Best products from r/economy

>The question is whether middle men who use guns and force customers to pay for the services creates a better system than one where customers voluntarily get to judge for themselves the value a service offers before giving them money, and which lets them stop paying whenever the service fails to offer superior value for their money.

This is only true when you ignore the fact that we have a peaceful exchange of power between administrations every couple of years. If we don't like someone, we, as a nation, can vote someone new in. (Granted there's still a loooong way to go, but trying to make it sound like we live in a fascist police state is silly.) And another great aspect of a peaceful democracy, there's no one holding a gun to your head to stay here. If you really wanted to leave, you would. There are plenty of tax havens in the world.

>Govt funding of roads leads to rarely used roads being subsidized by everyone, while roads in high-traffic areas don't get as much for maintenance.

So you're suggesting that those on the fringe should be completely ignored? How far does this extend? Do you feel the same about the helping the poor? And in what universe are the most commonly traveled roads the less maintained? I'm gonna say you completely pulled that out of your ass. We have an economic incentive to make sure the roads most travelled are maintained. The interstate highway system is one of the most effective roadways in the world. You're far more likely to see greater variation in at the state and local level as different localities prioritize different things.

>A free market allocates resources far more efficiently, through the daily "voting" of its customers, vs. voting every thousand or so days for 1 of 2 people who generally don't really change much. REAL democracy is free market voting with your dollars.

A truly free market has one endstate: monopoly. A monopoly is antithetical to a democracy and only results in an oligarchy/plutocracy. We need government to prevent the formation of monopolies so that there can still be competition. Free market efficiency (which is only a hypothesis at best) refers to efficiency at making profit. This isn't the only metric we should judge a civilisation by. What about human suffering? Income inequality? Equal opportunity? Civil liberties? Free markets don't give a damn about any of those. The only way a free market might result in any of those is with transparency and easily accessible information about the products -- something that no business has any financial incentive to supply and only government can force.

Btw, the internet is another invention that would never have existed without the government.

> Government is a monopoly service provider who uses guns to force customers to pay a premium for an inferior product, while businesses have to give better value than they charge, or else nobody would buy from them.

Your point about inferior products is sometimes true. Just as it's sometimes a superior product that we get out of it. When I mean sometimes, I mean a hell of a lot of the time. And when I say superior, I mean products that would have never existed without government. There's a reason the government had to build the interstate highway system. It was the single largest civil works program since the Pyramids. No company could ever have afforded to build it. No company thinks on that timescale and is willing to wait on an ROI. And the US would not be the economic powerhouse it is without it.

And if government hadn't allowed certain monopolies to form, we wouldn't have gotten a completely interconnected country (in the form of telephone connections). We wouldn't have gotten radio astronomy, the transistor, the laser, information theory, the UNIX operating system, the C programming language and the C++ programming language, photovoltaic cells, undersea cables, satellites, and cell phone technology. (Read this book if you'd like to know how deep and important the public-private partnership was and how much the world owes to Bell Labs. It's also a great case study of the pros and cons of government-sanctioned monopolies and a great book overall.)

Those are just two examples. You could literally write a handful of doctoral theses on all the great products, services, and knowledge that only exist because of government.

In a completely free market, no company has a financial incentive to fund basic science research or build infrastructure without having the average citizen pay out the nose. Government is required to maintain competition and keep prices low and fight price fixing.

> Services done by the "private" sector that are currently more expensive than they should are all heavily regulated by government more than customers, such as health care.

Of course, if you want to mention healthcare, I hope you remembered that out of all the OECD countries, we're the only ones without universal healthcare. We also have the most expensive per capita healthcare, and the largest source of individual bankruptcy is from medical bills. And in your magical land of free markets and no regulation, insurance companies are only beholden to making profit for shareholders, so people with pre-existing conditions will be laughed out the door and into the funeral home. And the same for anyone who simply can't afford insurance. But at least there'll be huge profits!

> Services like smartphone production don't have much regulation, WE are the regulators and the trend of increasing quality at lower prices is the result.

Smartphones wouldn't even exist in a free market. The technologies they were based on would never have been developed. And without government regulation, there would be companies clashing over who uses what frequencies.

No one who knows anything about the history of science and innovation or civil rights or education or a host of other areas would argue that a free market would be better for the world. The answer to bad government isn't no government (nor even smaller nor bigger). It's better government (where better means more effective, more efficient, and more responsible and accountable).

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.

https://smile.amazon.com/How-Economy-Grows-Why-Crashes/dp/047052670X

Or you can start here for free: https://mises.org/library/one-lesson

VI. Logrolling and Vote Trading

The public choice concept of ‘ logrolling ’ denotes the exchange of favors among the political factions in order to get one’s favored project through by supporting the projects of the other group. This conduct leads to the steady expansion of state activity. Through the ‘quid pro quo’ of the political process, the lawmakers support pieces of legislation of other factions in exchange for obtaining the political support for their own project. This behavior leads to the phenomenon of ‘legislative inflation’, the avalanche of useless, contradictory and detrimental law production.

VII. Common Good

The so-called ‘ common good’ is not a well-defined concept. Similar terms, such as that of the ‘public good’, which is defined by non-excludability and non-rivalry, misses the point because it is not the good that is ‘common’ or ‘public’ but its provision when this is deemed more efficient by collective than individual efforts. However, this is the case with all goods and the market itself is a system of providing private goods through cooperative efforts. The market economy is a collective provider of goods as it combines competition with cooperation. Any of the so-called ‘public goods’, which the government supplies, the private sector can also deliver, and cheaper and better as well. In contrast to the state, the cooperation in a market economy includes competition and thus not only economic efficiency but also the incentive to innovate.

VIII. Regulatory Capture

The term ‘ regulatory capture ’ denotes a government failure where the regulatory agency does not pursue the original intent of promoting the ‘public interest’ but falls victim to the special interest of those groups, which the agency was set up to regulate. The capture of the regulatory body by private interests means that the agency turns into an instrument to advance the special interests of the group that was targeted for regulation. For that purpose, the special interest group will ask for extra regulation to obtain the state apparatus as an instrument to promote its special interests.

IX. Short-Sightedness

The political time horizon is the next election. In the endeavor that the benefits of political action come quickly to their specific clienteles, the politician will favor short-term projects over the long-term even if the former bring only temporary benefits and cost more in the long run than an alternative project where the costs come earlier and the benefits later. Because the provision of public goods by the state severs the link between the bearer of the cost and the immediate beneficiary, the time preference for the demand for the goods that come apparently free of charge by the state is necessarily higher than in the market system.

X. Rational Ignorance

It is rational for the individual voter in a mass democracy to remain ignorant about the political issues because the value of the individual's vote is so small that it makes not much difference for the outcome. The rational voter will vote for those candidates who promise most benefits. Given the small weight of an individual vote in a mass democracy, the rational voter will not spend much time and effort to investigate whether these promises are realistic or in a collision with his other desires. Thus, the political campaigns do not have information and enlightenment as the objective but disinformation and confusion. What counts, in the end, is to get votes. Not the solidity of the program is important but the enthusiasm a candidate can create with his supporters and how much he can degrade, denounce, and humiliate his opponent. As a consequence, election campaigns incite hatred, polarization, and the lust for revenge.

Sort of. Lets say a bank has $100 in deposits. They assume that not everyone is going to withdraw their money at the same time. So there's a bunch of money sitting around. They take some fraction of that money and lend it to people. So the money isn't coming from "thin air," it's depositors' money, and in some ways it remains depositors' money even when the bank lends it out. The government can (to some degree) control the fraction of deposits that can be lent out to people. This is what allows you to earn interest on your savings account, and what allows you to take out a mortgage, etc. Other commentors here are saying really negative things about this system, but that seems ridiculous to me. The banking system is amazing! It makes our economy so much more functional, it creates opportunities for entrepreneurship, saving, easier transactions, etc. Debt is not an inherently negative thing. It's one of the most brilliant human inventions. Seriously. Sometimes people need more or less money than they have right now (of course!), and facilitating the exchange of loans for interest is hugely beneficial-- to both parties. I'm nerding out a little bit here, sorry.

Basically, please talk to an economics professor or even take a basic Macroecon class before you create a thesis on it. Please. There are a lot of strange ideas about debt and fiat currency and so forth floating around the internet (and real life), and while there is some basis for some these beliefs, they're generally unfounded. It's very hard to wrap your head around the idea that money is worthless pieces of paper, or even just numbers in a computer (until we imbue them with value), but that fact doesn't take away from the value that we've given to those pieces of paper. Don't forget that this sort of banking system has been working for thousands of years, because, in the end, it's brilliant, simple, beneficial, and efficient. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_banking)

The best book about banking and money that I've ever read is "Money" by Eric Lonergan. It has some slightly technical language, but I think you'd still get the gist of what he's saying, and it will help you understand the banking system.


edit: I hit submit before I finished!

>you're using nominal dollars as the marker of the 1%

Why is this a problem? Take the net worth of everyone in the world, pick out the households that have the highest, and keep going down the list until you hit 70 million people (about 1% of the world's population). Or we could do it by household income too with a similar method. How would you measure "the 1%" of the world?

>Flip to actual net WEALTH, and adjust for PPP and you end up with an entirely different picture...

Well, since you brought it up, why don't you link the data? I'm going to give my source:

Credit Suisse estimates that the Top 1% globally has >$1M in total net worth. This chart says .7% but I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and round up.

So in terms of total net worth, I stand by my statement. At $1M total net worth, minus house and retirement savings, how much money in "trust funds and foundations" are we really talking about here?

I'm going to repeat. the only foundations and offshore corporates you're starting with that money are "Rainy Day Fund Association" and "Offshore Splurge on a New Sedan LP". $1M liquid net worth on a household basis is far from your comical depiction of guys with top hats and monocles (who of course, later in the day will don hooded robes, chant in a circle around an eternally burning flame and plot to stop the world).

>The Times had estimated the threshold for being in the top 1 percent in household income at about $380,000,

According to the article, that's only using Federal Reserve data for the United States. As you noted, the OP was speculating on the Top 1% all over the world.

World Bank economist Branko Milanovic wrote a book once. He calculates therein that the Top 1% in earnings per year is about $35k per person per household. So this is a little over $100k by household. Certainly a lot of people in the US would qualify. Wikipedia says the top 10% of Americans would comfortably qualify into this bucket. So you have to be successful (or married), but not insanely so. And yet you can say with certainty that the Top 10% of people are all just lazy bums who had everything handed to them and don't have any practical skills? Not in my experience.

That's 30 million people dude. How many big time non-self-made CEOs in that bucket? 10,000? 20,000? 100,000? A rounding error no matter how you slice it. Most people in that bucket will be people who have skills and work hard.

As for "da 99 percent" left behind? Well, here's the funny thing about percentages, there always has to be someone at the top. Of those left behind, "da one percent" of those people own productive assets and businesses and also be hard workers.

Will we send those people out on ice flows too?

Would you trust a doctor paid by the pharma industry?

Would you trust a corporate university that sells degrees?

Would you trust a hospital run for profit?

Would you trust a politician owned by pro-Israel donors?

Would you trust a media run by Comcast?

Would you trust a military spokesman about spying?

Would you trust think tanks paid by foreign countries ?

Would you trust an anti-union "non profit", an anti-environnement "non profit" and a pro-tobacco "non profit" all actually run and paid by big corporations ?

The goal of a business is to make as much money as possible.

I'm not surprised.

Believe it or not, the same phenomenon exists on reddit. As soon as you bring up certain topics or certain corporations, you will have a ton of people that will come to reddit to defend them. Sometimes they create fake accounts to look more honest. Lying is a huge industry.

Never trust shit you see online if you don't see who is behind it.

I only trust democratically run and independant organizations like community-funded consumer unions and community-funded medias

Just some further "food for thought" from my own experience that I felt people might find interesting.
-----

---

While the article itself is about the additional costs (childcare, etc) related to the "second earner" in a two income household (which I think E. Warren fully delineated -- and even made additional points the article did not address, things like income/financial vulnerability -- in her book, "The Two Income Trap").

But I think there is ALSO a lot of merit in looking at even the original/single/primary earner's "costs of holding Job X" in a similar fashion as well.

When I switched from a full-time commuting job (and one just a 30 minute drive away no less) to working from home, I noticed a dramatic drop in attendant expenses, to wit:

1. No longer was I piling on 20,000 to 25,000 miles per year -- some 15,000+ of which were just going to/from work (60 miles per day, 5 days per week, ~50 weeks per year = 15,000 miles). At the IRS's current (and probably understated) "cost" of 55 cents per mile that's about $8250 a year. And remember that commuting costs are coming out of your NET (after tax) earnings.
   
   
2. While the ending of that daily commute also meant the "loss" of the ability to stop at the grocer "on the way home" (and so grocery shopping becomes a specific additional trip) -- this ended up NOT being a "loss" at all, but rather the source of additional savings for at least 3 reasons:
   
   

• I could now CHOOSE the specific grocery based on best-value, rather than simply buying at the one that was the "easiest" (read "closest to my commuting route").
  
  
• Since grocery/food shopping is no longer being done when "weary" and on a "time to get home" constraint -- rather than buying a significant percentage of food as things that would be either "no-need to cook" or "quick/painless to cook" (i.e. various take-out, frozen dinners, box-mix-meals, etc.) -- I am able to be more relaxed and "selective" about it all, and can develop a real "long view" shopping list related to the quality/value of the food (which also has health & just general sense of well-being benefits).
  
  
• And of course, "fast food" for lunch has become a rarity instead of a "default" option. (When you work at home, making your own lunch is significantly easier/faster in every possible way -- when you commute, it is all too easy to "default" to some fast-food option when you either forget to pack a lunch, or are tired of the same-old cold sandwich routine. And even if only a 2x per week and tight-fisted $5 per meal, that can come to $500 or more a year -- add in "snacks" bought from vending machines, or the quick-stop on the way to/from work and you can toss another $500 or more... and again all coming out of one's NET, after tax income.)
  
  

3. Surprisingly enough, while I had expected that -- absent the ability to "stop on the way home" -- that I would get some kind of "cabin fever" and as a result would end up making a LOT of additional OTHER "trips to town". Turned out the opposite was true: as I grew accustomed to NOT driving on a daily basis, it became a habit to NOT drive places (i.e. driving begets more driving; not driving begets LESS driving) -- and I also began to "plan my trips" much more efficiently. End result was that instead of putting on an additional 5,000 to 10,000 miles per year on my vehicles (over and above the commuting mileage), instead I was able to reduce my mileage to around 3,000 miles per year. (Which not only engenders a HUGE savings on fuel, but also via the wear & tear on the vehicle -- so tires and everything else, including the vehicle itself, last a lot longer.)
   
   
4. With the change in driving patterns, and the more extensive planning of shopping trips, I became much more "aware" of the costs of "comparative shopping" (aka additional driving as a means of "bargain hunting"). Since driving across town to another store (where object X might be $2 cheaper) -- rather than being something that might "happen anyway" in the near future -- instead meant a significant change in plans and extra fuel/mileage, I began to realize how those "bargains" often were not bargains at all (especially since "while you are there" at the other store you are very likely to buy extra things you don't need).
   
   Long story short... even though I am single (so no childen, no child-care costs) I found that I was spending anywhere from $10k to $15k of my NET after tax income on basically "having a job" (that I commuted to/from daily). That meant for my income/tax situation, on a GROSS basis I needed to make (at least) an additional $20k to $25k a year -- in essence because employees cannot deduct all expenses like a business can -- I was "subsidizing" my employer by that amount to have me work "on-site" for him. I could live the exact SAME level of lifestyle, while making significantly LESS (and of course as your income drops, so do your taxes... so you functionally get to "keep" substantially more of the value of your own work/efforts).
   
   ---
   
   EDIT: Also, I would like to note for all of the "ride a bike" folks that the location of that particular employer (as well as the previous employer) was in an area with significantly higher housing costs (both rental AND/OR purchase would have more than doubled my monthly housing expenses), so "moving closer in order to bike to work" would have not only shifted the costs from driving to housing, but would have actually significantly increased my total costs as well (HUGELY with the prior employer, which was located smack dab in the middle of the highest-cost housing in my state).
   
   Plus, of course I LOVE the relaxing, laid back location of my nice, but inexpensive and paid off, rural home (in an area that OTHER people buy second/vacation homes in, and spend 3+ hours driving to on Friday evenings, and another 3+ hours driving home from on Sunday night) -- a short distance from and with rights to several lakes, plus nearby state forests with walking/biking/XC & downhill skiing, not to mention my large almost 1 acre lot with garden, fruit trees & vines, etc -- in short by I don't need to travel to a relaxing destination for my "vacations", I already LIVE there!
   
   ---
   
   EDIT2: Note also that I am NOT claiming to be "perfectly frugal" -- I do still buy things I probably don't need, take occasional "wasteful" trips to town, etc. -- just that now that I am NOT commuting every day, the "opportunities" to do so are significantly fewer (probably 1/10th or 1/20th of what they were before); and I have been able to reduce what I previously budgeted for them (and then, SURPRISE! I have often found that over a whole year I have significantly under-spent what I had budgeted... who knew that would happen?)

It's not theft. Man if I had a nickel for every post like yours.

Go back 40 years. Was the income gap smaller? Yes. Was the government 'stealing' the money from the rich?

http://www.amazon.com/Spirit-Level-Equality-Societies-Stronger/dp/1608190366

Greater equality makes societies stronger. High income gaps create crime.

The rich get their money through a system of laws and rules that society sets up collectively. Right now the laws only really benefit the rich, not the poor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income_guarantee

Four nobel prize winning economists seem to think that taxing the rich and giving money to the poor is a good idea, not to mention two famous libertarian economists are two of the four on the list.

> 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?

> The markets, that is the collection and sum of all humans in the world, assign value to everything

No They don't. That is the error upon which all your other false statments are based. The free market only measures value in a very particular narrow band. It reduces a rich complexity of values to a singular metric and it does so in a way that is biased towards particular values.

The central reason for this is because it is impossible to have a perfect free market, as a result of this, monoplies always develop, which in turn distort the market in many ways: e.g. through propoganda, media and the manipulation of governments and market mechanisims. Resulting in people spending in ways that they would not otherwise do, and often against their own interests.

Humans are not perfectly aware actors in the market place, they are largely unconcious, goverend by many unconcious congnitave biases and emotional drives.

The free market is fundemtaly biased towards human values that are selfish, greedy, manipualtive and consumptive. Humans are capable - and do - express a far richer set of values than a free market encourages, despite the free market being the dominant form of values exchange.

I don't understand why this is such a hard concept to understand. It is a first years social science topic.

I'm going to bed. If you want more go and argue with Herman Daly or Karl Polyiani

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:

• Ray Dalio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Dalio)
  
• Hugh Hendry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Hendry)
  
• James Grant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Grant_%28finance%29)
  
• Bill Gross (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gross)
  
• Mohamed El-Erian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_A._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.
  
  3.
  Other notable economic/political figures:
  
  
• Robert Prechter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.
  
  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:
  
  
• The bond market (http://www.amazon.com/Bond-Book-Everything-Treasuries-Municipals/dp/0071358625)
  
• The history of precious metals
  
• Keynesianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Maynard_Keynes)
  
• Ludwig von Mises and the Austrian School of economics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises)
  
• 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.
  
  5.
  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:
  http://www.amazon.com/How-Economy-Grows-Why-Crashes/dp/047052670X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1322700761&sr=8-1
  
• 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
  
  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.

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.

>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?

http://www.rfe.org 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 (https://www.nber.org/) has a pretty decent selection but you have to become a member to read beyond the abstracts

http://repec.org/ 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).

1. (a) Source Of The Submitted Link
   
   * "Daniel Sheehan 2019: The Trajectory of Justice" by Romero Institute: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLVza7sesLJh5EM3OE4417e3yiTyndRR6a
   
   * Syllabus for "The Trajectory of Justice in America: 2019" by Daniel P. Sheehan: https://danielpsheehan.com/tja2019/
   
   Source for #1a: https://www.reddit.com/r/worldpolitics/comments/9tjr5w/american_exceptionalism_when_others_do_it/e8wq72m
   
   Via: "A Closer Look At The Unidentified Flying Object (UFO) Phenomenon" at https://www.reddit.com/r/worldpolitics/comments/7k8p42/the_pentagons_secret_search_for_ufos_funded_at/drcdbmo
   
   (b) In "CONCLUSIONS" (page 208) read from page 226 (start at "In the end, it is irrelevant whether") to page 228 in the book titled "October Surprise: America's Hostages in Iran and the Election of Ronald Reagan" by Gary Sick, published in 1991: https://www.amazon.com/October-Surprise-Americas-Hostages-Election/dp/0812919890 or http://web.archive.org/web/20160630192700/hongpong.com/archives/2008/07/23/iran-contra-cliffs-notes-hostage-crises-psyops-and-gop-perception-management-see
   
   (d) Oil, United States of America (USA), Kuwait, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, And Operation Desert Storm: "The Trajectory of Justice in America: 2019" by Daniel P. Sheehan
   
   Start at 11:30 (11 minutes and 30 seconds), 4 April 2019, "From Desert Storm to Donald Trump: Daniel Sheehan 2019 Class #2": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6t4fkW9hhhA&list=PLVza7sesLJh5EM3OE4417e3yiTyndRR6a&index=3&t=0s
   
   Start at 1:12:58 (1 hour and 12 minutes and 58 seconds), 23 April 2019, "What Mueller Missed — The Narrative No One Is Talking About: Daniel Sheehan 2019 Class #7" -- see #1e: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcCjrNiRjdo&list=PLVza7sesLJh5EM3OE4417e3yiTyndRR6a&index=8&t=0s
   
   (e) Information for Class #7, 23 April 2019
   
   - "CHAPTER SIX : THE MAYFLOWER HOTEL : April 2016" in the book "Proof of Collusion: How Trump Betrayed America" by Seth Abramson, published in 2018: https://books.google.com/books?id=L6B2DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA124&lpg=PA124&ots=p46T2iZ68Z
   
   - "The Global Oil Rush : Mini Teaser: Given rising demand and dwindling supplies, consuming nations should look south and east." by Robert C. McFarlane ("Bud"), published on 1 June 2006: https://nationalinterest.org/print/article/the-global-oil-rush-302 (page 1 of 2), https://nationalinterest.org/article/the-global-oil-rush-302/page/0/1 (page 2 of 2)
   
   See also: https://nationalinterest.org/commentary/taking-tnis-advice-the-global-oil-rush-1500 (9 March 2007, "Taking TNI's Advice: The Global Oil Rush : In the Summer 2006 issue of The National Interest, former National Security Advisor Robert C. McFarlane addressed Brazil’s potential contribution to American energy independence.")
   
   
2. (a) Read
   
   https://www.reddit.com/r/worldpolitics/comments/bndbsz/the_christian_nation_fiction_then_and_now_by/en4jss6
   
   (b) Read
   
   https://www.reddit.com/r/worldpolitics/comments/9tjr5w/american_exceptionalism_when_others_do_it/e8wq72m
   
   (c) Read
   
   "In trade wars of 200 years ago, the pirates were Americans" by Paul Wiseman, published on 28 March 2019: https://apnews.com/b40414d22f2248428ce11ff36b88dc53
   
   Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/worldpolitics/comments/9tjr5w/american_exceptionalism_when_others_do_it/e8wq72m
   
   (d) Read
   
   https://www.reddit.com/r/worldpolitics/comments/asnmu1/washingtons_paralysis_requires_a_constitutional/egvet2g
   
   Source: "A Closer Look At The Unidentified Flying Object (UFO) Phenomenon" at https://www.reddit.com/r/worldpolitics/comments/7k8p42/the_pentagons_secret_search_for_ufos_funded_at/drcdbmo
   
   (e) Read
   
   "The US: An 'Empire in Retreat' : In his new book, Victor Bulmer-Thomas argues that the US needs to accept its imperial decline and reinvent itself" by Paul Hockenos, published on 6 May 2019: https://www.ips-journal.eu/regions/north-america/article/show/the-us-an-empire-in-retreat-3435/
   
   Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/worldpolitics/comments/9tjr5w/american_exceptionalism_when_others_do_it/e8wq72m
   
   or
   
   http://old.reddit.com/r/worldpolitics/comments/9tjr5w/american_exceptionalism_when_others_do_it/e8wq72m
   
   
3. (a) The National Press Club, 18 October 2016, Bradley C. Birkenfeld "talked about his book, Lucifer's Banker: The Untold Story of How I Destroyed Swiss Bank Secrecy, about exposing efforts by Swiss bank UBS to shelter billions of dollars for American clients. Mr. Birkenfeld was a banker for UBS and informed the Justice Department and IRS about the bank's practices in 2007.": https://www.c-span.org/video/?417080-1/bradley-birkenfeld-discusses-lucifers-banker
   
   "'Lucifer's Banker' Book Launch Party" by The National Press Club -- the event was held on 18 October 2016 at The National Press Club in Washington, District of Columbia, United States of America: https://www.press.org/events/lucifers-banker-book-launch-party-invite-only
   
   (b) Read 'Supplemental For "Number 7"' -- 911, 9/11, September 11, 2001 -- (#2) at https://www.reddit.com/r/worldpolitics/comments/7k8p42/the_pentagons_secret_search_for_ufos_funded_at/dv5vibm
   
   Via: https://www.reddit.com/r/worldpolitics/comments/7k8p42/the_pentagons_secret_search_for_ufos_funded_at/dtzhc5x))
   
   Source: "A Closer Look At The Unidentified Flying Object (UFO) Phenomenon" at https://www.reddit.com/r/worldpolitics/comments/7k8p42/the_pentagons_secret_search_for_ufos_funded_at/drcdbmo
   
   (c) Rick Wiles, host of Trunews, interviews Russian economist Dr. Tatyana Koryagina on American Freedom News in November 2001, weeks after September 11, 2001 (9/11). The interview begins at 07:35 (7 minutes and 35 seconds) and ends at 55:09 (55 minutes and 9 seconds). This interview was rebroadcast on 20 November 2008 by Rick Wiles on Trunews (trunews.com): https://www.reddit.com/r/worldpolitics/comments/4sle68/rick_wiles_interviews_russian_economist_dr/d5a7v66
   
   Audio file: https://web.archive.org/web/20111016052117/www.trunews.com/Audio/11_20_08_thursday_trunews2.mp3
   
   Via + Much more: #2 at https://www.reddit.com/r/worldpolitics/comments/7k8p42/the_pentagons_secret_search_for_ufos_funded_at/duwoo9d
   
   Source: "A Closer Look At The Unidentified Flying Object (UFO) Phenomenon" at https://www.reddit.com/r/worldpolitics/comments/7k8p42/the_pentagons_secret_search_for_ufos_funded_at/drcdbmo
   
   or
   
   http://old.reddit.com/r/worldpolitics/comments/7k8p42/the_pentagons_secret_search_for_ufos_funded_at/drcdbmo
   
   (d) Watch and listen to the 9/11 (911) videos by Citizen Investigation Team: https://vimeo.com/cit
   
   Source + Much more: #2 -- 9/11, 911, September 11, 2001 -- at https://www.reddit.com/r/worldpolitics/comments/7k8p42/the_pentagons_secret_search_for_ufos_funded_at/duwoo9d
   
   Via: "A Closer Look At The Unidentified Flying Object (UFO) Phenomenon" at https://www.reddit.com/r/worldpolitics/comments/7k8p42/the_pentagons_secret_search_for_ufos_funded_at/drcdbmo
   
   or
   
   http://old.reddit.com/r/worldpolitics/comments/7k8p42/the_pentagons_secret_search_for_ufos_funded_at/drcdbmo
   
   - Citizen Investigation Team: http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com

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.

http://www.amazon.com/Currency-Wars-Making-Global-Crisis/dp/1591845564/

Henry Hazlitt - Economics in One Lesson: The Shortest and Surest Way to Understand Basic Economics. Its Wikipedia entry, full free PDF, Amazon, Youtube. Epub version available in P2P.

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

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.

Its hard to get a solid introduction to the subject without a hidden political view. Most people I know have enjoyed Naked Economics (http://www.amazon.com/Naked-Economics-Undressing-Science-Revised/dp/0393337642). Also, Colander's economics textbook (http://www.amazon.com/Economics-David-Colander/dp/0073375888) tries very hard to present a wide variety of view points, which is sadly not typical