Reddit mentions of Discover Your Inner Economist: Use Incentives to Fall in Love, Survive Your Next Meeting, and Motivate Your Dentist

Probably intuition-driven "thinking like an economist" books.

http://timharford.com/books/undercovereconomist/

https://www.amazon.com/Discover-Your-Inner-Economist-Incentives/dp/0452289637

https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/pop-internationalism

Consume these type of books until you stop feeling like you're learning anything from them, then look for something meatier. (Or you'll have learned economics isn't really your thing, which is also fine.)

I know I'm late to the comments but I think that I should point out one thing in particular, a quote from Frederic Bastiat:

>“Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.”

Notwithstanding the political leanings of OP or this sub or reddit in particular, it seems like this is the argument being made, that government-operated welfare must continue because we citizens wouldn't take care of each other sufficiently or efficiently. I know many people, and it certainly seems that OP and a lot of people on this sub and reddit can and would do exactly that, without regard to political leaning. It's not correct, nor is it fair to those people, to argue and imply that they want to end welfare programs because they're greedy. For me, at least, the idea to end (or greatly reduce the scope of) government-operated welfare programs would be to support the cause of increased efficiency and remove the rigidity of government policy from the equation. /r/EffectiveAltruism , if you will. In Discover Your Inner Economist, Tyler Cowen makes a great case for Effective Altruism and the desire to do the most charity with your dollar. In another chapter, he points out that when a good thing is trending, it's most beneficial to allow it to happen, even if it's only momentarily popular--such as Hurricane Relief donation boxes at cash registers and wristbands to support a cause. I would likewise say that an inefficient welfare program run by the government is better than no welfare at all, but I would argue that if we had all of our money, we could (and should) choose to use it more efficiently than the government currently is.

And so that there's no mistake of my opinion on the issue or drug testing for welfare benefits, I am strongly against it for several reasons. I'm not sure if that's part of the discussion, but I want to be clear that I grew up off and on food stamps. My opinion against drug testing confounds my right-leaning friends and family, while my stance on the reduction or elimination of welfare programs confounds my liberal friends and family. I'm open for discussion, but not angry arguments and downvoting just because you disagree. My mind has changed on many issues over the years, so if you're polite and/or sincerely want to understand my opinion, there's opportunity for either or both (or all) of us to understand each other.