(Part 2) Reddit mentions: The best international business & investing books

More books!

"The Millionaire Next Door" as I said is a must-read. For real estate, I actually learned a lot more just through Reddit and BiggerPockets than any books I read. Most of the books I read I would classify as entertainment rather than guides. I read this book on short sales after meeting the author on BiggerPockets and it's pretty useful. Tim Ferris' "The Four Hour Work Week" is a good book to read and steal mentality from, but with massive cautions; treat Tim as an eccentric madman and don't take his advice as gospel. He would tell anyone to just start an online business and then fly around the world blowing money. Trying to hype the reader up by encouraging rampant materialism is a big part of his writing style. Don't take the book too seriously, but there's a lot of really good mentality bits you can steal from it, specifically the stuff on the Pareto Principle.

I consider this book purely entertainment, but it was still a decent and easy read. I also read a book on Forex trading (this one) that taught me quite a bit on risk management and chart technicals, but I don't know that it's entirely relevant. I spent a few months trading Forex with extremely low-risk strategies and was averaging 1% a month, but I didn't like the disconnect I felt from the actual business, and I found I could make money faster in real estate (I'm doubling my net worth annually from buying the houses).

If you struggle with weight, read "Why We Get Fat" (or the bigger, harder read "Good Calories, Bad Calories") by Gary Taubes. It's the perfect book for INTJs and will completely spin your mind around on the concept of nutrition without being a dry read at all. It kept my attention the whole way through (Why We Get Fat, that is- GCBC is a dryer read and targeted at doctors, but even more informative). I would say "Why We Get Fat" is the book that had the biggest effect on my life. Even if Taubes simplifies things considerably, you quickly realize just how much nutrition advice is complete crap. I used to try to eat healthy by packing a bunch of bananas to work. No wonder losing weight was hard. (I am skinny now- didn't used to be.)


I'll send you anything else that pops in to my mind; this is just off the top of my head. I read a lot more online than actual books. FlyerTalk has the most credit card churning stuff, and BiggerPockets has the best real estate stuff. I subscribe to /r/investing , /r/realestate , /r/personalfinance , and /r/financialindependence.

Don't take anything as gospel; always analyze for yourself and ask "Why". If everyone tells you to do something a certain way, they're probably simultaneously right and wrong. It's probably the conservative option, it probably has the best risk/reward ratio, you probably can do better, but you'll probably get screwed if you try unless you're better than everyone else.

For example, most people shouldn't use credit cards for rewards. Why? The psychology aspect. It will trick you in to spending more than you would with cash or a debit card, unless you're disciplined enough to not let it. I am. So I use it. I wouldn't tell my poorer friends to get a credit card just for rewards...they'll screw up.

Common knowledge is like that. /r/investing will tell you to use nothing but index funds, or spread your money across 20 stocks. They're right to give that advice. Completely right. Most people try to be clever, but overcentralizing exposes you to too much risk and the vast majority of people who overcentralize in one stock get burned down in the end.

But when I suggested these real estate ideas with a throwaway to /r/investing, I was told "You aren't Warren Buffett" and that I shouldn't try and would lose everything. The groupthink becomes too strong.

My key advice:
Don't take advice as a law; figure out the principle behind that advice, and why that advice is given.


Oh! And learn to play Poker. Seriously...pick up a book or something, or find some serious players who will play serious games without money. (Don't gamble...but learn to judge risk/reward like a gambler. Poker is not true gambling. The best player will consistently win the majority of games.)

Hey, glad to hear you are a fan of Elliot Wave! I think mastering EW is the key to succeeding as a technical analyst. If you've been following the crypto market, maybe you've heard of my favorite EW trader, Philakone

His calls have been spooky accurate and has gained quite a following because of it. He just created a 16-hour online class covering TA and the basics of success for day / swing trading in crypto specifically, but EW can apply to all kinds of markets (just not great on individual stocks). The course is $200, and I did sign up for it, but in his case, I know he isn't a scam artist and has put out endless quality content on his youtube channel. I have made a lot more money using the tools he has given me, so I thought it was a good way to learn/reinforce my learning and show my support for him.

That being said, I'm three lessons deep and I haven't learned anything new that can't be found in his exiting youtube videos. However, they are all arranged in one place for you and explained in order, which may not hold true of his youtube videos.

Based on his recomendations I also follow Goldbug1 on trading view and Haejin Lee

I also recommed reading text books, I have read the EW bible: Elliott Wave Principle: A Key to Market Behavior by Frost and Prechter and I'm warping up reading Five Waves to Financial Freedom: Learn Elliott Wave Analysis by Ramakrishnan. The first is primarily the mechanics of EW and the second is more the application. Now, I've also started making a set of flash cards based on the important points in these books, on a program called Anki, which is used primarily by medical students. Once its a little more fleshed out, I'd be happy to share it.

As far as that goes, I would love to see a more active community here. Sharing ideas with a community and having them critiqued is essential to learning and being successful. I've been on a mission to post my TA when I see a good potential setup or do a more complex TA just to try to get this place a little more active. So, with that in mind, I'd recommend commenting, asking questions and even posting your TA here so we can learn together.

Oh what specifically?

As far as East Asia/Indian Ocean stuff, Robert Kaplan is a pretty good introduction. His book Monsoon is a really good primer on the history of the Indian Ocean region, and it's ongoing (and increasing) importance in international politics. His new book Asia's Cauldron is promising, I haven't read it yet but it is a contemporary and forward looking take at the South China Sea and its role in shaping the future of international relations in the region. I actually just bought it the other day and will be reading it soon (spending the next 18-33 months abroad doing various things). Kaplan's books tend to be a very readable mix of history, personal anecdotes, and political analysis. Sometimes he can get a bit full of himself, especially in sections of Monsoon, but he does a great job at making what he writes accessible to a wide audience while still being at least interesting to read for academics.

For a primer on broad international relations, International Politics is a great starting point. This was my introduction to the field, and while it can be quite dense, it is very informative. It is a collection of essays and articles that is aimed at an intro level IR class (100 level), so while it is certainly on the academic side of things, it is still very approachable, so long as you have the patience to occasionally look up terms and concepts, for someone with no academic background in the subject.

As far as a general reading on grand strategy, I have only heard amazing things about Charles Hill's Grand Strategies. Basically it examines military grand strategy from a historical perspective, the politics behind the strategy, and also ties it into popular literature (such as Shakespeare) in order to make the concepts approachable and digestible for the average person.

For modern military theory that is applicable to today's world, and probably worth understanding given what has been going on in the world for the past decade and what continues to happen, you might be interested in David Kilcullen's The Accidental Guerrilla. Kilcullen has two major books on insurgency, one is Counterinsurgency which is a higher level approach to the topic, while Accidental Guerrilla is a distillation of his observations and studies on counterinsurgency viewed put into a framework that would be easier for the average person to understand.

Admittedly I am a bit biased, as Francis Fukuyama is a family friend, but his latest works The Origins of Political Order and Political Order and Political Decay are great looks into how and why the state system arose, as well as flaws in political systems, corruption, etc.

His earlier (and more famous) book, The End of History and the Last Man is still a very interesting read, although without the proper framing it can be a bit odd in the current global political climate. It works off of a concept that I think is best described in Phillip Bobbit's The Shield of Achilles, which Bobbit terms the "long war". The grand concept of the Long War is that the game changing interstate conflicts throughout history have predominantly been between different types of states. It is a bit of a Darwinist look at state politics and political order, seeing different political models (democracy, communism, fascism, monarchy, etc) as directly competing, and there being a series of successors. The End of History works off of a similar premise, basically saying that once the Soviet Union collapses (it was originally formulated as a series of articles in the late 1980s), Liberal Democratic Capitalism would be the predominant political system, and that it would mark the "end of history" as we knew it up to that point. History had been dominated by massive regional and worldwide conflicts between states that often differed in structure, and that once all the major powers had pretty much gotten to the point of L-D-C, then interstate conflict as we knew it would cease to exist. Obviously conflict still exists, but it is much harder to imagine a World War III in todays world, despite tensions with Russian and China, than it would be just 30 years ago.

Once you start accepting orphans, how are you going to feel if you have to turn away children because you've reached your limit or they don't fit your age group? This is one of those things a lot of people struggle with.

I think that having some foreign volunteers is great, but I'd caution too much about depending on foreigners volunteering (or being paid) for too many things. Remember that any time you can hire locals you're providing a much larger contribution to the local economy than when someone volunteers for a year. Not to say you won't need volunteers or use them, but try to be careful to use locals when you can.

I'm not sure what you have as far as land, but hopefully you can set up a small scale farm, so as to provide most of the food for your orphanage as well as have some to sell/trade for the things you don't grow/raise. Vegetables/bananas/Chickens/etc are all fairly easy to raise and provide a return very quickly. Also, children can learn valuable skills as well.

While their may be profit in minibuses and other ventures, remember that you're a foreigner. It can be difficult to deal with all the petty theft and extra bribes that come with the knowledge that the owner is a Mzungu. Not to say don't try-but be careful.

Africa is an awesome place, and I often long to go back. You'll learn to love it too. It does have some issues from time to time though, as you're noticing. Long term you are likely going to want to invest in a generator and perhaps some solar panels. Until you're more developed and established though you probably can't plan out that need.

These books don't quite relate to orphanages, but more in general to Africa and aid throughout the world-if you haven't read them I'd recommend you get your hands on them as it can help with understanding a lot of why things are the way they are in Africa.

Africa Doesn't Matter

The Fate of Africa

Festival Elephants and the Myth of Global Poverty

And not quite related, but a nice story from a wonderful woman (who's sadly now passed away) that went to Africa in her youth, lived there her entire life, and ran an orphanage: Land of a Thousand Hills (Disclaimer: I lived very close to her house at Mugongo and I knew her as a child; I last saw her in 2005 on my last visit to Rwanda.)

Sadly, my work keeps me busy where I am and I don't really get a chance to volunteer... I'd love to transition to working with an aid agency though instead of what I do now. No luck so far, but I'll keep trying...

OP, aren't you me? I of course, don't have enough money but I do know that if I ever get a lottery I will not disclose to any one.. Not so many 'close friends' to think of, and family/ friends have(and can) ruin the relationship when money is on the way. Here is what I planned - oh, and I had in mind a sum of HK$ 60 Million. (yeah, am too greedy am I not?)

• Buy a primary residence in a flat /apartment at least above 20th floor in a good location, and mention you got it under mortgage to any one, but pay in cash.
  
  
• Buy a secondary residence in a different city and collect rent - this goes to your child's education and trust fund / future expenses.
  
  
• Let the child stay in normal school (as she is now). Ivy leagues will come later (she's just 3!!)
  
  
• Visit some of the poorest places of earth and do things rather than donating to charity and hoping it reaches the victims. I have this after reading about NGO scams in Jim Rogers' books (you should read them, they are very very useful).
  
  http://www.amazon.com/Adventure-Capitalist-Ultimate-Road-Trip/dp/0812967267
  
  http://www.amazon.com/Investment-Biker-Around-World-Rogers/dp/0812968719
  
  
• One of the charities which does this thing (do it for poor) is Food for Life. I have been part of their programs and can vouch for them; basically they cook food and distribute for poor / elderly. Since the food is cooked, can't be stolen; also, there is very little chance of pilferage since the vegetables don't cost much. Of course, if you have interest in working for other charities or soup kitchens, do it OP. I believe helping others is the best job*.
  
  
  * - Does not apply to tech support.

Now this is a question I can answer. First, if you're doing a research project on wealth in Eastern Canada, I'm happy to report that someone has already done all the work for you:

http://www.amazon.ca/Codfathers-Lessons-Atlantic-Business-Elite/dp/1552637182

For the sake of discussion, let's exclude Mary Jean Irving from the conversation. While she does reside on PEI, her family comes from NB and their business interests here are TINY in comparison to the overall vastness of their wealth. PEI isn't even a rounding error to their overall balance sheet, and they didn't make their money here.

In that book, only two Islanders warrant mentioning: Danny Murphy and Regis Duffy.This article does a great job explaining how Murphy made and continues to make money:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/timbit-titan-the-story-behind-peis-entrepreneurial-murphy-clan/article6966097/?page=all

Despite what others have said here, his brother Kevin is not in the same realm of wealth as Danny. Still rich as fuck, but not truly wealthy like Danny (who also happened to marry another wealthy Tim's franchisor).

As for Regis Duffy, he was a UPEI chemistry prof who started a business Diagnostic Chemicals selling, you guessed it, chemicals. He sold out, and the company is now known as BioVectra. He has a very low profile in comparison to Danny, partly due to personality differences but also because selling coffee requires a different approach than selling reagents.

As for Tim Banks, he is not even in the conversation. Sure, he might theoretically "own" 100 million in assets, but he also probably has 99.9 million in debt against it. There is a reason he has gone bankrupt in the past, and its called leverage. His "empire" is built on borrowed money.

The way I've explained it in the past is like this. When Danny Murphy wakes up in the morning, his biggest problem is what to do with all the excess money being thrown off by the cash spigot that is Tim Horton's (which is why he's now buying hotels); Tim Banks, on the contrary, wakes up every day wondering who he can borrow from to build his next hotel.

To us plebs on the outside, they both appear "rich as fuck". And, while that may be true in relative terms, there is a difference between being rich and being wealthy. Tim Banks is rich, Danny Murphy is wealthy.

I found some more info, here's a great post on the weedstocks subreddit from a former market maker. I also found this list on MM tactics; haven't read it yet, but at a cursory glance it looks pretty good.

Oh, and I also found this book a few days ago, and I just finished it. It includes a pitch to buy the author's trading software at the end of the book but there is still a lot of valuable information, and I find his theory on how and why MMs operate the way they do to be very compelling. He also has series of YouTube videos which are pretty good too.

This is a huge question/series of questions, and there are lots of things out there to read about the English (later British) East India Company and the VOC (Dutch East India Company). Now I realise my flair doesn't indicate this, but I wrote my undergraduate dissertation on the intersection between the English East India Company and the Royal Society in the latter half of the seventeenth century, so I am somewhat qualified to answer.

Why did they come into existence?

The English East India Company was founded in 1600 and the VOC in 1602, but they were not, by far, the first companies of this sort to arise in Europe. Both were founded for the purpose of making journeys to gather spices from the "East Indies" aka, Indonesia/Southeast Asia. At the time "companies" were groups of investors brought together to finance what was often just a single voyage. Imagine how speculative some of these voyages were at that time; they took several years in some cases and required a great initial outlay for the ship, captain, sailors, supplies, trading goods, etc., with only the promise of profit upon the safe return of the ship and the successful nature of the trading mission. The longer the voyage, the less certainty there was about any of this. Therefore groups of investors would come together and buy into a "company" and then wait up to several years for their investment to sail back into their home harbour. Sometimes a few of these investors would accompany the ship (sometimes captains were investors, for example) but often the majority were part of the rising "middle class" (not a term in use at the time, but this is what they were in nascent form) who had many interests beyond a single company.

So, as I said, the EEIC and the VOC began around 1600 for the purpose of establishing a trading cartel specifically to control multiple voyages to the East Indies, which were famous for their spices. The reason to try to control multiple voyages was because of the great uncertainties associated with single voyages; the VOC was formed in response to the formation of the EEIC, as Dutch investors feared that the English would develop a monopoly over the trade without Dutch intervention. However, the VOC quickly became more powerful and well-established than the EEIC because the Dutch government had granted it the ability to raise arms and armies, whereas the EEIC's government support was only in the form of a charter to be the only company to trade in that area. The Dutch established key trading posts and there was a period (up until the 1620s) of tension, both diplomatic and actually violent, between agents of the VOC and EEIC and therefore the Dutch and English. Around 1620, the English withdrew their interests in the spice trade for a time and the VOC were able to establish a great deal of control over trade in the area.

How did they become so powerful?
One problem that the EEIC and VOC encountered in Asia was that Europe did not have any trade goods that Asians wanted in exchange for their spices, etc. Instead, they had to pay for these things with gold and silver -- which were in short supply for both the Dutch and English since Spain and Portugal were the major producers of those two metals (thanks to their New World interests). As a result, some members of the VOC came upon the solution of creating an inter-Asian trading network to move goods through the system and eventually use the surpluses to bring trade goods to Europe. Throughout the first half of the seventeenth century, they established trading forts throughout Asia, Africa, and the Middle East, including the Cape of Good Hope, which would later be the basis for the Dutch colony in modern-day South Africa.

Meanwhile, the EEIC, throughout the seventeenth century, concentrated their trading forts in modern-day India and Pakistan. This was in part because of a highly successful mission from one EEIC merchant, Sir Thomas Roe, to the Mughal Emperor in 1612 with an introduction from King James I. So the short answer is that the two companies responded to their need for more capital to move trade goods ultimately to Europe by creating inter-Asian trading networks. As they did so, they became entrenched in local areas, particularly because their trading forts (or "factories" as they were known for the EEIC) were quasi-militarised. They became even more militarised as time went on and their successes allowed them to attain more hired troops and materiél.

The second reason why they became so powerful was because their rise was facilitated by -- and coincided with -- the creation of the modern banking/investment/stock exchange system in northern Europe, particularly in Amsterdam and London.

From wikipedia:
>By 1669, the VOC was the richest private company the world had ever seen, with over 150 merchant ships, 40 warships, 50,000 employees, a private army of 10,000 soldiers, and a dividend payment of 40% on the original investment.

Why did the companies lose power?

The two companies faced very different declines. The VOC declined due to a number of different factors: demand for the trade goods they had specialised in fell off; there was marked corruption amongst their employees; political happenings at home, particularly relating to the Napoleonic Wars, led to a fall in investment; word of some of the brutalities committed by employees of the company in China forced the Dutch government to investigate its practices; and bad bookkeeping. This decline took place over the eighteenth century and after the re-foundation of the Netherlands following the Napoleonic Wars it was re-established, but never came close to its former status.

The EEIC, meanwhile (which became the British East India Company following the Act of Union in 1707), basically came to rule the Indian subcontinent throughout the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Therefore the company essentially stopped being a company and started being a nation-state. They waged war against local rulers in India and later against China in the First and Second Opium Wars. Finally, the Indian Rebellion in 1857 brought to light some of the terrible practices of the Company, and the British government stripped it of its powers to rule India and took over the colony for itself. The remnants of the Company managed the tea trade until the 1870s but ended thereafter.

Effect on multinational corporations

I know far less about modern corporations than these two companies (which reminds me of Buster Bluth trying to use his knowledge of 18th century agrarian business to run the Bluth company: "Now, is anybody worried about a slave uprising?") but it is generally agreed that in some ways they were the first modern corporations.

Here's some suggestions for further reading:

The Company-State: Corporate Sovereignty and the Early Modern Foundations of the British Empire in India by Philip Stern -- my old adviser's new book

The Business of Empire by Bowen

Raj: The Making and Unmaking of British India by James -- more specifically about the situation in India

Dividing states to limit their power has been done. This can take many different forms, from outright division (Germany after WWII is one example) to simply taking away certain territories or colonies which are thought to increase power. In the case of Germany, the country had started two wars recently and was seen as particularly aggressive. Solving the "German Question" and preventing Germany from starting another war was thought to justify extreme measures in remaking German society. However, this strategy requires conquest of the country in question. In the case of the United States that is basically impossible due to the size of its military and the presence of its nuclear arsenal.

On the other hand, states which are too large for their own good, as opposed to the good of the rest of the world, divide themselves all the time. Internal divisions lead to violent or peaceful separation of part of the state. Rome did it peacefully and split in two. You're from the UK, so you might remember Ireland splitting off. Sudan is now two countries; the former Yugoslavia is now many. However, the difference between Germany and the above examples is that except in the case of Rome, there were major ethnic divisions that led to each country's breaking up, and in Rome, the problem was one of administration. These countries weren't split apart because they were too powerful, they split apart because the central government lacked the power to keep the country together.

Powerful countries don't just divide themselves, they have to be divided by outside forces. Although dividing powerful countries might lead to more peaceful outcomes, forcing them to do so would certainly involve a great deal of fighting. Also, the argument exists that a high concentration of power can actually lead to greater peace than some alternatives. Edward Mansfield wrote a very interesting book on the relationship between the distribution of power and the probability of war. I'd recommend you read it.

> Are they not saying the current problems of manufacturing jobs going away, income inequality, underemployment, or the recession are related to NAFTA?

I can say with confidence that the trade agreement between the the USA, Canada, and Mexico is most definitely not the primary cause the issues you listed.

http://www.cfr.org/trade/naftas-economic-impact/p15790

>But most economists say it is a stretch to blame these shifts on NAFTA. Manufacturing in the United States was under stress decades before the treaty, and job losses in that sector are viewed as part of a structural shift in the U.S. economy toward light manufacturing and high-end services. Alden says that broader economic trends affecting U.S. employment, such as China's economic rise, wouldn't be substantially altered by U.S. policy shifts toward NAFTA.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w18508.pdf

>We find that not all countries gained from NAFTA. Mexico and the U.S. gained 1.31% and 0.08% respectively, while Canada suffered a welfare loss of 0.06%. Still, real wages increased for all NAFTA members
and Mexico had the largest gains. We decompose the welfare effects into terms of trade and volume of trade
e§ects and Önd that most of the gains from NAFTA are a result of an increase in the volume of trade. We
Önd that the trade created, mostly between NAFTA members, was larger than the trade diverted from other
economies. This was particularly so for Mexico and Canada. The welfare gains from trade creation with
NAFTA members are 1.80% and 0.08% while the welfare loss from trade diversion with the rest of the world
are 0.08%, and 0.04% for Mexico and Canada respectively. Only a handful of sectors were responsible for
the aggregate volume of trade effects. These were sectors highly protected before NAFTA, like Textiles in
Mexico, with a large trade elasticity, like Petroleum, and with a large share of material use and sectoral
interdependence, like Electrical Machinery and Autos.

And the recession was the result of opaque lending practices which under priced risk.

>With wages so low abroad, why pay union wages?

Because they want to operate in the USA. When locating manufacturing on a global scale, cost isn't the only factor managers consider. Operating in lead countries gives businesses access to the latest innovations. Conducting operations close to your consumers helps anticipate their needs and speeds up response times. It also doesn't hurt that the US is politically stable, spacious, gifted with natural resources, a well developed infrastructure, and has strong property rights. For these reasons, a lot of global companies still choose to do business in the US. It may surprise you, but the United States is still by far the second largest manufacturer of goods on the planet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_sector_composition#PPP_GDP_sector_composition

If you want to know more, I recommend reading chapter 5 of Total Global strategy.

Naked Economics by Charles Wheelan
https://www.amazon.com/Naked-Economics-Undressing-Science-Revised/dp/0393337642

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:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1118950143/ref=pd_aw_sim_14_2?ie=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=BPHV27XJSYHBS8RKBT3J

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.

My main attempted ventures were foreign currency exchange. It's one of the easiest to get into and relies on a mix of statistical analysis and news analysis.

Sites:

http://www.babypips.com/

Stupid name, but takes everything step by step and has great tutorial for complete newbs.

Books:

Kathy Lien writes really good books on Forex:

http://www.amazon.com/Day-Trading-Swing-Currency-Market/dp/0470377364

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/047077035X/ref=mp_s_a_1_2?qid=1464571290&sr=1-2&pi=SY200_QL40&keywords=Kathy+Lien&dpPl=1&dpID=51nNzKy09mL&ref=plSrch

My plan was to do some hardcore studying and practice using simulation sites, and once I could consistently turn a profit above 5 or 6% (less fees, etc), I would do it for real.

Good luck!

Hardest thing was definitely getting the work permit; after that, everything else kind of fell together in a follow-your-nose domino cascade, in which each step kind of points directly to the next. We ended up hiring an immigration consultant in the UK to walk-through the application, which isn't necessary but did speed the process and increased our probability of success.

I guess the most important thing in actually making it happen is: believe it will. It may take a few years. Don't give up. You may bounce off quota limitations a few times. Don't let it faze you, because those get changed every 6mo (along with the rest of the immigration procedure...) Keep your options flexible: while London may be your ultimate goal, there are many routes to get there, some of which could entail starting with a different EU country and pursuing naturalization there (this would take many years, and assumes the UK will still be in the EU once you attain it...) You're young, and have a whole lifetime to achieve such goals. We were in our late 30's when we finally made it. Take your time, do it right.

We're bookish types, and so looked for books that might advise/ease the process. Unfortunately there's not a lot out there on expatriation, but it's worth checking Amazon's "used" listings periodically as prices fluctuate. Probably the two we found most useful were the U.S. Expatriate Handbook (generic expat guide) and Brit-Think, Ameri-Think.

The biggest mistake we made was deciding to import our US car. This was actually done on the advice of some British neighbors in the US, and we still haven't resumed talking to them after that fiasco ;-) If you're living within Greater London (inside the M-25, within 1/2 mile of a Tube station) then you probably shan't need a car at all. If you do decide to get one, note that for your first 12mo in the UK (not your first 12mo owning a car) you can drive on your US license, then you need a full UK license. It can take several months to obtain the UK license (most of my friends took 3+ attempts to pass the rigorous driving test at 1-mo intervals), so start early.

Taxes will be a minor twice-yearly nightmare. You still have to file your US taxes every April 15th, although you shouldn't have to pay much, if anything, due to the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion (read up on it). Your UK taxes will be vastly simpler by comparison, as the employer basically does it all for you. Also, don't forget to mail your FBAR (TDF-90.22) assiduously every year by June 1st (actually due the 30th, but leave time for delivery) — seriously, you can get deeply screwed if you forget that one, and there's no reminder (although it's free and only takes seconds to complete).

You can look for US Expat groups in the UK for company whilst readjusting. You'll not need them long-term, but it can be interesting to hear some local voices on first entry. There are about 60,000 US citizens in the London area, so they should be easy to find in your particular area (we met with the Thames Valley American Women's club a few times, but didn't stay long). Also of course checkout /r/london and similar. And it can be neat to attend St. Paul's annual Thanksgiving service for Americans :-)

>Your viewpoint seems to be just "it is not fair that some people got together to make trade easier without including everyone else too" which is just ridiculous.

You'd better tell Columbia University's Jagdish Bhagwati, one of the world's most famous trade economists. He wrote an [entire book] (https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B001OD41SO/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1) arguing the opposite. To [summarise] (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/eu-referendum-why-the-economic-consensus-on-brexit-is-flawed-a7057306.html):

> There is no gain in exporting to Germany, Spain and Poland rather than to the United States, Korea and China. In fact, if preferential access diverts trade away from the United States to Germany, then departure from the country’s comparative advantage hurts rather than helps, as Columbia University’s trade theorist Jagdish Bhagwati has long argued.

Bhagwati's argument is that we should be working to make the WTO better, rather than ganging up into protectionist regional blocs.

> If Chile makes better, cheaper wine than france, then they can negotiate with the EU to reduce/remove any taxes or tariffs that may be in place on Chilean wine

Don't you think there's a chance that the French government might veto this tariff-removal?

I mean, British taxpayers already have to subsidise French vineyards to the tune of [billions of euros] (http://www.politico.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Europes-Billion-Euro-Wine-Spillage.pdf), courtesy of the Common Agricultural Policy. Given we've had no luck trying to end that situation, why so confident on tariffs?

> part of the reason to use JiT is to reduce waste and increase productivity.

I have a more cynical explanation.

Adverts on Spotify have recently been informing me that Vauxhall has been a "British brand since 1897!"

Which is curiously phrased. Because while it's true that some Vauxhalls are assembled in Wales, their British content is about 25%, and they look exactly the same as Opels, generally considered German and now French-owned.

So it could be that supply chains are scattered around Europe to give consumers the false impression that cars like Vauxhalls and Fords are somehow "British". It's a marketing ruse, one that's been rumbled by Brexit - it turns out that the Toyotas and Nissan being "built" here also have less than 45% British content, meaning that they would qualify for 10% import tariffs on cars.

Volkswagen at least has the honestly to build absolutely nothing in Britain, its 4th most important market.

> It’s just a guy with an opinion, like you, like me. How many of his statements did you try to prove for yourself?

Yeah, just a guy...

Peter Zeihan has worked for the U.S. State Department, has been a part of the DC think tank community, and served as Vice President of Analysis for Stratfor, one of the world's premier private intelligence companies. He is an expert in his field. He's not just some schmuck in a fancy suit chatting shit.

>Let me tell you something. Europe has 600million inhabitants, almost double of what the US has, triple that of Russia.

The size of a population isn't as important as birthrates and demographics. Europe is in a death spiral of low birthrates. Why do you think your elected leaders are importing refugees en masse? Just because it's humane? Oh my sweet summer child. It's all about money. In two generations you won't have a tax base otherwise.

>And who thinks that the NATOs only reason for existence was the US having to protect everyone is making a big mistake.

I'm wondering if you even watched the video. NATO exists to protect global trade, and to contain Russia. Nobody is even suggesting that it wasn't in our interests or something we profited from, of course it was and of course we did.

The suggestion that the only point where NATO became effective is after 9/11 is just laughably wrong. I don't know how old you are, but my parents and I lived through the cold war. I suspect you didn't so I would suggest picking up a book or 12 and actually reading up on it instead of just talking out your ass about it.

>The US doesn’t have the only strong military in the world, either, Europe combined owns many nukes and our total military size exceed those of the US in a few areas, too. Apart from that I wouldn’t know what military size has to do with the potential success of a country.

Lol. Just... lol. First of all, that video didn't talk about military size. It talks about force projection. You can fill your ranks with every able bodied man in Europe and it won't mean shit because no country can match our ability to project force in any substantial way. And it matters because our force projection is what keeps the oil flowing and the money changing hands. We don't need free trade or oil anymore, but Europe does.

>This dude tries to make lies sound like facts by making a somewhat professional appearance, he’s mostly chanting bullshit. Most of his statements can be easily debunked or just use polemic to get a point across.

Then debunk them. Don't just chat shit, do your research, present an actual argument against anything he's said. All you have are vague notions of what's going on in the world. He wrote a whole book on the subject, complete with citations. What research have you done?

>Your „Europistan“ bullshit perfectly explained what you think about us. It’s the lies you see on Fox News every day that makes you think we are foes to you Americans. And here we thought we are friends, through similar culture, for the longest of times.

I don't even watch Fox News, other than the occasional Tucker Carlson clip on youtube. I read books. You should try it sometime.

Europe is going to be Islamic in about 2 generations without a serious shift in policy. It's just a matter of demographics. How many kids do your European friends have? Be honest. Now how many kids do you see being pushed in strollers or walked around by all your new Islamic friends? This isn't just some slur, it's the truth. Europe as we know it is going the way of the dodo. You should be far more concerned about your own country instead of worrying about our politics.

I wouldn't even bother trying to show your friend studies in this case. That would be like throwing bricks at a cloud; difficult and unlikely to have much of an impact. Just point out how ludicrous his position is: The West (where I assume you are) is not just the richest area in the world, but the richest area there has ever been. If you don't want to work in a rich society, you'll probably get some benefits. If you don't want to work in poor areas, you'll die.

I haven't read this book yet, but I'm very much looking forward to it:

Why Some Countries are Rich and Others Remain Poor.

Interesting.

It looks like the ranking compared to how the teams did in their respective leagues strongly supports the main conclusion of the people who wrote "Soccernomics": the greatest predictor of how a team will do, is how much they are spending on wages.

There are some overachivers (Man Utd, Tottenham in the EPL) and some underachivers (Liverpool seems to stand out for the EPL, and obviously Man City given that they are using in excess of 25% more than Man Utd), but it mostly seems to be a really close correlation.

That is the reason that the Robert Whiting explains in his book. Its a really good read if you have any interest in the differences between American and Japanese baseball.

http://www.amazon.com/You-Gotta-Have-Robert-Whiting/dp/067972947X

The book You Gotta Have Wa is a pretty good read as an introduction to Japanese baseball

http://www.amazon.com/You-Gotta-Have-Robert-Whiting/dp/067972947X

Otherwise try asking in /r/japan ?

It's a long story. Read this book (https://www.amazon.com/Bitcoin-Cryptocurrency-Technologies-Comprehensive-Introduction-ebook/dp/B01GGQJ2XW/ref=pd_ybh_a_20?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=W0QTCV2Y10G4GWR703PE) if you want a solid understanding. It'll be a great investment for your time and $

Great book on the impact of globalization:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1118950143/ref=pd_aw_sbs_14_1?ie=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=4NRZP0V079SB4C8HRMVB

It kind of gives a similar explanation as your professor on why child labor is not all bad.

Was in the book Soccernomics. IIRC his stats said he was tackling less often which contributed to Fergie selling him, but his tackles decreased because the team as a whole had improved meaning he was needed less often.

I used this, I really liked it and it's roughly N2 level. Great for reading newspapers.

https://www.amazon.co.jp/gp/aw/d/0804837805/ref=ppx_yo_mob_b_inactive_ship_o1_img?ie=UTF8&psc=1

The book Business Japanese starts of very easy, but introduces more advanced vocab step-by-step. Example phrases are realistic (I think), and also become harder towards the end.

If you're suspicious that large numbers of Reddit users are shilling for Ethereum, then you can't trust any answer you receive to this question on Reddit. You'll have to turn to other sources, or develop your own knowledge of the functions and problems of cryptocurrencies and how they compare to each other and fiat. I'm reading this book which I'm finding really helpful. It focuses on bitcoin of course, but is a good primer on cryptocurrencies in general.

Just like Jim Rogers: Investment Biker.

The Truth about Markets" de John Kay (https://www.amazon.com/Truth-About-Markets-Countries-Others/dp/0140296727) est pas trop mal si tu lis en anglais.

Don't forget the Princeton textbook, Bitcoin and Cryptocurrency Technologies: A Comprehensive Introduction

• (free pdf)
  
• (amazon hardcopy)

This, I think.

It's not really an economics book so much as a development book, but Africa Doesn't Matter (http://www.amazon.com/Africa-Doesnt-Matter-Poorest-Continent/dp/1559708786/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1303704171&sr=1-1) taught me a lot.