Best economic policy & development books according to redditors
We found 1,064 Reddit comments discussing the best economic policy & development books. We ranked the 297 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
I suggest reading A Generation of Sociopaths: How the Baby Boomers Betrayed America.
It goes over a lot of detail on this subject. How they took plurality power of the government in 1982, majority in 1992, and even now, still hold 2/3s of all government positions such as federal senate/house members, governors, and state house/senators (that number may have been lowered in the 2018 election, but they still hold the majority).
That we find it horrifying that the rich have too much control with the money in this country, yet, if you look at it, the Baby Boomer generation controls 70% of the disposable income & wealth in this country.
They're a generation which changed laws to help the young when they were young at the expense of their parents. They changed the laws to help the middle aged when they were middle aged at the expense of their children and parents (e.g. wanting to get rid of the estate tax when their parents generation started dying, and no way to declare bankruptcy for student loans anymore). And now that they're old, laws are being changed to help the old at the expense of the young (not so surprisingly, a lot of state government problems are due to pension issues, which just so happen to grandfather their generation into the huge pension payouts causing all the issues).
I got about 25 minutes into the video; I'm not wasting more time. If you want to know serious data about the dangers of central planning of the monetary system, there are vastly better sources that talk in real, economics, and not lofty, sensationalist terms.
The International Role of the Dollar: Theory and Prospect by Paul krugman
Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell
The Creature from Jekyll Island by Griffin
Milton Friedman's Free to Choose videos
--------
My main objections in the first 25 minutes of this "documentary" are:
1) They're not correctly defining or using the terms currency or money and not identifying their economic role. Money is not the center of an economy, it is the lubrication that permits economics to happen. Economics is the analysis of how scarce resources that have alternative uses are allocated by people (by markets).
Money doesn't create those allocations, money enables those allocations.
Even in an economic system without money, there would still be allocations of scarce resources that have alternative uses by people; whether that is choosing to use your time to cut down a tree for your neighbor in exchange for beef or choosing to use your time to mow a lawn for your mother in exchange for a smile and a thank you; your time is a scarce resource and you're choosing how to allocate it with zero money being involved.
Money is any medium of exchange and is created as a store of one's labor.
You receive a dollar in exchange for X minutes of your labor. That piece of paper stores those X minutes of your labor and you can use it in exchange for something you value.
So anyway - this video does a shitty job identifying what money is at the outset... I don't think it'll get better.
2) The banking system, monetary policy, and politicians making a killing off of those systems has not been hidden from anyone. As they admit, almost in a very quick juxtaposition with their incorrect statement, the bankers, academics, and politicians are very open about their systems.
The problem is that people are just happy with their lives and are safer than they've ever been throughout history.
3) A complete misunderstanding of what "interest" is and what fractional reserve banking is.
Interest is the cost of lending money... it is the price tag on a product just like on the coat or iPod you buy. The baker isn't going to give you all his bread for free; why should a bank give you money for free?
Fractional reserve banking can be done responsibly. Much like the interest rate, it should be done at the rate set by free markets. A fractional reserve rate of 90% almost completely guarantees that when you withdraw, you will always be able to withdraw all of your money. In exchange, banks will give you vastly lower of an interest rate than at a 10% fractional reserve rate because it is higher risk and lower reward for the bank.
Anyway - like so many other documentaries out there about extremely complex matters, this one is just trying to sell a product like every other good capitalist out there. They need to catch your attention and get you to talk about it to others to make money - so of course they're going to play to the 8th grade education market.
There's a book called A Generation of Sociopaths that lays out a well supported argument that Baby Boomers carry that attitude more than other generations. Here's a crappy cell phone picture of one of the appendix charts that lists the favorable treatment Boomers have gotten from congress to the detriment of everyone else.
Our generation (I'm an early born millennial) has the environmental and fiscal mess the Boomers heaped on us to clean up, but we can and will do better.
It's astounding that so much has happened since January 20th, which was less than five months ago.
But you can trace the loss of hegemony back through the last several decades:
2014, 2016, etc.)
It's partly a human thing, but I think it's gotten especially bad with the Boomers.
If you haven't already, I highly suggest you check out A Generation of Sociopaths: How the Baby Boomers Betrayed America
Try to get past the title, since the author tries quite hard to build an objective, data-driven case for how Baby Boomers have stood out in a fairly bad way compared to both their parents and children.
It's kind of funny to see conservatives think neoliberalism is some kind of left wing phenomenon.
Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher were two of the greatest proponents of Neoliberalism - free movement of capital, people, goods, and services across borders. Everyone should read A Brief History of Neoliberalism by David Harvey.
Not sure if it's a cultural thing between the US and the UK or just society evolving now we have social media and stuff but I recently reread How to win friends and influence people and though it was massively overrated. Same goes for The 7 habbits of highly effective people.
Anyway, heres my list of books and why:-
Bounce
Excellent book in my opinion. Based on variations of the 10,000-hour rule with plenty of examples. Also touches on how the unknown habits and circumstance of someone can lead to outstanding abilities.
Zero To One
The first book that I couldn't put down until I completed it. Picked a fair few things up from it as well as a bunch of things I hope to move forward within the future with startups.
The 33 Strategies of War
Not a business book but definitely my style if you take the examples and strategies and turn them into business. This is the second book I have not been able to put down once picking it up.
The E-Myth Revisited
Although I had a decent understanding of how to allocate duties to people depending on their job role this helped me better understand it as well as the importance of doing it.
ReWork
Another book I loved, just introduced me to a bunch of new concepts with a fair few I hope to use in the future.
Black Box Thinking
Coming from and engineering background I was already used to being ok with my failures provided I was learning from them but this book is based around how different industries treat failure and how it is important to accept it and grow from it.
Millionaire Fastlane
I feel this is an excellent book for reality checks and getting people into a better mindset of what to expect and the amount of work required. It also explains a few common misconceptions of the get rich slow style methods where you may end up rich but you will be 60 years old or more.
I update this post with all of the books I have read with a rating but here are my top picks.
The Creature at Jekyll Island does a good job at revealing the Fed's shady inception.
It's quite upsetting, to be frank.
Here's a quick review:
>At first glance The Creature from Jekyll Island is a huge book. While this may be daunting to some, once the book is actually started, it flows smoothly and reads quickly. There are so many fascinating tidbits of information here that the reader won't even be concerned about the size of the book. The title refers to the formation of the Federal Reserve System, which occurred at a secret meeting at Jekyll Island, Georgia in 1910. It was at this meeting, as Griffin relates, that the "Money Trust", composed of the richest and most powerful bankers in the world, along with a U.S. Senator, wrote the proposal to launch the Federal Reserve System (which Griffin calls a banking cartel) to control the financial system so that the bankers will always come out on top. The biggest problem in modern banking, according to Griffin, is and has always been the creation of fiat money. Fiat money is money that is "declared" money by the government. It is not backed by anything but promises and deceit. All societies were sound financially when they used gold or silver to back their currency. When the bankers finally get their way and install fiat money, the result is inflation and boom and bust cycles. Griffin gives numerous examples of this, such as repeated failures by American colonies and European states in using fiat money. The purpose of fiat money is so that the government can spend more then they take in through taxes. Without writing reams on this book, it is sufficient to say that this is a must read for anyone who is interested in learning how the money system operates. Griffin gives comprehensive accounts of how the Fed creates money, and how this affects everyday life. I would have to say these sections are better than Murray Rothbard's book, The Case Against the Fed, because Griffin gives himself more room for explanation. Griffin does believe in the conspiratorial view of history, and he believes that the bankers are working in concert with such groups as the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission to bring about a socialist-world system in which an elite composed of intellectuals and bankers will rule over the entire planet. Griffin even spends a chapter outlining how this system could come about, and the consequent results of this socialist system. These chapters are a bit unsettling, but even if you aren't interested in this worldview, you can still learn much about the economy from this book. Recommended --By Jeffrey Leach on July 29, 2001
I'm pretty sure I'm not alone when I say this but Andrew Yang's message clicked with me almost immediately. It's no coincidence when a politician posts 100+ policies and a majority of them matches with your view.
I remember very early on Andrews bid for presidency was front page of /r/futurology. I think it is very important to maintain the effort to be inclusive and convert new voters. But I'm sure there are still a huge number of people that didn't need any convincing but just haven't heard of Andrew's campaign.
One thing that really struck me when hearing Andrew speak on Freakonomics was that this guy actually respects the academia aspect of Economics. Instead of the average politician that panders by regurgitating highschool level macroecon concepts, this guy seemed to actually understand what he's talking about. So I bought his book:
https://www.amazon.com/War-Normal-People-Disappearing-Universal/dp/0316414247
And that was really what put me on 100% for Yang. If you guys haven't read this already, I highly recommend it. If Andrew was writing stuff like this when I was in school, it would've influenced all my research.
The strategy of pushing tiny snippets of Yang to the mainstream like his interviews or listing his top 10 views is great. But Yang is more than that. He has actual substance that most other candidates lack. So for the "research" phase of this post, one of the first steps should be to read this book!
I'm not sure how we can get this book into more hands? Are there political book clubs? Can we get this on more must read lists?
Congress was at least honest they bailed out the banks. Germans funneled their bailout money through Greece, wrecking their economy on the way. I recommend this book if you wish to understand better how Germans and French fucked over Greece to bail out their banks
A Generation of Sociopaths: How the Baby Boomers Betrayed America is a good read on this.
Check out her book on climate change if you never want to fucking sleep again.
"A Generation of Sociopaths: How the Baby Boomers Betrayed America" A relevant, well-written and researched book that was released in March.
edit: release date
I seriously don't have much hope that will happen. After reading Andrew Yang's War on Normal people. I believe that automation and it's cascading effects will devastate the workforce in America, in turn causing massive social upheaval. That is not taking into account problems beyond automation. Ultimately a systemic collapse will likely happen in my opinion at some point in the future.
>These income-generating assets are what economists call capital. And because capital is heavily concentrated among the rich, the U.S. government taxed earnings derived from capital at a higher rate than earnings made through labor for the entirety of the 20th century.
>But that’s no longer the case, according to economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman of the University of California at Berkeley. In their new book, “The Triumph of Injustice,” they present data showing that in 2018, labor income was taxed at a higher rate than capital income for the first time in modern U.S. history.
>The proximate cause of the shift was the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), which dramatically slashed taxes on corporate profits and on estates — both forms of capital income — according to their analysis. But Saez and Zucman also note that the trend has been decades in the making, driven in large part by the same forces that have pushed billionaires’ tax rates below those of the working class.
>“From the 1940s to the 1980s, the average tax rate on capital exceeded 40%, while labor paid less than 25%," they write. “Since its peak of the 1950s, however, the average capital tax rate has been cut by twenty percentage points. At the same time, labor taxation has risen more than ten points, driven by the upsurge in payroll taxes.”
>For the latter part of the 20th century, many economists — particularly those who worked closely with lawmakers to craft public policy — tended to make ideologically conservative, market-oriented assumptions about how the world does and should work. In recent years, however, more economists like Saez and Zucman have started to question those assumptions.
>One of the orthodoxies Saez and Zucman challenge is the idea that the optimal tax rate on capital should be as low as possible — zero, or even less. Proponents of this idea argue that keeping capital taxes low gives businesses more money to spend, which allows them to hire more workers and pay them better wages, benefiting everyone in the economy.
>This thinking underpins much of the erosion of the capital tax rate that Saez and Zucman observe. It was the driving force behind the dramatic reduction of the corporate tax rate ushered in by President Trump’s 2017 tax cut.
>Under this line of thinking, you’d expect savings and investment to decline during periods of high capital taxation, and to rise when such taxes are low. But Saez and Zucman didn’t find any evidence of this pattern in the data: “Since 1913,” they write, “the saving and investment rates have fluctuated around 10% of national income despite enormous variation in capital taxation.”
>A more recent piece of evidence also bolsters their conclusion: Proponents of the corporate rate cut in the TCJA promised it would unleash new business investment. But the data so far shows “little reason to believe the TCJA substantially boosted investment to date,” as economist Jason Furman recently summarized for the American Enterprise Institute.
>Saez and Zucman contend that, rather than boost investment in American workers, falling tax rates on capital simply have served to fatten the wallets of corporations and their shareholders. “Less capital taxation means that the wealthy — who derive most of their income from capital — can mechanically accumulate more. This feeds a snowball effect: wealth generates income, income that is easily saved at a high rate when capital taxes are low; this saving adds to the existing stock of wealth, which in turn generates more income, and so on.”
A Generation of Sociopaths: How Baby Boomers Betrayed America
Impossible to name one. Books only had significance for me when they addressed a particular lifecycle that the business was in.
EDIT: Lots of requests for more books as they relate to 'business lifecycle'. Also, linked all of these on Amazon. Here ya go:
R1:
Today I bring you this WaPo Op-Ed on how the Carrier deal will return business norms back to ones that favor labor and community because firms will fear Trump’s wrath. Here the author offers a distorted view of America’s past, a dysfunctional view of how contracts and norms interact, and a wayward portrayal of economists as unable to fathom agents and systems which do not follow strict mathematical functional forms.
>There was a time in America when there was an unwritten pact in the business world — workers were loyal to their companies and successful companies returned that loyalty by sharing some of their profits with their workers in the form of higher wages, job security and support for the local community.
The author wistfully describes a past that did not exist when businesses and workers in long term marriages because it was what was right and good for the community.
At its heart this period existed because unionization (or more accurately worker bargaining power) made it possible. Certainly on the point of loyalty, unionization decline is the largest contributor to declining tenure (see Bidwell. As unionization fell, this loyalty also disappeared.
However, unionization's decline can largely be explained by the rule of law (right-to-work laws, unionization process etc.) though governing and business norms played a role (to be discussed).
With bargaining power largely reduce, workers had additional difficulty (for better or worse) attempting to hold their jobs in the face of international pressures and especially technological change as countless economist (Autor just to name check one) have documented.
>modern day economists tend to ignore such shifts in social norms because they can’t quantify them in the same way they can quantify trade flows or technological innovation or changes in educational attainment. They assume that social norms change in response to economic fundamentals rather than the other way around.
This is the sort of things that can ruin my work day as a nominally institutionalist style economist. To begin, several Nobel prize winning economists have done significant work studying norms formation and effects such as North, Ostrom, Akerlof, Akerlof again!.
Beyond this, others have built off these works (Ostrom was focusing on the importance of norms, but not specifically addressing the problem) to try to model norm development in game theory example.
In fact, in Samuel Bowles’ Microeconomics, discusses in detail the way contracts influence the norms and institutions of exchange (Chapter 8, p. 265). The long and short of Bowles’ discussion is that norms are well understood, evolutionary, and in the absence of complete contracting have significant influence on the results of exchange.
Norms matter greatly to economists in the event that contracting is incomplete. One would hope, it seems in vain, that contracting between the federal government and American firms is more complete than most contractual situations.
>the new norm is not longer acceptable, and [Trump] intends to do whatever he can to shame and punish companies that abandon their workers.
>He may even have to make an example of a runaway company by sending in the tax auditors or the OSHA inspectors or cancelling a big government contract.
Many economists see the potential change of market norms that will result from government contracts suddenly being less than 100% enforceable as a problem. Coming back to Bowles, he notes that said norms “are sustained by the structure of the market and other social interactions in which traders routinely engage.” If having government contracts and enforcement become less predictable is to be the new norm of enforcement, surely the market response will be to ask government from some premia in contracting to account for uncertainty. New firms may avoid starting their business under the supervision of this government altogether.
Tyler Cowen points out that the new norms that would arise likely involve more complex contractual agreements to skirt restrictions, degradation of U.S. tech advancement, a ramping of favoritism to levels not seen since the Harding administration, potential de facto capital controls, or at best a politicization of the economy with no real rule of law effects.
>Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt understood that. So did Ronald Reagan when he fired thousands of striking air traffic controllers and set back the union movement for several decades.
Perhaps most crucially, the author here references a variety of Presidents who enforced their support (or lack therefore) for labor, but did so through the rule of law via various anti-trust acts, the championing and enactment of a large set of labor relations legislation, and the decision to enforce laws enshrined in code 15 years prior that had been previously ignored. As opposed to potentially undermining the rule of law as Trump does by leveraging government contracts and regulation.
A bonus on this point is that—though Reagan’s actions may have signaled willingness from government to support changing business norms by supporting them through rule of law—unionization’s decline had already begun years prior to the changes in business norms Reagan’s ruling supposedly incited.
The study of economics is not one that lacks an understanding of how norms influence market interactions. Though I am not as well versed in studies accounting for changes in norms mathematically, I’d wager someone here could produce good examples of studies that do just this through the use of good instrumental variables.
The Carrier deal will likely change norms in business actions, but those are likely to be related to businesses’ certainty in contracting with government during the Trump presidency. Just as is seen in Trump’s cabinet, the only people left to provide work will be those certain they can take advantage of information asymmetry to get a better deal from U.S. governments. Any mass effort to enforce job retention on a scale much more massive than the Carrier deal will be enacted via law and will be just as harmful to business culture as Cowen and other economist predict, but it will be the changes to contractual enforcement that drive these results and not revolution in norms spurred on by backroom dealing.
Also, good book on subject:
A Generation of Sociopaths: How the Baby Boomers Betrayed America
>In A Generation of Sociopaths, Gibney examines the disastrous policies of the most powerful generation in modern history, showing how the Boomers ruthlessly enriched themselves at the expense of future generations.
>Acting without empathy, prudence, or respect for facts--acting, in other words, as sociopaths--the Boomers turned American dynamism into stagnation, inequality, and bipartisan fiasco. The Boomers have set a time bomb for the 2030s, when damage to Social Security, public finances, and the environment will become catastrophic and possibly irreversible--and when, not coincidentally, Boomers will be dying off.
Not a book, but great resource to vet out a business plan: Lean Canvas
Books:
Lean Startup for sure, as it relates to small, lifestyle or scalable business. Zero to One is a phenomenal book by one of the Paypal Founders, but is geared a bit to tech startups. E-Myth if you are starting more of a small business, as opposed to tech startup.
"You only ever experience two emotions: euphoria and terror. And I find that lack of sleep enhances them both.”
― Ben Horowitz
Excited for you venturing into your own business! Kick ass!
The scam of the federal reserve system is explained most clearly in the book from G Edward Griffin The Creature from Jekyll Island. This is an amazing book: if you don't believe me, look at the rating on amazon with 1400+ reviews.
Yes, Would you prefer an hour long lecture, a book recommendation or an article by the IMF?
This book explains the history and thinking super concisely. But broadly, GOP needed a voter base that wouldn't question power of the state being handed over to private industry -- thus they won over the devoutly religious who wouldn't question anything beyond simple morality. Then beginning with Carter, and going full steam with Reagan, to escape 70's stagflation (rising inflation causing a stagnant economy) America rejected the economic theories of the preceding 40 years under Keynes and embraced slow but steady deregulation of all markets and public services, or at least everything they could, under the guise of "small government" and an ideal of the individual. Around the time of Clinton's presidency, Democrats could do nothing but sustain the cycle as Reagan had butchered much of what was previously under government ownership -- to turn the tide back would be far too costly and lose the election, as it would be a total U-turn of the country.
I think that more so has to do with the origin of the criticism--UMass is a heterodox school, Harvard is one of the premier economics schools in the world by prestige (if you can trust rankings, #2, but that's bubba meisa).
Additionally, the finding in the R&R paper was extremely politically convenient at a time when some, including well respected thinkers like Stiglitz, Krugman, Akerloff, Schiller, Summers, were calling for a return to a more a fiscal-based anti-crisis policy.
Had their paper not come out, some other talking head would have been found to justify the austerity claim (not that the R&R paper even really does justify austerity--the issue is long term average debt, balanced over the business cycle, not its static measurement at any given moment), which occurs regularly.
Also, the more intense your prestige, the less likely you are to publicly fess up. You see this in other disciplines. Chomsky, who, by any metric, is an incredibly intelligent man, who changes the conclusions of his theories regularly, will, nonetheless, never own up to their being issues in generativism generally & the minimalist program, specifically.
It really may be a Harvard & MIT disease. Steven Pinker was savaged by Taleb's statistical analysis, not to mention substantial rebuttals from anthropology, sociology, poli sci & economics which disputed his claims (notably everyone from Douglas P Fry to James Scott to Jared Diamond to John Gray disputes it, despite their lack of agreement on anything else)--but he only ever doubles down. Ditto for Pinker & other talking heads on the issues of adaptationism in evolution and genocentrism & other issues in biology generally. Larry Summers (who, academically within econ actually has some integrity) famously gave a talk about differences between men & women's career outcomes--he cited someone for his claim who was literally in the audience at the talk and during the Q&A said he mis-interpreted the data. He recast himself as a martyr for free speech later, even as this was impertinent to the subject at hand.
I am reading through this
https://www.amazon.com/Generation-Sociopaths-Boomers-Betrayed-America/dp/0316395781
Right now, and it would disagree fully. There a number of trends associated with the boomers and how they lived their lives, things such as drug use, premartial sex, teenage pregancy, etc that spike up with the boomer gen when compared to generation before and after. Is it really hard to say that they are a bloc with coherent political positions when as soon as they came into power they elected the first true neoliberal president, Reagan, and haven't looked back for the last 40 years?
Noam Chomsky is the author of Profit Over People: Neoliberalism & Global Order, What Uncle Sam Really Wants, and countless others.
Naomi Wolf is the author of The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot, Give Me Liberty: A Handbook for American Revolutionaries, and others.
Chris Hedges is the author of "Someone You Love: Coming to a Gulag Near You", The World As It Is: Dispatches on the Myth of Human Progress, Death of the Liberal Class, and others
Daniel Ellsberg @ http://www.ellsberg.net/articles
Cornel West @ http://www.cornelwest.com/
Birgitta Jónsdóttir's website & twitter
Alexa O'Brien's website & twitter
Kai Wargalla's twitter account.
Tangerine Bolen @ RevolutionTruth; website & twitter
>how this world is actually running
When you get on THAT level, almost every bit of public information is misdirection or propaganda. Powertalk. Nearly everything you learned about US and world history or economics is to keep you patriotic and complacent. It's all about power and control.
Where might one start, if interested in that red pill? Positivemoney is a start. Austrian economics is another. A couple of books are good. All Wars Are Bankers Wars is compelling.
The list goes on and on, long enough to make you feel like a conspiracy nutjob. Which is why it works so well.
If you liked this video check out the book The Creature from Jekyll Island by G. Edward Griffon
https://www.amazon.com/Creature-Jekyll-Island-Federal-Reserve/dp/091298645X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1499143974&sr=8-1&keywords=the+creature+from+jekyll+island
On the economic side, there's a fair amount to choose from:
There's more I could think of, but this should be a good start.
Edited for format.
I am not super into birthday gifts and had said he didn't have to get me anything but he insisted he was going to for more than a month after my actual birthday. Eventually he just handed me a hockey stick that I was already permanently borrowing for intermural games and a jersey for his intermural team (we were in different leagues) that he had replaced when it ripped.
Turns out he had been procrastinating out of anxiety since I had made fun of the last birthday gift he had given me. At the time I thought it was good-natured teasing but in the end it turned out I'm just kind of a shitty person.
The US went off the Gold Standard with Nixon. Our currency is FIAT Currency, backed by nothing but our promise to pay. Not much when compared to a Gold Backed currency. Usually Fiat Currencies flame out fast, but it didn't this time, and that is because of the deals made with the Middle East that OIL can ONLY be PURCHASED with either U.S. Dollars currency or the British Pound. (Enter the PetroDollar) So you want OIL for your country? Guess, what? You have to exchange your currency into U.S. Dollars. This creates an artificial demand for our flimsy fiat currency, and this demand staved off its CRASH to date. There is always a demand for OIL, so there is always a demand for the U.S. dollar. Consequently the US Dollar has always been a traditional stable safe haven currency. (The last thing anyone wants, is, to have all their paper assets in in a currency that has crashed and is worthless.)
Enter former CIA asset gone rogue Saddam Hussein, threatening to sell his OIL with other currencies. Enter "Shock and Awe" invasion of Iraq......supposedly to find weapons of mass destruction, but they never found any.....oh yes, and 911 which Iraq had nothing to do with. IT WAS CURRENCY THREAT. This was the REAL reason for that invasion. invasion complete and Iraq is back to only accepting U.S. currency for their oil.
Daffy Qaddafi (Lybia) was going to do the same thing.....and he is GONE now! Remember Hellary's joke "we came, we saw ....and he's gone! Ha, Ha."
Message to the world??? You don't mess with the stability of the U.S. Dollar.
Enter China, now introducing the first GOLD Backed Currency. Now what? Will people flood to it and cause the U.S. fiat currency to crash??
Its a high risk move by China, who now has their own Million man army and subs, and satellites, and ships, etc.
The PetroDollar:
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/petrodollars.asp
The Federal Reserve The Engine of POWER:
http://www.khouse.org/articles/1995/63/
The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve
https://www.amazon.com/Creature-Jekyll-Island-Federal-Reserve/dp/091298645X
Youtube: The Creature From Jekyll Island (by G. Edward Griffin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lu_VqX6J93k
Whoever hasn't read The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve - I can't recommend it enough.
Off the top of my head, in no particular order:
The Undercover Economist: Easily the best of those "Economics in everyday life - books"
The Blank Slate: Steven Pinker on the nature/nurture debate. This really opened my eyes on questions like "Why are the same people who fight against abortion for the death penalty", for example.
Complications: This and his second book, Better, gave me an incredible insight into medicine.
Why we get sick: Very good explanation of the defence mechanisms our bodies have and why treating symptoms can be a very bad idea.
How to read a book: An absolute classic. Turns out I've been doing it wrong all those years.
The Art of Strategy: Game Theory, applied to everyday situations. Always treats a topic like Nash equilibrium, Brinkmanship etc. theoretically and then goes into many examples.
A Random Walk Down Wall-Street: Made me see the stock market completely differently.
The Myth of the Rational Voter: The shortcomings of democracy.
The White Man's Burden: Fantastic account of the problems faced by the third world today, and why it is so hard to change them.
https://www.amazon.com/Problem-Political-Authority-Examination-Coerce/dp/1137281650
https://www.amazon.com/Private-Governance-Creating-Economic-Social-ebook/dp/B00XCTPVAU/
https://www.amazon.com/State-Collected-Papers-Anthony-Jasay/dp/0865971714
https://www.amazon.com/Against-Politics-Government-Routledge-Political/dp/0415513650/
https://www.amazon.com/Machinery-Freedom-Guide-Radical-Capitalism/dp/1507785607
https://www.amazon.com/Chaos-Theory-Essays-Market-Anarchy/dp/1479258377
https://www.amazon.com/Legal-Systems-Very-Different-Ours/dp/1793386722
https://www.amazon.com/Myth-Rational-Voter-Democracies-Policies/dp/0691138737
For the longer version of this article I really recommend Klein's book This Changes Everything. Even if you think you might reflexively dislike Klein's work because of the anti-capitalist stances she has taken on many issues, it's extremely well-written, and I found it well-researched and thought-provoking too. At the very least, if you think of yourself as an intellectual, open to good ideas and not rooted in any particular ideologies, and especially if you understand that free markets aren't perfect, you ought to consider her thoughts on the matter.
There is a book on that generation showing how they used their voting power to benefit their own interest by screwing future generations. A Generation of Sociopaths: How the Baby Boomers Betrayed America
If you want to read exactly how untrue that is here's a great book to start: https://www.amazon.com/Generation-Sociopaths-Boomers-Betrayed-America/dp/0316395781
God their constant attempts to redefine "neoliberal" are so fucking annoying. Also the "post-ideological" posturing. How do they not realize how transparent this is?
In a fair society, this book would be in their sidebar.
Oh it absolutely does, I just gave the iPhone example for it's relevance.
There's a book I want to read, The Entrepreneurial State that seems to go through this industry by industry. Basically, private corporations only invest once the government/public have taken the large initial risk.
I STRONGLY recommend reading his book, AI Superpowers: China, Silicon Valley, and the New World Order. https://www.amazon.com/AI-Superpowers-China-Silicon-Valley/dp/132854639X
​
Also, I think that Kai-fu Lee would make an excellent US Ambassador to China under President Yang
If you liked The Lean Startup, Zero to One by Peter Thiel is also a very good read
Here is the source, it's WaPo but just open it in a private window to get around the quota.
Some details from the article:
>Americans in the bottom 90 percent derive 85 percent of their income from labor, data shows, while those in the top 1 percent get more than half their income from capital.
>
>...
>
>In their new book, “The Triumph of Injustice,” Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman of the University of California at Berkeley present data showing that in 2018, labor income was taxed at a higher rate than capital income for the first time in modern U.S. history.
>
>...
>
>The proximate cause of the shift was the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), which dramatically slashed taxes on corporate profits and on estates — both forms of capital income — according to their analysis. But Saez and Zucman also note that the trend has been decades in the making, driven in large part by the same forces that have pushed billionaires’ tax rates below those of the working class.
Worth noting:
>Saez and Zucman’s findings are controversial in some quarters of the economics field because they upend a number of long-held orthodoxies about the distribution of income and spending in the United States. The differences largely amount to decisions about how to assign various categories of income, wealth and taxation to different segments of the population: Are taxes on corporate profits paid by shareholders, or do they get passed on to workers? Is the earned-income tax credit a reduction in taxes or a transfer of income?
I feel like there's a lot of spin here.
>By Dr. Tooze's estimate, governments ended up committing more than US$7-trillion to save banks. Most of these state investments would eventually turn a profit for taxpayers.
>
>“Did the all-out focus on the financial system really save the interests of the real economy? Was the inability to borrow causing a failure of investment? Or were the collapsed housing market and cash-strapped households curtailing economic activity?”
How about a lack of government regulation that essentially let's the private banking sector run amok?
For anyone who is interested, Mark Blyth talks about the repeated failings of the private sector resulting in public sector blame in his book: Austerity: The History of a Dangerous Idea
A Generation of Sociopaths: How the Baby Boomers Betrayed America:
> In A Generation of Sociopaths, Gibney examines the disastrous policies of the most powerful generation in modern history, showing how the Boomers ruthlessly enriched themselves at the expense of future generations.
>
> Acting without empathy, prudence, or respect for facts--acting, in other words, as sociopaths--the Boomers turned American dynamism into stagnation, inequality, and bipartisan fiasco. The Boomers have set a time bomb for the 2030s, when damage to Social Security, public finances, and the environment will become catastrophic and possibly irreversible--and when, not coincidentally, Boomers will be dying off.
>
> Gibney argues that younger generations have a fleeting window to hold the Boomers accountable and begin restoring America.
https://www.amazon.com/Generation-Sociopaths-Boomers-Betrayed-America/dp/0316395781
A Generation of Sociopaths: How the Baby Boomers Betrayed America
> Gibney shows how America was hijacked by a generation whose reckless self-indulgence degraded the foundations of American prosperity. Acting without empathy, prudence, or respect for facts-- acting, in other words, as sociopaths-- they turned American dynamism into stagnation, inequality, and bipartisan fiasco. ...
Pour ceux qui veulent en savoir plus sur les dangers de l'austérité pure, je recommande le livre de l'économiste politique Écossait Mark Blyth: Austerity, the history of a dangerous idea
Aussi, il existe des centaines de vidéos Youtube sur Mark Blyth.
Petite clarification sur ce que j'ai dit:
Ce que le Gouvernement Québécois (Libéral) a fait de bien c'est qu'il a économisé durant une période de richesse économique afin d'avoir un "coussin" pour la prochaine crise qui pourrait avoir lieu... Il faut faire de l'austérité (ou de la rigueur budgétaire) quand les choses vont bien afin d'avoir de l'argent à dépenser quand les choses vont mal pour supporter l'économie.
Bon point pour le Gouvernement Couillard et aussi bon point pour le Gouvernement de la CAQ qui n'a pas tout dépensé dans son premier budget.
I'm just going to leave this book recommendation here
​
A Generation of Sociopaths
​
Edit: stupid "new" reddit can't deal with it's own link formatting
What John is essentially talking about here is Neoliberalism. If anyone is interested in learning more, David Harvey has a fantastic introductory book called A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Our current economic develop trajectory began in the 1970s and is increasingly creating these enticing investment opportunities for corporations at the expense of the masses. Whether you're liberal, conservative, republication etc., your government has been economically neoliberal for the past 45 years.
You could get him a nice book as a make-up gift, this will cheer him up no doubt:
"A Generation of Sociopaths: How the Baby Boomers Betrayed America"
https://www.amazon.com/Generation-Sociopaths-Boomers-Betrayed-America/dp/0316395781
"In A Generation of Sociopaths, Gibney examines the disastrous policies of the most powerful generation in modern history, showing how the Boomers ruthlessly enriched themselves at the expense of future generations."
International Yang Gang can phone bank or text bank for the campaign. It's the most impactful way to help. This video should help, if you want to phone bank (there might bea more updated video out there though): https://youtu.be/iohN7qG4ylg
You could donate to Steve Dannely's patreon. Steve does unofficial advertising for Yang and is planning to mail out 5,000 cards to older voters in New Hampshire. I got confirmation from him that international people can donate to him. Here's a link to his patreon: https://www.patreon.com/stevedannely
You can also buy "The War on Normal People." I think Yang is using the profits from this book to help fund the campaign. Here's a link to it on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/War-Normal-People-Disappearing-Universal/dp/0316414247
Should read the book "Against Intellectual Monopoly". Very worthy read:
http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/against.htm
http://www.amazon.com/Against-Intellectual-Monopoly-Michele-Boldrin/dp/0521879280/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254079179&sr=8-1
My environmental politics course is discussing Naomi Klein and I'm dying inside.
There is an economist and author I like called Mariana Mazzucato and she responds by pointing out that Silicon valley's tech giants would not exist if the government had not invested in technologies like the internet. She also makes a case that the government should extract patent royalties from these tech firms which could be used to fund research.
I also think that you can point to the runaway success stories of Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and China which developed at a double digit growth rates for decades using "leftist" interpretations of Capitalism.
Thinking Fast and Slow
Shiller and Akerloft have a book on behavioral macro that I haven't read but have heard mentioned.
>>modern day economists tend to ignore such shifts in social norms because they can’t quantify them in the same way they can quantify trade flows or technological innovation or changes in educational attainment.
>They assume that social norms change in response to economic fundamentals rather than the other way around.
This is the sort of things that can ruin my work day as a nominally institutionalist style economist. To begin, several Nobel prize winning economists have done significant work studying norms formation and effects such as North, Ostrom, Akerlof, Akerlof again!.
I think your formatting failed there, it appears like one quote, whereas I think the seconds part is supposed to be your response. Pretty confusing to read.
> Decline in SolarCity installations
> TSLA is abandoning solar energy!
Solar is one of the most essential components of their renewable plan (solar + storage = renewable grid) and they aren't going to abandon that because SolarCity's contracts came to a halt, unsurprisingly after TSLA tightened every facet of their spending belt due to this horse-fuckery quarterly analysis.
SolarCity was a stop-gap to penetrate the market with solar before a viable mass-scale solar option came to play (the roof, which is on the backburner while TSLA is scrutinized every Q for automotive deliveries).
lol, come on man. If you can, read a VERY BASIC BOOK on tech investing, and reevaluate how you're perceiving this entire market sector. Try thinking 5Y, 10Y ahead, and not 1 or 2 Quarters ahead.
Let's make a list of countries that do not (entirely) or considered not trading in the petrodollar
Russia (bad guys!)
China (bad guys!)
Iran (bad guys!!!!!)
Venezuela (RIP)
Libya (RIP)
Iraq (RIP)
The US Dollar hegemony is real make no mistake. 9/11 was merely an excuse to take military action and secure petroleum resources. We have none other than Dick Nixon to thank for this foreign policy. Furthered by the scum of the Earth Cheney the fucking dredge. despicable.
https://www.amazon.com/Petrodollar-Warfare-Iraq-Future-Dollar/dp/0865715149&ved=2ahUKEwjZvv_Au4nkAhWYq54KHSbVCpUQFjAMegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw000xKD5u-E9cheksSxasX0
It was in response to the Aldrich plan which preceded the Federal Reserve Act and failed. It was not the "current situation" at the time the cartoon was made. The cartoon was warning what would happen if the Aldrich plan passed.
The story of how the unpopular plan was essentially enacted as the Federal Reserve that we have today is an interesting story full of clandestine meetings. If you want to read about it here's the book.
I bet most Americans do not know the Federal Reserve is a private banking cartel (Its as "Federal" as Fedex) and your personal income tax was implemented around the same time in 1913... Must be a coincidence right?
This book should be mandatory reading in high school. Take the red pill... https://www.amazon.com/Creature-Jekyll-Island-Federal-Reserve/dp/091298645X
Hijacking this comment: Every single person in this sub needs to read A Brief History of Neoliberalism by David Harvey
https://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Neoliberalism-David-Harvey/dp/0199283273
It's short and jam packed with great info.
I don't have to...just read this.
https://www.amazon.com/Generation-Sociopaths-Boomers-Betrayed-America/dp/0316395781
In short: they inherited cheap college, relatively new infrastructure, and low government debt to GDP ratio.
They left us underfunded college that requires massive debt to go to, $3.2Trillion gap in infrastructure, and highest peacetime debt to GDP ratio in American history.
Prove me wrong on that! No matter how you slice and dice it, the generations after the boomers have to pay for all this. America can't do things anymore because they've locked up so much of our future spending before my generation even had a chance to vote
Sociopathic even..
A Generation of Sociopaths: How the Baby Boomers Betrayed America
Audiobook Link:
https://youtu.be/MC25cPvp4zg
Amazon Link (non-affiliate):
https://www.amazon.com/War-Normal-People-Disappearing-Universal/dp/0316414247
In the 70's the difference between an average CEO's salary and the salary of his employees was around 30:1, these days its more like 350:1 because decades of deregulation and privatization has moved billions of dollars of public wealth into private hands. Do some reading on distribution of wealth and where some of big guys actually made their money.
Only that the left out a few things! Like the ever-important establishment of the Federal Reserve in 1913 through a secret conspiracy you can find out in The creature from Jekyll Island and a ton of other instances of world Jewry collaborating against the world. However, it's a pretty great summation.
Are you kidding me? In 2016?
No, but seriously. He has written multiple books worth reading, does interviews on a weekly basis worth watching
He speaks and writes endlessly about how globalism is a problem. If you've been following him as long as I have, you can even see how he evolves. 5-10 years ago, Thiel seemed to loosely accept globalism and recognizes that is does provide some benefit to the poorer billions of people on the planet. But listen to him speak about stagnation in 2016 and why globalism is to blame and how to fix it. So enlightening. If this gay conservative Christian billionaire was a double agent, he'd have to work overtime for years to undo the damage already done to Globalism.
I guess he can always say "people I know in Silicone Valley." But that would sound like Trump's exaggeration/lying. Besides, what if those "people" are actually his friends. I will be very surprised if he and Kai-Fu Lee are not friends. Silicone Valley is littered with people with Asian persuasion, be it East or South. If he kept his mouth shut about his relationships there, then you can imagine some people accusing him of trying to cover up his "techbro" cred. Anyway, transparency is the best policy.
Edit: BTW, Yang is not a techbro. Not sure why people think he is.
lol it's not a stealth libertarian idea. The meme I see of "Yang doesn't care about class imbalance" is kind of ridiculous.
The dude wrote a book about class imbalance. https://www.amazon.com/War-Normal-People-Disappearing-Universal/dp/0316414247
The person who convinced him to run for president was Andy Stern, the leader of one of the largest unions in the world, and author of Raising the Floor.
The term neoliberalism is usually heard in the pejorative sense, often coming from Latin American leaders such as Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales. The term refers to an international economic policy that has been predominant in policy-making circles and university economics departments since the 1970's. The four faces on the cover of this book (Reagan, Deng, Pinochet, and Thatcher) are considered by David Harvey the primemovers of this economic philosophy. Reagnomics, Thatcherism, Deng's capitalism with Chinese characteristics, and Pinochet's free market policies marked the beginning of new era of global capitalism.
Neoliberlism as a philosophy holds that free markets, free trade, and the free flow of capital is the most efficient way to produce the greatest social, political, and economic good. It argues for reduced taxation, reduced regulation, and minimal government involvement in the economy. This includes the privitization of health and retirement benefits, the dismantling of trade unions, and the general opening up of the economy to foreign competition. Supporters of neoliberlism present this as an ideal system. Detractors, such as Harvey, see it as a power grab by economic elites and a race to the bottom for the rest.
http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Neoliberalism-David-Harvey/dp/0199283273
Edited to account for comments
The Guardian had this great overview of the leftist criticism of neoliberalism a few months ago.
If you want something a little longer but also very good, look at David Harvey's A Brief History of Neoliberalism. As /u/ThickTurtle rightly points out, Harvey is a Marxist and that's the approach of the book here. Even if you disagree with the methods, the bibliography is a valuable resource.
/u/leehyori suggested that the article is not balanced. That criticism is correct. It is absolutely a criticism of neoliberalism. However, the term "neoliberalism" is used almost exclusively as a term of opprobrium. Advocates of a radically free-market tend to use other terms for their beliefs. I take OP's use of the term "neoliberal" to mean s/he is looking for these criticisms, and if so, the sources listed are a good starting place. One other book that is worth considering is Daniel Jones's Masters of the Universe. It is more properly a history, but it's a history that goes from the early 20th Century roots of neoliberalism through its economic conceptualization in figures like Freedman to its practice in Reagan and Thatcher. The book argues the three stages are not all cut from the same cloth, and it looks at how neoliberalism in practice is not what it was in theory (among other things).
What you're ignoring is that the gravest insults under which you suffer are perpetrated by those authorities you deem "insufficient". Petty slights in everyday life pale in insignificance compared to the systemic crimes against your rights by the powerful (and are in fact to a large extent caused by these systemic frustrations), and a system like this would do nothing but grant them unprecedented powers to expand these crimes.
Want some literature? Begin with the obvious, Orwell's 1984 and Huxley's Brave New World. Next, read up on complex systems theory, maybe take a course or at least have a look through some of the videos here. Having some insight into behavioural economics and power dynamics is very useful.
Then read Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman, and then Necessary Illusions by the same Chomsky ("Understanding Power - The Essential Chomsky" is also a good, but long, one) for an overview of the mentioned systemic crimes by those in power, and for a general understanding of how power operates on large scales. Many will discount Chomsky due to his political leanings, I think that's a huge error. The way he argues and presents relies heavily on actual examples and real-world comparisons, and these are useful even if you fundamentally disagree with his political stance (I personally belong on the left of the spectrum, but I do not subscribe to his anarcho-libertarianism or anarcho-syndicalist stances). I also recommend "Austerity - The History of a Dangerous Idea" by economist Mark Blyth for this purpose.
Finally, Extra Credits has a good introduction to the concept of gamification with the playlist here. At the end, see this video for an introduction to the actual Sesame Credits system in the gamification perspective.
The field is inherently cross-disciplinary, and "specialisation" in the field is almost a misnomer since the only way to get there, really, is to have a broad (if not deep) understanding of multiple fields, including psychology, pedagogy, linguistics, game design theory, design theory in general, economics, management and leadership theory, complex systems and network analysis, and now it seems politics as well. Some gamification specialists operate in much narrower fields and so do not need this broad an approach (generally, most people in the field operate in teams that contain most of this knowledge), and some of the fields incorporate aspects from the others so you won't have to explicitly study all of them (pedagogy, for example, is in many ways a branch of applied psychology, and game design theory must include lessons on psychology and complex systems).
Edit: Added Amazon links to the mentioned books.
Read this. In 2008 we weren't hit by a recession, we were hit by a robbery.
To heck with Krugman. Read Mark Blyth! https://www.amazon.com/Austerity-History-Dangerous-Mark-Blyth/dp/0199389446
> Legitimately, did you come up with this eloquence on your own?
Read a lot on the topic.
Recommend A Generation of Sociopaths for the details on tax breaks/regulations and empirical breakdown on how they flopped on things like marijuana, abortion, and immigration based on what was convenient and desired at the time.
For a good write up on how the meritocracy was hijacked and turned into a tool for inherited wealth transfer, How the Boomers Broke America, written by a Boomer no less who profited from the original meritocratic system they took over.
How America Lost Its Mind goes even beyond the Boomers and gets into the culture of "Democracy means my opinion is as valid as anyone else's facts" and how the young Boomers of the '60s tripping on acid, deciding all reality was subjective would eventually end up glued to Fox News & Rush Limbaugh being spoon-fed their desired subjective reality decades later.
The War on Science isn't written with a specific generation in mind, but shows how an ocean arose between the scientific community and Americans as a whole during the Cold War and guaranteed government funding for all things science to win it. Gets into the psychology of what happens when people aren't intimate with empiricism and become mistrustful of experts and facts.
If you look at demographic trends, such as Pew Global, you see a lot of interesting things: Longer working hours for us now than they grew up with, from the mid 70s onwards median wages stagnating as productivity grew multiple-fold as labor laws/unions were weakened, Millennials have lower rates of drug usage, teen pregnancy, abortion, pre-marital sexual partners, etc. yet still get bashed as being "bad" by their multiple divorcee parents.
If you have specific questions or whatever, feel free to ask.
Cheers
Edit: Note that this isn't a scathing indictment of every individual Boomer. My father inadvertently checks a lot of the more negative generational stereotype blocks without necessarily being a bad person for example, just how he was raised and the effects of living in a society dominated by his peers. There are plenty of good Boomers, this is an analysis of how their culture came to change the nation when they became a supermajority with over 50% of all votes by the early 80s, and were able to completely hijack public policy to enrich themselves at the expense of everyone else. It's a warning, as millennials will soon be the largest demographic, and barring a Black Swan type demographic event, will enjoy nearly that level of political power and potential for abuse in the decades to come as the Boomers die out.
Dean Baker, one of the most prominent Keynesians writers, correctly identified the housing bubble in 2002 and was the most vocal voice during the bubble build up.
Robert Shiller, another bubble predictor and author of Animal Spirits, co created the Case Shiller Home Price Index, which is the basis of Peter Schiff's and other Austrians prediction of the housing bubble.
I used to call people out on their preconceptions and bullshit. I tend not to anymore, unless they seem capable of seeing something from another point of view. Holding firm to your views and using facts to quash counter arguments is your best bet. If that doesn't work you need to give up, no amount of logic is going to sway them.
I also copy and paste previous comments I have made, 9/10 I can get them to fit into a counter argument and you don't get emotionally drained by typing up a response.
But if you insist on being a masochist here are my go to rebuttals....
My top three most annoying things capitalists say to me.
At number three we have the classic:
"Face it socialism failed get over it"- my go to response is this. No system is implemented overnight the transition from feudalism to capitalism wasn't spontaneous it took years of struggle for capitalism to win out. the capitalists took ground and lost ground, learned from their mistakes and eventually overcame the system that came before.
Coming in at number two:
"look how successful capitalism is compared to socialism "- you can use various arguments on this one.
a capitalist can pay what ever he wants as there are a 100 people waiting in line for your job.
And finally, you guessed it folks, number one:
"why do you want to take all my stuff and put me in a gulag"
If you can manage to unroll your eyes a direct quote of what socialism actually is, is a good start.
Read this book - https://www.amazon.com/Creature-Jekyll-Island-Federal-Reserve/dp/091298645X
Honestly...I don't.
Until I'm at the point where I have a consistent stream of referrals and organic leads from search engines, my free time (within reason) becomes prospecting time.
In many ways, prospecting is more important than client work. If you end up finishing with a fantastic project, but then are left with a barren period of time afterwards, you run the risk of screwing with your finances (and subsequently your mental health).
Just got done reading Zero to One by Peter Thiel, and there was a really fantastic quote in there that rings true for freelancing:
> If you've invented something new but you haven't invented an effective way to sell it, you have a bad business - no matter how good the product.
Sometimes the state or government just provides the best service. Economist Mariana Mazzucato is really good on this: basically, the state is far, far more innovative and creative than the private sector.
>Completely agree, especially about anti-Semitic red herrings.
It's pretty effective because there's a number of different claims that get conflated, sometimes on purpose and sometimes out of ignorance. Some of these claims are:
(1) is pretty much true by any given metric, but doesn't necessarily mean much. (2) is arguably true as well, but not really surprising per se. Any community of people tends to work with others in their community for mutual benefit. Jews are likely more prone to this by the simple fact that they share a history of oppression from the larger societies they've lived in. Cooperation wasn't a luxury; it was necessary for survival.
(3) is the problem because arguments for (1) and (2) are often misconstrued as (3). Many people actually do seem to argue for (3) or a slightly less strong form of the position, either out of ignorance, but there's also documented cases of people pretending to hold this position specifically to discredit (1) and (2).
***
Check out The Creature of Jekyll Island for a different take on the history of the Federal Reserve, or James Corbett's documentary Century of Enslavement.
> Anyone recommend some useful books that can help me
http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Neoliberalism-David-Harvey/dp/0199283273
http://www.amazon.com/Dealing-China-Insider-Economic-Superpower/dp/1455504211/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1452819640&sr=8-4&keywords=China+economy
http://www.amazon.com/Age-Ambition-Chasing-Fortune-Truth/dp/0374535272/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1452819640&sr=8-1&keywords=China+economy
http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-China-Economy-History-Political/dp/0809016516/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1452819640&sr=8-2&keywords=China+economy
>The question is, why does an article like this have to be published at American Conservative, rather than a left-wing outlet, where it actually belongs?
Tucker Carlson (Fox News anchor who hosted Kara Dansky of WoLF) also recently had Mark Blyth on his show. This is Mark Blyth, author of "Austerity: The History of a Dangerous Idea", who calls democracy "asset insurance for the rich" (was the source of the hashtag #thehamptonsisnotadefensibleposition), and is a welcomed guest of Chris Hedges on his show. Blyth can't get on Chris Hayes' or Rachel Maddow's shows, but he can get on Carlson's? Pathetic. Not that I think Fox News is some beacon of truth and progress because of it, they just know how to cleverly channel anti-elite sentiment into a particular flavor of pro-elite support among their conservative viewers. Whereas I think msnbc couldn't as safely afford to expose their left-leaning audience to the same ideas. Anyway it's just kind of wild to hear Carlson saying one of Blyth's lectures was "one of the smartest things [he's] ever heard about american politics". Like what is going on when the only place outside of fringe indie sources that you can hear real leftists is mainstream conservative outlets. Things sure are getting weird.
> Personally, I think its just as annoying to see Boomers blamed for everything too. Yes, they're older, but a lot of them are just like you and me.
I'll just leave this here...
https://www.amazon.com/Generation-Sociopaths-Boomers-Betrayed-America/dp/0316395781
A Generation of Sociopaths
> Andrew Yang--who is openly advocating for a saner politics--is getting smeared by hyperbolic, fear mongering, and poorly informed media outlets.
See, I'm not so sure. Yang himself is engaged in hyperbolic fear mongering. No doubt inspired by Trump himself, he's pushing a very extreme agenda of populism and identity politics. That's why Yang writes about "the Great Displacement" and why his book is called The War on Normal People and it is also why Yang's message echoes well with the rants of actual right-wing populists like Tucker Carlson. Let's be frank: these guys are all selling the same poison. At best Yang is interested in expanding the consumer market.
So, quelle surprise, Yang's extremist populism is going to be called out for being... extreme populism. And while Yang may take calculated risks to appeal to those groups who like extreme populism, the down-side is that people are going to accuse him of... appealing to extreme populists. None of this is particularly disturbing.
Anyways it will be interesting to see if Americans will ever find the language to unite and overthrow their capitalist overlords. I very much doubt it but it's interesting to watch figures like Yang and Sanders test out words and phrases.
Bryan Caplan wrote a great book a couple of years ago called The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies and he explained (convincingly to me) that there is a very good reason why voters are misinformed.
Voters are rationally irrational. What this means is that the benefits of being an informed voter are outweighed by the information costs of being informed. In other words, the time and effort that it takes to be informed, to learn the issues, to learn candidate's policy positions and what experts say in various fields just far outweighs the benefits of actually being informed. Instead, people either take shortcuts or they vote based on their feelings rather then on evidence.
The problem with this (besides the obvious) is that there is no feedback mechanism in politics. Politics is a commons (see tragedy of the commons). No individual is responsible for the effects of their vote. An uninformed vote is equal to an informed vote. And if you are uninformed, there is no direct link to the negative consequences of your vote and your life outcomes. So if there is no direct feedback, you have no incentive to be informed. This doesn't even touch on the fact that candidates mislead on their platforms or change their minds once in office. How can you have an effective feedback on your choices if you may not even get what you wanted if the person you wanted gets into office?
A contrast to this is our market choices. Now of course there are information asymmetries in the market, but it is many magnitudes different than in politics. For instance, when you buy a new refrigerator usually you can do your research online and compare and contrast specifications, quality, and price. You can read reviews from other people who bought the same item. You can go and see it in a retail establishment and talk to a customer service representative. The point is that even though you don't have perfect information about the product, you can still make a pretty damn good decision about what product you want to buy. And when you purchase it, the feedback mechanism is immediate. You are either happy with the purchase (because it matched the research you did beforehand) or you aren't (meaning you will probably buy from another brand in the future or change your research methods). Our choices directly affect our outcomes so therefore we have the incentive to be more informed.
Politics generally lacks this incentive.
Recently, I came across the book, The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs. Private Sector Myths by Mariana Mazzucato, and I was struck by the incredible novelty of this book really.
As someone who has worked in both the public and private sectors and in organizations both large and small, I have seen firsthand just how inefficient large corporations can be, as well as how much power they can wield. I also know firsthand that every major corporation could not have risen to its current position without the support of a government, either in the form of direct or indirect investment.
For example, Apple's Siri was originally developed at the Stanford Research Institute. Although SRI now takes money from the private sector, it has always received the majority of its funding from the US government. In the USA, recipients of SNAP (aka food stamps) benefits are a significant source of revenue for the major food companies. Defense contractors rely exclusively on the federal government. Pharmaceutical companies would never invest in new drug targets without the NIH funding basic research first.
So many people believe that government is inefficient and only private, for-profit institutions can deliver goods and services efficiently. Why is this belief so prevalent in the USA?
Written, I assume, by William Connolly himself, or another acolyte of the RealClimate/Fenton Communications PR machine.
Here's Klein,of course,
http://www.amazon.com/This-Changes-Everything-Capitalism-Climate/dp/1451697392
Two good videos on youtube to watch are the debate with William Buckley as well as the documentary on Manufacturing Consent.
Two books I'd recommend for a beginner in him are Profit Over People and, probably the best introduction to him, Problems of Knowledge and Freedom.
The second book is a collection of two different lectures that were given by Chomsky after the death of the philosopher Bertrand Russell. The first half deals with Chomsky's philosophy of language and the second half with the immorality of the Vietnam war. I highly recommend it.
In no particular order:
Sorry I got tired of making links. I’m on my phone.
I recommend:
You should also check out founder coffee clubs in your city. I learned a ton of stuff from just chitchatting with local founders in different phases of their startups and just picking their brains. I made this (http://founders.oakenspoon.com) for folks in Austin, Texas to be randomly paired for a coffee date once a month.
> But true neoclassical economics has actually never been tried.
Yes it has, and it sucks every time.
>Keynesian economics is bad enough
It created the greatest rise in living standards in Western history. It was called the "golden age of capitalism" for a reason.
>on what possible basis can you really believe that a state acting on national interests can make a better choice than a system which automatically reacts to market forces?
Read this book: https://www.amazon.com/Entrepreneurial-State-Debunking-Private-Economics/dp/0857282522
>See China. Our state managed economy only really grew after they relaxed their control.
No one here is arguing for communism. By the way, China has more state-owned enterprises than Venezuela.
Amazon link to the book for anyone interested. It's a fascinating read.
I wish everyone (supporter or not) would read this. I wish everyone would listen to the No Agenda show. I wish everyone would read The Creature from Jekyll Island.
PARIS — In the 1950s, French President Charles de Gaulle understood that if France wanted to create its own space for sovereign action in a world dominated by the United states and the Soviet Union, it had to possess its own nuclear force. Today, in the emerging global order dominated by the United States and China, artificial intelligence has become the most powerful resource that will determine the fate of nations in the times ahead. The only chance for not just France but Europe as a whole to remain a player is to participate fully in the development of AI.
The robust competition between America and China is accelerating the rapid evolution of machine learning, which will transform all aspects of life from employment and the social contract to genetic engineering and warfare. The pace of change is so swift that being left behind will make it nearly impossible to catch up. If that happens, Europe will become irretrievably subordinated to the geopolitical algorithms of others.
A new book by AI technologist and entrepreneur Kai-Fu Lee, “AI Superpowers: China, Silicon Valley and the New World Order,” ought to serve as a loud wakeup call for Europe. Not surprisingly, Europe warrants little ink in Lee’s book. As Lee sees it, while Silicon Valley and China are driving each other forward in the advance of AI, with an entrepreneurial frenzy abetted by abundant capital and a densely connected consumer base, Europe lacks a comparable innovation ecosystem or integrated digital marketplace. Its default alternative has been simply to accept the full platforms of the likes of Google, Facebook and Twitter. In essence, Europe has become a colony in the American tech empire.
Because emergent technologies arise in response to social demand, Lee does, however, see an opening for Europe. While AI development in China and the United States is driven primarily by the quest for data and analytics that can be used commercially, Europeans are focused more on protecting the privacy of the user. As Lee told us in an interview: “That will cause the American giants some amount of trouble and may give local European entrepreneurs the chance to build something that is more consumer and individual-centric and that would go further than American companies would ever contemplate in protecting privacy.”
Europe’s leaders should seize this opportunity by fostering a continent-wide collaboration to put its distinct stamp on AI. The most promising prospect for Europe would be to blaze a different path than the United States or China. It could put its resources behind the proposal of Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the World Wide Web, to “re-decentralize” the Internet, both to assure a fairer allocation of the digital dividend and hand back control of personal data from big tech to individuals.
This culture-bound constraint on data collection, in turn, would reorient the development of AI in a more social instead of consumer-marketing direction, which has been the main focus of both China and Silicon Valley. Europe could further choose to compete where it has an advantage in basic science. Just as Europe joined together to create the Large Hadron Collider, the world’s largest particle accelerator, European nations could cooperate on a project to be the first to build super-intelligent machines, ones that surpass human capacities.
The potential is there. The Scandinavian countries, of course, have long been engaged in the fray with such innovations as Skype and Spotify. Germany has its own digital modernization strategy, “Industry 4.0,” aimed at upgrading its manufacturing base through machine-learning tools. And though not gaining much traction so far, Chancellor Angela Merkel has highlighted the importance of European Union investment in AI. She has even mused that Europe could present a third way for AI.
France, a core nation of Europe alongside Germany, can make a critical contribution. As the most active modernizer on the European scene today, French President Emmanuel Macron is well positioned to promote Europe’s role as a third pillar of the AI revolution. Like de Gaulle in his time, Macron has an intuitive sense of what it takes to stay in the game — and a bold political imagination to figure out how to do so. From his first days in office, he has focused on invigorating Europe’s entrepreneurial culture and bolstering state support for innovation, especially in AI.
“My goal is to recreate a European sovereignty in AI,” he said. “If you want to manage your own choice of society, your choice of civilization, you have to be able to be an acting part of this AI revolution.” Drawing on his country’s heritage as a cradle of scientific discovery and the Enlightenment, he has recruited the brainy mathematician and AI guru Cédric Villani to lay the foundation for France’s effort.
Macron is on the right track. The AI challenge may be just the summons a continent torn apart by persistent centrifugal forces — financial crisis, immigration and populism — needs to embrace unity more fully. An ambitious historic project aimed at reaping the economic benefits of AI, securing an independent presence for European values in the new world order and leading a scientific breakthrough to superintelligence would provide a binding narrative for a continent adrift. Such a moonshot vision would be far more compelling for Europeans than the tired pitch from Brussels that dourly sells a common Europe as canned spinach, something the paternal authorities say is good for you but that everyone hates.
Belatedly grasping what is at stake, E.U. regulators are now taking rearguard action against American big tech through the General Data Protection Regulation and other means. But if Europe wants to get ahead of the game, to recover the sovereign ability to chart its own course, it needs an innovation ecosystem that makes it the author of its own algorithms while at the same time building on its unique strengths in science.
Yeah, semantics aside, I would agree with you that China dodged much of the pitfalls primarily due to not liberalizing their capital account too quickly. Not relying on hot money like Mexico, Thailand, ID, etc likely helped dodge the bullet of the financial crises of the 90's.
SOEs still represent about 30% of Chinese GDP, though most are owned locally rather than nationally and of the latter more than half are publically traded.
However, if China hopes to transition out of the middle income trap, I would argue they need more reforms for underperforming SOE's, domestic consumption, and more liquid and transparent financial markets.
P.S. I said "poster boy" simply because Deng Xiaoping is literally on the cover of Harvey's textbook on Neoliberalism, not because China embodies every facet perfectly.
It's not just an insult. They really are neoliberal. They want market solutions to all the things. They will fund the NHS but they want to privatise it. Healthcare is inelastic. It's a service in which the market fails. To try and apply market solutions is just an excuse to extract profit for shareholders.
Liberalism doesn't really say anything about how economic systems or even political systems should work. It's just philosophy about how people should interact with each other. Neoliberalism is an obsessive fact ignoring ideological drive to turn everything in the world in to markets so they can be exploited.
Go and read a brief history of neoliberalsim.
This can be explained in another way without resorting to the crude personification of cultural movements (like the hippies were lazy and spoiled, wtf?). The concept you're looking for is Neoliberalism. They key thinker of this concept is the geographer [David Harvey] (http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Neoliberalism-David-Harvey/dp/0199283273). The basic idea is that during the 70s, labor and capital reached an impasse in which the power of labor (its ability to maintain high wages and good benefits) was getting in the way of capital accumulation, which hadn't been a problem during the post war boom, but became one as western europe recovered and access to oil became problematic. As a result a massive political effort was undertaken, especially during the Reagan and Thatcher years, that involved the dismantling of labor unions and state programs, and deregulation that allowed capital to move east and begin production in asia, a geographical region in which labor can be purchased for far less, with far fewer labor laws. This is also how the process of deindustrialization occurred. The steel belt didn't become the rust belt because American workers were just lazy, it's because it became more profitable to invest in (or to exploit) foreign workers.
tl;dr It's not quite accurate to say that our parents did this to us. Rather it is the result of specific historical period of capitalism in America.
Great to hear! People respond to truth and passion. You'll find that even folks who resist certain ideas at first will warm up to them if you stick with it. Persist my friend, and you will help us win many converts and fans. Thank you for believing in this campaign - let's go fight for our future! if we don't, nobody will.
I'm hoping that my book will open people's hearts and minds, so if you know someone open-minded enough to read it, it may help you make the case. https://www.amazon.com/War-Normal-People-Disappearing-Universal/dp/0316414247/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1506708384&sr=8-1&keywords=andrew+yang+the+war+on+normal+people. I love this book and am very proud of it and can't wait to get it out there. Let's do it!
No no I will not. Your sub could be called John Maynard Keynes for all I care, but if that sub is advocating austerity during a recession it is does not fit the definition Keynesian economics. Your sub and people of your following who identify as "neo-liberals" have co-opted an economic term. That is why the books written on the subject feature such famous political figures as Ronald Reagan and Margret Thatcher.
https://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Neoliberalism-David-Harvey/dp/0199283273
I'm gonna go against the tide here and recommend that you don't read the older books written by Marx, Engels, etc., and find books that discuss socialism today. Here are some I would recommend:
I'm an amateur, but Mark Blyth, a liberal/marxist Scottish economist, has a book on austerity and he gives an entertaining talk too.
As for the mechanics of the Greek debt crisis and pensions crisis, I think wikipedia isn't bad. Tradingeconomics.com has great graphs on unemployment, debt-to-GDP, and bond yields that give a real hands-on sense of how things are going in different countries in Europe. If you like raw data look at Germany's population pyramid: it's a pyramid alright, it's just upside down! Waaay more old people than young people. And that's typical for Europe these days.
As for politics in Europe, I'm at a loss beyond saying maybe try to read a diverse selection of newspapers. Of course there are more issues than just the greek debt crisis, pensions crisis, and immigration crisis. So read, and read broadly.
I'm not. Read up:
https://www.amazon.com/Austerity-History-Dangerous-Mark-Blyth/dp/019982830X
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQuHSQXxsjM
If you want to get into a source credibility pissing contest here, I'm afraid your neoliberal think-tanks and blogs are going to lose out against a renowned Ivy League political economist who has been consistently proven right on his predictive analysis.
I was going to let it be at that but if we're continuing a bit I might as well mention a few things.
While a lot of what I said was quick google searches the familiarity with the subject matter comes from the History of Rome podcast and Austerity: History of a dangerous idea so if you want to really dig into those look there.
The other thing and part of why I think it's easy to think that economics are at the heart of every change is because economics are the sum of all changes. A plague, civil war or famine may be the initiating incident that causes a decline but all will be reflected in the economy of the time so it's hard to see any imperial decline not at least accompanied by economic troubles of some sort.
That's even true for the US case as well as the biggest part of the debt story isn't even really an economic one but a political one, here's a illuminating quote. linky
>Although Moody's fully expected political wrangling prior to an increase in the statutory debt limit, the degree of entrenchment into conflicting positions has exceeded expectations. The heightened polarization over the debt limit has increased the odds of a short-lived default. If this situation remains unchanged in coming weeks, Moody's will place the rating under review.
So here's one of the very few concrete signs that the debt load might have negative consequences and it's actually about congress playing an increasingly dangerous game of chicken in threatening to default more or less in a fit of pique.
The first thing to say is - obviously - you don't know what you're talking about.
This video - which your view on him is based upon - isn't all that Mark Blyth has come out and said since 2010. He's also written a book on the subject in which he goes into more detail than just about anybody as well as writing and speaking publicly about austerity and a bunch of other things, as academics tend to do.
Next, austerity isn't ideological? Who exactly do you think you're kidding? You think I'm going to even humour you on this one?
Debt-to-GDP is a pointless stat? You're the one that brought up 'balancing the books'. The coalition government made deficit reduction and paying down the debt its raisons d'etre. If the books are almost balanced, then, as they pledged they would be by now, the debt-to-GDP should be falling. Why has the opposite been happening, then?
The deficit being at 4 per cent is still not a budget surplus, which Osborne pledged by now to the House of Commons in 2010 (along with a safeguarded triple A credit rating).
If cutting government spending balanced the books and paid down the debt then we'd be in surplus by now with a falling debt-to-GDP level. That's necessarily what would have happened. Instead, the recovery came three years into the coalition's term in office, which is bizarre considering the theory backing up austerity predicted growth would emerge as soon as the cuts were announced.
You've fallen for the government's story hook line and sinker. There wasn't ever any danger of the UK becoming Greece. The UK isn't part of any single currency, the UK is in control of its monetary and fiscal policy, the UK was never in any danger of defaulting. There was no urgent need to balance the books at all. You swallowed a load of horse shit.
LOL this is a small Midwestern town, but no not San Francisco,I'd be homeless there. But it is like San Francisco, wealthy people from a huge metro city come here with their second vacation homes. Most of the populace is at the six figures level. I can't name where I am at, but think this place has the golf courses, expensive spas, etc etc. Yes many of these are very religious conservative wealthy people. I come out of a more well off family and know for a fact many got jobs via connections. I was the scapegoat so not allowed to share in the "wealth" so to speak. I have a few Baby Boomer friends, they get upset when I talk about generations, I understand, there are exceptions to all generational generalities, but I have to admit when I read this book, I agreed with a lot of it.
https://www.amazon.com/Generation-Sociopaths-Boomers-Betrayed-America/dp/0316395781
I am working my way through this book. Highly recommend it.
A Generation of Sociopaths: How the Baby Boomers Betrayed America
I believe OP is talking about Rutger Bregman and his book Utopia For Realists
Also worth checking out Andrew Yang's [The War on Normal People] (https://www.amazon.com/War-Normal-People-Disappearing-Universal/dp/0316414247)
Thanks! A good primer on IP issues is Against Intellectual Monopoly.
http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/against.htm
​
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Against-Intellectual-Monopoly-Michele-Boldrin/dp/0521127262/ref=asc_df_0521127262/?tag=googshopuk-21&linkCode=df0&hvadid=273092222521&hvpos=1o1&hvnetw=g&hvrand=255991395196188241&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=1006886&hvtargid=pla-568371974806&psc=1&th=1&psc=1
Patents do not encourage innovation. They are barriers to entry only and barriers to entry only restricts innovation, barriers to entry leads to less competition.
Big Pharma pays a high entry cost because of FDA regulations that require it do so. Another barrier to entry that restricts competition. R&D is the companies cost in any industry and pharma is no different. Competition in any industry has to reverse engineer their competitions goods and services if they want to compete with them. The selling factor of big pharma without the FDA and patents would be that they are a known brand and can be trusted. Just like people trust apple, people trust GSK to sell them a quality product.
If we accept every industry has the same type of incentives and risks and so on, then we can compare pharma to any industry.
Take for example mobile phone industry, my favourite example because it shows that even with patents, competition that copies a product can struggle to out compete the original product. Look at companies that try to emulate apple but have failed to achieve their success.
Read
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Against-Intellectual-Monopoly-Michele-Boldrin/dp/0521879280
As soon as the FDA is included in the mix the generic drugs do not make sense because the big pharma have paid them for the right to have a monopoly. Due to the FDA over the top and expensive testing requirements, apparently. It could very well be the big pharma uses it as a way to socialise their R&D costs through subsidies. Generic competition will have to adhere to some level of competence at producing the drugs, compared to the cost requirements to research and develop the drugs. It is apparently cheaper to reverse engineer drugs and manufacture them, than it is to research and develop them. Due to this, the idea is that pharmaceutical industry needs patents. Every industry has the same problems, some how the pharma industry has convinced everyone that they are affected to the point where they would stop investing in R&D if it was not patents because people could just copy their drugs and sell them. This seems as unlikely to occur in the pharma industry than it does in any other industry.
I love the crap out of books. One of life's greatest joys is learning and books are such an excellent way to do it.
Business books you should read:
Non Business Books (That Are Essential To Business
As a way of background I have newsletter where I share proven case studies of successful entrepreneurs. I outline step by step how they made money and got freedom from their day job. If you’re interested let me know and I can PM you the link to the newsletter or if you have any questions.
Buy his book, its quite good.
Well the private sector didn't think the 70s oil embargo would happen and were caught completely off guard, so I would say no.
Many of these projects and programs took 30+ years to pay off and required resources that have no profit motive. I can't name a single private sector company that plans that far ahead.
If you still disagree with that, just remember things like the Internet you use were government programs as well, and again, I don't recall any private companies stepping up to the plate
More info
> Valtiolla ei ole tähän juuri osaa eikä arpaa vaan kehitys on 99% tapahtunut itsestään.
Pitäisin tätä väitettä vähintään kyseenalaisena. Hyvin paljon siitä infrastruktuurista jonka päälle tietoyhteiskunta perustuu, on yhteiskunnan tukemaa. Esimerkki tästä on iPhone, jonka kaikki perusteknologia perustuu julkisen sektorin kehitystyöhön (eikä iPhone ole ainoa tapaus).
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2003/feb/16/iraq.theeuro
http://www.monetary.org/was-the-iraqi-shift-to-euro-currency-to-real-reason-for-war/2010/12
http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1095057.html
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CLA410A.html
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Petrodollar-Warfare-Iraq-Future-Dollar/dp/0865715149
http://www.economist.com/node/1378764
https://www.amazon.com/Petrodollar-Warfare-Iraq-Future-Dollar/dp/0865715149
You think Bernanke is concerned with income equality? His monetary policy is designed to keep the "too big to fail" banks as healthy as possible. He is the banks' #1 crony.
I highly, highly suggest you read a couple books:
End the Fed
and
The Creature from Jekyll Island
The second book is especially interesting. It was the banking elite that wanted the Federal Reserve. Binding money to a commodity like gold restricts any sort of control of monetary policy. That is why Nixon ended Brettan Woods in '71 as well.
If you enjoyed this short movie, and you'd like more detail, I'd recommend checking out this book as well. I read this 608-page book in 2005 and I loved it. This movie is very impressive because it condenses 608 pages of information into a 30-minute movie.
This book explores the histories of the various central banks and monetary policy in the US (yes there were central banks before the Fed, including when their was one in the Confedaracy). The author will sometimes get a little caught up in conspiracy stuff at points, but overall a very fascinating read.
They were intentionally created with the word "Federal" in them so people would think the government was running them.
EDIT: Anyone who wants to know more should read "The Creature From Jekyll Island" It is an in-depth exploration of the creation of The Federal Reserve, and is eye opening.
There really isn't a substitute for taking a class and working through a textbook. A free textbook is online at http://www.introecon.com/, and you can check out MIT's courses using their open course software at http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Economics/index.htm .
If that's not your speed, a good book might be Akerlof and Schiller's Animal Spirits: http://www.amazon.com/Animal-Spirits-Psychology-Economy-Capitalism/dp/069114592X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1265504406&sr=8-1 or Justin Fox's "The Myth of the Rational Market" http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Rational-Market-History-Delusion/dp/0060598999/ref=pd_sim_b_4
Animal Spirits by George Ackerloff and Robert Shiller is a really good one. It sort of expands on Keynes' ideas about human psychology and subsequent unpredictability of the macroeconomy. Pretty interesting read. Pretty easy and non-technical read.
Same here. Had to google it
I know the name "Peter Thiel", but this is the first I've heard of the book.
> would have to compare standards of living across North Korea and subsaharan Africa to get an idea.
North Korea can make nukes.
>That was demography.
No, you need some sort of planning. The Soviets industrialized much faster than the more market-driven system that industrialized the West.
>Still, the outcomes speak for themselves.
Except that the West, especially after WWII, had much more state-driven capitalism than most people know. This book explains beautifully why the state is the biggest innovator by far, and why neoliberalism is a sham. Here's a great picture from the book that perfectly demonstrates the main thesis.
>Would broadly agree with that sentiment. We're supposedly going to be seeing Nigeria (or was it Niger?) develop rapidly in the coming decades due to foreign investment and a favorable demographic profile, but until that happens, we don't really have anything disproving the rule.
It's Nigeria, and that country is already failing. They've lost 96% of their forests...
States create the conditions, when balanced correctly with markets they can continue this for longer. When co-opted by the market (Neo-liberalism is an ideology after all), states function fails. Innovation fails also. e.g. This iphone is built on university patents.
http://time.com/4089171/mariana-mazzucato/
https://www.amazon.com/Entrepreneurial-State-Debunking-Private-Economics/dp/0857282522?ie=UTF8&*Version*=1&*entries*=0
EDIT: And we know apple dont pay their taxes back, thats why they are stationed here.
>And why the hell do we keep on ignoring government ineffectiv and wasteful spending?
Who is "ignoring" this and why not "go after" wasteful spending in the private sector? Why stop there? Maybe we could establish more democratic forms of workplace management. We can hold the "private sector" more accountable if workers have unions to bargain with corporate. Unions lost bargaining power. It needs to come back in a radical way. Only socialism can do it. A revolution needs to occur.
The Hackers, a book by Walter Isaacson, details how public funding helped Google and Microsoft get established. Bill Gates stole tens of thousands of dollars of tax payer dollars to learn to code BASIC. The founders of Google stole millions of dollars worth of internet bandwidth from Stanford.Computers, the internet, and even phones have all benefited from substantial public funding.
​
>And of the top 88 innovations rated by R&D Magazine as the most important between 1971 and 2006, economists Fred Block and Matthew Keller have found that 77 were the beneficiaries of substantial federal research funding, particularly in early stage development.
Funny how corporations always steal from both the government and people, but then when Bernie Sanders holds them accountable, people have backlash and want to protect billionaires like Zuckerkorn.
This all relates to the petrodollar warfare hypothesis. The basic contention thereof is that the reason for the predominance if the dollar is because of some sort of collaboration between the US and OPEC to only seen oil in dollars, and that the US attacks anyone who ever tried to deviate.
Of course, the issue is that there are countries who seek oil in currency other than the dollar--including counties the US is extremely close to (Canada and the UK), and the volume of trade that's done in the dollar that has little or nothing to do with oil. (The vast majority of trade)
After a cursory examination, you've got to become skeptical about where this theory originates from because is the weaknesses in the theory--and in this case this theory originates from a curious source: A guy named Richard Clarke, who turns out to be an IT guy, not an actual economist or political scientists.
In the field nobody thinks that the petrodollar warfare hypothesis has any merit. It's basically the mad fantasy of a guy who didn't like George Bush. It's really disregarded, except for the inexplicable popularity it has on the internet.
The Law by Frederic Bastiat (awesome, short, soooo many quotable quotes)
Healing Our World by Dr. Mary Ruwart (old version available free)
Haven't read any of his books (have listened to many lectures and radio show), but something by Harry Browne should do quite nicely. I've heard great things about Why Government Doesn't Work
Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity - John Stossel (do check out his excellent Fox Business show "Stossel" on hulu.com, and look for his old 20/20 specials on libertarianism - they're fantastic)
good economists: Peter Schiff, Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, Walter Block
You might be better off waiting til you get more comfortable with libertarianism, but G. Edward Griffin's Creature From Jekyll Island is a must read. It's more about the monetary system and the Federal Reserve than libertarianism in general though.
I haven't read anything that makes a good argument against libertarianism, but can recommend a guy who makes a seemingly good argument against capitalism and for socialism - Michael Parenti. I haven't read any of his pro-socialist books (but have one on foreign policy called The Terrorist Trap which is quite good and very short. Libertarians and socialists tend to agree on not inviting war and not waging war). But I have listened to his pro-socialist lectures - they're well delivered and impassioned and a person who didn't know any better would easily be tempted. They're worth listening to to use his arguments and twist them to actually make the case FOR libertarianism. He'll use some faulty facts/data that leftists typically do such as "Hoover was an ardent free-market advocate and we can blame him and capitalism for causing the Great Depression" (we can blame him for the depression all right (prolonging it, to be specific), not b/c he was a capitalist but b/c he really started all the policies that FDR continued when he got into office)
Every major war started with a false flag or a lie; this includes the Spanish American War, WW1, WW2, Vietnam, and 9/11. The only concern of the powers at be is to maintain control of the world’s resources and the implementation of the petrodollar to our debt holders. NATO is fighting to fulfill Agenda 21/The 2030 Agenda - the controlling of all land and resources, with a much smaller population. This is a 60-100(ish) year long initiative to create a world that is not "for the people".
This guy gives a quick summary of things - I don't necessary think he's completely legit, but research the things he talks about and the people behind them, and the history of the events.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCzR7NCeMYA /
Most people here didn't see a YouTube video or not take their bipolar medicine, they saw some shit; or experienced something, and began to dig into it; the more they dug, the more their view of reality changed. The thing that kept them from feeling crazy, is they found a place like this with people that were drawing the same conclusions.
A few books...
Behold a Pale Horse
Dope, Inc
[The Creature from Jekyll Island](
https://www.amazon.com/Creature-Jekyll-Island-Federal-Reserve/dp/091298645X?SubscriptionId=AKIAILSHYYTFIVPWUY6Q&tag=duckduckgo-d-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=2025&creative=165953&creativeASIN=091298645X)
>https://www.amazon.com/AI-Superpowers-China-Silicon-Valley/dp/132854639X
Thank you for this recommendation!
This is a fantastic book defending the mixed economy. I'd classify this book as center-left. It praises the moderate Republicans of 1945-1980. And it's about how a strong public sector, working with the private sector, created the middle class after WWII.
And this book goes into how government investment in basic and applied research (the sort of research the is fundamental but not readily apparently profitable) led to our modern economy. Again, a center-left book.
Well, it's available on Google Books free preview, but the pages cut off right before this diagram. Also, I'm not going to pay $12 just to see if there's any additional information then what's already contained here.
But, to give you an example, one only needs to look at the Wikipedia page for Li-On batteries to see that that specific invention, while probably funded in part or whole by the DoE, was not an invention of the DoE. So many people, from around the world, contributed knowledge and expertise to create it. It's not a DoE invention.
The State, especially the US State, is one of the primary catalysts for scientific research, but to say that huge corporations and university systems contribute nothing to that landscape is false. They all take and iterate and innovate on each other, and they all fund each other. Looking at scientific articles and reading their funding sections and delving into their cited references points that out.
http://www.amazon.com/Profit-Over-People-Neoliberalism-Global/dp/1888363827
Specifically: You see it everywhere. Pretty much every large corporation (or even small). Flint, Methane in CA, Slave labour, Oil spills with little repurcussions, Banking crisis, Wood shavings in parmesan at Walmart, 20% meat in the meat at Taco Bell, etc... It´s often not the corporations themselves, but the system that allows these ongoings to thrive and even encourages them.
Sure, and I'm sure others would have suggestions as well.
If you're curious about /u/MrAffinity's comment, Pope Francis touches on this a bit, but good books in that vein would be This Changes Everything by Naomi Klein and Tropic of Chaos by Christian Parenti.
I'll probably have more unsolicited suggestions but need to look at my bookshelves.
Seeing Like a State by James C Scott
A Brief History of Neoliberalism by David Harvey
I disagree, its working for a minority of people. Neoliberalism hasn't achieved what it was promised to do and people are looking elsewhere for answers. That's what caused Brexit, Jeremy Corbyn, UKIP or the Brexit Party, the Yelow Vests, Donald Trump, and the collapse of "centrist" parties across Europe.
Mark Blyth, a political economist from Brown university has written about this. He has a good few lectures on YouTube that talk about the topic extensively.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S31VLG8Qi78
https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0199389446/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i0
The boomers nominated and elected the people you are labeling overlords. They enabled their overlordship. They supported (even if tacitly) the policies that these overlords enacted. The overlords are, by and large, themselves boomers.
You're right that it's unfair to lay all the blame on one generation, but they do deserve quite a lot of blame--owing to their disproportionate political weight and cultural influence. I think the better argument is to consider that whatever changes took place, they weren't necessarily done with malice or necessarily differ from counterfactual speculations. That is to say, boomers aren't that unique, and even if their population wasn't so large, reality may have unfolded similarly or worse.
Books have been written on how boomers fucked things up, and I'm sure more will follow. My instinct is that populations of people tend to have similar distributions of personality types that tend to yield predictable patterns through time. Namely, authoritarian followers (representing some significant fraction of people), routinely prop up authoritarian leaders who work to undermine broadly democratic processes. It seems like we take 2 steps forward and 1 step back carrying the vestigial cultural baggage of this primitive instinct. That doesn't just disappear in a generation and won't disappear with gens X, Y, Z either.
Generational sociopathy.
https://www.amazon.com/Generation-Sociopaths-Boomers-Betrayed-America/dp/0316395781/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1518204553&sr=8-1&keywords=a+generation+of+sociopaths
OK boomer. https://www.amazon.com/Generation-Sociopaths-Boomers-Betrayed-America/dp/0316395781
The War on Normal People - Andrew Yang
Emulating is perfectly moral. IP law has been long corrupted and bribed into being by big media long before the videogame industry existed.
Technically all videogames should be going into libraries and the public domain at some point per the constitution. So go ahead and pirate and emulate, game companies have long since proved they are just as corrupt as any other big corporation buying up laws to prevent you from owning and controlling the stuff you buy.
Go read a book on the topic, most people on reddit are politically ignorant to an extreme degree. It's the exact opposite.
https://www.amazon.com/Against-Intellectual-Monopoly-Michele-Boldrin/dp/0521127262/
Here's the constitution:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause
Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, known as the Copyright Clause, empowers the United States Congress:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
Note the emphasis on LIMITED TIMES. Not infinite times.
It's all in the book. They did statistical analysis of several cases where similarly situated countries with different patent laws. I highly recommend it if you are at all interested in intellectual property. It completely upends the entire premise of patent law.
I think an ideology of authoritarianism fails, and we have plenty of authoritarianism to demonstrate these.
The USDA dietary guidelines are flawed and have been flawed for a long time. They are not evidence based! Their basis was that of old commercials about what was healthy for humans to eat, and of some unproven hypothesis. We were told saturated fats and cholesterol were bad to eat and to reduce consumption, and then over 5 decades later as journalists started looking at the studies that were done, that was all proven wrong.
But this is how they think: "I would only argue that senators don't have the luxury that a research scientist gets in awaiting until every last shred of evidence is in." - McGovern
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbFQc2kxm9c
The origin of the commercials and for advocacy of vegetarian diets was entirely driven by a religious group called the Seventh Day Adventist, who believed that meat lead to sexual thoughts, and the ideas of vegetarianism were from Ellen G. White who had visions from God.
https://www.lowcarbusa.org/adventism/
This included influences of Kellogg (as in the inventor of breakfast cereals):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Harvey_Kellogg
These are the same people that promoted circumcisions as being for health reasons, but their reason was they thought it would reduce masturbation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCSWbTv3hng
So despite all this, the dietary guidelines are not evidence based, and if you look at the numbers people do end up following the guidelines (reduced fats, increased carbs), rather the sellers of products end up following the guidelines and people buy products which follow the guidelines:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJEHiQKqfZM
And this is just 1 thing. There are plenty examples of government intervention producing worst outcomes, such as the fact that the FDA has killed more people than it has helped. The Montana Speed paradox, where the addition of speed limits resulted in more car accident deaths because politicians in their rush to do these things do not always do them right.
----
More importantly, it is obvious if people are irrational shopping for goods in the market, how are people going to rationally choose the best experts to run their life? And the people they elect, how are they going to be less irrational than those they are to represent?
There are arguments that people in a collective their votes end up being more rational than the rationality of individual voters but Bryan Caplan does a great job destroying the idea of the rational voter:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKANfuq_92U
https://www.amazon.com/Myth-Rational-Voter-Democracies-Policies/dp/0691138737
Nonfiction books:
How to Hide an Empire: A History of the Greater United States
In How to Hide an Empire, Daniel Immerwahr tells the fascinating story of the United States outside the United States. In crackling, fast-paced prose, he reveals forgotten episodes that cast American history in a new light. We travel to the Guano Islands, where prospectors collected one of the nineteenth century’s most valuable commodities, and the Philippines, site of the most destructive event on U.S. soil. In Puerto Rico, Immerwahr shows how U.S. doctors conducted grisly experiments they would never have conducted on the mainland and charts the emergence of independence fighters who would shoot up the U.S. Congress.
A Brief History of Neoliberalism
Neoliberalism--the doctrine that market exchange is an ethic in itself, capable of acting as a guide for all human action--has become dominant in both thought and practice throughout much of the world since 1970 or so. Writing for a wide audience, David Harvey, author of The New Imperialism and The Condition of Postmodernity, here tells the political-economic story of where neoliberalization came from and how it proliferated on the world stage.
Just sayin... I suspect the wholesale adoption of neoliberal economic policy from the mid 70s onwards might be somewhat more responsible for the erosion of the western middle class than television.
A couple of books give pretty compelling evidence of this:
https://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Neoliberalism-David-Harvey/dp/0199283273
https://www.amazon.com/Capital-Twenty-Century-Thomas-Piketty/dp/067443000X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1499813570&sr=1-1&keywords=capital
Here you go, educate yourself:
https://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Neoliberalism-David-Harvey/dp/0199283273
I'm surprised at the outrage. Do people not understand that this is how our economy works? Large industries are given all kinds of incentives, whether that's cash, tax breaks and deductions, interest free loans, capital cost allowance acceleration, exemptions from carbon pricing, etc.
Take a look at the effective tax rate paid by corporations, and you'll find that it's much lower than whatever the rate announced by the government is. A lot of companies are paying taxes in the range of 0-10%. This is neoliberalism, our economic philosophy for the last 30+ years. Maybe you need an introduction?
I'm currently reading http://www.amazon.com/Austerity-The-History-Dangerous-Idea/dp/0199389446 and the author is quite clear that Greece was the only European economy that was guilty of over spending.
You may enjoy this book detailing the sociopathy of the boomers
https://www.amazon.com/Generation-Sociopaths-Boomers-Betrayed-America/dp/0316395781
Possibly related A Generation of Sociopaths: How the Baby Boomers Betrayed America
Besides the eye-catching title, the author, Bruce Gibney one of the guys that made it big off of paypal, goes into some interesting aspects of policies that have directly favoured the boomers at the expense of everyone else. This article goes into some details
https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2017/02/26/how-baby-boomers-destroyed-everything/lVB9eG5mATw3wxo6XmDZFL/story.html
A Generation of Sociopaths: How the Baby Boomers Betrayed America https://www.amazon.com/dp/0316395781/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_3Kl8CbG4JW3ZT
Oh wow lots of cool info about how the current generation sucks but nothing about how the boomers have left the planet in shambles and have pissed away any morality that the greatest generation gave them. Any decent psychiatrist will tell you narcissism peaked in the 80's/90's - when greed was good and celebrated - and we're in the age of the schizoids now. That said, where do you think people got the idea that who they are is connected to what they own? Where do you think this really took off? And who do you think let it grow unfettered to profit it off it every chance they could with no consideration about the effects down the road. Your argument is akin to throwing a can of tear gas into a room and then blaming people for tearing up. We were brought up with this shit. You'll need to give the young ones some time to realize their parents had fucked up values and forge their own paths...which they are actually starting to do.
Here, I can link articles explaining why the boomers pissed away everything and are clutching their gold watches to their graves with no consideration for future generations, only their own kids hoarding wealth for them and fucking up any sense of meritocracy for up and comers.
https://www.wbur.org/cognoscenti/2018/01/15/a-generation-of-sociopaths-rich-barlow
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/gene-weingarten-millennials-maybe-youre-right-about-us-baby-boomers/2016/11/16/a1e1a394-9d14-11e6-9980-50913d68eacb_story.html
https://thebaffler.com/outbursts/people-who-stole-the-world-alvarez
https://www.amazon.com/Generation-Sociopaths-Boomers-Betrayed-America/dp/0316395781
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/05/why-the-boomers-are-the-most-hated-generation/276368/
https://www.businessinsider.com/how-baby-boomers-became-the-most-selfish-generation-2016-11
See, totally describes every boomer right? Nah, course not...but easy to assemble a bunch of generation bashing material that has some basis in...what's happening.
I'm sorry you're so miserable with the next generation, luckily you won't have to deal with us for as long as we'll have to deal with ya'll. I don't entirely blame you, coming of age in a time of material wealth, not having any morale building, unifying war experience, embracing consumer capitalism and perpetuating it like the world has never known before that - looking at the mess left behind, the current political environment, environment environment, rising income inequality - yea, that has nothing to do with governmental and corporate leadership of the past 40 years lolol.
He has a book on UBI coming out in April.
Here's the book
>Corporations have declared war on the American public.
The War on Normal People
> Which has happened throughout human history. We have cars today because Ford figure out how to make them in mass.
Yes, I totally agree with this but those kinds of economic transformations like that didn't happen without literal riots. The Yang campaign is trying to get the US economy in front of the coming changes to prevent the riots from disrupting your way of life. We're not talking about disruption as in "I can't get a date on tinder", but like "my money has no value anymore because people are looting stores".
>Amazon has created opportunities for thousands of merchants that couldn't build a brick and mortar store, created the cloud revolution which in turn generated millions of tech jobs.
Again, I agree with what you are saying. Amazon and other tech companies have created millions of jobs. The problem is that at the same time they're taking away millions more jobs from people who have nowhere else to turn. The reality is that those people who lose their jobs predominantly never enter the workforce again, let alone get retrained as a skilled worker like a programmer. The point of the Yang campaign is that we need to stop thinking of a person's economic worth as being the same thing as their human worth. Humans have intrinsic value that is more important than their economic value, since more and more of our economic values are going to tend towards zero over time. Check out this video to learn about why automation is different this time. Or read this book, also about why it's different this time around.
I can't lie, I thought it was pretty funny when I found out this book was copyrighted.
It's sophistry; it sounds plausible, but is not true. The evidence directly contradicts the argument.
Most libertarians hold that intellectual property would not exist (at least in its current form) in a voluntaryist society. Although IP has the word "property" in its name it's really not the same as real property, in the same way that the 'patriot act' is not actually patriotic.
Intellectual property--ideas--can be reproduced without the original holder of the idea losing the idea. Rather it is multiplied. Think of the difference between me stealing your Ferrari or me looking at your Ferrari then building my own identical model at home with my own equipment. The second example does not infringe on your property rights although some will argued it infringes on intellectual property rights.
Here is a short videon Russia Today that makes the case against IP:
For a much more in-depth, academic examination of this topic, the following book is well reviewed:
An example of a libertarian not holding the typical view is the prolific Reddit poster JamesCarlin. He has written in defence of Intellectual Property in a voluntaryist society. You can read his arguments at his website here.
I mostly read non-fiction, and am interested in politics, morality and how smart people can come to construct completely different versions of reality... soooo if any of that kind of stuff is your bag, I can recommend:
​
One Nation, Two Realities
The Myth of the Rational Voter
Stop Being Reasonable
Mistakes were made by not by me
The Big Picture
​
The first two are are semi-academic texts, so there is some experiments/data in there that you can skip over. The second two are meant for popular consumption about how people come to form and change opinions, and the big picture is a really approachable summary about everything from epistemology, quantum physics and consciousness. It's broken into lots of very short chapters so great to read before and after going to sleep.
> Is your current assessment seriously that “people always vote for the most reasonable and prepared candidate but the parties just won’t put them out?”
Nope, I pretty much agree 100% with what you said. I would agree with the notion that the parties won't put out their "best" candidates, but it's not like I would expect the populace to vote for a candidate based on his/her merit anyway.
You might like the book the Myth of the Rational Voter.
This app, like WhatsApp, is dependent on network effects -- both parties need to have the app to reap any benefits. But unlike this app, What'sApp has over 500 million users all across the world and they've also got Facebook behind the platform to ensure global domination...
This app has to start from scratch and there is little to distinguish it from the many competitors... competitors like Google Hangouts. The Stock Android App which ships on every Android smartphone & CANNOT be uninstalled ^(w/o root). Hangouts is also being pushed as The default app for SMS and IM on Android. Hangouts now offers free calling throughout the US and free calls among Gmail/Google users across the world.
Like I said before, this app is going to have to face tremendous hurdles... just because they got into YC != success.
Also the Dropbox analogy is pretty terrible.
For one, dropbox use isn't subject to network effects. Secondly, Dropbox is getting crushed by Google, and Microsoft, and Amazon and Box and iCloud and other services who are battling for the same cloud storage market. They're undercutting each other like crazy to lock down users and profits are razor thin. Dropbox's entire business is dependent on Storage whereas the 'other guys' have other cash-flows to keep them in the fight. The hope of Dropbox IPO has also evaporated.... so in short yes, competition is crushing Dropbox.
my company, cymbal, is trying to answer this question directly.
trends largely suggest listeners are transitioning from mp3s to streaming services. streaming services have partly competed by attempting to differentiate their catalogs, but it's hard to imagine these differences persisting over time. sure, kanye is holding TLOP on tidal for now, but eventually even the beatles broke.
peter thiel, in "zero to one", used card readers like square to illustrate the challenges of entering a market where it's hard to differentiate from competition, and streaming services know their goals will have to orient around platform-specific offerings, rather than differences in libraries. i think there's reason to believe that because the simple proposition of $10/month for the entire recorded history of music has been replicated, the challenge will need to be about helping users navigate that vastness.
speaking specifically to the future of the music business, it's important to remember that streaming music is still a very new phenomenon, and on-demand services have yet to penetrate their market. growth, across demographics and nationalities, could scale these services' revenue models many times over. changes in how we listen – in our cars, for example – are just as important to this discussion as how we get the music itself delivered to us.
if i had to predict, i'd expect streaming to become increasingly dominant now that smartphones have proliferated, and the most-dominant software providers to these devices (android and ios) have built streaming services (google music / youtube red / youtube music and apple music) that come pre-loaded on devices. i'd also expect a consolidation of streaming apps, which the fall of rdio and songza already suggest.
which brings me back to why i believe the future of the music business has less to do with libraries or delivery, and more with recommendation and navigating those services' tens of millions of songs. music creation, dissemination, and promotion that is almost entirely digital needs a very different staffing model than the compound structure that now exists and serves physical and digital sales, distributed over myriad channels from radio to streaming playlists. that's tough, though, because streaming services weren't built for sharing, and can only ever speak to their segment of the market. alternatively, a focus on the promotional models that have worked in other realms of celebrity – viral and social marketing, using instagram, twitter, snapchat – might really work. but those platforms weren't made for listening to music.
our idea is that the best recommendations come from the people – friends, artists – who matter to you. we want to let our users show up from any streaming service (right now we support soundcloud and spotify) and find their friends, regardless of how those friends listen, to discover the songs they love. and since every play on cymbal counts on spotify and soundcloud, premium users on our app are driving revenue to the artists they like.
i think we're in as volatile a period of change the music industry's ever seen, but streaming services are proving successful in price and product in their battle against piracy. the next frontier is figuring out how to get everybody listening to the right stuff on them.
Anything new is hard. It doesn't mean it isn't worth it. That's what a lot of the startup space is about. I would recommend you go check out /r/Entrepreneur and read some blogs/books on the matter before giving up because this guy says he couldn't do it.
Zero to One by Peter Theil (http://www.amazon.com/Zero-One-Notes-Startups-Future/dp/0804139296) is a pretty good book about completely new ideas.
[EDIT] I don't mean to sound like I'm bashing OP. People should know that the majority of new ideas will utterly fail and that it is very hard work to get one to succeed. They should also know that the hard work and the right idea can pay off.
yeah I know these book recommended by startup community, there is also http://theleanstartup.com, and from zero to one
anyone know another recommended or similar books ? would like to have another books to read
>c'est pas les plans d'investissement dirigé qui font progresser les pays.
Donc les politiques keynésienne d'investissement publique durant les trente glorieuses on était un échec ?
>Un exemple :pas sur qu'une commission aurait donne des sous à Apple pour son Iphone surtout au prix de vente. Alors que c'est un succes majeur.
Qui aurait cru que n'importe qui aurait envie de mettre 600€ dans un telephone ?
Avant de faire Apple, il a fallu développer plein de technologies de miniaturisation de l'informatique. Et là, la recherche publique et l’investissement publique notamment par le secteur de la défense ont beaucoup joué. Je te renvoie à ce livre sur le sujet.
Here watch this, Chomsky (who worked at a military university his entire life) talking about it.
Check out this book. Here is a blog post about it in relation to the iPhone.
Capitalist innovation is largely a capitalist myth. You wouldn't have most of the shit you do without the State. Of course innovation does happen in the private sector, but it's nowhere near that clear-cut, and the conclusions of this article are moronic and uninformed.
It's not about oil. It's about petrodollar. Saddam Hussein had plan to use euro for its oil export. That was 2000. The US already had war plan for Iraq before 9/11. All these are just a justification. If you are interested in this topic you should start with these books.
Petrodollar Warfare: Oil, Iraq and the Future of the Dollar
A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order
About the bankers and the creation of the fed. https://www.amazon.com/Creature-Jekyll-Island-Federal-Reserve/dp/091298645X/ref=dp_ob_title_bk
I don't even know what this question means. Its clear you don't have enough understanding of all of the relevant content required to debate these topics.
2008 unprecedented central bank action drove the time value of money (interest rates) down to all time lows.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DGS10
This is allowing us to spend wantonly and basically have no consequence from it since the debt is nearly free.
If the US has to issue more debt, all else equal, they have to pay more in interest rates.
Once the amount of interest takes over an outsized part of the debt (See Detroit, Chicago, etc), investors stop buying it and it starts a death spiral as they cannot pay the already issued debt coming true. The problem with sovereign debt is we can just print more, which makes each outstanding dollar worth less.
Whether or not being the "reserve currency" does much for the US is a topic of debate as well. However, as a libertarian, you should hate the central banks most of all for allowing this mess to go on. A great book on the topic, if a little over the top:
https://www.amazon.com/Creature-Jekyll-Island-Federal-Reserve/dp/091298645X
Just like HSBC. That's how these banks roll. Hypocrisy to the Nth degree.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-07-02/hsbc-judge-approves-1-9b-drug-money-laundering-accord
Anybody that knows anything about how the current monetary system was put into place knows it's the de facto standard of fraud.
The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve
https://www.amazon.com/dp/091298645X/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_E.PdAb0FX3GJ2
The bankers just don't like what's happening and Jamie and Co. are realizing that they will become, in this analogy, the Blockbuster of banks to cryptocurrencies' Netflix.
The Fed Audit
The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve
End the Fed
Happy New Year to everyone at r/btc! May we finally slay the Creature from Blockstream Island in 2016! :)
https://www.amazon.com/Creature-Jekyll-Island-Federal-Reserve/dp/091298645X/
The creature from Jekyll Island
Just finished this. Also would recommend John Perkins, Confessions of an Economic Hit man if you want something easier to read. Not sure if he is telling the truth about his life but its an easy way to get into the paradigm to understand more complex books.
Also the documentary Money Masters by Bill Still.
Nice list. You missed off Naomi
OrskesKlein's book: "This changes everything: Capitalism Vs The Climate"Naomi is one of the nutters behind the shit digging on Exxon.(It's Naomi Orskes who is one of the nutters behind the shit digging on Exxon, not Klein. But my God they look identical).Edit: I was wrong. H/t Fungus.
Nice idea (if it would work), but where's the profit in that?
We all know that we'd be better off if we stopped using anti-biotics for farm animals too. But under the greed-based logic of our capitalist economic system, that does not happen.
Thus, the odds of this actually occurring is nil or next to nothing. As Naomi Klein has repeatedly stressed -- even writing a book on it -- the choice is capitalism versus the climate.
We're going to have to change a lot of minds to choose the climate and to abandon capitalism for proposals like this to work -- or to even have a chance of passing in our warped political system.
You should check out this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Zero-One-Notes-Start-Future-ebook/dp/B00J6YBOFQ/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1414433748&sr=1-1&keywords=zero+to+one
It's only partly about startups. A lot is general and philosophical. I wouldn't say I agree completely with everything, but I have seldom read a business book that I agreed with more.
Among the things I agree with are Peter's comments about what happened culturally in the 70s. I've personally believed this for years, and when I saw him start talking the same way I was very encouraged. Now I hear more and more people talking about this issue, and it's got me hopeful that we can dethrone the cultural hegemony of the reactionary baby boomers in my lifetime.
BTW... on IT having been the exception... imagine if energy, transportation, medicine, etc. had been advancing at the same rate as information technology for the past 40 years... wow. We really would not be having these discussions about an "energy problem." Instead we'd be discussing how new political experiments in the Martian colonies might affect things here at home.
I think we are the first generation that will be better off leaving America. The Baby Boomers ultimately stole our future and no politician can save us. To solve the problems affecting any post-boomer generation is political suicide to both the Democrats and Republicans. The country is collapsing, Main Street is completely disconnected from Wall Street and has been since 2008. They bankers at the Federal Reserve can play this game of musical chairs for awhile but it will end with foreign countries abandoning the US dollar and demanding a new "Reserve Currency". When America loses "Reserve Currency Status" it's game OVER.
Best to leave before the music stops.
Cheers! 🍻
The Baby Boomers ruined America.
A Generation of Sociopaths
I recommend that book. 👏👏
Cheers! 🍻
To some degree, yes. The book I cited (The Entrepreneurial State by Mariana Mazzucato, http://amzn.to/2oMBDsb) has further examples as well - it's actually the point of the book (I might add there are some things I disagree with in the book but it is very interesting). Hell, being public research is, well, public, one could argue that it's absurd not to use it.
> A Nation of Sociopaths: How the Baby Boomers Betrayed America
Thanks! I'll check it out. On the other hand, I lived it, reading it back may bring on PTSD. /s Fucked by the boomers again!
I looked it up and the title is "A Generation of Sociopaths: How the Baby Boomers Betrayed America"
> Heres a great book for you to read about your generation. https://www.amazon.com/Generation-Sociopaths-Boomers-Betrayed-America-ebook/dp/B01HZFB7GI/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=
> Capitalism has been consistently proven to raise the standards of living wherever it has been tried.
Google the word neoliberalism sometime, and spend a day researching it.
> Meanwhile, every single attempt at socialism - the USSR, the PRC, the DPRK, Venezuela, Cuba - has resulted in disaster, and has lowered the standards of living wherever it has been tried.
In what sense are these socialist, apart from what they call themselves in name? An anarcho-capitalist can have some actual, justified criticisms against socialism in practice (I've seen many), but when people like you plow forward with such an elementary misunderstanding, believe me when I say you look bad, even to your own camp.
The Zapatistas? The Paris Commune? The Ukrainian Free Territories? Revolutionary Catalonia? The Israeli Kibbutzim? That is your actual target.
> There is a reason why every single country that was once considered communist has transitioned towards capitalism...
Because they were bombed to hell in the interest of the capitalist class?
> ... and it should be no surprise to anyone that the standard of living has raised in these areas.
Like the four asian tigers did through State intervention? (And like the US did, also). Nothing even close to a free market prescription, albeit a quasi-capitalist one nevertheless.
I just started reading this book - This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate https://www.amazon.com/dp/1451697392/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_p0NEDbMXXGD98
You may want to read this:
https://www.amazon.com/Entrepreneurial-State-Debunking-Public-Private/dp/1610396138/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1500788947&sr=8-1&keywords=Entrepreneurial+state
> Nope.
Straw man. It's not about the legality of slavery, but its execution.
> The personal computer?
based on federal researches.
> The smartphone?
based on federal researches
> What about Edison's inventions?
based on Edison ;)
> Yeah, like picking wheat from fields?
For example. And less harmful than the working conditions under capitalism.
> Under capitalism, kids dropped the sickle and picked up books.
nah, more like destroying their lungs in the textile industry.
Remember: We are not talking of today's industrialized countries.
Edit: Formatting
Thanks for the recommendation. I've got a lot of "left-leaning" books (well, some of them) on my list now that all sound interesting, and Debt is definitely a high priority because people keep recommending it.
Have you read any of his other work? Bullshit Jobs sounds really interesting but a couple reviews said the original article he wrote on the topic pretty much sums the book up in a much lower word count.
A few of the books on my to-read list in case anyone sees this and is interested:
Sorry for the delay! I hear you. I grew up in similar surroundings in the southeastern US and then moved to NYC after graduating thinking there I’d finally be surrounded by woke intellectuals who question everything. Got involved in politics. Turns out people have been pretty brainwashed for about 3 generations now, the people in highest levels of government and business are only making shit up as they go, and it’s literally the blind leading the blind everywhere you turn. Everyone in life is just faking it until they make it - you, me, everyone. Some do have more of a financial/socioeconomic advantage than others.
On one hand that’s a horrifying realization since we grow up instilled with this idea that there’s some sense of order to the world, that people are out there with more experience than us who have a plan and know what they’re doing. Trust the system, trust the hierarchy, obey. On the other hand, realizing that’s all BS is also liberating because it means you can lead by first always always always questioning everything, then learning how to synthesize and articulate these ideas for the people around you, and online if you participate in discourse/discussion groups.
Idk where you stand politically, but for starters - one thing that really kickstarted my awakening and changed my worldview was reading This Changes Everything by Naomi Klein. It’s bleak at first, really makes you feel nihilistic how these corporations exploit disaster for profit and NGOs that are supposed to provide relief end up playing into the system because they’re run just like corporations. BUT once you get through that, Klein starts to show you how we get out of this mess.
The other thing I read early on that changed my life is Dark Ecology by Tim Morton. He’s an object oriented ontologist and tries to lay out a new way of thinking about ourselves our systems and our society in the Anthropocene because our current frameworks are way outdated - dating back to 12,000 years ago when humans first started transitioning from hunting/gathering to agriculture. He takes you on a fascinating journey about how this illusion of separating ourselves from nature has shaped the way most people think today.
I’m probably not doing either book any justice but they really helped me start to articulate these things I’ve always felt were wrong but didn’t have the language for yet. Klein is a well known journalist (The Nation, The Intercept) and Morton is a professor currently at Rice University). Check them out:
This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate https://www.amazon.com/dp/1451697392/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_G-eRAbB05R3CY
Dark Ecology: For a Logic of Future Coexistence (The Wellek Library Lectures) https://www.amazon.com/dp/0231177526/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_9-eRAb1HD75J7
This book is more of a political/economic approach to global warming, but I really enjoyed This Changes Everything by Naomi Klein. It has a decent amount of issues and is pretty slanted politically, but you rarely hear about how drastically different our relationship to economics and politics and the environment will have to be if we are to seriously combat global warming. While the whole Paris Accord is pretty groundbreaking, it leaves out how seriously different our lives will be in 50-100 years if we want meaningful change. Take this one with a grain of salt because it is kind of pop-non-fictiony, but Klein does put forth some really interesting points.
 
If you want a more scientific read, check out Climate Change: The Facts. I enjoyed this book because my father works at an atmospheric research center and we always talk about how poorly climate change (and really all fields in science) are portrayed in the media, which is where most people get their information on it. It's pretty dense but I enjoyed it.
> So what you've stated there again sounds different to the "real" neoliberalism I've had explained to me by others who claim to be neoliberals. This probably because a lot of different things could be seen as "the new liberalism".
Indeed, but how did those you talked to differ from what I said? The views I espoused are pretty consistent with other self-identifiers; see the Adam Smith Institute and Charles Peters.
> Where is it written down what a "real neoliberal" is?
There is no "written" definition because it's not an academic term. As your observing, it means different things to different people, and as with an analysis on "Marxists" you're going have to decide who to listen to. But in none of your character portrayals did you study someone who identified as a Neoliberal or advocated for the ideology.
> As I understand it, the founding text is Road to Serfdom - which reads as pretty libertarian to me.
Neoliberalism goes back to the 1930s and predates Hayek, but he's not a bad place to start. Other good historical texts:
Unlike some other ideologies, Neoliberalism changes because we try to stay up to date with both social justice and economics, which means admitting some of our past beliefs were wrong. This is why conflating us with libertarians is unfair: we don't hold the same beliefs in market divinity as they do.
>The label neoliberal itself, in its modern meaning at least, I understand appeared in the 80s as a means to criticise the policies of structural adjustment, but tracing the ideas back to Hayek and similar thinkers. Therefore isn't neoliberalism whatever those scholars were observing (market fundamentalism), as opposed to something else that later decided "hey no, we're neoliberalism!"
The people who employed "neoliberal" had no qualifications to do so. For example, a book that's becoming more common in Critical Theory discourse is David Harvey's A Brief History of Neoliberalism, which is similar to your podcast but makes the same mistakes. Harvey is a marxist anthropologist writing a book about economics, political science, and history, none of which he has any formal training in. "Neoliberal" does not appear in economic or polisci literature because it's not an academic term.
A good analogue for this is to consider "capitalism." The term is rarely if ever used in economics because of how bloated, charged, and imprecise it is. An anthropologist may write a book about European colonialism and all of its destructive, racist madness, and then ultimately conclude that "capitalism is bad", when really this had less to do with an economic system and more to with the age-old process of imperial extraction.
> What you describe just sounds like economic liberalism.
It is, but with social liberalism baked in.
> If the term neoliberalism is broadly understood by most to mean market fundamentalism... Well isn't that it's definition then?
> Again I sympathise that the "real neoliberalism" for one set of supposed neoliberals has been warped by another bunch of supposed neoliberals (see also - the various groups who claim to be the "real Marxists"). The debate could go on forever.
> If almost all people understand neoliberalism to be market fundamentalism, and those who claim to be neoliberal all seem to disagree on what it is, well I'm inclined to go with the most popular definition.
Who is this "other group" you speak of? I'd be very interested to know who you talked with that self-identified as neoliberal before embarking on your project.
The reason why this is important is because of a fundamental query in your presentation: who is your target audience? People who lobby 'neoliberal' as a pejorative already agree with you. Academics won't take this seriously. Neoliberals of my stripe would be offended. Is your intent just to criticize bad economic policies and ascribe them to an ideology? Even this is bizarre because you posit economic liberalism as inherently bad too. I almost feel like it would be useful to go over your podcast line by line, but that would tax not only your patience but your trust in me.
I think r/socialism got a lot of newbies today from the r/bestof link.
I'm highly critical of capitalism, and as far as that goes I was very interested in this sub. Now that I see people will be downvoted and condescended to for offering an opposing viewpoint, I can't say I really plan on spending more time here. Shame on you, r/socialism.
u/todoloco16 gave a pretty good response. My only addition to his comment is a little more subjective. I'm of the opinion that there are many forms of poverty. Determining human happiness based on GDP or GNP is an enormous oversimplification. That viewpoint certainly would assume a poor quality of life in many places where ethnographic accounts show us quite the opposite. I'm not sure if that was the case for China, but honestly I would be surprised if the average rural villager (excluding factors such as war) was happier than her grandfather. If someone is more informed than myself on early 20th century China, please jump in.
I base some of these opinions on Harvey's Brief History of Neoliberalism, where one chapter specifically covers the last 50 years of Chinese economics. In his view, people are suffering much greater abuses (such as working repeated short term jobs with excruciating work weeks, being promised pay, and never receiving it before a factory closes) now than when people collectively owned land and capital (which did have it's own problems, but again, they weren't pseudo slaves as in the current system).
the danger is that the dude isn't accessible to rational argument. you could give him some homework, and if he does his readings in good faith maybe he'll change his mind. chances are your buddy doesn't think of himself as a racist, so maybe some basic understanding of history will help him out.
but again, probably he's going to feel very skeptical about this whole thing, so he's not really going to engage with the arguments properly. and the problem with wanting to attack things that are systemic is that sometimes you need to look at a large amount of evidence before you start thinking that there's a system pulling the strings.
i think the way people change their minds is by surrounding themselves with folks that have a certain viewpoint -- over time you begin to understand it much better than just by swallowing a bunch of books. essentially if all your friends think that X is a given, you're much more likely to believe X than if half your friends are desperately trying to convince you.
if he's starting to hate his job, and if he's starting to hate capitalism, then that's something that's directly accessible to him, that's something you can work with. stupid example: get him into street fight. they mostly talk about the pains of working minimum wage but it's from a clear left perspective, so they point out the way the system fucks black people whenever the subject does come up. more robustly, try getting him into left spaces (as long as he's not going to be a dick to others there). over time, he'll get to interact with racial minorities on the receiving end of this fuckery, and begin to understand that "hey, if all these folks agree with me that my boss is a dick they're probably on my side, so maybe i should listen to them about black people".
There is so much more that I could get into with all of this, but I have work in 2 hours and this has already gone on far too long. If you somehow made it all the way through this and are still not convinced that the original post is a massive misrepresentation of what is actually going on in Venezuela right now, the only thing I can do is point you to some of my sources so that you can hopefully get a more articulate deconstruction of what's going on in a less-clunky format.
The main sources I cribbed from with this post are:
I highly recommend anyone who's interested in the history of Venezuela to read the literature. The history of the people there is not only fascinating but deeply profound, in my opinion. If anyone has more specific questions I'm not against answering them here, but I you'd be much better off just looking into it yourself. Understanding what's happening in Latin America is key to understanding the flow of capital worldwide and you can't be an informed political actor without educating yourself on the dynamics of modern capitalism.
Love & Solidarity.
I'd personally start with a few videos, then work your way into literature. The literature I suggest below is intentionally easy to read.
Literature by Marx and Engels:
I guess somewhere around here you can start reading Marx and Engel's other works, with Capital being your priority. Where you go after that is up to you.
Some interesting literature:
> From the wikipedia article
To someone who likes to say what others do and do not understand: you don't understand what constitutes a reliable source. Even Investopedia would have provided a more concise, accurate definition: "Neoliberalism is a policy model of social studies and economics that transfers control of economic factors to the private sector from the public sector."
In a North American context, the nomenclature is somewhat difficult to reconcile with the rest of the world. Neoliberalism is more closely associated what is referred to as "neoconservativism" as in the "neocons" of George W. Bush's presidency. We're probably going to see it again under Trump.
Here is a book that will get you started on what neoliberalism means inside and outside of North America. However, familiarizing yourself with the Washington Consenus will give an idea of what mainstream American economists have advocated domestically and globally for the last half-century. The associated "Structural Adjustment Programs" (SAPs) have been implemented more easily outside North America, as they were conditions attached to IMF and World Bank loans (the conditions have since been largely abandoned because they've been empirically shown to not work). But there has also been less resistance since political masters in developing countries have been more easily bought (or supported by the UK and the US in other ways).
EDIT: including sources.
Anyone with a serious interest in what neoliberalism is would benefit by reading David Harvey's A Brief History of Neoliberalism.
https://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Neoliberalism-David-Harvey/dp/0199283273
Neoliberal policies favor markets and capital, gut social programs, and privatize EVERYTHING.
> ...a topic you know nothing about. You don't know what he's saying is right or wrong because it's evident you don't understand economics. Understandably you trust him more than a random poster on the internet, but at least educate yourself.
I have educated myself. I agree with Mark Blyth's view on the matter.
> I never claimed I'm an expert...
...you just claimed that I "know nothing" about this topic, that I don't understand economics, and that I'm uneducated. And your previous post didn't really address the issues raised by Blyth in his video either, you just spun an entirely different narrative. You might as well have just crowned yourself the definitive authority on the topic.
> Regardless when we do enter a recession make sure to remember not every professor is all-knowing.
Yes, we're probably going to enter a recession, and it will probably result from factors outside of Canada's control. There are two ways of dealing with the recession when it comes, and Mark Blyth's approach has a lot of merit. But if you have doubts I suggest you check out his detailed, and thorough exploration of the topic, Austerity: The History of a Dangerous Idea.
A great book to highlight the utter destruction Boomers laid upon this country is "A Generation of Sociopaths". Well worth the read.
I think some deluded racist poor whites voted for Trump. All I have to do is go to my old town's [very rural and remote] FB message boards to see the conservative brain-washing is still intact even though the place is turning into a ghost town and no one has decent jobs. I know how the alt-right almost managed to brain-wash me though I fought against the Dominionism and racist BS. Fox news is a damn scourge.
But yes many Baby Boomers especially over 60 crowd who are well off and white voted for the guy, they still live in the past, and don't give a crap about younger generations. BY the way us Gen X are far poorer, and entering our late 40s and 50s, now. I told someone I am still creeped out that I am THIS OLD, and Baby Boomers still hold the arenas and institutions in just about every area. My well off mother who I am no contact with, voted for Trump along with other well off relatives too. [I wasn't the only relative on a fixed income or Social Security or who was poor either.
This book may explain why they have no empathy....
https://www.amazon.com/Generation-Sociopaths-Boomers-Betrayed-America/dp/0316395781
You should read this: https://www.amazon.com/Generation-Sociopaths-Boomers-Betrayed-America/dp/0316395781
Probably would like this book:
https://www.amazon.com/Generation-Sociopaths-Boomers-Betrayed-America/dp/0316395781
Good question. Yang addresses this in his book- The War On Normal People.
In brief, the changes brought about by AI and advanced robotics are unprecedented in scope and depth; far more so than the Industrial revolution. These changes cause much more fundamental shifts in both efficiency and labor requirements and are particularly severe for the middle class.
Very interesting article, thanks for posting!
The article mentions several books advocating for UBI, including Annie Lowrey's Give People Money, Andy Stern's Raising the Floor, Philippe Van Parijs and Yannick Vanderborght's Basic Income: A Radical Proposal for a Free Society and a Sane Economy, Andrew Yang's The War on Normal People: The Truth About America's Disappearing Jobs and Why Universal Basic Income Is Our Future, and Rutger Bregman's Utopia for Realists. I have not read them, but from the article it sounds like they all make similar arguments in favor of a UBI and differ over the amount it should be. I believe all of them are assuming that it would be done at a national scale - I don't really understand why this couldn't be done at smaller jurisdictions (different states already have different policies about sales and income taxes, and Alaska has the closest thing in the US now to a UBI with its annual oil revenues share), or most ideally (but also more unrealistically) at a global scale (as the article points out a few dollars a week could lift millions of Indians out of extreme poverty.
I hadn't planned to include any of these books in the seminar, but if there is a strong interest in going into more depth on UBI, we could definitely do this. Maybe it would make most sense to select a set of books on the topic and split them amongst the class rather than having everyone read the same book, unless there is one book that is particularly good.
I read it in Andrew Yang's book "The War on Normal People" (he's a wealthy entrepreneur who is running for president in the democratic party in the 2020 election)
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0316414247/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i0
> share his invention to the world and not what you said.
Uhh you are politically ignorant, go read a book. It's the exact opposite.
https://www.amazon.com/Against-Intellectual-Monopoly-Michele-Boldrin/dp/0521127262/
Here's the constitution:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause
Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, known as the Copyright Clause, empowers the United States Congress:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and
Discoveries.
Note the emphasis on LIMITED TIMES. Not infinite times.
State regulation hinders competition by definition.
In this case, imagine their worst case scenario: the single operating ISP in your area charges $50 extra for access to Wikipedia, but backroom deals with Fox News makes it your required homepage.
Now even if, against 99% of the history of the State, this legislation did not contain any specifically-designed bonuses for the entrenched ISPs (for them or against entrepreneurs), the Unseen Costs are what matters. They are often subtle, but still have immense impact on markets.
Perhaps consider that the big ISPs don't mind "Net Neutrality" if it means that upstarts that figure out how to provide the services you want at a lower cost (maybe by focusing on traffic of particular types, like streaming video etc) cannot start their business since they cannot handle ALL kinds of traffic that "Net Neutrality" requires. They can't start their business, so they can't compete with this local monopoly, so they don't have to lower their prices while providing lower and lower quality service.
That's just one possibility from the top of my head.
Here is a reading suggestion. Titled Against Intellectual Monopoly by Michelle Boldrin.
http://www.amazon.com/Against-Intellectual-Monopoly-Michele-Boldrin/dp/0521127262
It is also hosted for free as a digital version on UCLA.edu.
>Yes, the right and the left are simply destroying things it seems, but to be fair, the right has been opposed to things like Obamacare.
Have you read the Myth of the Rational Voter or listened to any of Caplan's talks on the subject?
>That one’s kind of funny, because if you take a look at voters’ views on government spending, they’re literally contradictory. Voters in general favor lower spending overall, but for virtually every category of spending they want to spend more. So this is the kind of thing where if you say it right almost anything can be good, if you say it wrong almost anything can be bad. When a politician says we need to cut spending, that is a popular appeal. The only problem is if someone says cut which kind of spending? Oh, let’s cut the waste. Can you identify the waste specifically, is there something that it actually is? You know that’s the problem. I mean, I would say that in general, Republicans try to tap into the general public desire for lower spending. They also try to very carefully tap in to the public’s resistance to cutting any particular kind of spending. So even though Republicans know very well that to really cut spending you’ve got to cut entitlements, you know, you’ve got to get Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid under control. Those are really the fast-growing areas of spending. But Republications are very carefully electorally not to name any of those because people are going to say wait, when I said cut spending, I didn’t mean cut any of the spending we like, which are basically all of them, except for foreign aid.
I haven't looked at a poll for Obamacare but I bet if you broke it into it's pieces I bet Republicans would support many of them.
Lots of bad justifications of democracy.
Relevant Bryan Caplan book.
It's relying on the general characteristics of human self-interest and economics. The idea is that, if compulsory taxation is out of the picture, human action and economics progresses towards efficient institutions, and non-aggressive institutions are the most economically productive.
But it is true, before that can get off the ground, we would likely need a base level cultural commitment to the general wisdom of libertarianism, i.e. non-aggression and a Lockean-ish theory of the just acquisition of private property.
"Majority preference" in economics is a lot different than "majority preference" in politics. Democracy suffers from structural problems that cannot be overcome (for example, see The Myth of the Rational Voter https://www.amazon.com/Myth-Rational-Voter-Democracies-Policies/dp/0691138737). Majority votes diffusely managing the entire corpus of the nation's property does not create efficient private property institutions.
In contrast, market institutions would be driven by more accurately perceived self-interest. Each person is more qualified to rationally determine what to do about his automobile, his house, his backyard, his job, then he is about which far-away buerocrat to empower to allegedly deal with complex society-wide problems. Through rational choice applied to each local action, efficient, non-destructive, and therefore non-aggressive ways of living would arise - again assuming some important baseline starting points in people's general preferences tending towards libertarianism.
> Flogging? Who does this help?
Maybe no one, I don't know. The businesses involved in providing security and adjudication will have a financial interest in determining what plans of "punishment" help their customers. If retributive punishment is chosen at all, I was suggesting the economics of the situation would better support immediate physical punishment than costly plans of long-term confinement. It might be the case that retributive justice would disappear entirely in favor of societal expulsion or financial compensation.
> Paying restitution? So if I buttrape you, how much "financial restitution" would I have to give you to make you cool with me again?
Again, people would not be deciding these things under the inflamed passion of having personally been the victim of a specific crime. They would have contractual terms in advance which they decided dispassionately. I think a lot of people would sign up for such things.
Also remember: it is not just the financial penalty. If they commit rape, no one will contract with them anymore. Without an insurance/defense firm to sign them as a client, no property association will allow them to buy or rent. Their employment opportunities will become more limited.
If they have done things which mean that no defense/insurance firm will work with them, they also have to fear that they will be killed. If you cannot get a defense/insurance firm to work with you, it might be the case that no one will be able to assert a claim on your behalf. If you are a serial rapist, no court or defense agency will sign a contract with you, your victims can put a bounty on your head and you will not be able to assert a defensive murder claim. This could be the situation, I don't know. You would probably have to be a very bad criminal for this to happen.
​
VI. Logrolling and Vote Trading
The public choice concept of ‘ logrolling ’ denotes the exchange of favors among the political factions in order to get one’s favored project through by supporting the projects of the other group. This conduct leads to the steady expansion of state activity. Through the ‘quid pro quo’ of the political process, the lawmakers support pieces of legislation of other factions in exchange for obtaining the political support for their own project. This behavior leads to the phenomenon of ‘legislative inflation’, the avalanche of useless, contradictory and detrimental law production.
VII. Common Good
The so-called ‘ common good’ is not a well-defined concept. Similar terms, such as that of the ‘public good’, which is defined by non-excludability and non-rivalry, misses the point because it is not the good that is ‘common’ or ‘public’ but its provision when this is deemed more efficient by collective than individual efforts. However, this is the case with all goods and the market itself is a system of providing private goods through cooperative efforts. The market economy is a collective provider of goods as it combines competition with cooperation. Any of the so-called ‘public goods’, which the government supplies, the private sector can also deliver, and cheaper and better as well. In contrast to the state, the cooperation in a market economy includes competition and thus not only economic efficiency but also the incentive to innovate.
VIII. Regulatory Capture
The term ‘ regulatory capture ’ denotes a government failure where the regulatory agency does not pursue the original intent of promoting the ‘public interest’ but falls victim to the special interest of those groups, which the agency was set up to regulate. The capture of the regulatory body by private interests means that the agency turns into an instrument to advance the special interests of the group that was targeted for regulation. For that purpose, the special interest group will ask for extra regulation to obtain the state apparatus as an instrument to promote its special interests.
IX. Short-Sightedness
The political time horizon is the next election. In the endeavor that the benefits of political action come quickly to their specific clienteles, the politician will favor short-term projects over the long-term even if the former bring only temporary benefits and cost more in the long run than an alternative project where the costs come earlier and the benefits later. Because the provision of public goods by the state severs the link between the bearer of the cost and the immediate beneficiary, the time preference for the demand for the goods that come apparently free of charge by the state is necessarily higher than in the market system.
X. Rational Ignorance
It is rational for the individual voter in a mass democracy to remain ignorant about the political issues because the value of the individual's vote is so small that it makes not much difference for the outcome. The rational voter will vote for those candidates who promise most benefits. Given the small weight of an individual vote in a mass democracy, the rational voter will not spend much time and effort to investigate whether these promises are realistic or in a collision with his other desires. Thus, the political campaigns do not have information and enlightenment as the objective but disinformation and confusion. What counts, in the end, is to get votes. Not the solidity of the program is important but the enthusiasm a candidate can create with his supporters and how much he can degrade, denounce, and humiliate his opponent. As a consequence, election campaigns incite hatred, polarization, and the lust for revenge.
Also, we are much less invested in the outcome when deciding other people's lives than when deciding our own, and therefore make far dumber choices.
This is one of the core arguments/findings in Bryan Caplan's The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies.
Politics are very rarely about surface-level policy debates or the trade-offs that different policies entail. Politics is usually about signaling team allegiance and fundamental personality traits, which are only tangentially, if at all, connected to policies. If you want to understand why, read Bryan Caplan's The Myth of the Rational Voter and Jonathan Haidt's The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion.
When people talk to you about politics and religion, instead discuss meta-phenomena, like why they believe what they believe and how politics / religion work as signaling devices. Those topics are usually less contentious than, say, gun control, or whatever.
Sorry, on mobile, but I believe this is the book in which he develops that theory.
You might also just search youtube videos or article under the same title.
>If those PhD's were out there making markets more efficient it would be different.
Even if they were making markets more efficient, they would still be better utilized discovering more physics. This is something that people tend to forget: without the input of scientific advancement, the free market or any other system really wouldn't do much. Every period of sustainable growth in US history has been based around a new technology (e.g. trains, electricity, cars, radio, tv, airplanes, computers, internet). Growth occurs when there is a gap between what scientists and engineers can build and what is currently deployed in the economy. This is why China is growing so fast right now (they are deploying technologies that everyone in the US already has, especially cars). For the most advanced economies to grow, we need to do more science so we can expand that gap between what is possible and what everyone already owns.
>But most of the "financialization" that has occurred has been because those PhD's were ultimately utilized to make the markets more opaque and overly complicated.
I agree. I personally think things like high-speed trading should be banned. It gives an unfair advantage to those that can afford a $10 million compute cluster with a fiber connection within a few miles (to minimize latency) of the NYSE. We need a new rule that has like a randomized 10 second delay (meaning something like a normal distribution with a mean of 10 seconds and a stddev of 5 seconds) after an order is placed to kill high speed trading. I think the claims that high speed traders provide extra needed liquidity is horseshit. A slightly slowed down system would still have plenty of liquidity. And think about that for a second: should stocks be as liquid as cash? I don't think that is really that important. I mean, we already have rules like circuit breakers and other things. So, encouraging the ability to pull out everything as fast as possible really isn't that smart in my view. All it does is make the market less stable (see the Flash Crash).
And most importantly, killing high speed trading will restore some confidence that the market isn't rigged. Capitalism and the stock market needs legitimacy if it is to be stable.
>why has the Fed never been audited by an independent 3rd party?
Because the central bank is supposed to be independent under most theories of central banking. I do think that old actions by the bank (say anything over 5-10 years old) should be opened up though. Although, in the long run, I'd prefer moving towards a more Chartalist system (meaning the central bank directly funds the treasury instead of doing open market operations, and the money supply is simply controlled by the size of the government debt and the amount of taxation) and I'd be fine having the central bank's books open in that case. However, the current system, with the primary dealers and open market operations, needs some secrecy or else all kinds of games can be played.
>Why has Fort Knox not been audited since the 1950's?
Link? I know there are conspiracies about Fort Knox being empty, but I'd like to see what legit sources you have on the topic.
>All for the same reasons, to keep up the illusion that the ponzi scheme is working.
Pretty much every form of a financial system is an unstable Ponzi scheme. That's the nature of finance. And yes, that includes a 100% reserve gold standard system too, because people will always find a way to game it if there is a profit to be made. That's the Animal Spirits (btw, if you haven't read the Shiller/Akerlof book, I highly recommend reading it as soon as possible: http://www.amazon.com/Animal-Spirits-Psychology-Economy-Capitalism/dp/069114592X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1292475145&sr=8-1).
I think Peter Thiel's book explores this; maybe start there
Not sure how they do things where you came from, but read this stuff and you should be good:
-http://www.gv.com/sprint/
-https://www.amazon.com/Zero-One-Notes-Startups-Future/dp/0804139296
I liked Zero to One by Peter Thiel & Blake Masters. I found that book both insightful and very easy to digest. I tore through it rather quickly. It's a bit more philosophical than it is hard and practical, but it really makes sense. I am currently reading The Lean Startup, but I am too early into it to form an opinion.
http://www.amazon.com/Zero-One-Notes-Startups-Future/dp/0804139296
That's totally wrong, does google have any competitors in the last decade? was the search engine collapsed?
I'd recommend you to read this book.
Here are all the books with amazon links, Alphabetical order :)
---
I found couple random sources from Wikipedia, and from other redditors. Hopefully this gets you started on your own research to see what makes the most sense to you.
http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1095057.html
>Shammas says the idea of switching to the euro has appeal to Iran and Iraq because they feel if several major oil producers did it they could create a stampede from the dollar which would weaken Washington.
http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,998512,00.html
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2003/feb/16/iraq.theeuro
http://www.monetary.org/was-the-iraqi-shift-to-euro-currency-to-real-reason-for-war/2010/12
http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1095057.html
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CLA410A.html
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Petrodollar-Warfare-Iraq-Future-Dollar/dp/0865715149
http://www.economist.com/node/1378764
> paper
u/tromp u/johnalan u/buqratis u/Hauch u/geezas u/PrivacyToTheTop777 u/DeviateFish u/JollyMort
Happy thanksgiving for all. Finally I got some time, so I am replying it.
I am listing the books that I think it is very useful for people who are designing new monies! The topics are like the history of money & theories, problems of the current fiat money system, the fractional banking system, plans after next financial crisis which the global elites are planning etc.
The most of books are from Austria school of economics, which is in my opinion only anti government and grassroots economic study in the current age. They support sound money policy.
Economics are very politically manipulated (or government manipulates) subjects especially, Macro economics- monetary policies are under the category. Government naturally love loose monetary policy because that give them free money to spend. They used to dilute gold coin with other cheaper metals to get some extra money you know. Nowadays they creates money from thin air through the fiat/ central bank system.
Macro economics are used to be called, Political economics. So please be aware. If we are challenging the status quo of government monetary system, to me it is very clear that which policy we should take.
Please people who think inflationary currency is good idea list some books or papers to back up your claim. Both side read them all and discuss one more time?
reference:
What Has Government Done to Our Money? by Murray N. Rothbard
https://mises.org/library/what-has-government-done-our-money
Good short book about theory and history of money.
End the FED by Ron Paul
https://mises.org/library/end-fed
The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve by Edward Griffin
https://www.amazon.com/Creature-Jekyll-Island-Federal-Reserve/dp/091298645X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1511489201&sr=8-1&keywords=creature+from+island
The Road to Ruin: The Global Elites' Secret Plan for the Next Financial Crisis by James Rickards
https://www.amazon.com/Road-Ruin-Global-Elites-Financial/dp/1591848083/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1511489318&sr=1-1&keywords=road+to+ruin
little more balanced book, talking about the global elites plan about after the next financial crisis.
I think the key to understanding Bitcoin is knowing what is wrong with the current monetary system. This book will show you.
https://www.amazon.com/Creature-Jekyll-Island-Federal-Reserve/dp/091298645X/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1511148287&sr=8-3&keywords=the+creature+from+jekyll+island
I feel you. Though, I feel a reasonable counterpoint might be "how sturdy did you expect 1/1000 of an ounce of an extremely malleable metal to be?" FWIW, I can definitely commiserate. When I get a full set I'll update you on what I think.
Edit: I am also planning on getting several 1/1000 notes to use as bookmarks in the copies of The Creature From Jekyll Island That I give out to people I'm trying to save.
Edit, the second: Worth mentioning, however, as that last statement might give you the wrong impression, I am actually an advocate for the silver standard, not the gold standard, but could be convinced to embrace bimetallism at the right ratio, namely 16:1.
Fake news shouldn't be that hard to define. It's mostly exemplified by hyperpartisan news sources that either doesn't completely fact check it's information or presents information that is misleading due to lack of sufficient pertinent information.
I explained how propaganda works. You've proven you do not understand the difference between a conspiracy theory and an opinion.
" Clintons did have power simply because they accumulated it.
Why would they acculumate that power? The oldest reason all. She wanted it. Thats all."
Those are not the words of an epistemic rationalist, those are the ramblings of a cynic. She "wants power" is such a cartoonish unrealistic motive. The world cannot be interpreted and broken down using motifs from your typical Hollywood movie.
I've listened and read the speeches of Goeebels at the Nurenburg rallies, I've read Bryan Capland books on rationality, I've read Orwells 1984 and Huxley's Brave New World. If you want to talk about books, I suggest you try out The Believing Brain and The Myth of The Rational Voter.
Anthony Reiner was a completely separate case.
"Sounds like a man who had evidence but couldnt use it." Which just so happens to sound exactly like someone who doesn't have evidence to indict to begin with. I'd take Occram's razor on this one.
Disney owns a lot of companies. So what? Conglomeration is apart of capitalism. It only proves they are on the same side and unlikely to compete, doesn't necessarily prove they are guilty of a sinister plot simply due to association. Obviously MSM is controlled by corporations. Would you expect the worlds top grossing films to come out of some Hungarian teenagers basement? No, that is not how the free market works. The MSM is merely a pet name given to major monopolies in journalism. They are owned by corporations because that is how they get the necessary resources and funding to adapt to the growing needs of the world for information.
I like to keep it civil, but seriously? Implying that FOX news is a paragon of good journalism over any other mainstream media is laughable. This is not real journalism. I will admit to my Liberal bias, now you need to admit to yours.
Why did Trump win despite the hate? If you've ever lived in Manhattan and dealt with professional con men, then you would know. He has mastered only the art of the New York style con. Making all these impossible promises while showcasing a massive amount of confidence and bravado. He's demonized all of his opponents and critics. He's convinced you and millions like you to block out all of his criticism as meaningless propaganda. Propaganda doesn't need to come from corporations, it's all within your head m8. You put all corporate media under the same category of legitimacy as every fringe site out there. You do this to justify believing only in media that matches your beliefs, the truth doesn't matter to you because you already admitted you don't think it exist. The fact you think FOX news is exceptional helps prove my theory that you truly believe your way of thinking is superior. So you judge news by how closely it aligns with your preconceptions. You think labeling me with an overused psychology term proves anything?
Firstly we are getting really off topic here but ok.
your argument assumes that the government is competent enough to know what is best for society, something that I would disagree with: https://www.amazon.com/Myth-Rational-Voter-Democracies-Policies/dp/0691138737
as for your examples, I feel like debating healthcare would be too far off topic, there is no need to provide for dependents with UBI in place, people should give to charity through kindness, not because of a tax break and why should the government encourage house buying and starting a small business?
> decided to actually treat the customers as logical actors
LOL, such silliness!
You don't treat people as logical actors, ever.
The Law - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1936594315/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1936594315
Economics in one lesson - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0517548232/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0517548232
That which is seen and is not seen - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1453857508/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1453857508
Our enemy, the state - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001E28SUM/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B001E28SUM
How capitalism save america - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1400083311/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1400083311
New Deal or Raw Deal - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1416592377/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1416592377
Lessons for the Young Economist - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1933550880/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1933550880
For a New Liberty - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1610162641/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1610162641
What Has Government Done to Our Money? - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/146997178X/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=146997178X
America's Great Depression - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/146793481X/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=146793481X
Defending the Undefendable - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1933550171/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1933550171
Metldown - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1596985879/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1596985879
The Real Lincoln - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0761526463/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0761526463
The Road to Serfdom - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0226320553/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0226320553
Capitalism and Freedom - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0226264211/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0226264211
Radicals for Capitalism - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1586485725/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1586485725
Production Versus Plunder - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0979987717/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0979987717
Atlas Shrugged - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0452011876/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0452011876
The Myth of the Rational Voter - http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0691138737/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-21&linkCode=as2&camp=1634&creative=19450&creativeASIN=0691138737
Foutainhead - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0452273331/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0452273331&linkCode=as2&tag=thmariwi-20
Anthem - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0452281253/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0452281253&linkCode=as2&tag=thmariwi-20
There are of course more books, but this should last you a few years!
Ever read Animal Spirts? https://www.amazon.com/Animal-Spirits-Psychology-Economy-Capitalism/dp/069114592X
There is a part of the economy that is driven by how people feel about the future. Yes, if companies start laying off droves of people reality will overcome any optimism created by things like this. But why do companies lay off people? Because sales are down. Not usually because they think sales might go down.
Thinking sales might go down reduces capital expenditures. We are already seeing that - companies have hired people to manage a increase in demand, but not increased capital improvements because they think things will turn for the worse.
I'm an economics grad so I've got a fair amount of understanding in all this. The main thing I would say is that while you're arguements are definitely not wrong per se, they are very optimistic.
One of the main things that I noticed from studying university economics opposed to more basic high school economics classes, is that there are so many theoretical ideas about capitalism and anarchism that make sense. However, you apply these ideas to the real world and the majority of them fall dead in the water because it is so easy for economists and just generally smart, analytical people such as yourself to assume that everyone else is as rational and unimpulsive. You'd be surprised how many people make poorly imformed choices that negatively affect society as a whole. It isn't something I can sum up on here (if it was, my degree would have been a huge waste of tens of thousands of pounds), but if you're interested I would definitely suggest studying economics. If you're past that stage in your life though, the link below is to a book that I think you'd find hugely insightful. Keep in mind this is a link to UK amazon though.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Animal-Spirits-Psychology-Economy-Capitalism/dp/069114592X/ref=tmm_pap_title_0
Anyway, I've enjoyed our chats. All the best!
Animal Spirits link
You need a completely different lens to think through.
https://www.amazon.com/Extraordinary-Popular-Delusions-Madness-Crowds/dp/1539849589/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=the+madness+of+crowds+mckay&qid=1571933428&s=books&sr=1-1
https://www.amazon.com/Animal-Spirits-Psychology-Economy-Capitalism/dp/069114592X
Start With Why [Simon Sinek]
48 Laws of Power [Robert Greene] (33 Strategies of War, Art of Seduction)
The 50th Law [Curtis James Jackson]
Tipping Point:How Little Things Can Make a Difference and Outliers: The story of Succes [Malcolm Gladwell]
The Obstacle is the Way, Ego is the Enemy [Ryan Holiday] (stoicism)
[Tim Ferris] (actually haven't read any of his books, but seems to know a way to use social media, podcast, youtube)
Get an understanding to finance, economics, marketing, investing [Graham, Buffet], philosophy [Jordan Peterson]
I like to think us/you/business is about personal development, consciousness, observing recognizable patterns in human behavior and historical significance. It's an understanding of vast areas of subjects that connect and intertwine then returns back to the first book you’ve read (Start with Why) and learn what you've read past to present. Business is spectacular, so is golf.
To Add:
Irrationally Predictable:The Hidden Forces that Shape Our Decisions - [Dan Ariely] (marketing)
The Hard Things About Hard Things - [Ben Horowitz] (business management)
Black Privilege: Opportunity Comes to Those Who Create It - [Charlamagne Tha God] (motivation)
The Lean Startup: Use Continuous Innovation to Create Radically Successful Businesses - [Eric Ries]
Zero to One: Notes on Startups, How to Build the Future - [Peter Theil]
Their business model also initially failed the engineering question of making a product better than what was already on the market.
> Solyndra developed novel, cylindrical solar cells, but to a first approximation, cylindrical cells are only 1/π as efficient as flat ones—they simply don’t receive as much direct sunlight. The company tried to correct for this deficiency by using mirrors to reflect more sunlight to hit the bottoms of the panels, but it’s hard to recover from a radically inferior starting point.
Excerpt From: Peter Thiel. “Zero to One.”
Innovation is what leads our economy to growth.
>they must provide the good or service at the lowest possible cost
With or without regulation, this requires assumptions that aren't realistic like:
In this libertarian world, imagine if a company owned the lands & home you were born and raised. How is this different than from the era of serfs, lords & aristocracy?
----
Also, if you get a chance, I'd highly recommend taking a few minutes to read through Zero To One by Peter Thiel.
It's still a few books down on my reading list so I can't say what I think of it, but it's worth at least reading the table of contents. http://www.amazon.com/Zero-One-Notes-Startups-Future/dp/0804139296
Well innovation drives the world forward doesn't it?
Here in San Jose, I feel that we're not making progress in reducing stray cat populations with our TNR (trap neuter release) programs, it's the same story every year. Shelters get flooded with cats, not enough takers.
I'm reading this book called 0 to 1 where the author talks about something similar. According to him, going from:
• 0 to 1 - Innovating, creating something novel.
• 1 to n - Globalizing. Taking an innovation and propagating it thru the world. E.g. if a cure for ebola is found and given to every country in the world eradicating the disease.
He believes that we've had few 0 to 1 moments since 1975 (outside of technology), and a lot of 1 to n ones.
Go for your new shelter idea if you can. And keep me posted.
Zero to One is my favorite.
There's a million things most people on this sub could recommend, and really the learning never stops.
Here are some good starting points:
The Hard Thing About Hard Things - Ben Horowitz
Zero to One - Peter Thiel
The Personal MBA - Josh Kaufman
The Four Hour Work Week - Tim Ferris
About Elon Musk:
https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-20150531-story.html
​
The role of the state is a bit more complicated:
https://www.amazon.com/American-Amnesia-Government-America-Prosper/dp/1451667833
https://www.amazon.com/Entrepreneurial-State-Debunking-Private-Economics/dp/0857282522
​
​
I don't have a link, I have a book.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Entrepreneurial-State-Debunking-Private-Economics/dp/0857282522
> Oil isn't any more cheap because it's currently traded in dollars.
Wrong. If you have to buy oil in a foreign country's currency, you have to buy that currency first, then buy the oil. You will always lose value in the exchange. In fact, the Iraq War may have been started to ensure the world's oil supply continues to be priced in American dollars and not Euros.
Automation will affect China and India less, because the citizens of those countries are not used to the standard of living Americans have enjoyed as a result of being less than 4% of the world's population but holding over 30% of the world's wealth. Globalization and automation will level the standard of living across the world; what that means is that as life for Indians and Chinese improves, life for Americans gets worse.
The ethnic divides in America have been kept assuaged by the bouyant economy and petrodollar; once those tank, the fissures in society will erupt and America will implode into a violent racial, ethnic, and religious civil war with horrific casualties.
The Creature from Jeykl Island will tell you all about the history on how the current iteration of the Fed was created and sneaked past the public.
https://www.amazon.com/Creature-Jekyll-Island-Federal-Reserve/dp/091298645X
Once you understand why the Fed was created, you will be screaming for it to be ended... Everyone assumes the Fed is part of the government, it is not, it is a private institute.
A book for you to read, ignorant: https://www.amazon.com/Creature-Jekyll-Island-Federal-Reserve/dp/091298645X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1469711949&sr=8-1&keywords=the+jeckyl+island
> Where is free banking and how was it implemented?
Free banking is simply treating the enterprise of banking like other free enterprises. Private banknotes drawn on reliable, credible banks can circulate freely, with transparent clearinghouse activity. Fractional reserve may be practiced, or not, so long as there is transparency and competition. George Selgin is probably the most well-known, modern proponent. It has been practiced successfully in England and Scotland in the 19th century. The temptation to legislate bank privilege tends to confound free banking.
> I don't understand what banking cartels were present during the instituting of the federal reserve system. Care to tell me
Mostly the House of J.P. Morgan, but there are British connections. The Federal Reserve Act succeeded where a previous, similar, and competing Aldrich Plan failed.
Rothbard has written some very dry but very thorough compendiums of activity by the major players. He certainly has other polemics against the Fed, but I would not recommend them to you. I have not read The Creature from Jekyll Island, but it is on my list.
I have read Secrets of the Federal Reserve, and I would certainly recommend it. It is more thorough than I cared for, and while it certainly indulges in speculation at times -- a necessary evil when journaling closed-door events -- such occurrences are not misleading. I cannot attest to the veracity of the facts presented, but they are quite specific and thorough and presumably verifiable.
Man, I don't have time or interest to give you an education on the Federal Reserve. I doubt you're actually all that interested. If you are, you can read up on it yourself:
http://www.amazon.com/Creature-Jekyll-Island-Edward-Griffin/dp/091298645X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1311367224&sr=8-1
There is too much to know, and Reddit isn't a good format for learning it all.
https://www.amazon.com/Creature-Jekyll-Island-Federal-Reserve/dp/091298645X
https://www.amazon.com/History-Money-Banking-United-States-ebook/dp/B0049H938A/
https://www.amazon.com/Creature-Jekyll-Island-Federal-Reserve/dp/091298645X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1466801204&sr=1-1&keywords=creature+from+jeckle+island
Bonus redpill: https://www.amazon.com/Creature-Jekyll-Island-Federal-Reserve/dp/091298645X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1518294645&sr=8-1&keywords=the+creature+from+jekyll+island
Get down in it https://www.amazon.com/Creature-Jekyll-Island-Federal-Reserve/dp/091298645X (buy it used or not from AMZ!)
The Creature from Jekyll Island is my favorite political book ever. Would recommend anyone to read.
Rule by Secrecy by Jim Marrs is a good starting point. It's not really about hidden cabals, but instead elucidates the existence and workings on known secretive groups. For example the CFR, Trilaterals, and Bilderbergers are quite real and any intellectual discussing forgein policy, such as Chomsky, will bring them up. They are the shot callers including Queens, US presidents, and the stupid crazy rich. Marrs can be a little out there as far as aliens and stuff, but this book is mostly a research about these organizations that call the shots. Everything is indexed and footnoted, as Marrs is an investigative journalist by education and career.
Next I would recommend The Creature from Jekyll Island. The federal reserve is the most important institution involved in our economy and every American should know about it, love it or hate it.
Thats all I can think of off the top of my head. My books are packed for a move but I'm sure you'll get some good comments.
If the Fed is publicly owned and/or controlled why does the U.S. government have to issue treasury bonds to the Fed when it needs money? Why doesn't the Treasury just get the money free? It's because the government is purchasing the product called the Federal Reserve note from the Federal Reserve corporation which gives the Treasury the privilege to issue it as the nation's currency. Taxes do not fund the Federal Reserve. Its income funds it which comes from government bonds of which they earn interest on.
>Federal Reserve System income is derived primarily from interest earned on U.S. government securities that the Federal Reserve has acquired through open market operations. This income amounted to $28.959 billion in 2005. Additionally, income from fees for the provision of priced services to depository institutions totaled $901 million. The remaining income of $386 million includes earnings on foreign currencies, earnings from loans, and other income.
https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/other20060110a.htm
The reason the income tax was introduced in the Federal Reserve Act was so the government would have enough revenue to pay the interest to the Fed! It wasn't to fund the government which was doing just fine at the time.
Furthermore, when it comes to monetary policy the Fed does not have to listen to anyone in the government. They are not government employees. Government officials can only try and persuade them to modify the money supply or change interest rates, as Trump does frequently, but they are under no legal obligation to enact such changes. The Federal Reserve and its member banks are setup as consolidated LLCs. Shares in the Fed corp are owned by private banks and individuals, many of which are foreign nationals.
The article I posted was well-researched with sources collected throughout the 20th century. People dismiss it as "conspiracy nonsense" without further research because the premise is too uncomfortable to ever accept to begin with. You're damn right it's a conspiracy. Human history proves wherever there is power to be gained or maintained there is a conspiracy to do so. You think the most powerful instrument in the world, money, is exempt? Nonsense. At this point it should be expected.
Iran and Syria have central banks that are sovereign, completely under the ownership and authority of their governments. They are not owned by shares of the Rothschild network of banking institutions. That is what is meant by them not having central banks. Iraq did not have one until after the 2003 invasion. It's also why Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, Libya and North Korea were or are on the globalist bankers' hit list.
Sorry, we were all scammed by international bankers to enslave us with debt and rule the world. They have the money, they can buy the influence required (politicians, media, industry, science and academia) to push nations towards globalism which is exactly what has occurred. The more people that come to terms with it the greater chance there is to change course. Crypto offers the vehicle but people need to be motivated to use it. If the public actually realized how they've been sold out there would be a revolt into crypto. But most are too busy working two jobs as debt slaves to realize how the power structure works. Just follow the money.
The Money Masters
Creatures from Jekyll Island
In 1913, The Creature from Jekyll Island destroyed our Constitution...
I agree, that it sounds more like covet, but the word covert makes much more sense in the context of the rest of this speech.
> It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions--by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.
Like the speech "The President and the Press", Executive Order 11110 is usually distorted and important information is missing. Add to this the fact, that one member of the Warren Commission was John J. McCloy, who had also served as the head of the world bank and you get the impression that powerful bankers were the masterminds behind JFK's assassination. Jim Marrs and his prominent book Crossfire is partly to blame. Jim Marrs's interpretation of Executive Order 11110 has been picked up by many other conspiracy researchers and documentaries like Zeitgeist.
Here are two sources which expose the mythical nature of his interpretation. Both sources cannot be qualified as banker-friendly. G. Edward Griffin wrote the classic The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve. He wrote about this misinterpretation here - THE JFK MYTH
Was he assassinated because he opposed the Fed?
Michael Collins Piper wrote an article called Hard Facts Refute
`JFK Greenback' Myth for American Free Press.
https://www.amazon.com/Creature-Jekyll-Island-Federal-Reserve/dp/091298645X
Another view on Central Banking
The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/091298645X/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_-3TTCb49VFVM6
Congratulations on the studies. Here is another book for your consideration:
https://www.amazon.com/Creature-Jekyll-Island-Federal-Reserve/dp/091298645X/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8
Switzerland Follows Iceland In Declaring War Against The Banksters
Above Photo: From WakingTimes.com.
“If you want to continue to be slaves of the banks and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let bankers continue to create money and control credit.” –Josiah Stamp.
Iceland has gained the admiration of populists in recent years by doing that which no other nation in the world seems to be willing or capable of doing: prosecuting criminal bankers for engineering financial collapse for profit.
Their effective revolt against the banking class, who drove the tiny nation into economic crisis in 2008, is the brightest example yet that the world does not have to be indebted in perpetuity to an austere and criminal wealthy elite.
[http://www.wakingtimes.com/2012/06/07/icelanders-force-accountability-for-banks-why-cant-we/]
In 2015, 26 Icelandic bankers were sentenced to prison and the government ordered a bank sale to benefit the citizenry.
[http://theantimedia.org/first-they-jailed-the-bankers-now-every-icelander-to-get-paid-in-bank-sale/]
Inspired by Iceland’s progress, activists in Switzerland are now making an important stand against the banking cartels and have successfully petitioned to bring an initiative to public referendum that would attack the private banks where it matters most: their power to lend money they don’t actually have, and to create money out of thin air.
http://www.wakingtimes.com/2014/12/12/conspiracy-bring-honest-money-world/
“Switzerland will hold a referendum to decide whether to ban commercial banks from creating money.
The Swiss federal government confirmed on Thursday that it would hold a plebiscite, after more than 110,000 people signed a petition calling for the central bank to be given sole power to create money in the financial system.
The campaign – led by the Swiss Sovereign Money movement and known as the Vollgeld initiative – is designed to limit financial speculation by requiring private banks to hold 100pc reserves against their deposits.” [The Telegraph]
Switzerland is in a key position to play a revolutionary role in changing how global banking functions.
In addition to being the world’s safest harbor for storing wealth, it is also home to the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), a shadowy private company owned by many of the world’s central banks, and acting as a lender to the central banks. [https://www.bis.org/]
The BIS is the very heart of global reserve banking, the policy that enables banks to lend money that does not actually exist in their bank deposits, but is instead literally created electronically from nothing whenever a bank extends a line of credit.
[http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/091298645X/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?]
Reserve banking is the policy that guarantees insurmountable debt as the outcome of all financial transactions.
The Sovereign Money initiative in Switzerland aims to curb financial speculation, which is the intended and inevitable result of reserve banking, the tool that makes financial adventurism possible by supplying the banks with endless quantities of fiat money.
[http://www.wakingtimes.com/2015/06/29/can-this-economy-be-saved-by-injecting-fiat-money-into-banks/]
Limiting a bank’s ability to produce money from nothing would be a direct blow to the roots of the banking cartel, and would cripple their ability to manipulate the world economy.
Here’s how it works, in rather simplified terms:
“…if we had access to the same computer terminals the banks have, we could magic in or out of existence all the imaginary stuff we are trained to think of as important – money – in whatever quantities we liked.
This is how it works: when they print quite a lot of this stuff there is a boom. When they print too much of it, there is inflation (actually, the printing of money is inflation). When they stop printing it or simply hold on to it, there is a depression.” [https://www.rt.com/op-edge/327191-switzerland-money-banks-ban-referendum/]
In Switzerland, 90% of all money in circulation is electronic, and for this, The National Bank of Switzerland has become the direct target of the Sovereign Money Campaign.
Swiss law has in the past required required banks to back all currency creation with collateral assets like physical silver or gold, however in recent decades the climate has changed, and, “due to the emergence of electronic payment transactions, banks have regained the opportunity to create their own money.”
The grass roots campaign said in a public statement regarding the intentions of the referendum, “banks won’t be able to create money for themselves any more, they’ll only be able to lend money that they have from savers or other banks.”
This is an interesting twist in the human saga of man vs. banks, and while it remains to be seen if the referendum passes or not, it must be pointed out that it does have its own problems, articulated by Sam Gerrans:
[https://www.rt.com/op-edge/327191-switzerland-money-banks-ban-referendum/]
“… it does say that the central bank should be given sole right to create money.
This would essentially leave the creation of money in the same hands as those who control the Federal Reserve or the Bank of England rather than allow them to farm out the process.
But at least it shows that people are beginning to wake up to where the true power lies.
In the unlikely event that this grass-roots movement in Switzerland should get its way and its proposed legislation be enacted, and then begin to morph into something which really does threaten the banking elite, we must not be surprised if Switzerland is shortly discovered to be harboring weapons of mass destruction, or to have masterminded 9/11, or to be financing Islamic State.”
Part of the cultural conditioning of our time is an ingrained, pre-assumed dependency on sacred cow institutions like banking.
Just like it is impossible for most Americans to envision a world without Democrats and Republicans, it is difficult for most people to imagine a world without predatory global banking.
Yet, there are a number of other possibilities for trading, storing wealth, and facilitating development in the world.
[http://www.wakingtimes.com/2015/08/24/the-next-global-financial-crisis-is-here-and-this-is-what-we-can-do-about-it/]
This is not the only economic system we can imagine, and as Iceland has proven, people can regain control of their collective wealth, so perhaps this revolution will foment further in Switzerland, presenting a chance to at least bring greater awareness to the truth about central banking.
https://www.popularresistance.org/switzerland-follows-iceland-in-declaring-war-against-the-banksters/
The Creature from Jekyll Island
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/091298645X/ref=redir_mdp_mobile/178-6230627-7590562
Hey man wanted to give you a heads up.
Two economists who are advising Sen Warren on tax policy have a book coming out tomorrow.
The Triumph of Injustice: How the Rich Dodge Taxes and How to Make Them Pay
Thomas Piketty (of "Capital in the 20th Century" fame) has just published a 1,000 pages opus called "Capitalism and Ideology".
Will probably hit the US shelves in a few months. Meanwhile everyone should buy Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman: " The Triumph of Injustice: How the Rich Dodge Taxes and How to Make Them Pay"
Note that Zucman is an economical advisor to Bernie and Warren.
https://www.amazon.com/Triumph-Injustice-Rich-Dodge-Taxes/dp/1324002727
>To the extent that Huawei copies other parties' IP, it is unlikely to suffer consequences in China because it does not subscribe to international IP norms.
Yes but the Chinese market is so big they don't care and it is only growing. The US market is also huge but we already are disinclined to purchase Huawei products, yet they are still top 3 in phone sales globally.
​
You asked how copyright laws handicap innovation? I'm speaking on the overall technological innovation of a society, currently the US' overall technological innovation is being hindered, in part, by copyright laws such as the DMCA and DRM.
​
In the book, AI Superpowers, the author, Kai-Fu Lee, argues much the same, but in the specific lens of Artificial Intelligence. He goes in to explicit detail about many examples, much better than I could explain them. There you will specifically find the examples you demand, then you can go and tell him he has no idea what he is talking about.
​
Edit:
https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-lawsuit-takes-dmca-section-1201-research-and-technology-restrictions-violate
https://www.eff.org/cases/green-v-us-department-justice
https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-wins-dmca-exemption-petitions-tinkering-echos-and-repairing-appliances-new
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/08/topple-track-attacks-eff-and-others-outrageous-dmca-notices
https://cdt.org/insight/the-cyber-hard-questions-in-the-world-of-cybersecurity-research/
https://cdt.org/blog/taking-the-pulse-of-security-research/
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/12/closed-proprietary-felonious-toxic-rainbow-locked-technology
https://cdt.org/files/2018/04/2018-04-09-security-research-expert-statement-final.pdf
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/01/anyone-even-government-can-ask-patent-office-review-invalid-patents
​
I just read "AI Superpowers" by Kai-Fu Lee and so I'm in the hype zone. That said, humans suck at pattern matching compared to computer algorithms. The tricky part is the data. Yes, they can go in and see an individual property's renovations, lot quirks, etc. but they don't see the same for comparables (all they have is what they have seen before which introduces observation bias). Over time as more data become available, algorithms will overtake humans.
See Wikipedia:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kai-Fu_Lee
And Amazon:
https://www.amazon.com/AI-Superpowers-China-Silicon-Valley/dp/132854639X
The author isn't a socialist, but the subject matter should interest every marxist.
It is a very valid concern. China is going very hard at AI, while our government seems to only care about the Donald Trump sideshow.
Andrew credits this book with largely shaping his opinions on the coming AI Race:
https://www.amazon.com/AI-Superpowers-China-Silicon-Valley/dp/132854639X
Here is the author speaking on Andrew's campaign:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7gSD-LXT34
I'm just gonna leave this here...
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01HZFB7GI/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
Good read
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01HZFB7GI/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
First off, thank you. This response was amazing and thorough.
> We need to maintain the ability to talk about these processes with lay people without them assuming that AGW=CO2. Since then we have to try and reeducate them before we can even start explaining what's changed.
My only "qualifications" in this realm would be from Naomi Klein's This Changes Everything. I'm interested on your take of the book if you have read it. But more importantly, as a layman in this regard, what books can I read that would educate me on the topic? Ironically, I work as a software developer at an environmental agency maintaining their financial applications. I'm not a scientist, but would love to learn more.
> I presume you didn't live through the era of actual AGW denial but people that don't want to hear their actions are negative will grasp at anything to ignore/disprove your opinion.
I grew up and currently live in the south eastern part of the US and denial is most of the conversation, regardless of age. It's pretty shocking.
Your link is kinda funky, here's a better one: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00J6YBOFQ?btkr=1
This one is about creating start ups. It is called Zero to One.
To be honest, I really have not read many books. This is something that has been off and on the past couple of years. I really haven't finished many books. I know that sounds really sad. I can't even remember the last book I really read cover to cover. So I am having a hard time answering the top three books. Sorry! I know that makes it hard to make recommendations to someone that just started reading.
I'm looking at getting into real estate. I think i'm going to lean towards books about that to further my education on the topic. I am going to create a list of recommendations that you guys give. I will tackle it!
Nice, but as Naomi Klein has repeatedly pointed out (and wrote a book on), global warming requires abandoning capitalism, no matter how much money initiatives like this generate.
> You’re suffering from something called impostor syndrome, which is something many successful people have. No matter how good you are and how far you come, you still feel like it’s a mistake and you aren’t worthy.
You know, that really puts things into perspective for me. I've recently had an interview and just looking at my resume you can see I'm very successful; I have a patent pending, ivy education, and president of some things which their contributions have seen positive attention from media.
The interviewer asked me the following question:
> What is an achievement that you are particularly proud of?
There was a long pause, and she was surprised. I could objectively see why, but I wanted to be honest--so I thought about it. I don't really feel that way. In the end, I answered something along the lines of being able to create something out of nothing, which is something that few people seem to be able to do. Zero to One by Peter Thiel is a book that kind of puts this idea into perspective. Honestly though, I still feel like I could do better and I feel like I've made far too many mistakes that I shouldn't have made in the past.
Apply for a job at our company :) DM for details
Or, if you go solo, try to create a product that generates at least $10 a day in revenue. Like /u/enantiodromia said in another post:
> Software helps normal people get early wins, which keeps them motivated, which keeps them interested enough to keep trying.
It was in a different context, but the idea's the same. You need an early win. Mixed In Key was my early win. It gave me the strength to keep going. I recommend a book called Zero to One, it might be relevant for what you're asking about:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00J6YBOFQ/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
profit over people is the new world order
Look, I'm not interested in getting into a debate about semantics. My primary reason for replying was to point out some of the shortcomings of a "free market" (or laissez faire capitalism).
Anyway, I'm not an economist nor a philosopher. You should decide what you value most: markets or human beings. If you have a religious devotion to the former then there is nothing I can do for you.
If you're interested in criticisms of a capitalist free market you should check out Profit Over People by Noam Chomsky or anything by Karl Marx who obviously has some interesting views on the matter.
Paul Romer tem um nobel de economia por "Paul Romer has demonstrated how knowledge can function as a driver of long-term economic growth. He showed how economic forces govern the willingness of firms to produce new ideas. Romer’s central theory, which was published in 1990, explains how ideas are different to other goods and require specific conditions to thrive in a market."
uma das milhares de fonte q eu poderia citar éc essa aqui https://www.amazon.com.br/Entrepreneurial-State-Debunking-Public-Private/dp/1610396138
Okay, thats the meat of it I suppose. That also answers the other question I was hoping to as vis a vis what is you understanding how dominant political power functions to insulate ideology. All I can say is that in my world you are the dreaded reality of a neo-liberal society. The result of the deconstruction of the individual's democratic influence on politics through their labor or through community solely relying on the spectacle of a sham electoral process, but I don't think you really care what I think.
You may never see it yourself, but I think over the coming years you might get a peak under the curtain of how oppression functions. I guess try talking to people on the otherside? I have witnessed oppression, I've seen state violence with my own eyes so forgive me if I think this way of thinking is not grounded in reality. Here's a parting gift, Some books (and a movie) that will really piss you off.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afBmN7icFRw
(I hope this movie doesn't turn you into a monster)
https://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Ghost-Story-Arundhati-Roy/dp/1608463850
https://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Neoliberalism-David-Harvey/dp/0199283273
Keep doing you, never want to meet you
It was my understanding that neo-liberal economic policies were about dismantling social services, consumer protections, and trade barriers. Thatcher and Reagan led the way in the 80s - the former famously threw down Hayek's The Constitution of Liberty and vowed to break down government services. Clinton continued with NAFTA and welfare reform.
David Harvey wrote a book about it.
David Harvey put a great book out on all aspects of this horrific event, blaming Reagan, Thatcher, Deng and Pinochet. Of course Murdoch was the prime mover of most of it. Called "A Brief History of Neoliberalism". http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Neoliberalism-David-Harvey/dp/0199283273#
Brief History of Neoliberalism by David Harvey. Although it's not specifically about Reagan, the book covers lots of ideas and policies employed since 80s by not only Reagan Administration on large scale. Book was published in 2005 for the first time and it's amazing how almost everything Harvey describes happened during erstwhile macroregional economic crises is again in progress since 2008. Although the late actions were results-wise mushy at best.
>Okay liar, this is exactly what you said: "Right libertarian, the modern right libertarian movement is about a state that caters to corporations only"
Yeah, right libertarians want government out of everything, bar enforcing property rights and business contracts by force.
Postpone was the word, I suggest you read this.
>Neoliberalism--the doctrine that market exchange is an ethic in itself, capable of acting as a guide for all human action--has become dominant in both thought and practice throughout much of the world since 1970 or so. Writing for a wide audience, David Harvey, author of The New Imperialism and The Condition of Postmodernity, here tells the political-economic story of where neoliberalization came from and how it proliferated on the world stage. Through critical engagement with this history, he constructs a framework, not only for analyzing the political and economic dangers that now surround us, but also for assessing the prospects for the more socially just alternatives being advocated by many oppositional movements.
https://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Neoliberalism-David-Harvey/dp/0199283273
So you can leave the pomo world of alt facts where you believe you are in a left wing syetem, when in fact its a right wing system.
Its better than screaming liar everytime you hear facts that contradict your ideology.
>And now even more weird is how Reddit is shifting it toward meaning "(((globalists)))" now.
Afaik Neoliberalism has been synonymous with and considered a direct cause of globalism in economic literature since at least 2005 - see books like this and this. It's also been used similarly by activists for at least as long, see this site from circa 2004.
That said, I've been led to understand it has a very different definition in international relations, so it wouldn't surprise me if it was different in other fields as well.
When are you going to start discussing the issues? I suspect neoliberalism is out of your league, since you don't know appear to know anything about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism
http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Neoliberalism-David-Harvey/dp/0199283273
There is nothing I said by which you can infer I was a neoliberal; further, as I pointed out, Bush and Clinton are both neoliberal in governing ideology, so that's really the angle you wanted to hit on how they're the same.
Looking through your post history, it looks like you quite like the term. If that's the case, might I recommend either Harvey's A Brief History of Neoliberalism or Peck's Constructions of Neoliberal Reason. Of the two, I prefer Harvey. You might also look into Foucault's lectures on biopolitics, he traces neoliberal thought back through the ordoliberals in Germany.
To be clear, I'm not condescending here, if you are actually interested in these ideas, I really do want you to take them up and if you already have, perhaps we could discuss why you think pointing out the previous presidents support Clinton makes one a neoliberal...
OP, please don't just try and pick up Shock Doctrine. It's pretty much a 2x4 of Leftist thought to the face. If you're interested in the class and labor perspective start with something by David Harvey. He's much less... strident. I would suggest Neoliberalism
A brief history
You just keep clowning yourself https://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Neoliberalism-David-Harvey/dp/0199283273
> I'll tell you this, you've been sold a bill of goods that says spending huge amounts of money will fix everything.
No, I never intended to imply that it would fix everything.
Today, the immediate problem is that there aren't enough jobs because business isn't spending. There is an entity that can spend without worrying about profit; indeed this is its mandate, in my opinion. This is the government. Ergo, it ought to spend this economy by purchasing everything made until such point that private businesses or consumers start spending again.
The deficit, etc. is a longer-term problem. It's akin to your child refusing to eat their morning cereal, so you stop serving them food altogether, assuming their hunger will kick in, forcing them to somehow figure out how to cook and feed themselves. It just does not work.
Read Mark Blyth's Austerity: the History of a Dangerous Idea where he explains why. The tl;dr of the work is that what I'd outlined above.
> My point was that the debt to GDP ratio isn't so high that it couldn't go any higher, such as due to a recession.
Ignore anything before 1865. That is not the stick to measure against for historical records as the structure of the economy was wildly different. Since 1865, a period of time where the economy of the UK was starting to resemble what it does today, the only times where it has been the result of international crises.
>My point was that the debt to GDP ratio isn't so high that it couldn't go any higher, such as due to a recession.
It can go higher, sure. That isn't necessarily a good thing though and, given the constraints we've put on ourselves into, it won't be nearly as manageable without drastic restructuring.
>Austerity was a political choice, not a necessity.
What is the relevancy of this? We are not on about the policies of the United States or Weimar Republic we're on about the circumstances that lead to the GDP-Debt ratio in the UK being higher than it was now, namely the Great Depression and two world wars.
>See this book about Austerity or any lecture by Mark Blyth about austerity on YouTube. Also Google for Modern Monetary Theory while you're at it.
No, because a) it's entirely irrelevant to the discussion, b) I have other things to do and c) I am more than aware of MMT, Keynsian economics and the drawbacks of austerity already.
> Japan's net debt to GDP is still about twice ours.
And most of that is still held domestically.
>That viewpoint makes sense from someone who learns about the Euro from the news
It's not from the news, it's basic economics. Removing control of a countries currency takes away their greatest tool in combating recessions and downturns. Not having your own currency also makes you puppet to the decisions of your new central bank as explained below.
When the downturn happened and it's subsequent bailouts the EU turned private debt into public debt and then issued it to everyday people in the name of austerity programs. Then tried to restart the system with permanent liquidity through the central bank to the sum of 13 trillion dollars in the bond market and 10 trillion in fiscal support. They've now generated somewhere in the ballpark of 40 trillion dollars worth of negative yielding assets. Certainly sounds like a system that is performing well right? It get's worse.
Now that you've injected massive amounts of capital into the system, where is the inflation? Look at the wage share of GDP in the Eurozone. Capital share has gone up, and labor share has plummeted. The only thing keeping it going now is massive liquidity injections and bond purchases all falling squarely on the backs of the taxpayer.
The EU get's high marks here, because real wages in the eurozone are rising again ever so slightly because your Germans overlords have kept a lid on it through their own strong unions.
Where does that leave us. Now we have more capital in the market than can be invested, and the pool continues to grow. The average age of Europe continues to rise, now at 44 years old. I only point that out as old people tend to prefer conservative policies of low inflation due to fixed incomes, furthering current policy trends. The flaws exposed in the political and economic union within the EU during the downturn should fill you with terror, and have you praying that it never happens again. However the current conditions being created by your central bank make that event as close to a statistical certainty.
I don't get my economic knowledge from the news, but it sounds like you do. Traveling around Europe gives you exactly zero knowledge or expertise on the subject.
I recommend you start here.
Then give this a read for some perspective on why national currencies should be the first bastion of defense for a republic.
It's bed time for me and while my tone has been mostly argumentative, I need to concede a few points. I have to admit that the US is heading for single payer healthcare, and the prospect of knowing that no citizen will face dying or financial ruin due to the unavailability of healthcare coverage fills my cold heart with joy. I just want it's implementation to be economically viable and sustainable. This half hearted shit with the ACA won't work anymore.
entertaining stuff. its great that he examines the debate around austerity by looking at reliable graphs, but its a bummer he doesn't do any more research and arrives at HYPER simply conclusions... for example, equating new government debt with the change in unemployment? Where do I start... first of all, the numbers on job creation may be way off from the difference between two unemployment figures (people enter the job market and leave the job market for many, many reasons) and, sad to say, much of the federal debt was used to prop up an economy teetering on the brink (although, I'll admit, not enough was used to help out normal folks, particularly underwater homeowners). But for this guy to look at three graphs, subtract unemployment figures, and come to his conclusions is both radically transparent (good for him) and radically ignorant (he needs to put down he preconceptions and read a bit more, starting here maybe: http://www.amazon.com/Austerity-The-History-Dangerous-Idea/dp/019982830X ). Downvote.
https://www.amazon.com/Austerity-History-Dangerous-Mark-Blyth/dp/019982830X
I strongly recommend you this book. I used to buy into the "oh Southern Europe are full of lazy people, that's why they aren't willing to sucuumb to the austerity meansures"-narrative by the media (at least in Germany), but this changed my perspective.
I'm not sure about this. As I understand the mortgage-backed securities and credit swaps is that one of the problems prior to 2009 was there were not sufficient treasury notes in circulation to back up short terms loans so mortgage securities were used as second best collateral given the perception that a pool of mortgages, some with government backing, is only marginally less secure than a T note (Blyth). Government debt is in demand, by implication. If there is a demand for securities, a long term "punishment" of a disobedient socialist or even Keynesian government is unlikely. If stocks decide that President Bernie is a problem, for example, bonds, including government bonds, are going to be more attractive. Maybe the billionaires will all buy gold, Midwestern farmland, and cryptocurrency but it's hard to put 100 billion away like that in a hurry. Some government debt is a good place to hide. Plus, a truly outside the box government could pay down a small percentage of the overall debt by printing a small amount of money without causing massive inflation, as there is no evidence that inflation below 10% has any harmful effect on living standards. So, if the Bernie Bros were willing to let inflation tick up a bit to 6% or so, and if the stock market is iffy on socialists, the federal government should be able to borrow as much as they want -- although Bernie would hopefully not have to as AOC put through a maximum wealth law and the money comes in the old fashioned way...
​
https://www.amazon.com/Austerity-History-Dangerous-Mark-Blyth/dp/019982830X
Η Ισλανδία με 300 000 πληθυσμό, τεράστια εξάρτηση στις εισαγωγές όλων των ειδών και GDP χαμηλότερο από της Ελλάδας έχει πιο δυνατή οικονομία μάλιστα. Η Δανία έχει πολύ πιο ευαίσθητη οικονομία λόγω του ότι βασίζεται κυρίως σε εξαγωγές, που την κτύπησαν άγρια. Γενικά είναι στα ίδια επίπεδα με την Ελλάδα.
Η Δανία πήγε να μπει σε μνημόνια όπως την Ελλάδα και όταν η κατάσταση δεν καλυτέρευε, απέφυγε περαιτέρω λιτότητα, οπόταν επανήλθε σε φυσιολογικά επίπεδα πολύ γρήγορα. Η Ελλάδα ακόμη προσπαθεί.
Κρίσεις γίνονται συνεχώς και όταν ο ιδιωτικός τομέας συρρικνώνεται η απάντηση δεν είναι λιτότητα αλλά η ανάπτυξη του δημόσιου τομέα για να καλύψει την ανεργία. Το κράτος χάνει χρήματα αρχικά, αλλά επανέρχεται διότι κρατά την οικονομία σε κίνηση, εφόσων οι καταναλωτές έχουν λεφτά για να ξοδεύουν και επίσης είναι ικανοί να πληρώνουν φόρους αντί να πληρώνονται παροχές και επιδόματα. Επίσης με το τύπωμα ρευστού οι αξίες των χρεών του κράτους μειώνονται, κάτι που του επιτρέπει να αντεπεξέλθει. Αυτό γινόταν για χρόνια από την εποχή του 1920 και το κραχ στην Αμερική και Ευρώπη, και είναι ένας κύριος λόγος της ύπαρξης του τιμάριθμου.
Από την εποχή του Reagan και της Thatcher όμως έχει μπει η ιδέα σε όλους ότι κάτι τέτοιο είναι πρωτόγονο και προσπαθούν με χίλια ζόρια να εφαρμόσουν λιτότητα. Η λιτότητα δεν εξυπηρετά κανένα παρά μόνο τις πλούσιες τάξεις, καθώς οι τιμές ιδιοκτησίας κατρακυλούν, με αποτέλεσμα να αγοράζουν (όπως και γίνεται τώρα στην Ελλάδα) τεράστια ποσά περιουσιών για ψίχουλα και να επενδύουν για το μέλλον τους. Η ιδέα ότι η λιτότητα θα σώσει την οικονομία είναι επιστημονικά αποδεδειγμένο ότι δεν στέκει (https://www.amazon.com/Austerity-History-Dangerous-Mark-Blyth/dp/019982830X). Το μόνο που κάνει είναι να δημιουργεί μια ψεύτικη ασφάλεια, που ανεβάζει την οικονομία για λίγο, αλλά όλα καταρρέουν με την επόμενη κρίση.
Here is the mobile version of your link
Funny, I'm actually reading this book A Generation of Sociopaths: How the Baby Boomers Betrayed America
A Generation of Sociopaths
https://www.amazon.com/Generation-Sociopaths-Boomers-Betrayed-America/dp/0316395781
I did read a book, and it was in fact quite eye opening:
A Generation of Sociopaths: How the Baby Boomers Betrayed America by Bruce Cannon Gibney
https://www.amazon.com/Generation-Sociopaths-Boomers-Betrayed-America/dp/0316395781
Was it this one?
https://www.amazon.com/Generation-Sociopaths-Boomers-Betrayed-America/dp/0316395781
>Boomers want their gimmes just like everybody else. They never thought the Con-man in Chief would take them away from them.
FTFY, if the latest book I'm reading is correct that this is all the government normally has to do to keep support; mortgage the future to pay for boomers benefits today.
https://www.amazon.com/Generation-Sociopaths-Boomers-Betrayed-America/dp/0316395781
Super late to the party, But because Boomers, largely dismantled the social safety net their parents created for younger people, whilst voting themselves massive tax breaks, and just all around being shit goblins This book covers this issue quite well
The lead exposure is an interesting angle I haven't thought of. I have been pretty sick of boomers' collective BS and ruining of our country and state for a while now. I recently read this book, which basically lays out the case that boomers are sociopaths only concerned with getting as much for themselves as possible. The author discusses how they were raised in ways totally different from previous and following generations and then uses mountains of data to ram home the point of how shitty they have been for the country. I have been recommending it to everyone I know that reads.
https://www.amazon.com/Generation-Sociopaths-Boomers-Betrayed-America/dp/0316395781
The meme works because as a generation, the boomers are sociopaths who have acted incredibly selfishly at the expense of all other generations. Read the book below as it lays it out very well.
A Generation of Sociopaths: How the Baby Boomers Betrayed America https://www.amazon.com/dp/0316395781/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_teeWDbKWNQXG2
Well, Yes.
https://www.amazon.com/Generation-Sociopaths-Boomers-Betrayed-America/dp/0316395781
Highly recommend "A Generation of Sociopaths: How the Baby Boomers Betrayed America" for an in-depth exploration of this topic. The book goes a bit off the rails occasionally in an attempt to prove its thesis, but overall it's a well-done, eye-opening book about how the Boomers pillaged the wealth created by their parents and left nothing but debt behind for the rest of us.
https://www.amazon.com/Generation-Sociopaths-Boomers-Betrayed-America/dp/0316395781
Let me throw some numbers at you. Currently the average baby boomer pulls in around $1.12 in benefits for every $1.00 paid in. The average Millennial will pull in around $.85 for every $1.00 paid in meaning that if you took that money you pay every month and stuck it under your mattress you’d get a better ROI.
I would spend my time roasting this guy but there a book that does it for me
It's Amazon so he'll have to get a millennial to figure out that darn computer machine for him to read it though. https://www.amazon.com/dp/0316395781/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_IrLPCbHCV00PJ
Buy him this book titled "A generation of sociopaths: how the baby boomers betrayed America." https://www.amazon.com/Generation-Sociopaths-Boomers-Betrayed-America/dp/0316395781
I'm saying this to point out the irony, not to offend you, but that is a really lazy explanation. It's not like the people who blame the previous generation only say "wah old people", the arguments are fleshed out a lot more than that, including complete books, some as long as 500 pages. I mean, feel free to refute the points people make, but to dismiss it without it does not carry weight to me.
And I'm not sure how it helps divide the working class, or how you can really even know that, but I'd be glad to hear your explanation. Of course working class boomers are not likely to be compelled by these arguments, but I think that making people aware of how much more fucked up capitalism became while the boomers held power creates intra-generational and inter-generational solidarity for millenials and the next generation (whatever they are calling them). If nothing else people should at least be aware that there was a shift in economics and politics at the end of the 70s - whether or not you want to put a middle finger to boomers in there.
Why dont you go to Amazon and read what others have to say.
https://www.amazon.com/War-Normal-People-Disappearing-Universal/dp/0316414247#customerReviews
How about if in my example, I compared pirating music with using Wikipedia without ever donating money to them? That's the same then. Does the financial situation of wikipedia employees matter? Would it be worth documenting the wikipedia workers' lives? Could that be done without looking like a "donate to wikipedia!" ad?
The best comparison of music piracy is undoubtedly movie piracy; there's clearly no ethical difference. Is it worthwhile to look at how movie producers have been affected financially? Do you think that such a thing could be made without looking like it's pushing a political agenda for the MPAA?
I know that journalism without advocacy exists though, and sure, this information could be useful to people, but like I said in my original post, I just think it's writing the wrong narrative.
Lets say a Walmart moves into town, and runs the local Kmart out of business (not a comparison to music piracy, just an example of voluntarism). Is it appropriate to document the lives of those displaced Kmart workers? Should we make people feel bad about shopping at Walmart? I would say it doesn't matter because everything is completely voluntary, as long as Walmart doesn't purchase from slave owners and doesn't steal things from other people. Voluntary interactions are generally ethical and coercion is generally unethical. It's pretty easy to see what is voluntary and what is coercive when it comes to slavery vs labor, and theft vs trade of physical property. However, It's not clear that violations of intellectual property are unethical or coercive. It's wrong to steal someone's car, because if you do, they don't have a car. If you steal someone's recipe, they still have that recipe.
There are actually very strong arguments that protecting intellectual property causes a net loss for society. This is a very good book, if you're interested. This one is good too, and talks extensively about the philosophy of property rights. In short, IP protection can be very damaging to creative industries because it hampers derivative works, causes a chilling effect which stifles innovation even more, and increases barriers to enter those markets.
And who sets the price? The patent holder? Congress?
Just this month a pharmaceutical company hired former Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker, Linda Daschle (the current Senate Minority Leader's wife), four other former members of Congress, and more than a dozen other lobby and PR firms to try to extend drug patents that would otherwise be expiring soon. The cost for just one of the drugs, Claritin, for which the company would have its monopoly extended could cost Americans over 3 billion dollars. See Action Alert: Drug-Patent Bill Could Cost Patients $3 Billion+; Hearing July 1.
You might want to read Against Intellectual Monopoly, which presents an alternative viewpoint.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Myth-Rational-Voter-Democracies/dp/0691138737
Crimea? Isn't that a river?
Yes, people are ignorant about economics and politics. And that's fine as long as there aren't systematic biases that pull policy away from the ideal (ideal based on some aggregation of everyone's preferences). But that condition doesn't seem to be the case.
Okay, so there is systemic and damaging ignorance and we can't simply wave a wand and make people spend less time having fun and all go out and learn economics, sociology, political science, etc. But your friends can surely discuss ignorance. What are its sources? (hint: time is scarce) What are it's implications? (hint: reducing the scope of government would reduce the problem)
>But if you pirate the seven seas, or plunder northern France, you can definitely make a profit on non-voluntary transactions.
Sure I can agree with that, but for the purposes of our discussion, I was distinguishing between the two types of exchange.
>And government programs do fail when their policies are failures, or at least unpopular.
Such as? There are far more examples of the opposite.
>And if you think that corporations make maximal use of their resources
It doesn't matter what I think or if corporations make maximal use of resources. The question is whether consumers value their output more than the inputs resulting in more revenue then expenses, i.e. profit.
>In general, governments are still subject to feedback mechanisms, but the feedback mechanism is usually the ballot box, 1 vote per person, and not the profit box, 1 vote per customer dollar.
First, not everyone votes, everyone engages in economic exchange. Second, the incentives in the public and private are completely different. I suggest Bryan Caplan's The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies for serious insight into this.
>Capital One was convicted of failing to send a certain percentage of credit card statements each month in order to increase the amount of late fees they could collect. This is the opposite of satisfaction.
Private companies are not perfect all the time because they are run by humans who are not perfect. The system does not require perfect humans to be efficient. It requires a feedback mechanism to ensure that not satisfying consumer demand is punished. Banks are a special case because they don't rely as much on consumers for their bottom line as traditional industry - their balance sheets can be enhanced by borrowing from the central bank.
>there is nothing else meaningful to base your government policy, or your ethics off of.
My ethics are based on providing maximum freedom to the individual, irrespective of what they do with it. I'm not concerned about promoting the greater good by central planning. Why does the good of the group outweigh the good of the individual?
>I am not sure there is any realistic example in which some can suffer a lot for others benefit, and this maximises utility.
I would say this depends on the scope of the group you are talking about benefiting. The US harms many overseas to benefit the domestic population, for example.
>Ultimately I have some faith in governments... to fail less than the market does. i simply think they fail less (or have the potential to fail less) than the free market.
When the government fails, it does so after having threatened the people with violence, taken their money, and then wither wasted it, lost it, and hurt the many to benefit the politically connected. Market failures certainly do happen, but they are the result of the choices people make, which to me is far less unethical than a government failure. Do you think governments have the potential to fail worse than the market, with worse outcomes from those worse failures?
>I am a Keynesian, so I think deficit spending is terrific.
Even Keynes only suggested deficit spending during recessions, not every single year during good times as well.
>The only way to deal with this is a very informed electorate, which is hardly an exciting solution.
It's an irrational solution. Have you ever read anything like They Myth of the Rational Voter? The amount of time it takes to become educated on all the relevant topics compared to the meaninglessness of your vote statistically among many millions makes it a very poor investment of your time.
>These are deeply heterodox views, and you would have a hard time finding a respectable modern academic to back you up on them.
The government isn't exactly known for its historical honesty, and supports people who support its views. However, there are some recognized works, including this Pulitzer Prize winning book. Ben Bernanke has a concurring view of Milton Friedman's work to show the great depression worsened by Federal monetary policy
>respectable
The trouble with this word is that in today's discourse anyone who supports a heterodox view of anything is instantly branded as "not-respectable."
I'm going to skip your stuff on austerity, as I am not familiar with the particulars of those countries and don't have anything informed to say about them. My apologies.
>I am all in favour of a smaller military
Yes, but if you're concerned about the environment, then the military is currently and ongoing government failure, dare I say a disaster. Can you point to something the market is failing at that has an equally large impact?
>that energy would have been consuming by the free market equivalent of the services provided by government anyway.
This assumes the government programs are as efficient as market ones. Would you make that assumption?
>Again, while the government is not perfect, it is the better than the alternative.
False dichotomy. What is the alternative? There can be many alternatives.
>Almost all of the top universities in the world are publicly run, Cambridge, Harvard, Oxford etc.
Harvard is private. The Ivy league schools are private. Also, what does "top" mean? Top at what? Promoting an orthodox view? Producing the best minds to go into politics and lord over people?
>higher than many poor people could afford in the free market, this is the ultimate problem of education in the market.
In much of the developing world private education is stepping in where the government fails.
>What sort of social mobility can you expect when the lower classes are educated so badly relative to their more rich counterparts?
The US government is a worst offender of this I can think of, because it funds schools on property taxes. Government education is a massive failure, yet it produces people at the ready to denounce private education.
Read Bryan Caplan's The Myth of the Rational Voter . His basic thesis is that in politics there is no incentive to change from biased/wrong beliefs. I never challenge my beliefs even if seeing them implemented could bring me great harm, because the probability that my vote is the decider is practically zero. A result of this is people supporting parties as they support sports teams.
>When you claim the government collecting taxes is theft, you are claiming the government has no right to collect taxes. For example, a parent can strike a child without that child having recourse to pressing assault charges. A parent can ground a child without the child having recourse to kidnapping and false imprisonment charges. This is because parents have the right to do those things to the children under their authority. Likewise, the state has certain rights it secures over the people under its authority.<
This is a terrible analogy. The government isn't a family. They aren't our parents. It's a separate entity full of people you and I don't know. Taxation is theft, but I pay my taxes only because I don't want to spend my time in prison.
>I never said the common good is from the state. The common good exists anytime you have two people in the same room. What I, and the Church, are saying is that it is the responsibility of the state to safeguard the common good.<
My apologies - I thought you did say that. But my point remains, though. What I'm saying is that if The State only supports the protection of property rights and courts, then I'll concede to your point, although I do believe that The State isn't necessary for either of those functions. However, a limited State hardly exists. It's expansive powers corrode away at individual freedoms, are riddled with bureaucratic waste, and it supplies benefits in the form of rents to the concentrated and well-informed while socializing the costs on the dispersed and uninformed. That's the logic of public choice. Because resources are scarce, we need to take extreme care that those resources aren't wasted. I'm arguing that the government, by it's very nature, does create waste when it transfers resources from X to Y, which comes at the expense of everyone else.
I'm guessing you'll reply with "doesn't matter - although the government might be doing bad things A, B, and C, it's still promoting the common good by doing D, E, and F." So how should we fix this? I think you'll say "exercise their power" by voting or calling their legislators, but voting is an unaccountable action that pollutes democracy and, in the case of activist governments, lead to terrible policies that come at the expense of the general welfare. I think we can do better than that. You're right that if I conceded to your point (based on my comment above), then what I'd accept the fact that some tax is owed. However, because of those biases and realities, I would argue that starving the beast (withholding taxes) is the more ethical approach to direct government toward promoting only the common good.
But I have also been arguing that there is no way to know if the government is promoting the common good. There is no metric that will assure an outside observer (you) that the loss to A (me) from being forced to pay for G's (government) common good intervention on behalf of B (a stranger) is less than the loss to B of persisting in a world without that particular public good. Because there is no solid evidence, or strong reason to believe, that A's losses aren't at least as great as B's gains from G's action, the presumption of liberty should keep G and B out of A's pocket.
This is getting pretty long, but I think I've addressed all your points. But regarding FICA, all I'm trying to show is that it is possible that your dollar can be earmarked. What that means to me is that the government does have the ability to institute a tax for a very specific purpose (which does happen - especially in local governments). If I was guaranteed that my money was earmarked only to the provision of courts and property rights, then I'll concede as I mentioned above. But to a large degree (with exceptions), we don't know where our money is going and, to me, that is the problem.
Oh man, I cannot recommend The Problem of Political Authority, by Michael Huemer enough. Here's a video on the first part of the book for an overview, but you really have to read the book to see how thorough he is. The first part of the book talks about the ethics of why government is not particularly morally justified. The second part really carefully reasons out how and why a stateless society could not just function, but thrive.
Voter irrationality is a big deal. Huemer also has this paper on why it's a good thing the average person is not more influential. Then Bryan Caplan has an excellent book that really delves into the political economy of voter irrationality. I've listened to it on audible, and though the reader is pretty dry, it's a very detailed explanation of just how much astray voters are. You can top off this category with Jason Brennan's Against Democracy.
> That's perhaps the root of your misunderstanding here.
It is actually two separate issues. One is on whether there is an obligation to vote. The other is whether most people are warranted in voting. My arguments against there being an obligation to vote may stand even if my argument regarding most people being irrational about politics (and thus shouldn't vote) fails.
> You think most people have no idea at all what sort of government and laws there should be? That's a ridiculous statement.
Well, I wouldn't exactly phrase it like that ("no idea"). For example, they are aware that representative democracy is better than a dictatorship or a new monarchy. But you'd be kidding yourself if you think most people are highly informed on the facts surrounding todays political issues or if you think people are sufficiently reflective enough in their philosophy. This isn't just confusing jargon. There are good reasons to think voters are irrational about politics. People like watching American Idol. And they have jobs to do and families to raise and friends to spend time with. They don't like reading policy analysis and rigorously reflecting on their thoughts and values. It's too much work, and not enough benefit (unless they personally enjoy it.) So they don't do it.
> Barack Obama is running against a Neo-Nazi in 2012. The Neo-Nazi candidate is proposing that we kill all the Jews in America. You think most people would have no good reason to oppose the new holocaust that is being proposed by the Neo-Nazi? Would you still advocate not voting?
As I said above, people know enough to oppose neo-nazis. But don't pretend like modern political issues aren't far more complex than that.
> Would you still advocate not voting [in the Obama vs. Neo-nazi scenario]?
There are two issues here: (1) Would I advocate not voting? (2) Would I advocate that someone doesn't have an obligation to vote?
As to (1), recall my reasons for saying most people shouldn't vote. It was that they are irrational when it comes to politics, and they are thusly not often epistemically warranted in supporting the candidates they support. In this hypothetical scenario, because people are epistemically warranted in being anti-Nazi, then it would certainly be permissible for them to vote to avoid the Nazi. (But in reality, people aren't typically epistemically warranted in being for/against Obama or Romney or whoever -- they sway whichever way fear mongering, propaganda, and their ideological upbringing directs them.)
As to (2), in the Obama vs Neo-nazi election, whether someone has an obligation to vote depends on whether their vote is likely to effect the outcome. If it isn't (say they don't live in a swing state, and their district is solidly pro-Obama or pro-Neo-nazi), then they don't have an obligation -- voting in such a scenario does nothing to promote the public good. If it is likely to matter, then yes, one should go vote.
In reality, in my case, in my state and my district, my vote has no such meaning and impact. It is not likely to effect the outcome (I am far more likely to win the lottery. And it isn't often even clear to me which outcome, which candidate, would be better.
I absolutely agree. Doesn't mean I'm NOT going to advocate for, and vote for, political change that I believe would be for the best. You're right, though. We're headed for an inevitable collapse, and it won't be the politicians' fault, it won't be the corporations' fault, it won't be the billionaires' fault - it'll be the people's fault.
And the cycle will begin again. You know who never takes the blame for shit hitting the fan? The group who's actually responsible for it: Regular, everyday folks. Bless their hearts.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Myth-Rational-Voter-Democracies/dp/0691138737
I could spend a lot time responding to these counter points, but, first, I want to know - are you proposing a democratic system for controlling a monopoly on the initiation of force (domestic and foreign)? How would the system you are proposing solve fundamental economic problem for dealing with scarcity in a more efficient way than free market capitalism?
> What does brain surgery have to do with anything? Like, at all? No one is suggesting that we have Twitch Performs Brainsurgery or Rocket Design by Popular Vote.
This part of your response, though, really surprises me. Most people I communicate with easily grasp this point. Voters (direct or representative democracy) would have to thoroughly understand very complex economic issues to vote 'correctly' or 'optimally'. That's the point about brain surgery. You can't hand a small group of people a monopoly on the initiation of force and then have the majority of voters be extremely ignorant on the issues. If this is still unclear, the following from Bryan Caplan is highly recommended:
Myth of the Rational Voter
http://www.amazon.com/The-Myth-Rational-Voter-Democracies/dp/0691138737
Thank you! Please don't rock the vote! Check out the myth of the rational voter for a cleared eyed explanation of why this is a terrible idea
Check out:
The Not So Wild West
The Invisible Hook
The Private Production of Defense
The Myth of the Rational Voter
I would also recommend Robert Nozick's "Tale of the Slave" since it can be youtube'd and is only about 2 minutes long.
If you like long, heavy reading with huge citations Hoppe is great for that. I'm a lighter reader and I prefer the younger authors, hence pirates. Bryan Caplan is a nice in between author. He's deep but can take you down that rabbit hole with him.
RE: Pirates killing and plundering. A standard deal on the high seas was surrender and you'll be spared, dropped off at the next port. Forced conscription happens now. "Shanghai'ing" is alive an well. I agree, it's wrong. Obviously it's not a tenant of anarcho capitalism but that's why the civic appeals to me. It isn't selling utopia.
No thanks.
Read a brief history of neoliberalism. It's the dogmatic application of liberal ideology to modern economics that denies the existence of market failures and seeks to make a profit by privatising public assets that they then neglect to demand more revenue. Sometimes manipulatively so.
NHS a public asset? Let's cut it's funding? NHS failing? It needs privatising so it can be managed better. NHS still failing? Let's restore funding to historic levels. Now the billionaires paid in taxes to provide healthcare is now funnelled back to them via their ownership of privatised NHS assets.
Read this book and then get back to me.
austerity is a horrible idea, yes.
A book for anyone interested in hearing more about what /u/Carnagh wrote about.
The more I learn about the boomer generation, the more I see that a lot of avoidable problems that were living through in today’s gov’ mint are because of the “A Generation of Sociopaths: How the Baby Boomers Betrayed America”
Tip: apparently the definition of a sociopath is a narcissist to the bitter end. A “I got mine, fuck you” type”, a nimby kind, the blame the victim type(all happening in current social issues everywhere and coming from the top at the White House .)
Which is really the boomers anthem from my experiences to the core both anecdotally and within the big picture.
Explain how. Because so far, I'm the one with the facts. All you have so far are bad-faith questions and shallow insults.
This might help you, too.
I read the link (not the book). Out of the reviews, I respect this one the most:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/review/0316395781/R9LCBK6KAFRDO/ref=cm_cr_dp_mb_rvw_2?ie=UTF8&amp;cursor=2
2 stars. And it’s not just the boomers. It is cyclical.
Read Yang's book - it looks like we're less than 10 years away from the profession of trucker mostly vanishing. That's more than 3M people in the US + 5-10M people offering services to truckers - without a job.
relevant:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0691138737/ref=ox_sc_act_title_1?ie=UTF8&amp;m=ATVPDKIKX0DER
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1594033811/ref=ox_sc_act_title_3?ie=UTF8&amp;m=ATVPDKIKX0DER
Zero to One: Notes on Startups, or How to Build the Future
http://www.amazon.com/Zero-One-Notes-Startups-Future/dp/0804139296
If you want to build a better future, you must believe in secrets.
The great secret of our time is that there are still uncharted frontiers to explore and new inventions to create. In Zero to One, legendary entrepreneur and investor Peter Thiel shows how we can find singular ways to create those new things.
Thiel begins with the contrarian premise that we live in an age of technological stagnation, even if we're too distracted by shiny mobile devices to notice. Information technology has improved rapidly, but there is no reason why progress should be limited to computers or Silicon Valley. Progress can be achieved in any industry or area of business. It comes from the most important skill that every leader must master: learning to think for yourself.
Doing what someone else already knows how to do takes the world from 1 to n, adding more of something familiar. But when you do something new, you go from 0 to 1. The next Bill Gates will not build an operating system. The next Larry Page or Sergey Brin won't make a search engine. Tomorrow's champions will not win by competing ruthlessly in today's marketplace. They will escape competition altogether, because their businesses will be unique.
Zero to One presents at once an optimistic view of the future of progress in America and a new way of thinking about innovation: it starts by learning to ask the questions that lead you to find value in unexpected places.
You're living in a goddamn fantasy land if you think the Fed was ever supposed to be independent.
That's how it's marketed, but when you learn about how it was formed and how it's run, the veil drops. https://www.amazon.com/Creature-Jekyll-Island-Federal-Reserve/dp/091298645X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1536709663&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=the+creature+from+jekyll+island
I’ll give you my favorite: The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve
It’s a must read in my opinion. Long, but well worth it. Don’t waste your time with other books on the subject like “End the Fed” by Ron Paul. This book blows it out and is very comprehensive. It’s read like a story also, which makes it easy to read.
Also, take your pick from Mark Levin. I’d recommend picking any single one of his books that interest you.
The Creature from Jekyll Island
This book is THE history book on the Federal Reserve. Read it and prepare to get your mind blown.
To put it simply: conspiracies do exist.
I highly recommend the creature from jekyll island, very interesting topic and it reads well enough that it flows as a novel.
I'd suggest you read [The Creature from Jekyll Island]
(http://www.amazon.com/The-Creature-Jekyll-Island-Federal/dp/091298645X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1373603279&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=the+creature+from+jekyll+island). It'll explain the interminglings of Wall Street and the Federal Reserve. That, coupled with deregulation, inevitably lead to the crash. It's not the first time it's happened, and likely won't be the last. This one just so happened to be exasperated by the repeal of Glass-Stegall.
And which Austrian books have you read? Because if you haven't read either:
-The Theory of Money and Credit (Mises)
-Human Action (Mises) or
-Man, Economy & State (Rothbard),
then you haven't read any of them and don't know anything about Austrian economics. Here's a book for you that will explain why trash economics is taught at all the major universities and why Goldman Sachs makes a profit every trading day of every quarter. Here's a clue as to why banks are doing well: borrow at zero % in the fed funds market and deposit the money with the fed which pays 0.75% and earn a free lunch
http://www.amazon.com/The-Creature-Jekyll-Island-Federal/product-reviews/091298645X/ref=sr_1_2_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&amp;showViewpoints=1
Never said there was "That's according to an analysis of tax data by the University of California at Berkeley's Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman for their upcoming book "The Triumph of Injustice.""
The actual source is this book https://www.amazon.com/Triumph-Injustice-Rich-Dodge-Taxes/dp/1324002727
The source article for this whole discussion has some nice sources. I think the original study, and the response they made to criticism is a good start.
www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1324002727/ref=as_li_qf_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&linkCode=gs2&linkId=db49e4d67f8bcc75b6753ce0958333da&creativeASIN=1324002727&tag=slate01-21&creative=9325
https://www.aei.org/economics/not-much-what-macroeconomic-data-say-about-the-impact-of-the-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act/
http://gabriel-zucman.eu/files/PSZ2019.pdf
Sorry, but your fear mongering does not sway me. The world is greening and crop production is skyrocketing. The only people suffering are the farmers who face a glut of production driving down prices because of too much food production. And there is no evidence of an acceleration in sea level rise. But, as I said, if the Maldives go under this year, I will be a believer. And tomorrow the new sea level data comes out and I will check like I do every month to see if there is a rise off the trend. Thus far we are below trend.
But, yes too much of something is generally not good. Too much oxygen is bad. But I am more concerned about too little CO2 and all the plants dying than I am about too much.
How can you not follow the wealth distribution narrative?
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/another-climate-alarmist-admits-real-motive-behind-warming-scare/
"Have doubts? Then listen to the words of former United Nations climate official Ottmar Edenhofer:
"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole," said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015."
So what is the goal of environmental policy?
"We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy," said Edenhofer.
Whole books are written on the topic: https://www.amazon.com/This-Changes-Everything-Capitalism-Climate/dp/1451697392/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8
He advocated positions that lead to neoliberalism (he is THE neoliberalist), neoliberalism itself is very VERY bad for people who aren't rich, but the neoliberalist state naturally involves into corporatism/fascism, something he criticizes as "socialism." I don't understand why anyone who calls corporatism/fascism socialism is taken serious.
He also lays "social responsibility" with government, stating that business only have the obligation to make profit and somehow thinking that social activism on part of corporations leads to indirect taxes to shareholders and consumers. In the same essay he states that the idea of "social responsibility" for the State is the classic definition of socialism, but he dismisses this without giving why.
In (the last?) an essay just before his death he tried to argue that the policies enacted during the Great Depression (Contraction) were ineffective by --wait for it-- comparing the Great Depression with the Japanese Crash in the 90s and the Web Bubble. The whole essay is badly written because he places his thesis in his conclusion, with his introduction being vague. His essay also is a few paragraphs with 3 figures. This simplistic thinking would be appropriate for a high school economics student, but not for a fucking serious economist.
Then you have other nutjobs like Rothbard who suggested repudiating the [U.S] national debt. The appeal of libertarianism is that it has some common sense solutions to problems; but it fails to address the adverse effects of neoliberalism and capitalism in general.
I recommend reading Profit Over People: Neoliberalism & Global Order to understand the adverse effects of neoliberalism. I would also like to remind everyone that in a capitalist "democracy," the people are not informed enough to regulate private interest --the "social responsibilities" Friedman talks about.
And as such corporatism, just like imperialism, is an evolved form of free market capitalism. Free market capitalism also has lots of problems, mainly that it's a feudalistic economic model and that it values profit over everything else and that it needs to be restrained by the State--what Friedman calls social responsibilities.
reading the article made me think of this brilliant woman.
This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate
by Naomi Klein
“The most important book yet from the author of the international bestseller The Shock Doctrine, a brilliant explanation of why the climate crisis challenges us to abandon the core “free market” ideology of our time, restructure the global economy, and remake our political systems.”
“In short, either we embrace radical change ourselves or radical changes will be visited upon our physical world. The status quo is no longer an option.”
https://www.amazon.com/This-Changes-Everything-Capitalism-Climate/dp/1451697392/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1469482324&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=naomi+kline
"The most momentous and contentious environmental book since Silent Spring.” (Rob Nixon The New York Times Book Review)
> It's called being held accountable for your actions.
I suggest that you read Yang's book The War on Normal People. Here's the free audio version. He understands why people actually support Trump and describes the major problems facing this country which Trump offered "Solutions" for. It's very insightful.
> it's pointing out that this user is likely to be engaging in deceit and propaganda.
To be fair, everyone unwittingly engages in propaganda.
Sounds like you have a problem with patents.
The only reason why I vote is because I don't trust everyone else to make a good decision.
I consider myself to be very informed and well educated, but if I were in a different country where I feel my vote might not be represented or necessary I wouldn't vote.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Myth-Rational-Voter-Democracies/dp/0691138737 Good chapter on how only a small percentage of people actually end up deciding the vote.
nope there are plenty of systems that specifically take into account that people can sometimes fuck up, random things happen, people are irrational beings with animal spirits
https://www.amazon.com/Misbehaving-Behavioral-Economics-Richard-Thaler/dp/039335279X
https://www.amazon.com/Animal-Spirits-Psychology-Economy-Capitalism/dp/069114592X
Yes, it is a plain and simple fact. The vast majority of funding for research comes from the government. Call me when a private company builds something like the LHC.
Good book on the topic: http://www.amazon.com/Entrepreneurial-State-Debunking-Private-Economics/dp/0857282522
There ya go. A whole book:
http://www.amazon.com/Petrodollar-Warfare-Iraq-Future-Dollar/dp/0865715149
Actually there is a brilliant book that everyone should read, which you might have heard of:
The creature from Jekyll Island
You will find that this is in fact not the first time the bailouts have happened. The author has done some wonderful research to show how this cycle has played out ad nauseam. In fact it is in chapter 2 itself. I encourage you to read it.
The origins as well as the mission of the Fed is anything but altruistic. I'm going to sound like a crazy right-winger for a moment, but the system really is geared towards enriching a small segment of elite while tying the rest in debt servitude for life.
That's what housing bubbles like the current one do. They force you and me to auction our future wages against each other in a giant competition, so that we can sign our lives into debt-servitude. (Don't get me wrong, debt can be good if used productively, but not like this). Rising house prices benefit only the banks, who can collect massive interest over 30 years. Again I'm hesitant to quote RT, but literally like it says, Read it and weep.
The banks meanwhile can use fractional reserve banking to create money, and lend it to you and profit. If they make risky loans, they get paid more interest. If the loans default... why hello Uncle Sam, where's our bailout? It is a zero-risk way to make tons of money, and it is bullshit.
Let's see what happens with all these treasuries now. I'm amazed that we have all concluded that QE was such a grand success, when QT hasn't even been done yet. The Fed is looking to stop their purchase of treasuries in the coming months, and let the current ones roll off the balance sheets. China is looking to slow down or stop treasury purchases. The Government on the other hand gave out massive tax cuts, and is looking to finance a $1 trillion dollar deficit by issuing more treasuries! The NK war, which will happen soon, will also be financed with debt. Jesus. This is not going to end well.
Your a damn fool. Believe what you want to believe.
&#x200B;
FederalReserve.gov
I bet this is your source. Right. Like these people owe your simpleton pothead ass an explanation? lol
&#x200B;
Read this book you jack ass! https://www.amazon.com/Creature-Jekyll-Island-Federal-Reserve/dp/091298645X
Wake up! your in dream land.
Thank F**KING CHRIST! Bitcoin is saved! To the mods. Thankyou for what you have done. You have realised that ANY WEAKNESSES, especially ones brought on by raising the block limit (without ensuring safety first) in the current environment is DANGEROUS for the survival of bitcoin in a world dominated by central agencies that issue fiat currency for their own purposes in pursuit of power, that DO NOT wish there to be any competitors. They will destroy competition if they have the capcity, just like they did in IRAQ and LIBYA:
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/01/06/new-hillary-emails-reveal-true-motive-for-libya-intervention/
http://www.amazon.com/Petrodollar-Warfare-Iraq-Future-Dollar/dp/0865715149
Great book corrected info and a link
Also a doc readily available on YouTube Zeitgeist has a great part on the Fed System
G. Edward Griffin
The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve https://www.amazon.com/dp/091298645X/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_AcryzbK12VP65
Ισχυει , υπο προυποθεσεις , ειδικα στις επενδυσεις πρωτα ξεκινα ο δημοσιος τομεας και μετα ακολουθει ο ιδιωτικος
https://www.amazon.com/Entrepreneurial-State-Debunking-Private-Economics/dp/0857282522
https://newint.org/features/2015/12/01/private-public-sector/
http://www.alternet.org/economy/government-more-efficient-private-sector-biggest-social-services-contrary-right-wing-claims
Read this book: http://www.amazon.com/Zero-One-Notes-Startups-Future/dp/0804139296/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1411232842&amp;sr=1-1
Shut up Boomer. Go read this and then come back
https://www.amazon.com/Generation-Sociopaths-Boomers-Betrayed-America/dp/0316395781 this book lays out exactly how we’ve all been screwed.