Best macroeconomics books according to redditors
We found 420 Reddit comments discussing the best macroeconomics books. We ranked the 173 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
We found 420 Reddit comments discussing the best macroeconomics books. We ranked the 173 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
> makes the statistics look worse
No. It doesn't make them look worse, it just makes them worse. The stats are an average of everyone in the society, when you bring a bunch of uneducated people that will survive off the government dole, it doesn't make society seem worse, it just makes it worse.
Everyone should check out the book "Hivemind". The average IQ of a country has a real and measurable effect on society as a whole. When you import a ton of people with low IQs, the average is dragged down in that country and there are real effects.
If you have the motivation and discipline to stick with it, working through a good Principles (introductory) textbook would probably be your best option. You can get used old editions off Amazon for about $10. I use Mankiw when I teach, but Krugman and other options are good too.
There are some decent free online courses out there:
If you want a mass-market book, start with The Undercover Economist Strikes Back: How to Run--or Ruin--an Economy. Even if you go the textbook option, it's probably worth supplementing with this one.
> Welfare and despair has disincentivised migration to seek other work
Does welfare even give any payments there outside of SNAP?
I just read "$2 a Day" (https://smile.amazon.com/2-00-Day-Living-Nothing-America/dp/054481195X?sa-no-redirect=1) and it talked about the poor in the MS Delta and how they hardly get any govt subsidies
Hi, Econ undergrad here!
Econ is a little special when it comes to education because the vast majority of books in bookstores and youtube videos are not based on mainstream orthodox economics as you would learn in a university. Most of it is bunk and if you attempt to learn economic theory from youtube you'll probably end up misinforming yourself(It's happened to me firsthand). I would highly recommend you pirate 1 college micro and 1 macro textbooks and go through the math problems chapter by chapter. If you want a quicker intro to econ I highly recommend reading Naked economics since it summarizes intro micro and macro very well.
I wrote up a small explanation on how to debate economics a month ago. Here's a edited version of why theory is so important.
If you learn micro and macro theory's math for the short and long term you can use it to form opinions on a wide variety of policies. It's extremely important that you study the long term growth models immediately after you learn the short term growth models as their policy recommendations oftentimes directly contradict.
everyone needs to read this book. You can pay $300 for jeans and it's still going to be made in a "sweatshop" in Cambodia. There were sweatshops in the US before we had an industrial revolution. That's how economies start. it's natural.
> Israelis. Palestine was relatively barren until they arrived with the money and knowledge to really irrigate it.
As explained before, this is nothing but Zionist propaganda garbage - the "We made the desert bloom!" claim is just a myth - and the statistics of the agricultural output of Palestine before the Zionist onslaught disagree with your version of the story. Palestine was a major Middle Eastern exporter of wheat, barley, maize, sesame, olives, cotton, and oranges -- including the famous Jaffa Orange, which Israel later hijacked and claimed as another "Zionist miracle".
Even shortly before the establishment of Israel, the Agricultural Output of Palestine was overwhelmingly coming from Palestinian owned lands and farmers, as was documented in the Anglo-American Survey of Palestine. You can see a copy of the relevant statistics on this site.
I'll be wrapping up a B.S. in Economics with a minor in statistics this December.
Books:
I also highly recommend the Open Course series to develop the fundamental skillset. You can generally get these texts cheap:
Blogs are also okay, but be wary of partisan biases. These are what I check daily:
Ultimately when it comes to econ, there's no perfect substitute for a set of intro micro/macro texts and a university framework. This is contrary to what most pundits/americans seem to believe (seemingly everyone has strong opinions on issues best-explored in an economic framework, no matter how little they've studied it). Also, it's important to note that 98% of what's posted on this subreddit is NOT what economists are talking about. This subreddit is full of news links to stories that promote partisan agendas.
I'll also warn you that any legitimate study of economics requires a decent handle on math. Through at least half the calc sequence. "Good economists are reborn as physicists, mediocre economists are reborn as psychologists, and bad economists are reborn as sociologists."
In Economics "investing" is investing in capital such as factories, equipment, or training. -- Basically, "new production".
---
edited to be more accurate:
From Principles of Macroeconomics by Robert Frank & Ben Bernanke.
>Investment is spending by firms on final goods and services, primarily capital goods. Investment is divided into three subcategories:
>* Business fixed investment is the purchase by firms of new capital goods such as machinery, factories, and office buildings. (Remember that for the purposes of calculating GDP, long-lived capital goods are treated as final goods rather than as intermediate goods.) Firms buy capital goods to increase their capacity to produce.
---
> People often refer to purchases of financial assets, such as stocks or bonds, as "investment." That use of the term is different for the definition we give here. A person who buys a share of a company's stock acquires partial ownership of the existing physical and financial assets controlled by the company. A stock purchase does not usually correspond to the creation of new physical capital, however, and so is not investment in the sense we are using the term.
Paul Romer did not write my macro textbook. David Romer did. No relation. Is there another textbook you are thinking of? The David Romer one is the classic as far as I know.
Paul Romer, in that paper, takes aim at RBC. Rightfully so. I agree with the RBC critique wholeheartedly. Any graduate student knows the limitations of RBC (or should anyway).
I largely agree with this poster who actually had a well thought out response to the paper. It's a good counterpoint.
This reminds me of a decent book I read some years ago titled More Sex is Safer Sex. It was interesting to me, partially because the reviews of it were pretty polarized. Here's a link if you're interested: https://www.amazon.com/More-Sex-Safer-Unconventional-Economics/dp/1416532226.
My two favorite books which introduce economic thinking are Armchair Economist and The Undercover Economist. They're quick reads, they're jargon free, and actually teach some of the thinking. Unlike the pop-econ books (Freakonomics and its ilk), which are simply about strange results from research (some of Landsburg's later books suffer from this problem). For an introduction to behavioral economics, you can't do better than Predictably Irrational.
For substance, textbooks are probably best unless you have a carefully chosen list of academic articles. Wooldridge for Econometrics, Mankiw for introductory macro, and Nicholson for introductory micro (Krugman's micro book is fine too). Mankiw writes my favorite econ textbooks. For game theory, I used an older version of Watson's textbook, and it was fine, but I don't know how other game theory books stack up.
If textbooks are a bit much, but you still want a substantive book, the first chapter of Thomas Sowell's introduction is very good, the rest is decent repetition. If you want a some discussion of discredited economic theories that are still trotted out regularly (like trickle down), Zombie Economics is a really fun read.
"Saltwater" and "freshwater" are terms that grew out of the late 1970s and early 1980s and reflected substantive disagreement in macroeconomic modeling and methodology.
"Freshwater" schools were located near the Great Lakes and included Minnesota, Chicago, Rochester, Carnegie-Mellon, and Penn. These schools focused their training on dynamic macroeconomic models and emphasized rigorous microfoundations and then-cutting-edge mathematical techniques. Their models tended to be broadly "conservative" in their policy implications.
"Saltwater" schools were located on the coasts and included Harvard, MIT, Berkeley, and Stanford. These schools favored a more ad-hoc approach to macroeconomic modeling and were slower to adopt cutting-edge mathematical techniques. Because their models admitted "Keynesian" features more easily, their policy prescriptions tended to be more interventionist than their freshwater counterparts.
This all basically vanished by the mid-1990s, where the freshwater guys won on technique and the saltwater guys won on substance. Everyone now learns the dynamic mathematical tools in their first year and learns a healthy mix of modeling techniques, and everyone learns standard New Keynesian models that were initially developed in saltwater schools.
The terms just aren't meaningful now - there has been convergence in technique and there is more agreement on what constitutes policy-relevant modeling. That's not to say that "all is well" in macro-land, but it is to say that graduate training in the field has largely moved on. There are some holdouts. "Minnesota Macro" (that is, the ethos of the freshwater school) remains alive and well at, um, the University of Minnesota.
But you're going to use Sargent-Ljungqvist (a quintessential "freshwater" book) in your first year and Woodford (a solidly saltwater text, but with all the dynamic math) in the money block or in your second year, pretty much wherever you go to school.
A good popularly-accessible book-length treatment of these issues is available in David Warsh's Knowledge and the Wealth of Nations, which I highly recommend to those who are interested in the history of modern economic thought.
Umm, what?
I think you are confusing types of interest.
>keeping intrest rates super low for so long has worked wonders in EU & USA, eh?
Is the rate at which the central bank is lending to banks, so that they can predeterminer levels of capital at the close of business each day via market pressures. Thus creating less expensive capital for banks to secure and able to further loan to the greater market at a lower rate.
I could go on, and i may have missed a few items or gotten some wrong, but i have work to do.
Tl;dr: I am going to assume you don't know what you are talking about, please read this
In this day and age of social reckoning ignited by the #metoo phenomenon, sexual relationships and attitudes feels like it has become a touchier subject than in days gone by. For me, it has put a dampener on one of my favorite conversation starters.
Before I was delighted by the thought provoking wackiness of freakonomics, I enjoyed the dubiously titled "More Sex is Safer Sex". Which made a case for encouraging the general public to become more sexually active in the interest of public health.
As the times article's reflections on the psychological and mental health aspects of sexuality shows, there is so much need for this somewhat taboo subject to become less so. I'd really look forward to the day when there is enough impetus for social institutions, in whatever form, to address this vital aspect of the human experience in a more healthy, constructive way - for all our benefits.
Where are you in economics right now? Undergraduate? Graduate?
Advanced mathematics appears everywhere in economics, though your mileage may vary depending on your definition of "advanced". As a mathematician, I suspect that quantitative finance contains the most advanced mathematics, since in modern mathematics research the majority of interaction with economics is through quantitative finance. But unless you plan on doing the most advanced math, there's more than enough advanced math in non-finance economics to keep you interested.
Generally speaking, professional economists build up some skill in real and functional analysis, as well as a variety of other skills like optimization, stochastics, and PDEs, depending on their specific research interests. These are all graduate-level math topics, so I'd consider them reasonably advanced. Take a look into econ PhD prelim coursework. When I took the sequence, we used the texts Microeconomic Theory by Mas-Colell-Whinston-Green, Recursive Macroeconomic Theory by Ljungqvist and Sargent, and Econometrics by Hayashi. I think they're good springboards for you to evaluate the math in higher economics.
In quantitative finance, I'd maybe start by checking out Portfolio Risk Analysis by Connor, Goldberg, and Korajczyk, then if you're still interested, I'd pick up measure-theoretic probability. I recommend Probability with Martingales by Williams. Once you're comfortable with measure theory, look through Stochastic Calculus and Financial Applications by Steele. You'll very quickly enter the area of research mathematics while studying quantitative finance, e.g. jump-diffusion models and Levy processes appear in the pricing of exotic derivatives, and they're heavily studied by even pure mathematicians.
Du henviser i dit indlæg til begrebet grøn vækst ti gange, på trods af at Dragsted slet ikke nævner det. Han forsøger netop at gøre op med ideen om vækst som et mål i sig selv, f.eks. ved at foreslå, at højere produktivitet fører til nedsat arbejdstid frem for lønstigninger.
Idéen om, at vi kan have fortsat økonomisk vækst mens vi reducerer vores belastning på miljøet, forekommer mere og mere utopisk. Tim Jackson skrev en udmærket bog med udgangspunkt i debatten om relativ vs. absolut decoupling for snart ti år siden, og senest har tyske forskere endnu engang afvist hypotesen om grøn vækst gennem forskellige modelfremskrivninger
Edit: Fandt en god forklaring på relativ vs. absolut afkobling på videnskab.dk:
I highly recommend Naked Economics as an introduction/overview. It should give you an informed, working knowledge of how economics works without getting lost in textbook details.
I think it's naive to say the rich conspired in some form as an attack on the poor and middle class. However the fact is that the income gap between rich and poor is widening by nearly every metric. The rich are getting richer.
It's also extremely difficult for poor people to get by in America. Here's a good book describing the broken policies that make the cards stacked against the poor.
Tied into that is institutional racism. Minorities, especially blacks, are unfairly targeted by the war on drugs, incarcerated, then labeled a felon and stripped of their rights. The New Jim Crow describes the policies and reasons that the war on drugs is effectively enforcing racial caste in America.
It's important to gain a deeper understanding of these issues if they are to be solved. All of these issues are visible to us on a surface level, but without a deeper understanding it can seem that the rich are actively trying to bleed out the poor.
These issues are not so much an agenda as they are something that emerges from our collective behavior. For example, studies have shown that many of us who do not identify as racist still exhibit conscious and unconscious biases. Our biases affect our society. Cynicism and pointing fingers gets us nowhere. Change starts with ourselves and we are all responsible.
I like Naked Economics by Charles Wheelan:
https://www.amazon.com/Naked-Economics-Undressing-Science-Revised/dp/0393337642
It is just a good intro book on some basics with examples and it is fun to actually read, so you absorb more of it.
There are allot of topics within Economics so after you explore some you should have a better idea of what you want to focus on.
If you like the Simpsons, Homer Economicus is one of my favorite "economic" books, but I am definitely biased on that one.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0804791716/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1484673928&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&keywords=homer+economicus&dpPl=1&dpID=51etTg6WQLL&ref=plSrch
Really just entertaining with a little learning.
Anyway good luck.
> What does growing economy mean? What does growing currency mean?
Here you go.
How comfortable are you with reading a textbook for the fun of it?
While people will argue about his policy proposals and career history, Greg Mankiw writes one mean introductory text on economics. It's well-written, thorough and pretty easy to read, as far as textbooks go. It's a Macro book though so I would suggest making sure you know your Micro fundamentals, but you would probably be fine without it.
EDIT: If anyone is interested, he's also got a semi-decent blog, if a bit sparse in his postings.
I think what you really want is something like A Modern Guide to Macroeconomics.
It goes through the schools of thought(classical, keynesian, monetarist, new classical, real business cycle, new keynesian, post keynes, austrian) the politics of macroeconomics, and a brief summary of what was going on at the time of publication.
It features great interviews from supporters(Skidelsky/Tobin/Friedman/Lucas/Prescott/Mankiw/Alesina/Solow/Romer) of the schools that would make the book worth the buy alone.
It is a one stop shop for forging your own views on macroeconomics(as opposed to the other books currently suggested that would require multiple purchases to get multiple views). The only problem is that it is long, not a particularly easy read, and you won't be getting it for a penny on Amazon.
GMU Econ PhD student here.
Read this.
It's big, but I've never before read anything that explained as well as that book does, where the different schools came from, why, who was involved, etc. It's even got a chapter for Austrians. It's a great book.
"Masters Level" Economic Textbooks.
---
I've picked these texts as they are ones that I ran across in the year I spent as a masters student, or in advanced economics classes when I was an undergraduate/undergraduate tutor.
Hal Varian, Microeconomic Analysis Relatively outdated graduate level textbook in microeconomic theory. I'd imagine his intermediate book would prepare you well for this text. It requires understanding of partial derivatives and some matrix notation to get through, but compared to today's texts comes off comparably light. I'd imagine it'd old and used enough that there exists comprehensive answer guides online that you can track down.
David Romer, Advanced Macroeconomics Romer's Advanced Macroeconomics is used in some undergraduate programs, and some masters/graduate programs. Again, compared to standard texts, it is wanting, but does a good job of covering many of the introductory models that are used in modern economic analysis. This text requires knowledge of at least single variable integration (might require multiple in the later chapters, but when I was tutoring students with it classes never got that far), and the usual multivariate calculus.
Jeffrey Wooldridge, Introductory Econometrics: A Modern Approach this was the textbook that I first saw econometrics through, and I still think its a fantastic applied text. It has a decent mathematical appendix covering some probability and math topics required for the text. On the flip side, the text gives you some pretty good how-to methods to implement a lot of the common econometric techniques and some intuition behind why they are used.
Simon & Blume, Mathematics for Economists This text is usually used in graduate programs math camps as a book saying "you should feel comfortable using these techniques before entering the program." Covers a wide range of topics from calculus, optimization, and linear algebra, to differential equations and some topics in real analysis. It has a fair amount of exercises to work through, and again, the book has been used enough that answer guides may be available online.
As you've probably heard, graduate school is very mathematical, and very little that I learned in intermediate micro ends up bridging the gap outside of some of the intuition I gathered through it. Most of the books I cited above are a solid jump up in difficulty from most intermediate books I've seen, and still a solid jump away from the common PhD level texts (Mas-Colell, Whinston, and Green "Microeconomic Theory". Sargent and Ljungqvist "Recursive Macroeconomic Theory". Greene "Econometric Analysis", respectively).
As a result, depending on what you plan on doing in the near to short term, its usually better to take more calculus, linear algebra, and other mid level mathematics classes.
Another Trumpette who doesn't understand how the economy works. Please read some books, you cannot possibly enjoy being wrong constantly.
https://www.amazon.com/Economics-101-Consumer-Competitive-Markets-Everything/dp/144059340X
Snowden and Vane? Inty recommended it to me a while ago, and I found it helpful as a map: https://www.amazon.com/Modern-Macroeconomics-Origins-Development-Current/dp/1845422082
You're very welcome. Feel free to ask if you have any questions. These would be a good start
Varian on Micro
Dixit on Optimization
Dixit on Game Theory
Romer on Macro e.g. Solow, ISLM, MF, RCK, etc
Schaum's Outline to Math
Mises on Human Action
Alchian on Micro
Hirshleifers on Price Theory
Learner on Macro
http://www.jpost.com/Jewish-World/Jewish-News/Poll-Jews-highest-earning-religious-group-in-US
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jewish_intelligence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_the_United_States_by_household_income
http://www.harbornet.com/folks/theedrich/JP_Rushton/Chart_06.jpg
I'm sure left wingers will handwave away the economic-cognitive stratification by race, but its no coincidence. You should read 'Hive Mind' if you want more info
For instance, Per Capita GDP and IQ have a correlation of .73(!) which for the social sciences is huge
http://lagriffedulion.f2s.com/sft.htm
Modern Macroeconomics by Snowdon and Vane
Sorry I know there's a PDF somewhere online but I couldn't find it.
There are several policies which can come from such an admission
The site is simply hosting the survey. That one is some 40 years older than the Internet. If you don't like it from there, feel free to buy it in Amazon.
The problem of Israel/Palestine is land, and encroachment of property rights. Jewish land ownership in 1947 amounted to, at most, 7% (6.03% in 1945). This is backed up by the JNF and PICA (Palestine Jewish Colonisation Association). This is also backed up by the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry (you can buy the full report here or you can view it page by page here. )
Palestinian Arab land ownership is stated as being 85% from the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (the people who made the Partition Plan), which states:
"164. The Arab population, despite the strenuous efforts of Jews to acquire land in Palestine, at present remains in possession of approximately 85 per cent of the land. The provisions of the land transfer regulations of 1940, which gave effect to the 1939 White Paper policy, have severely restricted the Jewish efforts to acquire new land."
So, on what basis do Jews have claim to land which is already possessed by Palestinians? Remember, it's the Jews demanding the land in 1945-1948. If they demand it, they need to come up with the proof. That’s what ‘possession is 9/10ths’ means.
A claim of ethnicity? By that logic, Germans were right in expelling Jews because if you're ethnic to a place, you're somehow more entitled to land? No. It doesn't work that way - that's ethno-nationalism. I'm sure fellow Jews would be staunchly against a concept like that.
A claim of previous ownership - 2000 years ago? Fair enough, but each Jew must have one deed or document, with the name of the ancestors who owned the land, as well as prove how much the ancestors actually owned (land has borders, surely - even by biblical standards, property rights amongst people was a thing ), and proof that that the particular Jewish person is actually directly related to that ancestor. Would you accept anything less in a court of law if some random person came and claimed your house? No? So why should Palestinians?
That's why Zionists from 1880 and onwards were buying land - their claim isn't strong enough - and that is why they used the method of buying land as a means of colonisation. The problem arises when they see that Palestinians will not sell more/when they couldn’t appropriate more land based on Ottoman laws - and ask people who were not the owners of the country to give the country away (UN / Britain / Ottomans / etc.).
Israel was born out of colonialism, which is still going on today - in Area A.
De Economia posso recomendar alguns que eu gosto muito:
Naked Economics: Undressing the Dismal Science é um geral que cobre temas básicos mas sem ser massante como livro texto. Recomendo bastante, você aprende muito sobre economia lendo esse livro.
Para economia brasileira gostei muito do Por quê o Brasil cresce pouco. É extremamente valioso para entender porque o Brasil se encontra no marasmo que está hoje.
Ambos os livros não tentam ser compreensivos nem livro textos, por isso são muito mais agradáveis de ler do que livros tipo o Mankiw acima. Ainda assim, dá pra aprender muita coisa.
Naked Economics by Charles Wheelan got me interested in the subject. It's a great place to start. Then I recommend reading an intro-level textbook, such as Mankiw's Principles.
You should tell that to the developers of Reddit's iOS APP.
Without the space between the URL and the period, reddit's iOS app treats it as part of the URL and tries to take you to https://www.amazon.com/More-Sex-Safer-Unconventional-Economics/dp/1416532226. when tapped.
The standard grad school text these days for dynamic macro is Ljungqvist & Sargent's Recursive Macroeconomic Theory. You won't need to go through the whole thing necessarily, but to be able to tackle the Woodford book, I would think chapters 1-4, 7-8, 12-13, 16-17 and 24-26 would be quite helpful.
There's also Simon & Blume's Mathematics for Economists, which is a good reference book should you need it. For example, the discussion and motivation of Lagrange multipliers and the Kuhn-Tucker optimization conditions is very good.
One noteable omission from both of those books which you will likely encounter at some point is continuous-time optimization/optimal control. This topic is often covered in the appendices of various grad-level macro textbooks, but perhaps the best I've come across is Chapter 7 of Daron Acemoglu's Introduction to Modern Economic Growth. The appendix to Barro & Sala-i-Martin's Economic Growth also has some pretty good coverage.
By the way, if you hunt around, all of these textbooks can be found online for "free".
I think that you, like many people, have a lot of engrained beliefs about poverty that aren't fact-based but learned from a lifetime of media angles, biased and anecdotal accounts, etc that you haven't questioned yet. If you'd like some good reads to expand your education on the poor in the US, $2 A Day and Nickled and Dimed are great reads.
When I was in grad school, the book we all read to get a intuitive understanding of the various schools of thought was Snowdon and Vane's Modern Macroeconomics: Its Origins, Development, and Current State. That was a while ago, though, so it may not be the most current resource.
''When you import a ton of people with low IQs, the average is dragged down in that country and there are real effects.'' [+166]
---
In reply to waveswan on "Life in Norway ranked world's best for 12th year":
> The measurements are based on averages for the population and include things like literacy rates. Since Sweden accepts a lot of refugees and immigrants, that makes teh statistics look worse. Of course, all those people have actually seen improved living standards, and the natives are still well of, but the average measurement looks worse because it now includes a different set of people than it did before.
At 2015-12-15 22:54:45 UTC, tttddd333 wrote [+164 points: +164, -0]:
> > makes the statistics look worse
>
> No. It doesn't make them look worse, it just makes them worse. The stats are an average of everyone in the society, when you bring a bunch of uneducated people that will survive off the government dole, it doesn't make society seem worse, it just makes it worse.
>
> Everyone should check out the book "Hivemind". The average IQ of a country has a real and measurable effect on society as a whole. When you import a ton of people with low IQs, the average is dragged down in that country and there are real effects.
Screenshot
Vote History on srscharts
 ^This comment posted by a bot | Report an error | FAQ
Reducing benefits and/or taxing immigration is the textbook way to deal with the externalities you've loosely described. Economics largely focuses on the effect of institutions on people, not vise-versa, so I'm open to the possibility of economists under-estimating the costs of immigration from poorer countries (some have argued similar things). However this still implies a tax could be optimal, not a ban.
Its worth nothing these externalities are very local and perhaps better handled at more local levels. Welfare is often a national externality because welfare programs are often national. e.g., a Cuban migrating to Miami is not going to affect its culture.
Saying "If you move production out of the country we won't do business with you" is a lot different than "here is 500 million dollars." I would recommend reading this if you want to understand the difference.
He wrote a book on economics, Mankiw wrote the book on economics (not that Mankiw's is great, but it is the dominant text). Bernanke is known less for his textbooks and more for his research and papers on the Great Depression.
> My focus in the podcast was on ethnic diversity. The ethnic diversity results within that meta-analysis
It seems reasonable to me that there might be differences of this sort around - am open to further input in that regard.
Did actually purchase your book a few months back, although I haven't gotten to reading it yet - its still in the to-read pile (also had the podcast downloaded but not yet listened to). Not quite sure how well you focused on the topic of this thread in your book.
For graduate (at quals-level) courses my undergrad institution used Mas-Colell, Whinston, and Green's Microeconomic Theory and Ljungqvist and Sargent's Recursive Macroeconomic Theory.
I absolutely loved "Naked Economics" by Charles Wheelan. The book provides great real-world context for so many fundamental economics concepts.
EDIT: Whoops; someone already mentioned this text. Apologies for the repeat, but 100% co-sign this suggestion.
I enjoyed reading Naked Economics. It talks about the big concepts in economics (mostly macro) in an intuitive way, and it's a pretty quick read, although it's lacking in math as a result.
I recommend reading Snowdon and Vane (2005), "Modern Macroeconomics: Its Origins, Development, and Current State." Very concise textbook that covers the history of modern economic thought, from the Classicals to Old Keynesians to Monetarists to New Classicals to New Keynesians and everywhere in between, including an entire chapter on Austrian Econ! In the mainstream econ world, devoting a textbook chapter to a fringe school of thought is rare, indeed, but the book is widely used and even appears on /u/Integrald's recommended reading list in /r/Economics, which you should also check out if you want to learn more about econ and are new to the discipline.
Note: This book is for the advanced undergraduate level, but it's not too mathematical at all and gives a good grounding if you're confused by all these schools. Rest assured, though, that a lot of these controversies have been resolved. On the internet, Austrians and Marxians and sometimes Post-Keynesians seem like they have a lot of influence, but when it comes to publishing in mainstream journals that's not the case.
The reason why you often see "funny maymays" about Austrians and Marxians on this sub is because Reddit Austrians and casual Marxists are often ignorant of the mainstream economic paradigm they are so critical of. In reality, praxeology and dialectics are not inherently bad, but have been used to make some pretty stupid arguments at least online.
>what education matters, math, reading skills, knowledge of Shakespeare?
I would argue all of it. Education is about learning one specific skill: critical thinking.
I am only aware of two ways we learn this now: life experience and education. Hive Mind is a good review of all the lit out there on it. If you know of a better way to make an 18 year old gain the life experience of an 85 year old that doesn't involve some sort of education, I am all ears.
Advanced Macro
https://www.amazon.com/Advanced-Macroeconomics-Mcgraw-Hill-Economics-David/dp/0073511374
> (e a diferença de preço de livros acadêmicos na língua original pra versão traduzida nem é lá grande coisa).
Ai que você se engana
https://www.saraiva.com.br/macroeconomia-5-ed-2011-3453061.html
https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0132078295/ref=dp_olp_new?ie=UTF8&condition=new
https://www.amazon.com/Macroeconomics-7th-Olivier-Blanchard/dp/0133780589/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1503728656&sr=1-1
200 dólares se novo, apesar que a edição mais antiga que se iguala a mais nova traduzida é tipo 4 dólares
> they will be leeching your precious energy with their 0.1x powers. 0.1x * 10x = 1x
You're joking but...
> The longer and more complicated the game, the more clearly a pattern emerged: having one high-IQ player was moderately good, but having all the players be high-IQ was amazing: they all caught on quickly, cooperated with one another, and built stable systems to enforce that cooperation. In a ten-round series run by Jones himself, games made entirely of high-IQ players had five times as much cooperation as average.
So according to Garett Jones and his book Hive Mind, your assessment is precisely correct.
Much truth is said in
kekNaked Economics is really good and absolutely matches your criteria.
For macroeconomics we used 'Macroeconomics: A European Perspective' by Blanchard, Amighini and Giavazzi. It is focused on the eurozone though so I'm not sure how helpful it is. There also seem to be a Canadian version and an international version, the Canadian version is crazy expensive though (at least if I convert it to euros and compare it to my book), or are those normal textbook prices in Canada?
This is worth a read...
You should find older students or see if you can rent them.
Chegg is a good resource as well.
That calc book is somewhat old so you can probably find it used for cheap, and the principles of macro is supa old as well.
This is the previous edition: http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B002WLQ9JQ/ref=dp_olp_all_mbc?ie=UTF8&condition=all
You can probably get problems from the prof.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0324589999/sr=8-1/qid=1347336913/ref=olp_pg_used?ie=UTF8&colid=&coliid=&condition=used&me=&qid=1347336913&seller=&sr=8-1&startIndex=0
Its not about you. The world is better with western civilization existing. Western civilization cannot exist with low-IQ peoples. The nation is not the state, the nation is the people. Change the people, change the nation. Period.
Better explanation: https://www.periscope.tv/voxday/1jMJgZmYqzqGL
Evidence to back up claim: https://www.amazon.com/Hive-Mind-Your-Nation-s-Matters/dp/150360067X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1485795030&sr=8-1&keywords=hive+mind
I'm currently reading Psychodynamic Formulation and College Student Mental Health. The former for getting a better grasp of applying theory to practice, the latter in preparation for a college counseling internship :)
For non-therapy books, I'm reading $2.00 a Day and it is a harrowing experience :(
The same view is expressed in Charles Wheelan's book Naked Economics.
Also, Paul Krugman's In Praise of Cheap Labour (mit.edu) is worth reading.
No, it's not. Read this book and it will all make sense.
It won't work though: https://www.amazon.com/Macroeconomics-N-Gregory-Mankiw/dp/1429240024 (that's a current text, not from 1930)
Obliquely related: Hive Mind
Hopefully OP is still checking in on this thread.
You'll need to start with the basics by registering for 100 level courses at your school whether or not you're already familiar with the subject, so Intro to Microecon, Macroecon and International Economics would be a start.
If you'd like to do some independent reading (which I personally recommend), here is the recommended reading list from /r/Economics. Their wiki lists books by increasing difficulty starting form the basics.
I'd also like to throw in some non textbooks I've read (and are reading) that helped me get an understanding of important fundamentals and obtain an idea of how economists think.
Both of these authors do a great job of grabbing the reader with their outlandish and interesting examples to explain various theories.
Freakonomics - Steven Levitt
Naked Economics - Charles Wheelan
Edit: OP has revealed the truth. He does not hate capitalism, nor does he support socialism. He sees flaws in capitalism but stil supports it, and wished to test the socialism jerk on /r/truegaming , and also admits to not know that much about economics. This makes me respect OP a bit more, but I'm also not a fan of this type of manipulation in general as I feel it can lead to a waste of people's time. Hopefully, we've collectively at least informed those who didn't know of how capitalism can deal with this situation.
OP /u/whatamidoing11 I'd love it if you (or anyone) read this;
I understand you. Do you understand capitalism?
TL;DR OP blames capitalism for next gen consoles and believes socialism is better
I just went on OP's user page and read all their replies in this submission, and it was eye opening.
OP, you're not just angry at the lack of economic understanding in Redditors (if that lack of understanding even exists). You're angry at the economic system of capitalism. You're angry at the lack of understanding that the problems of the new generating of consoles are, as you perceive them, based on problems in capitalism, or at least our implementation of it, which you do not support.
No wonder you were upset that people thought you were a hardcore Republican! You're pretty much the opposite! You hate our version of capitalism!
The economic systems that you do support are:
> (Social Democracy, Socialism, Resource based societies, etc...)
Let me tell you how I misunderstood your original post.
I thought you were asking us to just accept these problems because they unavoidably stem from capitalism; that we should accept them and move on. I thought you were mockingly appeasing those who were unwilling to accept the problems by offering them an alternative you did not believe in.
It was the opposite. You are unwilling to accept these problems, and you believe strongly in these alternative economic systems.
Firstly, I know some basic economics.
I took a course. I read the book Naked Economics. That's not much, but it's a start. Maybe I'm brainwashed, or maybe I'm informed.
Do you know economics? Do you really know capitalism?
Next, you said yourself that you
> don't know a lot about economics
And that concerns me, because I wonder whether you hate capitalism because you truly hate it and believe in these other systems, or because you misunderstand capitalism. I'm not an expert economist either, and don't know about your other economic systems. Maybe you're right, or maybe you're wrong.
Whatever the case may be, if you've only learned about capitalism from sources that hate capitalism, I urge you to learn about it from a source that loves and understands capitalism like Naked Economics. It may change your mind, it might simply re-affirm your beliefs, or maybe you already know it all and it's a waste of your time. That's why I said if.
A lot of the other comments are already defending capitalism, and I've got a defence of it too, but I better see what work the others have done first to avoid repetition.
Edit: Wait, Socialism?
Now, socialism instantly brings communism to mind. Now, I'm not one to immediately dismiss communism and anything related to it just because America had a war against it, and I recognize that socialism is not communism. But I am highly skeptical of it based on actual economic reasons which are supported by the real life evidence of its failures. I intend to look into social democracy, socialism, and resource based societies as you suggested, but with skepticism.
I'll also put some of the burden on you. Commenters here have explained how capitalism will solve these problems. How exactly can socialism solve them?
Edit: Formatting
In general, one should refrain from judging. How can you say to your brother, "Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye," when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye?
> if a girl has had a lot of dicks she is less and less likely to be enamored with any one of them.
Possibly, but you don't have to make the evaluation in the abstract. "This girl has had a lot of partners, but in fact, she particularly likes me; that girl is a virgin, but she's still cold and unpleasant." Why rely on shaky statistical correspondence when the actual case is in front of you.
> There is no double standard. Males and females are different and have different preferences.
That is exactly what a double standard is.
> Very few men want a girl with a reputation.
Circular reasoning: people think promiscuity is a bad thing because people think promiscuity is a bad thing.
> STD risk goes up
Obviously, you haven't read economist Steve Landsberg's classic text, More Sex Is Safer Sex.
> Closely tied to 3, but having a girlfriend with a past is shameful for most men
And circular, just like (3).
http://www.amazon.com/More-Sex-Safer-Unconventional-Economics/dp/1416532226/
Somewhat related and quite amusing
Yeah macroeconomics is a very chaotic field right now and it can be very overwhelming, especially when you are first starting out. If you are interested in DSGE and have a decent mathematics background, this book Recursive Macroeconomic Theory is a good starting point.
I would also add that you should ask your professors for input. They are usually very supportive and will help give you research ideas as well as to refine them.
Since we're recommending books, I think everyone in the sub needs to read these two books before mouthing off in their respective topics.
Naked Economics
White City Black City
i've pondered about this for a long time and my answer is generally no. the causation is the way i stated: low iq causes bad society which causes bad teachers etc.
>Believing that DNA can determine who a person is
DNA determines a lot of things but at some point it loses its power. A person can change their character.
The way i put it in laymen's terms is like this: DNA can build your brain but what you do with your brain is up to you and the people around you.
one person with a low iq is meaningless. many people with low iq's means that the hivemind is severely restricted in its capabilities. good ideas have a hard time propagating and bad ideas have an easier time.
here's a decent book about the subject.
Have you already read some mainstream books on economics? I'm not sure going straight to the fringe is the best way of understanding how money works, if that's your goal. Personally, my own introduction to economics was through socialism and the works for Marx and Engels, but that just made it harder to understand how things work economically. If you're looking to understand economics in the context of a capitalist society I wouldn't jump straight into looking at anti-capitalists.
Personally, I've found Naked Economics to be extremely enlightening.
Take a look at "corporate economics" or "finance" blogs or books.
Another great book that is absolutely amazing is Naked Economics. I highly recommend it. You should buy it but you can find it on the internet easily. It goes into economic concepts first, and then once it tells you although economic concepts are self-evidently powerful, they are misused so many times and result in the fuckups we see everyday.
The issue above is called the Agency Problem. Where agents/managers' incentives do not align with the health of the company. Stock options is a huge culprit of this. Where an exec's bonus pay is tied to the stock's performance.
> but the difference in health care costs between Japan and the US are not anywhere near so easily explained, I believe
They are statistically very well explained by AIC or disposable income and they are very credible as causal factors because economic theory, long term historical data (elasticity of HCE prior to evolution of modern health care system, 3rd party payers, etc), common sense, and more supports this too. It's also worth pointing out that this (AIC|disposable income) not only explains the moment-in-time levels between countries but the long term growth rate patterns within the US and other countries exceptionally well (CMS and other agencies routinely use disposable income as their main go-to exogenous variable for historical and projected growth) and quite a bit at a sub-national level too (although elasticities are usually slightly less than 1 overall this is to be expected due to transfers, in-kind subsidy, and spillover effects). One could further add other factors to this model like, say, % of population sick/injured (see: obesity & diabetes rates, historical smoking rates, car accident rates, etc), age structure, prevailing wage rates, etc, which I suspect would make the US health expenditures look even more reasonable on balance, but these are pretty marginal as determinants of the overall health expenditure levels.
> Also, there is the issue of comparing a population with massive income disparity with one with relatively little.
No, probably not because (1) the national elasticities are typically much larger than one whereas whereas individual income elasticities are typically pretty close to zero and (2) careful estimates by individual income within the US find very little difference in health expenditures associated with income -- in fact without controlling for health status lower income actually consume somewhat more care and with extensive controls for health status the higher income consume slightly more. Like lots of other things in economics, the mean level of disposable income in society ultimately determines expenditures far more than the individuals own. Third party payers pay the vast majority of most health expenditures in the US and other developed countries. Differences in coverage, reimbursement rates, etc by payor associated with income are quite modest in the scheme of things (especially if you control for mean disposable income in a given nation and/or subnational area).
The US actually has below average out-of-pocket expenditures as a share of health expenditures. If we did more of this we'd probably have lower total expenditures, but these aren't popular either.
Unbelievable work. One of my all time favorites.
I'd recommend checking these out as well:
Modern Macroeconomics by Brian Snowdon (Really good historical overviews of Economic thought)
Money, Bank Credit, and Economic Cycles by Jesus Huerta de Soto
Man, Economy, and State by Murry Rothbard
Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt (EXCELLENT if you are just beginning to study Economics)
Naked Economics is a really great, approachable book that i've read and re-read before taking the test. I highly recommend it!
This is by no means either academic or comprehensive, but it's short, fun, and just might kick-start your interest, so give it a watch. There are a couple others following up. I seriously recommend you get one of the more accessible books on economics. NPR's Planet Money has a reading list of books they recommend, and a quick peek at top results in Amazon also indicate bestsellers like Basic Economics, Economics in One Lesson, or the humorously titled and fun Naked Economics.
Any of those will do wonders. Just select whichever looks like a good time.
Or don't -- what to do with scarce resources like your own time is of course your choice. An economic choice ;)
Amazon link:
http://www.amazon.com/Advanced-Macroeconomics-McGraw-Hill-Series-Economics/dp/0073511374/
http://www.amazon.com/Naked-Economics-Undressing-Dismal-Science/dp/0393049825
I highly recommend the books below. Both focus on consumer behavior via an evolutionary lens and provide a great intro into evolutionary psychology.
http://www.amazon.com/Consuming-Instinct-Burgers-Ferraris-Pornography/dp/1616144297/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1373402559&sr=1-1
http://www.amazon.com/Spent-Sex-Evolution-Consumer-Behavior/dp/0143117238/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1373402620&sr=1-3&keywords=geoffrey+miller
Enjoy!
Well this is a sad story. I am sorry your husband is so cruel.
I would recommend watching Ted talks to introduce yourself to new ideas. I would also recommend reading Western non-fiction books. This book is a very good introduction to capitalism and economics.
Might I suggest reading Mankiew’s Principles of Economics? You might learn why fiat currency and central banking are so widely supported by economists. You then might be able to more clearly see the flaws that crypto has as a currency.
https://www.amazon.com/Principles-Macroeconomics-6th-Gregory-Mankiw/dp/0538453060/ref=nodl_
See http://www.nytimes.com/1997/06/22/weekinreview/in-principle-a-case-for-more-sweatshops.html
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0393337642
http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/smokey.html
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]
> This is classic supply side economics
No its not.
> The largest driver of the deficit since 2008 was not the mortgage crisis, it was the Bush Tax cuts
o_O CBO estimates the combined loss in revenue of EGTRRA & JGTRRA at $1.1t. At peak (2007) lost revenue was $120b. Do you math?
> Tax cuts -- particularly tax cuts for the wealthy -- are a horrible way to attempt to stimulate the economy.
Read this and this. Then go read about this which is what causes this effect to occur which in turn means models like this emerge. I never stated anything about tax cuts for the wealthy, nice strawman, but positing that tax cuts don't have a positive effect on growth is simply empirically nonsense (Note how I am citing real sources?).
Your reference to "supply side economics" to refer to something you clearly don't understand when I was referring to something which is part of mainstream economics rather then heterodox nonsense like supply-side BS leads me to believe you don't have a particularly good grasp of economics.
> My turn to say "irrelevant." I don't even know that it is true, but it's pretty much beside the point.
The purpose of taxation is to raise revenue to support spending not to simply raise revenue for no purpose. With a balanced budget over the business cycle effective tax rates can fall long term while supporting precisely the same level of spending. That is called growth.
Rather then understanding economics from places like /r/politics, HuffPost and Alternet pick up a textbook. This and this are both extremely good.
Its hard to get a solid introduction to the subject without a hidden political view. Most people I know have enjoyed Naked Economics (http://www.amazon.com/Naked-Economics-Undressing-Science-Revised/dp/0393337642). Also, Colander's economics textbook (http://www.amazon.com/Economics-David-Colander/dp/0073375888) tries very hard to present a wide variety of view points, which is sadly not typical
I don't do macro, but someone suggest modern macro to me the other day as something that isn't a text book.
http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Macroeconomics-Origins-Development-Current/dp/1845422082
I'd recommend Varian for Micro, https://www.amazon.com/Microeconomic-Analysis-Third-Hal-Varian/dp/0393957357?ie=UTF8&*Version*=1&*entries*=0, and either Wickens, https://www.amazon.com/Macroeconomic-Theory-Dynamic-Equilibrium-Approach/dp/0691152861?ie=UTF8&*Version*=1&*entries*=0, or Romer, https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0073511374/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_dp_ss_1?pf_rd_p=1944687642&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0691152861&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=6BKPTEX4BHMM69GVSK4F, for macro. These texts are typically used in master's degree programs, but it is difficult to find really math intensive intermediate textbooks for undergrad (I once ran into someone that didn't even have to use calculus for his economics degree). Good luck in your studies!
Hive Mind: How Your Nation's IQ Matters So Much More Than Your Own by Garett Jones http://www.amazon.com/dp/B015PS7DBK/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_udp_api_wD-BxbN3HG26T
The planet is doomed.
The book "Naked Economics: Undressing the Dismal Science" by Charles Wheelan explains this in depth. It is an excellent book. (http://www.amazon.com/Naked-Economics-Undressing-Dismal-Science/dp/0393049825)
You have the wrong outlook on this. In order to have an appropriate moral response, you need to understand the role that such industries play. Switch "exploit" with "employ" in your title. Child labourers are exploited by western standards, but it's a displacement to judge child labour in other parts of the world by those standards. Let me give you an example,
> In 1993, child workers in Bangladesh were found to be producing clothing for Wal-Mart and Senator Tom Harkin proposed legislation banning imports from countries employing underage workers. The direct result was that Bangladeshi textile factories stopped employing children. But did the children go back to school? Did they return to happy homes? Not according to Oxfam, which found that the displaced workers ended up in even worse jobs, or on the streets - and that a significant number were forced into prostitution.
(As quoted in this book from Paul Krugman, "Hearts and Heads")
That's not to say that it's none of our business - the fact that child workers make products to sell in western countries necessarily makes it our business. Likewise, we are not exactly helping them directly by pumping money into their economy. However, such institutions show the beginnings of industrialization, which is a positive economic development.
Naked Economics: Undressing the Dismal Science was pretty good.
If you found that shocking, you might want to look up the book "$2.00 A Day: Living on Almost Nothing in America" by Kathryn J. Edin (professor of sociology and public health at Johns Hopkins) and H. Luke Shaefer (assoc. professor at the University of Michigan School of Social Work). {That link is a non-affiliate link to the book at Amazon.com} I, personally, borrowed this book from my local library. Here is a link to the book's website and here is a link to the review of it in the Sept. 6, 2015 edition of the New York Times Book Review.
Great book by Garett Jones disputing that
http://www.amazon.com/Hive-Mind-Your-Nation%C2%92s-Matters/dp/0804785961
The belief is free trade results in net economic gains. Free movement, especially in a welfare state, is not widely accepted as a net benefit by economists.
>I said to incentive greed. You want to save money? Well the cheapest way is to respect the environment. Want to avoid taxes? Put work in on social issues. Your company fucked up in the past? Lesser sentences if you do better right now.
Since none of these are currently true, we would have to lay a hell of lot of unpopular political groundwork (and dealing with the flight of business as a result) to make them true. Currently, every business has plenty of incentive is to bend the rules, avoid the consequences, hide the money offshore, basically take the money and run. Shortsightedness is the order of the day, and "cash flow is king" as they say.
>Market growth is a healthy thing...
You are correct about this - the reason we get into a disagreement on this is that we don't measure growth in that linear way. We are in a system that is making all their financial bets based on percentage growth (which could be expressed as having the ability to repay a loan with interest), and expecting returns as such before giving money out to business loans or aspiring homeowners, before buying stock. Percentage-based growth is exponential growth and that cannot go on forever. I believe that living in a system of debt-based money and interest is what prevents any real change from happening as long as we continue playing within the rules of fractional-reserve banking and our entire monetary policy based on lending.
This economist has said what I believe needs to be said, and thought about. There are ways for us to approach prosperity without the economic pressure that comes from racing to keep GDP growing at ~3% annually.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/16/politics/obama-economy-five-years-later/index.html
>"I give him very poor marks. Five years later, the economy is still very far from recovering," said Baker, co-founder of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, pointing to an unemployment rate that he says would hover around 9% instead of 7.3% if so many people hadn't given up and dropped out of the work force.
I dont have to redefine recession since it is a distinction that is meaningless to the average person.
After the recession was over an Obama fixed everything
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/34641146/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/t/unemployment-sets-grim-record/
One year later is was still above 9% with a record drop in labor participation. One year later it was still about 9% with decreasing labor force participation.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/12/22/news/economy/us-inequality-worse/index.html
But none of that matters because Obama didn't do a god damned thing to end the recession under the terms you have defined. ARRA didn't start spending money for a year or more. The banking fix was put into place by someone else, which probably had the largest impact.
But you are clearly not able to understand these basic concepts.
https://www.amazon.com/Economics-101-Consumer-Competitive-Markets-Everything/dp/144059340X
I'd highly suggest you start with a book like this and educate yourself of reality. Try not to use a press release from the white House as the basis for your opinion.
https://www.amazon.com/Principles-Macroeconomics-6th-Mankiws-Economics/dp/0538453060
No
No
No
No
And
No
Deflating the cost of housing will increase the velocity of money through the economy by increasing new home development due to an increase in demand.
Read this please
If you think group differences in IQ don't matter, you should check out the book Hivemind. GDP and average IQ correlates at something like .75.
I'm not a huge fan but this one is a pretty standard intro book.
I'm going to recommend that you read a book, not as a way of implying that 'ugh u so dum', but because it does a fantastic job of explaining away your concerns, in a way I couldn't possibly do better. The ebook is like $7, the paperback is $7, or you can get it used for even cheaper.
https://www.amazon.com/Naked-Economics-Undressing-Science-Revised/dp/0393337642
You've hit upon a quite complex topic. The gist of things though, is that when automation kills one job, it is really just freeing up that labor to fill some other niche. Let's start with a hypothetical stone-age society. Everybody gets by, on their own, but planting their own crops by hand. The grow just enough to live.
One day, someone comes by, and introduces the plow. This is a machine that automates some portion of the farming process, letting farmers create more crops with the same amount of time. Those farmers would have a surplus. The plow guy starts selling and repairing plows for the community, in exchange for some of the future surplus crops. All parties are better off.
Please read this book, it explains how very very important national IQ is:
https://www.amazon.com/Hive-Mind-Your-Nation%C2%92s-Matters/dp/0804785961/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1446638531&sr=8-1&keywords=hive+mind/marginalrevol-20
Textbooks are your best bet, for pretty much any subject, once you're past the layman's understanding. Just look up what textbooks they are using for Econ 101/102 in a solid University, then find a used copy.
When I was tutoring 101/102, the course used Krugman's Microeconomics and Macroeconomics, which were decent. It was interesting getting the introductory perspective from a prominent, Nobel Prize winning economist.
https://www.amazon.com/Economics-101-Consumer-Competitive-Markets-Everything/dp/144059340X
Go learn something.
Provide a source that every issue deals with nature & nurture? Really!
Open a book and read guy! Why do you think there are vast prosperity differences between countries?
Here's one
https://www.amazon.com/Principles-Macroeconomics-6th-Mankiws-Economics/dp/0538453060/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1522307220&sr=8-7&keywords=introduction+to+macroeconomics
https://web.archive.org/web/20101119160912/http://www.treasury.gov/education/duties/treas/sec-treasury.shtml
>The Secretary of the Treasury is the principal economic advisor to the President and plays a critical role in policy-making by bringing an economic and government financial policy perspective to issues facing the government. The Secretary is responsible for formulating and recommending domestic and international financial, economic, and tax policy, participating in the formulation of broad fiscal policies that have general significance for the economy, and managing the public debt. The Secretary oversees the activities of the Department in carrying out its major law enforcement responsibilities; in serving as the financial agent for the United States Government; and in manufacturing coins and currency. The Chief Financial Officer Ryan Anderson of the government, the Secretary serves as Chairman Pro Tempore of the President's Economic Policy Council, Chairman of the Boards and Managing Trustee of the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds, and as U.S. Governor of the International Monetary Fund, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the Inter-American Development Bank, the Asian Development Bank, and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.
I mean...you could go a quick 20-second google search of his job before commenting on it
>Obama didn't set rates, but he set the agenda and appointed the guy who set the rates.
Nope. You should do some studying
http://www.amazon.com/Recursive-Macroeconomic-Theory-Lars-Ljungqvist/dp/026212274X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1291526398&sr=1-1
I'm an environmental sociologist, but I focus mostly on macro-level issues so the following suggestions are somewhat biased in that way. For sustainable consumption research, you should check out the work of Andrew Szasz, he does very interesting work. There is also Juliet Schor, Gill Seyfang, and Tim Jackson. There's also a huge literature on environmental concern/environmental behaviors that has paid considerable attention to the role of social class/income. For a start, see the work of Jenniver Givens (Univ. of Utah), Sandra Marquart-Pyatt (Mich. State Univ.), and Riley Dunlap (Oklahoma St. Univ.).
Spoiler: it's black people.
I don't know if there's a single perfect book, because it's a difficult problem and nobody knows all the answers. Here's a decent book that tackles the politically correct part of the problem. For the politically incorrect part, you can read between the lines of books like this or you can delve into the horrible dark corners of the Internet like this. As to the validity of the politically correct and politically incorrect theories, who knows. Maybe it's a combination?
I figured that was what you were thinking but didn't expect you to admit it openly.
> Spoiler: it's black people.
>
> I don't know if there's a single perfect book, because it's a difficult problem and nobody knows all the answers. Here's a decent book that tackles the politically correct part of the problem. For the politically incorrect part, you can read between the lines of books like this or you can delve into the horrible dark corners of the Internet like this. As to the validity of the politically correct and politically incorrect theories, who knows. Maybe it's a combination?
Naked Economics does a very good job of explaining some complex economic ideas in very simple ways. It's probably the most engaging take on the science I have ever come across.
Your opinion isn't how capitalism works.
I actually wrote a paper that touches on this topic a little bit. Here is an excerpt. I site this book throughout it.
"The book uses the example of Brad Pit being an insurance salesman rather than an actor. It explains how he is “one of a handful of people in the world who can ‘open’ a movie”(13) and how “millions of people around the world will go see a film just because Brad Pit is in it.”(13) It would therefore be a waste of his talents to sell insurance. There are many people who are able to sell insurance, but very few who can ‘open’ a movie with such high rates of success. This is why Brad Pit is paid so much money."
Similarly, (and I don't want to dismiss the hard work of many around the world but...) it is more likely that an individual will become a scientist than the next great basketball player or superstar of sorts. My point is that these people are valued more because they, in and of themselves are a very valuable commodity to many companies. In the brad pit example, a ton of companies would want him in a movie because he can basically guarantee that movie's success and make hundreds of millions of dollars.
You're being too general, and shifting the topic of our conversation.
Your original comment was that prejudicial judgments and stereotypes were part of "how we as a species have survived," specifically in relation to a comment reading, "Shes got one of THOSE faces. So vapid, not suprised at her response," which was a response to a comment about looking like "bootleg Kylie Jenner."
My point about quackery and nonsense goes for almost all evolutionary psychology, but in this case it was related to the idea that evolution somehow prepared us specifically to have prejudices about intelligence based on resemblance to kylie jenner - or some unspecified way of looking "vapid."
Your point requires that judging people based on whether they look like kylie jenner has been an advantageous survival strategy for AT LEAST the tens of thousands of years that are required for genes to change. Which is obviously not true.
Now, your more recent comment is suddenly just talking about "having a preconceived idea about someone's personality" and "making assumptions about people based on their appearance." That's completely general. It could mean anything. We can talk about evo psych work on stereotypes and prejudices in general, if you want - and there definitely is SOME reasonably high quality work there, although not much - but you have effectively changed the topic.
I was arguing that you can't claim evolutionary origins for modern sexism, which is true. Modern sexism is too specific, and there's no good evidence suggesting that sexism has remained stable over evolutionary time. Our specific forms of sexism are not the same thing as heuristic-based perceptual strategies, which is the general topic you're referring to in your most recent post. "Gender and beauty standards" were the exact topic under discussion in the chain of posts we started with, which I why I mentioned the evolutionary psychology pseudoscience that deals with those topics. Which is, as I said, complete fucking quackery and nonsense. Check out, e.g., this sack of garbage.
So, tl;dr, no, modern sexism is not a genetic trait. That is an incoherent and unsupported position. Heuristic judgment is maybe an evolved trait, but there's good reasons to think that psychological traits in general don't evolve the way anatomical traits do.
FINAL NOTE: saying that x "is so obviously" y is not a very strong form of argument.
Something doesn't add up here.
Here is the syllabus for Cornell's Econ 302 macro course
It says they use Greg Mankiw's book (which is pretty standard) and it covers all of the topics I mentioned in the GP in great depth (table of contents here). But no one covers that whole book in a semester though because it is like 600 pages. Krugman/Well's macro book is also good about covering fiscal and monetary policy in detail in chapters 12 and 13. For example, figure 12-10 in this book shows the debt/GDP ratios of various countries. As I said, these are basic concepts.
Also, I should point out that much of what I learned about macro I learned by reading the textbooks almost in full (I'm a nerd like that) and then non-textbook books (and blogs for the modern guys) from various people like Keynes, Samuelson, Friedman, Mankiw, Krugman, Stiglitz, Simon Johnson, De Long, Akerlof, etc. There is only so much time in class (and I was not an econ major, so I didn't get the upper level stuff).
But, back to the point, nothing I've said in this thread deviates from standard macro. The current US public debt/GDP ratio isn't that high historically and relative to other modern first-world economies (Japan, France, Germany, UK, Canada, Italy, etc.).
Here is the source for my claim that things do work in the same way for gas and pizza.
http://www.amazon.com/Principles-Macroeconomics-N-Gregory-Mankiw/dp/0538453060/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1369697144&sr=8-1&keywords=principles+of+macroeconomics
read the chapter about supply and demand
I see where you are coming from, but this isn't the full story. The statistics of agricultural output of Palestine before the massive waves of Jewish immigration in the early 1900s disagree with your version of the story. Palestine was a major Middle Eastern exporter of wheat, barley, maize, sesame, olives, cotton, and oranges -- including the famous Jaffa Orange, which Israel later hijacked and claimed as another "Zionist miracle".
Even shortly before the establishment of Israel, the Agricultural Output of Palestine was overwhelmingly coming from Palestinian owned lands and farmers, as was documented in the Anglo-American Survey of Palestine. You can see a copy of the relevant statistics on this site.
It's a survey carried out by Great Britain and the United States at the time of the British Mandate. The website is simply hosting it (if you don't like it reading from pro-Palestinian sites, you can get it here, for a price). The survey debunks one by one the allegations of "illegal immigration" that Israel's apologists keep using to our days to claim Palestinians' "foreign origin", as you are currently trying to do (without much success, I would say).
If you like this, I would also recommend Spent by Geoffrey Miller!
http://www.amazon.com/Spent-Sex-Evolution-Consumer-Behavior/dp/0143117238/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1371226040&sr=1-2&keywords=spent
idk why people think adult sweatshops are so wrong. They typically have better labor conditions than other options in their area, and even if they don't, sweatshops are usually by far the highest paying job the people in those countries will have access to. Third world countries have far lower costs of living, and it's really not the job of major corporations to lift people from poverty.
but $1600/month in the US? That is fucked
Edit: I definitely recommend reading this if you don't believe me
I think everyone should have to read this book or at least take an Econ 101 class before voting on anything. A lot of it is about overcoming real problems with plausible solutions, rather than just spouting idealistic concepts that sound great in theory, but could never be put in practice.
Also, child sweatshops are bad news. Adults have a choice, though. They don't have to work in sweat shops, they do it because its their best option. Its better than starving, which is what they'd likely be doing otherwise.
i might suggest a basic macro-economics text.
https://www.amazon.ca/Principles-Macroeconomics-N-Gregory-Mankiw/dp/0538453060
is popular.
https://www.amazon.com/Economics-101-Consumer-Competitive-Markets-Everything/dp/144059340X
there you go
Read a book: Hive Mind: How Your Nation's IQ Matters So Much More Than Your Own
https://www.amazon.com/Hive-Mind-Your-Nations-Matters/dp/150360067X
http://www.amazon.com/Spent-Sex-Evolution-Consumer-Behavior/dp/0143117238
Omg you've moved again revealed your profound ignorance. Are you capable of reading? That quote regarding supply effects was referring to earned income rather than capital gains. Cmon at least read if your going to try to pull a gotcha.
Your land isn't being taxed, the property on your land is what is taxed. It's an important distinction and no I shouldn't have to explain basic economic terminology to you. If you deem yourself qualified to comment on economic policy you should have at least an intermediate level understanding of microeconomic and macroeconomic analysis. I'm not going to spoon feed you.
I like how you didn't address the border adjustment tax as I linked. It is very much like a VAT tax, just sold under a different name. Please read before commenting.
I have no reason to entertain beginners mistakes. You went into this discussion in bad faith. I've caught you several times being unaware of economic concepts that even undergrads know. You've been spouting talking points hoping for them to stick. You're the reason the economic discourse in this country had dropped to the level of Donald Trump.
When I was an undergraduate, then had us read a very straightforward book that doesn't require any knowledge of advanced mathematics. It conveys the complex models underpinning economics in a very digestible format. I hope you abstain from commenting on matters of economic policy until you've acquired a bare minimum understanding. The political discourse in this country is abysmal and lacks rigor. I hope you decide to take steps to buck the trend that you're clearly contributing to.
https://www.amazon.com/Naked-Economics-Undressing-Science-Revised/dp/0393337642
here you go
It is full of Ayrans lol.
You understand that if CM is right then differences in outcomes between nations most likely have a lot to do with the avg. IQ and behavioral traits of their occupants?
I'd recommend hive mind on exactly this topic.
Yes crime is obviously tied to poverty, as well as low IQ / high-impulsivity, as well as genetics. These statements all say the same thing.
Of course the countries who have the lowest average IQ will be more poverty stricken.
Further reading...
Read what exactly? You didn't provide any link to back your claim of T.E. Lawrence, nor anything close to a proper citation to allow others to track down the source of those claims. As for my source, it's actually the British Mandate records I cited, and you can buy a copy of on Amazon or likely get your local library to find you one, but the Palestinian website provides easy access to photocopies of that documentation. So where exactly can one find anything close to a respectable source for your claims, on an Israeli website or otherwise?