NARRATOR: He was not able to.
Don't threaten me with a direct reply, just say what you mean if you can.
NARRATOR: He was not able to.
Det real history is you ran from calling Biden and his experts a liar even after you had already admitted it.![]()
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
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]if we're using which economic theory is most cited in order to determine what's correct, looks like Marx edges out Adam Smith.
derp folds
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?
Marx is cited almost 4,000 more times![]()
never heard of that Donald O Hobb book. is that industrial psych?
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.
you can sense derp's fear response over the internets.
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?
I presume that to be the case. I haven't read it. I recall the chapters being economically led. Have you read it?
Das Kapital? Yes. Wealth of Nations? No.
You're so hungry for ankle all the time. It's your favorite dish, BlakeBlaker.![]()
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).
You're just failing so completely in so many threads simultaneously-- it's really an impressive feat.
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 les I was seeing it, I wouldn't mind reading it.
But you just said it's dry.
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= equation.
Reading
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!
Last edited by Ef-man; 08-22-2020 at 11:56 AM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)