Avatar
a source familiar with the matter
f5b55f6b44b8997b2b6e8469a6a57f8d3f3b2ef27023543445c40ecec485ee64
<script src="https://pastebin.com/embed_js/TstHh0VL"></script>

I liked that book

I think often whether a certain piece of advice is good depends on the person to whom it is being given

For 4 agreements, if you take everything personally and get over-invested in everything that happens, being told not to take things personally and that your attitude will shape your experience is probably very helpful. If you're already a total hippie maybe you need to be told to invest in your own future.

Similarly, if you're a huge people-pleaser reading Ayn Rand & taking the message "it's OK to care for your own well-being" is probably very healthy. If you're a jerk reading Ayn Rand & taking the message "it's great not to care about others at all", it will probably make you pretty unpleasant to be around.

I believe that message is from YouTube, not from Inv

For pure theory here are 3 good options:

Per Bylund's Primer: How to think about the economy (easy)

https://mises.org/library/book/how-think-about-economy-primer

Henry Hazlitt's Economics in one lesson (intermediate)

https://www.liberalstudies.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Economics-in-One-Lesson_2.pdf

Ludwig von Mises' Human Action (hard but great)

https://mises.org/library/book/human-action

A couple of honorable mentions:

I think Rothbard's economic history is also excellent, eg. America's Great Depression

https://mises.org/library/book/americas-great-depression

Finally Bohm-Bawerk's refutations are especially skillful, eg. Karl Marx and the Close of his System

https://mises.org/library/book/karl-marx-and-close-his-system

Not really

The decision you're thinking of is probably Citizens United v FEC

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC

The SCOTUS majority opinion was that when people join together into a corporation they retain their free speech rights.

The actual case was about a group airing a documentary critical of Hillary Clinton shortly before the 2008 US elections. The FEC ruled that it was election spending and thus subject to strict limits, while SCOTUS ruled it was political speech protected by 1A. Notably, the FEC had ruled in previous legal encounters with the group that Democrat documentaries critical of Republican figures were not election spending.