We're reading and discussing a book titled Political Economy by William Stanley Jevons. Today we're doing chapter one.https://archive.org/details/politicaleconomy00jevo/page/7/mode/1up
page one of tenhttps://voca.ro/1jECpyMiddry
page two of tenhttps://voca.ro/13Uayq5AHDa0
page three of tenhttps://voca.ro/11XEGDqx7kQs
page four of tenhttps://voca.ro/1gSP7dAo3oRQ
page five of tenhttps://voca.ro/16bjMjrJMYmW
Are you on Swedish adderall today?
page six of tenhttps://voca.ro/1iHKPPyLqmIs
page seven of tenhttps://voca.ro/1isfyjt1cqwW
page eight of tenhttps://voca.ro/1hvQI5qYYU4S
page nine of tenhttps://voca.ro/1ioZ96JMInxB
page ten of tenhttps://voca.ro/13SRbMv9dbAq
droll
bump
Wonder what the author would say about Trump giving away 5000 dollars to every American. The dollar itself kinda goes against his "limited supply" principle.... Besides the fact that it will fuck up the economy and instantly devalue the dollar another argument is the "harmfull charity" aspect he mentions, i bet there would be like 10x more fentanyl deaths than usual on that day and many other side effects we cant even imagine.
>>543713268test
>>543716835kek I had typed a lengthy response after reading your pages provided but got rangebanned attempting to reply. I will try to recreate my previous comment to the best of my ability. The first chapter was completely inane, post-rothschild, top hat industrialist drivel. What is there to discuss? the only thing political about his (((political economics))) are his definitions, which are clearly biased to support whatever opinions he wishes to impress upon the reader in later chapters. He claims to boil wealth down to a corporeal three point definiton (which he could have started to lay out on page 1, yet he more or less bullshits the first 7 pages until he begins to discuss anything that even remotely appears of substance). I would argue that wealth can be boiled down to amount of resources, and availability of the skills, labor, etc to maximize the usefulness of that wealth. The wealth he refers to, though he keeps up an empirical, materialistic facade when "articulating" the definition, is a social/psychological construct that is redundant when discussing wealth, political or otherwise. Either he is misrepresenting the study of political economics, or political economics is a vehicle to act as a veneer to the propaganda the author is peddling
>>543713268Yawn. All I want is no brown people fucking everything up. Dont need political teachings for that to be an opinon. In to Africa theory innit
