(Part 2) Best free enterprise books according to redditors
We found 442 Reddit comments discussing the best free enterprise books. We ranked the 110 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the products ranked 21-40. You can also go back to the previous section.
He predicted a lot that is happening today. Read his book. You'll become a Bitcoin fanatic.
https://www.amazon.com/Free-Choose-Statement-Milton-Friedman-ebook/dp/B004MYFLBS
heh, talk to me after you've read [MARXISM/SOCIALISM, A SOCIOPATHIC PHILOSOPHY CONCEIVED IN GROSS ERROR AND IGNORANCE, CULMINATING IN ECONOMIC CHAOS, ENSLAVEMENT, TERROR, AND MASS MURDER: A CONTRIBUTION TO ITS DEATH] (https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07GN8WJB1/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i1)
the author of this book was taught by mises himself btw
This paper (over 1600 downloads already!), and George Reisman's thorough refutation of Piketty's theory provide a downright devastating 1-2 smackdown. Piketty is a neo-Marxist clown.
There's a name for this already - it's called a Post-Scarcity Society.
Someone called Jeremy Rifkin has done a really good book on this - The Zero Marginal Cost Society: The Internet of Things, the Collaborative Commons, and the Eclipse of Capitalism
source
Perhaps I am naive to enjoy and regular a blog where the authors receive, via multiple channels, funding from the Koch brothers. But I do frequent the blog, and I (maybe naively) think I can enjoy what I believe are genuine arguments and discard the content that justifies Koch funding. But no one should be so naive as to take this post at face value.
There is currently a high-stakes PR battle being waged on who should bear the burden of indirectly reversing US life expectancy in some cohorts and indirectly causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans. Physicians? Big Business? The addicted? Regulatory bodies (FDA)? Chinese manufacturers? Dealers? The current state of the US that drives drug use and quasi-suicide (neoliberalism, atomization, destruction of metis, waning of religion)?
Where blame lands will have enormous monetary and credibility consequences. From Massachusetts General Hospital in February 2019:
> Illicit opioids now cause the majority of overdose deaths, and such deaths are predicted to increase by 260 percent -- from 19,000 to 68,000 -- between 2015 and 2025.
Before blaming doctors, consider the fact that it is legal to turn money into changes in physician behavior. From OpenPaymentsData, a federally mandated data aggregator, see payments made by Purdue Pharma L.P. in 2013: 2.4MM, 2014: 6.3MM, 2015:11.8MM, 2016:5.1MM, 2017:5.5MM. The second tab shows how funds were spent. The drop-down selects by year, 2013 to 2017. If a firm is willing to behave in this way towards physicians, why would one not expect them to try to influence legislators? Regulators? The media?
There is also a strong critique of TFA's cited paper's belief that they can quantify "altruism" in the MR comments:
> steve
> This ignores what was going on in the medical world at the time. By 2010 people were worried about narcotic use. A lot of us had already become pretty skeptical about Purdue and their claims that THIS narcotic is better. Remember that when they released the original Oxycontin it was with the claim that it was much less likely to lead to addiction, and they had (made up) proof it was better. However, it was around 2009-2010 that people started doing their own research and finding that Oxycontin was addictive.
> So let's replace the word altruistic with naive or trusting. Let's replace the word less-altruistic with suspicious. The very fact that they brought out a new version that was supposedly less likely to have addiction issues after having promoted Oxy as the drug that did into have addiction issues set off alarms for a lot of people.
>> another Steve
>> This. Most doctors are surprisingly likely to believe drug company slogans. I don't think Purdue ever published made up studies on Oxy abuse rates. Everyone who looked into it in any detail knew from the 90s that Oxy abuse was common.
>> Also, if you put the two papers together, its not that clear what an altruistic doctor should have done in 2011 with a patient who was using old Oxy 80s but now wants Dilaudid as a substitute. You refuse and say take the new Oxy, its the same. They say "no," leave and ... buy Perc 30s and die? Did you help? Maybe you should offer Subs and some counseling but they refuse (or you can't prescribe subs) so it might be better (and easier) to let them have the Dilaudid. Who knows?
Any profession will have a fraction of people amenable to bribes. Any industry will have a fraction of firms that will try to sell harmful products and bribe/blackmail anyone who tries to stop them. The question is, what prevents these transactions from occurring? When the rules are broken at enormous human cost, what does a site like MR do? Do they fairly consider where to lay blame? Do they form or join a coalition to punish the firm giving all of business a bad name, even if it harms their ideological bent? Or do they try to deflect blame to individuals in an ideologically predictable way? And if they do deflect blame, should we, as readers and reddit voters, modify our model of the motivations of these authors and this site in a more cynical direction?
For those interested in podcasts, Michael Lewis (of Liar's Poker, Moneyball, Big Short) is currently authoring a very good podcast season themed around referees in America (sports, judiciary, editorial, grammar, finance).
If you are serious about that then I recommend starting with Freedman's "Free to Choose". It will directly challenge some of the arguments you have made elsewhere in this thread. Its fairly relaxed reading and isn't overly long. I'm not going to claim that it will change your mind or your life but its an excellent primer.
This is just my opinion, but a large percentage of "libertarians" on Reddit are libertarian because its currently a hip thing to be. They dont actually read much on the philosophy or really understand it very well. An example would be how many people will equate the Non Aggression principle with being libertarian. Essentially many people thing that its what makes you libertarian, almost like you cant be without believing in it or something. This is actually entirely false, but again, many people watch a couple you tube videos and think they are a subject matter expert.
Milton Friedman on what is a libertarian.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PaN9M4WwHw
Free to Choose
https://www.amazon.com/Free-Choose-Statement-Milton-Friedman-ebook/dp/B004MYFLBS/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1498691672&sr=8-1&keywords=free+to+choose
https://www.amazon.com/Big-Business-Letter-American-Anti-Hero/dp/1250110548
A late addition to my summer reading list
Here is a PARTIAL list of economics books I've read cover to cover, and why I appreciated Bitcoin earlier than most:
Adam Smith
Ludwig von Mises
Murray N. Rothbard
And many many more: https://forum.bitcoin.com/economics/blockstream-supporters-mock-those-who-study-economics-t49159.html
If I was going to provide someone with a list of books that best expressed my current thinking on the Political Economy these would be my top ones:
There are, of course many more books that could go on this list. But the above list is a good sampling of my personal philosophy of political economy. It is not meant as a list of books to change your mind but simply as a list of books that are descriptive of my current belief that we should be orientated towards high (sustainable) economic growth & more decentralization.
Some honorable mentions:
As a self proclaimed "Libertarian Crunchy Con" I have to add The Quest for Community & Crunchy Cons
The book The Fourth Economy fundamentally changed my professional direction in life.
Anti-Fragile was another book full of mind blowing ideas and shifted my approach to many things.
The End of Jobs is a great combination of The Fourth Economy & Anti-Fragile (among other concepts) into a more real-world useful set of ideas.
Markets Not Capitalism is a powerful reminder that it is not Capitalism per se that is important but the transformational power of markets that need be unleashed.
You will note that I left out pure economic books, this was on purpose. There are tons of good intro to econ type books and any non-trained economist should read a bunch from a bunch of different perspectives. With that said I am currently working my way through the book Choice and if it stays as good as it has started that will probably get added to my core list.
So many more I could I list like The Left, The Right, & The State or The Problem of Political Authority and on it goes...
I am still looking for a "manifesto" of sorts for the broad movement towards decentralization (I have a few possibilities on my 'to read list') so if you know of any that might fit that description let me know.
Fiction:
The Dispossessed by Ursula K. Le Guin is a great start (good critique of anarchist philosophy).
The Red Mars Trilogy by Kim Stanley Robinson actually cites Mondragon and discusses cooperative economics in detail.
After The Deluge (of Critical Mass fame) by Chris Carlsson is a novel about a post-capitalist San Francisco.
Non-fiction:
After Capitalism by Seymor Melman.
America Beyond Capitalism by Gar Alperovitz.
Democracy at Work: A Cure for Capitalism by Richard Wolff.
Capitalism's Crisis Deepens: Essays on the Global Economic Meltdown by Richard Wolff.
After Capitalism by David Schweickart.
Against Capitalism by David Schweickart.
Capitalism or Worker Control by David Schweickart
Putting Democracy to Work by Frank T Adams.
Collective Courage: A History of African American Cooperative Economic Thought and Practice by Jessica Gordon Nembhard.
Humanizing the Economy: Co-operatives in the Age of Capital by John Restakis.
Owning Our Future: The Emerging Ownership Revolution by Marjorie Kelly.
For All the People: Uncovering the Hidden History of Cooperation, Cooperative Movements, and Communalism in America by John Curl.
also by George Reisman: Three Essays CAPITALISM: THE CURE FOR RACISM plus THE WHITE “PRIVILEGE” SCAM and THE MORAL NECESSITY OF DISCRIMINATION AND HATE SPEECH
Free to Choose
and Basic Economics
More modern look at the current state of the US - By the People
Here's just some random books:
"Monthly review" school defenses of China:
https://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Hegemony-Assessing-Prospects-Multipolar/dp/1842777092
https://www.amazon.com/Reorienting-19th-Century-Economy-Continuing/dp/1612051243
https://www.amazon.com/Adam-Smith-Beijing-Lineages-Century/dp/1844672980
these are all the same book summarized here
https://monthlyreview.org/2013/03/01/china-2013/
leftist criticisms:
https://www.amazon.com/China-Demise-Capitalist-World-Economy/dp/158367182X
https://www.amazon.com/China-Socialism-Market-Reforms-Struggle/dp/1583671234
basically summarized here:
http://content.csbs.utah.edu/~mli/Economies%205430-6430/Hart-Landsberg-China%20and%20Transnational%20Accumulation.pdf
some important books on the cultural revolution and the conflict between Mao and Deng at a materialist level rather than in relation to personality (there are very few)
https://www.amazon.com/Chinese-Economic-Development-Chris-Bramall/dp/0415373484
https://cup.columbia.edu/book/red-chinas-green-revolution/9780231186674
https://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/10161/2356/D_Jiang_Hongsheng_a_201005.pdf
(if you can read French it's been published as a much shorter book)
some general books on imperialism and some of the things I'm talking about
https://www.amazon.com/Planet-Slums-Mike-Davis/dp/1784786616
https://www.amazon.com/Imperialism-Twenty-First-Century-Globalization-Super-Exploitation/dp/1583675779
both of these are a bit ambiguous on China
and about Marx and the first international
https://www.amazon.com/Marx-Third-World-Umberto-Melotti/dp/0333198174
as for the USSR and Bukharin/Stalin/Trotsky representing different lines, that should be easy enough to find. The one thing we don't lack are defenses of the USSR and Marxism-Leninism.
You can see which side I'm on based on the books I recommend so don't take me for a neutral observer. If someone knows a good book defending China based on Marxism (rather than Amin and co.'s eclecticism) I welcome it. There's Losurdo of course but that doesn't really interest me since it's a defense of China in terms of Marxist thought rather than an empirical investigation. Not that it's not valuable, just that the argument should be familiar to everyone already since it has become predominant on this sub.
> Robert Murphy's choice, enterprise and human action
https://www.amazon.com/Choice-Cooperation-Enterprise-Human-Action/dp/1598132180
and a [PDF] review: https://mises.org/files/review-choice-cooperation-enterprise-and-human-action-robert-p-murphypdf
People who can't answer this should read Economics in Two Lessons: Why Markets Work So Well, and Why They Can Fail So Badly.
There's Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia, which has a sort of Lockean natural-rights bent and Hayek's The Constitution of Liberty which might be more straightforward. I'd also recommend Free Market Fairness by Tomasi; it takes a look at libertarianism with a Rawlsian social justice twist. Finally, I'd take a look at The Logic of Liberty by Michael Polyani. Hope none of these are too basic.
>Three Essays CAPITALISM: THE CURE FOR RACISM plus THE WHITE “PRIVILEGE” SCAM and THE MORAL NECESSITY OF DISCRIMINATION AND HATE SPEECH
Y I K E S
Also by this author: No, No, SHUT UP! SHUT UP! You’re Wrong! WRONG!
"Our Enemy The State" by Albert Jay Nock
It can only to the extent that those resources can be privatized / turned into private property. Walter Block has a book on the privatization of water (I haven't read it myself yet). That being said, the state can't really do anything about the problem either.
Specifically I think air can't be privatized but pollution can be banned to an extent, as it is a violation of property rights (it's unhealthy to breath shitty air etc.), water can mostly be privatized and minerals as well. I don't see why minerals should be a problem at all.
I mean I believe you that you want to know more about him. I'm just not sure your post here is genuine. Its the conversation itself I find suspect.
First of all you are not simply left leaning. Its clear from your post history that you are aware of and buy into Marxist ideology surrounding power structures.
Secondly, if you want to learn about Peterson why are you posting here first? There are hundreds if not thousands of hours of video on youtube where he outlines his ideas. You can literally google "Jordan Peterson on X" and get a dozen 5 min videos of him talking about that subject. If you just wanted to understand him or his views you would start there then bring your questions about his statements here.
Now maybe I'm wrong, not like it doesn't happen regularly. In that case I wouldn't start with Petersons arguments against communism. Peterson identifies himself as a classical liberal. So his arguments against communism should generally align with classically liberal or libertarian viewpoints surrounding collectivism. With that in mind read "Free to Choose" by Milton Freedman and/or "The Road to Serfdom" by F.A. Hayek. (these are my two top choices) Then, understanding the basic arguments against socialism/communism, look into JBPs views with a new perspective. I'm not trying to say reading those books will change your mind, but they will give you the actual arguments and not the typical strawman you get on the internet.
https://www.amazon.com/Road-Serfdom-Fiftieth-Anniversary/dp/0226320618/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1523154978&sr=8-2&keywords=road+to+serfdom
https://www.amazon.com/Free-Choose-Statement-Milton-Friedman-ebook/dp/B004MYFLBS/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1523155001&sr=8-1&keywords=free+to+choose
I also recommend, "Choice" by Robert Murphy
https://www.amazon.com/Choice-Cooperation-Enterprise-Human-Action/dp/1598132180/
You may want to check out Free Market Fairness by John Tomasi. It's a bit academic (but you seem fine with that) attempt to build a research program based on bridging what Tomasi calls the "High Liberal" and "Classical Liberal" or Libertarian positions. Essentially he wants to create a political perspective that give weight to social justice issues while also assigning a great deal of importance to personal economic freedom.
I'm not finished the book but it's a really good primer on the background of the different branches of Liberal philosophy and clearly lays out what the main points of contention are between them. It doesn't have any solid answers, but does raise a lot of questions and gives you lots to think about. Check out this interview with him on the Philosophy Bites podcast.
Well, perhaps it depends how you define "exploit." Actually, I think by most definitions it holds true.
There are several excellent books on the subject if you're interested:
Yes, private entities should be allowed to discriminate without limitation. Laws outlawing private discrimination violate the first amendment (the right of the people peaceably to assemble), the ninth amendment, and the tenth amendment of the constitution. Your airline example would never happen because then Muslims would become an underserved market and there would be a market opportunity to serve Muslims. The result may be separate sections in the plane for Muslims or even separate flights, but they would be served.
Read Capitalism and Freedom. It will make you a libertarian. And it has a chapter specifically on discrimination.
Two good resources:
The Market for Liberty
The Voluntary City
Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy
haha, awesome. Glad you got my joke.
Literature always bugged me a bit, since it's only given for a lifetime of work, not any individual work.
But I disagree with the OP quite a bit - my mentor in college was a PhD in Mathematics who then got a second PhD in Philosophy, who did all his research in Marxist Economics. He was certainly contentious in the Philosophy dept as the only guy who really knew math, and the business & econ department because he directly said he offered courses that were an alternative to what they were teaching
The difference between my mentor and the OP's link is that my mentor took these criticisms seriously and tried to write a positive theory of how economics could work, even if it meant totally abandoning lots of parts of western economic capitalist systems that we know are broken. The OP's article just tears it down, and that's alright I guess, but any undergraduate can do that. Sounds like this guy is wasting his own time
http://www.amazon.com/Against-Capitalism-David-Schweickart/dp/0813331137
David Schweickart if anyone is interested
Check out Robert Murphy's book Choice. It's a summary and commentary on Human Action and much easier to read. I think it's really good.
Thank you Roger!
Here are the Audiobooks available on Amazon:
Murray N. Rothbard
Conceived in Liberty
A History of Money and Banking in the United States: The Colonial Era to World War II
Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market
For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto
America's Great Depression
Henry Hazlitt
Economics in One Lesson
Frederick Bastiat
The Law
F. A. Hayek
The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism
The Constitution of Liberty
David Boaz
Libertarianism: A Primer
Ludwig von Mises
Human Action: A Treatise on Economics
Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis
The Theory of Money and Credit
Liberalism: In the Classical Tradition
Friedrich Engels
Socialism: Utopian and Scientific
Karl Marx
The Communist Manifesto
Milton Friedman
Free to Choose: A Personal Statement
Capitalism and Freedom
Money Mischief: Episodes in Monetary History
John Maynard Keynes
The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money
Robert T. Kiyosaki
Rich Dad Poor Dad: What the Rich Teach Their Kids About Money That the Poor and Middle Class Do Not!
I just remembered this one:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1250110548/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i0
Book by respected economist Tyler Cowen about how big business makes your life better and is unfairly maligned.
Please check some of these things out. You talked about economists a lot, these are economists. See what they have to say
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Government_of_Somalia
Somalia HAS a government. Not sure why you're having trouble with that.
>Some parts of his argument, yes. I'm still unaware of anyone debunking or refuting his data (which is where r > g arises from), maybe you could point me to one of those, thanks!
This is the best one I know of
If you are interested in a discussion on why the wealth of the rich is not their just reward for having taken risk, I highly recommend this post. It draws on arguments presented in this book which I highly recommend if you're interested in a more detailed response.
> can someone tell whose job it really is? State govt or Central govt?
>
> Sad that despite paying so much in taxes, govt doesn't do anything.
>
> And every election campaign Kaveri is one of the main issues in state elections and yet these governments don't do jack about it after being elected.
>
> So much so that a tax paying citizen has to leave his well paying job and do the work of the government.
Aaaand ... you hit on a really important point. The government in India operates primarily to steal people’s hard-earned money.
What happened here is exactly how things should be. It’s not the job of the government — it’s job of the people, like that guy, and should flow out of individual (or group) initiative.
The best book on this subject is Our Enemy, the State by Albert Jay Nock: https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B004H8G49W/
https://www.amazon.com/Economics-Two-Lessons-Markets-Badly-ebook/dp/B07JQ676JQ
Why basic economics is so simplified it's wrong.
Det er jeg bekendt med ja
Jo naturligvis er det til diskussion. Nej afsenderen er ikke en “højreradikal amerikansk tænketank”. Lad venligst være med at ty til usandheder blot for at tilfredsstille dit politiske ståsted. Afsenderen er
George Reisman, Ph.D., is Pepperdine University Professor Emeritus of Economics
https://www.amazon.com/Why-Nazism-Was-Socialism-Totalitarian-ebook/dp/B00QJJFOKC
They are feeling the Bern!
https://www.amazon.com/Creature-Jekyll-Island-Federal-Reserve/dp/091298645X
https://www.amazon.com/History-Money-Banking-United-States-ebook/dp/B0049H938A/
I can personally attest to this one being what you want: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B002XHNMN0?ref_=k4w_ss_details_rh I read the whole thing and the formatting and everything is great. It's the Penguin edition (the modern one) and not screwed up like some I have seen, like one I bought on Google Play.
If only I could find the time to read books two and three now.
http://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Freedom-Anniversary-Milton-Friedman-ebook/dp/B006JP11HQ/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1450292902&sr=1-1&keywords=milton+friedman
Interesting that one of the most influential economists in the 1900s just happens to agree with a lot of the monetary policies Paul supports. But I guess Milton Friedman is also pants on head retarded and you can defeat his decades of research and accolades in a quick Reddit post.
The shortage exists because the lower wage of W2 enables employers to afford labor who would not have been able to afford it at the wage of W1, or it enables employers who would have been able to afford some labor at the wage of W1 to now afford a larger quantity of labor. To whatever extent such employers employ labor that they otherwise could not have employed, that much less labor remains to be employed by other employers, who are willing and able to pay the higher wage of W1.
At the artificially low wage of W2 the quantity AB of labor is employed by employers who otherwise could not have afforded to employ that labor. The effect of this is to leave an equivalently reduced quantity of labor available for those employers who could have afforded the market wage of W1. The labor available to those employers is reduced by AC, which is precisely equal to AB. This is the inescapable result of the existence of a given quantity of labor and some of it being taken off the market by some employers at the expense of other employers. What the one set gains, the other must lose. Thus, because the wage is W2 rather than W1, the employers who could have afforded the market wage of W1 and obtained the full quantity of labor A are now able to employ only the smaller quantity of labor C, because labor has been taken off the market by employers who depend on the artificially low wage of W2.
The employers who could have afforded the market wage of W1 are in identically the same position as the bidder at the art auction who is about to see the painting he wants go to another bidder not able or willing to pay as much. The way to think of the situation is that there are two groups of bidders for quantity AB of labor: those willing and able to pay the market wage of W1, or an even higher wage—one as high as W3—and those willing and able to pay only a wage that is below W1—a wage that must be as low as W2. In Figure 3, the position of these two groups is indicated by two zones on the demand line (or demand “curve”): an upper zone HE and a lower zone EL. The wage of W1 is required for the employers in the upper zone to be able to outbid the employers in the lower zone.
The question is: Is it to the rational self-interest of the employers willing and able to pay a wage of W1, or higher, to lose the labor they want to other employers not able or willing to pay a wage as high as W1? The obvious answer is no. And the consequence is that if, somehow, the wage were to fall below W1, the self-interest of employers who are willing and able to pay W1 or more, and who stood to lose some of their workers if they did not do so, would lead them to bid wage rates back up to W1. The rational self-interest of employers, like the rational self-interest of any other buyers, does not lead them to pay the lowest wage (price) they can imagine or desire, but the lowest wage that is simultaneously too high for other potential employers of the same labor who are not able or willing to pay as much and who would otherwise be enabled to employ that labor in their place.
The principle that it is against the self-interest of employers to allow wage rates to fall to the point of creating a labor shortage is illustrated by the conditions which prevail when the government imposes such a shortage by virtue of a policy of price and wage controls. In such conditions, employers actually conspire with the wage earners to evade the controls and to raise wage rates. They do so by such means as awarding artificial promotions, which allow them to pay higher wages within the framework of the wage controls.
The payment of higher wages in the face of a labor shortage is to the self-interest of employers because it is the necessary means of gaining and keeping the labor they want to employ. In overbidding the competition of other potential employers for labor, it attracts workers to come to work for them and it removes any incentive for their present workers to leave their employ. This is because it eliminates the artificial demand for labor by the employers who depend on a below-market wage in order to be able to afford labor. It is, as I say, identically the same in principle as the bidder who wants the painting at an auction raising his bid to prevent the loss of the painting to another bidder not able or willing to pay as much. The higher bid is to his self-interest because it knocks out the competition. In the conditions of a labor shortage, which necessarily materializes if wage rates go below the point corresponding to full employment, the payment of higher wages provides exactly the same benefit to employers.
​
Source:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07GN8WJB1/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1534791430&sr=1-1-fkmr0&keywords=MARISM/SOCIALISM,+A+SOCIOPATHIC+PHILOSOPHY
> Doesn't that resolve the contradiction though? I just don't understand how it's a contradiction when government-regulated market forces can respond
They can put a band-aid on it for a short period of time but that's it.
> I don't want to rest on an equivocation, but people have never been content with the status quo; we've been improving all the same.
Ultimately whether or not people go out on the streets depends on whether THEY are content or not, and not on whether a Steven Pinker book tells them they should be. If people in France are able to have rather serious protests when we're still not even in recession, then I don't know what could happen if we got a really deep one.
> What kind of trends suggest that we're building to a crisis?
I you mean any crisis at all then it's been happening roughly every 10 years for some time now. We don't need any special trends to know that it will happen again very soon, but you can take a look at this for example: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=mMGv
If you mean the final crisis then the main trend is the falling rate of profit on capital investment. But there are also others coming from outside of Marxism like global warming or raising inequality as described by Piketty.
Some further resources:
https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/
https://www.amazon.com/Imperialism-Twenty-First-Century-Globalization-Super-Exploitation/dp/1583675779 (the crisis stuff is mostly just last chapter)
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B012TMK8OY/
The mechanics of private ownership of the ocean must raise some eyebrows, but people have proposed ways to do it.
> to manage them better than democratic collective decisions is what I would call post-scarcity level utopia.
Not "utopia" in the sense of "produces ideal outcomes" or "delivers us from scarcity." No one has claimed that. But if you don't have some skepticism about democratic collective decisions, you must not be paying much attention.
> The market price does square it. That's exactly what it does. I'm not even sure I understand where you are going with this.
I'm undermining the idea that if a person were to live in a socialist state where their basic subsistence were provided, that that would be any different than what we have today, at least in principle.
>Also, If you can show me the $0 price tag for free food, shelter, housing, and water for everyone on earth due to automation, then I'll concede everything I said and come to your side immediately.
The Zero Marginal Cost Society
No offense but your grasp of Hayek's work and its importance in economics is pretty superficial at best, and wildly off base at worst (e.g. "basically one idea", though I'm not sure how literally you meant that). And you don't have to take my word on it, several prominent Nobel prize winners-- working in diverse fields in economics-- were deeply influenced by his work, and notably the fields in which they were most prominent seem to have little if anything to do with business cycles or political polemics like RtS (for what it's worth, in my view RtS is Hayek's least interesting work by a fairly significant margin). Just off the top of the head: Douglass North, Elinor Ostrom, Vernon Smith, James Buchanan, and Ronald Coase.
North himself is on the record in saying Hayek was the greatest social scientist of the 20th century. That would be an astonishing claim for someone of North's stature to make if Hayek's important work was limited to business cycles (which, as you correctly note, hasn't found any kind of widespread acceptance in contemporary econ) or political polemics. It's at least slightly less astonishing if you drop that assumption and instead recognize that Hayek worked on a number of other projects, and that his work in particular on institutions and how they structure human behavior laid much of the groundwork for North's own later work.
It's probably also worth pointing out his influence hasn't been limited to economists, e.g. see political philosopher Jerry Gaus's work. I think John Tomasi is another, though I'm not as familiar with his work.
For secondary sources, you might find Bruce Caldwell's intellectual biography Hayek's Challenge to be a useful starting point, or perhaps Peter Boettke's FA Hayek. For primary sources, I'd recommend starting with the first volume of the Law, Legistlation, and Liberty series, Rules and Order.
Okay again.... community owned centralized control of the means of production is a widely accepted definition of socialism. If you want to add on equal representation then go for it, but equal representation =/= community owned. There are several forms of community ownership that have nothing to democracy or representation. You are arguing semantics and saying the only real socialism is democratic socialism. You are making socialism, facisism, plutocracy, etc. a binary definition when all of our social contracts and thoeries are a matter of scale. Some people in America hate socialism/communism and think their government is the farthest thing from socialism the world has ever seen. Yet they have socialized education, socialized roads, socialized retirement, all sorts of socialism. They are somewhat socialist, just like Canada or EU socialism are a little more socialist.
I have only claimed that china has a socialist form of government as well and your responses is China is fascist. There is a such thing as social fascism, even if you do not want to think so.
Do you think the majority of chinese citizens hate their government? If China had a democratic vote today, do you think they would throw Winnie the pooh out of office? What if the democratic socialist Canadan voted to implement the same regulations, governmental power, social credit score, etc. as the chinese have now? Would Canadian no longer be socialist? You're view is so limited. You telling me you know how to define words doesnt me shit. Your argument is literally those governments are not socialist because there is no equal representation of the citizens for decision making, which is a requirement you have added. Your idea of western democratic socialism is more neo-capitalist than all of the governments you who say are just claiming to be socialist but arent really......
Honestly help yourself to a fucking political science book.
https://www.amazon.com/Socialism-Utopian-Scientific-Frederick-Engels/dp/1406878200
https://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Socialism-Democracy-Perennial-Thought/dp/0061561614
https://www.amazon.com/Socialism-Sociological-Ludwig-von-Mises/dp/0913966630
https://www.amazon.com/Communist-Manifesto-Karl-Marx/dp/0717802418
https://www.amazon.com/Basic-Economics-Citizens-Guide-Economy/dp/0465081452
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_socialism
> Anyone who might even have an idea for a book?