Reddit Reddit reviews Economics in One Lesson: The Shortest and Surest Way to Understand Basic Economics

We found 118 Reddit comments about Economics in One Lesson: The Shortest and Surest Way to Understand Basic Economics. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.

Business & Money
Economic History
Economics in One Lesson: The Shortest and Surest Way to Understand Basic Economics
Great product!
Check price on Amazon

118 Reddit comments about Economics in One Lesson: The Shortest and Surest Way to Understand Basic Economics:

u/ChillPenguinX · 32 pointsr/economy

This recession was coming either way. The economy never actually recovered from the last recession because the core problems of bad loans and inflation were not only unaddressed, but worsened. The economy isn’t built on fucking spending. It’s ridiculous that this is what mainstream “economists” think. An economy grows through savings and production, and everything the Fed does to try to fix a struggling economy only worsens malinvestment. Recessions happen not because spending is low, they happen because malinvestment is high and real savings are low (which in turn cause spending to dip, but you actually want that in that situation). You can’t just drive consumption and have that manifest a stronger economy. It’s about as legitimate as alchemy.

Edit: wow, I’m actually getting upvoted :). I wonder how many of those upvotes would’ve been downvotes had I explicitly mentioned that I’m arguing for Austrian economics. If anyone interested in learning how the economy actually works, here are steps One, Two, and Three.

u/darthrevan · 30 pointsr/Economics

"Technological unemployment" reminds me of the "Joe Smith" example from Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson:

>...some writers [have gone] to the extreme of looking only at the immediate effects [of new technologies] on certain groups. Joe Smith is thrown out of a job by the introduction of some machine. "Keep your eye on Joe Smith," these writers insist. "Never lose track of Joe Smith." But what they then proceed to do is keep their eyes only on Joe Smith, and to forget Tom Jones, who has just got a new job in making the new machine, and Ted Brown, who has just got a job operating one, and Daisy Miller, who can now buy a coat for half what is used to cost her. And because they think only of Joe Smith, they end by advocating reactionary and nonsensical policies. (p. 59)

I'd be interested in hearing opposing views to this, however.

u/LWRellim · 28 pointsr/Economics

Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt

Or read it online (just Google "Economics in One Lesson" )

u/SuperNinKenDo · 27 pointsr/DebateFascism

Further Reading

Michael Huermer - 'The Problem of Political Authority':

[Hard Copy]

Henry Hazlitt - 'Economics in One Lesson':

[Audiobook]:[PDF]:[Hard Copy]

David Friedman - 'The Machinery of Freedom'"

[Illustrated Summary]:[Audiobook]:[PDF]:[Hard Copy]

Ludwig von Mises - 'Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth':


MisesWiki - Economic Calculation Problem:


Murray N. Rothbard - 'For a New Liberty':

[Audiobook]:[HTML]:[PDF]:[Hard Copy]

Murray N. Rothbard - 'The Ethics of Liberty':

[Audiobook]:[HTML]:[PDF]:[Hard Copy]

Frédéric Bastiat - 'The Law':

[Audiobook]:[HTML]:[PDF]:[Hard Copy]

Ludwig von Mises - 'Human Action':

[Audiobook]:[HTML]:[PDF:[ePub]:[Hard Copy]

Murray N. Rothbard - 'Man Economy and State, with Power, and Markets':

[Audiobook][HTML]:[PDF]:[ePub]:[Hard Copy]

u/CopperSulfateII · 21 pointsr/belgium

A party that considers communism as part of it's core message isn't one I would be hesitant to call extreme. What that effectively means is that they consider the abolition of the market economy (or the travesty of a market economy that we currently have) to be the ultimate goal of the party. And for anyone who thinks an economic model other than one involving at least marginally free markets works, please consult your nearest primer on economics such as:

u/BrutalJones · 19 pointsr/Anarcho_Capitalism

Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt got me started, so I'll go with that one.

u/Amerikanskan · 19 pointsr/Anarchism

>If you don't understand calculation problem, marginal value, global capitalism, freedom, income mobility, regulations, innovations in the first place of course you'll end up as a commie. What did you expect?

Lmfao. I see somebody just finished Economics in One Lesson

u/p0m · 17 pointsr/badeconomics

I think a better question is why did /r/economics significantly improve in quality.

To begin, libertarians are a very vocal, opinionated, stubborn group who thrive in fringe internet communities. Paleo-libertarians ("Austrian" school followers) in particular think that their ideology is not just an ideology but actually Very Serious Intellectual Economics, so of course they'd find /r/economics to be a natural fit for themselves. I mean think of how many libertarian writers conflate their politics with "basic economics." You don't usually see liberals or moderates pulling that.

A few things happened over time though:

  • Moderators stepped up to improve the quality. /u/besttrousers in particular deserves a lot of credit.

  • Reddit itself became a more mainstream site, and libertarianism isn't exactly mainstream. So an influx of mainstream thinkers crowded out libertarians.

  • The Ron Paul 2004/2008 hysteria died, so libertarian "recruiting" (sorry if that's a loaded term) slowed down.

  • This is just postulation on my folk, but I think among younger folk, libertarianism is starting to look crazier and crazier. I mean I'll just take climate change as an example. Many libertarians deny climate change (they call it "AGW"), which is becoming more and more irrefutable... and yet they're all science-touting atheists? Oh...kay. There's also straight-up no purely libertarian solution to climate change. None.
u/jwilke · 14 pointsr/AdviceAnimals

Check out Henry Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson." It does a great job of offering counterpoints to false ideas people have and express in mainstream news outlets and on Reddit.

I think modern economics, at least in the US, is a bastardized system of what a free market should be and is instead, corporatism. In a pure free market, economic progress should look like a sine wave with peaks and troughs. Some good times and some bad times but with a slightly upward trend for growth.

The problem in the US is that politicians don't want there to be a trough during their term because it gets in the way of their only goal: to be re-elected. So, elected officials provide subsidies to certain industries to prop them up until the next election. Through these subsidies, government picks winners and losers instead of the free market.

Over time, leaders from government and leaders from corporations switch back and forth, through bigger campaign donations or bigger subsidies. This is why you see people from Goldman Sachs or Monsanto getting jobs with the Federal Reserve or Department of Agriculture, and vice versa.

To answer your question, enough time has gone by that the biggest players in the private industry are given government allowances that make it impossible for out-of-favor firms to compete.

Paul's policies break this up. If the Department of Education is gone, then local school districts may choose who supplies their school lunches, leaving the big supplier who has donated millions to the DOE officials without their guaranteed contract.

Also, reverting to the gold standard would be really tough for our economy due to it's size, though not impossible.

Hopefully there are others in this thread more knowledgable than myself who can chime in.

u/zip_zap_zip · 14 pointsr/Libertarian

Hey eggshellmoudling! I'm at work so I can't pull up many references, but I'll see if I can help with some of your questions here.

First, the question of income inequality being a threat, and how it relates to redistribution. I definitely agree with your assessment of the last answer. It was more of a condonement of wealth redistribution than an explanation of the problem we (saying that as a libertarian, but I don't speak for all of us) have with calling income inequality a threat. In and of itself, wealth inequality is simply a consequence of how society is working. I think that a good argument could be made that inequality IS a threat in a system like we find ourselves in now, because money is so closely tied with power and rich people can use their money to influence the government and get richer. However, a small percentage of a population being incredibly rich isn't inherently bad. As long as they have come across their money in a fair (loaded word) way, as in without coercing or tricking people, they have given enough to society to merit having that amount of wealth. The only potential threat, which is a pretty minor one really, is that they don't spend their money responsibly. If, for example, they use their money to pay every person in the world to stop working, they would disrupt every market and people would starve to death. A more realistic example might be hoarding it in a place where it isn't effectively invested. If they are using the money to invest in other industries or employ people for tasks that add wealth to the system, which almost every rich person does, they aren't hurting anyone by simply being rich.
As far as redistribution goes, we believe that the current amount of inequality is heavily aided by things like redistribution of wealth and government regulations. For an example of that, say a really poor person finds out that they have a knack for orthodontics (not sure how they found that out :p) and that they could help a lot of people and make a ton of money practicing it. It wouldn't matter at all in today's system because they would be restricted by the barriers of entry to that field established by the government. Like I said before, you can argue that wealth inequality is bad right now, IMO, because the rich are so easily able to use their wealth to keep the poor poor through government coersion, which is unfair to the poor.

Second, how do we address the problem of a tiny minority controlling the wealth and allow people like you to thrive? I don't think you'll like my answer to this one, but please understand that I'm trying to be respectful and if anything comes off as rude or condescending I apologize. One way to think of wealth is as a big pool. Production adds wealth to the pool, and by adding to the pool people are allocated a certain portion of the pool. It might help to say this simple truth: there is only as much wealth in the world as is produced. That sounds simple but has huge implications. Mainly, it means that if everyone is doing the thing that they do most effectively, society as a whole benefits from a bigger pool. Now, back to your question. I have addressed the first part already, but when it comes to people that are trying hard but aren't getting a big enough portion of the pool, the fundamental reason (in a market society) is that they aren't contributing enough to earn a bigger portion. They are contributing less to the wealth of the world so they don't get as much wealth themselves. The ways to fix that are to either (1) grow the entire pool or (2) find a new way to gain more of the pool, thereby contributing to (1). That being said, I would be willing to bet that your situation is entirely different from that. For example, I highly doubt that you would feel maxed out on effort, talent, and luck if there weren't so many boundaries set up in society today.

I rambled a bit there but hopefully it was helpful. Let me know if you have questions about anything. If you are interested in why we (or at least I) believe that our system would be the best for every individual on average, I would highly recommend reading Economics In One Lesson or Capitalism and Freedom (this one is a little more difficult). They lay everything out very logically and had a huge impact on my belief system.

u/John_Yossarain · 12 pointsr/JordanPeterson

I'd recommend reading many sides/perspectives so that you can formulate an independent mind and not just be a mouthpiece of some economist's ideology. For instance, I disagree with a lot of Marx, but I think his materialist critique of history and his critique of capitalism are very useful and a lot of it is correct. His solutions/recommendations are shit, but that doesn't discount his contributions. My recommendations:

Generally Considered Right-Leaning Economics:

Henry Hazlitt, Economics in One Lesson:

F. A. Hayek, Road to Serfdom:

F. A. Hayek, The Fatal Conceit:

Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations:

Frederic Bastiat, The Law:

Also read: Thomas Sowell, Milton Friedman, and Ludwig Von Mises

Generally Considered Left-Leaning Economics:

J. M. Keynes, The General Theory:

Rosa Luxemburg, The Accumulation of Capital:

Rosa Luxemburg, Reform or Revolution:

Also read: Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Trotsky. Modern day Left/Keynesian economist is Paul Krugman.


Emma Goldman:

u/bushforbrayns · 11 pointsr/explainlikeimfive

Your response is very silly. The answer to OP's question is far simpler - no need to call anybody racist - and has to do with economics. Chapter 23 of Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson explains that the purpose of inflation is to cancel out minimum wage laws. Devalue the currency and suddenly businesses can afford to pay $15/hour to flip burgers. But inflation is worse than that; it necessarily involves a wealth transfer from the poor to the rich (since the wealthiest folks are those closest to the newly minted money). This is very useful to people in power because the effects are largely indirect and invisible.

The Nixon Shock of 1971 removed the exchangability of US dollars and gold, instituting a freely floating currency and unleashing the Federal Reserve's power to devalue the dollar with impunity. This has involved a massive transfer of wealth from the bottom to the top, sucking purchasing power out of the middle class and resulting in the current situation that OP is inquiring about.

This chart shows inequality over time and illustrates what happened since the 70's.

u/LibertyLOL · 11 pointsr/libertarianmeme

>I do want strong public education and universal healthcare. However, I want those services to be provided with the most efficient use of tax dollars instead of that money being pissed away.

Yikes, Please read

u/mariox19 · 10 pointsr/Libertarian

Someone who hasn't even read the first few pages of Hazlitt's book, I presume.

u/[deleted] · 10 pointsr/AskSocialScience

Economics is a pretty broad subject, is there anything in particular you're interested in? I'll list some sources that I find interesting and that have spurred my interest in economics.

Behavioral Economics

  • Predictably Irrational by Dan Ariely, MIT Professor
    -One of the most engaging books about economics I've read.

  • Freakonomics by Steven Levitt
    -Applying economics to every day life, has a good chapter on how the average crack dealer makes less than minimum wage.

    (Big picture economics)

    Austrian School
    (Popularized, not originated, with Friedrich Hayek and generally take a laissez faire approach to the economy)

  • Relevant reddit thread from about a month ago
  • Relevant youtube video re: Hayek vs Keynes
  • Wikipedia

    Keynesian School
    (Based on the ideas of John Maynard Keynes, advocates government intervention in the economy to smooth the otherwise turbulent waves of the business cycle)

  • The Return of Depression Era Economics, Paul Krugman
    -Haven't read this one, but Krugman is one of the more famous Keynesians.
  • Wikipedia

    Chicago School

    Notable Economists:

  • Milton Friedman : Monetarism,
  • Gary Becker : Human Capital,
  • Richard Thaler : Most notable for Behavioral Finance and his Anomalies series of papers in the Journal of Economic Perspectives.

    (How households / firms make decisions to allocate limited resources. Couple sub categories here, mainly Game Theory and some types of Behavioral Economics)

  • I don't know many casual books that talk about microeconomics. Most of my knowledge is derived from academia. I can recommend good textbooks but I don't think you'd be interested in reading those.

    Casual Books about Economics

  • Economics in One Lesson
    -Pretty sure this is available online for free.
  • Naked Economics
    -Read this a long time ago before I started seriously pursuing economics. Decent introduction to things like opportunity cost and other simple economic concepts.

    Because there is so much information available about economics you might feel a little overwhelmed. That's fine, the important thing is to always keep an open mind and not to dismiss certain theories / information based on a few people's opinions. For example, a lot of people bash on Keyensians these days (and mostly for good reason) but it's important to note that Keyensian economics as its practiced today is vastly different than what John Maynard Keynes had in mind in the early to mid 1900s. Just keep an open mind and form your own opinion.

    I'm sure I forgot a ton of stuff so hopefully other people can fill in what I missed.
u/blackstar9000 · 9 pointsr/books

Economics In One Lesson, by Henry Hazlitt is the primer that was recommended to me when I started (slowly) reading about economics. No doubt at greater levels of complexity his thesis starts to fray a bit, but the book is a clear introduction to the fundamentals.

u/JobDestroyer · 8 pointsr/GoldandBlack

If you're new to econ, I would suggest either Basic Economics, as /u/snatchinyosigns suggested, or "Economics in One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt.

From there, you might want to get into some of the morality-focused books, if you want a short/easy one, I suggest "Anatomy of the State" by Murray Rothbard

If you want to learn about how an anarcho-capitalist society could work, I'd read Machinery of Freedom by David Friedman

u/ExisDiff · 8 pointsr/GoldandBlack

I recommend you start with Hazlitt's book.

Try to avoid the capitalism vs socialism dichotomy, that is not going to be majorly helpful.

The most obvious is that taxes that is reducing the incentive to make a profit, but there are a myriad of other reasons that reduce the incentive that the book elaborates on.

u/the_curious_task · 8 pointsr/explainlikeimfive

A young person has spent his entire life having his needs provided for by his parents. So the only model he really knows is one where a benevolent authority figure takes care of people in need. Naturally he supports a strong welfare state.

As he grows older and becomes responsible for himself, he begins to understand that making good choices and working hard helps him do better in life, and helps him best provide for his family. So when the authorities take more and more of his earnings and give it to other people who he thinks are making bad choices and working less hard, he gets resentful. He wants the government to get stop interfering in his life. [Here I'm using a more classical understanding of conservatism, not the currently popular xenophobic, warfare-oriented understanding of conservatism.]

Also, in rare cases, as he gets older he'll learn enough economics to understand why welfare programs do more harm than good, and will advocate against them.

u/ThisAccountKicks · 8 pointsr/politics
u/sdv92348h2f0h8240h · 7 pointsr/technology

A government agency isn't a part of the free market. The hypothetical free market solution would be having multiple completing licensing agencies (like you have with some goods like plastics/oils) that other companies require to work with them (at the community level or otherwise) and if any of them were to openly violate trust they would be thrown out and one of the other companies would be preferred. Would require very different infrastructure but that's not surprising as you'd have to be a bit confused to call the current system a free market.

It's also not mythical it's a pretty clearly explained and defined thing. Here is a good intro book.

u/spendabit · 6 pointsr/Bitcoin

If you're looking for something more concise (as an intro to economic thought), Economics in One Lesson is a go-to resource. (Also avail. for BTC. :D)

u/NuclearTurtle · 6 pointsr/CapitalismVSocialism

My first thought was Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson, but Basic Economics works just as well

u/Annihilia · 6 pointsr/Anarcho_Capitalism

>BTW.. in the history of the world it is mostly innovations that are putting people out of work. Not putting people TO work.

Might I suggest this book before you go lecturing about things you have no idea about?

Yes, let us abandon the use of automobiles in order to return to the glory days of the booming horse and buggy industry where it took about ten people at most to put together a vehicle..

Or why don't we stop using cell phones? I'm sure the laid off land-line techs will appreciate this, but what of the many thousands of app developers, accessory manufacturers, researchers, and wireless infrastructure engineers that exist as a result of this advancement?

u/me_gusta_poon · 5 pointsr/JoeRogan

You listen to those clowns at Chapo Trap House? Please do yourself and the world a favor and buy yourself one of these

u/ashmoran · 5 pointsr/btc

The advantages of learning about economics go way beyond understanding Bitcoin.

Economics (in the school started by Carl Menger, Ludwig von Mises, etc), is the study of how people act in order to achieve happiness. It asks: given people have certain goals (but without making any judgements on what those are), and limited time and resources to achieve them, how should they act to maximise their satisfaction? Even a man alone on a desert island is acting economically: should he spend another hour making shelter, another hour catching fish, or another hour relaxing in the sun? The economics of trade is built on top of this. Will one person with too much fish, and another with too much wood, discover they're both happier after trading than they were before, even though the total amount of wood and fish in existence has not changed? Indeed, the most important work on economics by Mises is called simply Human Action.

A few years ago I came across a book (Economics in One Lesson) which began with the following foreword:

>I strongly recommend that every American acquire some basic knowledge of economics, monetary policy and the intersection of politics with the economy. No formal classroom is required; a desire to read and learn will suffice. There are countless important books to consider, but the following are an excellent starting point: The Law by Frédéric Bastiat; Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt, What Has Government Done to Our Money? by Murray Rothbard; The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich Hayek, and Economics for Real People by Gene Callahan.
>If you simply read and comprehend these relatively short texts, you will know far more than most educated people about economics and government. … If you care about the future of this country, arm yourself with knowledge and fight back against economic ignorance.

I did exactly this and read them one by one. I summed up my findings in this blog post. I've found the books in the list above enough to defend against the biggest and most common fallacies you see in the news. I highly recommend reading at least one, if not all of them, and Economics in One Lesson is the one I recommend most.

u/-tactical-throw-away · 5 pointsr/The_Donald

Economics in One Lesson should be required reading for all. Most people only look at the seen costs of projects but are ignorant of the unseen costs.

u/MauriceReeves · 5 pointsr/EnoughLibertarianSpam

Well, you're not far off. This book is very popular in libertarian circles:

u/cryptoglyph · 4 pointsr/boardgames

You need to read this, which you can buy for $0.99 used on Amazon (or probably $10 locally somewhere):

Your arguments do not comport with economics.

u/br0hemian · 4 pointsr/torontoraptors

I get painted as a radical in today's backwards world, but anyone who studies economics knows that politically motivated moves like this have no basis in economic reality. You can write whatever laws you want to write, that's not how the value of the dollar is decided. The purchasing power of the dollar adjusts according to its availability - and a number of other factors. Writing a law as simple minded as "you have to pay people more money" takes away from the purchasing power of the dollar. Although probably not the only factor, your rent went up as much as it did largely due to the increase in minimum wage. This is not "corporate greed" it is a functioning economy. It has been done countless times in human history, and yet here we are, actively continuing the bad practice into 2019 and beyond.

I realize this is not the place to get into a huge conversation about this necessarily, so I will stop myself, but if you or anyone is interested in a grounded view on the nature of an economy, I would highly recommend reading Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt.

u/deadalnix · 4 pointsr/btc

I don't think it is bullshit. This is the value of BTC as money, and money only. Bitcoin is also a store of value, a speculative asset, an edge against mainstream assets, etc...

The amount exchanged on exchange do not really matter as they are off chain and very high velocity, so don't contribute to the value of the asset as money.

Even if I assume your $200M is right, then the points still stands, most of BTC's value do not come from it's monetary use.

EDIT: Getting downvoted for reminding basic economics, bravo bravo ! You guys should spend less time on reddit and start reading this:

u/captain_gordino · 4 pointsr/Economics

>Automation — long a force in agriculture and manufacturing — is accelerating in the retail sector, a trend that could hamper efforts to bring down the nation's stubbornly high jobless rate.

This is stupid. See: Economics in One Lesson, chapter 7; the curse of machinery. For anyone on this subreddit who doesn't have that book: Amazon.

u/Jack_Burton1588 · 4 pointsr/Berserk

Ugh. Ok SJW. I dont feel like entertaining you anymore. Here read this ,


u/frankreyes · 4 pointsr/argentina

Economía e inversiones son dos cosas muy distintas. Los libros de economía que leí están en ingles y son:

u/mrhota · 3 pointsr/politics

> there are other people that don't have money because you have so much.

This is a common and unfortunately persistent misunderstanding of economic action, but it's easily remedied! Try Economics in One Lesson, which is also available for free all over the internet.

u/Fella151 · 3 pointsr/suggestmeabook

Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt

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/saMAN101 · 3 pointsr/NeutralPolitics

I would recommend Economics in One Lesson (which you can also buy here) because it teaches you how to use reasoning in economics and figure out where people are using bad logic in their economic thinking.

I would definitely recommend this as one of the first books you read because there are a lot of economic fallacies out there put forth by pundits, talkshow hosts, and even some economists; this book will allow you to see whether or not their economic thinking and logic is sound.

On a personal note, this is one of the first books on economics that I read, and I absolutely loved it. While it might not be the most entertaining read, it is certainly more interesting than your standard economics textbook.

After you finish that book, I would recommend you read How an Economy Grows and Why It Crashes because it explains, in a way that even a child could understand, why an economy grows. The overall concept is fairly simple, but it is vital to fully understand it before trying to understand more important concepts.

u/theching14 · 3 pointsr/austrian_economics

This looks like it's exactly what i'm looking for!

u/satoshistyle · 3 pointsr/Anarcho_Capitalism

I'd start with [Economics in One Lesson by Hazzlit](

It's easy to read, easy to understand, no strange jargon, puts things very simply, primarily using logic and examples.

And try to thoroughly understand:

1.) Benefits of voluntary exchange

2.) Law of Comparative Advantage

3.) Broken Window Fallacy

For further reading, I'd try Ayn Rand's collection of essays called Capitalism the Unknown Ideal - that was a huge influence for me, again, quite readable and easy to understand. And finally Ludwig von Mises's The Anti-Capitalist Mentality.

u/0ttervonBismarck · 3 pointsr/CanadaPolitics

You managed to write an awful lot there without explaining how the Liberals giving Honda $82 million somehow ensures that they will remain in the country when they were investing billions into their plants without that grant. You said yourself that it hasn't stopped companies packing up and leaving the province. There is simply no evidence that this money is keeping them here.

The negative economic effects of subsidies for private business are well documented and not a matter of ideology. I encourage you to read about them. Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt and Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell are good places to start.

u/fancy_pantser · 2 pointsr/Economics

It's the one lesson you need to grasp to understand basic economics.

u/SwedishSalsa · 2 pointsr/btc

The reason you don't see much debunking is because those who really understand economics (Austrian economics that is) are busy accumulating Bitcoin.
If you want to read up on it there's nice chapter on inflation in this book: Economics in one lesson - Henry Hazlitt

It's an easy to read book I recommend everyone.

u/brien23 · 2 pointsr/IndiaSpeaks

I concur and wanted to say this. Generating employment - should never be the only consideration before initiating a project of such magnitude. Puhlease. We must take into account the "opportunity cost" of such project as well.

read 'economics in one lesson' by Henry Hazlitt.

Given that you might not have that book available to you I am copy-pasting certain section to help you understand the vacuity of the argument they are putting forward:

>A bridge is built. If it is built to meet an insistent public demand, if it solves a traffic problem or a transportation problem otherwise insoluble, if, in short, it is even more necessary than the things for which the taxpayers would have spent their money if it had not been taxed away from them, there can be no objection. But a bridge built primarily "to provide employment" is a different kind of bridge. When providing employment becomes the end, need becomes a subordinate consideration. “Projects” have to be invented. [..] Those who doubt the necessity are dismissed as
obstructionists and reactionaries. [..]

>If the bridge costs $1,000,000 the taxpayers will lose $1,000,000. They will have that much taken away from them which they would otherwise have spent on the things they needed most. Therefore for every public job created by the bridge project a private job has been destroyed somewhere else.

>[..] They are the jobs destroyed by the $1,000,000 taken from the taxpayers. All that has happened, at best, is that there has been a diversion of jobs because of the project. More bridge builders; fewer automobile workers, radio technicians, clothing workers, farmers.

>[Suppose,] The bridge exists. It is, let us suppose, a beautiful and not an ugly bridge. [..] They can see the bridge. But if they have taught themselves to look for indirect as well as direct consequences they can once more see in the eye of imagination the possibilities that have never been allowed to come into existence. [..] The same reasoning applies, of course, to every other form of public work.

This statue will NOT address any insistent public demand or solve a problem or even yield revenue unless they imposed a cost on the entry to the memorial (Ticket system). Even then it will take 3 or more decades just to recover the manufacturing cost, let alone security, maintenance cost and the opportunity cost. This project is more than likely to be glorious-looking white elephant. Maybe fishermen will like it.

u/HelmSplitter · 2 pointsr/pics

In a business environment, lenders will very rarely take a risk like we saw with the recent financial crisis. Have you ever applied for a loan at a local credit union? They have strict standards for giving out loans because they need to mitigate risk and return a profit or at least break even. Since US banks are subsidized and bailed out , they have far less incentive to make rational bets on loans.

It is true that profit is the bottom line in a a capitalist environment, but it's erroneous to think that the only force that affects profit is direct cash inflow. There are also factors like savings (to cushion financial loss), investment (e.g. loans), advertising, and public reputation. People tend to have this vision of business where people simply grab money until their business falls apart; this doesn't reflect realistic business practices.

If an area of the economy is under-performing, it is probably doing so for a reason. "The economy" is really just an aggregate idea of how individual businesses are performing within an arbitrary area (usually geographic or political). If, for example, people are buying less salt, then the salt industry will loss jobs and/or reduce wages. This isn't a bad thing. it simply means that there is less demand for salt, or that the price is too high, and the market will balance itself.

By infusing wavering or failing industries with either taxed (i.e.: stolen) or borrowed (i.e.: debt) money, the government is artificially propping up something that the market does not realistically support. This is a waste of money. A key point to understand about economics is that there is no "superior knowledge of the market" that the government can possess. Most people think that the government is responsible for the economy, and they're right in-so-far that the government constantly regulates and props up industries. The only way to efficiently regulate an economy would be to have real-time data of everyone's wants and needs and all of their incentive and disincentives.

Magically, there is a way for this information to efficiently manage the economy: for everyone to be able to spend their money how they please.

If you're interested in a short but invaluable economics book, I recommend Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt.

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/giangi862 · 2 pointsr/italy

> Quest’ultima infatti nasce proprio dalla separazione tra forza lavoro e mezzi di produzione, quindi tra produttore e proprietario, la cui identità è invece la premessa necessaria del liberalismo

la dottrina liberale prevede l'interazione tramite contratti, attraverso cui un soggetto può condividere il proprio capitale senza doverne cedere in toto la proprietà.

Si confonde forse con il mutualismo ?

> Perciò nel passaggio da un modello economico all’altro cambiano le dimensioni dello scambio: orizzontale nel caso della società individualistico-proprietaria; essenzialmente verticale nel caso dell’economia capitalistica

È impossibile avere proprietà privata e impedire l'accumulo di capitale.
Peraltro c'è tutta la questione relativamente ai prezzi su cui questi glissano pateticamente.

Prima di parlare di liberalismo e capitalismo occorrerebbe averne studiato le basi, e.g.

, magari usando prospettive diverse da quella marxista

u/hammy3000 · 2 pointsr/ColinsLastStand

Unbelievable work. One of my all time favorites.
I'd recommend checking these out as well:

Modern Macroeconomics by Brian Snowdon (Really good historical overviews of Economic thought)

Money, Bank Credit, and Economic Cycles by Jesus Huerta de Soto

Man, Economy, and State by Murry Rothbard

Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt (EXCELLENT if you are just beginning to study Economics)

u/pizzaface18 · 2 pointsr/BitcoinMarkets

We fundamentally disagree.

I just finished reading this book. Check it out. It's simple.

u/MaunaLoona · 2 pointsr/austrian_economics

Everyone recommends this one as a starting point. It's even listed on the sidebar (though the link appears to be down).

u/facereplacer3 · 2 pointsr/Austin

> But we already have a system where some people benefit without contributing. Why does it matter where they were born? I don't see why giving a Mexican immigrant money is worse than giving some guy born in Kentucky money.

The left likes to blame all white people for slavery. Many of these people are first or second generation immigrants. Still, these people and their families contributed to the tax codes (Social Security/Medicare/FederalStateCity Income tax). They contributed. This would be like rowing a boat with 10 people across the Atlantic and picking up 5 or 6 people who just want to jump on. The don't really row or care to, but everyone who does row should feel guilty about the people not rowing.

And let's look at this... We have an entire welfare system that punishes everyone via taxes to support people who can't provide for themselves vs. a cake. Look how far the muck of leftist, emotional insanity has taken us. Read Henry Hazlitt. You can do it in a day.

u/NewbombTurk · 2 pointsr/changemyview

May I recommend Henry Hazlitt's excellent Economics in One Lesson? It's a short, timeless explanation of the basics.

You can find it here.

u/Spellersuntie · 2 pointsr/Libertarian

Not everything I'm going to list is really libertarian per se but I think they do give important context for the libertarian/broader right wing movement

Economics in One Lesson. It's repetitive but gets the point across

Anarchy, State, and Utopia is a philosophical perspective

IThe Moon is a Harsh Mistress. It's difficult to call Heinlein a libertarian but this book definitely is. Also where the 'rational' part of my flair comes from!

There is No Alternative. I'm not sure how many people would consider Thatcher a libertarian but she's an important part of the history of the modern struggle against socialism that I think is overlooked in the United States

The Fatal Conceit. One of Hayek's must read works. A much shorter one that is I think just as important, Why I Am Not a Conservative

Atlas Shrugged. I'm not saying it's a good book or that you don't know of it but it's worth thumbing through just to see what all the hubbub's about. Prepare yourself for a latent S&M fetish.

Capitalism and Freedom. Maybe reading this will help you figure out why Naomi Klein seems to hate Friedman so much. Also very good and much more digestible is his television series Free to Choose and the similarly titled book

The Communist Manifesto. Provides good context. And maybe a chuckle.

u/Stubb · 2 pointsr/AskReddit

I periodically seek out opposing views to challenge my confirmation bias. But when the topic is economics and the source is Reddit, the result generally involves reading a heap of full retard. I could get that more easily by reading Krugman. These people would do well to contemplate Economics in One Lesson in that they're completely failing to consider the unintended consequences of the policies they advocate.

u/tgjj123 · 1 pointr/Libertarian

The Law -

Economics in one lesson -

That which is seen and is not seen -

Our enemy, the state -

How capitalism save america -

New Deal or Raw Deal -

Lessons for the Young Economist -

For a New Liberty -

What Has Government Done to Our Money? -

America's Great Depression -

Defending the Undefendable -

Metldown -

The Real Lincoln -

The Road to Serfdom -

Capitalism and Freedom -

Radicals for Capitalism -

Production Versus Plunder -

Atlas Shrugged -

The Myth of the Rational Voter -

Foutainhead -

Anthem -

There are of course more books, but this should last you a few years!

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/juddweiss · 1 pointr/Libertarian

I think the best intro book to Libertarian Economics is still Economics In One Lesson by Henry Hazzlit. Nathaniel Branden told me Ayn Rand wouldn't bother explaining economics to him, but told him to just read this book. It's unfortunate that if we are going to have required reading in public schools, that this book isn't required reading also.

Of course Atlas Shrugged serves as a great intro as well.

u/tmw3000 · 1 pointr/politics

>It does say one lesson..

Which is deceitful, and unfortunate.

u/Actual_walrus · 1 pointr/IAmA

Automation creates a whole new world of job creation. Who designs, builds, and maintains the robots? The more accepted it becomes, the more competitive it will get. This creates even more jobs.

You're not seeing the other side of this coin. To gain insight into the indirect effects of economics, read 'Economics in One Lesson' by Henry Hazlitt.

u/seawolf06 · 1 pointr/BehavioralEconomics

Economics in One Lesson: The Shortest and Surest Way to Understand Basic Economics

Capitalism and Freedom: Fortieth Anniversary Edition

u/Caltex88 · 1 pointr/Libertarian

Libertarianism is the end result of consistently applied deontological or virtue ethics. It is belief that individuals have inalienable rights that cannot be infringed by anyone.

If persons X owns himself, then person X owns his own labor. If person X owns his own labor, then persons X,Y,Z threatening him at gunpoint to hand over 10% of his labor-incomes are committing an illegitimate violent aggression and are in the moral wrong.

While libertarians could use economic arguments to argue for the political philosophy on utilitarian grounds, most would be disinterested in doing so, given that most don't even recognize utilitarian ethics as valid. The suppression and violation of the rights of the individual for a nebulous collective "greater good" is never recognized as legitimate action.

Really, there is way too much to it for a reddit post. I'd recommend reading the following and deciding for yourself:

u/Anarcho_Capitalist · 1 pointr/oregon

> The concept of economic libertarianism depends on the notion that competition will always lead to the best winning out, but it ignores the fact that not everyone begins the race from the same starting line;

The philosophy does not ignore that. If you wish to learn about Laissez-faire economics I would start with this book It is an introductory book on the matter if only to help you better criticise it. I find that many on Reddit have a distorted cartoonist view of libertarianism, as if they learned about it from New York Times cartoons or something. I don't expect to convince more then three people of libertarianism in my lifetime, but would love to have more discussions about it with people who at least know what they are talking about.

u/ulookmad · 1 pointr/politics

That's completely wrong. We are forced to pay taxes (or we go to jail). The government in itself doesn't have any money so taxes makes up its revenue. That means that $17 trillion dollar debt is a debt that each American has to pay now or later with or without our consent.

Check this book out if you can:

u/Alan229 · 1 pointr/newzealand

> If a capitalist has $1mil, and they invest $100thou in a business, and the business fails, they still have 900thou.

It’s still a risk they take. Most businesses fail in the first five years. That capitalist could easily waste all of their riches. And that 100 thousand dollars that he invested in the business? (construction, research, wages etc) go to the workers and they keep it. The capitalist loses it.

> The workers they hired have nothing

They have a guaranteed wage

> "State enforced bans on slavery can prevent unskilled workers from getting jobs." That's what you sound like.

[Here, this might help.]( > the)

> worker is left jobless, with no chance of making money.

they have other options for employment, they could join a commune, they could get money from charity, they could get help from a mutual aid society etc

> What you say is true for small businesses, but is in no way true for the capitalist class who already have exorbitant wealth.

One of the reasons that there is such a strong upper class or “political elite” is due to government policy. Regulations and taxes that make it harder for small businesses to be successful which undercuts competition. Federal reserve policy of giving billions of dollars to already wealthy people, printing money and giving it to banks first etc.

> When slavery, and minuscule wages were legal capitalists were happy to abuse them.

Capitalists can only pay people minuscule wages if there is no competition

> Do you know nothing of the history of capitalism?

Yes, I know the generation of wealth, improved working conditions and greater efficiency that capitalism has brought to the world. You, me and everyone else in the western world has been blessed by the accomplishments of capitalism.

> The horrible conditions in which children and the poor had to work right up until the 1960s.

The vast majority of people have been working in horrible conditions for thousands of years. Capitalism inherited that and brought a stop to it. You then blame capitalism?

>It is ridiculous to say that it is competition which ends then when history has shown time and time again that it is the state which prevented these things.

If the state did not cause slavery it wouldn’t have had to ban it. The “right” to keep slaves was upheld by the United States constitution. Even disregarding that, slavery could not exist like it did in the United States if it were not for government intervention. Keeping slaves would be too expensive in an ancap society. The government subsidised the capturing of runaway slaves and forced poor white southerners to do night watchman duty. Slave owners would have to pay for these things, likely making it cheaper to hire workers voluntarily.

> For example. Nestle admits to using slave labour but competition isn't bringing an end to Nestle.

Do you think people are stupid? If people cared enough about Nestle’s use of slavery they would boycott their products that use it. Nestle would then be “FORCED” (oh dear!) to comply with consumers demands. You don’t seem to understand fundamental laws of economics. Besides, companies like Hershey have said that they will stop using slave labour as a result of consumer outrage and demand for more ethical chocolate. Fair trade chocolate has increased in popularity dramatically in the last 6 years or so as a result of the outing of unethical practices used by many major chocolate companies. I personally try to make an effort to buy fair trade chocolate whenever possible. I know the power of consumer demand. Companies must comply with what consumers want in order to make a profit. That is how they make profit; by providing a service or good that consumers want.

> Because other people hunted and foraged on those lands and destroying them took away those people's ability to do so

You are not entitled to use land. Someone claiming a one acre plot of land does not effect you if you live 10 kilometres away. If there is a community which relies on some land for foraging or hunting they can defend it as their property. Agriculture is also inevitable for pretty much every society regardless of capitalism so they would not need to use land that they did not directly use as they would with hunting.

> No, because all private property was originally obtained through force.

Citation needed

>. All land was originally communally owned until people used force to declare it their’s.

All land? Bullshit. There are still huge areas of unclaimed and unused land today.

> Except for the fact that you planting crops on that land takes away other people's ability to use it

You claiming ownership over anything prevents others from using it. Why do you claim ownership over your toothbrush? Your house? Your clothes? Your food? Your body? The tools in your shed? The land your house rests on? You claiming ownership over those things prevents others from using it. So I now have a right to enter your house and eat the food in your pantry, wear your clothes, sleep in your bed and piss in your garden. You were not using any of these things while you were being exploited away at work so I have a right to use them as I please. Don’t enforce your absentee “ownership” claims over your private property! I don't care if your paid for this stuff, I have a right to use it!

You see how fucking stupid that is? And don’t give me that bullshit of “hurrr thats personal not private property” they are the same thing fundamentally. Private property is not made of some special substance that personal property lacks. They are both scarce (not in unlimited quantities) and the use of them is intrinsically rivalrous by the laws of physics. We need property (systems of behaviour as to who gets to do what with what) in order to eliminate conflict over scarce resources.

> instead of having the choice of hunting or foraging at their own discretion, keeping the products of their labour, they have tto work for the capitalist and give the capitalist the products of their labour or starve.

The capitalist is actually giving them more options to obtain wealth and the means of survival but somehow you see them as reducing their options.

> Unless you believe the Qing Dynasty had a legitimate claim to ruling China?

Did Maori have a legitimate claim to the entire landmass of Aotearoa?

> Earlier you said you were referring to the Nation State when you said the State.

In that context. Notice how I said “depending on how you define a state.”
Much of this confusion is just us defining words differently.

> The thread you linked disagrees with what you are saying, given that you are defending the current status quo.

I acknowledge that the current situation is not ideal. What I am saying that we should not steal stuff from people who have done no wrong. It’s a “lessor of two evils” situation. You are also assuming that the heirs of the owners of Maori land have an interest in taking back land from people who own it today. If all stolen land were to be taken back there would be a alot of confusion over what land was obtained peacefully, people would lose their farms, houses and factories which is very likely to result in physical violence, the dairy industry will take a huge hit possibly resulting in an economic depression and the auckland airport would have to be demolished which would totally destroy the city economically and socially. It’s highly impractical.

> But they don’t.

Countdown donates food to food banks, possibly in order to make them look good so more people shop there. I know this is not the same thing (it’s in a completely different context) but the same principles still apply. Charity also gives food to people in need.

> Employment was at 100% in the Soviet Union

This really means nothing, as the eastern bloc counties employed people to do stupid things like open doors in restaurants. Just because someone is working does not mean that they are generating wealth. And when the government forces everyone to take a job of course you will have 100% employment.

> poverty increased after the fall of the Berlin Wall

I can’t find any data before 1990, could you please link to some that shows the level of poverty in the 1980’s? It appears the the soviet government was quite secretive about the state of it’s country.

In capitalist america, food waits for you.

In soviet russia, you wait for food!

u/shard972 · 1 pointr/politics

> Giving things names does not make them true.

In my previous post i did not claim anything to be true, i claimed your assertion that supporters of free-market economics thought it fixes things "somehow". So i gave you one example on how it doesn't just "somehow" fix itself.

I invite you to read Economics in one lesson, its a good read and explains why free markets work.

u/sports__fan · 1 pointr/books

Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt. I studied economics in college, this is the best introductory book I have come across. Many books on the subject are dry, but Hazlitt is concise and engaging.

I've also read quite a few books on investing. I think more people should take the time to learn basic money management principles. It doesn't take long to learn the basics and, if applied, it can have a big impact on your finances in the long run. Two great books that require no prior knowledge on the subject are: (1) The Bogleheads' Guide to Investing and (2) The Four Pillars of Investing.

u/pingish · 1 pointr/Economics

u/manageditmyself · 1 pointr/PoliticalDiscussion

>why should we tolerate deregulation today?

Because, in most cases, it makes economic sense.

Educate yourself in economics.

u/zip99 · 1 pointr/Libertarian

> Wal Mart is very predatory. They drive out independent business wherever they rear their ugly head. Your story is an example of it. The price of that keyboard is the loss of a decent job in your town. Are you willing to pay it?

Oh boy. You should read this book:

u/LRE · 1 pointr/atheism

You should read Economics in One Lesson. It'll help you avoid saying anything as ignorant as,

>Libertarianism would appeal to me if not for letting states fuck themselves over.

u/garglemyload · 1 pointr/nottheonion

Did you even read what I said?

Economics is not a science. I've said so far that its not a science, that its a social science, and that knowledge of it is based largely on experience rather than on a formal logical system.

The fact that its not a science is irrelevant. To say that there is no value in the study of economics, and that you can't make claims about economics, given that they are imperfect and not scientifically rigorous truths, is asinine. And that is what you've said so far.

You are correct that many economists have tried to codify the principles of economics so that its like a science, particularly with the keynesians and neo keynesians. Within economic systems, certain things can be extrapolated. You can find a lot of truths in individual systems. Do they necessarily work in every sytem, all the time, to the same degree? No, they're more like a bunch of different levers you have to pull, some more at some times, some more at other times. Some systems work better with some groups of people than with other groups of people.

The reason why we haven't had ample data on socialism is because it doesnt work in practice. It always devolves too quickly to gain much data at all. Its a lovely idea, that everyone would be working for the good of everyone else and that we could implement all sorts of systems that make things better off. I bet that you could probably get it done with the japanese, they are so communally minded that they could make things work that even marx didn't dream of. The vast majority of people aren't as disciplined a people as the japanese though, and we can observe that even though they do tend towards a strong sort of isolationism and xenophobia, and towards having only japanese live in japan, that even given that that they are still importing other cultures and probably losing some of the virtues that made them so able to so widely adopt new political, economic and social systems in the past. I think that a socialist system could work, but it would probably be very isolated, and it would take a truly exceptional people to make it work.

We don't have the data on it because it takes such an exceptional people to make it work. If there are any cracks in those people, if they give in to their very human flaws, then the fact that it centralizes power so much tends to make the basis of their economies and political systems unravel.

Its simply better and more robust to not give such strong powers to the government. I find it fascinating that leftists these days are so pro socialism. Back in the 60s they were wary of "the man" and all that jazz.

I also recognize that its very likely that economists who have good views on things whom I agree with will get things wrong from time to time, but it's better to try to understand things imperfectly rather than just give up and say "oh well we can't be scientifically rigorous about this, we should just give up."

These are economists who recognize that its not a science so much as an ongoing process that appeals to it as a social science. They know that there aren't any scientifically rigorous proofs when it comes to economics.

u/benthecarman · 1 pointr/memes
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/McDrMuffinMan · 1 pointr/asktrp

Dude, you are legitimately clueless. The easiest way to know? You call it trickle down, a term nobody uses, quite Literally a propaganda term. It's a term coined by FDR I believe . The only form of econ we use in the west is based off of supply side econ called Keynesian. That's it. We use a derivative of supply side econ to justify government intervention. Let me repeat that. The prevailng economic theory in the west used is based off of supply side economics. Once again, you don't know. Literally the most basic of facts and you use terms and points of analysis anyone properly educated in this field would know. That's not how investing works, it's not Called "trickle down" and you have no clue what you're talking about.

Here's a book to get you started, but based on your reading comprehension displayed so far I'm not too hopeful.

Economics in One Lesson: The Shortest and Surest Way to Understand Basic Economics

u/Numero34 · 1 pointr/metacanada

You should probably just read some short books if you want to get a base understanding of economics.

Here's the first one

And here's a follow-up full of contrarianism that you (really anyone) should find thought-provoking.

u/TheSlicemanCometh · 1 pointr/CringeAnarchy

Which is why people you need to take Economics lessons.

You can start with Economics in One Lesson.

u/Dr__Douchebag · 1 pointr/news

The problem is that it's a self-reinforcing machine. It's not like your local congressman, mayor, senator or even president can really make that much of a difference. It's a fundamental problem with wealth redistribution. Definitely, watch that video though just to give you a primer on the scale of the government vs private industry.

I highly highly recommend you read the book "Economics in One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt. (If you "can't afford" to buy it Im sure you can find it online, wink wink, nudge nudge)

You seem like a good kid and your heart is in the right place but I don't think you have a firm grasp on the economics at play with this awful system we have in place.

u/nwilli100 · 1 pointr/economy is good first stop if you're looking for raw data

Most university library (particularly my alma mater of UC Davis) is likely to have a large selection of previously published economic journals and publications available electronically.

The Nation Bureau of Economic Research Working Papers ( has a pretty decent selection but you have to become a member to read beyond the abstracts is also a great source for papers, though one should note that they tend to be working papers and lack full peer review.

If you're looking to gain a greater understanding of more basic economic theory I recommend you up pick up a primer) or textbook from amazon. Thats how most people get started (either through classes or self-study).

u/AngryDevilsAdvocate · 1 pointr/politics

Well I did read this

And then this

I'm currently on this

But I will admit, all three have said the same basic thing. Or at least, argued in the same direction. It's the cycle of "artists who sound like", where I only listen to radiohead and then porcupine tree and then bjork and then and then and then and I never hear anything new.

Give me a good contrary economic book, and if I can find it for less than 10 bucks used, I'll read it next month.

u/pdq · 1 pointr/Libertarian

From Ron Paul's review of Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson on Amazon (apparently Amazon believes he's a Senator...):

> "I strongly recommend that every American acquire some basic knowledge of economics, monetary policy, and the intersection of politics with the economy. No formal classroom is required; a desire to read and learn will suffice. There are countless important books to consider, but the following are an excellent starting point: The Law by Frédéric Bastiat; Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt; What has Government Done to our Money? by Murray Rothbard; The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich Hayek; and Economics for Real People by Gene Callahan.
If you simply read and comprehend these relatively short texts, you will know far more than most educated people about economics and government. You certainly will develop a far greater understanding of how supposedly benevolent government policies destroy prosperity. If you care about the future of this country, arm yourself with knowledge and fight back against economic ignorance. We disregard economics and history at our own peril."

> —Ron Paul, Senator [sic] from Texas

u/Stackenblochen · 1 pointr/Libertarian

If your coming from the left I recommend In Defense of Global Capitalism

If your coming from the right maybe For a New Liberty (free online) or Rollback

Other classics:

Anarchy, State, and Utopia -Academic Philosophy, tough read

Economics in One Lesson - Econ, easy read

Man, Economy and State (also free) - Econ, tough read

As for critics of Libertarianism there are tons of them, from idiots like Naomi Klein and Michael Moore to well respected economists. I would check out someone like Amartya Sen. If you read about criticisms of the free market or capitalism for the love of god read someone who is actually criticizing capitalism and not corporatism.

u/JosephBlowFish · 1 pointr/Libertarian

Dang it, I forgot to tell you:
Read this short and easy economics book, Economics in One Lesson, by Henry Hazlitt.

It is a quick read, and makes it abundantly clear what the effects of inflation are.

u/jotjotzzz · 1 pointr/politics

I agree this is horrendous idea. I would recommend you read through Austrian economics. Here's a good one:

Also, sitting on capital is not a bad thing. It is synonymous with a person sitting on a pile of cash or in a bank. In any sense that is called Savings -- something we need more of nowadays.

u/stressssss · 1 pointr/AskReddit
u/burntsushi · 1 pointr/science

> greater good, measure it, achieve it, this is why I say reddit is a word splashing place, to provide evidence for all them questions I would literally need weeks to back everything up and that's after I've tried to answer the questions.

Those were rhetorical questions. They have no good answers. That's the point. I'm trying to point out that you're using incredibly vague language that carries almost zero meaning.

> By working towards scrapping the current monetary system to try and focus on kaizen aka star treks earth ethos (knowledge is value)

I think you should go read a basic economics book. It might really open your eyes. Try this---it's only ~200 pages.

u/molotovcommie · 1 pointr/ApplyingToCollege
u/water4free · 1 pointr/IAmA

Not at all. There's an epidemic of economic ignorance which is clearly apparent when watching Maher or Oliver while witnessing a resurgence of socialism as a plausible solution. "If socialists understood economics, they wouldn't be socialists." -F.A. Hayek

Here's an excellent place to start learning, if anyone is interested in a very readable, logical and engaging lesson in basic economics..

Happy to consider another source on economics if you have any to offer.

u/Ricardo_Machista · 1 pointr/DarkEnlightenment

Jesus fucking Christ. Do yourself and the rest of us a favor and get yourself one of these.

u/stupidrobots · 1 pointr/todayilearned

>controlling the prices helps keep farmers afloat by maintaining market stability.

I disagree

And the overall financial stability of rich farmers is of less concern to me than poor folk who cannot afford to feed their kids without food stamps.

u/rco286 · 0 pointsr/technology

Woah, man. I don't know where you received your economics education, but everything you said in there is dead wrong. That is not how capitalism works.

>Impossible. For anyone to amass that much wealth, someone else has to suffer for it, there isn't enough to go around for everyone, so for someone to go with so much, someone else has to go without.

The economy grows when entrepreneurs take risk, hire more people, and offer superior products that enrich all our lives. The ability to utilize the savings of others to expand business is the source of wealth creation, not government programs. Individuals looking after their own self-interest, through the powers of supply and demand, benefit society. As someone else already pointed out, that is the zero-sum fallacy.

>It is inconceivable that someone could make that much money while running an honest business.

An overwhelming majority of businesses do make their money honestly. And those that don't are utilizing government power, which as I've already said, needs to be reduced.

>It is inconceivable that someone could make that much money while running an honest business. Someone, somewhere down the totem pole, is getting exploited and shit on. It might be 100% legal, but it sure as hell isn't "earning their money honestly".

This couldn't be more wrong. When an entrepreneur expands his business and needs help, he hires people. Maybe this is someone who had a job, or maybe it's someone who was previously unemployed. Either way, it's an improvement in his or her situation. Otherwise, they don't have to work for them. What happens if that entrepreneur or any other businessmen decided to stop seeking additional profits? Nobody expands their businesses, and nobody gets hired.

Check out Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson

Or maybe Peter Schiff's How an Economy Grows and Why It Crashes

u/foot4life · 0 pointsr/TorontoRealEstate

It's common to use insults when you run out of credible arguments. I understand that and don't mind your comments.

You should probably read this book to understand some basic economics:

P.S. I care about myself and all tenants who can pay market rates. I don't believe in artificial caps to protect a few at the expense of the greater population.

u/anthero · 0 pointsr/netsec

Lmao look at this gatekeeper. Here you go, fam. This should get you started.

Economics in One Lesson: The Shortest and Surest Way to Understand Basic Economics

u/ArrestHillaryClinton · 0 pointsr/explainlikeimfive

\>A loss result for tax purposes does not necessarily mean the company is losing money.

This line of thinking occurs often, because people do not look at both sides of situation.

If I buy $100,000 worth of computers with a loan, you think it's not a "real loss" because I make profit in the future.

But what if I don't make a profit? The money was still taken from someone else (investor/bank) and they will never get it back. So IT IS a real loss.

I recommend reading Economics in one lesson

u/ninjaDOLEMITE · 0 pointsr/AskReddit

"also known as the broken window fallacy or glazier's fallacy"

a theory is an explanation for a phenomenon. A fallacy is an incorrect or misleading notion or opinion based on inaccurate facts or invalid reasoning.

learn some shit before you try to pwn, child.

and also, read some classics.

u/GruntledSymbiont · 0 pointsr/CapitalismVSocialism

There are only 4 categories of economies. 1.Traditional, 2.Command(Planned), 3.Market, 4.Mixed

Socialism falls squarely under category 2. I guess you intend more of a mixed economy with market socialism but commanding allocation of MOP which is the supply side and investment is going to make it far more of a planned economy than not.

I can't adequately explain in only a few sentences supply/demand and the role of investment in creating supply and generating new wealth. For the most convenient introduction I refer you to the classic:

Economics in One Lesson: The Shortest and Surest Way to Understand Basic Economics Paperback – December 14, 1988
by Henry Hazlitt

Suffice to say such a socialist system controlling all supply will absolutely kill investment and collapse in a few short decades.

I am familiar with the labor theory of value. It was effectively refuted and replaced by the subjective theory of value in the second half of the 19th century along with the rise of the Austrian school of economics. Among professional economists today the LTV is a fringe idea with very few believers viewed mostly as kooks akin to physicians still practicing phrenology. LTV is still being widely promoted and popularized today mostly by non-economist academics when talking about economic issues which is a terrible travesty. They don't know what they are talking about and are doing great harm to students.

The failure of LTV is easy to recognize even with cursory consideration. You can have two products with identical labor content and identical material but one is valuable and the other is worthless or even dangerous due to poor design. You can have identical products with one containing far more labor content due to less efficient methods of production. Starting to see the breakdown? LTV was vaguely plausible in the context of a 19th century agrarian society but useless in industrialized economies today.

Money prices collect and convey information useful for comparison of otherwise not at all comparable goods and services. Without this information planners are reduced to 'groping about in the dark' as the great economist Ludwig von Mises predicted. This is called the 'calculation problem' and there is a related 'knowledge problem' which both prompted much debate starting in about the 1930s leading to the idea of market socialism where socialists ultimately conceded the problem was a real, crippling phenomenon but refused to give up completely.

So does market socialism function in the real world? I've seen a few not very persuasive arguments that market socialism could work but no decent examples where it actually has. For example some say Walmart is already a market socialist economy unto itself. Is anti-union Walmart running all their own factories now? No they are not and it's not even vaguely socialist with a hyper competitive corporate culture seeking to maximize profit at every turn. I've also read opinions that market socialism might work with the help of supercomputers (but no working code, just wild speculation accompanied by very evident lack of understanding of the scope of the actual problem.)

u/PenIslandTours · 0 pointsr/AdviceAnimals

I think 95% of politics is having an understanding of economics. And 95% of Americans do not understand basic economics. Therefore, there is about a 95% chance that we're going to continue electing morons.

u/e-jazzer · 0 pointsr/belgium

>primer on economics

All is see is Austrian School nonsense. Even neoliberal economists consider them a joke.

u/fauvenoire · -1 pointsr/conspiracy

The negative: the government just took a 170 million dollars worth of food out of the market and gets to decide how to distribute it. You know, the agent that operates without any understanding of the first rule of economics (scarcity) just fucked with the economics of food. Probably not a good thing.

Economics in One Lesson:

u/FponkDamn · -1 pointsr/Libertarian

I was going to reply to your points, but when I got to this:

>Yes, the government is spending 7.8 trillion additional dollars, but the citizens of the US are making an additional 7.8 trillion dollars.

I realized that you don't actually know anything about economics. That isn't an insult or me being flippant! Lots of people don't know anything about economics - it's called "the dismal science" for a reason. And lots of those people that know nothing about economics vote and have political opinions, because one is not a prerequisite for the other. So I'm not insulting you by saying that - it's just that no one who has ever stepped foot in an economics 101 classroom on the first day, opened en econ-related book of any kind, or even Googled the word "economics" would say that.

So, instead of debating these specific points with you, I'm going to be as helpful as I can be. Here are the books you want to start with:

Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson (

Ludwig Von Mises' Human Action: A Treatise on Economics (

And Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics (

I don't mean to pile three books on you - honestly, you can just read one and get started (I would recommend Hazlitt to start). Once you have a bit more understanding of how things like GDP are calculated, how inflation affects purchasing power, how credit risk is evaluated, and so on, you'll have a better understanding of your own suggestion without needing me. Hazlitt isn't a long read - if you have an average amount of free time, you can probably be through it in a few weeks. I look forward to discussing it with you!

u/EvanGRogers · -1 pointsr/funny
u/peppajack217 · -1 pointsr/math

Economics is combination of math, finance, and psychology. Most economic-math is just linear regression and whatnot, and even then it is incredibly inaccurate. ModularToil is right in that most Econometric problems are ones with too few constraints, so a talented mathematician can make the numbers do what he wants. If you only read one book, get Economics in One Lesson. It's a slow read, but it is a great reference book. Really, you only need the first chapter. If you get a second, get How an Economy Grows and Why it Crashes. It is written cleverly as a children's book that furthers the points made in Economics in One Lesson, as well as giving a good explanation of why the economy is in the shape that it is right now. If you are still interested after that, find topics that pique your interest here.

u/algar32 · -2 pointsr/Delaware

I'm a right winger now. Gee wiz, wutamigonnado?

>You are full of shit and completely wrong.

You sound upset and a bit set in your ways. With that being said, if your interested in educating yourself on a different view point check out Henry Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson". There is an excellent section there about the dangers of minimum wage laws. If you end up giving it a read, I also recommend reading the section on tariffs (relevant to current events at the national level )

u/rammingparu3 · -5 pointsr/DebateFascism