Top products from r/economy

We found 46 product mentions on r/economy. We ranked the 128 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.

Next page

Top comments that mention products on r/economy:

u/ChillPenguinX · 1 pointr/economy

This is where other schools of economics really fall short of the Austrians: spending does not grow an economy. Saving, reinvestment, and increasing production grow an economy. Simply having more exchanges means nothing if the number of things available doesn’t change. Macroeconomists love to focus on spending b/c it's something they can measure and it's a number they can push up or down, but it completely misses the big picture. You can certainly look at spending as a sort of measurement of the size of the economy, but it's a rough tool at best, and it's certainly not the driving force of economic growth by any means. I mean, Keynes was so myopic on this that he actually suggested that having the gov't pay people to dig holes and fill them back in would help the economy. How could that possibly make us richer? Who gains from that other than the diggers? You're just taking money away from the people producing the goods that improve our lives and giving it to those who are uselessly spinning their wheels. This is also why these same people think WWII got us out of the Great Depression, and if you just look at it with any sort of realistic view, there's no way that constructing tanks and planes and ships and sending them off to get blown up and take lives improves the lives of anyone. But creating labor-saving devices or more efficient ways to create food? That's the shit that actually matters. Everyone alive today that was born in the US has lived in a wealthier society than kings of the past could ever dream of, and we've lost sight of how we got here and what the mechanics were that created the wealth.

You got $13? Read this simple book, and it will put it all in perspective. Then if you want heavier stuff, you can get into Hazlitt or Rothbard.

Or you can start here for free:

u/LWRellim · 1 pointr/economy

>I agree with you on the validity of polls.. just pointing out the source..

Yup, I understood that. And I was hopeful when I hit the EBRI site that the report would include the data breakdown... alas I was left bereft.

>otoh.. from my own personal experience talking to people over the last year about retirement, 401k, etc.... I'd say 40% saving less than $2,000 for retirement via traditional means (cash, stock market, mutual funds, bonds, etc) is being generous. I was sitting at a table of 7 people this past week and 3 of them said they had pulled ALL of their retirement out of 401k (despite penalties) and used it to pay down credit card debt.

Yes, anecdotally I am aware of many similar cases. (People who have retired and are counting on Social Security to pay the last 10 years of their mortgage. I mean how do you retire and STILL not have the mortgage paid off on your primary home?)

I know of several people who are nearing retirement age and who have kept "upgrading their house" -- counting on the sale of the final "monstrosity" of a McMansion as their primary "retirement fund" --

>(I was shocked at this even though I have very little faith that I'll ever see the money I have in my 401k)

I likewise have little faith in the 401K system -- I am fairly certain that the government WILL pull some shenanigans within the next decade or so (at a minimum, they will substantially increase the early withdrawal penalty and add in other restrictions -- just as they have recently done on the HSA accounts; effective 1/1/2011 the penalty will increase from 10% to 20%, and you will no longer be able to use HSA funds to buy over the counter medication).

Bearing that (and the fact that regular income taxes will be going up, not only in 2011 with the expiration of the "Bush" tax cuts -- but almost certainly again and again in future years) in mind, it is probably NOT all that foolish for people who have temporarily "low" annual wages to pull 401K and/or regular IRA money out and xfer it into either regular savings (or possibly a Roth, although I think Roth will also see significant restrictions and regulation changes).

It's ridiculous to my mind to pay down credit card debt -- but than again, as I think HAVING the credit card debt in the first place is borderline insane... well, I suppose there IS some sense in eliminating a debt that is at essentially "hyperinflation-like" double digit percentage rates. (But far better to NOT have pissed the money away in the first place.)

>They have ZERO retirement savings. One of the seven was a self employed salesman and had ZERO in retirement savings. Only three of us had any retirement at all.

Sadly this is all too true -- but it's NOT just a US phenomenon. I recall reading an article a few weeks back about some couple in Spain and how they saw ABSOLUTELY NO NEED for private "savings" (the very idea seemed "shocking" to them) -- even though they are both unemployed they still spend with abandon, taking multiple annual "vacations" to other countries, etc; they are CONSCIOUSLY PLANNING on being 100% reliant on their government's "retirement largess" (and keep in mind this is SPAIN, one of the debt-ridden "PIIGS" of Europe).

>also.. take a look at this study
>>There was at least one retirement account in 57 percent of the households. The average or mean amount in the retirement accounts was $49,944, but the standard deviation was $174,193, suggesting that the dollar amount held in retirement accounts varies widely by individual households. The median amount held in retirement accounts--$2,000--provides another indication of the wide variation in the amounts held by households.

Yes, this is what I was getting at -- that the $2,000 was probably an AVERAGE (median) rather than a mean value -- and that you'd really have to have fairly detailed data to see what the actual "spreads" are.

And then substantially MORE data -- historical -- to tell at what rate and in which age ranges the "most successful" savers actually accumulated their retirement savings.

I have an inkling that -- contrary to most "investing" theories -- the people who were "ahead" on retirement savings at early or middle age were mostly likely NOT the ones who had the highest savings at or near retirement.

I think that many of those people tend to be like the "rabbit" in the proverbial race against the tortoise, and they THINK (because of the high balance in certain "retirement" accounts) they are so far ahead (despite having a REAL net worth that is probably around $0.00) that when they reach their late 40's they begin "spending" more of their incomes.

Conversely, I think the "frugal" -- who are the most likely to end up with a HIGH retirement balance -- actually save LESS for their "retirement" early on, and instead they pay down their (modest) household/mortgage debts quickly, and then when they reach mid to late 40's they are debt-free, high net worth, and begin saving for retirement in earnest.

I know that is "contrary" to the "big plan" that all the 401K advocates like to promote -- instead they push the (foolish and unproven) concept of someone doing all their "retirement" savings up-front in their 20's & 30's and then trust to "the market" and the "magic of compounding interest" (which is actually a fraud in light of inflation and boomer demographics artificially pushing up stock prices) to turn the tiny little nest-egg into some magical multi-million dollar extravaganza.

But the whole point is that THAT "program" is based on the faulty assumption of a steady + 3% to 5% gain (OVER and above inflation) year after year, with NO major drops, NO market crashes or corrections, etc.

And as Reinhart and Rogoff go to great pains to discuss and prove in their book This Time Is Different those kind of assumptions are based (like the quants' fault assumptions about mortgages) on a ridiculously short-sighted "aberration" of the past 20-25 years, rather than the more accurate (and less upbeat) long term data.

u/Stubb · 2 pointsr/economy

> I am fairly ignorant on the different options available to me as far as investing goes, but that's what investment companies are for, isn't it?

Absolutely. We have a financial advisor that keeps a close eye on our money, and he's more than earned his pay. But I think it important to educate yourself enough to develop a functional BS detector. Otherwise, you won't know what to expect in different market conditions and will have a tough time picking an advisor.

We got in with our guy nearly ten years ago because he maintained the value of his clients' portfolios in the dot-com crash while still delivering good returns during market upswings.

I'd recommend interviewing a couple of advisors before picking one. Don't be shy to ask how they get paid. Many of them get commissions based on selling particular financial products. Get up and leave as soon as you hear that. Others are limited to selling a particular set of products. That would also make me nervous. Part of the reason we picked our guy is that he takes a flat commission off the value of our portfolio (originally 1%/year, now around 0.75%) and can get us into all manner of financial products including options, commodities, etc. We primarily hold mutual funds and individual stocks, though.

> but if people who are making moves on Wall Street do what they have done recently, there is no guarantee that my retirement fund will have any value by the time I'm ready to draw on it. My dad has been investing in his retirement for decades, and in the last two years, it lost $50k in value.

There's no sure thing. You have to do something with your money and realize that holding cash has its own set of risks, particularly now that we have a madman with printing press in charge of our central bank.

FWIIW, our portfolio value dipped in 2008/2009, but we were fully recovered in value by mid 2009. We recognized the housing bubble for what it was and stayed out of that sector. My parents were blindly turning over their money to a manager who had them heavily invested in Fannie and Freddie. They lost a couple hundred large in the 2008 crash, and it's not coming back.

> Do you have any advice on where to start learning without having to spend every hour after work piddling with it?

Four of my favorites include One Up on Wall Street, Fail-Safe Investing, The Black Swan, and How an Economy Grows and Why It Crashes. The first book talks about picking individual stocks (gave me the confidence to load up on AAPL back when it was trading under $100/share), the second about structuring a portfolio for growth while still playing defense, the third about common fallacies and hubris, and the last about what drives an economy (particularly useful for recognizing bubbles).

Is this at all helpful?

u/nagdude · 1 pointr/economy

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.

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.

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:

  • Ray Dalio (
  • Hugh Hendry (
  • James Grant (
  • Bill Gross (
  • Mohamed El-Erian (
  • Kyle Bass
    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.

    Other notable economic/political figures:

  • Robert Prechter ( You can choose to believe or ignore his wave theory, but his observations on human emotions and how they run our lives are incredible informative and mind opening.

    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:

  • The bond market (
  • The history of precious metals
  • Keynesianism (
  • Ludwig von Mises and the Austrian School of economics (
  • Capitalism, Socialism, Fascism, Collectivism and Corporatism. These are extremely important to learn as much as you can about with as much depth as possible. Incredibly enough this is the topic most of the population struggles most with but at the same time have very strong opinions on. Correctly identifying objectively what kind of "ism" that is the current dominant one and what was the dominant one at different stages in history. This is an extremely difficult topic because people get so emotional so fast, its difficult to find rational conversation partners.

    I would be careful putting too much faith in these notable people:

  • Peter Schiff (He is blind to the real possibility of a deflationary shock)
    Even if he is blind to this he has the most perfect introductory book to economics:
  • Paul Kruegman (He has blind faith that governments can allocate resources adequately good during a crises - a money printer)
  • Max Kaiser (I dont know what to say, he is both a genius and a moron, you just dont know which one at which time)
  • Gerald Celente (He seems very observant, but he always says the same thing, stagnant)
  • Jim Rogers (He provides no real insight)
  • Warren Buffet
  • George Soros

    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.

    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.
u/TomTom3009 · 2 pointsr/economy

Naked Economics by Charles Wheelan

Doesn't really address e-commerce, but honestly one of the better intro into economics books out there written in modern times.

For Globalization topics I also like:

For virtual currencies and such I think your best source that is not academic papers will just be the Internet.

Good Luck, and remember Economics is a social science and is not the only field with ideas and solutions to social problems.

u/thebrightsideoflife · 3 pointsr/economy

>Rick Santelli is a mouthpiece for the GOP

Actually he railed against Bush and the Republicans for their deficit spending and failed economic policies.. he and others like him have been a major thorn in the side of the GOP for years.

>Rick Santelli is a mouthpiece for the rich.

He opposed the bailouts that the rich pushed for, and he is opposing what the rich are asking for (raising the debt ceiling to kick the can down the road a bit longer). Who is getting rich off of the US going further into debt? The rich people who are making the loans, or the poor people? The fact is the rich have been getting richer off of the growth of government for decades and hire the best lobbyists to ensure that the politicians from both parties keep the gravy train flowing. They also control the media so they can convince the ignorant masses that adding more debt is the only solution.

>Rick Santelli is a mouthpiece for the whites.

Wait.. I missed where he said he supported the War on Drugs that the whites use to suppress minorities in the US. Or did you just play the race card because you disagree with him on the issue of raising the debt ceiling?

u/nwilli100 · 1 pointr/economy is good first stop if you're looking for raw data

Most university library (particularly my alma mater of UC Davis) is likely to have a large selection of previously published economic journals and publications available electronically.

The Nation Bureau of Economic Research Working Papers ( has a pretty decent selection but you have to become a member to read beyond the abstracts is also a great source for papers, though one should note that they tend to be working papers and lack full peer review.

If you're looking to gain a greater understanding of more basic economic theory I recommend you up pick up a primer) or textbook from amazon. Thats how most people get started (either through classes or self-study).

u/gosnomad · 1 pointr/economy

Short answer: All economic growth derives from increases in efficiency. The govt could help with that by reforming patent system (remove the trolls), remove useless regulation (e.g. ADA compliance that is really an extortion racket), and ensure a level playing field (big banks vs small credit unions).

Long answer: See William Bernstein's "Birth of Plenty", which is an excellent economic history book

u/[deleted] · 4 pointsr/economy

That's the consensus of most economists, and countries which started out with low paid labor intensive industries like India, S. Korea, China and Japan are evidence that sweat shops do mature.

A good book on the subject is In Defense of Globalization. it's a well rounded look at the benefits and problems the system has had.

It seems safe to say that Globalization and trade liberalization has done more to help the developing world that any system yet tried.

u/hexydes · 1 pointr/economy

Eh, your energy and climate change stuff is off-base; humans are too intelligent to let that get in the way. We will invent our way around that problem.

However, an economic end-game scenario is definitely something everyone should at least be aware of the possibility of. For a great introduction, this book was very enlightening.

u/yaboykanye · 2 pointsr/economy

The Wordly Philosophers a great book explaining how we came to think of economics today by looking at it's most influential thinkers

Stigum's Money Market a fundemental look at how modern money markets work

History of Economic Thought looks at economics throughout history, taking into consideration the unique historic and cultural context of different schools of economic thought.

u/41256d · 1 pointr/economy

The entire globe had the same idea: let's grow by exporting. But how do we increase exports? We devalue the currency and our goods become cheaper externally. It's happening all around. It has happened before in history. This is a great book:

By debasing the currency, debts become less crippling. What is the endgame for this? When does it stop? Basically, when inflation becomes out of control. Even the folks at the FED are stressed about it:

Inflation is coming our way. This is a fact.

So if we keep kicking the can down the road, one day we're in big trouble. Rickards believes that there's a good chance that gold comes back remonetized. In that case, should it happen, the gold price would explode from current levels to tens of thousands of dollars.

I know, I know... it's not good news.

u/Paddington_Fear · 1 pointr/economy

this is a great book I read in grad school about 10 years ago (this is the updated version), it's not a long book and it's a surprisingly easy read:

u/sien · 17 pointsr/economy

Great question!

First, technically a government doesn't go bankrupt. Bankruptcy only applies to inviduals and companies within a country.

Greece may well default on their loans, i.e. not pay or they could undergo a loan restructuring where the principal is reduced or the terms altered.

Currently many people believe that Greece cannot repay it's obligations at the current settings as growth is fundamentally too low. The Greek government remarkably has to continue borrowing just to keep going. If it stopped the consequences would be highly unpredictable. The country could, conceivable just crumble but it probably wouldn't. The EU/US/China would step in at some point. But the pain would be serious. Massive unemployment, large scale emigration.

The best scenario is that Greece gets their debt restructured, the banks take some haircut and the Greek government manages to get going with reasonable taxation in place and less tex evasion.

Sovereign default is not an uncommon occurence. Check out the marvelous book This Time is Different for a list of the many, many times countries have defaulted. As it happens, the leader in Europe for the most defaults is Greece.

u/plasticTron · 2 pointsr/economy

If you are looking for more reading on this subject I highly recommend the book free lunch by David Cay Johnston

u/DJ_Beardsquirt · 1 pointr/economy

I can't explain this myself. But the book Currency Wars by James Rickards is supposed to be a good overview. Here is a video of the author being interviewed by the absurd and sensationalist economics reporter Max Keiser.

Apologies if this reads a bit like a sales pitch.

u/bwwwbwwwb · 1 pointr/economy

Its hard to get a solid introduction to the subject without a hidden political view. Most people I know have enjoyed Naked Economics ( Also, Colander's economics textbook ( tries very hard to present a wide variety of view points, which is sadly not typical

u/mellolizard · 6 pointsr/economy

You should the read the book, How to Lie with Statistics. It is a common practice to mess with graphics to make a point.

u/MontyBean · 14 pointsr/economy

I feel like there's a lot of spin here.

>By Dr. Tooze's estimate, governments ended up committing more than US$7-trillion to save banks. Most of these state investments would eventually turn a profit for taxpayers.
>“Did the all-out focus on the financial system really save the interests of the real economy? Was the inability to borrow causing a failure of investment? Or were the collapsed housing market and cash-strapped households curtailing economic activity?”

How about a lack of government regulation that essentially let's the private banking sector run amok?

For anyone who is interested, Mark Blyth talks about the repeated failings of the private sector resulting in public sector blame in his book: Austerity: The History of a Dangerous Idea

u/Darkone06 · 1 pointr/economy

You dont have to buy expensive ass cars to be EV.

Shit I ride around in a M365 and ES2 scooter. For Around $500 for both I am now moving around the city carbon free.

If your commute is under 25 miles try the Segwat Max. Amazon has a presale going on right now for $800 and this scooter has a 40 mile range.

u/wonderful_wonton · 16 pointsr/economy

This is a classic example of How to Lie with Statistics.

Just because people in rural & remote counties have fewer possessions and make less money, doesn't mean they're materially poorer in a qualitative sense.

I have a lot of shit I wouldn't need if I lived in Mississippi. (I know because I spent a few years in Mississippi). It costs much more to live where I live and it takes more income and more stuff to live here. But I was much better off in Mississippi in terms of quality of life materially.

If you look at the map of red vs. blue counties you can see the blue are concentrated in urban and coastal, which actually makes this a comparison of geographically different kinds of economies and a therefore a fallacious statistic.

tldr; increased consumerism and the increased cost/income associated with high consumerism does not equate to better or worse material conditions when you compare rural regions with urban regions. People lie with statistics

u/caferrell · 1 pointr/economy

I read them all. Zerohedge, Max Keiser, Eric King and Karl Deninger are certainly outside of the mainstream, but if you also read Joe Weisenthal, Bloomberg, the Economist and the WSJ, you will see through the craziness of Keiser and Zerohedge to their uncanny insights, the insights that are missing from the traditional media

Edit : By the way, let me suggest the book "Currency Wars" by James Rickards

u/unjung · 4 pointsr/economy

There's something about it... it fits with the anti-establishment mindset, it fills a desire for parsimonious explanations for complex problems. The young people especially who have bought into this anti-fed thinking... it worries me. I know the Dark Ages are called that for different reasons, but I worry we are moving into another intellectual dark age... critical thinking is not encouraged, no one reads anymore - they take their talking points from Twitter or YouTube. It's all glib catchphrases and everything is open to question. Economics is especially bad for it because it as a science has let us down so much lately. It's made worse by the fact that politicians with specific axes to grind have selectively grabbed chunks of economic theory to support their own beliefs, and academic economists don't do a great job at defending themselves.

As an aside, you might find this book interesting. Many of these theories/worldviews fit together and are held by the same types of people.

u/OpeningProcess · 2 pointsr/economy

If you think that's what Karl Marx wrote, I'm pretty sure you have actually have never studied Karl Marx.

Marx's experience was deeply rooted in 19th century Europe. This was the period after the 1789 French Revolution. The period when for the first time, democracy emerged, the market economy grew and finance and industrialization spread. European societies went through an unprecedented transformation when millions of peasants moved to cities and started become employed. There were no labor law or rules.

Marx argued that every society throughout history is based on a hierarchical structure. Elites at the top enjoy great wealth and free time. Non-elites have no free time or restrained free time. The conflict between those two classes take different forms in different societies. He mentions the Pleb and the Nobility in Ancient Rome, the Slaves and Masters in Greece, and the Lords and Peasants in Feodal Europe. He notices those classes have been in conflict with each others because every hierarchical order has been market by violence and revolts from the lower order when they feel that the upper order has been too abusive.

Marx did not argue against capitalism or oppose capitalism in any way.

People who claim this have never read him. Marx believed Capitalism was a formidable force that allowed to overthrow feodalism. He saw the emergence of a new class, the bourgeoisie, replacing the feodal one, as a formidable event in human history. This class made its wealth through trade and has a strong interest in rule of law.

At the time people worked up to 12, 16 hours a day in terrible conditions. This led to regular episodes of violence. Marx predicted that the bourgeoisie in a capitalist system was a formidable class because the most educated bourgeois would eventually realize that to keep their power and privilege, they would have to make concessions on the political ground and on labor grounds. For decades, strikers were beaten up, killed, and riots broke out until labor unions were recognized. Wealthy families such as the Cadburries started taking care of their workers and arguing for stronger norms to protect the most vulnerable people.

Marx also worked on Globalization. He predicted that Capitalism would always feel restrained in a national territory. He saId business, by it's very nature, would always feel an unresistible need to thrive on an international level and that one day this would happen. Marx however warned that this could also lead to great threats as each national ruling class would try to beat commercially the foreign bourgeoisies, leading to great tensions between European powers. Marx turned out to be right and this is one of the key reason why France almost went to war with Germany in the 19th century to obtain exclusivity over commercial trade outposts on the African West-Coast.

Marx believe that the business bourgeoisie played a key role in in the emergence of parliamentary democracy in England then in France, and the establishment of rule of law. He predicted that all European Kingdoms would fall under the pressure of capitalism and those countries would transform into democracies. At the time, only property owners had the right to vote. Workers, who tried to demand the right to vote, were repressed. Marx predicted that in a future society this would evolve and every citizen would have the right to vote.

Marx predicted that Capitalism would fall into crisis because of accumulation. Lack of profits because lack of a consumer base would become a major problem and would lead to falling stocks unless the government, whichh represented the common interest of the elite, decided to intervene with major public spending. He argued that Financial Crisis would happen regularly because they are normal features of the Capitalist system.

Marx supported the revolutionary movement against the Tsar in Russia. He, however, worried that another exploitative group, pretending to represent the working class, would seize power and create a dictatorship as savage and ferocious as ever before. This is exactly what happened in both Russia and China.


Marx is a man who observed the end of feodalism. Things he predicted would happen include :