eight on the Amazon best seller list for a day ... on the basis of a few hundred sales.
2014-04-26 02:46:16 PM  
1 votes:

snocone: My book, "Serving The Rich" is not 700 pages long.

Some chapters:
Boiled Rich
Fried Rich
Beer Battered Rich
Butterflyed Rich


Rich Gumbo
Pan-Seared Rich
Rich Salad
Broiled Rich
Rich Flambe'
Rich Soup
Stir-Fried Rich
Rich with a light cream Sauce
Oven-Roasted Rich
Rich Tartare
Baked Rich
Barbequed Rich


/just might get to that 700 pages
2014-04-26 02:27:36 PM  
1 votes:

TheHighlandHowler: So the top limit on investment yields should be capped at the country's rate of growth?


GDP growth +10% for incentive to improve. Anything over that cannot be declared as profit, you have to invest in your business, distribute to employees as bonuses, or pay out as dividends. Rule #2: No employee or officer of the firm can earn more than ten times the pay of the lowest paid worker, bonuses and stock options are not exempt from this rule.
2014-04-26 01:12:07 PM  
1 votes:

Doc Daneeka: neon_god: TheHighlandHowler: So the top limit on investment yields should be capped at the country's rate of growth?

No, because it's good that people can earn outsize returns for backing good ideas. In particular, risky projects can only get capital because of the possibility of huge returns. And anyways, with the globalization of financial markets and the increasing role of technology in the economy, capital will probably inevitably become more important, and so better paid, relative to labour. Cutting off returns in any one country would just push a lot of money elsewhere.

Income inequality is not such a bad thing in and of itself, provided those on the bottom are taken care of. Higher capital gains taxes and a stronger welfare state are probably the best that can be done. In particular, healthcare and education need to be available to all.

It is a problem in and of itself insofar as it it undermines democracy.

Even if there is an adequate safety net for the poor and working class, concentrating an ever increasing proportion of wealth in the top 1% means concentrating an ever increasing share of political power in that tiny group.

And it's not like there is much social mobility either up and down the latter. Sure you can always point to ordinary people who struck it rich, but these are rare exceptions, and in any case, the increasing concentrations of wealth in the top 1% means that that wealth is becoming increasingly hereditary, not self-made.

We are headed to a society where the levers of power are going to be increasingly wielded by a few super-rich, politically powerful dynastic families. And that undermines democratic and meritocratic ideals.


That's true to a certain extent, although I think you'd find that mobility into and out of the very top 0.01% is higher than you'd expect. Ordinary people striking it rich are rare, but the total number of the super rich is small. You're right that the creation of a hereditary upper class of the super rich is a problem. I think the solution lies more in taxing large estates and in ensuring that everyone has access to the education necessary to advance socially than in preventing the accumulation of large fortunes in the first place.
2014-04-26 01:09:52 PM  
1 votes:

rewind2846: It is no.1 because it's the cold hard truth, backed up with facts, figures, charts, graphs and plenty of research. It's the kind of book that should not only be standard reading in ALL college economics courses (and AP high school as well), but mandatory for every member of congress, every state governor, and every state legislator.

This book rips the lid off the bullsh*t the republicans have been pumping for the last 30 years, and they are scare. All the more reason for everyone to read it.


It's not an easy read and I paid $22 for the Kindle edition, so I don't think everyone will read it.

Here is an extensive review:

Link
2014-04-26 01:05:41 PM  
1 votes:

DrPainMD: PreMortem: My point is not about commerce but about morality. Something conservatives, which you appear to be, don't understand.

Selling a product at a price that the buyer is willing to pay is immoral? How so?


I guess it'd depend on the product, a luxury item like an iPhone:  Sure bilk them for all their worth.  A basic necessity like water or Burger King Onion rings?  Morally bankrupt.
2014-04-26 01:03:03 PM  
1 votes:

DrPainMD: From Wikipedia: "The book has been compared to Marx's Das Kapital, improving his analysis by using modern economic data."

That's all I need to know. If you want to learn economics, start with "Economics in One Lesson" and move on to "The Failure of the New Economics," both by Henry Hazlitt.




If the first book was called Economics in One Lesson, why did he have a second book?
2014-04-26 12:56:57 PM  
1 votes:

DrPainMD: That's all I need to know. If you want to learn economics, start with "Economics in One Lesson" and move on to "The Failure of the New Economics," both by Henry Hazlitt.


Reading info on that guy is awesome.  All the names are there.  Hayek! Rand! Friedman! RONPAUL!

Oh, apparently he was chummy with Joe McCarthy.  Wonderful.
2014-04-26 12:54:23 PM  
1 votes:

happydude45: PreMortem: DrPainMD: PreMortem: BalugaJoe: If economists knew what they were talking about then they would have all of the money.

One has nothing to do with the other. You have to be a psychopath who is willing to screw over your grandmother.

Or produce something of great value to others.

To me, making something for a dollar and selling it for ten is screwing someone over. Whether they think they are getting screwed over or not is irrelavent.

Your understanding of commerce is about on the same level as your spelling ability. You're a lib, aren't you?


My point is not about commerce but about morality. Something conservatives, which you appear to be, don't understand.
2014-04-26 12:48:55 PM  
1 votes:

CruJones: PreMortem: DrPainMD: PreMortem: BalugaJoe: If economists knew what they were talking about then they would have all of the money.

One has nothing to do with the other. You have to be a psychopath who is willing to screw over your grandmother.

Or produce something of great value to others.

To me, making something for a dollar and selling it for ten is screwing someone over. Whether they think they are getting screwed over or not is irrelavent.

Shouldn't the real definition of value be what you're willing to pay? If I buy something that I like, and I feel I paid a fair price, I don't give a shiat how much it cost to make. That person found and brought this item to my attention and did everything necessary for me to obtain it. There's value in that. A quarter for a bouncy ball is ok regardless of the fact it was made for a penny because I'll get one cent's worth of entertainment. Bouncy Balls Inc did not rip me off.


There's a sucker born every minute.
2014-04-26 12:44:08 PM  
1 votes:

DrPainMD: PreMortem: One has nothing to do with the other. You have to be a psychopath who is willing to screw over your grandmother.

Yoko Ono is worth $500 million. Who did she screw over?


Music fans.  You may have a point on the other ones.
2014-04-26 12:43:54 PM  
1 votes:

DrPainMD: PreMortem: One has nothing to do with the other. You have to be a psychopath who is willing to screw over your grandmother.

Jerry Seinfeld is worth $800 million. Who did he screw over?

Yoko Ono is worth $500 million. Who did she screw over?

Stephen King is worth $400 million. Who did he screw over?

JK Rowling is worth a billion. Who did she screw over?


One of those things is not like the others.
2014-04-26 12:41:50 PM  
1 votes:

PreMortem: DrPainMD: PreMortem: BalugaJoe: If economists knew what they were talking about then they would have all of the money.

One has nothing to do with the other. You have to be a psychopath who is willing to screw over your grandmother.

Or produce something of great value to others.

To me, making something for a dollar and selling it for ten is screwing someone over. Whether they think they are getting screwed over or not is irrelavent.


Your understanding of commerce is about on the same level as your spelling ability. You're a lib, aren't you?
2014-04-26 12:34:55 PM  
1 votes:

PreMortem: DrPainMD: PreMortem: BalugaJoe: If economists knew what they were talking about then they would have all of the money.

One has nothing to do with the other. You have to be a psychopath who is willing to screw over your grandmother.

Or produce something of great value to others.

To me, making something for a dollar and selling it for ten is screwing someone over. Whether they think they are getting screwed over or not is irrelavent.


If the person thinks that the thing is worth $10 (and he wouldn't buy it otherwise) then he hasn't been screwed over. What the buyer thinks is totally relevant.
2014-04-26 12:33:19 PM  
1 votes:

PreMortem: DrPainMD: PreMortem: BalugaJoe: If economists knew what they were talking about then they would have all of the money.

One has nothing to do with the other. You have to be a psychopath who is willing to screw over your grandmother.

Or produce something of great value to others.

To me, making something for a dollar and selling it for ten is screwing someone over. Whether they think they are getting screwed over or not is irrelavent.


What did it cost you to get to work today? How much did you earn today?
2014-04-26 12:31:24 PM  
1 votes:

PreMortem: One has nothing to do with the other. You have to be a psychopath who is willing to screw over your grandmother.


Jerry Seinfeld is worth $800 million. Who did he screw over?

Yoko Ono is worth $500 million. Who did she screw over?

Stephen King is worth $400 million. Who did he screw over?

JK Rowling is worth a billion. Who did she screw over?
2014-04-26 12:31:14 PM  
1 votes:

Tigger: BalugaJoe: If economists knew what they were talking about then they would have all of the money.

In the exact same way that physicists can travel faster than light and students of english literature can all write classic novels.


Only after they bring me a latte.
2014-04-26 12:28:53 PM  
1 votes:

DrPainMD: PreMortem: BalugaJoe: If economists knew what they were talking about then they would have all of the money.

One has nothing to do with the other. You have to be a psychopath who is willing to screw over your grandmother.

Or produce something of great value to others.


To me, making something for a dollar and selling it for ten is screwing someone over. Whether they think they are getting screwed over or not is irrelavent.
2014-04-26 12:10:45 PM  
1 votes:
It's books like these that make me love my kindle. I can read a 700 page book without the hassle of lugging around a 700 page book. Of course, I guess everyone doesn't get to see how deep and serious I am reading my huge book on economics.

/off to Amazon to pick it up
2014-04-26 12:10:38 PM  
1 votes:
If you laid all of the economists in the world end to end they would fail to reach a conclusion.

or, something like that
2014-04-26 11:57:04 AM  
1 votes:
"Psychic wins lottery, again!"
-no headline ever
2014-04-26 11:56:26 AM  
1 votes:

vpb: PreMortem:
One has nothing to do with the other. You have to be a psychopath who is willing to screw over your grandmother.

 Or just be born to the right grandmother.


Generally, they have both the birth and the psychopathy required.
 
Displayed 53 of 53 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report