Best business ethics books according to redditors
We found 407 Reddit comments discussing the best business ethics books. We ranked the 148 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
We found 407 Reddit comments discussing the best business ethics books. We ranked the 148 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
People who receive the Earned Income Tax Credit also receive special scrutiny. Congress sets aside money - and creates a congressional mandate - to audit people who receive the EITC - even though the potential fallout from fraud here is much less than the fraud that small business and partnerships almost certainly perpetrate. Auditors have very little discretion to call off an audit - they just follow the rules.
>That's why she's living with her parents. To try to make a life in our shimmering city without relying on welfare, food stamps or other public assistance.
If she's living with her parents, she may very well not be entitled to claim the children as dependents. And that has nothing do with the IRS - it's how Congress writes the tax laws and the US Tax Court interprets them.
If you're curious, read Perfectly Legal. The tax-auditing process is somewhat rigged against the poor but it has nothing to do with IRS and everything to do with Congress.
If you're interested in digging into this I'd highly recommend Financial Shenanigans: How to Detect Accounting Gimmicks and Fraud in Financial Reports.
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':
[Audiobook]:[PDF]:[ePub]
MisesWiki - Economic Calculation Problem:
[HTML]
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]
If you're willing to devote some serious time, Man, Economy and State is the most complete explanation that exists of the economics behind ancap ideas. It's also like 1100 pages or something so it might be more of a commitment than you're willing to make just for opposition research.
If you want to get into the philosophy behind the ideas, The Ethics of Liberty is probably the best thing you'll find. It attempts to give a step-by-step logical "proof" of libertarian philosophy.
The Problem of Political Authority is also an excellent book that takes nearly universally accepted moral premises and uses them to come to ancap conclusions in a thoroughly logical manner. I'd say if you're actually at all open to having your mind changed, it's the one most likely to do it.
If you just want a brief taste, The Law is extremely short (you can read it in an hour or two) and contains many of the important fundamental ideas. It was written like 200 years ago so doesn't really qualify as ancap, but it has the advantage of being easily digestible and also being (and I can't stress this enough) beautifully written. It's an absolute joy to read. You can also easily find it online with a simple Google search.
I know you asked for one book and I gave you four, but the four serve different purposes so pick one according to what it is you're specifically looking for.
"It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine"
Marcia Angell, “Drug companies & doctors: a story of corruption," NY Review of Books, 56 #1, 15 Jan
https://www.amazon.com/The-Truth-About-Drug-Companies/dp/0375760946/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1400820070&sr=8-1&keywords=drug+companies+corruption
Actually they did. It has just been erroded over the history of the county.
After fighting a revolution to end the exploitation by corporations, our country's founding founders retained a very healthy fear of corporate power and put great restrictions on corporations and what they could do.
Most state charters contained very strict limits on corporations. They limited how long corporations could exist. They put strict limitations on the type of commerce they could engage in. They were not allowed to own shares in other corporations. The owners were held responsible for criminal acts committed by corporations. And government kept a close watch on how corporations were being run. They often revoked corporate charters if they were found to not be serving the public interest.
And perhaps most telling, they made it law that corporations could not make political donations. I repeat, in most states it was a crime for corporations to make political donations.
EDIT; Sources
"Essays In The Earlier History Of American Corporations." concentrates on corporations in the last two decades of the 1700s. Heavily footnoted and a good source. http://www.archive.org/details/essaysinearlierh01daviuoft
"Unequal Protection" by Thom Hartman provides some good early history. http://www.amazon.com/Unequal-Protection-Corporations-Became-People/dp/1605095591/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1302207568&sr=8-1
Google search on "founding fathers on corporations."
Corporate Socialism is just a similar term for Corporate welfare. Read David Cay Johnston's Free Lunch if you haven't already. I got nothing against corporations by the way. I want to start one!
>$250 into $5k
Setting goals isn't a terrible idea, however I will say that a 2000% (non compounding) increase is something the best traders would give their arms and legs for lol.
For reference, this is something I was able to do after lots of learning and experience.
https://twitter.com/robswc/status/1093328001243189248
https://twitter.com/robswc/status/1082782861869109253
These were more done algorithmic than manually trading BUT point still stands.
With that said, you could hit 180% gain in one day with options.
The problem you'll find is that being consistently good is really really hard. What you're essentially setting out to do is consistently win an near random "coin toss".
That's going to take a psychological toll, its going to be grueling but not impossible.
>But I would like to learn the market. Any tips on how to start? What should I start researching? Can I even start trading with that little amount?
$250 is fine starting out. In fact its perfect as starting out there's a possibility you could lose it all, so starting with a small amount is fine.
Don't look at $, look at %. If you can make 1% you can make $100 or $1000. Once you consistently hit %'s, you can increase your position sizes. Keep risk in mind while doing this though.
I would start with paper trading first. Since you're 17 you're not legally allowed to trade. Also, with $250 you can't day trade (PDT rules). So paper trading would definitely be your best bet.
You could also give crypto a try, many exchanges don't really have KYC. A lot of the basics can carry over into any markets.
As far as stuff to learn, these are some of the best books I've read on the subject. You may notice they aren't technical or any "strategies" so to speak. I find those books never help, the mindset and thinking is going to be your biggest challenge.
Trading in the Zone, By Mark Douglas - https://www.amazon.com/Trading-Zone-Confidence-Discipline-Attitude/dp/0735201447
Fooled by Randomness, by Nassim Taleb - https://www.amazon.com/Fooled-Randomness-Hidden-Markets-Incerto/dp/0812975219/ref=sr_1_1?crid=13LH3VBFX62OH
Skin in the Game, by Nassim Taleb - https://www.amazon.com/Skin-Game-Hidden-Asymmetries-Daily/dp/042528462X/
Algos to Live By, by Brian Christian - https://www.amazon.com/Algorithms-Live-Computer-Science-Decisions/dp/1250118360/
A Short History of Financial Euphoria, by John Galbraith - https://www.amazon.com/History-Financial-Euphoria-Penguin-Business/dp/0140238565/
Also, if you're interested in algo or strategy creation at all, I have a youtube channel dedicated to helping beginners make their strategies and learn more. Its on a bit of a hiatus but I'll definitely be getting back to it soon.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCxokFZgGpztPTeQvBwIk2wQ
DM me here or on twitter if you have any questions! Love to help, questions also keep me on my toes and make sure I'm learning too!
This may get buried in here ... but there's a free kindle book outlining NDTV frauds: https://www.amazon.in/NDTV-Frauds-classic-example-breaking-ebook/dp/B01NC2VHPI
holy shit
P U R E
>The big economic story of our times is not the Great Recession. It is how China and India began to embrace neoliberal ideas of economics and attributed a sense of dignity and liberty to the bourgeoisie they had denied for so long
but wait there's more
>For a century and a half, the artists and intellectuals of Europe have scorned the bourgeoisie. And for a millennium and a half, the philosophers and theologians of Europe have scorned the marketplace. The bourgeois life, capitalism, Mencken’s “booboisie” and David Brooks’s “bobos”—all have been, and still are, framed as being responsible for everything from financial to moral poverty, world wars, and spiritual desuetude. Countering these centuries of assumptions and unexamined thinking is Deirdre McCloskey’s The Bourgeois Virtues, a magnum opus that offers a radical view: capitalism is good for us.
>McCloskey’s sweeping, charming, and even humorous survey of ethical thought and economic realities—from Plato to Barbara Ehrenreich—overturns every assumption we have about being bourgeois. Can you be virtuous and bourgeois? Do markets improve ethics? Has capitalism made us better as well as richer? Yes, yes, and yes, argues McCloskey, who takes on centuries of capitalism’s critics with her erudition and sheer scope of knowledge. Applying a new tradition of “virtue ethics” to our lives in modern economies, she affirms American capitalism without ignoring its faults and celebrates the bourgeois lives we actually live, without supposing that they must be lives without ethical foundations.
i think im going to die from an overdose of ideology
I read a book called the truth about drug companies and I highly recommend it. Medicine for profit creates a world of designer maintenance drugs. Why cure something when it's more profitable to create life long dependence! Plus, we can repackage the same drugs over and over as "New" and hike up the price. We've "improved" the formula by changing it just enough to legally call it new without actually improving anything.
More money is made by keeping people sick as opposed to actually helping them. It's counter intuitive to what we think medicine should be.
The Great Enrichment of the past two centuries has one primary source: the liberation of ordinary people to pursue their dreams of economic betterment
That is Deirdre McCloskey and behind the Wall Street Journal paywall and I tried every obvious trick to get around it but cannot. If you have never taken a look at her bourgeois trilogy (starts with The Bourgeois Virtues: Ethics for an Age of Commerce) you might want to. She is an equal opportunity gadfly and apparently she has read more books than anybody I have ever met in real life.
Get ready to pounce and downvote me but yes, this is how I feel, especially after reading this book. The fact is, many (not all) of the drug companies, especially the big ones, spend more on their legal teams and their marketing/sales than they do on R and D.
Legislation passed since the 80's has made it a priority for big pharma to spend more time and money maintaining patents than actually developing new drugs. Also, I have many friends who work in big pharma, a number of whom have told me to my face that they would NEVER use the drugs sold by their own companies.
I wish there were more of a collaborative open/source type environment with drug manufacturing. But there isn't and there's way too much money involved. Big pharma and Washington are bedmates and fuck the rest of us.
For the record, the above book was written by a doctor not Jenny McCarthy.
Aqui explica um dos motivos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEPMGhBaioo
Editado: e para uma explicação bem detalhada tem: https://www.amazon.com/Truth-About-Drug-Companies-Deceive/dp/0375760946/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1501599172&sr=8-1&keywords=marcia+angell https://www.amazon.com/Overdosed-America-Promise-American-Medicine/dp/0061344761/ref=pd_sim_14_3?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0061344761&pd_rd_r=CVFSQNC32QB2VFKGGBAC&pd_rd_w=Qm3wb&pd_rd_wg=gtytp&psc=1&refRID=CVFSQNC32QB2VFKGGBAC https://www.amazon.com/800-Million-Pill-Truth-behind/dp/0520246705/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1501599308&sr=8-1-fkmr0&keywords=the+100+million+dollar+pill https://www.amazon.com/Take-Medicines-Complicity-Business-Endanger/dp/0195300041/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1501599376&sr=1-1&keywords=on+the+take
The book Merchants of Doubt is an incredibly illuminating (and depressing!) read for how supposedly "objective" scientific claims can be bought and paid for by the highest bidder, with a little help from statistics and PR.
Is Mr. General Electric Corporation's ownership of Mrs. National Broadcasting Company in violation of the 13th amendment?
http://www.amazon.com/gp/mpd/permalink/m15OHYRU90ST0Z/
http://www.amazon.com/Unequal-Protection-Corporations-Became-People/dp/1605095591
Reading through your replies here, OP, I get the feeling that you're not really open to having your views on the subject changed at all. You're hammering a lot on the point that, sure, journalists might disproportionately vote for and donate to the Democrats, but that doesn't necessarily mean that their beliefs are detectable in their work. I get the uncomfortable feeling that you would not dismiss this behavior so lightly if journalists disproportionately voted for or donated to the Republicans.
But that's not really an argument. If you're looking for statistical studies proving bias, those are going to be very difficult to find, for the simple reason that "bias" isn't something that anyone can really quantify. That's one of the reasons that people tend to use data that's more easily measurable, i.e. the voting and donation records referenced above. For example, Federal Election Commission records from the 2008 election cycle show that, of the 255 journalists who donated to political campaigns, 91% of them did so for the Democrats. That's a little tough to ignore in any discussion of potential bias.
"But so what?" you might reasonably ask. "Just because someone's giving money to the Democrats doesn't mean they won't give the Republicans a fair hearing. Most people are honest and trying to do a good job."
Right. Most people are honest and trying to do a good job, which is one of the reasons why (as Tom Rosenstiel once wrote -- see below for why this guy is important) it's very difficult to get them to acknowledge they might be part of the problem. I would argue that nobody consciously sets out to provide biased coverage to the public, but when we talk about "bias," we're usually talking about things a lot more insidious and subtle than telling all of your readers to go vote for the guy you like.
I'll be blunt. I don't really think I'm going to change your mind here, but here are two things that I think are worth considering:
Here's something that I think will make a lot of sense to Redditors given the site's commentary over the 2012 election cycle. Michele Bachmann is a name I assume you know. If you don't, she's a Republican member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Minnesota. Most of Reddit, which appears to get the majority of its news off /r/politics and /r/worldnews, believes (not entirely without reason) that she is batshit crazy and a menace to society. Most of Reddit is also entirely unfamiliar with Bachmann's tenure in the House and could not recognize nuance if it had two hands, a telescope, and a guide dog:
Yay for nuance. So Bachmann has, at various points, been on or off Reddit's "side" with respect to issues, like just about every single member of Congress, but /r/politics generally only knows about the times when she isn't.
(Trust me, this will become important in a moment.)
Anyway, Bachmann ran a brief campaign for president during the 2012 election cycle and, like other Republicans, campaigned for votes in Iowa during the Republican primaries. Let's go back to August 2011 and examine the Ames Straw Poll. This isn't the actual primary, but the straw poll's still a useful glimpse at what voters think about the candidates. In the run-up to the straw poll, Bachmann got an absolutely insane amount of coverage in comparison to the other candidates, one of whom was Reddit's perennial favorite, Ron Paul.
The interesting thing about this is that Bachmann and Paul are as different from each other as you can get while still technically being within the Republican party. While there are a few issues on which they share beliefs, they would take the country in very different directions were they ever elected. Ron Paul fans on Reddit were upset because Bachmann was getting all the coverage out of Iowa, and they felt like Paul was being overlooked. They were actually kinda right about that. Again, this is very difficult to quantify, but if you go back through summer 2011 news coverage concerning the Republican candidates, it will be instantly obvious that Bachmann dominated coverage before the Iowa primaries. She got the lion's share of national media attention, interviews, and editorials, with people alternately supporting her or wringing their hands over her status as a Republican figurehead because she's cray-cray.
But then the Iowa Republicans conducted their first straw poll, and these were the results:
And so on and so forth -- I don't think it's necessary to list them all.
The most important part is that there wasn't really a statistically significant difference between Paul and Bachmann; Paul trailed her by a mere 152 votes, but Bachmann continued to dominate media coverage. In other words, Bachmann and Paul had equal levels of support from Republican voters in Iowa, but you would never know it from U.S. media coverage.
So what gives? If Republican politicians with such hugely different views could be within ~150 votes of each other on the first significant poll of the election cycle, why was one of them getting so much more publicity than the other? For that matter, why was Bachmann being paraded as a Republican figurehead by the media when she had won only a slim plurality of the votes and not a majority?
Was Bachmann really representative of American Republicans? Or was the media narrative of her as a Republican figurehead simply wrong? Does a Democrat-dominated media -- or at the very least, a media that is friendlier to the Democrats than the Republicans -- see Bachmann's views as the more easily sensationalized and exploited than Paul's?
And here's our next example, in which I'm gonna point to someone else's words because he's someone we should really be listening to on the subject of media bias. Bill Dedman at MSNBC wrote an excellent article, "Journalists dole out cash to politicians (quietly)" examining this very subject. In that article, he quotes a writer and editor named Tom Rosenstiel. You may not recognize Rosenstiel's name right off the bat, but the guy literally wrote the book on modern journalistic ethics and the relationship between democracies and the "fourth estate." He is probably the single most read and quoted person in the world on the subject of journalistic ethics and the media's role in democracy and culture.
Rather than quote everything he said in that article, here's a snippet: But giving money to a candidate or party, he said, goes a big step beyond voting. "If you give money to a candidate, you are then rooting for that candidate. You've made an investment in that candidate. It can make it more difficult for someone to tell the news without fear or favor.
You both should read these awesome books:
Anatomy of the state
The Law
What government has done with our money
and finally:
The ethics of liberty
If I was going to provide someone with a list of books that best expressed my current thinking on the Political Economy these would be my top ones:
There are, of course many more books that could go on this list. But the above list is a good sampling of my personal philosophy of political economy. It is not meant as a list of books to change your mind but simply as a list of books that are descriptive of my current belief that we should be orientated towards high (sustainable) economic growth & more decentralization.
Some honorable mentions:
As a self proclaimed "Libertarian Crunchy Con" I have to add The Quest for Community & Crunchy Cons
The book The Fourth Economy fundamentally changed my professional direction in life.
Anti-Fragile was another book full of mind blowing ideas and shifted my approach to many things.
The End of Jobs is a great combination of The Fourth Economy & Anti-Fragile (among other concepts) into a more real-world useful set of ideas.
Markets Not Capitalism is a powerful reminder that it is not Capitalism per se that is important but the transformational power of markets that need be unleashed.
You will note that I left out pure economic books, this was on purpose. There are tons of good intro to econ type books and any non-trained economist should read a bunch from a bunch of different perspectives. With that said I am currently working my way through the book Choice and if it stays as good as it has started that will probably get added to my core list.
So many more I could I list like The Left, The Right, & The State or The Problem of Political Authority and on it goes...
I am still looking for a "manifesto" of sorts for the broad movement towards decentralization (I have a few possibilities on my 'to read list') so if you know of any that might fit that description let me know.
Wow, you argue in favor of offshoring and have no idea what offshoring means.
What you describe with the Japanese televisions is normal business competition. A Japanese company with Japanese employees produced a superior product and proceeded to eat the lunch of American companies who would not or could not compete.
Offshoring is the intentional displacement of American workers by American companies because they can get an inferior product cheaply and they think they can get away with it.
Here are some examples:
Chrysler exported their auto manufacturing to Mexico to churn out cheap PT Cruisers and other vehicles. This was "the giant sucking sound" that Ross Perot warned about. They have yet to recover from that debacle.
Meanwhile Japanese companies bring more and more manufacturing to the United States due to the experience and quality of the workmanship.
Tech companies outsourced their support organizations to India because, surprise! Cheaper. Then they were shocked to find out that their customer base didn't LIKE talking to Indian or Phillipino tech support. That's all coming back now too.
The most egregious example of outsourcing was fast food restaurants connecting their drive through order boxes to prison labor in other states. Hey, why pay soneone minimum wage to take orders when you can pay Joe the Rapist pennies?
Yeah, that didn't fly either, soon reversed.
The base of all this is like most Republicans you live in your own little bubble and have no clue how the world actually works.
Please, please, please educate yourself before trying to make more silly arguments on the Internet.
In fact, here's a hand up:
Pick up a couple of books, read them and let me know what you think. They are absolute eye openers:
Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (and Stick You with the Bill)
http://www.amazon.com/Free-Lunch-Wealthiest-Themselves-Government/dp/1591842484
Perfectly Legal: The Covert Campaign to Rig Our Tax System to Benefit the Super Rich--and Cheat Everyone Else
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B0028QRMUK/ref=mp_s_a_1_4?qid=1450833597&sr=8-4&keywords=perfectly+legal+david+cay+johnston&dpPl=1&dpID=51Faysd7HVL&ref=plSrch
(Hot damn, he has a new one, I didn't know that! Goes to bookstore...)
The Fine Print: How Big Companies Use "Plain English" to Rob You Blind
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1591846536/ref=pd_aw_fbt_14_img_2?ie=UTF8&refRID=1BN2BNG7B1P4KN259KBF
There is a great book I read a while ago that hits on this a little. What I always recall from this book was that there are just some things we need to approach with ethics, and morality (as generalized as possible) rather than political philosophies.
https://www.amazon.com/What-Money-Cant-Buy-Markets/dp/0374533652
After reading Merchants of Doubt, the science seems pretty clear that global warming exists and is pretty serious. Think acid rain, DET, and and the effects of tobacco smoke.
Yep, pensions were used to bring in and pay for the C-level people who quit after a year anyhow and take a huge chunk from that pool as their severance bonus which is why for the most part that they don't exist anymore.
Retirement Heist
You reap what you sow.
The Elements of Journalism is a good place to start. The best way to learn how to write it is to learn how to read it. Find sources you trust, you know to be quality, and figure out how they put a story together.
> Was someone able to identify something fishy in their publicly released statements (balance sheets, P&L) or any other news/indicators which could have acted as precedence to something being wrong and thereby avoid such companies in their investment portfolio?
There are some ways to check this - but nothing that is 100% reliable.
You should read about Beneish M-Score and Financial Shenanigans.
The M-Score tries to predict if the reported earnings are being manipulated.
The book Financial Shenanigans looks at common ways companies try to manipulate earnings, cash flow and other metrics in their financial reports.
Deeply sorry for your loss. I received some advice as a young man about windfalls that I’ll share with you.
Forget about the money for a year. Open a separate bank account that you won’t see and live like it isn’t there. The lost income from investments for one year will be insignificant compared to the cost of a hurried misstep.
In a year with a clear head and a strong heart educate yourself about different investment philosophies and see which ones resonate with you. Investing is very personal and there isn’t one right answer.
There isn’t a right answer, but be wary of the salesmen. All the money / wealth managers are well compensated for their advice and there are many ways they hide their fees and take advantage of their clients (even fiduciaries). If you’re considering enlisting a professional, a robotic trader like https://www.wealthfront.com/ or https://intelligent.schwab.com/ will serve you just as well with lower fees. If you do decide to enlist an advisor to help formulate a financial plan for you, find a fee-based advisor who you can pay once every few years to update the plan.
Here are a few books that were helpful to me in developing my investment philosophy that allowed me to retire in my early thirties.
Bogleheads / Vanguard Index Funds
https://www.amazon.com/Little-Book-Common-Sense-Investing/dp/1119404509
The Richest Man in Babylon (investing philosophy)
https://www.amazon.com/Richest-Man-Babylon-George-Clason/dp/1505339111
Dave Ramsey / Personal Finance
https://www.amazon.com/Total-Money-Makeover-Financial-Fitness/dp/159555078X
Tax-Free Wealth - Tom Wheelwright / How investments affect your taxes
https://www.amazon.com/Tax-Free-Wealth-Permanently-Lowering-Advisors/dp/1937832058
Where are the Customer’s Yachts
https://www.amazon.com/Where-Are-Customers-Yachts-Street/dp/0471770892
If they don't even get the purpose of journalism, have them read this:
http://www.amazon.com/Elements-Journalism-Newspeople-Completely-Updated/dp/0307346706
This book was required reading, and it's quite good.
i think you just selectively ignore all the evidence presented to you cuz it doesn't follow your beliefs.
the only way you would change ur opinion is if you historically have a bent against govt and big pharma because you know history and you know how they messed up big time due to the greedy nature of the system
No wonder 3 former editors-in-chiefs of the New England Journal of Medicine (widely considered the premier medical journal) from the 90's and 2000's eventually left the journal and came out with books such as these.
" It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine." - Marcia Angell, former editior in chief of NEJM
📷
Picture of the 3 books http://1boringoldman.com/images/angell.gif
The Truth about Drug Companies: How they deceive us and what to do about it by Dr Marcia Angell
On the Take: How medicine's complicity with Big Business can Endanger your Health by Dr. Jerome Kassirer,
A Second Opinion: REscuing America’s Healthcare by Dr. Arnold Relman
Yes... but it's complicated; to answer this would require a few pages. I recommend Steven Brill's "America's Bitter Pill". Or you can read over the Time article that lead to the book here. He does an excellent job laying out how hospitals are getting obscenely rich and how we got here. I strongly recommend the book.
Marcia Angell, former editor for New England Journal of Medicine, covers the pharma end well in "The Truth About Drug Companies".
She outlines the peverse incentives out there for pharma companies. Say you have a drug that is about to lose it's patent protection (meaning generics cannot be sold), why not get a 6 month extension granted for it by testing the drug on children? Maybe kids need Viagra right? How about a 6-month extension for pediatric oxycontin?
Maybe you've used up the pediatric patent exclusivity extensions. Why not simply take an existing drug and create a market? Sarafem is great for PMS, nevermind it cost 10x more than generic fluoxetine (Prozac) and that the only ingredient in it is fluoxetine.
I mean why spend hundreds of millions of $ on actual new drug research when you can simply make a time release version of an ancient drug? Focalin (methylphenidate ER) saved people from the horrors of having to take Ritalin (methylphenidate) twice a day and Daytrana (methylphenidate transdermal patch) saved people from the horrors of having to swallow a pill once a day. Oxycontin was marketed as a less addictive alternative to Oxycodone IR/Percocet. All Purdue Pharma did was take an old existing drug, oxycodone, and give it a time release. That way instead of patients having to take 15mg every 6 hours, they could take 30mg of Oxycontin every 12. Truly a miracle right?
Anyway I've already said more than I intended and am not writing in a appropriate tone for this sub, so I'll stop myself now. I strongly recommend the books linked above.
It's actually tame by the standards of this sub probably, but the book What Money Can't Buy by philosopher Michael Sandel really gave definition to my ideas about the commodification of every part of our life under capitalism, and how corporations and the derived values encroach upon what makes life worth living. Probably perfect for someone getting introduced to generally left thought and it's an easy read.
Last year Ackman publicly announced that he had unwound his short position in favor of taking on equal short exposure through put options (constructed and priced OTC of course) exactly to avoid getting squeezed out. Not sure if he is closing out part of the position early, or what the expiry structure of the contracts was/is.
Not that he doesn't want to turn a profit on this trade and be proven right for all the world to heap praise on him for making money and vanquishing a terrible fraud of a company that preys on gullible dreamers in the lower class, but he has said publicly that the profits on his HLF will go to charity (I assume that by this he means profits that would be attributable to him as a shareholder in his own funds, and that independent shareholders have no concrete agreement to charitable giving from any of the profits they earn with Pershing).
Lastly, I highly recommend David Einhorn's "Fooling Some of the People All of the Time" as it is a) very entertaining and interesting, and b) should expose some similarities to Ackman's current fight against HLF.
Jason Brennan's Markets without Limits was an important moral theory about commodification and I think filled a huge gap.
Horwitz's Hayek's Modern Family is another one -although I couldn't find time to read it yet-
Private Governance by Edward Stringham is another contribution to the ancap institutional theory.
This year Jason Brennan will publish another book, Against Democracy, and it will probably be excellent, Jason Brennan is easly my top 5 libertarians alive.
https://www.amazon.com/Stubborn-Attachments-Prosperous-Responsible-Individuals/dp/1732265135
​
He wrote a book.
This is from a different post on the same topic:
I would start here
Some additional books that I like are:
Financial Schnanigans
Avoiding the winner's curse
If you are interested in high-yield debt (and you should be, this is where all of the action is), then read the first four books on Amazon
Finally, learn the basics of accounting and financial accounting. Finance is just a bunch of ratios. You need to understand how the numbers are created before you can analyze them.
Bush tax cuts made permanent by Obama. It's a tax break for the rich because our congress is all millionaires looking out for millionaires who in turn pay for their campaign.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/30/business/economy/for-the-wealthiest-private-tax-system-saves-them-billions.html?_r=0
https://www.amazon.com/Perfectly-Legal-Campaign-Rich-verybody/dp/1591840694
This book would be of interest to you, I think.
private arbitration and private courts would most likely adopt a libertarian legal code. Rothbard wrote a book on it call "Ethics of Liberty". Here is the amazon link. https://www.amazon.com/Ethics-Liberty-Murray-N-Rothbard/dp/0814775594
It is essentially Non aggression enforcement and retributive justice.
A friend of mine highly recommends this book I don't, because I read it, and it made me baby-punching angry.
Note: Brujahrage uses the phrase "Baby-punching angry" as a hyperbolic device. Brujahrage, reddit, and most sane people do not actually advocate punching babies.
Excellent!! Thanks for that link. If you're interested in ethical journalism and the who, what, where, why and when of it, this is a really good book to own.
> He's what you get what you forget that tv isn't real life.
Damn this is astute. Isn't it funny that it's practically a requirement to be a celebrity to run for President now? Now we're going to have an Oprah Presidency? I want off Mr. Bones Wild Ride.
> You don't just throw away your shoes because they got holes in them if you can't afford new ones.
This is exactly the feeling I had as I watched the party throw itself under the Trump bus.
> It's the ' trickle down' mentality all over again
Wow. This is an outstanding analysis. Seriously Trump just copied the Reagan thing. Liberals are suckers for bleeding heart types promising handouts that never come and Republicans are suckers for strong guy business masterminds that never actually bring the jobs. The american public has GOT to stop falling for the media propaganda and clearly manufactured 'tropes' (I think with the alt media though we are on are way; traditional media is collapsing.) I have a feeling though this is a LOT bigger then Trump; I think the corporate interest hand and hand with wealthy foreign players have almost the entire GOP by the BALLS.
We are in this weird political age were the only reason people are getting into politics is for all the side profit (dirty money, crony capitalism, book deals, bribes, sweet retirement jobs lobbying or broadcasting etc.)
> the only thing you're going to feel trickling down is billionaires pissing on you as they have been for decades.
This is why I've become a strict libertarian. I think poor government laws and welfare fuck up economics but I also think crony capitalism and regulatory capture fucks up enterprise capitalism. You can't fucking run a hotdog stand in this country without 2 layers a year of permit application and a 100k of startup and knowing one of the legislators.
I think David Cay Johnston has also been writing about this economic stuff as well.
https://www.amazon.com/Free-Lunch-Wealthiest-Themselves-Government/dp/1591842484/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8
Just a few points:
You should read "the truth about drug companies"
It depends. The default setting for reddit is that submissions below a certain threshold (I forget) simply do not appear. Comments and submissions can get downvoted to oblivion.
The position of the alarmists is that the matter is settled, and that anyone expressing doubt is trying to muddy the waters in order to further some nefarious agenda. There is a whole genre of books with this theme. One example is the loathsome 'Merchants of Doubt'
http://www.amazon.com/Merchants-Doubt-Handful-Scientists-Obscured/dp/1596916109
On the 'Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought:' section of the page above you can see other examples of this idea.
Edit: sorry for double post. bad connection.
Take a look at this book. There's a lot more to it than capital gains vs income tax.
There is a whole industry dedicated to suppressing science that might have a negative effect on industry.
http://www.amazon.com/Doubt-Their-Product-Industrys-Threatens/dp/019530067X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1331081005&sr=1-1
and
http://www.amazon.com/Merchants-Doubt-Handful-Scientists-Obscured/dp/1596916109/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1331081005&sr=1-2
He deleted the last part of the URL presumably because he thought it was some kind of PII data.
https://www.amazon.com/Skin-Game-Hidden-Asymmetries-Daily/dp/042528462X/
We're told that the old crop of government agents were trying hard enough. Or that they didn't have the right intentions. While it's true that there are plenty of incompetent and ill-intentioned people in government, we can't always blame the people involved. Often, the likelihood of failure is simply built in to the institution of government itself. In other words, politicians and bureaucrats don't succeed because they can't succeed. The very nature of government administration is weighted against success.
Here are ten reasons why:
I. Knowledge
Government policies suffer from the pretense of knowledge . In order to perform a successful market intervention, politicians need to know more than they can. Market knowledge is not centralized, systematic, organized and general, but dispersed, heterogeneous, specific, and individual. Different from a market economy where there are many operators and a constant process of trial and error, the correction of government errors is limited because the government is a monopoly. For the politician, to admit an error is often worse than sticking with a wrong decision - even against own insight.
II. Information Asymmetries
While there are also information asymmetries in the market, for example between the insurer and the insured, or between the seller of a used car and its buyer, the information asymmetry is more profound in the public sector than in the private economy. While there are, for example, several insurance companies and many car dealers, there is only one government. The politicians as the representatives of the state have no skin in the game and because they are not stakeholders, they will not spend much efforts to investigate and avoid information asymmetries. On the contrary, politicians are typically eager to provide funds not to those who need them most but to those who are most relevant in the political power game.
III. Crowding out of the Private Sector
Government intervention does not eliminate what seem market deficiencies but creates them by crowding outthe private supply. If there were not a public dominance in the areas of schooling and social assistance, private supply and private charity would fill the gap as it was the case before government usurped these activities. Crowding-out of the private sector through government policies is constantly at work because politicians can get votes by offering additional public services although the public administration will not improve but deteriorate the matter.
IV. Time Lags
Government policies suffer from extended lags between diagnosis and effect. The governmental process is concerned with power and has its antenna captures those signals that are relevant for the power game. Only when an issue is sufficiently politicized will it find the attention of the government. After the lag, until an issue finds attention and gets diagnosed, another lag emerges until the authorities have found a consensus on how to tackle the political problem. From there it takes a further time span until the appropriate political means have found the necessary political support. After the measures get implemented, a further time elapses until they show their effects. The lapse of time between the articulation of a problem and the effect is so long that the nature of the problem and its context have changed - often fundamentally. It comes as no surprise that results of state interventions, including monetary policy , do not only deviate from the original goal but may produce the opposite of the intentions.
V. Rent Seeking and Rent Creation
Government intervention attracts rent-seekers. Rent seeking is the endeavor of gaining privileges through government policies. In a voter democracy, there is a constant pressure to add new rents to the existing rents in order to gain support and votes. This rent creation expands the number of rent-seekers and over time the distinction between corruption and a decent and legal conduct gets blurred. The more a government gives in to rent-seeking and rent creation, the more the country will fall victim to clientelism, corruption, and the misallocation of resources.
https://www.amazon.com/Financial-Shenanigans-Fourth-Accounting-Gimmicks/dp/126011726X/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_t_0?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=B4XAMMAKCJH29WCWAQYQ
Two books that would be pretty good starting points (and a 3rd book for extra measure):
The first book you wanna pay special attention to Chapter 8 and Chapter 20, but read it ALL:
https://www.amazon.com/intelligent-investor-book-practical-counsel/dp/0060115912/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1557126552&sr=1-7
This one is more detialed
https://www.amazon.com/Security-Analysis-Foreword-Buffett-Editions/dp/0071592539/ref=pd_rhf_eeolp_s_pd_crcd_0_4/143-0942938-6072313?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0071592539&pd_rd_r=98601957-062a-4d2b-b4e5-10c14a0c824b&pd_rd_w=EmVty&pd_rd_wg=tAgWo&pf_rd_p=36c62ed8-9692-4b91-aa9a-c4b3b85cc759&pf_rd_r=XJ4NTWQMJ5KPRKTHCEZT&psc=1&refRID=XJ4NTWQMJ5KPRKTHCEZT
This third book isn't "reuired reading" but wouldn't be a bad idea to read---it teaches a healthy degree of cynicism about the things you read in financial reports and the things CEOs will tell you on TV---like CNBC etc
https://www.amazon.com/Fooling-People-Complete-Updated-Epilogue/dp/0470481544/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=david+einhorn&qid=1557126776&s=books&sr=1-2
GOOD LUCK!!!!!
Profit incentive is not a panacea and it's introduction into all aspects of life can be corrosive to society. If you get the time, What Money Can't Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets is an insightful read.
"Now"... ? "New data"?
Got some news for you from 2005:
Perfectly Legal: The Covert Campaign to Rig Our Tax System to Benefit the Super Rich--and Cheat Everybody Else
https://www.amazon.com/Perfectly-Legal-Campaign-Rich-verybody/dp/1591840694
Well anyway, you're right with your broader criticism. (Not sure about USA being worse than Europe. I don't know much about how things are in Europe.)
For more: https://www.amazon.com/Truth-About-Drug-Companies-Deceive/dp/0375760946
Hard to know the level of knowledge or interest. A good book, video series can be life changing.
Might be a bit much:
https://www.amazon.com/Fooled-Randomness-Hidden-Markets-Incerto/dp/0812975219
https://www.amazon.com/Skin-Game-Hidden-Asymmetries-Daily/dp/042528462X/ref=pd_sim_14_5?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=042528462X&pd_rd_r=3VZDDG10RA4N947JMZJN&pd_rd_w=dPtqg&pd_rd_wg=roPIY&psc=1&refRID=3VZDDG10RA4N947JMZJN
Maybe something a bit more about the "new economy"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0mhgsyXn9A
Learning is fun
I also recommend this book
Welcome to the dark side of Big Pharma. Trust me, it gets worse. If you'd like to know more, I can recommend Marcia Angell's book.
I think you need to specify whether or not you want academic oriented work or something that is more entertainment oriented. For the latter, any Michael Lewis Books (The Big Short, etc.) or David Einhorn's Book (Fooling Some of the People All of the Time) would be good.
Depends on what you want. But your probably mean for retirement.
In that case you probably want an IRA account. These accounts are specifically for retirement. You probably want to chose a Roth over a Traditional. The main difference is that you get taxed on a Roth immediately vs a Traditional when you get taxed on it when you take it out of the account (pretty sure, still a student).
Khan academy has Excellent videos on personal finance.
But if you just want to increase your financial skills in general. I think the best book for just everyday use for the everyday man would be The Richest Man in Babylon. Honestly, this book covers every man topic. You can get other books for more specifics, but this will help you on your way to financial literacy. Also, if you don't mind pdf books, then here is a free copy.
Also 2 books I recommend are by Nassim Taleb, he talks about a guy, fat Tony. In real life, you want the BS detecting skills of fat Tony:
Aggression for self-defense is acceptable whenever someone fears their life or safety is in danger. Someone pulling a gun on you certainly fits that bill. If a man draws down on you you can only assume that he intends to harm you physically and you are perfectly within your rights to respond appropriately. Verbal threats are much of an excuse for attacking someone. Now, verbal threats such as "I'm going to kill you" and menacing movements towards you are entirely different. It just depends on the context of the situation.
As for homesteading you'll see different opinions on this, but my take on it is whenever you've put the land to some use. I don't think clearing a bunch of rocks is enough to justify ownership of it, but it does show intent to occupy. Now, say you were to build a house and till up a section of land for planting crops I could safely say that what you have appropriated is justly yours (provided no one else holds a legitimate claim to said property).
If you want to get more information on these topics I'd suggest reading [The Ethics of Liberty] (http://www.amazon.com/The-Ethics-Liberty-Murray-Rothbard/dp/0814775594/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1369188520&sr=8-1&keywords=the+ethics+of+liberty) and [For a New Liberty] (http://www.amazon.com/For-New-Liberty-Murray-Rothbard/dp/1610162641/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1369188520&sr=8-2&keywords=the+ethics+of+liberty) by Murray Rothbard. Those are great starting points and should keep you busy for a little while. You can also find these two books for free on Mises.org [here] (http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/ethics.asp) and [here.] (http://mises.org/document/1010/For-a-New-Liberty-The-Libertarian-Manifesto)
> Do you have a source for your first claim?
Yes: Me. Other than me, this book covers a lot of it: http://www.amazon.com/The-Truth-About-Drug-Companies/dp/0375760946/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1368808202&sr=8-1&keywords=The+Truth+About+the+Drug+Companies
I'm not saying pharma companies don't do any research, I'm saying that the majority of the research done leading to basically all pharma developments is done by people other than pharma companies.
I think you need to take a look at Nassim Taleb's Twitter and read his book Skin in the Game to understand my point. As a leader, it's highly appealing to have imperfections and to lead by example. The net effect of this tweet is that Peterson's true fans like him even more and that he got additional publicity. This is why people don't understand how Trump won the election.
No, without prime you pay price + shipping, which is the same as the prime price. Example, $27 prime vs $23 + ship non-prime
The Richest Man in Babylon - George Clason
For convenience, here is the book list from Professor Casey, with links:
The Ethics of Liberty by Murray Rothbard (full text)
The Machinery of Freedom by David Friedman (full text)
Anarchy and the Law by Edward Stringham (full text: http://anarcho-capitalist.org/wp-content/pdfs/Stringham%20(Edward%20P.)%20-%20Anarchy%20and%20the%20Law.pdf)
Radicals for Capitalism by Brian Doherty
Lost in the Cosmos by Walker Percy
The Message in the Bottle by Walker Percy
What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets by Michael Sandel
It is difficult to accept because I didn't see your reasoning - it is not as obvious as you think. Basically, you are claiming that a better tax regime structure will make the poor not poor and thus the exemptions would end. This would, of course, mean that the tax rate becomes more regressive again, because without exemptions those at the lower levels pay more of their income in taxes than the rich. And of course, this will help to further stratify society and keep the money where it's at. Now that I understand your reasoning it is even harder to accept.
Percentage of income taxed is THE measure. That's why we have progressive tax rates today. Taxing the wealthy at the same rate as the poor is simply unfair in addition to creating greater inequality in society. There has been general agreement since the 19th century that fair taxation is progressive taxation, which is why we have progressive tax rates around the world and no one has done anything as silly as a flat tax.
And the US has forced redistribution all the time: note how income has shifted upwards over the last 35 years while the tax burden shifts away from businesses and the rich and onto the middle class. This has been largely due to deliberate tax policy favoring the wealthy. Your proposal would be the greatest giveaway every to the super rich. For data, see the book "Perfectly Legal."
Two of my perennial favorites, which I'll add to some of the terrific suggestions below:
But besides those, much of the writing, especially on technology, gets old very quickly, so as other people have pointed out, books aren't always your best route. Get yourself into the social media conversation about journalism, where you'll find people like @romenesko and @jayrosen_nyu and many many other astute and intelligent commentators taking on the issues that are going to shape your career. But those two books are a solid foundation of the ideas underlying journalism.
Great book for anyone interested in this or how other corporations benefit from our tax dollars
If you move (relocate) more than 50 miles in the year: $5,000 tax credit.
You can in fact set up trusts, also the above mentioned dependent care and health savings plan accounts. Also if you have children 529 plans (which can be used for "anything in the benefit of the child")
From my own tax reductions: Do you know you can register as being a farm operator without actually owning a farm or any animals? Legally? And get a huge tax deduction with farm related tax subsidies? My wife trains horses and we managed to avoid around $30k in taxes because of things like this.
Honestly if you want a good into into how to avoid paying taxes (most of what is available to billionaires are also available to others, we just don't know about them), check out Perfectly Legal It's based on the author's original Pulitzer Prize winning articles on the U.S. Tax Code.
Okay, I'll just ignore all other points for the sake of expediting this and focus on corporate money in politics.
Right now our government is owned by corporations. They pay for the elections and they pay for their own laws.
People that are suggesting redistributing wealth on a massive scale are idiots. Those who want money bad enough to work the system through sheer intellect deserve to be rich, it's what they wanted.
However, it is not deserved when they sacrifice their worker's benefits to put money in their own pockets. Quickly check out Ellen Shultz's book "Retirement Heist".
This is the world we live in, CEO's and corporations own our freedoms. They bend the laws to their will and are creating an income gap (income inequality) the likes of which the world has never seen. The earnings ratio of 14.5 to 1 in 2010 was an increase from the 13.6 to 1 ratio in 2008 and a significant rise from the historic low of 7.69 to 1 in 1968.
This gap has grown due to increasingly outright (yet unpunished) fraud in our countries banking system. Yes, it was legislation that weakened the requirements to purchase a home loan. But it was legislation that the banks bought.
Making sense yet?
A democracy is supposed to be for the people, by the people.
I cannot express enough my gratitude to you for typing out this reply. This has been eating away at me, and my search will continue.. a book was reccomended to me,
http://www.amazon.com/Perfectly-Legal-Campaign-Benefit-Everybody/dp/1591840198
Although I am currently unable to purchase it.
This is great book on this topic Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming.
There are really only dozen or so arguments that climate change deniers use time and time again. This book deals with them. Its an easier read than some statistical analysis of temperatures changes in the west Antarctic peninsula.
Some good resources are the Associated Press Stylebook, the Elements of Style, and The Elements of Journalism. The Elements of Journalism gives some good tips for journalists like objectivity and truth. Good luck in your studies.
US Money versus Corporation Currency (1912) - Alfred Own Crozier.
Peoples History of the United States. - Howard Zinn
Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Spectre of Inverted Totalitarianism. - Sheldon S Wolin.
The Nazi Hydra In America -- New America's right wing politicians are plunging the country into a fascist police state - Glen Yeadon & John Hawkins.
American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America - Chris Hedges.
The Spirit and Structure of German Fascism - Robert A Brady
The Comming of the American Behemoth: THe origins of Fascism in the United States, 1920-1940 - Michael Joseph Roberto (2018)
Unequal Protection: How Corporations Became "People" - And How You Can Fight Back - Thom Hartmann (2010)
The Holy Reich - Nazi Conceptions of Christianity 1919-1945 - Richard Steigmann-Gall (2004)
That should give you someplace to start to form your own opinion.
I also STRONGLY recommended memorizing and applying reason against fallacies, especially appeal to prejudice and all of them on http://www.yourlogicalfallacyis.com AND https://yourbias.is
> (Barring Enron scale fuckuppery)
Sometimes management can even mess up nearly that bad and get away with it.
I follow them for the lolz. hahahaha
Hmm reading material ya? biasanya bible-nya day trader kalo ga ini ya ini. Tapi pendekatan investasi gue agak beda, karena gue domisili di Eropa. Gue invest di ETF karena gue taro buat dana pensiun. Nah kalo tertarik sama index investing monggo ngikut cult-nya John Bogle disini dan websitenya disini. Karena gue pake ETF di Eropa, pelajaran pertama gue dapat dari sini. Entah seberapa relevan sih buat kasus indonesia.
I listen to his shows all the time and overall I like him. He is pushing a very important conversation in a very public way.
His positions are
similar or parallel with[Anarcho_Capitalism] (http://www.reddit.com/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/) or [volunteerism] (http://www.reddit.com/r/voluntarism/).These lines of thought are the blistering center of libertarian thought. If you want to take a serious study of libertarianism this area must be explored.
These books are great and will change the way you look at the world forever. I consider these to be the Red pill. I know it sounds corny but I am serious.
Read Rothbard it took me down a deep rabbit hole. There is so much to read and learn and most of it is out there either free or affordable.
It seems that Ron Paul has drawn a lot of his ideology from this line of thought. So If you are a RP fan it will give you better context.
The richest man in Babylon by George Clason
Submission statement:
Amit Varma interviews Tyler Cowen. They talk about Cowen’s book, Stubborn Attachments, and related topics. (Coleman Hughes reviews Stubborn Attachments here.)
It's hawala plain and simple. How it works is that they will sell this "asset" at a very inflated price, think unicorn level. The "buyer" will pay cash, and the transaction will be legit.
Buy the book https://www.amazon.in/NDTV-Frauds-classic-example-breaking-ebook/dp/B01NC2VHPI
For those interested in this kind of thing, I think David Einhorn's book is excellent.
It tells a story of when Einhorn realized a company was more-or-less fraudulent, and his fight against the SEC and the company to release the truth. He had the incentive for this fight because of his short position. Einhorn was ultimately proven correct, and the company collapsed. The book is equally interesting, informative and infuriating.
https://www.amazon.com/Fooling-People-Complete-Updated-Epilogue/dp/0470481544
Jason Brennan and Peter Jaworski's Markets without Limits: Moral Virtues and Commercial Interests is a rebuttal to Sandel.
https://www.amazon.com/Markets-without-Limits-Commercial-Interests/dp/0415737354
I could get into more depth about it but there is quite a bit of debate on it academia:
https://www.amazon.com/Skin-Game-Hidden-Asymmetries-Daily/dp/042528462X
Look into why Google and Facebook want to see developers Github accounts in lieu of resumes.
Anything Peter Thiel
The case against education
What they don’t teach you in Harvard Business School
You may be interested in Jason Brennan and Peter Jaworski's book, Markets Without Limits, short summary here. They argue that anything you may permissibly do for free, you may permissibly do for money. They also map the landscape of common objections:
>1. Exploitation: Buying and selling certain goods—such as sex—might take pernicious advantage of others’ misfortune.
>
>2. Misallocation: Buying and selling certain goods—such as “free” tickets to “Shakespeare in the Park”—might cause the goods to be distributed unfairly.
>
>3. Corruption: Buying and selling certain goods—such as violent video games or pornography—might cause us to have bad attitudes, beliefs, or character.
>
>4. Harm: Buying and selling certain goods—such as naming rights for children—might harm people.
>
>5. Semiotic: Buying and selling certain goods—such as kidneys—might express wrongful attitudes, or violate the meaning of the good in question, or might be incompatible with the intrinsic dignity of some activity, thing, or person.
Michael Sandel takes up some of these objections in What Money Can't Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets
Some thoughts about your particular situation:
You say "I hold the ticket and earn the right to do with it as I please because I paid for it." Of course, you have the legal right to do whatever you want with the ticket. But the question you're interested in is whether it's morally right to resell the ticket for profit, not whether you're legally entitled. A principle like by paying for something, I gain the moral right to use it however I please seems too strong--if I buy a knife, this doesn't give me a moral right to go around stabbing people. Perhaps by paying for things, we gain the moral right to use them however we please so long as we do not violate other constraints/rights. But then we're just back to asking whether there is some moral constraint that prohibits you from reselling the ticket for profit. So I don't think the fact that you paid for the ticket, by itself, can settle the issue.
On the other hand, why would we think that reselling the ticket for profit would violate a moral constraint? Your friend says that buying with the intent to resell is wrong. Maybe there's something to this (perhaps it treats the seller as a mere means?), but I'd like to see an argument better spelled out.
One final point: you might view your actions as providing a valuable service to the person who buys the ticket from you. They disvalue waiting in line more than you, but they value the ticket more than you. So it's hard to see how you're acting wrongly towards the buyer.
Good read here Amazon sells it! https://www.amazon.com/Free-Lunch-Wealthiest-Themselves-Government/dp/1591842484
> But, with the first guy, do any of you know of any sources for the conditions of the Gilded Age that this person might accept as not being "socialist propaganda?"
We're going through a third Gilded Age. The first was the times of the railroads when divide and conquer were the plots of the day. The Courts thought that corporations were people. That being said, I know people have a problem with it, but Thom Hartmann, did research in how corporations became people. I've read Unequal Protection which helped to explain the Gilded Age in detail.
The second Gilded Age occurred in the 1920s to 1930s and the SCOTUS decisions of that time which were heavily conservative and undemocratic. I'm weak on references for it but I would suggest the PBS documentary "Slavery by another name"
And for the third Gilded Age? Well... We're living it.
There are drawbacks to everything but it isn't a problem. I addressed the "our population is too wealthy and we don't produce enough" bit in my comment
perfectly legal isn't part of his name mate
Relevant reading material: https://www.amazon.com/Skin-Game-Hidden-Asymmetries-Daily/dp/042528462X
tl;dr Drugs are so expensive because everyone along the way gouges the process as much as possible. If anyone is more interested about this process they should read the truth about drug companies by Dr. Marcia Angell
That knowledge would chalk up to being an enrolled agent, not an intrepid reader. Other than Perfectly Legal, I would hope I don't look up tax laws in my leisure time.
There is really no justification to provide a mortgage deduction on a second home, though. It would be an interesting exercise to track vacation home ownership of the middle class over the years, though. I would bet it's decreased substantially. I could be wrong, but it would be interesting to see..
If you want a real education about tax policy, read David Cay Johnston's [book]
(http://www.amazon.com/Perfectly-Legal-Campaign-Rich---Everybody/dp/1591840694/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1291752481&sr=8-1)
A big problem with repeal of the AMT is that it opens up a host of new loopholes allowing those who owe a lot of tax to avoid paying. This New York Times reporter follows the issue and his book on how the tax system deck is stacked is eyeopening.
If companies had not decided to move from pensions to 401k plans then government intervention would not be needed but as things stand now it is clear that 401ks have failed. See: http://www.amazon.com/Retirement-Heist-Companies-Plunder-American/dp/1591843332/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1343067702&sr=8-1&keywords=retirement+heist
I would recommend reading Retirement Heist: How Companies Plunder and Profit from the Nest Eggs of American Workers.
Here are some additional links about the book. Forbes, NPR, and The Daily Show.
The basic idea is corporations have taken and trimmed the workers' pension funds. They do this with clever accounting, loopholes, etc. Watch the Daily Show interview. Ellen Schultz explains corporations are allowed to sell pension plans when they sell business units, they are allowed to pull funds from the pension plans to pay for golden parachutes, they take out life insurance policies on their workers, and all kinds of activities that are ethically questionable. Pensions are essentially empty nowadays, but a decade ago they had a surplus. I'm surprised this isn't more widely known.
I'm not finding any good links that really jump out like reading the first few chapters would, the amazon reviews do it justice though.
https://www.amazon.com/Skin-Game-Hidden-Asymmetries-Daily/dp/042528462X
I would recommend one of three books to persuade your friend (you can read more about them to choose what you think may be the best). Hope you find a decent gift among the list:
You can make anything controversial. Manufacturing controversy isn't that hard. Vast majority of the arguments against Prop 4 had no logic.
You should read Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming - https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1596916109/
The Truth About Drug Companies How They Deceive Us and What to do About It....
You can also get the audio book from your library if you have a library card.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0375760946?cache=d10a4131915aa7f899b2e3e4059cb3c2&pi=SY200_QL40&qid=1413214004&sr=8-1#ref=mp_s_a_1_1
> McCloskey, Deirdre Nansen (2009): Slavery and Imperialism Did Not Enrich Europe. Unpublished.
> Makes sense, considering the content. I don't know where one would even begin to try publishing a "paper" that discards over a dozen different theories in just 34 pages.
It's a chapter from a book she's working on, part of a series. The first volume, The Bourgeois Virtues: Ethics for an Age of Commerce, was published by University of Chicago press, so this book will probably be published by them, too.
Since your post is just empty sarcasm, I'm not sure which points of hers you object to.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0226556646
[Fooling Some of the People All the Time] (http://www.amazon.com/Fooling-People-Complete-Updated-Epilogue/dp/0470481544) is a really good book on short selling.
[Quantitative Value] (http://www.amazon.com/Quantitative-Value-Web-Site-Practitioners/dp/1118328078) is a really good book as well.
If you can afford it, [Margin of Safety] (http://www.amazon.com/Margin-Safety-Risk-Averse-Strategies-Thoughtful/dp/0887305105/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1415645406&sr=1-1&keywords=margin+of+safety) is the holy grail of value investors.
You dont know who Dr Peter Gotzsche is, do you? His book is extensively cited.
Here is another book on the subject, by a former editor of the NEJM.
The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It https://www.amazon.com/dp/0375760946/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_tai_uZvYBb52HA0KE
I wouldn't recommend MES(man, economy, and state) for starter reading material. MES is an economic treatise, not a libertarian political theory book. Rothbard was a crazy good economist. Think of MES as just economics. In fact, I would recommend for pure ancap theory,
For a New Liberty by Murray Rothbard. Here is the Mises Institute link https://store.mises.org/Pocketbook--P301.aspx
This book describes everything about libertarianism(anarchocapitalism), how it is more efficient, more ethical/moral and the strategy for liberty.
Ethics of Liberty by Murray Rothbard. Here is the amazon link: https://www.amazon.com/Ethics-Liberty-Murray-N-Rothbard/dp/0814775594
this book uses aprioris to deductively examine a libertarian legal code. I would recommend this to Friedman's machinery of freedom(which is more utilitarian than based on natural rights)
Also, Hans-Hermann Hoppe has an Anarchocapitalist bibliography, it is on Lewrockwell.com, a paleo-libertarian website(also ancap).
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2001/12/hans-hermann-hoppe/anarcho-capitalism-2/
In that bibliography Hans gives a bunch of libertarian journal articles too, if you want to print them.
I wouldn't recommend reading David Friedman or Caplan, you should read Rothbard, Hoppe, and Walter Block has great books, one is Defending the Undefendable, Hoppe has a wonderful book, Democracy the God that Failed.
Hopefully that helps :)
I wouldn't expect you to find it amusing but it highlights potential dangers. However I find it hypocritical that you follow up with a baseless statement that:
>For every one person who got lung cancer, supposedly from smoke, supposedly second hand, there's a person who lived to 70 or 80 who smoked.
Cigarettes sold by international companies are actually far better than the local cigarettes which have about twice the tar content. As for whether there's a link between smoking and cancer I don't think this is even worth debating.
I'd suggest checking out "Merchants of Doubt" to read more about how easy it is for companies and scientists to introduce doubt to obscure the truth.
Well, I read Perfectly Legal by David Cay Johnson, and he gives some pretty good examples of the 1% not paying the correct amount of taxes. That book made me angrier than anything I'd ever read.
https://www.amazon.com/Richest-Man-Babylon-George-Clason/dp/1505339111
You realize The Fraser Institute was claiming the science was out on the link between cigarettes and cancer long after the link was well-established, right?
Read Merchants of Doubt, or watch the movie. This is not an accident. This is a well-funded disinformation campaign.
>Saying “sponsored science” and big pharma are skewing all the facts is a conspiracy theory like the originating tweet.
Nah. More like the sober reality of an informed person.
>“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.”
https://ethicalnag.org/2009/11/09/nejm-editor/
Care to address the downfall of medical science?
Is evidence based medicine icon Peter Gotzsche making it all up?
>The "evidence tells us that it is likely that the DTP vaccine increases total mortality in low-income countries."
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/dtp-vaccine-associated-with-increased-rate-of-total-mortality-in-low-income-countries-says-peter-gotzsche-in-new-expert-report-300902971.html
https://www.amazon.com/Deadly-Medicines-Organised-Crime-Healthcare/dp/1846198844
https://www.amazon.com/Truth-About-Drug-Companies-Deceive/dp/0375760946
but the science is settled, right?
Maybe you should look at the pharmaceutical industry.
To say science is worthless is nonsensical. Money has corrupted the scientific endeavor. That's a fact jack? Don't believe it? Read this book:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Truth-About-Drug-Companies/dp/0375760946
And where do you think these "climate scientists" are working?
I believe the farmers. The guys who get shit done. Not the fear mongers' employees.
http://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2014/Q4/study-farmers-and-scientists-divided-over-climate-change.html
Would YOU like to explain how you think the rich are giving more than they are getting from the system? Really?
There's a great list of scams in this book: Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Enrich Themselves at Government Expense.
As for me, I've never really profited from selling municipal bonds to build a stadium for my sports team. I've never drawn CEO-level salaries from a company that gets handed free loans from the Fed. I've never used the legal system to put my competition out of business, nor have I ever destroyed the credit rating of corporations that don't keep their side of a contract. I don't really profit from the energy industry, so our national geopolitics and military intervention don't affect me. My neighborhood is not high on the local police priority list, because the police have to keep busy protecting rich people's property. I don't have the ear of our local zoning board, so property values decline in my neighborhood when "unseemly" (to some) groups get permits or housing.
And on, and on. I think you're just blowing smoke.
Sweet summer child.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tobacco-and-oil-industries-used-same-researchers-to-sway-public1/
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Merchants-Doubt-Handful-Scientists-Obscured/dp/1596916109/
http://billmoyers.com/2015/06/17/the-hoax-of-climate-denial/
https://theintercept.com/2017/02/05/republicans-want-to-make-the-epa-great-again-by-gutting-health-regulations/
https://climatecrocks.com/2013/11/25/new-video-links-between-big-tobacco-and-climate-denial-rhymes-with-smoky-joe/
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/global-warming-facts-and-fossil-fuel-industry-disinformation-tactics.html
http://www.mintpressnews.com/why-is-big-tobacco-funding-climate-change-skeptics/169312/
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2006/sep/19/ethicalliving.g2
http://www.ciel.org/news/oil-tobacco-denial-playbook/
(Edit: also, there isn't exactly a large pool of competent scientists to pick from for Pruitt's "side," so yeah, I guess I am saying they could be incompetent)
I gave you a link, I'm not going to name the thousands of companies that actively donate money to candidates. I don't' feel like "discussing" anything since you made such a hugely false statement.
>And lastly, political speech close to an election is possibly the most important form of free speech. Besides, we are constantly bombarded by endorsements from tons of major corporations anyway. If you are oppose the Citizens United ruling it necessarily means you feel comfortable with the government banning some speech. That means no more Paul Krugman op eds from the NYT during election season and no more HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher.
Advertisement speech is not afforded the same rights as free speech furthermore Free speech as it stood was the rights of individuals not corporations. It's a bastardization of those rights that has allowed for much of the politics of today.
>I know what the common retort is, we've all seen it here before. Its, "individuals have free speech, not corporations." To this I have two things to say. 1) Corporations are a protectorate and creation of the government. They are granted special limited liability status by our federal government, so if you have a problem with corporations per se, then you should rightfully have a problem with government shielding them. 2) Corporations, insofar as free speech is concerned, are nothing more than the collective voice of the people who own that corporation. If I own a video production corporation produces a movie that paints Mormons in a negative light, should the government censor my film because it may affect Mitt Romney's campaign?
The fears concerning the Citizens United Ruling are completely unfounded. In most states, the ruling changes nothing that hasn't already been going on.
See my previous comment about that. For further reading .. here
And here
Again you have a limited grasp on free speech rights. I assume you're unfamiliar with advertisement rights vs art since you brought up movies. You're also not familiar with free speech in regards to the a captive audience either I suppose?
regardless, The biggest issue everybody should have is foreign influence in elections, they're not allowed under our current system.
Since most of these companies have decided to become multinational. Their money is essentially tainted by foreign interests. Thus should negate any multinational companies from participating in our election process.
You may disagree which is fine but it's still the law, and I don't see how it's not being enforced.
Sounds like you need to learn about Rockefeller Medicine...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6J_7PvWoMw
Then read this book: https://www.amazon.com/Truth-About-Drug-Companies-Deceive/dp/0375760946
Thanks.
Someone who puts nation's interests ahead of everything else. Unlike that one channel which is apparently liked by the people here.