Best theory of economics books according to redditors
We found 670 Reddit comments discussing the best theory of economics books. We ranked the 232 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
We found 670 Reddit comments discussing the best theory of economics books. We ranked the 232 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
i could deal with the polar bears, but this climate change induced terrorism is too much!
EDIT: please stop telling me it's a real thing. large scale investigations of causes of violence is woefully rare. I know about the tenuously reported connections, that's the joke. Read Killing the Competition by Matin Daly for a very readable introduction to macro-scale violence.
Well this seems like a good opportunity to post a few of the lessons I learned in my 20s.
To my former self:
If you're depressed, here's how to turn it around
Fap less, and never to porn
Gratitude
Wealth
Theories
Girls
Career
Flow
Meditation
*****
Edit:
To answer some requests, here's my list of resources.
Wealth/Metaphysics
This audiobook has the best summary I've found of how wealth works
Lifting
How Procrastination works:
How Business works
What innovation actually is and how to do it:
How economics works:
How to get things done:
Task Management tool:
Spiritual Books
How to be a man:
Audiobooks (most of these can be found on audiobook):
Frame Control (Anytime you feel like you're trying too hard or begging for something, you lost the frame)
This is my favourite book of all. They talk about the new type of conscousness which is really really interesting to me. May not apply to all people.
If anyone find this book interesting I'd love to talk about it:
How the world works:
> This whole article is nonsense.
An opinion is only as good as the evidence that backs it up. You say it's ludicrous, but the facts say otherwise.
And just to let you know, if you've ever read Freakonomics, it goes through a very thorough explanation of why Guiliani's tough on crime policies that dropped the rate of crime in the city probably didn't do anything, as crime dropped throughout the entire country. Of course, the question becomes why did crime drop? Surprisingly, they give a majority of credit to Roe v. Wade. And again, the book backs up that assertion with raw data, not just emotional statements like you saying, "BAH, THIS IS NONSENSE!!! ARRRRGGGHHH!!!"
So...do you have some actual proof to back up your assertion?
I forget what this phenomenon is called but there's an entire chapter about it in this book.
This recession was coming either way. The economy never actually recovered from the last recession because the core problems of bad loans and inflation were not only unaddressed, but worsened. The economy isn’t built on fucking spending. It’s ridiculous that this is what mainstream “economists” think. An economy grows through savings and production, and everything the Fed does to try to fix a struggling economy only worsens malinvestment. Recessions happen not because spending is low, they happen because malinvestment is high and real savings are low (which in turn cause spending to dip, but you actually want that in that situation). You can’t just drive consumption and have that manifest a stronger economy. It’s about as legitimate as alchemy.
Edit: wow, I’m actually getting upvoted :). I wonder how many of those upvotes would’ve been downvotes had I explicitly mentioned that I’m arguing for Austrian economics. If anyone interested in learning how the economy actually works, here are steps One, Two, and Three.
This is why all ideologically motivated movements turn into shit - non-stop purity tests dragging everyone to the extremes.
Good read on the subject:
https://www.amazon.com/Nation-Rebels-Counterculture-Consumer-Culture/dp/006074586X
Eh, this one's got pictures: https://www.amazon.com/How-Economy-Grows-Why-Crashes/dp/047052670X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1487282355&sr=1-1&keywords=how+an+economy+grows+and+why+it+crashes
Because most of the people put in prison in the first place are Black. And that's because Blacks have been economically disadvantaged due to their history in this nation as second-class citizens, and there's a causal relationship between violence and local relative income inequality. So there are more Black criminals, and if there are more Black criminals, there will be more false convictions of them, because there are more convictions total. So the percentage rate of wrongful convictions could be the same, but the absolute number that would be Black would be higher.
tl;dr: history of racism and math
edit: I originally posted the wrong video as a citation; was on a totally different topic. Whoops! Here, also, is the book on the topic for anybody who is interested by one of the guys in the video https://www.amazon.com/Killing-Competition-Economic-Inequality-Homicide/dp/1412863368/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1494433228&sr=8-1&keywords=killing+the+competition
Halitosis as we know it today is the product of the Listerine company.
For years they tried to find uses to sell their product. It started off as a surgical antiseptic for wounds. Then it became a household antiseptic, a floor cleaner, a cold and sore throat remedy, and even a douche that was capable of curing gonorrhea.
Finally they decided to market it as a mouth wash. However, mouth washes didn't exist. Bad breath existed and there were means to deal with it; however, it wasn't that big of an issue to people and no one felt as self-conscious about it as they do today. So the Listerene company made use of the relatively-obscure medical term called "Halitosis" and marketed its product as the way to cure this horribly embarrassing disease that you didn't know you had.
Their massive marketing campaign changed the entire public's opinion on bad breath. They ran ads such as a bride second-guessing marrying her fiance because he has bad breath, stating "Can I be happy with him in spite of that?" Bad breath was no longer something that can be overlooked. It is something that reflects very badly on the person and it is now a disorder that can and should be treated. Thanks to their Halitosis marketing campaign, their revenue went from $115,000 to $8 million in just seven years.
Sources:
Wikipedia
Freakonomics
Advertising the American Dream
My recommended reading list includes One Up on Wall Street, Fail-Safe Investing, The Black Swan, How an Economy Grows and Why It Crashes, and Extraordinary Popular Delusions and The Madness of Crowds. The first book talks about picking individual stocks based on what you already know, the second about structuring a portfolio for growth while still playing defense, the third about common fallacies and hubris, the fourth about basic economics, and the fifth about irrational behavior.
If your money is sitting in a US bank account, then you're making a 100% bet on the future of the US dollar. At a minimum, diversify your currency holdings by buying sovereign and high-grade corporate debt in countries with strong currencies.
> why did socialism drop off in the consciousness of working people?
In many countries around the world socialism is still openly pushed for by large movements and established politicians. In the US socialism and the true left in general were quite literally killed off. People actually died fighting for the 8 hour work day, striking workers and their families were gunned down by company mercenaries, and during the largest labor uprising in the US the president ordered military bombers to attack coal miners from the air. Then we had several iterations of the Red Scare, decades of psychologically grounded propaganda from capitalists and the federal government in cooperation, and the rise of neoliberalism.
Capitalists rightly saw that socialism was a threat to their bottom line so they did everything they could to stop it. Socialism did not just fade away, it was methodically stamped out.
Post-modernism, the Frankfurt school, Trotsky, Stalin, these are not things that contemporary socialists concern themselves with in general. Thinking about academic distinctions and focusing on one attempted socialist revolution is not the way to understand socialism.
First read what some of the most famous socialists have to say about socialism. Debs, Du Bois, Einstein, Goldman, Marx (this is a great intro to Capital), and many others whom I cannot recall off hand.
To them socialism is simple: workers controlling the means of production. That means democracy in the workplace, where bosses are elected and business decisions are made by the workers. It means the abolition of private property (not the end of personal possessions), when no one can own a river and environmental destruction is not merely an 'externality'. It means the end of wage slavery, so no one is forced to rent themselves just to survive. It means the end of capitalism, the toxic ideology that private greed will somehow lead to public good.
Socialism has nothing to do with a State, anarchism is a form of socialism. Socialism has to do with how economic organizations are run and does not need a government decree or political revolution. Employee owned businesses are socialist. Socialism does not need the end of market economies, the first formulation of anarchism (mutualism) was a market socialist. If socialism means any one thing then it is this: a society organized in such a way that human well being is prioritized over profit.
As the culmination of capitalism reveals the monster that it truly is, people are searching for alternatives and those with the greatest potential to adapt to new ideas are finding it first. I think that's why so many young people are finding that socialism holds the greatest promise for a better future. We're not being pushed left, we're been searching for an alternative to the self destructive economies we struggle to survive in today. Socialism is that alternative.
Take a break from accounting and finance books. I have a few recommendations from my recent reading:
The Intelligence Paradox
The Evolution of Everything
Delusions of Power
Equal is Unfair
The Feminine Mystique
How an Economy Grows - And Why It Crashes
Floating City: A Rogue Sociologist Lost and Found in New York's Underground Economy
Buddha's Brain
The Red Queen
Obviously there's a political bend in some of those choices, but I can suggest others (it's always important to challenge your beliefs).
I love to read, can provide some other recommendations, but those were just some recent books I just pulled off my Nook. There's some fiction as well.
For intro sociology, I'd recommend some preachy nonfiction. They are written for laymen but introduce the sociological style of approach. Something like Fat Land or Uninsured in America.
Freakanomics is not exactly sociology, but could be an interesting read for someone interested in social economics / group behavior. Jonathan Kozol is a reporter, not a sociologist, but his stories mix investigative reporting with a human element to focus on topics of interest to the field of sociology. I remember Nickel and Dimed also being a good read.
The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down is not a book about sociology, but rather a specific example of culture clash within the context of medical care. That being said, it is a big reason why I decided to become a social worker (which is a profession in line with the two fields mentioned in your post).
A Place at the Table is a movie that might fit the bill.
Note: I'm American. I imagine other places would have different topics of interest.
Edited: add movie and fix format
I'd recommend reading many sides/perspectives so that you can formulate an independent mind and not just be a mouthpiece of some economist's ideology. For instance, I disagree with a lot of Marx, but I think his materialist critique of history and his critique of capitalism are very useful and a lot of it is correct. His solutions/recommendations are shit, but that doesn't discount his contributions. My recommendations:
Generally Considered Right-Leaning Economics:
Henry Hazlitt, Economics in One Lesson: https://www.amazon.com/Economics-One-Lesson-Shortest-Understand/dp/0517548232/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1510274539&sr=8-1
F. A. Hayek, Road to Serfdom: https://www.amazon.com/Road-Serfdom-Documents-Definitive-Collected/dp/0226320553/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1510274634&sr=8-1
F. A. Hayek, The Fatal Conceit: https://www.amazon.com/Fatal-Conceit-Errors-Socialism-Collected/dp/0226320669/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1510274634&sr=8-3
Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations: https://www.amazon.com/Wealth-Nations-Bantam-Classics/dp/0553585975/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1510275227&sr=1-3
Frederic Bastiat, The Law: https://www.amazon.com/Law-Frederic-Bastiat/dp/1612930123/ref=pd_sim_14_5?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=31TE91RXV0Q2XPPWE81K
Also read: Thomas Sowell, Milton Friedman, and Ludwig Von Mises
Generally Considered Left-Leaning Economics:
J. M. Keynes, The General Theory: https://www.amazon.com/General-Theory-Employment-Interest-Money/dp/0156347113/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1510274943&sr=1-3
Rosa Luxemburg, The Accumulation of Capital: https://www.amazon.com/Accumulation-Capital-Rosa-Luxemburg/dp/1614277885/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1510275041&sr=1-2
Rosa Luxemburg, Reform or Revolution: https://www.amazon.com/Revolution-Writings-History-Political-Science/dp/0486447766/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1510275041&sr=1-1
Also read: Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Trotsky. Modern day Left/Keynesian economist is Paul Krugman.
Anarchism:
Emma Goldman: https://www.amazon.com/Anarchism-Other-Essays-Emma-Goldman/dp/1484116577/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1510275717&sr=8-1
Star Trek Economics .. Trekonimics
https://www.amazon.com/Trekonomics-Economics-Star-Manu-Saadia/dp/1941758754/ref=nodl_
Economics is a pretty broad subject, is there anything in particular you're interested in? I'll list some sources that I find interesting and that have spurred my interest in economics.
Behavioral Economics
-One of the most engaging books about economics I've read.
-Applying economics to every day life, has a good chapter on how the average crack dealer makes less than minimum wage.
Macroeconomics
(Big picture economics)
Austrian School
(Popularized, not originated, with Friedrich Hayek and generally take a laissez faire approach to the economy)
Keynesian School
(Based on the ideas of John Maynard Keynes, advocates government intervention in the economy to smooth the otherwise turbulent waves of the business cycle)
-Haven't read this one, but Krugman is one of the more famous Keynesians.
Chicago School
Notable Economists:
Microeconomics
(How households / firms make decisions to allocate limited resources. Couple sub categories here, mainly Game Theory and some types of Behavioral Economics)
Casual Books about Economics
-Pretty sure this is available online for free.
-Read this a long time ago before I started seriously pursuing economics. Decent introduction to things like opportunity cost and other simple economic concepts.
Because there is so much information available about economics you might feel a little overwhelmed. That's fine, the important thing is to always keep an open mind and not to dismiss certain theories / information based on a few people's opinions. For example, a lot of people bash on Keyensians these days (and mostly for good reason) but it's important to note that Keyensian economics as its practiced today is vastly different than what John Maynard Keynes had in mind in the early to mid 1900s. Just keep an open mind and form your own opinion.
I'm sure I forgot a ton of stuff so hopefully other people can fill in what I missed.
Please read The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism and get back to us.
>Deficit spending is not the same thing as spending on the credit card in your pocket.
Deficit spending is future taxation. I don't know what your comment has to do with this fact.
Two modern and more "moderate" books, considering that your brother goes to DSA meetings:
"Why not Socialism?" by G.A. Cohen
"Why Marx was right" by Terry Eagleton
And two firecrackers, one marxian, one anarchist:
"The Communist Manifesto" by Marx/Engels
"The Conquest of Bread" by Kropotkin
Before you go and buy any of this stuff for a dozen bucks or so, consider that they are all available online, "Manifesto" and "Conquest" even legally.
The pure mechanics component consists of multivariable differential calculus, a little bit of multivariable integral calculus, and a bit of linear algebra; plus substantial comfort what might be called "systems of equations differential calculus." The fastest way to cover this material is to work through the first five or so chapters of Kaplan's advanced calculus book or something similar. Do the exercises. Your basic Stewart Calculus doesn't adequately cover the systems-of-equations part and Kreyszig's Advanced Engineering Mathematics book is at the right technical level but has all the wrong emphasis and coverage for economists. Kaplan's book isn't ideal, but it's about as close as you're going to get. (This is a hole in the textbook market...)
The theoretical portion mainly consists of basic point-set topology and elementary real analysis. The fastest way to cover this material is to chop through the first eight chapters of Rudin's undergraduate book.
Yale has a lovely set of Math Camp notes that you should also work through side-by-side with Kaplan and Rudin.
To see economic applications, read those two books side-by-side with Simon and Blume's book.
The first chapter of Debreu's Theory of Value covers all the math you need to know and is super slick, but is also far too terse and technical to realistically serve as your only resource. Similarly you should peek at the mathematical appendices in MWG but they will likely not be sufficient on their own.
I gotchu fam, been saved in my amazon wishlish all this time. "How an Economy Grows and Why It Crashes" by Peter Schiff.
Well, the classic quote is "first you have to admit you have a problem." I'm not saying we shouldn't address guns and mental health; the point I am making is that violence correlates with income inequality so if we want to reduce violence, we'll need to do something about income inequality. Otherwise people will continue to kill each other with handguns, or knives, or baseball bats, or whatever weapon is available. Also, fixing income inequality is about as likely as fixing the mental health situation in the US, meaning I don't expect either one to happen anytime soon or to any degree that would matter.
Here you go!
How an Economy Grows and Why It Crashes.
I read it in grad school and it was OK. It's very macro-focused. If you like that, that's fine. I find macroeconomics to be sort of boring and useless in many situations. It's good to know basics about how the economy functions, but you really don't need to know that much unless you're in the business of policy making or research.
"I don't understand the American economy. In 15 years they will be selling hamburgers/houses to each other"
Also reminds me of The End of Work by Jeremy Rifkin.
>the unemployed student that used financial aid to pay for school and now collects unemployment and wefare.
Money which was taken from others and 40% of it was borrowed or just printed out of thin air by the federal government.
... and what has all that "assistance" from the federal government accomplished? The tuition has gone up (why should colleges and universities lower costs when their profits are guaranteed by the federal government??), higher taxes, inflation, more profits for the "too big to fail" banks, etc. Yay central planning.
This was from a chapter in the original Freakonomics book.
Math econ isn't a sub-field of, it's a set of mathematical tools used in econ. You can't specialize in math econ in grad school.
Chiang and Wainright and Simon and Blume are what you want to at least cover the basics. Although most if not all of it will be review which is the intention.
This worked really well for the Freakonomics cover. It...doesn't work so well with a banana.
Freakonomics: by Steven Levitt & Stephen Dubner
Just very fascinating, makes you think.
Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything https://www.amazon.com/dp/0060731338/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_1cPxCbMR2SG2J
Freakonomics says the dominant factor for the drop in crime was abortion legalization.
This Guy
should read
some books
"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.
https://www.amazon.com/How-Economy-Grows-Why-Crashes/dp/047052670X
How an Economy Grows and Why it Crashes. https://www.amazon.com/How-Economy-Grows-Why-Crashes/dp/047052670X
It's got pictures, and teaches very easy to understand concepts which will allow you to refute economic nonsense. This is the best choice because non-avid readers aren't going to read Bastiat or Hayek or anything heavy.
I, Pencil
After that I highly recommend reading Peter Schiff's How an Economy Grows and Why It Crashes
It's an easy read but drives a lot of very important points home.
First, "clear choice" is absolutely subjective. Each player (voter) will assign a value to the outcomes based on their personal beliefs through their own payoff functions. If they are "rational," they will then choose the action which gets them to the outcome of highest value.
While I'm not the person you responded to, I am also a veteran of the US Army. For someone like myself, it is very easy to expect that /u/DominarRygelThe16th is influenced by our recent participation in Iraq. But, feel free to correct me, chief.
Of the 4 potential Presidential candidates, which are on record for supporting the War in Iraq? If it is all 4, then this will be a moot issue. If it's all three, then it is a "clear choice." If it is either two or one, then it's not "clear," but a method of pairwise comparisons would be better suited to address this. Candidates with a tie receive half a point.
It is my suspicion Clinton would not only lose that pairwise comparison, but is also the least ranked candidate of many's preference ballot. Thus, given the (false) choice between only Trump and Clinton; no, it's not clear. But, I hope it is now.
Sources:
Tadelis, Stephen. Game Theory: An Introduction, (Princeton University Press: Oxford), 1-93
Tannenbaum, Peter. Excursions In Modern Mathematics, (Pearson: Boston), 1-22
edit: Aww, just 3 days ago, everyone LOVED math. What happened?
Stephen Hawking is on point:
If machines produce everything we need, the outcome will depend on how things are distributed. Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or most people can end up miserably poor if the machine-owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution. So far, the trend seems to be toward the second option, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality.
A good read to begin to realize a new alternative:
Inventing the Future: Postcapitalism and a World Without Work
So dumb that people even write books about it! /s
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Trekonomics-Economics-Star-Manu-Saadia/dp/1941758754/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1516373308&sr=8-1
There's many books and papers that discuss post-scarcity economics. There is one specifically written from a Star Trek perspective.
Trekonomics: The Economics of Star Trek https://www.amazon.com/dp/1941758754/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_bIh6Ab7SEFFTE
>I don’t regret having one, just extremely ashamed of being sexual and communicating it to girls and also showing it to the world. Attracting girls’ attention and whatnot isn’t very hard but progressing things to dating, holding hands and eventually sex is impossible. I can’t even call them or message them on Facebook or Whatsapp because I just feel like an idiot for doing so. Making a move in clubs and bars is also difficult although I once got close to leaving with a girl but she didn't want to. I got made fun of a lot growing up for not having a girlfriend and this made me feel like i do not deserve one. It doesn't matter if I've got the green light to go ahead I just feel really ashamed do it. Even something like looking at a fit girl wearing a short skirt makes me feel bad for checking her out and that I shouldn’t be doing it.
I know what you mean. I've been there myself, but even when I was there I was entirely self-aware of my shame and I was skeptical of the validity of my emotional reactions; I realized they were ingrained. Being aware of your emotional reactions allows you to be emotionally proactive. Your sex-negative problem is mostly an emotional issue, and not much else, right? I've been there. I wouldn't doubt that you are also decent looking and have both latent and actualized social skills. Most intelligent introverts have a lot of potential to be who they want to be because they know themselves more deeply than others. You must use your introverted nature to your advantage and recognize the differences in others and yourself. In all honesty, there are an infinite number of unwritten rules; everyone's abstract/emotional logic is different. Many of them are foundational and predictable, however; including yours and mine. Like anything else, being emotionally predictable is not a black/white issue. It is a grey area, and you have to balance your reliability with creativity.
Being made fun of for not having a girlfriend is just as sexist as being made fun of for not having a boyfriend; gender equal too. Were you ever shamed for not having a boyfriend? It's clearly a matter of groupthink and extroverted style; not for everyone. Dating relationships, for extroverts especially, are often attention-getting and showy. They wear their relationships like trophies won. Usually introverts prefer a more private relationship because they have less social desire and are often shamed because of it. Introverts are “themselves” more often in private. Extroverts are “themselves” more often in public. There is no shame deserved either way, regardless of popular opinion. Both styles have their strengths and weaknesses, and you should try to introject some of the traits that you enjoy in others; regardless of type. That is how you become balanced.
>I’m receiving counselling from a pastor who advocates the whole “no sex before marriage” thing and believes that people should only date to get married and sex is only for making kids which is stupid IMO because I do not plan on getting married anytime soon.
Counseling from a Catholic pastor? Watch out, that is one of the most notorious sex-negative societies out there. They own the abstinence-only charade while they parade horribles. Marriage is not the answer to anything; it is an institution of the state. Anything else attached is sentimental.
If you haven't already, I recommend doing an in-depth study of animal sexual behaviors; especially the most intelligent animals. All animals have sex for pleasure, but some animals are only driven to have sex at certain times of the year; humans are on a 24/7 system.
>I’ve tried the no fap route and gotten very high days counts but that hasn’t really helped me at all.
Sexual frustration doesn't help anyone. If you are mindful, then you can use your libido to further your goals, but it is not an all-cure.
>Got any sources to help overcome sex-negative perspectives? I’m interested in recreational sex not baby making sex.
Absolutely. I recommend starting with actual sex science and learning about male and female psychology and neurology. Then work your way into reading about sex culture. You should also study developmental psychology as you will probably need the clinical context in order to objectively self-evaluate your childhood influences; it is necessary for self-therapy. The best therapy will always be self-therapy; no one will ever know you better than yourself.
Evolutionary Science and Morals Philosophy:
The Selfish Gene
The Moral Landscape
The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined
Justice: What's The Right Thing To Do?
Sex Psychology, Science, and Neurology:
Bonk: The Curious Coupling of Science and Sex
The Female Brain
The Male Brain
Why Men Want Sex and Women Need Love
What Do Women Want
Why Women Have Sex: Understanding Sexual Motivations from Adventure to Revenge (and Everything in Between)
Sex: The world's favorite pastime fully revealed
Behavioral Psychology and Abstract Economics:
How Pleasure Works
Freakonomics
Quiet: The Power of Introverts In A World That Can't Stop Talking
Thinking Fast And Slow
We Are All Weird
Developmental Psychology:
Nurture Shock
Hauntings: Dispelling The Ghosts That Run Our Lives
Empathy Building:
Half The Sky
The House On Mango Street
Me Before You
The Fault In Our Stars
Also check out James Hollis' Understanding The Psychology of Men lecture if you can find it.
Movies: XXY, Tom Boy, Dogtooth, Shame, Secretary, Nymphomaniac, Juno, Beautiful Creatures, and The Man From Earth.
All of these things are related, but it is up to you to make the connections; pick and choose which material suits your interests best. These are the things that came to mind first, and they have all influenced my perspectives.
Much like you, I've also recently developed a strong interest in Levinas. I've yet to read him, though, so please take that into account when considering my recommendations.
I recently asked some of my professors and a friend of mine who wrote his master's thesis on Levinas to help me out with getting started. This is what they recommended:
I'm not too knowledgeable of Husserl, so all I can really recommend from him is the Cartesian Meditations, which sort of serves as an introduction to Husserl's own method of phenomenology.
For Heidegger, the most important work in this regard is certainly Being and Time. If you have the time, I recommend picking up the Basic Writings and reading through most of it.
On a final note, Levinas was steeped within the Jewish intellectual tradition. Jewish philosophers often emphasize the role of community and social contextuality in general. It might serve you well to read works such as Martin Buber's I and Thou and Gabriel Marcel's Being and Having.
EDIT: Another good compliment to Levinas is Maurice Merleau-Ponty's Phenomenology of Perception.
Other replies give overviews, so when you're ready for the full analysis, see What Has Government Done To Our Money? by Dr. Murray Rothbard -- also available as an audio book.
You may also be interested in Nobel prize winner F.A. Hayek's The Fatal Conceit wherein the author demonstrates that central banks cannot accomplish their stated aims.
> there's been surprisingly little generation-level analysis since the gen x stuff faded away.
This guy builds a case that Generation Y represents a sharp contrast to the boomers. He says the psychological profile strongly suggests a throwback to the values of the WWII generation.
This guy also has a lot to say about Generation Y.
> I don't think the generation y label ever really caught on.
It's definitely a real phenomenon and used in marketing circles, at least. It certainly exists as a demographic artifact; it's the generational echo of the boomers.
How an Economy Grows and Why it Crashes by Peter Schiff. You could even read it to your kids!
It was Freakonomics, yes. That chapter was fascinating. I wonder how much of it is accurate.
Maybe. I thought the decline in crime we due to the population changes caused by the liberalisation of abortion in the 70s.
Source: (freakenomics - Amazon)[http://www.amazon.com/Freakonomics-Economist-Explores-Hidden-Everything/dp/0060731338]
I'd recommend Freakonomics because it shows economics as the awesome discipline it really is.
My impression is that the most prominent objection of an orthodox Marxist to characterising what they believe as "religion" would be that they are operating with objective, materialist, ontological naturalist, scientific criteria, and that reject revelation, faith, spirit, supernaturalism and mysticism. Under orthodox Marxism, the concept of science encompasses a much broader definition than most modern philosophers of science or scientists accept, particularly those working in the analytic tradition. Here's non-Marxist radical socialist Noam Chomsky on the concept of "Marxism".
The various definitions and connotations that terms like "religious" hold are situated in a social and cultural context which changes over time. It's matter of semantics, and comes across from the Latin root of the word "religion" in "religio" meaning "obligation, bond, reverence" and "religare" meaning "to bind" . For example, existentially speaking, committing oneself wholly to the revolutionary cause would be considered religious form of life in Kierkegaardian terms. If you aren't already familiar with what I mean, I suggest looking up Kierkegaard. Sartre was attacked by many orthodox Marxists for trying defining the purity of Marxist philosophy with his existentialist philosophy.
Some Christian philosophers, like John Macmurray, endorse Marx's critique of religion as a valid critique of institutional and established religion as false-religion, much in the same way that Kierkegaard rejected the established church. Atheist Marxists like Zizek and Badiou claim that Christianity is the foundation of the only true form of atheism, that Calvinist soteriology provides the model for earthly salvation, and that the Saint Paul the apostle is the founder of universalism and the left tradition. Terry Eagleton is another prominent Christian Marxist who emphasises the political revolutionary character of Jesus. I'd recommend his Reason, Faith, Revolution and Why Marx Was Right as better introduction to Marxism for where you are coming from than simply diving into Capital etc.
It's often pointed out that Marx was an eschatological thinker. However, these tend to gloss over Marx's view of theory of praxis as dynamic. Even so, many Marxists and anti-Marxists alike take their cues from Carl Schmitt in viewing all political traditions as being historically derived from theological traditions.
When speaking of Marx and "Marxists", it always pays to remember Marx's famous quote: "what is certain is that I myself am not a 'Marxist' ".
Thinking Strategically is by far the best game theory book for laypeople.
The only possible issue I see is your selection of textbook: Principles of Mathematical Economics - I've honestly never heard of this book.
The graduate school go-to textbook is Mathematics for Economists by Simon and Blume. However, I think this book would be overkill for you, as it is geared towards pure, PhD level, economics. Also, I was in a similar place to you, with respect to mathematical training at one point, and Simon & Blume proved to be too large a leap.
My advice would be to use one of the following books (in order of my preference):
1. Essential Mathematics for Economic Analysis by Sydsaeter
2. Mathematics for Economics
by Hoy
3. Fundamental Methods of Mathematical Economics
by Chiang
They'll bring your basic command, of the basic required mathematics up to scratch AND these books cover linear algebra. You will also then be in a good place to tackle Simon & Blume if you ever need to in the future. Another piece of advice: PRACTISE PRACTISE PRACTISE. For what you are doing, you don't need to have a deep understanding of the mathematics you are using BUT, you do need to be very comfortable with applying the techniques.
So, as you are working through (for instance) Sydsaeter, I would be attempting the related practice questions you find in:
Hope this helps.
P.S. Almost all of these books are available for 'free' on Library Gensis
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".
Bitcoin is based on Austrian School of economy instead of Keynesian economics which is used in current fiat currencies. There's a great book How an Economy Grows and Why It Crashes showing Austrian school. I can't recommend it highly enough. It's written in such a simple way that even your grandma gets the idea.
> Expansion of the money supply is a normal feature of a currency.
I live in a country where inflation devalued the currency almost by 50 % within several years. And it's not that bad, in Greece, Venezuela and other countries it's way worse. People in UK, USA may not see the problems with inflation.
Currency should hold value. Yet expansion of money supply decreases the value.
> Deflation is undesirable in a currency.
Why?
Deflation is bad for borrowers. That's maybe why central banks and governments hate deflation. If you owe something and next year you owe more, then you don't like deflation. Debts of countries is so huge that deflation would be bad for the countries. Inflation on the other hand makes the debt to be smaller.
Bitcoin isn't only about deflation. Bitcoin's property is that you can be your own bank. You don't have to trust others. Currently you have money in banks in order to pay online. The banks lend your money for 10-20 % interest because of Fractional-Reserve Banking.
R1: This voting system is non-optimal. Please read this.
Did I win the contest?
I agree with the first part of this The End of Work:.... , I don't think I'll be around for the second part.
Sounds like you might find this book interesting.
It explores a lot of the "whys" to your "whats."
All excellent books, but I would add How an Economy Grows and Why It Crashes by Peter Schiff as an excellent intro to economics book.
I would suggest reading How and Economy Grows and Why it Crashes. In my opinion, it has dethroned Hazlitt's Economics in one Lesson as the simplest and most enjoyable way to understand basic economics. It is essentially written in comic book fashion and just flies by. Of course, you won't be an expert after reading it, but will be much more informed than the average person!
Peter Schiff's How an Economy Grows and Why it Crashes. More of a illustrated novel than comic.
I believe it was How an Economy Grows and Why It Crashes.
My fellow Gators, it is time to rise!
Tadelis.
About five years before Bitcoin started, these two books enlightened me as to what was really going on in the world:
https://mises.org/money.asp
https://www.amazon.com/Whatever-Happened-Explanation-Economics-Investments/dp/0942617622
When I saw Bitcoin it sounded like it was proposing to be a solution to this problem. I had trouble believing that it was possible to create a cryptographic currency, though - "How could the currency be useful if people could just make more of it by copying the file that contained it?" I thought. I had actually considered this on my own (my background is computer science and engineering and I was familiar with asymmetric cryptography) but to me creating a copy-proof, inflation-proof, central-authority-free cryptographic currency was an unsolvable problem.
There were people on Slashdot urging naysayers to read the whitepaper, so I did. I was blown away: Satoshi had solved the problem that mystified me. Here was something the government could never get its hands on. Here at last was the tool to smash the state.
>Sure, except there is not a finite level of wealth in the real world, nor is wealth gained by arbitrary or random means.
Not sure what world you are living in, but in mine there is a finite amount of food, land, money, gold, trees, oil, iphones. How do you think the laws of supply and demand work?
Wealth is not gained by arbitrary or random means? Really? Lets tell the kid who was born in Congo that he really failed at picking his parents. Or an example closer to home - when you wanted to start your first telecommunications company, did your parents put up a few million bucks in venture capital for you as happened with Lachlan Murdoch and James Packer?
Ohhh, I see where you're going with this. In Libertarian fantasy land wealth is allocated by hard work, and chance plays a very marginal role. Capital and inherited wealth pale against the billion dollar earning power of a hard working primary school teacher! In reality, labour does not out earn capital.
>Why are countries with free markets so wealthy? Why do countries like HK, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan have such a strong middle class?
Because for one, they aren't free market economies. Most of their growth was led by their governments. Singapore is basically a technocratic dictatorship ruled by one family - perhaps you're familiar with Singtel, owner of Optus or Singapore Airlines, both controlled by government investment corporation Temasek?
Korea is run by an oligarchy of family owned conglomerates called "Chaebols" - Samsung, LG, Hyundai, all of the drivers of their economy are too-big-to-fail and heavily state supported.
Hong Kong and Taiwan were able to profit from proximity and cultural ties to China to build their economies.
And China's decades long double digit economic growth model wasn't thanks to the free market either. They call it "State Capitalism", which is a fancy way of saying fascism.
>Again, evidence and history does not support your claims.
Yes it does. Most industries in market economies start out fiercely competitive but ultimately merge into an oligarchy if not strictly regulated by the government.
6 companies control 90% of the USA's media, down from 50 in 1983.
Since 1990, 37 of the USA's big banks merged to become just 4 too-big-to-fail megabanks.
This process happens even faster in a small economy like Australia's, where we have been stuck with an cartel of 4 too-big-to-fail banks for a very long time now.
You need to acquaint yourself with the basics of how markets work, and how unregulated markets inevitably become monopolistic. You can start with "Wealth of Nations" by the father of modern capitalism, Adam Smith.
Inventing the Future
Postcapitalism This one is not explicitly "socialist", but it's got a lot of good stuff to convince your more moderate friends.
Malign Velocities
#ACCELERATE
I dunno, there are a few. I'm a filthy left accelerationist though. Here is the manifesto, if you're interested
Better yet. Trekonomics
A Short History of Nearly Everything, A People's History of the United States, Freakonomics, The Botany of Desire, Sun Magazine
Michael Pollan's [The Omnivore's Dilemma] (http://www.amazon.com/Omnivores-Dilemma-Natural-History-Meals/dp/0143038583/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1324994963&sr=8-4)
[Freakonomics] (http://www.amazon.com/Freakonomics-Economist-Explores-Hidden-Everything/dp/0060731338/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1324995084&sr=1-1)
Nathaniel Philbrick In the Heart of the Sea
Agree with others on Erik Larson, Mary Roach and Bill Bryson.
Economics:
Sciences:
I'm getting a fast-paced, usually humorous vibe from your likes.
David Sedaris' humor essays have a difficulty level similar to Mary Roach, though he does daily life more often than science. Start with something like Me Talk Pretty One Day rather than his latest where there's useless filler pages. In a more data-driven vein, Freakonomics might make for a good read.
My Date With Satan is an oddball short story collection (about fucked up characters) with enough gems to make the book worthwhile. And Chuck Palahniuk should always be considered in the same vein as Christopher Moore.
If you want something humorous but more light-hearted, maybe A Barrel of Laughs, A Vale of Tears. Add philosophy to the mix and you get The Phantom Tollbooth.
Also, Feed and The Ear, The Eye, and The Arm should be considered as short reads if you liked World War Z and Neil Gaiman.
Ain't No Makin' It: Aspirations and Attainment in a Low-Income Neighborhood
Naked Statistics: Stripping the Dread from the Data
Fablehaven
The Origins of Totalitarianism
Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything
If you enjoy statistical analysis in this article you might like book Freconomics. It has two chapters dedicated to spotting fraud using statistical analysis.
In that case, I found a lot of inspiration in the book American Progressivism: A Reader. It's a sampling of formative essays and speeches during the Progressive Era talking about reforming government, reducing corruption, and building a reliable administration. Reading it helps understand how the modern US government got to be where it is, because most of their proposals were eventually adopted.
I also read Leninism by Neil Harding, which went into the detail of the initial Communist revolution in Russia and how Lenin's political theories evolved as circumstances on the ground changed. I think it was helpful both in gaining more understanding of the history of the time and in learning about what Communism came to mean in a Russian context.
I liked Predictably Irrational and Freakonomics for really highlighting 1) economics is about incentives, and 2) our incentives sometimes lead us and markets astray, sometimes even in predictably bad ways.
The Myth of the Rational Market traces a history of financial economics going back to the early 1900s and how we conceptualized the idea of the Efficient Market Hypothesis. It also ends up introducing a lot of basic financial information I had in my finance classes.
The Alchemists: Three Central Bankers and the World on Fire goes into specific detail about the financial crisis and how central banks across the world responded to it. Useful if you aren't familiar with the specifics of the crisis.
The Working Poor: Invisible in America helps explore the hopelessness and despair of the working poor, and how a poverty mindset can develop. It also shows how systems of late fees, overdraft fees, payday loans, lack of benefits for part-time workers, the cost of healthcare, etc all combine to really rig the world against the poor succeeding.
That's all I can think of for now.
The drug game is greatly romanticized in our culture, but the reality is a stark contrast.
Freakonomics (I think it was this book) had a chapter exploring the drug game and found only lucrative at the very highest positions.
And that doesn't even touch on the risk of law enforcement involvement. Baltimore may have its hands too full go hammer lower-level drug dealers, but in the South we defense lawyers have a saying: sale means jail. 2-5 years to serve (though parole eligible fairly quickly), and if you're not facing it, someone that could flip on you is. On a long enough timeline, everyone's survival rate drops to zero.
In fact, in Georgia, a second sale of a schedule I or II is life eligible. On life, parole isn't even considered until 14 years in on non-violent offenses.
I'm not trying to shit on your dream, but the reality of the thing is vastly different from the average perception of the thing.
You should definitely check out Heath and Potter's Nation of Rebels: How Counterculture became Consumer Culture.
http://www.amazon.com/Nation-Rebels-Counterculture-Consumer-Culture/dp/006074586X
My favorite book on the topic -- Nation of Rebels: Why Counterculture Became Consumer Culture
They're writing another book
I've looked at this a lot and am convinced that the Crisis was invented by Stephen Davies in Sep 2004 to argue against industry regulation [1]. Yes, manure was an issue, but no crisis of 1894, no 1898 urban planning conference, and no Times prediction about manure in the streets.
In addition to the alleged Times quote, the article claims the worlds first international conference on urban planning was held in 1898, was scheduled for 10 days, but broke up after 3 due to being stymied by the problem of manure. Several red flags mostly regarding the conference. Conferences have names, dates, and most importantly proceedings, but Davies does not supply or cite any.
Multiple sources list America’s first urban planning conference as the First National Conference on City Planning, held May 21-22, 1909, in Washington, DC. [2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8]. Proceedings can be found online (URL: https://archive.org/details/proceedingsoffir00nati) [9]. The proceedings do not mention an 1898 conference, nor discuss manure as a problem.
Britain’s first urban planning conference was the Town Planning Conference, held October 10-15, 1910, in London [6, 7]. Transactions can be found online (URL: https://archive.org/details/transactions00town) [10]. The transactions do not mention an 1898 conference, nor do they discuss manure as a problem.
Searches with dates set prior to Sep 2004 result in no reference to the 1894 crisis or to the 1898 conference. (Note: there are some pages published prior to 2004 with comments added after Sep 2004). Similarly, no references to a Times quote about streets buried in manure can be found online prior to Sep 2004. The quote has no citation, no date, and no author. I doubt the quote was ever published in the Times or anywhere else.
If anyone can provide a credible reference to the conference name, dates, location, or proceedings please post and I would be happy to admit my error.
This story has been retold countless times, largely due to the attention it received from Eric Morris [12] and then Stephen D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner [13]. It has a life of its own. I've left comments at the HistoricUK link you listed, but that is actually a tourist site, not an historical site. There does not appear to be any way to contact the authors or editors.
The references at the fee.org article [1] and [11] below may have solid information of use to your writing.
References:
https://fee.org/.../the-great-horse-manure-crisis-of-1894/
https://www.britannica.com/.../The-era-of-industrialization
https://archive.org/details/proceedingsoffir00nati
https://archive.org/details/transactions00town
(Mods: My first post -- hope I did ok!)
I'm in a similar boat as you; interested in continental, but surrounded by a lot of analytics.
Hegel is notorious for being dense and difficult to read, and while he was incredibly influential on many later continental thinkers, I don't think anyone who really wanted to help you get into continental philosophy would have you start on Hegel, unless they were committed to reading through it with you.
Heidegger's maybe a bit less obtuse at times, but he can also be confusing if you don't have a professor or more experienced student guiding you along. I asked a professor where I should start, and he recommended his published lecture notes from The History of the Concept of Time, which I admittedly haven't finished yet, but he spends a lot of time in it explaining Husserl's philosophy of phenomenology, which is crucial for understanding Heidegger, as well as a number of other continental thinkers.
As for some easier continental-esque thinkers, there are some that I think are a bit more accessible. Bear in mind that there isn't exactly a group of thinkers who all signed a document saying they were continental philosophers, but there are a number who seem to run in the tradition, and many others who were at the very least related to them.
To begin, I'd recommend some Kierkegaard. He was a Christian philosopher, and is often considered to be one of the earliest existentialist philosopher's. He did a number of works on concepts of faith, anxiety, dread and other elements of the human condition, adding his own angles on them to apply them to Christian philosophy. He wrote under a number of pseudonyms in order to create a number of different perspectives, although underlying all the chaos was a desire to get you to start thinking for yourself. A good place to start with him would be Fear and Trembling. Many of his ideas were influential on continental thinkers such as Heidegger, Jaspers and Sartre.
To go in a very different direction, Nietzsche is another thinker who was very influential on many continental philosophers. The self-declared Anti-Christ, he basically believed that we are about to enter a post-God world, with his writings often either trying to burn our bridges back to the Church or trying to point us in a new direction. Like Kierkegaard, he doesn't always say what he means directly, but much of his philosophy is ultimately aimed at getting you to start thinking for yourself. I'd recommend this anthology, as it contains a number of pretty crucial writings of his.
If after this you're still interested in Heidegger, I don't have as much background there, although I've read a few of his Basic Writings, which is a collection of essays of his. In one of my classes, we also read an essay from his Pathmarks which wasn't terribly dense, so that might be a nice place to start as well. Being and Time is generally considered to be his most important work, but it's renowned for being dense and difficult, although there are a number of commentaries on that book alone that may prove useful.
For one final recommendation, I'll throw in Kaufmann's anothology of existential writings, which has a number of essays on existentialism, which was heavily tied to many core continental thinkers.
And I wouldn't worry about your roommate.
For everyone else: This is a pretty good example of the Hayekian Fatal Conceit: That is, that individual men have the knowledge and capacity to "solve" social problems.
To neuromonkey: You ought to beware of this line of thinking. Claiming the market is "wrong" (whatever that may mean) is rather meaningless if you understand what markets are and do, but to claim that you have the "solution" to the market problem is pretty wacky. You can probably find lots of people who will agree that the market was "wrong" in providing this, that, or the other good or service. You might even find people who can agree that something ought to be done about it. But you shouldn't claim to know what to do to fix it. That's crazy at best and irresponsible at worst.
Just ask yourself: How is it that Little Ol' You knows that this or that policy change will produce the desired effect, whether approximately or precisely?
I submit that you simply cannot know because of the complexity and unpredictability of individual human behavior.
Thoughts?
I second this. Actually, even now, I think most of what I know about theory I must have picked up via osmosis from reading K-Punk a lot back in the late 00s. There's a few more of his lectures here btw. Along similar lines, a friend of Mark Fisher's, Jeremy Gilbert, has some [podcasts] (https://culturepowerpolitics.org/podcasts/) which introduce several key concepts and thinkers from theory and cultural studies. I haven't listened to all of them, but the first one where he gives an overview of Gramsci, hegemony and neoliberalism could be useful for those who liked Capitalist Realism.
If you're interested in Marx, [this] (https://www.amazon.com/Why-Marx-Right-Terry-Eagleton/dp/0300181531/) goes over most of the important stuff. I hesitate to say it's the best introduction to Marx available because I haven't read many but I found it pretty clear and to the point. And David Harvey's lectures on Capital on youtube are invaluable if you ever want to read Marx himself.
Thinking Strategically by Avinash Dixit and Barry Nalebuff is a good one.
Am hearing all the time recommendations for this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Strategically-Competitive-Business-Politics/dp/0393310353
Start with this one:
how economies grow and why they fail
This next book is a bit more cerebral but you understand the world if you read it
Thomas Sowell’s Basic Economics
Have you read the latest version of this story by his sons, Peter & Andrew Schiff called Why an Economy Grows and Why it Crashes? If so, your thoughts on their changes/updates would be greatly appreciated.
Say you want to open a small business or take vocational classes or buy a car. You go to the bank to take out a loan. You win by getting the loan and pursuing your goals, the bank and the depositor wins by getting interest.
If the depositor didn't deposit any money, the bank would just turn you away.
This is basic Econ101 stuff, so any introductory econ book would explain it in more detail. Also, you can read
http://www.amazon.com/How-Economy-Grows-Why-Crashes/dp/047052670X
I would recommend Economics in One Lesson (which you can also buy here) because it teaches you how to use reasoning in economics and figure out where people are using bad logic in their economic thinking.
I would definitely recommend this as one of the first books you read because there are a lot of economic fallacies out there put forth by pundits, talkshow hosts, and even some economists; this book will allow you to see whether or not their economic thinking and logic is sound.
On a personal note, this is one of the first books on economics that I read, and I absolutely loved it. While it might not be the most entertaining read, it is certainly more interesting than your standard economics textbook.
After you finish that book, I would recommend you read How an Economy Grows and Why It Crashes because it explains, in a way that even a child could understand, why an economy grows. The overall concept is fairly simple, but it is vital to fully understand it before trying to understand more important concepts.
Cool. I would recommend checking out Freakonomics*, The Undercover Economist*, and 30-Second Economics. These are some (relatively) fun books that give a little insight into economics. ^*The ^sequels ^are ^great ^too.
And back to the experiment thing: remember that the decisions that people make when confronted with a choice is also economics, just like studying how a single photon moves is still physics, even though both are part of something much bigger.
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
This was discussed here in detail.
What jumps? You have only discussed income tax in our thread. You claimed you are "extremely overtaxed" and I showed you that was false. You said you wanted to be able to afford a house and I showed you that has little to do with taxes which was what you said right before claiming to be overtaxed.
I don't think this discussion is going to go much further. You have accused other commenters of being NPCs and not understanding Trump's "super complicated" moves, but you haven't shown much comprehension on basic economic and tax policies yourself. If you want to better understand why people don't seem to be as happy about a tax cut as you are then I would recommend starting with The Armchair Economist and Freakonomics.
If you're interested for your own interest and not for college, I'd recommend starting with books written for a general audience like
The Cartoon Introduction to Economics
Freakonomics
The Armchair Economist
Spin Free Economics
Lastly, Lives of the Laureates offers biographical accounts of 23 Nobel Laureates in Economics. I find it interesting since it offers insights into the minds of the Laureates, their intellectual process, and some of the most important contributions within the economics community.
I also often recommend Economics in the Afterlife to people since it shows that economists have no shame and economics can really be applied to anything.
You could probably find PDFs online of some of these books if you were so inclined.
Lol, thanks amigo!
I like to spend time and effort on good responses. Sometimes you just know that it was a waste of time. But other times it feels really good to have a dialogue with what I now presume is a pretty decent person. I really love reddit for times like these.
The intellectual quality and the civility of reddit has been on a steady decline, plus the corrupting influence of paid trolls and mentally ill people. But when the dust settles, its still a great forum for discussion.
I don't talk for a living, though I'm thinking about getting back into a white collar job. Your compliment is definitely encouraging. Thanks so much!
I agree with you on the desire of the currently incarecerated to want to change.
I don't agree with you AS much on the prison-as-deterrent point though. I think that the threat of incarceration is a bigger factor in discouraging crime than you might. I have nothing concrete to back that up though, just a gut feeling. You are right when the crime is a necessity though. But lets be real- how often is a crime an absolute necessity? On this note, the spelling of the word necessity is its own crime...
Assessing the outcomes of different prison policies is absolutely brutal. For example, the famous case of abortion vs tough on crime from Freakanomics
Setting prison policy is actually such a tricky and long term endeavor that its helpful to look at non-demorcatic and non western-shit I'll just go with "Free"- countries. At least for data.
Anyways, with the increasing of people being radicalized into Islam going on now, plus the changing drug laws, its prime time to look at the system right now.
Have a good night, and good luck out there!
Hi I'm not sure if these are the books you would enjoy, but I do have a couple of them in my pocket list:
Personally in recent years I'm interested in topics about algorithms/cryptology and economics, so The Code Book by Simon Singh, Fortune's Formula: The Untold Story of the Scientific Betting System That Beat the Casinos and Wall Street by William Poundstone, The Physics of Wall Street: A Brief History of Predicting the Unpredictable by James Owen Weatherall, these are the ones of my all time favorite "history" books about math and science and their applications. : )
I can still come up with another (popular) book, Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything, but I didn't really enjoy the book, guess I didn't agree some of the conclusions in that book. But maybe you would find it interesting. :)
Hope this helps! ☺️
Game Theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoners_dilemma
Also, the people making decisions are very rarely highly motivated 20 year old professionals who want to change the world. Unfortunately.
Reading that I found enlightening:
http://www.amazon.com/Vested-Outsourcing-Five-Rules-Transform/dp/0230623174/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1343969056&sr=8-1&keywords=vested+outsourcing
http://www.amazon.com/The-Tipping-Point-Little-Difference/dp/0316346624/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1343969137&sr=8-1&keywords=tipping+point
http://www.amazon.com/Freakonomics-Economist-Explores-Hidden-Everything/dp/0060731338/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1343969152&sr=1-1&keywords=freakonomics
Sudhir Venkatesh, perhaps?
His book is very interesting--he's mentioned repeatedly in both "Freakonomics" books as well. Suhir, as well as Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner (authors of Freakonomics and Super Freakonomics) are the reasons Behavioral Economics is kind of a "hobby" of mine.
You're doing this wrong. If you approach books as a task for self-edification that you view as a duty, you're going to hate it. Read whatever you want, for entertainment. Read funnystuff. Read thrillers. Read fantasy. Read weird science fiction. Heck, read history, economics, and science.
TL;DR: Read whatever the hell you feel like, and I guarantee you you will feel better about yourself than you would have by forcing yourself through Ulysses or War and Peace.
Det er så mange. Hva med:
Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything
norsk wikipedia omtale
Amazon er bra sted for å sjekke reviews.
Alternativt. Dokumentaren: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1152822/
A good book that is fun to read and has tons of anecdotes about scientific history is A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson
In a similar vein, you can ponder the more mind-bending aspects of our Universe with Stephen Hawkings A Brief History of Time
Other than that you may find some interesting things in the works of Carl Sagan or Richard Dawkins (I personally recommend Dawkins's The Selfish Gene)
If you are sick of scientific titles you can also check out Freakonomics or The Worldly Philosphers
These Books are all written for a general audience so they go down pretty easy.
Deciding which major in College can be tricky - I was lucky since I knew exactly what I wanted to study before I left High School, but maybe some ideas in these books will pique your interest. My parents always told me to go to school to study something I love, and not to train for a job. I'm not so sure this advice carries through in "recovering" economy. You may want to factor in the usefulness of your degree post-college (but don't let that be the only thing you consider!).
Good Luck, and enjoy!
Off the top of my head:
The Psychopath Test is a wittily written personal study of detecting, treating and (possibly) rehabilitating psychopaths.
The Freakonomics books are written by both an economist and a journalist (so easy to read) and contain slightly left-of-centre economic theories with easy to follow research. These are excellent.
The Omnivores Dilemma is both engaging and though provoking. It's All about the production of food in the modern age. In particular, four different meals.
The Code Book is one of my all-time favourites. As the title suggests it's about all forms of cryptography. If you have a mathematical bent I also like Singh's book about Fermat's Enigma).
link fixed http://www.amazon.com/Freakonomics-Economist-Explores-Hidden-Everything/dp/0060731338/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1346837519&sr=1-1&keywords=Freakonomics
When you wish upon a star
I believe my favorite Pixar Disney movie is Lilo and stitch. My favorite song would be the song Nani sings to Lilo in the hammock.
Both bring to mind great memories.
Because there is connections in everything
If you haven't heard of them, Freakonomics and the sequel Super Freakonomics are fascinating reads on microeconomics, but it also draws in on other social studies disciplines.
Freakonomics?
The book I mention near the end of the OP, "Nation of Rebels," contains a very critical analysis of what it calls "Deep Ecology," an umbrella term that refers to these sort of books. But other than Limits to Growth, I haven't heard of the others. I promise to check those books out if you check out Nation of Rebels and its chapter on the environment.
Try Nation of Rebels or The Conquest of Cool.
A bit longer, but all are solid suggestions, and although I could add two dozen more, I'm sure others will take up the cause.
God is Not Great, by Christopher Hitchens
SuperFreakonomics is only 12 bucks on Amazon. The first book is only about 9 bucks. I enjoyed the first but haven't read the second.
Life as Literature by Alexander Nehemas and Nietzsche as Philosopher by Arthur Danto are my some of my favorite secondary Nietzsche works.
When you move on to Heidegger... Heidegger's writing style is super difficult to parse and I prefer him in smaller bits. I would recommend his essays in the Perennial Basic Writings compilation if you haven't checked it out yet.(https://www.amazon.com/Writings-Harper-Perennial-Modern-Thought/dp/0061627011)
Martin Heidegger's Basic Writings (an anthology of his work). Some pretty mind bending philosophy that will challenge your view on "Being".
Not everything I'm going to list is really libertarian per se but I think they do give important context for the libertarian/broader right wing movement
Economics in One Lesson. It's repetitive but gets the point across
Anarchy, State, and Utopia is a philosophical perspective
IThe Moon is a Harsh Mistress. It's difficult to call Heinlein a libertarian but this book definitely is. Also where the 'rational' part of my flair comes from!
There is No Alternative. I'm not sure how many people would consider Thatcher a libertarian but she's an important part of the history of the modern struggle against socialism that I think is overlooked in the United States
The Fatal Conceit. One of Hayek's must read works. A much shorter one that is I think just as important, Why I Am Not a Conservative
Atlas Shrugged. I'm not saying it's a good book or that you don't know of it but it's worth thumbing through just to see what all the hubbub's about. Prepare yourself for a latent S&M fetish.
Capitalism and Freedom. Maybe reading this will help you figure out why Naomi Klein seems to hate Friedman so much. Also very good and much more digestible is his television series Free to Choose and the similarly titled book
The Communist Manifesto. Provides good context. And maybe a chuckle.
This is the book I read my senior year in college for my keystone economics class. The professor extensively studies the American social security system, and the entire class was based on mathematically proving what he had already done, basically showing that the pay-as-you-go system is retarded. The book is frightening.
https://www.amazon.com/Coming-Generational-Storm-Americas-Economic/dp/0262612089/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1467265807&sr=8-1&keywords=The+coming+generational+storm
You're attacking the messenger. I hope you trust Kotlikoff. He wrote a good book about this.
>He is an economic adviser for the Democratic Presidential candidate Mike Gravel.
Not to mention authoring econ 101 books for students.
Thanks so much!
As for what to read, it really depends on what you're interested in but I always recommend the classics when it comes to anything to do with the left first.
However, if you'd like something more modern and lighter here are some of my recent favorites:
Someone emailed me yesterday and asked a similar question. I responded with this reading list:
These aren't novels, of course. All of it is non-fiction. But I think that is what you meant. And they aren't textbooks either. I'm also guessing you were looking more for applications than pure theory.
This is a good, substantive intro: http://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Strategically-Competitive-Business-Politics/dp/0393310353
http://www.amazon.com/Characteristics-Games-George-Skaff-Elias/dp/026201713X
and
http://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Strategically-Competitive-Business-Paperback/dp/0393310353
are both great books about dissecting strategic situations. It will really help.
When playing with repeated partners, it's also a problem they know how YOU play. It's important to vary strategies sometime so you don't cede the field to your partner.
Try this book: Thinking Strategically The Competitive Edge in Business, Politics, and Everyday Life by Avinash K. Dixit and Barry J. Nalebuff
I think this is a difficult question to answer without more of an idea where you stand now.
In general, assuming someone has a bachelor's degree and didn't completely skip on all the math, I'd suggest Mathematics for Economists by Simon & Blume, and after or concurrently with that, Advanced Microeconomic Theory by Jehle & Reny. Simon & Blume should cover most of the math that you need to understand Jehle & Reny in sufficient detail.
If you want to read and understand macro papers, I'm pretty sure things are going to be a lot harder. I'm not the person to ask in that case, anyway.
[edit] Also I should mention that acquiring these books in a perhaps less than legitimate fashion is possible, and not very hard.
My pleasure! Again, this is just my experience and I only have a masters in econ, not a PhD, so someone researching in the field could probably be more insightful.
If you're getting ready for a master's, your immediate best friend is something like this guy. This is the textbook we used in my program.
Before my masters, I focused almost exclusively on real analysis and as a result, found myself over prepared in the math that I wasn't tested on and underprepared in the math I was tested on. This book (and books like it) will make you much more prepared for the stuff you'll be tested on than the advanced math used in modern microeconomic research. Pay special attention to the chapters on optimization.
If you're well versed in Lagrange multipliers, KKT conditions, and optimization using matricies, you're probably all set.
Edit: I should add, this book is neither very advanced nor very rigorous, but I would have had an easier time in my masters program if I prepared with a book like that instead of the more rigorous stuff I was focusing on.
This. Chiang is the easiest to read and comprehend, while Simon and Blume go into the technical aspects with more proofs and rigor. I took the graduate level mathematical economics as an undergrad and we used Chiang. As a PhD student now, we use Simon and Blume; although I certainly reference Chiang a lot.
Chaing : http://www.amazon.com/Fundamental-Methods-Mathematical-Economics-Wainwright/dp/0070109109/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1382493346&sr=8-1&keywords=chiang+economics
S& B : http://www.amazon.com/Mathematics-Economists-Carl-P-Simon/dp/0393957330/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1382493357&sr=8-1&keywords=simon+and+blume
just done something very similar. Took a year off and on my Msc now (broad core econ, haven't specialised). echoing whats been said below:
Was in a similar position with recommendation letters. pretty large UG cohort and I never went to office hours because i just liked to get on by myself. I recommend sending big essays or project examples of work from the classes with those professors. or just sending something you're proud of and reflects your style. that saves them having to dig it up and lecturers can glean a lot from just skimming a students work. dont worry about it, lecturers are such pros and will be happy you want to study more!
obviously give them lots and lots of forewarning.
get into the maths. depending on your program of choice, i would read any level UG econometrics book just to keep you fresh with the methods and lingo. I did quite a bit of metrics at UG but forgot it all after the exams; so useful to go through it at your own pace and see how it fits together.
Pure maths-wise i've stuck with Simon and Blume and the appendix of Greene for some techniques. Greene is pretty dry and scary though, don't be put off! both books and their solutions are available in pdf form everywhurrr
i'm in the UK (from your spelling and tone it looks like you're in the US/Canada?) but at masters level it's just a lot more technical. no more UG waffling about intuition and graphical analysis! I've only been going for a couple weeks but you're expected to derive that equation and really play around with it. a lot of programs i looked at offered preparatory maths courses beforehand but students with solid maths are a lot more confident now real econ has started. just being familiar with the concepts means you're not shocked by them as they're introduced in the micro/macro class. You can follow the lecturer rather than getting derailed at some earlier step.
do an internship, try and think where it's going to lead but failing that, do anything. just anything. they're easy to get, getting some part time work on the side will pay your bills. there really is no excuse. bit daunting applying for them initially and it can be a slog but its worth it.
good luck!
Try this if you really want to know what went on and why we aren't going to "recover" from this "recession" but are heading into another collapse.
http://www.amazon.com/Meltdown-Free-Market-Collapsed-Government-Bailouts/dp/1596985879/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1371881724&sr=1-1&keywords=meltdown+tom+woods
Anything by Peter Schiff is also a great read.
I wouldn't recommend Paul Krugman myself, though you might want to read him and then compare what he says to something like this,
http://www.amazon.com/How-Economy-Grows-Why-Crashes/dp/047052670X/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1371881329&sr=1-5&keywords=peter+schiff
by Peter Schiff.
That entire fiishing analogy and the whole Irwin 'The Tax Dodger' Schiff and Peter 'The Gold Shill' Schiff book: How and economy grows and why it crashes is aimed squarely at shallow thinkers. It appeals very well to those who would like to believe everything is just so simple.
That said I do actually like the book from a stylistic point of view, it really does present Austrian Economics spam in a interesting and easy to understand format, the style is brilliant I think.
But unfortunately dunning krugerand libertarians read it and subsequently think they are experts at socio-economic policies because herp derp everything in society is just like two men on an island fishing.
Private ownership of natural resources, discrimination, historical oppression all doesn't real and doesn't matter even if they were.
Our complex society can just easily be hyper reduced to two men fishing in the sea. (Two men who started off on equal footing btw)
As you said once you change the scenario to where one man owns the entire island and everything on it and the second man only has the option to either pay rent by working as a chattel slave or rely on mother nature and hope he can evolve into an aquatic mammal before he runs out of energy and drowns in the ocean., the fairy tale doesn't sound as great any more does it.
How an Economy Grows and Why it Crashes is a really good primer for macroeconomics and will set you on the right path.
Economics in One Lesson is a great book that will give you a solid theoretical foundation and perspective.
I also recommend anything by Thomas Sowell, such as Basic Economics or Applied Economics.
How an Economy Grows and Why it Crashes by Peter Schiff
You're going to be getting a lot of counter-Austrian perspectives in your macroeconomics classes. Basically the majority of macroeconomics is oriented towards Keynesian/Monetarist economic philosophy. Honestly just pick up a macroeconomic book and go through the history of economic though in the 20th century and you'll see what I'm talking about. I'm not bitter about this, it's just simply oriented towards those avenues.
If you want to watch some videos: here is the Austrian perspective in a modern sense.. I especially like this one for its informative value. And if you want something for entertainment anything by Bob Murphy is great because he's just so entertaining but his bit on the Great Depression is probably my favorite.
As for books:
Principles of Economics
How the Economy Grows and Why it Crashes
Also for foundations of liberty you can go with Mises or Rothbard.
Anarchists like free things and the contents have entered the creative commons so you can read it for free online/get it on some ereader.
But if you really like your bookcase I wont judge.
A PhD program with professors who study MD teaching a MD course while funding your life in order to give you free time to study MD is probably the best resource available.
Maybe this book? https://www.amazon.com/Game-Theory-Introduction-Steven-Tadelis/dp/0691129088?ref_=Oct_BSellerC_13922_6&pf_rd_p=69cae946-7b1e-5471-ad6b-68cb8cd88dee&pf_rd_s=merchandised-search-6&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_i=13922&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=MSFW9P1T62G0KQXBDGPK&pf_rd_r=MSFW9P1T62G0KQXBDGPK&pf_rd_p=69cae946-7b1e-5471-ad6b-68cb8cd88dee
If you're studying Mathematics and Computer Science I think you're already pretty good set up for Game Theory. Do you have some specific concerns? Otherwise I would recommend to start learning Game Theory and learn mathematical/statistical prerequisites when needed.
For an Introduction to Game Theory I can recommend
I had to read this book in college a long time ago:
https://www.amazon.com/End-Work-Decline-Global-Post-Market/dp/0874778247/
His prediction turned out to be inaccurate at least for the time being. The prediction was that automation due to computers would cause people to lose jobs beginning in the 2000s. This didn't actually happen, but that doesn't mean it still can't happen now.
His solution to the problem was reduce the work week. The work week used to be 80, it was dropped to 60, and then again to 40. They were going to reduce it to 30 during The Great Depression, I believe, but it never went through.
It's a theoretically simple solution, obviously if people can't work as much you'll need to employ more people. The issue though is whether they'll actually be able to make enough on something like, say, 30 hours in order to survive. Automation should theoretically mean cheaper products and a lower cost of living, though. China has a 3D printer that prints out entire houses that sell for $5000 https://www.theguardian.com/technology/video/2014/apr/29/3d-printer-builds-houses-china-video .
Really, though, people have been saying automation is going to cause large-scale unemployment for ages now and it has yet to happen. That book was predicting it two decades ago. We'll just have to wait and see what happens.
> Some jobs replaced by automation?
No...not some. Many. Most in the next couple of decades. Read The End of Work by Jeremy Rifkin
Yea, it kind of seems like most of us would help the planet by not existing, but I saw something else. Imagine if the world population was now reaching its peak in 2013, but at one billion people instead of 7+. Consumption, pollution, and environmental damage were still growing, but not at toxic levels like they are now. This civilization would not have to learn the lessons we do. They have time. But in the future, the day would still come when they reach disastrous levels. I think I understand what you mean by not knowing what you can do, because it seems like more people is just part of the problem. But beyond the negative impact of just another consumer, we are here to teach us all that the way we've been living is reaching a breaking point. It's not bad that there's overpopulation, it's perfect, because now we have to learn these lessons and evolve. And we can start leading by example by living a lower consumption lifestyle, and showing people we are just as happy.
About the automated and job stuff, I'm also trying to wrap my head around it, stuff like Farewell to Growth, The End of Work. I think once everyone is on board with cooexisting with the environment and lower consumption, we'll be able to handle the questions that come with it, about how we are to live when not everyone has a job.
I would suggest An Introduction to the Three Volumes of Karl Marx's Capital, this text on communization, and also some of the ICC's (international communist current) stuff on the decadence of capitalism. Also by all means if you find yourself interested in the Communist Left feel free to ask us some questions over at /r/leftcommunism
The most important text from the socialist perspective is Das Kapital, Karl Marx's critique of the categories of political economy. His contention was that all contemporary economists were arguing over poorly understood terms (mainly value) and sought to demonstrate that capitalist laws are not generalizable as laws of all economic systems.
I don't think there are many capitalist texts that directly confront Marx on this topic, since capitalist economists accept the categories and try to analyze the economy in terms of price dynamics.
I recommend Michael Heinrich's An Introduction to the Three Volumes of Karl Marx's Capital. He's got a few good lectures on YouTube too. A lot of people recommend David Harvey, but I think he does a poor job explaining several key ideas.
No problem. The last two volumes are a bit more difficult to get through than Volume One, because they were never truly finished before Marx died. David Harvey is currently posting his lectures on reading Volume Two, and Michael Heinrich's Introduction to all three volumes is supposed to be released this year.
Atlas Shrugged- Ayn Rand
New Deal or Raw Deal?: How FDR's Economic Legacy Has Damaged America- Burton Folsom
Wealth of Nations- Adam Smith
https://www.amazon.com/Marxs-Capital-Illustrated-Introduction/dp/1608462668
Thank you, that actually makes sense as a form of government (though most Libertarians seem to be against some form of UBI or any environmental restrictions).
As for the "how do we get there?" yea I haven't heard a thought out idea. And over time power tends to coalesce together, not break apart. It would take an active move by a majority of the population to do that, which most likely will never happen without a major change in human nature or technology.
As a side note, I find it interesting you mentioned Star Trek in your examples, because I had just read an article about a new book before seeing your post. Its called Trekonomics and in the article they has some comments by the author, who said that it was a society without money (as is stated in many of the episodes) and thus no market between people. This is why you don't see corporation names anywhere, and even by the end of Deep Space Nine the "super-capitalist" Ferengi have become "Keynesian social democrats" with an NHS style healthcare system and a general IRL modern government due to its interaction with the Federation. Kinda interesting.
> It's hard to tell what Star Trek's actual society is like ...
Here's a good analysis of The Economy of the Federation from what evidence has appeared in the shows.
And here's another such analysis just posted on Reddit a month ago.
And that thread also included a link to an entire book on the subject (with mixed reviews): Trekonomics: The Economics of Star Trek: Manu Saadia
OK see when you say that non-substantive buzzword salad it shows me that you don't understand economics at all, you're just repeating things you've heard.
https://www.amazon.com/How-Economy-Grows-Why-Crashes/dp/047052670X
Here's this. It's a quick read, as it's meant for children, but it lays out basically how the economy works. Really good book, don't let its juvenile appearance put you off. I'm actually serious, too; I just read this again recently and it explains a lot of things that I sometimes have trouble articulating very succinctly and neatly.
How an Economy Grows and Why It Crashes
http://www.amazon.com/The-Creature-Jekyll-Island-Federal/dp/0912986212
http://www.amazon.com/Economics-One-Lesson-Shortest-Understand/dp/0517548232/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1346725691&sr=1-1&keywords=economics+in+one+lesson
http://www.amazon.com/How-Economy-Grows-Why-Crashes/dp/047052670X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1346725707&sr=1-1&keywords=how+an+economy+grows+and+why+it+crashes
Here is some reading material:
https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/economic-freedom-of-the-world-2017.pdf
https://www.amazon.com/How-Economy-Grows-Why-Crashes/dp/047052670X
https://www.heritage.org/budget-and-spending/report/the-impact-government-spending-economic-growth
https://www.mercatus.org/publication/does-government-spending-affect-economic-growth
I am sure we can both cite lots of sources to support our own claims. But the fact of the matter is that Keynesian economics have a horrible track record of predicting economic downturns, compared to some other schools of thought.
https://www.amazon.com/Conquest-History-Political-Social-Science/dp/0486478505
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1593764278/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_O3gnDbK18SCMD
>And anarchism if you think about it is just authoritarianism at the individual level.
No it's not. Go read the Bread Book.
Nah, it really isn't, you must be confusing it with Capitalism. Juche is incompatible with communism.
https://www.amazon.com/Conquest-History-Political-Social-Science/dp/0486478505
I guess it depends on how deep you want to study Game Theory. My university's Game Theory course (undergrad) uses Game Theory. An Introduction by Steven Tadelis.
You can (and should) do both of these things in conjunction.
You can move on to more advanced textbooks once you have mastered game theory basics.
> I would like to be able to work at creating my own models for certain things-particularly relating to decision making, information flows and organizational structures.
This is very vague. However, you need to start with a basic understanding of game theory.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU
http://www.amazon.ca/The-End-Work-Decline-Post-Market/dp/0874778247
http://www.amazon.ca/The-Lights-Tunnel-Automation-Accelerating/dp/1448659817
Its really too wide of a concept to provide evidence for in a simple fashion. At the same time it's easy enough to say that large sectors of the economy will be massively downsizing their human resource component while still meeting demand, while other sectors that are also currently meeting all demand don't need more people. Unless some magic new sector comes along to employ people in a way that robots or software can't accomplish, there will be massive structural unemployment.
History cannot possibly define potential. The fact that automation hasn't yet ruined the labour market will mean nothing in the future when it does. The end of Work by Jeremy Rifkin is a great read.
The End of Work by Rifkin. It is an interesting read on the subject.
Go to your local coin shop and buy a couple of silver dollars, a US coin book, and look around and browse at the history and old coins. It'll be fun. Go every four to six months, and buy a few silver dollars more for your collection.
Go to an antique mall and look around and browse. Look at the prices of items and take in what you see. It's like a museum, except you can but something.
Experiences like this can teach you a lot about inflation, tangibles, collectibles, and appreciation of goods with value and that money left as cash, is always slowly losing value. Thus the reason folks invest.
Buy this book used as a paperback and read it: https://www.amazon.com/Whatever-Happened-Explanation-Economics-Investments/dp/0942617622
Additional reading every kid should read:
https://www.amazon.com/Whatever-Happened-Explanation-Economics-Investments/dp/0942617622/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1482812773&sr=8-2&keywords=whatever+happened+to+penny+candy
https://www.amazon.com/The-Secret-World-of-Money/dp/B008GILZFC/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1482812838&sr=1-2&keywords=secret+world+of+money
I highly suggest Whatever Happened to Penny Candy? book series, the author remains unbiased in this first book is especially great for younger kids, you can read about the author and his views here https://www.earlywarningreport.com/
> No, you didn't. All you did was keep repeating the mantra that the "claim in question is not required for his argument". My point has nothing to do with the validity of the argument if his claim is corrected. It's about Peterson repeatedly talking out of his ass without having done his research, which adds up to people justifiably questioning his credibility.
Yes, I did. Your statement:
>Presumably he's making those claims because they're either required by or strengthen his argument. Why else would he include these claims in his presentation?
And I addressed and disproved that statement.
Certainly, he was wrong in stating the number of AIDS deaths. But given that the inaccuracy is minor, not within his field of expertise, and doesn't change his argument, I don't consider that affecting his credibility.
Perhaps you do, but then again - you seem quite biased against Peterson. I doubt you'd say the same if someone you support made a similar error.
Example of your bias:
>Peterson tries to make a smart sounding argument about how "groups are aimed at something because they can't be aimed at nothing because nothing cannot be aimed at something".
As I said, so? You yourself admitted that he wasn't wrong in saying. You just said it was an argument without any substance. And yet, you try to present it as an example of Peterson "getting things wrong".
>Peterson puts forth a conspiracy theory about how his grant was denied as a form of political persecution.
Ok, and? Again, you haven't actually proven he was wrong. At best, you can say he hasn't provided enough evidence for the claim.
And yet again, you seem to think it's an example of him getting things wrong.
So two out out of four are already failures. I don't feel like listening to a podcast, and I admit I'm not familiar at all with the concept discussed in the first link.
I also note that you completely ignored my statement proving you wrong about the Obama example. And you also ignored my example about Benjamin Perrin. Unless you would agree that Perrin should be disregarded in everything he says?
>May I put forth another possibility: You're an idealogue who will dismiss any critical opinion of Peterson because you're happy to buy into the "Hurr durr SJWs!!!" narrative and his neo-Marxist conspiracy theories. As much as you'll deny it, you're really no different than the people who show up to shut down Peterson's talks and call him a "crypto fascist".
Not at all. There's a significant difference between someone trying to prevent another person from speaking simply because they disagree, and someone who doesn't. You don't see me, or anyone else, trying to shut down left-wingers saying damn stupid or outright false shit.
E.g. BLM co-founder can have a public event outside where she yells that Justin Trudeau is a white supremacist terrorist (obviously completely bullshit), and no one tries to prevent her from speaking.
And I actually am attempting to engage with your arguments. You can't say the same about people trying to shut Peterson down.
Not to mention, I am happy to admit when Peterson says something incorrect, or at least something that is questionable.
For instance, if you had listened to his talk on Friday, you'd know he claimed that income inequality is one of the biggest correlators/predictors of crime, which seems obvious enough. But then he also said that income inequality has been increasing. Except crime has gone down in North America over the last several decades. So how can his argument be correct then?
I actually did ask him that. He didn't have time to give a full answer (it was just after the talk had ended) but he pointed me to a book by another scholar, which is presumably where he learned about that research.
From the World Bank
And this book.
The author of the book says that it has a correlation is like .7.
No, he didn't believe that. In marxian economics labour is, however, the only commodity that appears to be creating more value than it costs. This is because the laborer is selling his labor-power, not his labor-time. (Which is the source of exchange value.)
This is only a very roughdescription, the argument is complex, and so if you want to find out more about it I'd recommend R.D. Wolff's online lectures, Michael Heinrich's An Introduction to the Three Volumes of Karl Marx's Capital or, best option, read the original.
When a job is automated it creates consumer and producer surplus. That is distributed throughout the economy and increases the disposable income or living standard. As a result a new industry emerges, or another expands. These things happen on a macro-scale so it is not one job, it is millions simultaneously. The market is driven by incentives, so capital will seek out it's most efficient use (as opposed to government where the capital owners are not the ones deciding its use and seek out the post politically effective use.) A market is smarter than the smartest person in it, that's how prices and wages are determined. If you've watched Who Wants To Be a Millionaire you'll know that "ask the audience" is always more accurate than when the contestant calls a friend who is an expert in the area.
The standard of living has increased over time, despite technological advancements that reduce the amount of labor is a particular industry. Why would we expect it to be any different now, automation is a new technology. Once upon a time we were all farmers, but technology has allowed us to do many other things.
There are certainly people who are disable and for other reasons unable to provide for themselves, this is what charity is for. If people are not willing to voluntarily give their money to provide for the needy, I fail to see the morality of the government forcing them to through taxation.
If you are generally interested and not just trying to argue I might suggest you read The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith. He was a pioneer of classical economics and describes how market forces provide the best outcome for society better than I could.
This although it may seem childish it really breaks down the concepts perfectly.
Is this the one? https://www.amazon.com/Marxs-Capital-Illustrated-Introduction/dp/1608462668
It looks like a cartoon interpretation of Das Kapital? No?
All of these, even the heavy reading one, are appropriate for a beginner. Pick how big your first bite will be!
Casual:
Moderate difficulty:
Heavy reading:
Funnily enough I found this
And [this] (https://www.amazon.com/dp/1608462668/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_xGvUCbJAG1RXQ)
Sure thing!
David Smith's Illustrated guide to Capital is a great introduction.
Also, anything by Tony Smith. He is an incredibly clear writer, and tends to steer clear of the obtuse language in which many Marxist scholars like to indulge.
If you ever feel like getting more serious in your study of Marx, then the following are great resources.
Karl Marx's Theory of Revolution by Hal Draper;
Time, Labor, and Social Domination by Moishe Postone;
Marx Without Myth by Rubel and Manale
Also, I highly recommend that you spend time actually reading Marx, especially Capital Vol. I. I have found the secondary literature on Marx to be incredibly poor. So reading Marx is essential to getting a grip on his thought.
Accelerationism when taken to its logical conclusion certainly eludes categorization along left-right lines, this often leaves people with the impression that it, for whatever reason, relishes in inequality. Such was the case with all of the Yudkowskian right-accelerationists from almost a decade ago; media outlets are just now getting onto the bandwagon in smearing transhumanists as fascists as a result.. justifiably so. Recent left-accelerationist currents, exemplified in the works of Alex Williams and Nick Srnicek fall prey to reterritorializing arguments which leaves us with the urcC's even more recent notions of "unconditional accelerationism" which in many ways takes a closer of look at Landian analysis of capital and tries to bring it forward in a way that's actually conducive towards something substantial. Although as far as I'm concerned, how much it differs from the more radical elements of left-accelerationism remains to be seen.
I recommend reading Inventing the future. It argues for full automation and universal basic income. If we tax the robots it will discourage automation and productivity increases which will be detrimental to everyone's standard of living. Instead we should encourage automation and the sharing of the gains made by it.
Totaly agree. Maybe you heard about the book called 'inventing the future' it talks about full automation :) https://www.amazon.co.uk/Inventing-Future-Postcapitalism-World-Without/dp/1784780960
Submission Statement
In essence this article is a book review of Inventing the Future: Postcapitalism and a World Without Work by Nick Srnicek and Alex Williams, but delves deeper into the themes discussed in the book. The article talks about the history of neoliberalism and draws some interesting parallels with it as a utopian concept as much as any left wing ideals of the post-war period.
Quite a long read, but insightful. First of a series on the site discussing neoliberalism.
If you're interested, Manu Saadia wrote a book I really liked called Trekonomics, where he lays out how the economics of Star Trek works. It's probably the most in depth any one person has delved into the topic, and he cites examples from the shows. He argues that it's rooted in a shift in technology, policy, and human economic behavior. People, for example, can't be motivated by wealth or showing off possessions that anyone would have easy access to, so instead they build capital in the prestige of personal and professional accomplishments.
https://www.amazon.com/Trekonomics-Economics-Star-Manu-Saadia/dp/1941758754
Dude,
Picard in First Contact:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T09uSM0PxcE
Jake & Nog:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wx5I7uEEEYo
Memory Alpha: Description of Federation Economics:
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/New_World_Economy
Under the New World Economy, material needs were no longer the focus or driving force of many people, rather, it was self-improvement, self-enrichment and the betterment of all. This effectively eliminated social problems like hunger and poverty and, as a result, >>>>>money was no longer used.<<<<<<Humans took great pride in this, describing themselves as having "grown out of their infancy." >>>The Federation, however, continued to deal with other cultures which had money-based economies, using credits, trade or negotiation instead.<<<<< (Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, TNG: "The Neutral Zone", "The Price", "Time's Arrow, Part II", Star Trek: First Contact)
Some cultures like the Ferengi did not appreciate the Federation's economic system. As a consequence, and in accordance with their extreme capitalist mindset, Ferengi historical records on 21st century Earth describe Wall Street with reverence. (DS9: "In the Cards"; VOY: "11:59")
DS9 was Bajoran territory. Bajor was not a member of the Federation. It used a money-based economy. Thus, Bashir was provided with a stipend by Starfleet to use outside the Federation.
Transporter credits does not apply use of currency. It implies a way of allocating a scarce resource. Every Federation citizen could be granted 30 transporter credit a month. This is akin to a monthly bus or train pass.
Kirk 'sold' his ranch is him speaking euphemistically. Kirk himself says money doesn't exist in Star Trek IV:
https://youtu.be/MEflt_tFRa4?t=268
Harry Mudd & Cyrano Jones operated outside the Federation. The Federation, as Memory Alpha notes, uses the Federation credit as a financial instrument with non-Federation societies.
Jones was a trader. He traded with non-Federation societies.
There are whole books written about Star Trek's post-scarcity, no-money economy: https://www.amazon.com/Trekonomics-Economics-Star-Manu-Saadia/dp/1941758754
You can ignore all the evidence if you like. But canon is canon (until it's retconned), money is not used within the Federation.
I enjoyed this book.
Short answer is that it's a "status economy" where reputation is what drives people to greatness instead of financial gain or accumulation of wealth.
TREKONOMICS
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1941758754/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=9325&amp;creativeASIN=1941758754&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;tag=trekonomics-20&amp;linkId=JBNJBR57QMIKJI73
>If the religious camp is against prostitution because of morality consideration, the leftist camp was against it because they saw prostitutes as lazy.
and they had only been able to provide a piece of insight of this prostitution problem^(if we agree that prostitutions problem, to begin with). This reminds me of how this book: freakonomics provides insight to adressing society problem
the amazon link
Actually, homicide rates are the lowest than they have ever been https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2009-2013.xls
compared to rates in 1996 https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/1996/96sec2.pdf
There are far too many factors which might influence the decline of firearm related deaths in the late 90's. If you've never read Freakonomics it actually looks at some of the factors which may have lead to the decrease in crime. Basically the theory is that in the wake of the legalization of abortion, people who would have later grown up to be criminals were never born. The book explains it much better than I can, but this is kinda getting into the weeds a bit. My argument is that even if the ban persisted beyond the 2004 expiration, you can't attribute any decrease in crime to the law's success because it is far too complex of an issue to be boiled down to a single factor.
I already gave an explanation for why I don't think these weapons should be further restricted. They account for a tiny fraction of firearm related deaths. If we assume that every death caused by a rifle in 2013 (which is one of the years included in one of the FBI report tables I linked to) were committed by a different person; then what you are suggesting means changing the law because of 0.0000009% of the population. To me, that seems like a huge waste of time, money, and effort that could be spent on way more important things like healthcare.
To be perfectly honest, yes, I think that recreational drugs should be legal, so long as it is done in a way that doesn't negatively impact others. Imagine a world where there are no longer drug dealers. If you want to do heroin, cocaine, or meth, all you would have to do is go down to a store, present ID, make your purchase, then you go home, do your drugs, and everybody can be happy. Prison population would decrease, no more petty street crime, no more adverse effects due to drugs being cut with (more) toxic chemicals. To my knowledge, no country has ever tried it.
There is no other platform that is as adaptable as the AR-15. That is its whole point of existence.
Again, my entire point is that banning or restricting a certain type of firearm will have no effect on the total number of crimes. As I have repeatedly pointed out, you don't have to have an AR-15 style rifle to kill a lot of people. In previous events, large numbers of people have died in single events from a shooter using nothing but two handguns. 50 people could have died from handguns just as easily. Would we be having the same conversation if that were the weapon of choice?
Here is why they shouldn't be banned
Sports cars can be looked at the same way. Nobody needs to be able to drive 140mph. People drive them because they like the way the look. The same arguments you make for banning certain firearms can be used to ban sports cars. It would increase public safety, and the only reason people buy them is because they like them. Sports cars serve no legitimate purpose other than to drive fast. If people want to drive fast, they can just store them at race tracks. Driving a sports car increases your likelihood of being in a high speed crash.
I was mistaken when I brought up the Jo Cox death. I had heard/read that the cause of death was due to a shooting, not stabbing. I guess the reports that the suspect had a gun got merged with the actual events. Still, whatever gun the suspect was arrested with would not have been legal to own in the UK, so my point still stands even though my premise was wrong. I was attempting to highlight that even in countries where firearms are heavily restricted, it is still possible for unstable people to gain access to them, not that she could have defended herself.
As far as the effect of armed citizens has on crime, it is difficult to say. It is highly dependent on the situation. Based on the training I received as part of my role as an emergency responder, many active shooters are stopped when confronted/charged. In a place I used to live, an unarmed mall security guard stopped an active shooter when he yelled "stop".
The majority of people who are licensed to carry a firearm (like me) have received some sort of training. Personally, I have done a great deal of training involving firearms, and how to use them defensively. Part of that training is knowing when and when not to intervene in a situation. The people who carry have to be able to assess the situation, and weigh the risk of intervening vs not intervening. Those decisions have to be made very quickly. I would really like it if there were more training available, similar to this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfi3Ndh3n-g. Again, the appropriate action to take will be different based on the situation.
Do I think that if everyone carried a gun, we would all be safer? No, not necessarily. I do think that if people who have the mental capacity, desire, and ability to do so safely were present and armed in certain situations, outcomes could have been different for many crimes.
More guns would not have helped in Orlando. The event happened in a nightclub, where alcohol was served. Guns and alcohol do not mix.
Gangs do not pay that well at all, they are mostly pyramid schemes. "Why Drug Dealers Live With Their Mothers."
Check out the book, "Freakonomics" by Levitt & Dubner. Fascinating chapter on it, and other things related. Great read.
Some good nonfiction: A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson.
Consider the Lobster by David Foster Wallace
The Devil in the White City by Erik Larson
Freakonomics by Steven Levitt
> Ummm.... maybe because of the large poor urban population that more commonly plays lottery games everyday?
Spoken like a true intelligent economist. See this.
This book Freakonomics by Steven D Levitt has a section on how much money drug dealers make (it's not as much as you think), and contains lots of other interesting discussions like it.
Saw a Tim Harford link and remembered this. Also helped me understand more about human rationality and morality.
The undercover economist
Freakonomics
You will notice the absence of A short history of nearly everything, which is a good book, but frankly it didn't speak very much to me. Bryson is almost only interested in geography.
I know you already mentioned Huxley, but I have to first say Brave New World. Just because, man, nothing else could have really opened my eyes to a relative morality at such a young age. "Let's just purposefully grow people. Then let's have them embrace their sexuality at a really young age. Oh, and there are these other 'savages' that practice many of the old ways. We don't talk about them much. Oh, and all the old religion got mashed up when we put all the people together, so they sort of worship this Christ type mother earth type thing. It's cool. They're fine."
Then there's The Metamorphosis of Prime Intellect (click for online free version published by the author.)
Where do I start with this book? First, I would say it's both sexually and violently graphic. That's not the point, though. The point is: What happens when we actually do have a god that can, and will, give us whatever we want? Whatever we want, that is, except death. Everyone is immortal and everyone can invent their own world to live in. What happens? Really really good stuff. A short book, but just blew my mind.
Finally, I'm finding it hard to decide between Classic Feynman: All the Adventures of a Curious Character, The Information, and Freakonomics. Each of these really expanded the way I think of things and how I look at the world around me. I'd recommend any one of them, it just depends on what you're interested in.
Somebody hasn't read Freakanomics. Here's the relevant section for you.
Your dealer's profit margin would depend entirely on his overhead and expenses. The book Freakonomics has a chapter on the profitability of street-level drug dealing.
> Larry Summers is an economist.
Oh right -- it's not as if an economist has ever offered legitimate commentary on all sorts of social phenomena before.
When you become a tenured professor at any institution, then I'd believe you're qualified to determine what is "real research" and what isn't. Right now you're just some blowhard on the internet.
Lists of the most popular black names only tell part of the story. Chapter 6 of the first Freakonomics book spends a lot of time analyzing data from black baby names in California (I'm not sure if California still tracks baby name date by race, but they did for the period of time the authors were looking at). One thing they found was that there were more one-hit only names for black babies during this time period than for babies of any other race, meaning that black babies were more likely to have a name that was not shared by any other baby born in the same year. They also found several instances of the name Unique, along with a few alternate spellings such as Uneek, Yoonique, etc. Both findings suggest that uniqueness is valued by many black mothers, even though some names are still bound to be more popular than others.
The Undercover Economist might be one of the most enlightening books I've ever read, and it's what got me interested in economics in the first place. It's got pretty good explanations for the advantages and disadvantages of markets, and talks about when they cause good outcomes or bad outcomes.
Freakonomics isn't really about capitalism vs socialism, but it is a fun book written by economists.
Okay lets start off with the move to electric as being "carbon" neutral. Most electric engines get their power in one way or another from coal. Coal is the dirties worst kind fuel you can pretty much get. Yet in the green new deal all of the existing energy sources are banned except coal. (Especially nuclear which is one of the cleaner sources). So if its really about the "science" why are only keeping one of the chief offenders at the exclusion of better cheaper cleaner energy sources?
https://www.enovaenergygroup.com/which-types-of-energy-source-produces-the-most-pollution/
Next, light rail. The left loves light rail mostly because between AM Track and the unions they own the rail industry in the united states. They can do as they please and reward their supporters. Light rail can and does make sense in smaller countries like Japan or in the nations of Europe because you have smaller more densely populated areas. By extension it could make sense for the coasts of the united states. Where is doesn't make sense is in the middle of the country. Its too big and too lightly populated for the numbers to really work. I would direct you to Freakonomics if you want some further reading material.
https://www.amazon.com/Freakonomics-Economist-Explores-Hidden-Everything/dp/0060731338/ref=sr_1_1?crid=RL6DWAUXJAKW&keywords=freakonomics&qid=1551233567&s=gateway&sprefix=freak%2Caps%2C186&sr=8-1
&#x200B;
Lastly Air travel won out over rail a hundred years ago for valid reasons. For large heavy cargo and freight, ships and trains still make sense. Where it makes no sense is for people. People want to get where they are going as quickly and cheaply as they can. Thus the invisible hand did its thing and you have the modern rail and airline industries.
So here are a couple of questions. Why to be environmentally sound to we have do things more stupidly? Like regress from air travel back to land and sea travel. Why are pro environmentalist so obsessed with forcing others to their way of thinking? Seems to me that if they lived what they preached and we saw real benefits from those actions people would naturally get on board and then you wouldn't need to regulate anything. The people would regulate themselves. Why would we as a species want to spend 5 times the net value of all money and product of human existence on a program doesn't even promise to solve the problem to any sort of measurable effect?
Just some thoughts
I'm all over the place, I have a few books in progress.
Jitterbug Perfume - Tom Robbins
Packing for Mars - Mary Roach
Freakonomics - Levitt & Dubner
Outliers: The Story of Success - Malcolm Gladwell
Highly recommended reading- Buy-In by John Kotter
It's an excellent read for anyone interested in the practical application of psychology & sociology knowledge in the business realm.
http://www.kotterinternational.com/book/buy-in/
Economics reading - Freakonomics
This was required reading in my Leadership course (for my MBA), with good reason.
https://www.amazon.com/Freakonomics-Economist-Explores-Hidden-Everything/dp/0060731338
You are on a path towards higher management and leadership.
From this point forward, the answer to the questions "do you think I made a good decision signing up for the post-graduate studies? Will potential employers look at it and consider this diploma as worthy?" will forever more be a resounding YES!!!!
High quality post graduate certifications, higher degrees, and continuously striving to learn, be better, & adapt to an ever changing business environment are hallmarks of those who are successful (& expected/required of those who are considered for higher level positions) in the business/management realms.
Edit: look for a post graduate course on leadership. If your employer is large enough, they may have an agreement with a respected University to offer discounts or special classes to their employees, & may even offer classes onsite. Sign up for them!
so...freakonomics?
Man, last two days have been really busy, but I did wanna get back to this.
So... First off, maybe my "how 'bout some dick" reference didn't get picked up. I could have a woman approach me, and when I ask her out, take her to dinner, walk her home, kiss her goodnight, and leave, I'm really saying, "How 'bout some dick?" Hell, I might even be saying, "How 'bout some dick--for the rest of your life?" Ultimately, that's what all advances are, regardless of the form they take, which is why I said it was "some flavor" of the famous Chris Rock line.
Now... You seem to be advancing the argument that straight men should not hit on women in a bar (and one that we've already established is not a speakeasy and not a lesbian bar), because it might make the women uncomfortable. Now, I don't think you're actually committed to this claim--it's obviously a straw man--but I did want to discuss it for just a second, because it goes further than being simply ridiculous. If a woman IS in a bar--of this sort--and a man hits on her, no matter how inexpertly, if her reaction is to become "uncomfortable," then that is extremely problematic. Turn the situation around. If a straight man goes to a gay bar and (predictably) gets hit on by men, and becomes "uncomfortable" in response, instead of simply saying, "Sorry mate, straight but not narrow here; just didn't wanna be left out of all the fun for my friend's birthday," to as many gay boys as necessary, we would understandably take the guy to task. Moreover, we probably wouldn't stop at, "Idiot, what the hell did you think was going to happen at a bar where people hit on people that look like you?" we'd probably go further and ask him what his problem was, ask him exactly how prejudiced or bigoted he is.
Now obviously there are guys who won't take no for an answer. This is why God made bouncers. They're also a straw man--nobody thinks that they're OK in any bar, gay, straight, whatever, so I'm not going to waste time pretending I have to defend them.
But I'm not going to pretend that I've actually argued my point well if I say, "wooq thinks men shouldn't hit on women in bars, hilarious!" No, your point is a larger one about women having to endure men hitting on them in general.
Now, my point about the evolutionary biology was not "Durr, you and me baby ain't nothin' but mammals," but rather to illustrate that competition for mates is a function of biological economics and nothing else--notice that female hyenas have so much testosterone that they develop pseudopenises, but the males still compete for females. Given our biological economics, men will always compete for women, because women's biological stakes in sex, their risks, are higher. They're the ones with the valuable stuff that everybody wants, so they're the ones who get to choose who stays in the gene pool and who doesn't.
Now sure, mathematically, it's in a woman's best interest if she makes the first move. Biologically and culturally, that's not how things shake out. See, human rationality is really just not as common as we'd like to think. The simple fact of the matter is that women are more likely to want to get laid when they're ovulating. One of my female friends sets an alarm in her phone so she knows not to call any men for a few days. This phenomenon isn't an accident.
Nor is a man's desire to have sex with women. Nor is it any more "disgusting" than a woman's sexual urges. We're talking about something as natural and fundamental as hunger.
So if you've got food, and somebody asks you for it, you really can't fault them. After all, they need it to live, and moreover, they're physically incapable of getting any themselves. Now you don't owe it to them, and if they ask repeatedly and harass you, or try to take it by force, then by all means, fuck those guys. Nobody disagrees with that.
Last I checked, Emily Post held that because men bear the burden of making the first move, and because non-verbal signals (hell, even verbal signals) can be uncertain and misinterpreted, every single woman owes every single man one free pass, and it is in fact a breach of etiquette to take offense or hold it against him. (Obviously she also holds that shooting him down should be done with tact and sensitivity, and that a guy should accept being shot down with grace.)
Now, a rude advance is a rude advance, and that can be held against a man, but that's because it's rude, not because it's an advance.
We're human, sure, but part of being human is fucking. It's quite literally what made us human in the first place. More often than not, that means men asking women out.
Although, I mean, if you've got some plan for the propagation of the species that doesn't involve men asking women for sex, I'd love to hear it.
Just to fill out the list by throwing in some right / conservative ones:
And as an absolute must, you should read this:
Also, you'd understand these books more if you had a good foundation in economics and finance.
http://www.amazon.com/Freakonomics-Economist-Explores-Hidden-Everything/dp/0060731338/
Also see
http://www.salon.com/2008/08/25/creative_black_names/
This is the first book I read - Basic Economics By Thomas Sowell. The author is quite libertarian (which I am not) but I don't remember the book being particularly radical. I read the book 10 yrs ago but it stood out, definitely piqued my interest, and really helped things 'click' for me regarding basic economic theory. Diving directly into a micro 101 textbook or just reading 100 econ blogs would not be advised as you don't learn the basics and traditions. Give yourself a reason to be interested and the rest will follow.
Free to Choose is pretty valuable, though it can be more a work of political-economy. Freakonomics is also great because its easy/fun to read and gives you a good understand of just how super valuable numbers are.
These are all on the light side and not 'textbook' quality; however, I'm sure they'll pique your interest, give you a good foundation, and the rest will follow.
You should check out the book Freakonomics. In that, the author attributes the drop in crime in the 90's to the legalization of abortion. If I remember correctly, the thesis was that children stopped being born into low income (and crime-prone) families as often. Kind of harsh, but certainly interesting.
Also Gemermany sounds like an interesting place to visit.
I love economics. And I love that you can take the toolsets it gives you and apply it to almost anything (Freakonomics style or in movie version).
I did less on the money/macro side so if you're interested in something like banking you might want to find someone with that focus and talk to them. Economics is a science and tries to use those type of tools to answer questions about people and society. It is probably the 'hardest' of the soft sciences but is really broad. You can combine it with business, law, psychology, sociology, big data / computer sciences, or government so it gives you a lot of options going forward as well. So I look at it as giving the pay/challenge/fun of engineering/science but with a wider range of career applications.
I've immersed myself in science and history my whole life and quite possibly the best book I've ever come across that condenses everything in a sequential order is "A Short History of Nearly Everything" by Bill Bryson.
> In A Walk in the Woods, Bill Bryson trekked the Appalachian Trail—well, most of it. In A Sunburned Country, he confronted some of the most lethal wildlife Australia has to offer. Now, in his biggest book, he confronts his greatest challenge: to understand—and, if possible, answer—the oldest, biggest questions we have posed about the universe and ourselves. Taking as territory everything from the Big Bang to the rise of civilization, Bryson seeks to understand how we got from there being nothing at all to there being us. To that end, he has attached himself to a host of the world’s most advanced (and often obsessed) archaeologists, anthropologists, and mathematicians, traveling to their offices, laboratories, and field camps. He has read (or tried to read) their books, pestered them with questions, apprenticed himself to their powerful minds. A Short History of Nearly Everything is the record of this quest, and it is a sometimes profound, sometimes funny, and always supremely clear and entertaining adventure in the realms of human knowledge, as only Bill Bryson can render it. Science has never been more involving or entertaining.
The book is simply amazing. I learn something new from it everytime I read it and I highly recommend it to everyone from an uneducated teenager to a PhD carrying senior!
While you're at it, I would also recommend the rest of his books. Bryson is an amazing nonfiction writer (I daresay one of the best in the world) and his penmanship will captivate you. Just search for him on Amazon and pick another one of his books up in a category that interests you as he writer about a very broad range of topics.
Edit: Also, I highly recommend "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jared M. Diamond. and Freakonomics by Steven D. Levitt
Don't make me laugh. Executives plundering the company is exactly because there is no free market in play there. You can read this up in a chapter of Freakonomics as well.
And what risks do Execs have really? That the golden parachute payed too much and they get bored playing golf? They need to have a malus added because they have no risk of their own, compared to business owners.
"Momentum towards an authoritarian corporate oligarchic surveillance state?"
Honestly, perspective, everybody, please. Do you have any idea what this country went through in the Gilded Age? State legislatures were basically the boards of railroad and mining companies, for shit's sake. Nobody alive in this country born in this country remembers how bad corporate influence and ownership of government got. A tiny fraction of the country was enfranchised. Senators were appointed by those same corporate boards. Political machines, complete with armed regulars and auxiliaries to support them, unlike anything that currently exists--we're talking about mobs that make the relative cesspools of Chicago and Louisiana look like Switzerland--ran most of the major cities. College kids getting tear gassed? For christ's sake, dozens of the Pullman strikers got beaten to death with blunt objects. Can you remember when all those dozens of Occupy folks got their skulls crushed by charging Blackwater mercenaries armed with state-of-the-art military weaponry? Me neither. And if you want to talk about surveillance, J. Edgar Hoover had people under a wider and less regulated lens than the current programs that have people so riled up (albeit with the technological capacity to sift through far fewer of them). So much of this outrage seems to lack this perspective, seems to lack the perspective that the NSA programs largely aren't Obama's, they're what we had under Bush, plus Congressional oversight, plus the involvement of FISA courts. (And in some forms, this stuff went on before Bush--wide-net SIGINT is Cold War stuff). Are those oversights sufficient? Nah, probably not; I'd like to see some changes. But we're not creeping towards 1984. In a couple of ways, Obama creeped us a little back.
Look, if you think we're in some kind of bad spot, fine, but we've been here before. We've been in much, much worse shape than this. It didn't take a revolutionary change to get us out; it just took people voting for sane stuff. The last time I checked, men spend billions trying to convince people to give them those votes, because believe it or not, the votes still count. They're at little risk of not counting.
To another person who asked what my suggestion is? Another unpopular opinion: the current structure of our government works really, really well. We don't really give ourselves the credit we deserve very often, and we don't really see how valuable the stability of government we have is, because we've never lived without it, which is one hell of an exception in world history. (Note: it's also been a while since the rest of the world lived without us as the effective guarantor of international peace.) Our government has its serious issues. We need better campaign finance laws including robust public financing of elections, we need better ways to reduce the influence of lobbying (the second is embedded in the first), we need to figure out a way to draw congressional districts in a nonpartisan fashion, and we need to pay legislators--particularly at the state level, much much more. When you can make tons, tons more in the private sector, or lobbying in particular, than in legislative or related civil service, you'll have problems. That doesn't appease most of the current torch-and-pitchfork crowd who would like to see Congress lose their pay and their benefits and their shoes, since they don't understand that such a move only serves the rich. You don't need more democracy, you don't need to hold a constitutional convention; you definitely need to tighten a few of the loose screws on the Republic. All of this is boring and unsexy, and this sort of change happens in the way that it has almost always happened: on the backs of lots of anonymous volunteers who politically organize, make phone calls, send letters, engage in voter registration campaigns, etc.
You also need smarter people. The public in a representative system cannot deny responsibility for anything that its government does--it voted in that government's representative members, who appointed the rest. Think the 113th Congress sort of sucks? I do too. We have only ourselves to blame. Civics and history education isn't good enough. Plato understood that question of how we should find good and just men to rule is fundamentally a question of how you educate the youth. There aren't easy answers to that, but the fact that it's critical is a very easy answer.
I'm a liberal, and a progressive, and I have the suspicion of government which is the duty of a citizen of a republic. And the country that I live in, which has made horrible errors--great mistakes of commission and omission that I can detail for anyone at great length--is, for lots of reasons, including the efficacy and the fairness of its government, a damned, damned fine place.
One of my favourite books is "The Rebel Sell" by Heath and Potter (published as "Nation of Rebels" in the US). Anyone interested in the relationship between culture and counter-culture would find the book interesting, I think. One of the things the book goes into is that change does not usually occur because of a few people protesting against big bad corporations, but instead is usually an inside job--the result of legislations proposed and passed by people who are "part of the system".
I've been thinking a lot lately (because the Christmas message has been unavoidable) about generosity toward the homeless, and reflecting on the ineffectiveness of giving money to people on the street. It's impossible to know that the money will be spent well. In that regard, I see charities as kind of an "economy of scale", in that they allow a few people to make more educated decisions (in principle) than would be possible for your average person. Those people do this full-time, whereas at best I could spend a few hours a day trying to sort it out. So, provided the overhead isn't too large, it makes sense to delegate those decisions I'm really keen to help out.
In the same way, I wonder if the average person can reasonably be expected to do the research necessary to decide which choices are environmentally sound. For example, I've seen some good counter-arguments for certain recycling programs, namely that the energy required for recycling may be greater than what we save. I'm a fairly smart person, but just don't have the time to evaluate these arguments myself.
It's easy enough for someone to come along and say that I should make the time, or that it's my future that I'm gambling with when I choose not to. But the fact is that I might actually be able to do more for the environment by focusing on what I do well than on the things which I cannot do well. Grass roots action is good to an extent, but tends to be less efficient than more centralized policy.
I suppose what I'm trying to say is that I've given it quite a bit of thought, but I'm still not sure what we should do, or if the general public should be doing anything at all. On the other hand, if we delegate someone to make the decisions for us, then there is some expectation that we'll accept the decisions they make, and that's difficult, too.
The second book was very good.
Seconded on Freakonomics... also a recomendation on the sequel Superfreakonomics. It's even better than the first one.
What good is it to someone who wants to learn to simply here "random; innate; no lessons here"? Read Chapter 2 to learn how much the effect of "natural" game is overstated in all walks of life.
Superfreakonomics.
Go with what ya know.
One of the most insightful things I've read on technology is Martin Heidegger's essay "The Question Concerning Technology." I'm on a mobile and it's the middle of the night, so I'm not going to go on at length (about a favorite topic of mine.) It's the attitude that goes with technology's domination, of other ways of seeing the world, that is a danger more than the technological artifacts themselves, he thought. Niel Postman has written about similar things (without mentioning Heidegger that I remember) in Technopoly. I don't worry about technology, though I am concerned by technocracy. THX 1138 is a great movie, and I've felt strongly that it's an apt metaphor for what life has been like as a software developer, for me.
[edit: I'm on my computer now, so sky's the limit...]There's a Star Trek: The Next Generation episode in which a people has a relationship to high technology that seems unusual to Captain Picard. They don't let it dominate their lives. They use it, but they don't live in a technocracy. They live in what seem like rural surroundings.
Philosophy of technology can have a dystopian twist to it, especially the little I've read that has been "Continental." I love dystopian stories. I have no solution but to read, read, read, real stuff about technology and our relation to it. Heidegger points out that it is not a thing but an attitude, as I've said. "The essence of technology is nothing technological," to quote him as well as I can. I firmly believe the solution to establishing a healthy relation to technology is to take other points of view -- other than the currently dominant (in the US) technocratic view -- and find out what they are. Phenomenology for me is right where it's at. I will understand it in my lifetime! xD If you can find these books at the library, they're ones I've read recently. Reading them may not be completely encouraging, and yet they'll take your mind off worries about the technological doodads and what they're doing. Just reading the book is a whole-body activity, it's so hard.
Heidegger's "Basic Writings" collection (paperback is cheap https://www.amazon.com/Writings-Harper-Perennial-Modern-Thought/dp/0061627011)
After you've read Heidegger's essay, "The Question Concerning Technology," Don Ihde's little book is a gem
Heidegger's Technologies: Postphenomenological Perspectives (https://www.amazon.com/Heideggers-Technologies-Postphenomenological-Perspectives-Continental)
Neil Postman's "Technopoly"
William Barrett's "The Illusion of Technique"
Perhaps "going back in time" to the earlier of these will allow a little distance from your current concerns. Seeing that technology has been viewed as problematic, by smart people, for many decades, is comforting to me. Another book that really slammed everything, it seemed, home for me, was Herbert Marcuse's "One-Dimensional Man," which channels a lot of the frustration of Lucas' film. Finding another way, finding people who see differently than the company they work for does, if it makes paper clips, for example...to the paperclip company, everything has to do with making and selling paperclips. Nick Bostrom had a few funny things to say about a possible supersentient AI whose mission was to make paperclips, in the podcast (wonderful!) "The Partially Examined Life" (iTunes and http://partiallyexaminedlife.com/).
I gripe about how much of our communication is digitally mediated. Here I am on the Internet, speaking of the evils of technology. Ironic? I think a little story about Freud is in order here, then. When Freud observed that the train could take him to see his niece(?), who lived far away from Freud, he saw that this could be viewed as an argument against any of his objections to "progress"; but, he said, without the train she never would have been so far away in the first place. Without the Internet, I might spend more time talking with people face to face. It has always been one of my favorite things to do, in spite of all difficulties. It just seems so difficult now because so many people's faces are constantly pointed at screens instead of each other.
Try to read some of his lectures like "Was ist Metaphysik?" or "Vom Wesen der Wahrheit". I am sure there are english translations of these as well.
EDIT: "Was ist Metaphysik?" can be found in English in the bundle of texts called "Basic Writings" (for example: http://amzn.com/0061627011) which serves as an excellent introduction to Being and Time.
I was skimming these, and most of what I would say has been covered here, but I think three things may have been overlooked.
First, it's important to understand that most libertarians strongly favor local charities and community initiatives to give people a hand up who have fallen on hard times. I think the government has no business giving money to the poor for pretty much anything (also not a universal libertarian position), but I recognize that sometimes people are poor or in some other kind of long-term danger because of things they can't fix themselves. For example, I think that addiction is a problem that most people can't solve on their own because of lack of resources or lack of information. It seems to me that the most "progressive" response to this would be to demand that the government set up treatment centers and offer free healthcare (including mental healthcare). As a libertarian, I volunteer at and give money to independent, non-profit treatment centers. You could do the same thing with a number of issues (environment, food deserts, etc.) without government intervention. Because I am on the spot, instead of in Washington, I can address the needs of individuals more precisely. I can tell that James is a basically good guy who got mixed up with heroin at a young age but is genuinely working to improve his lot, so that when I buy him lunch, he can use the money he saves to buy some clothes for an interview or save up for an eventual security deposit. On the other hand, Rob is just out to scrimp together cash for another crack rock, so buying him lunch will just let him hoard the money he might have spent on a sandwich to get more rock.
If I'm wrong about the direction of my charity, it only hurts me. You can spend your resources more wisely if you choose. I can learn from my mistakes more quickly because they have direct and real consequences for me that I can measure and react to efficiently.
On paper, these two people might look exactly the same. The government has no particular interest in the individual here. As long as aggregate results are good exploitative individuals are irrelevant.
Another example that I don't directly deal with is people who are out of work due to disability. Maybe one person is genuinely disabled and won't be able to hold down a steady job for the rest of their lives. I can help them by giving them money directly for the rest of their lives or organize a group of people to help support them from within the community. Maybe someone else is just taking advantage of a particularly unscrupulous doctor, and they're essentially just lazy. The government has to choose between expensive oversight and mistreatment of the one (by forcing the genuinely disabled person to search for a job they can never get or by giving unneeded aid to a person who should be contributing to the economy).
Second, not all libertarians are the same. There's a wide swath of opinion within libertarianism. While we share similar first principals (economic and personal liberty should be radically and thoroughly defended from government encroachment), our expression of those principals will be different. For example, some libertarians support a limited welfare state while others feel it is wrong and/or inefficient. Another example, many libertarians oppose abortion on the grounds that a fetus is a living person whose right to life must be protected; others disagree and support abortion rights on the grounds that a woman should be free to choose her own family and reproductive destiny. These people can all be libertarians.
Third, for an excellent critique of the moral basis of progressive liberal economic thought, I'd recommend Hayek's The Fatal Conceit. It's addressing Marxism, but many of the arguments also apply to how most libertarians view the left in general.
Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis, by Mises
Human Actiom, by Mises
The Theory of Money and Credit, by Mises
The Anti-Capitalist Mentality, by Mises
The Road to Serfdom, by F.A Hayek
The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism, by F.A Hayek
Economics in One Lesson, by Henry Hazlitt
No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority, by Lysander Spooner
If anything, you should read this because it is on topic with transportation.
Sorry that was a typo, I meant the 1940s. Probably the best scholarly case against Socialism was made by F. A. Hayek, in "Road to Serfdom", and again in the more recent book:
https://www.amazon.com/Fatal-Conceit-Errors-Socialism-Collected/dp/0226320669
The point remains however, that all the innovative thinking in the last 100 years has not been in leftist ideologies, but in market-based economics, which is currently supported ONLY by conservatives and conservative-leaning libertarians
Are you just seeking to be contrarian? I cannot tell. This is the "conservative" sub-reddit.
The programs you speak of are unconstitutional (illegal), violate federalism, and are contrary to liberty.
Your supposedly deregulated banks are nothing of the sort. We have a central bank and fiat currency - a plank in the communist manifesto.
I happen to have lived in NZ and Canada, in addition to the US, and I want nothing to do with collectivist (imposed) medicine. Regarding Sweden, you would do well to read "The Dark Side of the Welfare State", which includes a commentary and interview with Sven Larson, a Swedish economist. He has also written a book by that same title.
You present a false dichotomy, as though people who promote individualist pride, in the absence of government handouts, do not want the individual "to make something of himself." Of course they do, and they see the handouts as impediments to progress.
Go ahead and deny the social security and medicare components all you want - not that a military empire isn't contributing as well. Larry Kotlikoff is perhaps the nation's foremost expert on unfunded liabilities and generational accounting, and I recommend The Coming Generational Storm if you want to look into that further.
Did the baby boomers remotely pay enough into social security to finance their own retirement? Or did they ignore the obvious implications of their own demographic wave and leave the bill to the following generation? And if the answer is yes/no, then why was this book written in 2003?
http://www.amazon.com/Coming-Generational-Storm-Americas-Economic/dp/0262612089/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1452662817&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=the+coming+generational+storm
Why Marx Was Right https://www.amazon.com/dp/0300181531/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_du4MybVB4AV1F
This one is great it counters common objections to Marxism
These two books convinced me that Marxism was actually a workable system, and are excellent introductions: http://www.amazon.com/Why-Marx-Right-Terry-Eagleton/dp/0300181531/ref=tmm_pap_title_0?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1417687545&amp;sr=1-1
http://www.amazon.com/The-Revolutionary-Ideas-Karl-Marx/dp/1608461386/ref=tmm_pap_title_0?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1417687500&amp;sr=1-1
Not together like that, per se.
A simple read is "Thinking Strategically"
I think this is the right book, but it's been a long time. It's more approachable than overly mathy texts, and doesn't harp on a single topic.
http://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Strategically-Competitive-Business-Paperback/dp/0393310353
You may be interested in Thinking Strategically. This book seems like it will overlap somewhat with Strategy of Conflict - it also covers game theory from beginner to intermediate concepts, and talks extensively about real world applications of those concepts. I know that it gives some detail about both application of force and deterrence effects - any good examination of game theory will look at both, as you can't really separate the two ideas (any believable commitment to using force in a game-theoretic sense is likely to have strong deterrent effects on other players).
Edit: I haven't read all of Schelling's other books, but I'd imagine they may be a good place to look as well.
When wondering why people make certain decisions and planning your response game theory is key. This book is a great start to game theory. http://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Strategically-Competitive-Business-Politics/dp/0393310353
I would also recommend Mathematics for Economists. It covers a lot of the different fields, but only as they apply to economics.
It's not as rigorous as a whole course in optimization or real analysis, but it covers the important bits.
I know this is a bit old but maybe it still helps. Simon and Blume is a very good book, I think at a similar level than A. Chiang. Also, Sundaram's book is very good for everything related to optimization. It's much narrower in terms of topics but it's great and pretty cheap for a textbook. Finally, you may be able to find Silverberg's book in your library. It's great for the mathematical approach to microeconomics. It's probably to advanced for an into to micro class but keep it in mind for more advanced classes.
Chiang is a classic. Another good one is this: http://www.amazon.com/Mathematics-Economists-Carl-P-Simon/dp/0393957330
Try and get either one used.
GFC has everything to do with QE (book) and why the effects are so large.
Since we're having the argument and /r/newzealand loves a good inequality post - Britain's richest 5% gained most from quantitative easing
As has been mentioned. QE is a last resort. Not a luxury to help exporters.
> That's just not true.
well, obviously you're always going to have some. but the gov't was too new at that time for business influences to infiltrate it deeply. Esp relative to the situation today.
> It would tend to be professionals who are trained in that speciality voting on how to go about their tasks
how is that any different from having politician running things? who decides who gets to vote? doesn't direct democracy require that all citizens vote on all policy initiatives? what's to stop this small group of voters from colluding?
> No because it's a system designed for self-sufficiency.
i don't give a fuck if i can survive on potatoes and a hut I grow and build myself. I want a plasma TV and to fly from New York to Seattle in 4 hours and a nice house and medical care. I think you're making a LOOOOT of assumptions about people's willingness to accept self-sufficiency for a horrible quality of life.
> You could just as well say that we're currently sacrificing our planet for more wealth.
that's veeeery subjective opinion. i agree global warming is real, but it's a huge step to say it threatens life on Earth.
> For one, money isn't the only incentive.
true, but it's the strongest one.
> America didn't just become rich because people 'busted their asses'
we'll have to disagree on this.
> if you look at what happened after the crash, the biggest losers were actually people in the middle class
this was not due to capitalism though, it was entirely the gov't bailouts, bank deposit insurance, and low interest rates.
> Basically, you seem to have a very romanticized vision of capitalism in your head that simply doesn't reflect historical facts.
I would say the same of you and communism.
It seems our debate ends here. We seems to disagree on points that would take a lot of effort to explain to each other. And I'v got boards in a week. Take it easy. If you have time and interest to learn about Austrian Econ, I'd recommend http://www.amazon.com/How-Economy-Grows-Why-Crashes/dp/047052670X/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1370971957&amp;sr=8-4&amp;keywords=peter+schiff
It's short and explains things from scratch.
>well, obviously you're always going to have some. but the gov't was too new at that time for business influences to infiltrate it deeply. Esp relative to the situation today.
Not true at all. The country was founded on the principle that the role of government should be to protect private property from the majority of people. Originally, you couldn't even vote if you weren't a landowner. Businesses didn't infiltrate it, they completely controlled it.
>how is that any different from having politician running things? who decides who gets to vote? doesn't direct democracy require that all citizens vote on all policy initiatives? what's to stop this small group of voters from colluding?
You honestly can't see the difference? If a factory (for instance) needs to make policy decisions, the workers all vote on what to do. They're all collective owners so they all get a say. It's not that difficult really.
>i don't give a fuck if i can survive on potatoes and a hut I grow and build myself. I want a plasma TV and to fly from New York to Seattle in 4 hours and a nice house and medical care. I think you're making a LOOOOT of assumptions about people's willingness to accept self-sufficiency for a horrible quality of life.
That's nice. I'm sure you also enjoy buying designer clothing that is drastically overpriced and made in sweatshops where the owners hire thugs to keep workers from organizing. I think you're also assuming that self sufficiency requires abandoning technology and living in a hut. It definitely doesn't. I can't tell if you're being deliberately ignorant or not.
>that's veeeery subjective opinion. i agree global warming is real, but it's a huge step to say it threatens life on Earth.
Then you must not know too much about global warming.
>this was not due to capitalism though, it was entirely the gov't bailouts, bank deposit insurance, and low interest rates.
According to Marx's social analysis, yes this is 100% capitalism. The bailouts and recession basically happened exactly how Marx predicted that the capitalist economy will function. According to Marx, it's not just about free competition, it's about the wealthiest companies using their wealth and power to stamp out competition and rig the system for their own interests. After all, they're only trying to make money so why wouldn't they? Money is such a strong incentive, isn't it?
>It seems our debate ends here. We seems to disagree on points that would take a lot of effort to explain to each other. And I'v got boards in a week. Take it easy. If you have time and interest to learn about Austrian Econ, I'd recommend http://www.amazon.com/How-Economy-Grows-Why-Crashes/dp/047052670X/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1370971957&amp;sr=8-4&amp;keywords=peter+schiff
Peter Schiff is an idiot and a pseudo conspiracy theorist. I've already taken time to learn about Austrian economics. It has some decent ideas but if you're getting your view of Marx from Austrian economists then you're not going to know what you're talking about. All in all, it's one school of economics but it's not the only school or even the most practical school.
The best book for economics. A follow up to that is Peter Schiff's book How and Economy Grows and Why it Crashes.
Another is The Road to Serfdom by F.A. Hayek
How an Economy Grows and Why It Crashes
By: Peter Schiff, a modern Austrian economist amazing!!
I had this moment back in 2006/07 when it became incredibly clear to me something was seriously out of whack and i needed to at least try to make sense of it all. It has been quite a journey but in the end i ended up basically changing my entire outlook on life, the economy and politics. I will come with some suggestions for reading and watching material but i just want to give one piece of advice: Every book you read, every article, every blog, every youtube lecture you see. You have do think, decode and analyze as best as you can. They will provide you with "lenses" that you can see the world through. The more you learn about a subject the sharper your lense will be able to focus information before it enters your mind. When you obtain new knowledge you might have to substitute a lens because this new one provides a better way of interpreting the world. When you have read so much that you have accumulated a good set of lenses about economy, history, philosophy, physics etc you can stack them and filter the information you perceive through all lenses at the same time, effectively they work like binoculars at this time. It is then that you will understand that you can maybe not grasp everything, but at least you will see a lot clearer than people only using simple and crude lenses. In addition you will be able to recognize, through their actions or words, the lenses that people around you use to understand reality. Im sorry if this was abstract.
1.
History, most undervalued subject when it comes to economics:
Read, watch listen to everything from Niall Fergusson. This man has a grasp of history that is very rare.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niall_Ferguson
2.
Do not be afraid to listen to fund managers, they are the most brutally honest, no nonsense people you will ever hear from. Their only goal in life is to obtain what they refer to as 'alpha', the truth. If you know the truth and everyone around has a clouded judgement or preconceptions about the economy you will win.
Of the most outspoken and knowledgeable managers:
I would watch all videos on youtube that any of these people are involved in, twice. Any term they use i would google and research thoroughly.
3.
Other notable economic/political figures:
4.
You also have to learn a lot of new words and what they mean. Everything your read or watch will refer to a lot of strange terms, people and philosophy, if you want any deeper understanding you have to read books on some of these specific terms. I would advice to learn in detail about:
5.
I would be careful putting too much faith in these notable people:
Even if he is blind to this he has the most perfect introductory book to economics:
http://www.amazon.com/How-Economy-Grows-Why-Crashes/dp/047052670X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1322700761&amp;sr=8-1
6.
Be very weary of people who have a very binary view of economics or politics, they often only see the world through one lens. This gives them a very polarized outlook.
7.
Stay away from very technical blogs (like zerohedge) in the beginning. If you don't have a very clear and deep understanding of what you are reading it will just confuse. You need to know all the terms used and what they really mean, and not on a superficial level.
I spent the last 5 years basically reading any book on any relevant subject, now i'm pretty content with my overview now. I have taken a somewhat negative short term view (the next 4-6 years) on behalf of the developed economies but an incredibly positive view on the long term outlook for the human race, the developing economies in particular. It is too late here now, i must sleep, i have probably forgotten a great deal of good names.
Here are some links for the product in the above comment for different countries:
Amazon Smile Link: http://smile.amazon.com/Freakonomics-Economist-Explores-Hidden-Everything/dp/0060731338
|Country|Link|
|:-----------|:------------|
|UK|amazon.co.uk|
|Spain|amazon.es|
|France|amazon.fr|
|Germany|amazon.de|
|Japan|amazon.co.jp|
|Italy|amazon.it|
|China|amazon.cn|
This bot is currently in testing so let me know what you think by voting (or commenting). The thread for feature requests can be found here.
So I’m not sure if asking questions to a current economics student will be the best way to find out if you’re interested in the subject. Especially if you’re not very familiar with the subject. Instead. I’ll give you some resources that might give you a better understanding of the subject.
This link from the American Economic Association gives you an overview of the subject. Click all around the website because there is a plethora of information. As well, here’s a link from the AEA about careers for those with an economics degree (both undergrad and grad).
Next, I would read Freakonomics and it’s sequel, Superfreakonomics. They are much closer to the “pop-Economics” than “academic economics,” but the books give a very good intro into the “non-standard” topics that still fall under the domain of economics. And it would be true that many current graduate students and young professors’ interest in the subject was peeked by those books (myself included).
After that, I would read maybe an intro textbook. My recommendations on this depends on how comfortable you are with calculus.
Freakonomics. So that he could learn more about how economics actually works in real life and not in ivory tower theories.
Here's my suggestions:
Hope that helps!
Its not a crutch its the truth. We are too far deep in poverty to make a change. Its not a lie that an educated white person will have an edge over an educated black man in the working world. I saw a post on reddit a few months ago about a study that concluded that. So even if i educate myself that wont do shit because theres always somebody who will get picked over me because their skin is lighter. Im going to recommend a book for you called Freakconomics
> Massive consumerism at the expense of the planet AND ALL ITS INHABITANTS.
Lmao, you're a cartoon. It's been well established that modern consumerism was sparked by the ideals of the counterculture of the 60's. Fashion is rebellion. Read the book Nation of Rebels: Why Counterculture Became Consumer Culture.
> The concept of countercultural rebellion and its elusive twin—cool—have resulted in a status competition that has driven consumption to unprecedented heights. It's not conformism that leads us to spend, spend, spend on the unnecessary and the ephemeral, but its opposite: the quest to distinguish ourselves from the masses through our enlightened, hip, or just plain rebellious consumer preferences.
As always, you're trying to scapegoat another generation for your own faults. Typical.
> I have no apologies to make to you or anyone else.
Seems to be a common sentiment among Boomers.
Woah, man. I don't know where you received your economics education, but everything you said in there is dead wrong. That is not how capitalism works.
>Impossible. For anyone to amass that much wealth, someone else has to suffer for it, there isn't enough to go around for everyone, so for someone to go with so much, someone else has to go without.
The economy grows when entrepreneurs take risk, hire more people, and offer superior products that enrich all our lives. The ability to utilize the savings of others to expand business is the source of wealth creation, not government programs. Individuals looking after their own self-interest, through the powers of supply and demand, benefit society. As someone else already pointed out, that is the zero-sum fallacy.
>It is inconceivable that someone could make that much money while running an honest business.
An overwhelming majority of businesses do make their money honestly. And those that don't are utilizing government power, which as I've already said, needs to be reduced.
>It is inconceivable that someone could make that much money while running an honest business. Someone, somewhere down the totem pole, is getting exploited and shit on. It might be 100% legal, but it sure as hell isn't "earning their money honestly".
This couldn't be more wrong. When an entrepreneur expands his business and needs help, he hires people. Maybe this is someone who had a job, or maybe it's someone who was previously unemployed. Either way, it's an improvement in his or her situation. Otherwise, they don't have to work for them. What happens if that entrepreneur or any other businessmen decided to stop seeking additional profits? Nobody expands their businesses, and nobody gets hired.
Check out Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson
Or maybe Peter Schiff's How an Economy Grows and Why It Crashes
Read Jeremy Rifkin's book The End of Work.
>From Publishers Weekly
In this challenging report, social activist Rifkin (Biosphere Politics) contends that worldwide unemployment will increase as new computer-based and communications technologies eliminate tens of millions of jobs in the manufacturing, agricultural and service sectors. He traces the devastating impact of automation on blue-collar, retail and wholesale employees, with a chapter devoted to African Americans. While a small elite of corporate managers and knowledge workers reap the benefits of the high-tech global economy, the middle class continues to shrink and the workplace becomes ever more stressful, according to Rifkin.
I would recommend getting a good introduction to Marx's Capital and reading that along with at least a few chapters from volume 1. Michael Heinrich's An Introduction to the Three Volumes is good; so are David Harvey's videos.
From Capital, read at least the following sections of volume 1:
Chapter Six: The Buying and Selling of Labour-Power
Chapter Twenty-Five: The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation, Section Three
Chapter Twenty-Six: The Secret of Primitive Accumulation
Chapter Twenty-Seven: Expropriation of the Agricultural Population from the Land
Chapter Twenty-Eight: Bloody Legislation Against the Expropriated, from the End of the 15th Century. Forcing Down of Wages by Acts of Parliament
For Marxism after Marx, the following would be a good place to start:
-Karl Kautsky's Road to Power
-Eugene Debs' Canton, OH speech
USSR:
-China Miéville's October: The Story of the Russian Revolution is good place to start.
-Marx/Engel's Preface to the 1882 Russian Edition of the Communist Manifesto
-Lenin's April Thesis
-Trotsky: read at least a little of The Revolution Betrayed. His biography of Stalin is also worth reading.
Third World Marxism:
CLR James: The most important Marxist of the second half of the twentieth century. Read the following:
-Black Jacobins: the classic history of the Haitian revolution
-Modern Politics: a collection of speeches on Rousseau, Lenin, etc.
Post-Keynesian Marxism:
Michał Kalecki's Political Aspects of Full Employment
-Leo Panitsch and Sam Gindin's The Making of Global Capitalism: a recent and highly academic Marxist analysis of globalization.
>>Sure, except there is not a finite level of wealth in the real world, nor is wealth gained by arbitrary or random means.
>Not sure what world you are living in, but in mine there is a finite amount of food, land, money, gold, trees, oil, iphones. How do you think the laws of supply and demand work?
In a closed system, with zero economic growth, I would agree with you. But the fact is, we are nowhere close to fulfilling our potential in wealth and technology. When somebody makes money, it's because they have found a way to generate wealth, not because they steal it from anyone else.
>Wealth is not gained by arbitrary or random means? Really? Lets tell the kid who was born in Congo that he really failed at picking his parents. Or an example closer to home - when you wanted to start your first telecommunications company, did your parents put up a few million bucks in venture capital for you as happened with Lachlan Murdoch and James Packer?
The overwhelming majority of millionaires today came from middle-class backgrounds. What's the point of bringing strawmen arguments into this? Being born rich helps, but not as much as you might think. Rarely does wealth last longer than 3 generations - a phenomenon known as "rags to riches to rags". As for luck, working hard helps. From WSJ:
" His study found that people who earn less than $20,000 a year, for instance, spent more than a third of their time in passive leisure, like kicking back and watching TV. By contrast, those earning more than $100,000 a year (more affluent than wealthy), spent less than a fifth of their time in passive leisure."
>Ohhh, I see where you're going with this. In Libertarian fantasy land wealth is allocated by hard work, and chance plays a very marginal role. Capital and inherited wealth pale against the billion dollar earning power of a hard working primary school teacher! In reality, labour does not out earn capital.
Again, most wealthy people came from middle class backgrounds. Do you have any evidence, whatsoever, to back up your claim that a majority of rich people are there because they inherited their wealth?
>>Why are countries with free markets so wealthy? Why do countries like HK, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan have such a strong middle class?
>Because for one, they aren't free market economies. Most of their growth was led by their governments. Singapore is basically a technocratic dictatorship ruled by one family - perhaps you're familiar with Singtel, owner of Optus or Singapore Airlines, both controlled by government investment corporation Temasek?
I agree that Singapore is an autocracy, but it doesn't mean it's not free market. Historically these countries have had the lowest government intervention of any. To claim that they're not free markets are laughable. For christ's sake, for most of Hong Kong's history it never had any public education, healthcare, or transport. It doesn't even have a central bank! Seriously man, I'm more than happy to have a debate with you, but let's at least agree on the obvious - the Asian tigers were (and still are) most definitely free markets.
>Korea is run by an oligarchy of family owned conglomerates called "Chaebols" - Samsung, LG, Hyundai, all of the drivers of their economy are too-big-to-fail and heavily state supported.
This is anecdotal evidence. I'm not claiming these areas have no government interference, merely that they are free markets. The best measure of this is their government spending as a % of GDP.
>Hong Kong and Taiwan were able to profit from proximity and cultural ties to China to build their economies.
Since when does geographical proximity guarantee wealth? This is not an argument in any way.
>And China's decades long double digit economic growth model wasn't thanks to the free market either. They call it "State Capitalism", which is a fancy way of saying fascism.
I wouldn't call China's growth anything exciting. They're growing slower than the Asian tigers, and there's no guarantee they'll break through the middle income trap.
>>Again, evidence and history does not support your claims.
>Yes it does. Most industries in market economies start out fiercely competitive but ultimately merge into an oligarchy if not strictly regulated by the government.
>6 companies control 90% of the USA's media, down from 50 in 1983.
>Since 1990, 37 of the USA's big banks merged to become just 4 too-big-to-fail megabanks.
I wouldn't call 4 banks an oligarchy. That's economies of scale. Do you have any evidence to suggest they are colluding?
>This process happens even faster in a small economy like Australia's, where we have been stuck with an cartel of 4 too-big-to-fail banks for a very long time now.
Again...4 companies is not an oligopoly.
>You need to acquaint yourself with the basics of how markets work, and how unregulated markets inevitably become monopolistic. You can start with "Wealth of Nations" by the father of modern capitalism, Adam Smith.
Thanks for the advice. I guess my 4 years of economics study (with honours) at a top university was a massive waste of time.
(not targeting my reply to you /u/Qwaybin)
That's not capitalism though, that's corporativism or neoliberalism, capitalism actually needs laws to ensure the market is free, in fact, anyone that tells you that less regulation is better for the (free) market is either lying or an idiot.
Just go and read the book dammit it doesn't say what the republicans insist it says.
>no worker would accept to create value for someone else in exchange for a small wage unless he was forced to do so by the conditions he is in.
False.
His "condition" is that he has 2 choices: Grow and hunt his own food, or starve to death. Is he being exploited by nature, since nature forces him to do some work to survive? No.
So then why couldn't he take option 3, which is to do work that's not hunting and farming, in exchange for a wage that will allow him to acquire what he needs to survive, and then some.
Socialists make the mistake of assuming that 100% of the value associated with a product is due to the input of the direct laborer. You conveniently ignore the fact that the very production of that good or service would not be possible without the capital supplied by the capitalist. Why shouldn't the capitalist be paid for the contribution his capital made to creating the goods?
Did you really just link to the Labor theory of value? Hate to break it to you, but that theory was proven bunk quite a while ago.
You'd benefit from reading this book, a beginner's guide to economics that even a 7th grader could read and understand.
I suggest you do a little research yourself. Schiff is a spectacular talker and debator - he's probably better on camera than he is on paper. He's regularly on business/economic TV shows, he very often gives lectures, and he hosts the 2 hour "Peter Schiff Radio Show" 5 days a week.
That said, he has written 3 or 4 great books, detailing the reasons for previous crash (and future ones!), and how an economy grows and why it crashes, as well numerous articles that I'm sure won't take long to google.
His books:
Crash Proof
The Real Crash: America's Coming Bankruptcy
How an Economy Grows and Why It Crashes
Btw, Schiff, being an American, focuses primarily on the US economy, but 90% of what he says can be applied directly to here in the UK. We are the United States little brother.
I am sorry but you are wrong. Please leave this tread and read this.
http://www.amazon.com/Freakonomics-Economist-Explores-Hidden-Everything/dp/0060731338
>Oh, I think you're just trolling now.
You got me there, I went into the land of unreasonable with that.
But really, if you'd rather debate with someone more noteworthy than I,
please read this. I'd certainly be interested in your thoughts on it.
Economics is combination of math, finance, and psychology. Most economic-math is just linear regression and whatnot, and even then it is incredibly inaccurate. ModularToil is right in that most Econometric problems are ones with too few constraints, so a talented mathematician can make the numbers do what he wants. If you only read one book, get Economics in One Lesson. It's a slow read, but it is a great reference book. Really, you only need the first chapter. If you get a second, get How an Economy Grows and Why it Crashes. It is written cleverly as a children's book that furthers the points made in Economics in One Lesson, as well as giving a good explanation of why the economy is in the shape that it is right now. If you are still interested after that, find topics that pique your interest here.
How an Economy Grows and Why It Crashes- Peter Schiff
Yes, but the buying power will still be equal to $200 do to inflation.
Why not buy him the book, "Whatever happened to penny candy?"
https://www.amazon.com/Whatever-Happened-Explanation-Economics-Investments/dp/0942617622
I buy my son a rare us coin ever so many months ($5 gold liberty). His coins have appreciated quite well over the last ten years.
Yep, it's a good read.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0226320669/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i2
Go make the same snide remarks after actually considering some of the information contained within. Prediction: You will entirely ignore that, assume your economic/political opinions are superior and feel a sense of moral righteousness. Theennn continue making snide remarks. Prove me wrong.
You guys can quote "racism" all you want, but you know these dumbass names exist.
Edit: Y'all should read Freakonomics sometime, specifically the chapter on names.
You'll be paying it off for some years after you graduate via your higher-than-average tax rate. The fact that the connection between "taxes" and "paying for services" seems so muddled and unclear is intentional. "Free" doesn't actually mean "free". It means "Pay for it via a yearly installment plan."
There is no such thing as free lunch.