Thomas Sowell

Relevant to the subject Einstein addresses I strongly recommend the writing of Thomas Sowell. http://www.tsowell.com/

Circa 2014, my economics mentor, who also mentored me in reading/trading free markets recommended reading Sowell. We discussed Sowell at length, and my primary take away was that Sowell’s world view was that the individual is much better at improving their own lives than any intervening external factors. All in all, an ardent believer in individual capitalism. That is a high level assessment. A more nuanced assessment is Sowell (like his mentor, Milton Friedman), is a true to earth anti-Keynesian. Fun fact, he considered himself a Marxist in his 20’s IIRC. There are lots of anti-Keynesian economists. Though I think what sets Sowell apart is the way he uses widely accessible data to justify every single view on public policy he has, and to make it easy to digest for someone without an economics background (no easy task). You can find a nice collection of his ideas online [1]. [1] http://www.tsowell.com/

Shit. I thought death, disease, revolution, communism (read Acts), fascism (which was an attempt to revive Rome) and war all predated the Industrial Revolution. In fact, the actual research I've read (http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/pinker07/pinker07_index.html) demonstrates clearly that those are declining as we industrialize. But I'm sure you meant to cite your own source. I'm waiting. " You are speaking from a position of privilege and assume all share that privilege." Pleasant nonsense. Why should my status change the validity of my arguments? I have an idea -- let's ask a black high school dropout (http://www.tsowell.com/) if he agrees with me! Then let's decide that an individual's 'privilege', whatever that means, isn't as important as making a reasonable argument backed by data. "If you were right in your theory, the nation you live in (assuming you're American) wouldn't exist right now." If I were right in my theory that depriving people of freedom in order to force them to make decisions they're going to make anyway (at best!) is a bad idea? I don't see how my rightness would affect American politics. Do you mean that if more people agreed with me, the world would be different? Are you confusing my perscriptions and historical descriptions? Please clarify.

This reminds me of Thomas Sowell’s take on writing and editors specifically https://www.tsowell.com/About_Writing.html The section on editing is about 2/3 of the way through, although the whole thing is a great read. TLDR: writers don’t like being edited (particularly by bad writers acting as editors)

If you've not seen it, Thomas Sowell incisively comments on the wish for the impossible in The Quest for Cosmic Justice. There's a full book, but the original speech gives the main point: https://www.tsowell.com/spquestc.html Definitely worth a look, even if you don't think it applies here.

Thomas Sowell http://www.tsowell.com/ James D. Gwartney, Richard L. Stroup, Russell S. Sobel, David A. Macpherson (the authors of "Economics: Private and Public Choice") I also have to second the "I don't like Krugman" opinion. Not that predicting the future is ever reliable of course, but his seriously incorrect predictions seem to be clearly motivated by politics. That won't help you understand economics.

Allowing all political ads isn't politically neutral either, the establishment will presumably have far greater resources (in this case, money to pay for ads). Then the only other option is to ban or suppress certain political parties on Google's ad platform to appeal to some notion of "equality". But who gets to decide that? Do we really want Google deciding which political parties get more ad play? I am reminded of Thomas Sowells idea of "Cosmic Justice" which was posted here a few days ago [1]. Giving Google the reins on political advertisement is an impossible game, and the only winning move is not to play. > In a sense, proponents of "social justice" are unduly modest. What they are seeking to correct are not merely the deficiencies of society, but of the cosmos. What they call social justice encompasses far more than any given society is causally responsible for. Crusaders for social justice seek to correct not merely the sins of man but the oversights of God or the accidents of history. What they are really seeking is a universe tailor-made to their vision of equality. They are seeking cosmic justice. [1] https://tsowell.com/spquestc.html

Wanted to second Sowell's works, surprised to see him mentioned only once here. He's very accessible and values simplicity and clarity above all else in his writing. As he says, "If academic writings were difficult because of the deep thoughts involved, that might be understandable, even if frustrating. Seldom is that the case, however. Jaw-breaking words often cover up very sloppy thinking. It is not uncommon in academic writings to read about people “living below subsistence.” The academic writers I edited seemed to have great difficulty accepting my novel and controversial literary doctrine that the whole purpose of writing is so that people can read the stuff later on and know what you are trying to say. These professors seemed to feel that, once they put their priceless contributions to mankind on paper, a sacred obligation fell upon the reader to do his damndest to try to figure out what they could possibly mean." http://www.tsowell.com/About_Writing.html

There is a split in how people view the justice system should work. One thinks the laws should apply to everyone equally and the justice system is there to enforce the law. The other is that life is unfair and the justice system can be used to help fix that imbalance. We get a mix of the two in reality with the same word used to describe both. Things are, of course, more complicated, but here is a short overview of the concept[1]. [1] https://tsowell.com/spquestc.html

2 things that I liked him for (after reading/hearing just cursorily -- I would like to read more): 1) His perspectives on how the unfairnesses that life throws at you are part of, and incentivize you towards making your life better and not something that you should simply seek to eliminate without knowing what the unintended consequences are. See his essay on "Cosmic Justice": https://www.tsowell.com/spquestc.html 2) That if we seek to have a sustainable approach to how society is managed, maybe we need to set up the reasonable rules and structures of how we want outcomes to be guided by, and not change them willy-nilly because of who happens to benefit at the time. There will be winners and losers no matter what. It's tiring to switch your rules every time you don't like who came out ahead.

It smells a bit too much like "cosmic justice", which tends to be antithetical to actual justice. Here's something that looks like a decent overview: https://www.tsowell.com/spquestc.html

If you want to argue general economic principles, then do so [1]. Just don't cherry pick examples to prop up your perspective. I don't think anyone, even Reagan or Thatcher, would have stood behind the assertion that a luxury phone and computer maker with a hoard of cash would benefit the poor. You're attacking a strawman here. [1] Just keep in mind that "trickle-down economics" is a political philosophy, not an economic one: http://www.tsowell.com/images/Hoover%20Proof.pdf (footnote on page 2)

Perhaps you are thinking of this: http://www.tsowell.com/speducat.html

Banking/finance/crypto developer. Economics major. With a keen lifetime interest in finance. Here are some shiny gems in this space. Economics Foundation: Basic Economics, Thomas Sowell - https://www.tsowell.com Personal Finance: The Psychology of Money, Morgan Housel - https://www.amazon.com/Psychology-Money-Timeless-Lessons-Happiness/dp/… The Millionaire Next Door, Thomas Stanley - https://www.amazon.com/The-Millionaire-Next-Door-audiobook/dp/B0000547… Building Wealth: Ten Roads to Riches, Ken Fisher - https://www.amazon.com/Ten-Roads-Riches-Second-Wealthy/dp/B07VGY671K/r… Financial Freedom/Independence: Mr Money Mustache - https://www.mrmoneymustache.com FIRE - Financial Independence Retire Early - https://www.reddit.com/r/financialindependence/

Anger at these things obscures the ability to find a solution. When you say "the black and white wealth gap continues completely unchanged for over 50 years', I get that is hyperbole, but surely it has changed in some ways, if not on aggregate then in specific locales, in the curve of the distribution... in SOME way. Given that lots of other things have changed in society, if this gap has stayed the same as an average or median on the whole, that is speaking to something deeper. So what, exactly? Thomas Sowell makes the point that average ages vary by race: https://www.tsowell.com/spracecu.html and there must be other factors, like where races live. Asians being based in San Francisco pre Silicon Valley's boom has surely had a positive affect on their collective income and wealth. I really wish there was a clear cut answer, but there self evidently isn't one, unless we believe that every change in society in the last 50 years was made for cynical reasons. So there must be all sorts of answers in the data, sliced properly, that could lead us to a more equitable future.