Reddit Reddit reviews Basic Economics

We found 88 Reddit comments about Basic Economics. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.

Business & Money
Economic Conditions
Basic Economics
Basic Books
Check price on Amazon

88 Reddit comments about Basic Economics:

u/UNDERSCORE_WHAT · 843 pointsr/Documentaries

I got about 25 minutes into the video; I'm not wasting more time. If you want to know serious data about the dangers of central planning of the monetary system, there are vastly better sources that talk in real, economics, and not lofty, sensationalist terms.

The International Role of the Dollar: Theory and Prospect by Paul krugman

Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell

The Creature from Jekyll Island by Griffin

Milton Friedman's Free to Choose videos


My main objections in the first 25 minutes of this "documentary" are:

1) They're not correctly defining or using the terms currency or money and not identifying their economic role. Money is not the center of an economy, it is the lubrication that permits economics to happen. Economics is the analysis of how scarce resources that have alternative uses are allocated by people (by markets).

Money doesn't create those allocations, money enables those allocations.

Even in an economic system without money, there would still be allocations of scarce resources that have alternative uses by people; whether that is choosing to use your time to cut down a tree for your neighbor in exchange for beef or choosing to use your time to mow a lawn for your mother in exchange for a smile and a thank you; your time is a scarce resource and you're choosing how to allocate it with zero money being involved.

Money is any medium of exchange and is created as a store of one's labor.

You receive a dollar in exchange for X minutes of your labor. That piece of paper stores those X minutes of your labor and you can use it in exchange for something you value.

So anyway - this video does a shitty job identifying what money is at the outset... I don't think it'll get better.

2) The banking system, monetary policy, and politicians making a killing off of those systems has not been hidden from anyone. As they admit, almost in a very quick juxtaposition with their incorrect statement, the bankers, academics, and politicians are very open about their systems.

The problem is that people are just happy with their lives and are safer than they've ever been throughout history.

3) A complete misunderstanding of what "interest" is and what fractional reserve banking is.

Interest is the cost of lending money... it is the price tag on a product just like on the coat or iPod you buy. The baker isn't going to give you all his bread for free; why should a bank give you money for free?

Fractional reserve banking can be done responsibly. Much like the interest rate, it should be done at the rate set by free markets. A fractional reserve rate of 90% almost completely guarantees that when you withdraw, you will always be able to withdraw all of your money. In exchange, banks will give you vastly lower of an interest rate than at a 10% fractional reserve rate because it is higher risk and lower reward for the bank.

Anyway - like so many other documentaries out there about extremely complex matters, this one is just trying to sell a product like every other good capitalist out there. They need to catch your attention and get you to talk about it to others to make money - so of course they're going to play to the 8th grade education market.

u/RedditAdminsAreFaygs · 80 pointsr/The_Donald

Seems like the appropriate place to plug this book: Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell

u/mirroredfate · 41 pointsr/NeutralPolitics

From an economics perspective:

u/SatAnCap · 20 pointsr/Shitstatistssay

Jokes on them, I shall use that as a wishlist! >:D

(Also they forgot Basic Economics, so it's wrong)

u/PumpkinAnarchy · 15 pointsr/Libertarian

Both Economics in One Lesson and Basic Economics are golden, though for very different reasons.

Economics is One Lesson starts with a truth that is obvious and simple once you hear it explained. You think to yourself, "Well, yeah. Who could possibly think otherwise?" And then you hop onto Reddit and see that a substantial preponderance of Reddit are afflicted with a mindset and beliefs that fly in the face of this simple truth. It then spends time expanding on this truth and applying it to tons of different things that you wouldn't intuitively see it applying to.

Basic Economics is better though. Both are well worth reading, but Sowell's work is incredibly comprehensive. When I read it, it didn't come across as someone trying to prove any world view, as tends to be the case from so many economists. It is him simply seeking to explain economics to someone who is new to the field. To his credit, he uses terminology that is accessible to anyone and doesn't spend a single moment trying to prove to how smart he is. (Though his brilliance is immediately evident.) Its most important quality is that it doesn't ask you to partake in a string of thought experiments to reach some grand conclusions. Every assertion he makes is supported by multiple studies and historical examples. This happens time and time again. And the bolder the claim, the more evidence he provides. It's remarkable.

While it does weigh in at 700-ish pages, Basic Economics is almost certainly the perfect book for getting your feet wet when in economics.

u/[deleted] · 11 pointsr/Conservative

>My argument was that the Left has gone farther Left and the Right has also gone slightly farther Left. Nothing in your post even addressed my argument.

You didn't click the link I sent. This is factually wrong when it comes to Trump supporters. The data across many studies shows the opposite of your claim. Facts and data don't care about your precious feelings here.

> But it's so typical of a Leftist like you to be so brain washed you don't see that Democrats do the exact same thing. They were totally fine with Obama's wars, him saying that illegal aliens cannot come, etc.

Good job assuming I'm a leftist. Even if I was, you're not attacking the argument.

Did Obama invade Iraq and Afghanistan, creating a power vacuum?

Calling them "Obama's wars" is stupid at worst, disingenuous at best. If you're referring to Libya, no liberal was for it and liberals on this site were constantly blowing up reddit regarding drone strikes.

And of course leftists were fine with saying illegal aliens can't come, they're illegal SMH. What is not ok is separating children from their families, that was NOT an Obama-era policy. Every left leaning person I've spoken to wants immigration reform. It's clear you don't have the faintest idea of the major differences between Obama's policies and Trumps

Take a read, educate yourself.

>You're acting like a basic rule of politics across time and cultures is some unique failing of conservatives.

You must be very young.

Here is a step by step history written by an author who voted conservative.

This is just one of many facets where it's a unique failing of conservatives.

I'll end by saying this: The sign of being an adult is when you are faced with facts and truths that are opposite of your understanding, you CHANGE your view, not dig yourself in deeper like a trump supporter does.

Much like how I battle with leftists on GMO's, Vaccine Safety, and guns. I can easily weed out who is an adult vs a grown child by how they digest facts and change their views when confronted with counter-evidence.

So back to the point, leftists/democrats haven't shifted much according to the data. Conservatives/Trump Voters have done 180's, throwing their credibility to the wind.

If you'd like to learn more about how Trump's economic plans will not deliver on any of his promises, here is a book suggestion.

u/Legend_Of_Herky · 7 pointsr/politics

I wish I could say I was surprised at the level of stupidity. You realize stock is ownership of public companies that......provide economic value? I don't even want to bother correcting everything else you said. Rather, here's a link to an entry economics book that might help you begin to understand the topic.,204,203,200_QL40_&dpSrc=srch

u/abandepart · 6 pointsr/COMPLETEANARCHY

$78b a year? Really?

Thanks for the meme, guys.

Basic Economics

u/CerebralPsychosis · 6 pointsr/JordanPeterson

I would like to summarize JBP's position. Capitalism is not the best system but it works. It sucks on certain cases but it works. Also socialists ( most of them but a few are genuine caring individuals driven by compassion and horror at the poverty of the people. Most hate the rich , also George Orwell commentated on that in his book road to Wigan pier.) They seek to correct a system without correcting themselves first which proves they cannot correct the system. Also poverty is declining due to capitalism and it allows for creativity and a system which is in tune with natural law of inequality and the 80/20 rule.

as long as there is income and output there will be hierarchy and inequality. Humanity is corrupt and it will have corruption in every human endeavour.

also any system which tries to work against the natural law fails and falls short for numerous reasons.

Socialism cannot work in a psychological way due to human nature.

by the way , not my position , just a summary ( plenty of paraphrasing )

here are references

here are some of Jordan’s looks on economics.

u/FelixFuckfurter · 5 pointsr/SeattleWA

You want evidence that people buy less of something that costs more?


u/farewell_traveler · 5 pointsr/politics

A few white Pastors I know are becoming more vocal and critical regarding POTUS and Friends, but in general I've found that while the conversation can be had, its next to impossible to actually change anyone's mind. Of course, we could just chalk it up to my poor persuasion skills.

It's truly tragic that the Republicans grabbed the 'God' theme. Sure, sure, we wanted to avoid the domino effect and wanted to unite the country, but hey, guess what? Jesus mentioned something about preaching to ALL nations, so I'd think that'd include communists and even countries labeled as an 'enemy'.

I'd also want to suggest that there are plenty of 'phony' Christians out there who are warping the image of "Christians voting for Trump", but I've met enough 'real' Christians who voted Trump. Something about economics and saving babies. It'd be nice if they read some literature, such as Basic Economics so that they'd actually have a basic understanding of the topic, and maybe even Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger so that they can better understand how well they truly have it (and might even stop griping about 'government handouts').

Despite the uphill battle, I'd encourage the conversation. Best case, they learn that Jesus wasn't a rich white man who bought off the Pharisees and only loved English-speaking peoples of pale complexion. Apologies for the minor rant, I'm somewhat annoyed with the world on this fine morning.

u/MiltonFreedMan · 5 pointsr/Libertarian

Free to Choose

and Basic Economics

More modern look at the current state of the US - By the People

u/TJ_Floyd · 4 pointsr/AskConservatives

Well, as you probably know these Economic schools of thought are usually associated with some university or group of Economists. For instance, the Chicago School was associated with the University of Chicago. Thomas Sowell is a very popular Conservative economist that adheres to the Chicago School who put out his book Basic Economics a few years ago. Although it's a book about Economics, it's written from a popular perspective meant to appeal to the general layman. Many Libertarians follow the Austrian School and still read the books of Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek, both unorthodox economists.

Economics is one of those subjects that often takes on an ideological nature. As much as one wants it to remain scientific, people from all creeds are guilty of ideoligising Economics. The Left is not exempt from doing this, either. Marxist Economists still teach the Labor Theory of Value, an idea rejected by mainstream Neoclassical Economics. In fact, Marxists pretty much reject all of Neoclassical Economics in favor of Marx's approach to Economics. I remember listening to some lectures by Richard Wolff, a popular Marxist Economist, and he said when he discusses economics with other Economists they never know what he's talking about, because Marxian economics is so radically different from mainstream economics, since it has different definitions and premises.

> It also seems odd to disagree with the majority of universities teachings.

These schools of thought form due to disagreements in theory and interpreting data. Marxist, Neoclassical, Austrian, Modern Monetary Theorist, etc. economists remain scientific and objective in their approach to Economics, but each have different theories regarding how the Economy works. People tend to latch on to the theories that agree with them or confirm their bias. This isn't just a Conservative thing, it's an everybody thing.

u/ChillPenguinX · 4 pointsr/Libertarian

> I actually think libertarianism is an incredibly naive worldview

I can see how someone might think that, but I don't think it's fair. Libertarians typically have the strongest understanding of economics, and libertarians are typically intellectuals. Also, transitioning from a typical Republican or Democrat to a libertarian requires a pretty substantial shift in how you view the role of government as a whole. You'll also never see a libertarian who confuses capitalism with democracy (which happens on the internet all. the. fn. time.).

But! I will admit that we have a potential blind spot that will make it difficult to ever become a major party: libertarians will choose the whole over the individual, which means we lose pretty much every emotional argument ever. The free market works most efficiency when prices aren't controlled at all, and libertarians will choose efficiency because it drives innovation and lowering of prices the fastest, which we believe is the best for the whole. It's through innovation that we raise the standard of living for everyone (e.g., Ford inventing the assembly line eventually led to cars being widely available). Where this gets tough for most people to support is that most people will choose stability over efficiency.

When you put money in a bank, you want to make sure the bank doesn't go under. When you rent an apartment, you want to make sure landlords can't force you out by raising rent. If you're working 40 hours a week, you feel like you deserve to make a living wage. If you've spent your entire life mining coal, you don't want the coal mine to go under, leaving you with no skills for another job and leaving your town w/o its largest source of income. If a hurricane hits your town, you don't want the local convenience store jacking up the price of water and flashlights. If your child gets diagnosed with cancer, you don't want money to get in the way of getting your child everything they need to survive.

All of those thoughts are completely reasonable, but libertarians put higher emphasis on the whole than the individual. Banks and auto-makers have gotten away with horrible business decisions because they're "too big to fail." Rent control works fine in the short term, but in the long term it always leads to an ever-increasing shortage of low-income housing while the quality of that housing consistently declines and no new low-income housing is constructed. Industries rise and fall all the time, and we're just no longer in need of so much coal or elevator operators or fast food cashiers. Increasing the prices on goods after a hurricane helps insure that people don't overbuy, leaving late-comers without a chance at supplies, and it incentivizes new sellers to enter the market to take advantage of the high prices, thus increasing supply, which will lower prices over time. A more free market approach to healthcare would result in much, much lower costs, and faster innovation.

The problem is that once you say that, yes, people will lose jobs and die because of poor luck, decisions, or timing, you immediately turn most of the population, and Jimmy Kimmel starts crying. It doesn't matter to them that it will be a huge net benefit for the vast majority of people if an unlucky few are willingly left behind.

I also feel like there's this huge misconception that libertarians don't care about the poor when they're probably our main concern. We believe so strongly in the free market because we think it gives the poor the highest standard of living. Anyway, I'm not a particularly eloquent person, so I recommend this book. It does a really good job of explaining why the free market best helps the poor over the long term at the cost of short term volatility. It's a pretty good read too.

u/karmaecrivain94 · 4 pointsr/france
u/confusedneuron · 3 pointsr/JordanPeterson

As far as the book recommendations go, it would be good if you could qualify what kind of books you're interested in (e.g. philosophy, psychology, history, science, etc.).

Books I recommend:

Psychology (or: On Human Nature)

The Anatomy of Violence: The Biological Roots of Crime

Thinking, Fast and Slow (my personal favorite)

The Undiscovered Self

The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature


Strategy: A History

Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind

Marxism, Fascism, and Totalitarianism


Economics in One Lesson

Basic Economics


Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government

As always, the list of books to read is too long, so I'll stop here.

u/Erumara · 3 pointsr/btc

Value does not magically appear.

Bitcoin derives its scarcity and value from Proof of Work, Nano derives its value from "something for nothing" economics and a transaction system that is economically unviable from bottom to top.

Read a book. I always suggest:

Basic Economics

u/PluviusReddit · 3 pointsr/Conservative

Go pick this up at your library.

u/Polarisman · 3 pointsr/GoldandBlack

> can i ask for a source on that?

Basic Economics

u/Winking-Cyclops · 3 pointsr/IWantToLearn

Start with this one:

how economies grow and why they fail

This next book is a bit more cerebral but you understand the world if you read it

Thomas Sowell’s Basic Economics

u/dmix · 2 pointsr/Futurology


> A 2016 study estimated that global fossil fuel subsidies were $5.3 trillion in 2015, which represents 6.5% of global GDP. The study found that "China was the biggest subsidizer in 2013 ($1.8 trillion), followed by the United States ($0.6 trillion), and Russia, the European Union, and India (each with about $0.3 trillion)." The authors estimated that the elimination of "subsidies would have reduced global carbon emissions in 2013 by 21% and fossil fuel air pollution deaths 55%, while raising revenue of 4%, and social welfare by 2.2%, of global GDP." According to the International Energy Agency, the elimination of fossil fuel subsidies worldwide would be the one of the most effective ways of reducing greenhouse gases and battling global warming. In May 2016, the G7 nations set for the first time a deadline for ending most fossil fuel subsidies; saying government support for coal, oil and gas should end by 2025.

The stupidity of various parts of the US government continues to blow my mind. These oil companies are more than capable of being self sufficient. I don't understand why they are being subsidized....

> Global fossil fuel subsidies represented 6.5% of global GDP in 2015. The elimination of these subsidies is widely seen as one of the most effective ways of reducing global carbon emissions.

but but I thought it was evil greedy capitalist "big oil" companies that were responsible for most of the world's climate woes. Now I find out they are all being critically supported by (for the most part) elected government officials across the globe? Shocking.

0.6 trillion dollar a year in America alone is a massive amount of money, far bigger than the total revenues of all ExxonMobil business across the globe (0.23 trillion) which is slightly more than Apple. Imagine the effect that has.

Who would have thought giving governments unbridled power to intervene in markets combined with a faux free market paint job in a mixed economy would result in vast misallocation of capital, and contribute to multi generational climate damage? Which would otherwise be less bad for the environment if it was just capitalism.

Thomas Sowell's book "Basic Economics" gave a hundred examples of unintended side effects of government intervention just like this, across a broad spectrum of industries. But this one takes the cake.

u/Hipster_Dragon · 2 pointsr/Libertarian

Basic Economics

This economics book by a previous Harvard professor and well known economist.

u/lifestuff69 · 2 pointsr/TheRedPill

Watch The Rubin Report on YouTube. Dave Rubin interviewed both Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson, as well as MANY of the other names I see posted by others here. He interviews people from different political, social, and economic philosophies. I even fund him on Patreon because his channel is great (and important).


If I had to pick three people that made the most dramatic impact on my life in terms of how I think, seek and evaluate evidence, and use reason, these people would be at the top. While the people on my list did not always agree on everything, I do believe that they are/were intellectually honest:


Thomas Sowell

u/Scrivver · 2 pointsr/electronic_cigarette

This is by no means either academic or comprehensive, but it's short, fun, and just might kick-start your interest, so give it a watch. There are a couple others following up. I seriously recommend you get one of the more accessible books on economics. NPR's Planet Money has a reading list of books they recommend, and a quick peek at top results in Amazon also indicate bestsellers like Basic Economics, Economics in One Lesson, or the humorously titled and fun Naked Economics.

Any of those will do wonders. Just select whichever looks like a good time.

Or don't -- what to do with scarce resources like your own time is of course your choice. An economic choice ;)

u/NihilisticHotdog · 2 pointsr/videos

Shit happens, so the state has to save us from ourselves, eh? That sort of paternalism says a lot about your own agency.

I'm not very versed in the Enron situation, however, you're missing a crucial tidbit - government is the entity that defined the corporate protections Enron operated under.

> And that's why when glass steagall was repealed the traditional banks didn't immediately (within months) start merging and working with investment banks.

Seems like you're wholly ignorant of the CRA and forcing banks to give subprime loans to those who they otherwise wouldn't. Of course, it's easy for the government to play to people's petty emotions. "We're going to make banks loan money to poor people(who have shit credit and will likely crash and burn)" gets you votes.

> Which they were allowed to do because the markets they were operating in were deregulated.

Look up what the definition of a free market is, because you don't seem to understand the very basics. The US doesn't rank very well on economic freedom. Even some Scandinavian countries are better off in that regard, with Hong Kong and Singapore ranking at the top.

Have at it.

u/GoodGuyTR · 2 pointsr/The_Donald


This is kind of long, but it's the first video I watched. It gives you a nice intro into his thoughts, his style, and who he is. It's from the 1990's, but a lot of it still utterly relevant.

If you want something a little bit shorter, this is very good recent one:

Also, it's a thick book, but Basic Economics is mind blowingly good.

Sowell covers a lot of issues, and I don't always agree with him, but he is highly intelligent, he makes very logical and persuasive arguments. When I was more left leaning, one of the things that started to change me was the examination of economics. I watched Sowell and found that I could not disagree with him, hence the red pill.

Interestingly, when I debate friends who are form the left, usually referencing Sowell's point stumps people. I don't know why, but a lot of people seem to have shaky basis for their economic positions, but economics is very important when taking into account who we are (and have been) as a nation, and what's in the national interest.

u/classicalecon · 2 pointsr/austrian_economics

It would be way too difficult and there's a very good chance you wouldn't come close to finishing it.

If you really have no background in economics whatsoever, the best introduction is Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics, assuming you don't want to buy an actual college textbook. It's a great combination of explaining the intuition of economic principles and illustrating them with numerous real world examples.

u/elduckbell · 2 pointsr/news

You need some Basic Economics in your life

u/qazwsde · 2 pointsr/PoliticalCompassMemes

It should cover some basics. The reason why corperations currently can do a bunch of bullshit is due to the regulations and the bribing of politicans that hinders the free market from working.

u/MobiusCube · 2 pointsr/technology

> Everyone needs broadband internet. Fiber is the future. It's infrastructure. Building better infrastructure now benefits everyone.

If they need it, then they'll choose to buy it. You mandating them buying it is useless. If they decide they don't need it, then you'll put a gun to their head and make them buy it. Why do you want to put guns to people's heads and force them to live their life like you? You build infrastructure because you need it, not because you want to spend money on infrastructure. You keep ignoring the costs. You realize buying and maintaining things costs money right? Why don't you own a 5,000sq ft house? It's better than the one you have now. According to you, everyone has to purchase a 5,000sq ft house as their next house. If they can't afford it, they'll just have to deal with their crappy house until they can afford the best house.

> Everyone needs high speed internet.

Have you spoken with everyone on the planet? Why aren't you demanding Nicaragua and Zimbabwe also adhere to your decree?

> And?

So you don't care if poor people can afford the basics of society. Got it.

> Why are you assuming that better internet connection won't improve their lives?

I'm not, but you are just assuming the opposite. Internet isn't free you know? People only pay for thing if they feel it's worth the price. Are you going to force the Amish to have internet? What will you do if they refuse?

> No that's just hoping that people down the road will be able to shoulder the slightly higher cost. This idea would better connect rural communities, make it easier for private or municipal ISPs to offer competitive service and save everyone money.

No, it's not. Buying new, more expensive roads funded by municipal debt is making future generations pay for it. Again, have you done the cost benefit analysis over the next 10 years for every community in America, or are you demanding that people do as you say because you feel like someone might benefit eventually? If people need internet and roads, they'll do it anyways, but if they don't roads AND internet, then you just forced them to waste money, or deal with shitty roads longer than they otherwise would have. You are ignoring the costs, and just hoping and assuming everyone will benefit.


Further reading if you're interested.

u/Verify01 · 1 pointr/The_Donald

Your ad-hominem proves you have nothing, i'm not being paid, i'm a conservative who has been fed up with Elon for years, i thought the donald would wake up on this one, seems not.

Try basic economics here:

u/UHTMilk · 1 pointr/PersonalFinanceCanada

Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell.

Before you bother with getting rich, see if you understand economics... its more fundamental.

P.S Thanks for the links!

u/Where_You_Want_To_Be · 1 pointr/dataisbeautiful
u/JordanCardwell · 1 pointr/politics

There's a good argument presented in a Thomas Sowell book for the privatization of air frequencies.

It is censorship. Claiming a monopoly over the resources the press uses and leveraging that to your advantage is the same as controlling the press directly. Who controls Barter Town? Master Blaster.

u/CovfefeIs4Closers · 1 pointr/worldnews

>Dude, the average Chiléan suffered immense economic devastation from Pinochet's reforms.

Agreed. Pinochet wasn't a proponent of free markets. He nationalized many of the same industries that were nationalized under Allende. I suggest you re-read my posts again. Slowly if you need to, so you don't hurt yourself.

>You measure the economy in GDP and stock market trading.

GDP per capita is one of the best indicators we have for baseline quality of life, yes.

>Read Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine.

Oof. Not a fan of Naomi.

If you still don't understand the significance of GDP per capita as an indicator for QoL, I suggest you pick this book up.

u/NGGYUNGLYDNGRAADY · 1 pointr/ABoringDystopia
u/balanced_goat · 1 pointr/explainlikeimfive

If you're really interested and want a more full explanation (still in easily digestible language), check out Basic Economics, especially Chapter 3.

u/TwiIight_SparkIe · 1 pointr/news

Here, go read this book:

If you refuse to read every single word, it means you're stupid. I won't tell you how this book refutes your point. You'll have to figure it out for yourself. You'll know the argument when you get to it.

    • -

      See, I can stoop to your level too. I hope you had fun wasting your own time.

u/AlphaTangoFoxtrt · 1 pointr/worldnews

> Accept cash for an online social media service? Are you well in the head, mate?

Yes, you have a physical address do you not? Could even get a PO box.

>Bitcoin, the service which goverments are actively trying to contain and is super volatile. Yeah, sound investment, guy.

And which is still going strong and holding steady despite having the bubble (predictably) burst? yes, it is.

>But, if you are content with getting fucked over into being a serf willing to drink leadwater all so you can claim to believe in this fanciful idea which will literally never happen, I can't convince you. I can only laugh at you.

Yawn. Same tired argument that falls apart when you realize in a market economy where people are free to choose you need to provide the best service and everyone is uplifited.

Here's some reading material for ya

u/what_it_dude · 1 pointr/bayarea

basic economics

I doubt any Bay area politician has any grasp on the matter.

u/BarrettBuckeye · 1 pointr/Conservative

>And again I'd argue that because it has never happened, is it a safe bet to argue that it won't? It just seems funny to me that so many conservatives will willfully agree that they'd love the lower price that automation will bring because it will be displacing workers, but refuse to believe those workers won't be able to find jobs. Economists like the one in your article talk about small disruptions like the cotton gin that have affected one industry. Automation seeks to disrupt them all, from cleaning people, stock traders on up to doctors etc.

That's not the point. The point is that while it remains a possibility, there is little to no historical precedent for your claim. It's likely, based off of past advancements in technology, that a reduction in workplace opportunities will decrease overall. Now, you point to things like the cotton gin, but it's not like there is a huge necessity in the marketplace for people to pick cotton. Other opportunities in the market have came as a result of technology, which is exactly why it's perfectly reasonable to think that those workers will be able to find employment elsewhere even in the face of automation; it's not like cotton picking is a particularly skilled trade.

Going back to your cotton gin example, I'd like to actually extend that out to the agricultural industry in general. Today, we have giant mechanical harvesters, machines that turn soil, plant seeds, etc. So what happened to all of those people who used to work the land? Did they disappear? No. They moved to the cities. Why did they move to the cities? Because there was employment opportunity in urban areas as opposed to rural farmland. And a lot of those jobs in urban areas came from - you guessed it - technological advancements. Factory jobs became a big part of the urban economy. Assembly lines, textiles, manufacturing, you name it, became the new place for low-skilled work. And on top of that, we get a large production of cheap goods from the rural areas since vacated by low-skilled workers.

>I take it you've never visited a third world country where that's the case.

Two things here:

  1. This is ad hominem. Whether or not I've been to third world countries is irrelevant to my opinion on this matter. Attack my ideas, not my experiences.

    For the record, I'm a military veteran, and I've been to more third world shitholes worse than what you have ever dreamed of.

  2. I wasn't aware that supermarkets existed in theses third world countries. The shelves in socialist Venezuelan food stores are just overflowing with products just waiting for consumers to take them off the shelves!

    >We as a species produce more than enough food to feed everyone yet we willfully throw a lot of food away because giving it away means no profit.

    We also give a lot to these people too. There are more factors at play than just the fact that we can't give these people food. A lot of it is politics; a lot of it is the unfortunate and dangerous situations that these people find themselves in aside from starvation. It's a little disingenuous to think that the only driver here to hunger is a profit motive.

    >Food vendors will sell to people with money, my argument is without a UBI there will be a lot less people with money, and they'll just adjust their prices to reflect that.

    So this statement you've made here is what is going to make me stop talking to you after this post. You're either not listening, or you're not sophisticated enough to listen to reasonable arguments and data. I've literally just got done explaining to you how this is not even close to being the case. Even in the face of automation without a UBI, there are employment opportunities without having to hold a gun to my head and take what I have earned to give it to someone else. Again, what happened to all of those farm workers that got displaced by mechanization? Did they just up and die, or did they move somewhere where technology had created more opportunities? I really don't understand why this is such a hard concept for you to grasp.

    >Supply and demand doesn't mean there'll always be a competitor who's going to come in and lower prices, in fact the opposite is more often true, vendors create artificial shortages to increase demand and raise prices in many sectors.

    Ok, so you don't understand basic supply and demand. All of your focus is on the supply side without any consideration for demand. If there is no demand (meaning nobody can pay for their products), then the vendors can't sell to anyone. With diminishing demands, come lower prices. If fewer people can buy my product, and I need to move more volume than is allowable at the current price of my product, then I have to lower my prices. Vendors can create artificial shortages all they want, but if few people are able to afford their product in an environment where many people have been displaced from the market due to automation and somehow have not found other forms of employment, then they would be forced on the demand side to make their products available for less. If they don't, then their own businesses would suffer.

    >You seem to be conflating my argument to mean that automation will put businesses out of business.. it's not, I'm arguing again that automation will put people out of work.

    No. I'm not, and I have continually debunked the idea that automation will put people out of work (see multiple citations above).

    >Less people working means businesses will raise their prices to adjust for less customers.

    Again, you don't seem to understand basic supply and demand. If businesses aren't getting enough customers, then the solution isn't to raise prices, it's to lower prices. I'll make a simple example to illustrate my point.

    Johnny sells tomatoes for $10 (I know, those are some damn expensive tomatoes). Johnny usually has 10 customers a day, and they each buy 2 tomatoes, so Johnny makes $200 per day. Now, the market has shifted, and people can no longer buy $10 tomatoes or they just don't want to spend that much on tomatoes. Due to the change in the market, Johnny now only has 5 customers per day. So what does Johnny do? Johnny needs to sell more tomatoes. He could raise his prices, like you say, to $20 per tomato, and if he's fortunate enough to keep his remaining 5 customers, then he will restore his gross profits, but that's not likely. The market demand doesn't have as many people who can and will buy $20 tomatoes as there are people who can and will buy $5 tomatoes. If Johnny raises his prices, all he's going to do is drive more of the market out, so instead, due to market demands (remember demand is a key driver in a capitalist market), he has to lower his tomato price in order to attract more customers.

    >Maybe I just have a different perspective on things because my grandfather lived through the depression and I can't fathom telling someone who survived only because the government had bread lines that people nowadays would be shouting that those from the greatest generation would have been better off dying in the streets.

    Well this is just a complete strawman.

    My grandparents lived through the depression too. Government economic policies like Herbert Hoover's trade protectionism and FDR's socialism kept us in the Depression until the advent of WWII. Nobody is shouting that your grandfather or my grandfather would have been better off dying in the streets. This also has absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking about right now. The Great Depression wasn't a result of automation.

    >If you put it so far out of bounds then yeah, it's easy to dismiss. This isn't sci-fi though, if automation displaces 10% of workers you're talking recession, 20% and it's at a 30's era level of great depression. So it's completely hyperbolic to say it's got to displace 100% of workers.. the number is much lower.

    It is sci-fi because there is no historical precedent or any basis in reality of technological advances resulting in lower employment rates, and just about every economic study has actually concluded the opposite: advancements in technology are usually consummate with increases in employment. You're talking about some fantasy world that does not exist where all of the sudden technology has the exact opposite impact on labor opportunities than what has ever happened before to the point where 10% (or greater) of workers are all of the sudden, not just displaced to new jobs, but completely unemployed. There is no rationale to the idea that this would happen, and if you would just bother to read the studies I posted above, you would see that.

    I also recommend that you educate yourself a little better on economics. Here is something that I think everyone should read.
u/zurgenfloggin · 1 pointr/askaconservative

This is devolving and becoming unhelpful to everyone. Tediously citing sources for every opinion is not helpful and often overburdens a social platform such as reddit. I'll finish off my thoughts here, but will leave you the last word if you want it.

u/tmthyjames · 1 pointr/datascience

Check out Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics. It's probably the best place to start for basic econ. But for something more data sciency, check out Carter Hill's Principles of Econometrics

u/LE_REDDIT_HIVEMIND · 1 pointr/Denmark

Det er godt at vi generelt er enige. Det var også derfor jeg gik lidt tilbageholdende til dig, fordi jeg kun følte at det var insinuationer, og ikke eksplicitte påstande. Det er også fuldstændig rigtigt, hvad du siger. En virksomhed bliver ikke nødvendigvis bedre bare fordi at man gør den privat, og ikke gør andet. Det allervigtigste element er konkurrencen. Det er ligemeget om en virksomhed er privat eller offentlig, hvis der er lige stor mangel på konkurrence.

Hvad jeg så bare lader til at være lidt uenig med dig i er, hvor ofte private monopoler opstår. Vi er vel enige om, at man ikke er et monopol baseret kun på den simple observation af hvor meget af et givent marked man sælger til. Så hvorvidt man er et ægte monopol, har vel primært at gøre med hvor høj graden af adgangsbarrierer er og hvor meget konkurrencen er sænket i forhold til hvor den ville være under "reelle frie markedsvilkår" - selvom det jo naturligvis er en ting der er essentielt umulig at kvantificere.

Private monopoler er yderst yderst sjældne, fordi de ikke selv kan kontrollere mængden af konkurrence i et frit marked. Det der næsten altid sker i monopoler og i monopollignende situationer, er at virksomhederne skaffer hjælp fra staten, så staten kan lave regler og reguleringer inden for et bestemt erhverv, så udbudet af konkurrenter kan kontrolleres.

Jeg er desværre ikke interesseret i at gå meget mere i dybden hvad dette angår, men hvis man har lyst til at lære lidt om basal økonomi i sin fritid, så kan jeg bestemt anbefale Basic Economics af Thomas Sowell.

u/IcecreamDave · 1 pointr/Libertarian

It also helps those with moderate money buy more property than they can afford in the free market, and thus hoard it. Then there is no housing for the truly poor because what should be low income housing has been hoarded. It becomes a first come first serve market. Same thing happened after rent control was used to help soldiers get homes. There was a massive national shortage even thought the physical supply never changed. Here is the book, I highly recommend the read.

u/HeyZeusChrist · 1 pointr/politics
Give it a shot. You might learn something.

u/liburty · 1 pointr/Libertarian


  1. an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.

    Yeah sounds like what I want. People voluntarily and spontaneously trading labor or capital for goods and services, unhindered by a coercive authority. A free market whose prices are reflected by consumers and production costs, uninterrupted by government protectionist policies, and so forth. It's obviously more complex.

    Here are some good books for ya. Read up.
u/vfxdev · 1 pointr/politics

A couple chapters into "Basic Economics", you get into why the government trying to manipulate prices can completely fuck everything up.

u/blatherskiter · 1 pointr/AskTrumpSupporters

>The swamp thinks that if you cut taxes and magically business will return. It won't.

Yeah, it's not like Trump has some magic wand he can wave, right?

>Companies will just pocket the money and continue shipping jobs overseas.

That's what liberals say, and they're wrong. You need this:

u/Hayes_for_days · 1 pointr/Conservative

Stalin was the opposite of perfect. He was a tyrant who stole from, imprisoned, and killed his political opponents. Whatever trend you're observing economically in the post-war period resulted from the reconstruction of half the globe after WWII, which created new jobs for everybody; it's the same reason the US economy boomed in the 1950s despite having a 90% top marginal tax rate, which was also bad policy. It had nothing to do with Stalin using the force of government to take from a bourgeoisie to give to the proletariat.

What's ironic is that you're telling me to stop blindly believing some made up propaganda when it seems like you're the one who has swallowed the communist kool aid. Do yourself a favor and put down Das Kapital and read this.

u/stillcleaningmyroom · 0 pointsr/CAguns
u/Vegetable_Camel · 0 pointsr/mturk

You haven't refuted anything I've said. You might want to read this.

u/Miami_Beach_Muscle · 0 pointsr/europe

I'm sure that's as real as your other degrees. You sure don't talk like you have one junior. I think I've wasted enough time on you. Go to the pub and spend your rubles. Maybe save some to buy this book:

u/madrocks87_aw · 0 pointsr/nfl

If you can't acknowledge that someone who owns a business has more to lose than someone who works for a business, it's pointless to discuss further anyway.

u/FreshNothingBurger · 0 pointsr/Firearms

>If you are an illegal immigration who was a witness to a crime, how likely is it you are gonna come forward knowing you will be deported?

When you're an illegal alien you don't deserve fair treatment, you deserve jackboots kicking down your door at 3 am to pack you up and send your ass back across the border.

>Educate yourself


>TheGreatWolfy is a moderator of



Indeed, educate yourself.

u/No-Steppe-on-Pepe · 0 pointsr/UnpopularOpinions
u/Halabububu · 0 pointsr/movies

Because these are plebs we're talking about. If I wanted to experience some #blackexcellence, I wouldn't watch some capeshit blockbuster, I'd read Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics.

u/QueerTransAlpaca · 0 pointsr/JordanPeterson

" it is very easy to understand if one actually knows what capitalism is and how it operates."

Which you obviously DO NOT.

" i did explain why money has a strong tendancy to flow to the top under unfettered capitalism."

No, you did not. You just keep saying it, that doesn't make it true.

"There are reasons why capitalistic countries have welfare and high taxes,"

Welfare is socialism and high taxes are how they pay for the socialism. None of that has anything to do with capitalism. What are you smoking.

Get off the internet and read this:

Seriously, you have NO idea what you are talking about.

u/kafkaBro · 0 pointsr/ChapoTrapHouse

Well since you so better at reading than me, you should check out this book by Stigler's protegee:

u/CJ090 · 0 pointsr/Tinder
u/ssonepick · -1 pointsr/PoliticalDiscussion

> they have to go on SNAP or receive other forms of welfare



I don’t know if you know this or not, but that’s the point of welfare. I mean unless you’re saying you want to completely dismantle the welfare state, as long as firms payed a “living wage” whatever the hell that means.

>Maybe the EITC is the solution or maybe not, or maybe its only one step of many that includes raising the minimum wage.

Okay so the problem poor people have is they don’t have enough money from their jobs, when they work 40 hours a week.

An expanded monthly EITC completely (100%) solves that problem, and doesn’t reduce employment and doesn’t cause inflationary pressure. As a republican I’m handing a massive compromise here.

>at what point should my pay increase

Idk what’s your competition in your labor pool? What would you deny someone the right to work for whatever wage they wish?

“It’s not enough money,” okay so expand the EITC problem solved.

You will not find a single nation that operates in the way you’re advocating, not one. Serious try to find a country in which working minimum wage means you don’t need welfare. I’ll give you gold if you find one.

u/closeitagain · -1 pointsr/news
u/PM_ME_UR_TECHNO_GRRL · -1 pointsr/Economics

Here you go.

As for the rest of your comments, you again show ignorance

> Sure, I’m just telling you that this is not nor has it ever been the current state of things.

... or faulty reasoning

> Of course there has. Redistribution. That’s what taxation is. We alleviate poverty (or at least the suffering related to poverty like starvation and homelessness) by shifting money from those who have it to those who need it.

and I have been in enough internet arguments to know there is no chance of this ending any time soon. So I leave you with books to read

Naked economics, very accessible

Basic Economics, well recommended

And something to get you to think about things objectively, when you're ready: Macroeconomics

u/AlcoholicSmurf · -2 pointsr/leagueoflegends

There has and never be monopolies without government intervention in the form of regulations or anything else. People cannot get bought up if they refuse to sell. Also they cannot collude between them to any avail because none of them have the right to use force like the government does, so groups of corporations will need to serve their shareholders by serving customers.


u/WeakOil · -2 pointsr/Calgary

There shouldn't be a minumum wage period.

Economists debunked that garbage back in the 70's.

Now instead we have a ton of TFW's , Slaves being brought up from Mexico, and huge unemployment among youth/low skilled workers.

This book is such a must read.

u/chainlinks · -3 pointsr/ChapoTrapHouse

Currently making my way through Thomas Sowell's work. Brilliant man, highly recommended!

u/TofetTheGu · -8 pointsr/farming

My god. That is the most delusional and disingenuous thought process I've heard in awhile. Do yourself a favor and read these fantastic books before you belief system destroys the United States of America: Capitalism and Freedom, Why Government Is the Problem and Basic Economics.

Bonus points I think you hit almost every liberal regurgitated talking points.

u/FallingPinkElephant · -12 pointsr/SubredditDrama

Oh look a complete non sequitor. If you kids bothered to learn basic economics maybe you'd actually make arguments based on facts and not feelings of what people "deserve"

u/CptMoistPanties · -19 pointsr/news

I see a lot of people asking about "living wages" in the comments

usnews has a list of community colleges by state, the vast majority offer introductory economics classes. Tuition for community colleges is usually under 1k for a semester, which is within everyones reach with careful saving and spending habits.

You can also learn basic economics by doing the research yourself:

there are websites and a plethora of pdf documents that you can read online for info as well:

Happy reading!

u/EndearingFreak · -36 pointsr/niceguys

This might then however we both are aware you have no interest in challenging your point of view so why bother?