Democratic National Convention Thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spurtacular

People like you never dig into the real history.

---

Don't threaten me with a direct reply, just say what you mean if you can.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Don't threaten me with a direct reply, just say what you mean if you're able to.

---

NARRATOR: He was not able to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

What's the real history?

Drop det knowledge you're so proud of you fold every time you're asked for it.

---

Det real history is you ran from calling Biden and his experts a liar even after you had already admitted it. :lmao

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spurtacular

It was gold when it was published; it's gold now. Easily the most cited book on economics.

---

Just want to correct this, it's actually the 2nd most cited book on economics. The most cited is.....wait for it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations

Quote:

---

With 36,331 citations, it is the second most cited book in the social sciences published before 1950, behind Karl Marx's Das Kapital.^[62]

---

:lol if we're using which economic theory is most cited in order to determine what's correct, looks like Marx edges out Adam Smith.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spurtacular

Det real history is you ran from calling Biden and his experts a liar even after you had already admitted it. :lmao

---

derp folds

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Will Hunting

Just want to correct this, it's actually the 2nd most cited book on economics. The most cited on economics is.....wait for it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations


:lol if we're using which economic theory is most cited in order to determine what's correct, looks like Marx edges out Adam Smith.

---

Well done.

But I'd note that if the citations were broken down based on whether they are economic or non-economic (such as political), then Adam Smith would presumably be the highest still would be my best guess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spurtacular

Well done.

But I'd note that if the citations were broken down based on whether they are economic or non-economic (such as political), then Adam Smith would presumably be the highest still would be my best guess.

---

:lmao

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spurtacular

Well done.

But I'd note that if the citations were broken down based on whether they are economic or non-economic (such as political), then Adam Smith would presumably be the highest still would be my best guess.

---

Other than the fact Adam Smith being more cited than Marx on economics is something that helps your argument, is this guess based on anything?

https://blogsmedia.lse.ac.uk/blogs.d...-table-2-1.jpg

Marx is cited almost 4,000 more times :lol

never heard of that Donald O Hobb book. is that industrial psych?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Will Hunting

Other than the fact Adam Smith being more cited than Marx on economics is something that helps your argument, is this guess based on anything?

https://blogsmedia.lse.ac.uk/blogs.d...-table-2-1.jpg

Marx is cited almost 4,000 more times :lol

---

Yes, it's based on Adam Smith's writings being based more on a purely economical vent. Much of Karl Marx's work deals with politics and not directly regarding economics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spurtacular

Yes, it's based on Adam Smith's writings being based more on a purely economical vent. Much of Karl Marx's work deals with politics and not directly regarding economics.

---

What parts of Das Kapital were not directly regarding economics? I think you're confusing Das Kapital with The Communist Manifesto.

:lol you can sense derp's fear response over the internets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

never heard of that Donald O Hobb book. is that industrial psych?

---

very interesting: Donald O. Hebb

https://can-acn.org/donald-olding-hebb/

It couldn't possibly be that Das Kapital is cited more than Wealth of Nations due to the fact that Das Kapital accounts for how much the industrial revolution (something Wealth of Nations barely accounts for at all as it was written as the very beginning of the industrial revolution) made it so certain things such as the means of production, surplus value and wage labor impact the economy, could it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Will Hunting

What parts of Das Kapital were not directly regarding economics? I think you're confusing Das Kapital with The Communist Manifesto.

---

I presume that to be the case. I haven't read it. I recall the chapters being economically titled. Have you read it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spurtacular

I presume that to be the case. I haven't read it. I recall the chapters being economically titled. Have you read it?

---

Das Kapital? Yes. Wealth of Nations? No.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spurtacular

I presume that to be the case. I haven't read it. I recall the chapters being economically titled. Have you read it?

---

:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin: rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

:lol you can sense derp's fear response over the internets.

---

You're so hungry for ankle all the time. It's your favorite dish, BlakeBlaker. :lmao

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Will Hunting

Das Kapital? Yes. Wealth of Nations? No.

---

How'd you like it? I'm surprised you'd read something as dry as that if you didn't have to (like for school).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spurtacular

You're so hungry for ankle all the time. It's your favorite dish, BlakeBlaker. :lmao

---

You're just failing so completely in so many threads simultaneously-- it's really an impressive feat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spurtacular

How'd you like it? I'm surprised you'd read something as dry as that if you didn't have to (like for school).

---

For a book that's translated from another language, it's unbelievable how well it simplifies concepts that at the time were relatively new. Every other time I've tried to pick up a book on economic theory that was originally written in non-english, it's torture trying to read through dry translated material, I actually enjoyed reading Das Kapital.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Will Hunting

For a book that's translated from another language, it's unbelievable how well it simplifies concepts that at the time were relatively new. Every other time I've tried to pick up a book on economic theory that was originally written in non-english, it's torture trying to read through dry translated material, I actually enjoyed reading Das Kapital.

---

Based on the chapter titles I was seeing it, I wouldn't mind reading it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spurtacular

Based on the chapter titles I was seeing it, I wouldn't mind reading it.

---

But you just said it's dry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Will Hunting

For a book that's translated from another language, it's unbelievable how well it simplifies concepts that at the time were relatively new. Every other time I've tried to pick up a book on economic theory that was originally written in non-english, it's torture trying to read through dry translated material, I actually enjoyed reading Das Kapital.

---

Adam Smith is great read too. Economics was considered literature at the time, it wasn't a science yet. Political economy was sort of a branch of moral philosophy.

Something similar is true for Marx, there wasn't a substantial body of dedicated professionals to receive his economic writings at the time. Also, Marx was a journalist by trade and propagandist by temperament, he knew the value of brevity, as in his famous money=shit equation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spurtacular

Based on the chapter titles I was seeing it, I wouldn't mind reading it.

---

Reading :lol

Derp: No pictures, there are no pictures in this book. How am i to read this book without pictures and borders for me to color in? Curse you Will!