Reddit Reddit reviews Basic Economics: A Common Sense Guide to the Economy

We found 40 Reddit comments about Basic Economics: A Common Sense Guide to the Economy. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.

Economic History
Business & Money
Basic Economics: A Common Sense Guide to the Economy
Check price on Amazon

40 Reddit comments about Basic Economics: A Common Sense Guide to the Economy:

u/[deleted] · 16 pointsr/Anarcho_Capitalism

Firstly, remember Beautiful Freedom's argument (the FAQ for anarchy).

There is a book called The Privatization of Roads & Highways

Both of these arguments should get you started. You could consider getting on the offensive, and mention about how many people are killed on the roads beacuse of shitty, centrally designed roads that often don't take into context the people in those areas and the way that they drive.

Also roads don't take into context supply and demand, and rather lead to an 'open for all, free, public good' which is what leads to traffic congestion, and poorer quality of roads. If you want to be better for the environment, you would, by default have to want private roads which would restrict some people who drive just for the sake of driving.

Also the roads are (arguably) of lesser quality than it would be in a free society, where the individuals that own the private roads would have a greater incentive to fix up the roads themselves, rather than wait for Government-contracted workers to come and fix it. Also they would want to get it over and done with as quickly as possible, because their money would be on the line (if it is a busy road and they have to cut off two lanes to fix it, that's less money they can possibly earn).

But basically, you shouldn't necessarily have to prove why private roads are better. You should try and turn the argument to make it so they can prove that public, "free" roads are better, even though they're not; they're more expensive, worse quality, lead to worse environmental factors, lead to traffic congestion, due to the nature of them being public goods - leads to people being more selfish than they otherwise would be in a market of roads, kill people through poorly designed roads, and also force people in a certain part of the country to pay for roads that they would never drive on (privatization roads would mean that you would only pay for the roads that you use). Did I mention that it'd be cheaper overall? The same thing happened when the US nationalized the train industry.

If you can explain to them how shitty the current road system is, and then they still defend it, then the conversation is over. If they don't think that supply and demand is adequate, and prefer Government distortions, I would recommend you recommend them to read Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics.

In fact you should recommend everyone read Basic Economics because, without it, I'm sure people will still want the State to come and fix their little problems.

u/en1gma5712 · 12 pointsr/politics

Do you honestly believe that if a billionaire makes a dollar, that it somehow prevents you from making a dollar as well? Do you think that there is legitimately a finite amount of money in this world? Do you think that billionaires actually have a scrooge mcduck vault full of all their billions? Cause if you've answered yes to any of this I recommend you read this book :

u/AssholeinSpanish · 8 pointsr/JoeRogan

A good primer on the subject of economics by Sowell is Basic Economics.

u/I_am_just_saying · 6 pointsr/askaconservative

> In a small community - say a village of 350 people - I would say 'Yes, we are all in this together and our collective success or failure is intertwined with one another and we must all contribute to helping each other by specializing in different things which together allow the best functioning society.

This is one of the many arguments for federalism, its why services should be supplied by states and local communities, the states can act as laboratories and people can move in and out of areas they favor.

> Capitalism measures success by the amount of money we have

No, capitalism doesnt measure anything, it is simply the economic system that allows individuals to exchange their goods or services as they see fit.

Dont anthropomorphize an economic system. Capitalism allows for taco bell to sell taco's at 2 for 99 cents and a Jackson Pollock artwork for a few hundred million dollars, it doesnt measure success.

I measure my personal success different than you do, it has nothing to do with an economic system.

> is a very difficult one when we get into details and I am unresolved in where I stand on it (where is the line drawn? Cue a reference to 'death panels'...).

All the more reason why putting a bureaucrat who does not care about you or even know you exist in charge of your health is such a bad idea.

> I am of the belief that our entire nation is stronger when we are looking out for each other.

I agree, but having the government forcing people at the point of a gun erodes the voluntary individual responsibility we have with each other. Looking out for eachother doesnt mean forcing one group of people to pay for another.

It is certainly not society's job to fill in the gaps where you have failed. It is your job to pick yourself up.

If you are actually genuine with your questions and actually want to learn I strongly recommend reading Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics: A Common Sense Guide to the Economy ( I think it would help a lot with your understanding of economics.

u/timemoose · 5 pointsr/PoliticalDiscussion

Basic and Applied Economics by Sowell.

u/manageditmyself · 4 pointsr/perth


>An international poll conducted by The Economist magazine found more people in favor of protectionism than of free trade in Britain, France, Italy, Australia, Russia, and the United States. Part of the reason is that the public has no idea how much protectionism costs and how little net benefit it produces. It has been estimated that all the protectionism in the European Union countries put together saves no more than a grand total of 200,000 jobs--at a cost of $43 billion. That works out to about $215,000 a year for each job saved.

>In other words, if the European Union permitted 100 percent free international trade, every worker who lost his job as a result of foreign competition could be paid $100,000 a year in compensation and the European Union countries would still come out ahead. Alternatively, of course, the displaced workers could simply go find other jobs. Whatever losses they might encounter in the process do not begin to compare with the staggering costs of keeping them working where they are. That is because the costs are not simply their salaries, but the even larger costs of producing in less efficient ways, using up scarce resources that would be more productive elsewhere. In other words, what the consumers lose greatly exceeds what the workers gain, making the society as a whole worse off.


>Only part of the problem of getting the general public to understand international trade is due to their not having the facts. Another part of the problem is their not having enough knowledge of economics to withstand the barrage of self-serving arguments put out by many in business, labor, and agriculture, who wish to escape the consequences of having to compete in the marketplace with foreign producers.

Basic Economics: A Common Sense Guide to the Economy* [link]

u/USDebtCrisis · 4 pointsr/TheDickShow

Also jesus christ asterios not to be mean or anything but it seems like you don't even have a basic understanding of taxes and just regurgitate talking points about rich people.

Read this book please

u/Goatkin · 3 pointsr/news

The other guy has presented nothing but insults, incase you hadn't noticed.

Do you live in Australia? I have not provided numerical facts. However It is a fact that it takes 2 months to receive benefits, it is a fact that you need to obtain and present more ID than homeless teenagers have immediate access to, it is a fact that there are families that are intergenerationally dependent on welfare, and that in some areas they are relatively common. How common I don't know, there is no data on that, American data suggests around 5% of the population is stuck in an integenerational poverty cycle, I don't imagine this is much different in Australia, although it is probably less here.

Data suggests that governments are on average about 30% efficient, whereas charities range from 40 to 85% efficient, don't donate to the shitty ones.

Why are governments inefficient?
Read this

Read the article I posted, and read the Australian government expenditures publications,if you can navigate them, they are intentionally obtuse and difficult to read, and only exist because of laws requiring them to exist.

The inefficiency is because of the cost of employing too many bureaucrats roughly 60-70% of the budget of most departments, I know this because I used to work in the offices of the shadow minister for materiels. Having also used government welfare infrastructure, the bureaucrats are unnecessary, and incompetent. What is needed is accountability for the recipients of welfare, and a cap on total amount of accessible welfare. This prevents abuse, and allows it to be used as a safety net, and creates demand for private charities to provide employment rehabilitation, and allows for the amount of welfare available to be increased as it is limited in time frame. It also increases the incentive to be responsible for ones self.

u/user244 · 3 pointsr/bestof

You should read Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell. It essentially goes over all the fundamental economic principles and he answers that question.

My (relatively poor) summary is: We have a huge amount of resources. That's has never, and for the foreseeable future, will never be the problem. There is simply a cost to finding and extracting those resources. As our technology increases, so does our access to those resources (this can include recycling as extraction) because the cost goes down.

Seriously, though, if there is one book everyone should read before discussing economics, that is it. That way they can spot the plethora of inaccuracies in logically-dead posts like that of noamsky's.

u/pilleum · 3 pointsr/Libertarian

> One question I have though is regarding internet equality. Specifically, if Libertarian is for zero government involvement in business, that wouldn't a Libertarian say that if an internet service provider wanted to prioritize or slow down traffic for certain websites, then it is their right to do so?

Yes, generally (if they should is another issue, of course). Though we would also say that the reason there is no competition between ISPs is because of government regulation. In areas where ISPs actually compete with each other, their service generally tends to be quite good.

>any limiting of the internet, be at speed or censorship, might as well be another form of oppression.

Someone inconveniencing you is not oppression. When the ISPs start shooting people in the streets for uploading the wrong YouTube video, you can call it oppression.

> I believe that the right to own guns should not be taken away from us. But to me, background checks, psychological screening, and training are not exactly bad.

So, you're okay leaving the decision of if you have that right to a government bureaucrat that, I promise, does not let their own political or personal views influence their decisions at all?

Would you be okay with a government bureaucrat pre-screening and approving your reddit posts? You know, just to make sure they aren't terrorism. Make sure you fill out the paperwork right and everything will be fine, I promise.

> I tend to think that corporations generally shouldn't be allowed to fund campaigns.

Corporations are run by people, why can't I run my company the way I want, including supporting whomever I'd like?

And what actually constitutes "funding campaigns"? Can I put a pro-Rand-Paul logo on my website? In the lunch room? Can I show up on TV and say I'm voting for Rand? Can I put up a YouTube video talking about how I like Rand's policies? A TV ad?

Do you want to live in a country where a CEO posts a nice video of how Rand's policies will impact their business, and then gets thrown in jail for illegally contributing to his campaign?

> A corporation-backed candidate would have the advantage in any campaign when compared to smaller, independent candidates.

Historically, this is not true. The overwhelmingly vast majority of elected officials are not backed by any corporation, let alone large ones.

The reason presidents, senators, and representatives are often supported by corporations is--surprise surprise--they want the politicians to pass laws that harm their competition (remember the only way monopolies can exist?). Libertarians say that legislation like that should not be passed, and, consequently, corporations will have no incentive to attempt to influence elections.

> What are your views on the "no-fly" list debacle?

No due process; if it's not illegal, it's immoral.

> If a business is allowed to deny service to a person for one of the above reasons, aren't their rights being violated?

As a guy who's not straight, let me tell you: I don't want anti-gay people making my wedding cake. I want them to voluntarily put a big huge sign in front of their store that says "NO GAYS" so I know not to accidentally give them my money. Forcing them to serve me is absolutely unethical.

> Even if they aren't being violated based on that service alone, wouldn't the ability to do this eventually lead to groups of people being shunned or outcast, thereby violating their rights?


> Most Libertarians would be for allowing immigrants into the country and creating a path to citizenship for them, right?

We already have this, it's called "legal immigration." It's hideously dysfunctional, like all government programs, but it exists and does not need to be "created."

> I've seen little on this sub to determine whether or not a Libertarian would be for allowing Syria refugees into the country.

Because libertarianism is not a cures-all-the-world's-evil-with-this-one-weird-trick philosophy.

Some problems are hard, sorry.

> I am pro-gay rights and gay marriage, and can't really pinpoint a "common" Libertarian sentiment on the topic though.

Historically libertarians have been ridiculously pro-gay rights and gay-marriage (well, and anti-government-being-involved-in-marriage, but that's another story).

> I am of the opinion that with a basic education, future generations will be able to obviously create more informed thoughts, decisions, and figure out better future for themselves.

You're young and naive, we get it.

> Wouldn't a national standard aid in this goal?

No, absolutely not. Teachers are supposed to be subject matter experts. Why the hell should a bureaucrat who knows nothing about a subject be telling an expert how and what to teach?

> I can't really make an informed decision regarding student loans.

They're a huge clusterfuck caused by massive government distortions of both the higher education and student loan markets.

> If the current idea is to tax the rich more to pay for a higher education and make it free. Which is a noble goal, but taxing this rich (to Libertarians I'm sure) would be a direct violation of rights.

And, more importantly, wouldn't solve the problem. The market distortions were caused by government intervention--throwing even more money at it will only make it worse!

> Other views I hold, that would contradict a Libertarian's, are that vaccinations should be required (I believe you're putting others in danger by not doing so)

Look--"required" means, to the government, "we will send people with guns to your house and force you to, and kill you if you resist." Are you okay with enforcing vaccination in this manner?

Sure, the government may start with nice letters, but eventually CPS and the Swat team show up at your house, take your kid, and vaccinate him against your will. And then, oops, it turns your kid was allergic to the vaccine just like you've been telling them for the past 15 months, but the bureaucrat (who can't be fired and has legal immunity) fucked up your exemption paperwork and now your kid is dead.

OTOH, if a private school had a policy that kids needed to be vaccinated--no child murder.

I'm sure you think I'm being extreme, so here's an example: the media has recently claimed that 307,000 veterans have died while waiting for care since 1998. If that were true, that would be ~1,500 dead/mo. Or, to be dramatic, one 9/11 worth of dead every other month. That's a lot of people. The VA disputes this on the grounds that, and I quote: "[the database is] unreliable for monitoring timeliness or determine if a record represents a veteran’s intent to apply for VA health care." Their defense is that they are too incompetent to even attempt to keep track of if people are even seeking care. Consequently, they can't even tell us what the real number is.

Do you want those people to be responsible for safely vaccinating your child? I sure as hell don't!

> I do not support the death penalty

AFAIK most libertarians don't. Some do, though.

> As you can no doubt tell, Im a very ill informed on the details of Obamacare, Foreign Policy, and other broader topics. I am trying to fix that though.

You should start with some economics classes. Having a real understanding of even the most basic economics will get you much further than knowing trivia about specific policies like Obamacare.

Here's a good popular-level intro:
But you should take real classes, too.

> Now, on candidates, I'm surprised at the anti-Bernie sentiment in this sub.

Socialism is literally anti-libertarianism.

> As I understand it, Libertarians are for starting everyone on common ground, but then leaving them to their own devices afterword, regardless of whether or not they need help.

No. Libertarians are for not forcing anyone to help someone else (and to help their way or you are going to prison).

u/Jonathan_the_Nerd · 3 pointsr/politics

> You need to understand math before discussing economics or you might as well be discussing religion or philosophy.

Counterpoint: Basic Economics, by Thomas Sowell. Very informative and insightful. Not Austrian. No math.

u/yudlejoza · 2 pointsr/Economics

A better (contemporary and with more hindsight) battle would be Sowell vs Piketty.

u/tolos · 2 pointsr/IWantToLearn

Lots of great recommendations in this thread; I've added a few to my reading list. Here are my suggestions (copied from a previous thread):

u/runredrabbit · 2 pointsr/changemyview

> Debt usually has interest attached to it as it is considered as a loan, which needs to be paid back

This part is spot on.

> Credit is simply issuing value without expecting it to be returned with interest

This part isn't. When we talk about credit we typically are using it in one of three different ways.

  1. We can mean it in the sense of "creditworthiness." When people are talking about having a good credit score, it means that the credit agencies have calculated that you are a "good" credit risk, i.e. that you will pay back the money that you borrow. (I'm assuming from your British English ("labour" vs "labor") spelling and the fact that you mentioned it was getting late while it was mid afternoon for me that you are somewhere in Europe, am I correct? If so, this may not apply to you, as I'm not sure how countries other than the US do these things.)

  2. Buying things "on credit", which is just another way of saying "I'm using borrowed money to pay." It would be assumed that you will be charged interest and be expected to pay it back.

  3. In a more technical accounting sense. When you incur a liability that you need to pay back, under standard dual-entry accounting, you would debit an asset account and credit a liability account. For instance, if you buy a $1,000 computer and pay with a Visa credit card, you would debit your "Electronic Hardware Asset" account the $1,000 value of the computer, and then you would offset that debit by crediting your "Visa Liability Account" the $1,000 that you now owe on it. Welcome to the world of accounting! Words don't make a whole lot of sense here, or at least they don't correspond well with their common sense meanings.

    > This is a very complex topic and you have made it slightly less complex for me..

    The whole thing is incredibly complex, and you're thought process has brought you into the convoluted conjunction that is Macro-Economics, Game Theory, and Financial Markets.

    If you'll accept a bit of unsolicited advice, I would really recommend reading:

    The Ascent of Money by Niall Fergusson. [Amazon Link] ( It's not super technical, and overgeneralizes a bit, but I think putting all of the different aspects the currency system into a historical context might help you pin what all is going on, and give you a little clearer picture of how all of the moving parts fit together.

    Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell. [Amazon Link] ( It's a bit dry, but is still a pretty easy non-technical introduction. Sowell is also a little over the top with his "Gung-Ho Free Market Fuck Yeah!" mentality, but it's probably the best introductory text that I know of that a thoughtful person could get themselves through without any outside guidance.

    (I hope this doesn't come across as condescending, I certainly don't mean it be)
u/BartholomewOobleck · 2 pointsr/Libertarian

Dude, if you're going to even try to engage in a discussion about economics, I'd suggest you actually read an economics text book first so that you can at least try to sound like you know what you're talking about.

Here's one.

u/Justinw303 · 2 pointsr/AskSocialScience

How an Economy Grows and Why it Crashes is a really good primer for macroeconomics and will set you on the right path.

Economics in One Lesson is a great book that will give you a solid theoretical foundation and perspective.

I also recommend anything by Thomas Sowell, such as Basic Economics or Applied Economics.

u/finsterdexter · 2 pointsr/Conservative

But our oil IS priced differently. And the price of oil is not "global". It would seem you lack understanding of how prices work. Is the price of bread global? Certainly, every country consumes some amount of bread. How much bread is produced in the U.S. and what cost? How about Singapore? It's not about "having enough oil", which I disagree with, by the way. But if we can produce oil and other energy here cheaply, then the "global" price becomes irrelevant for American consumers and American industry. If the "global" price of bringing oil to the U.S. is $140/barrel, but I can purchase the same amount of oil/energy LOCALLY for $120/barrel, then I will.

You need to discard this notion of a "global" price. Prices are not determined by the "globe". Prices are determined by the people willing to buy the particular good.

I strongly suggest a little reading on the subject.

u/iyzie · 2 pointsr/politics

It's a pretty large subject, roughly split into two parts: microeconomics (looking at the market for a single type of product, important for running a business) and macroeconomics (looking at the entire economy as a whole, important for analyzing things like taxes, government spending, imports/exports, outsourcing, etc). For voting you mainly want to learn macro, but it depends on core concepts from micro ("supply and demand" is the phrase you will hear many times, and it's important to learn exactly what these are). I'd recommend Basic Economics: A Common Sense Guide to the Economy by Thomas Sowell. This book is often used in university economics courses for non-majors (the main difference being that economics majors have to do a lot of math that most of us don't need if we just want to understand the concepts).

u/dumplinglabrador · 2 pointsr/libertarianmeme

Or more accurately, this.

u/Fishin4bass · 2 pointsr/conspiracy

Actually the way it works out is actually fair and gives you freedom, something socialism and communism doesn’t give you.

It is fair because if you work hard and are successful then you will reap the rewards. If you are a bad businessman then you will fail, a good one will succeed.

You also have the freedom to choose whatever you want. If you want to be a boss you can, if you want to work for someone you can, if you want to be lazy and not work then you can be you just won’t have any money.

Socialism isn’t freedom. If you work hard you will still make the same amount. So guess what happens? People don’t work as hard, they don’t invent things like they do in a capitalist society because they don’t have an incentive to motivate them.

You make good choices then you get rewarded, if make bad ones then you suffer as you should.

You should really read a book on economics, you will be very surprised about how much you don’t know and how much people on tv and in Congress are either economically illiterate or are purposely lying about economics/ either way it’s not good.

Read this book and open your eyes. Link is below:


u/MetaMemeticMagician · 1 pointr/TheNewRight

Reactionary Thought

Chartism – Thomas Carlyle
Latter-Day Pamphlets – Thomas Carlyle

The Bow of Ulysses – James Anthony Froude
Popular Government – Henry Summers Maine

Shooting Niagara – Carlyle
The Occasional Discourse – Carlyle
On Heroes, Hero Worship & the Heroic in History – Carlyle

The Handbook of Traditional Living – Raido
Men Among the Ruins – Julius Evola
Ride the Tiger – Julius Evola
Revolt Against the Modern World – Julius Evola

Reflections of a Russian Statesman – Konstantin Pobedonostsev
Popular Government – Henry Maine
Patriarcha (the Natural Power of Kings) – Sir Robert Filmer
Decline of the West – Oswald Spengler
Hour of Decision – Oswald Spengler
On Power – Jouvenel
Against Democracy and Equality – Tomislav Sunic
New Culture, New Right – Michael O’Meara
Why We Fight – Guillaume Faye
The Rising Tide of Color – Lothrop Stoddard
Liberty or Equality – Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn
Democracy: The God that Failed – Hans-Hermann Hoppe



Economics in One Lesson – Henry Hazlitt
Basic Economics – Thomas Sowell
That Which is Seen and That Which is Not Seen – Frederic Bastiat***
Man, Economy, and State – Murray Rothbard
Human Action – Ludwig von Mises



u/jub-jub-bird · 1 pointr/AskConservatives

> Lol I like how you cherry pick. You totally avoided the bulk of my last comment

Lol, I like how you stand up straw men... like the bulk of your last comment which I ignored because it was irrelevant. I also like how you use "lol" as an argument... just pretend your debate opponent is missing some painfully obvious point which everyone is aware of... and you don't have to argue whatever that imaginary point was.

The bulk of your comment started with this:

> So yes we’re talking about the disadvantaged. You’re pretending it doesn’t exist and you need me to spoon feed you instances where the wealthy take advantage....." yadda, yadda, yadda.

I never said there weren't people who are disadvantaged. I never said that rich people never take advantage of others. The whole bit is irrelevant and I ignored it because it didn't pose a question and contained nothing of substance with which I really disagree... just some huffing about how exhausting you find it that someone you're debating with doesn't just agree with you.

But your position is NOT that the rich sometimes take advantage of people but that they are only be rich because they take advantage of people. It's not that I "can't say anything bad about rich people" but that I'm saying there's nothing bad with being rich in-and-of itself... a rich person has to have done something bad for me to condemn them, for you it's just enough that they are rich and you assume, wrongly, that they must have done something bad to be so rich.

That is the premise which I'm contesting. I'm not bothering to argue with you about stuff on which we already agree, that rich people can be bad people and do bad things.

> Anyway have you actually read anything about income inequality? Can you link please?

Sure, here, here, really any decent economics textbook not written by by a marxist would suffice.

u/glowplugmech · 1 pointr/Anarcho_Capitalism

>It's doesn't steal money from me.

This has been discussed many times on this sub. The definition of steal we are using is.

Steal: to take without asking for permission.

The State did not ask for your permission before it took your taxes. The definition of steal that you might have been using is.

"to take with the intention of using the stolen goods to help others"

Are you really OK with this definition of steal? If I'm hungry and I stop you on the street and take your wallet because it's for a "good cause to help the hungry" is this really OK?

You could be thinking "but The State doesn't actually physically threaten people for taxes". You know that isn't true though already. There are people in Prison for not paying taxes.

>Only you and a small number of people with your outlook think you're being stolen from.

Only a small number of people believed in the merits of a Constitutional Republic at one point too. Obviously it doesn't matter how many people believe something. That's an appeal to authority, not a very productive argument.

>The money we give over as taxes into a collective pool is used to support people who are in vulnerable situations.

All of the evidence that I've seen suggests that Welfare programs make the poor worse off not better. I highly recommend reading this book on the issue.

You also understand that your tax money is used to murder and cage innocent people right? Do you believe that people should be put in prison for victimless crimes? Do you believe your money should be used to bomb thousands of people in foreign lands?

u/KingofKona · 1 pointr/politics

I cringe every time I say this because, being married and gay myself, the author has some fairly horrific social beliefs on equality for people like me. If you read his other writings (he's prolific) please do not attribute them to me or think I support them in any way. The guy would be perfectly happy to rip my family apart and have us enjoy limited protections under the law.

That said, I believe in being impartial and judging people by the quality of their work. Professionally, he wrote what is simply the best introductory topic for the layperson who wants a real-world understanding of the fundamental laws of economics and how they influence day-to-day life. It's called Basic Economics by economist Thomas Sowell. It is the book I gave members of my own family when they reached adulthood and took an interest in what I do.

Read it. It will be one of the few things that can pay dividends for the rest of your life. You'll end up with at least a freshman or sophomore level understanding of college economics in terms of the big ideas; the things that matter. Just as importantly, you'll know enough to be able to research topics that interest you further and that seem counterintuitive (e.g., understanding why economists hate rent control because it always leads to worse housing conditions and out-of-control housing costs for the poor and working class due to manipulation in the supply/demand curve.). It's far easier to get through than a textbook and will give you a lot to consider.

As for tax policy, not off the top of my head. I think the big thing is to get the fundamental economic ideas right because then you can at least understand how your stated goals relate to tax policy which involve, to some degree, moral decisions about fairness. When you get into tax policy, it's more about numbers; learning to analyze the data yourself to decide whether you are being manipulated.

u/RiparianPhoenix · 1 pointr/politics

Actual Conservative here. You seem to know nothing of our ideas other than strawmen put forth from lefist echo chambers (like this very sub).

Here is a good start for you if you actually want to have a basic understanding.

u/Jenkins6736 · 1 pointr/Bitcoin

> Could you stop with the ad hominem?

Can you please stop using ad hominem incorrectly? "means responding to arguments by attacking a person's character, rather than to the content of their arguments. When used inappropriately, it is a fallacy in which a claim or argument is dismissed on the basis of some irrelevant fact or supposition about the author or the person being criticized."

I'm not attacking your character, I called your comparison ignorant, because it is.

> You've missed the point -- the point is that the market can't tell if the egg is broken or not; and behaves the same way for those twenty years until it is put to use (or not in the case of the broken egg).

I didn't miss your point at all. Your thought "experiment" is famously well known as Schrödinger's cat. The thing is, you can't use this paradox in economics. "The problem with Schrödinger's thought experiment is that the scientist doing it has to open up the box to see how the cat has fared. But the act of looking destroys the superposition. The quantum states “decohere” or collapse into one classical state or the other. In other words, whenever you actually look in the box, the cat is always either dead or alive."

You can't assume that simply because a bitcoin is not being used that it will never be used again. There has to be a consensus and way to prove to 100% of a degree that it will never be used again before it truly lowers supply.

> The act of holding is one of NOT spending. And as you seem happy with the idea that spending alters things, then so too, by definition does not spending.

Now, I'll agree that what I'm about to say is debatable, but inflation exists to encourage spending. Without it it's likely economies would collapse. Bottom line, not spending hurts instead of helps.

> Everyone does not do that though. And as I explicitly said -- that wasn't what I was advocating.

This is called Tragedy of the Commons - "an economics theory by Garrett Hardin, individuals acting independently and rationally according to each one's self-interest, behave contrary to the whole group's long-term best interests by depleting some common resource."

This is what I'm trying to give light to. Although you may think differently, your actions are in fact contrary to the whole group's long-term best interest.

> What on earth do you think "supply" means? You do understand that supply is a fluid thing, when we talk about supply and demand it is "supply at a particular price".

You are completely crossing supply with market cap. Price is completely irrelevant to supply when trying to analyze overall supply. And what price? Price compared to dollars? To gold? To tulips? It's completely arbitrary.

> I might be willing to sell my services at $100 an hour but not at $10 an hour -- hence, when I withhold my services at $10 an hour, the total supply of that service in the economy at that time is lowered.

This is called Fair market value. You don't set this, the market does. And if you think you do, well, then you're going to go out of business FAST!

> If I am a baker, and I choose not to bake some loaves does that not lower supply?

No, if it never existed in the first place it has no impact on the supply. A thought doesn't affect supply.

>If I am a baker and I choose to bake those loaves, but then throw them away, how is that any different from my not having baked them at all? Supply is lowered.

When you bake them, supply increases, when you throw them away, supply decreases. You may end up with the same total supply as there would have been if you had not baked them at all, but nonetheless, you still affected total supply during the time they existed. How do you not get this??

I don't mean to be argumentative, but I'm done trying to teach Economics 101 to you. None of your arguments have any backing and are completely suggestive. Do yourself a favor and please look at the links hyperlinked in this post and read this book. It will help you greatly.

u/nocturnus_libertus · 1 pointr/Bitcoin

A free market is the most efficient way to distribute scarce resources. Economics if the study of how this distribution of scarce resources happens.

Your ideals being well meaning are not rooted in reality. As of right now we don't have unlimited power sources, or even super efficient ones. We are coming to the point at which the basic necessities for humans can be provided with little effort, 3d built homes, food in abundance via advanced farming techniques (without oil though?), ubiquitous transportation thanks to computerized transport, an abundance of energy via new nuclear/solar/wind technologies. These will make the basic human life easy, but if you want to enjoy the scarcer resources, the nice property, the awesome vacations, the trip to Mars, then you will need to work and be more productive than the next guy. It is Basic Economics!

Since you like sci-fi, read about how this society deals with scarcity, this is the model we are moving towards.

u/nat_king_cold · 1 pointr/AskReddit

here ya go:

a preview:

off topic, but you might want to browse the old Krugman Truth Squad archives. Mr. Nobel Prize winner's newspaper columns were wrong on basic facts a shockingly high percentage of the time:

u/clawedjird · 1 pointr/politics

>The problem is, the "market" doesn't do a good job deciding what people should earn.

I wouldn't agree with that statement. Probably the only time the "market" doesn't have a say in determining wages is in the case of executives who essentially determine their own pay. That's what comes to mind (I'm assuming) for most people when they think of "overpaid" workers. Point being, in that case, the market doesn't directly decide the pay of those who have the most exorbitant salaries. It's not a failure of the market. If anything, it's the lack of competition present due to government intervention...

>My point is this: If the country locked down wages in a tiered system, the market would still have to be based on demand

If the country is locking down wages, it's not allowing the market (including demand) to work as it should. It will cause a lot of problems. Examples of potential problems would be massive shortages of labor in some places and large surpluses (read: unemployment) in other areas. It would hurt local businesses in some areas and benefit them in other areas. The list could go on, but I think the point has been made.

>And if the workers' location was a non-issue, ALL states could develop really healthy and lucrative job markets.

It's not the workers' location that matters as much as the economic environment that they live in. Arguably the healthiest economy in the US today is found in North Dakota (3.8% unemployment and $1 billion budget surplus), which is about as far from Wall Street and the Silicon Valley as you can get.

Just wondering, how much exposure to economics do you have? A lot of the topics you're addressing have already been addressed by economists. If you're interested in seeing their take on things, I would recommend Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell, as a general introduction to the subject. Given what you've expressed thus far, I'm sure you'd enjoy seeing what he has to say.

u/IAJAKI · 0 pointsr/4chan

You can start with this

u/Kanaric · 0 pointsr/Libertarian
u/fieryseraph · 0 pointsr/Libertarian

You're both arrogant and willfully ignorant.

Post all the regulations you want, and post all the positive effects they've ever had if you want. It doesn't change my argument one bit, that government regulation is neither the best nor the most moral way to fix problems. You don't want to acknolwedge the great, great harm that regulations do? I can't stop from sticking your head in the sand. You may want to read a little, though, and educate yourself, so that you know what you're talking about. Start off with Thomas Sewell's Basic Economics, then we'll have an educated discussion about the harm that comes from government regulation. Next you can read Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson (it's free online). Then maybe you can open your eyes and "see reality" the way it really is. Perhaps you'd benefit from a reading of Bastiat's That which seen, and that which not seen, since you like to point to existing laws so much.

The thing about the market is, it adapts, it changes, it retains choice. Doesn't use violence or coersion, or jail people just because they want to take a drug, but the FDA says, "no". Who is the one who believes in absolutes?

I think we're done here, until you feel like educating yourself about economics a little bit.

u/gt4674b · -1 pointsr/AskSocialScience

Pikkety is articulate and speaks in a way that a novice can understand and I do think you should read what he has to say. That said, his works also fit a very common narrative that is frequently reinforced here on reddit. Therefore, for an alternate perspective, I would also like to recommend Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell. He is also very adept at breaking down complex topics in a way that can be understood.

u/TecnoPope · -2 pointsr/SeattleWA

It's called the free market.

You know how everyones complaining that two consenting adults are smart enough and should be able to voluntarily enter into a contract of marriage together ? Same thing applies with employer / employee. You get paid what you think your worth and what the market demands. This incentivizes more jobs and takes the burden off cramming the work load of two people onto one person because "hell the govt says I gotta pay X 15$ now so I'll let little Timmy or homeless John go because their 6$/hr sweeping jobs can now just be loaded onto the more skilled guy I'm paying 15$/hr"

You should check out Basic Economics by Sowell. It's just plain ol tried and true basic economics.

u/FB-22 · -4 pointsr/Futurology

>as a socialist

You should check this out

u/ThePoorPeople · -9 pointsr/linuxquestions

>If you think I'm full of BS, go read Richard Stallman's political views sometime.

How sweet- maybe we can swap books?

Let me guess, you're one of those who thinks the Nazis and Communists aren't the same thing with different motivation even though the former literally has "socialism" in the name. They're the same shit- only difference is one is nationalistic socialism while the latter is international socialism. Both end with commissar Jamal putting a gun to the back of your head and shoving you onto the train to the gulag for not being loyal enough to the party. You people doing shit like wearing Che shirts and talking about "smashing capitalist patriarchy" or whatever other buzzword laden bullshit accompanies the equally idiotic gesture of trying to justify the ideology which has caused literally one of the largest losses of life in human history next to things such as the Black Death...don't be too shocked when people stop listening to you.