Reddit reviews Global Capitalism: Its Fall and Rise in the Twentieth Century
We found 4 Reddit comments about Global Capitalism: Its Fall and Rise in the Twentieth Century. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
His "history" of the post-war monetary regime starting with Bretton Woods is lacking context at best and extremely disingenuous at worst. Monetary policy is complicated, but not shrouded behind some secret Fed conspiracy. The history is out there, but I challenge the average viewer of this video to dive in. I highly recommend starting with Jeffry Frieden's Global Capitaliam: Its Fall and Rise in the Twentieth Century
Global Capitalism: Its Fall and Rise in the Twentieth Century by Frieden is a wonderful and not too long read. It doesn't require tons of economic theory that you won't know from a few intermediate economics classes.
It basically provides a riveting history of international economics and trade over the past century, which is a critical thing to understand for anyone interested in economics. I highly recommend it. Other recommendations:
The Logic of Collective Action by Mancur Olson
The Evolution of Cooperation by Robert Axelrod
I have a few more questions; I hope you don't mind me picking your brain for more information! And thank you for your reply!
As a preface, I've read Global Capitalism: It's Fall and Rise in the Twentieth Century by Jeffry A. Frieden, so I'm (somewhat) familiar with what is going in the United States at the time.
My questions are, when Ford makes reference to 'sound money' does he imply that 'sound money' is in direct contrast to globalized finance?
>if they once knew what the initiate can do with it
What does Ford mean by this? What someone with a sum of capital can do by investing it domestically or globally?
Would you recommend the Federal Reserve Hoax? I'm unable to find any actual information about the book other than that it's at my public library, though the name alone makes it sound interesting.
Are there any other sources that you would recommend someone who is only dipping their toes into economics, similar along the lines of Global Capitalism?
I posted this over in the Hillary Clinton sub. I don't expect anyone over there will appreciate because it's a rather loud echo chamber...
The thing is that Trump is not completely wrong (although he would have been a bit more correct about the currency manipulation a few years ago). The Japanese, South Korea, Taiwanese... and now the Chinese got rich protecting their own markets/currencies and selling to markets in North American and Europe (they did it by applying variations on what's called the 'developmental state" model). You could buy a South Korea car in the US long before you could buy an American car in South Korea. Their explicit national policy was to prioritize their growth over and above any "free market" considerations. In other words, they ignored the rules of free trade when it suited them. This is in fact not free or fair, and the costs of these policies are often borne by a concentrated unlucky few (even though everyone else benefits).
There is a fairly established literature on the politics surrounding trade, if anyone is interested. (I always tell people to start here and here to get in the proper analytical mindset). Notice that that NYT article never really quoted political economists, but only economists? That because the math of economics pretends the political consequences of trade do not exist. Trade absolutely needs to be accompanied by a generous welfare state to compensate the losers and keep them invested in the process. And when it no longer benefits a country, they abandon it.
more to the (IR) point. People need to get it out of their heads that trade is universally good. Trade is no more universally good than alliances are universally good. You can talk all you want about Pareto frontiers, but the truth of it is that trade that deprives you of an industrial base weakens your defense capability and is therefore bad on that metric.