BASIC ECONOMICS: Ask a political-economist anything about basic economics

>age
Nice try, FBI
>sex
male

Is attracting foreign multinational companies through low-taxes, a low min. wage, and maintaining a good line of credit the only way to develop the ethnostate?

Thoughts on innovative infantile protectionism?

Would distributing the profits of national resources amongst citizenry be a good idea?

Attached: 1545395091397.jpg (3519x2517, 1.87M)

276 Earth Years/Clone-Based Unisex

What's going on with the markets lately?

Attached: 1476326492997.jpg (640x616, 57K)

Sorry, I don't have Excel pulled up, and I would need access to census data which I don't have at the moment.

Do you have a follow-up concern regarding whites and world population? May be better just to get to the root concern.

Regarding Jews, please see my response to the previous poster:

20m
Why isn't all the money printing causing large levels of inflation?

31M
Will some form of UBI for the masses be necessary in the future?
If not, what alternatives do societies have for a declining job market?
Also, please explain the pros and cons of UBI.

No. But economics is likely the main cause. First we need to define economics.

Economics is: The allocation of scarce resources that have alternative uses.

We can allocate scarce resources through several different means:

1. Trade or barter.
2. Rationing.
3. A pricing system in a market economy.
4. Violence.
5. Lawsuits.
6. Subsistence (living off the land directly).

Global migration is happening everywhere currently. The root causes are the disparity in wealth.

1st world nations have a pull effect economically. 3rd world nations have a push effect. No one wants to live in a desert with cactus when eating cheeseburgers and masturbating to high definition porn is the alternative.

Add to this factor the droughts that have occurred in Syria and in portions of South America AND the lower human capital in these areas (people with less economic expertise) causing people to turn toward self-cannibalizing socialism, and well... you get the ingredients for mass migrations eventually.

Regarding the loan-payoff hypothesis. No. You can't payoff loans when your society is devolving into civil unrest. Does that mean that those in the ivory tower upper echelons of society didn't see it as an opportunity to payoff debt? They likely did see it as that at first. But this is marginal and it was not planned; and it quickly became apparent it was a bad idea any way. (See France.)

No one in the world has the kind of power to cause mass migrations. (Could I get you to move from your home? Short of violence, unlikely.)

But the migrations can still be explained by economics.

When resources are scarce people often turn to conspiracy theories of secret string pullers. (People often did this in the lead up to the French Revolution when there was constant bread scarcity. People believed farmers were trying to get rich with high prices. In truth, it was farm mismanagement.) It's often far easier and more direct to explain the scarcity of resources through economics.

20, Male
Why did you choose such a boring major? Normal economics seems more interesting

1. A derivative is a financial security with a value that is reliant upon, or derived from, an underlying asset or group of assets. The derivative itself is a contract between two or more parties, and its price is determined by fluctuations in the underlying asset. The most common underlying assets include stocks, bonds, commodities, currencies, interest rates and market indexes. (Source: Investopedia)

2. Do you mean what are the most accurate measurements? I'm unfamiliar with the term inflator.

3. That goes beyond basic economics, and even then, I think only the Federal Reserve knows. However, you may find a better answer than I can provide if you look up Economics 19th Edition by Paul A. Samuelson. There are likely copies online that you can Ctrl F through. Good luck.

So in regards to your response.
But it's obvious that there's a control on the finance sector. I mean obviously it's a family business that has been going on for generations but it's more than being the president of the U.S, the fact that they have been amassing wealth trough licit and illicit methods while having a hegemony in certain domains such as: information (news,films,books) and over representation on all the top companies (2% having 40% to 100% on high positions in a company).
I just don't think it is unjust to affirm that when you have the control of a market, it's not called a hegemony. As they can control information in terms of volume and quality.
Now are you going to tell me that the banking system isn't controlled by the Jews? Look at what happened to the Templars(because they've set the first banking system) and what happened to the Jews along centuries, it wouldn't be just "oppression" (The Ugly Duchess)
But I have no expertise in economics and thank you for the response.

>4. Those with tripcode names will receive priority because it's easier to maintain the line of thought if there are follow-up questions.
Unnecessary, we have ID now. Tripcodes are completely superfluous

Thanks. About question 1, I get that much, but still don't understand how in the minty fresh hell they work. About 2, yeah, the commodity whose value is supposed to remain constant as the value of the currency changes. I'm probably misusing the term inflator, but I thought it meant a thing used for this purpose. I've heard of people using Big Macs, bread, cars, and precious metals as inflators. About 3, cheers, I'll look it up.

23M

Is fractional reserve bank ultimately an unsustainable ponzi scheme? It's fundamentally usury, a practice that has always been taboo.

The counter arguement to this I've heard is that the economy isnt a zero sum game. But to this I argue that the value of the currency should merely increase.

Apologies if the phrasing is poor.

I'm answering because you took the time to tripcode.

1. The fastest way to develop any state is to put a group of civilized individuals into a new geographic area that has a lot of flat fertile soil and many East-West rivers. The lower profits of stock will occasion higher wages of labor. Wage earners will then go on to become profit earners themselves. The cycle will repeat. High wages relative to low profits (through natural means of the economy--not forced socialism) will cause a population boom. Regardless of ethnicity, but with regard to civility. This is why Germans and British eventually became one group of people in America--where previously they were two separate ethnicities.

2. Economists have always made an exception when it comes to national security. As an example: restrictions used to be placed on sail cloth for ships in the 1770s since it was tool a military could use for their Navy. The scope of national security is growing wider (see silicon chips and A.I. for instance). Beyond that, protectionism will generally hurt a nation. There is damn good reason to impose tariffs on China for national security--and to engage in more trade with her neighbors--if that's what you're getting at.

3. Profits are not "distributed".

Price x Quantity = Revenue

Revenue - Cost = Profit

Thus, profit can be positive or negative. Should we distribute negative profits? The answer is no. With that said, positive profit margins are generally only 8% to 15%. No reason to "distribute" those. They're already being competed for on a daily basis.

Now if you are addressing super-normal *monopoly* profits that's a different issue. Companies that make repeated monopoly profits should in general be broken up. Adam Smith explained in great detail how and why monopolies hurt societies.

A very gradual bear market is encroaching. This is a good thing to clean out the Caesar's Palace speculation and to prevent your economy and inflation from overheating.

23, male

Is the russian fiscal policy the best fiscal policy for a emerging country?

>tripfag
how about I just hide this thread instead?

Are you specifically asking about Quantitative Easing? If yes, then the simple answer is that this money was never allowed into the great economy--thus the VALUE (purchasing power) of goods and services--could not be diluted, and therefore the store of value within the money stayed the same.

So why isn’t Austrian school of economoc theory being considered to get the west out of the mess we’re in??

Did you figure out that the central banks are run by demons yet?

Attached: 1542918659288.png (659x525, 205K)

>Are you specifically asking about Quantitative Easing?
Yes.
QE was largely used to purchase things like toxic derivatives (of things like mortgage backed securities) right? So in that case, is it almost like a completely separate economy based on betting on asset prices?
How do derivatives interact with the "real" economy?

Do you admit that central banking is a Ponzi Scheme?

Attached: ponzi.jpg (1067x600, 206K)

We already have Social Security in the USA. It would not be much of a leap to turn Social Security into Basic Security.

With that said, it'll only be a basic safety net. Hayek talks a bit about the risks of Security vs. Freedom in Chapter 9 of The Road to Surfdom. I recommend reading that first and foremost.

On Basic Income some groups of people may choose to live like hippies or as recluses as a result. Not good. Charles Murray discusses this in his argument for Basic Income. Depending on the demographics this can be eased with required education in basic economics and business so people can get out of a rut when they wish.

There will never be a declining job market. Why? Because there will always be demand. If Ferrari cars tomorrow suddenly became as plentiful as sand their VALUE (purchasing power) would diminish like sand. People would then want something else that's even higher technology. See the horse drawn buggy vs. the first car.

With that said, I think most people should read the book Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell when it comes to being in a situation where your job IS IN a declining job market. If anything, just listen to the audio book when driving around in your car.

If you need specific advice regarding a job situation you're in right now, please ask. Be specific about the type of work though.

Trust me, it's not boring.

I live in a free world. I can take those portions of economics that help me, and leave those that don't. One can ignore the boring stuff.

checked and correct

I recently read that Milton's economic theories singlehandedly changed the post war economic structure (towards acceptence of union jobs, living wages, pensions that are honored) into "greed is good" by emphasizing that shareholder value is placed above all other obligations, and in my opinion, leading to the broken system of stagnating wages and unmanageable income inequality we see today.

Do you see any way forward towards resetting the balance between labor and business? If so what would be the most likely way economically?

Attached: 1409365880458s.jpg (125x125, 2K)

32M. Invisible Handshake.

How much tax money per year goes to Wal Mart employees on public benefits?

So farming is the fastest way to develop a nation?

I thought focusing on specialized Industry like South Korea, Japan, and post-war Germany was the fastest way to develop.

>protectionism serves no economic purpose

Do you have any formal education in economics?

I've been taught that infantile protectionism, executed correctly, has many economic benefits.
An obvious one is protecting promising economic ventures from companies that rely on economies of scale. It's the way America, Japan, SK, and many other nations managed to establish themselves on the global stage. Many consider it the only way to carve out specialized industries because of economies of scale.

>implying natural resource profit margins are generally only 8 to 15%
>implying natural resources have negative profits

Thanks for replying I guess.

Attached: 1544880149947.jpg (585x438, 55K)

36, Male

What's the best way to start teaching money to children (e.g., 5 year old). Open a bank account with/for them?

First and foremost. You're a honeypot faggot.

Now at what point did you realize that capitalism and communism inevitably lead to the same thing?

Was it before or after you became a larping brainlet?

>There will never be a declining job market. Why? Because there will always be demand. If Ferrari cars tomorrow suddenly became as plentiful as sand their VALUE (purchasing power) would diminish like sand. People would then want something else that's even higher technology. See the horse drawn buggy vs. the first car.
If automation (including software/AI for white collar jobs) ends up being more cost effective than humans are in most fiends, isn't that basically just labor becoming as plentiful as sand?

PART 1:

>But it's obvious that there's a control on the finance sector.

No, nobody controls finance. There is still competition. If someone can provide a service that's higher quality, lower price, and faster than the current financial business then they will take over.

>I mean obviously it's a family business that has been going on for generations but it's more than being the president of the U.S,

Presidents of the U.S. being over represented by Episcopalians and Presbyterians was meant to illustrate. They are not Jewish. They are Christians.

>the fact that they have been amassing wealth trough licit and illicit methods

The South Africans have been saying this about Europeans. The truth is that the Europeans create labor that is more useful. Units of usefulness--what economists call Marginal Utility--is what determines Demand. Units of Labor--is what determines Supply. When there is higher Demand than Supply then prices become higher--as can be seen in the case of European labor in South Africa.

Much can be explained by the differences in 'human capital'--what is invisible inside someone's head. Italians and Jews grew up in many of the same areas of the U.S., but Jews tended to out perform Italians when they were adults. A culture of (rigorous) childhood education can explain why Jews create higher units of usefulness--marginal utility--relative to units of labor--labor cost; thus creating higher VALUE (purchasing power).

Again, VALUE (purchasing power / value-in-exchange) is determined by both units of utility and units labor--like the upper blade and bottom blade of scissors cutting the paper.

fuck off you greasy larping kike

how can i get more handouts

PART 2:

>while having a hegemony in certain domains such as: information (news,films,books) and over representation on all the top companies (2% having 40% to 100% on high positions in a company).

>I just don't think it is unjust to affirm that when you have the control of a market, it's not called a hegemony. As they can control information in terms of volume and quality.

The word you are looking for is monopoly. Monopolies can and should be broken up. See Rockefeller, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Carnegie, etc. All non-jewish anglos who had or have monopolies that should be broken up.

And yes, Facebook and Google are monopolies, too. While the fact that their founders are Jewish is interesting, it's ultimately not as important as just breaking the companies up. Amazon, Microsoft, Walmart, etc. are also monopolies, or damn near it.

>Now are you going to tell me that the banking system isn't controlled by the Jews? Look at what happened to the Templars(because they've set the first banking system) and what happened to the Jews along centuries, it wouldn't be just "oppression" (The Ugly Duchess)

As I already stated, the same mob-violence pattern could be seen with the Chettiars in India. Many unthinking people in many periods of time have viewed money-lenders with suspicion because they don't understand what money is. They think they work for money. Not what can be got for money. Money is just the store of value, and the medium of exchange. When viewed from that perspective it becomes immediately clear who has power over the money-lender. The account holders in good standing.

>But I have no expertise in economics and thank you for the response.

The book Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell discusses Jews and Chettiars in good detail. I recommend downloading the ebook and just doing a Ctrl F search through it regarding Jews.

what's a petrodollar?
what's quantitative easing?
what caused the 2008 financial crisis?
there's supposed to a recession next year. what's up with that and what's responsible?

what's your recommended reading for a complete and utter pleb to git gud at political-economics? My goal is to not to be an expert but to at least hold a decent conversation and understand world events in a better context.

I still like the tripcodes.

This doesn't address the Jewish question at all. What the fuck, dude. Homie is asking you to account for Jews filling out the ranks of every executive slot in film, television, "news", banking, etc, and your response is basically "there's no such thing as money". Quick question, are you in fact Jewish yourself?

Attached: 1545561089192.jpg (790x568, 166K)

24, M.
I just graduated from the top STEM school in Canada for CompSci/Math. But I have no work experience at all.

Am I fucked?

>but still don't understand how in the minty fresh hell they work.

Chances are you first need to solidify the definitions of words in your head of lower economic concepts first.

You'd be surprised how many people do not understand the difference between Value and Demand. (Hint: Supply and Demand determine Value. So what determines Demand?) Or how many people do not know the definition of Money. Or how most people think that the Profits of Stock is referring to Wall Street securities. (Profits of Stock meaning the profits of inventories--the actual goods and services where the intrinsic value resides.)

Don't feel too bad. It took 114 years before Alfred Marshall came along (Principals of Economics) and tightened up Adam Smith's definition of value (Wealth of Nations).

Once the idea of Utility was separated from Value graphs that explained surpluses, shortages, and monopoly profits could be shown in plain view. But first the definition of a single word had to be tightened.

Understand this, too: If you ever purchase a security you are engaging in trade. So ask yourself, who are you trading with? What do they get out of the trade? What are you getting out of the trade? (Recall I said earlier in the thread: People do not work for money: They work for those things that can be got FOR money: the goods and services. Money is just the medium of exchange and the store of value.)

WARNING HONEYPOT GLOWNIGGER.

>4. Those with tripcode names will receive priority because it's easier to maintain the line of thought if there are follow-up questions.
Pol has changed, we have ids now.

>Is fractional reserve bank ultimately an unsustainable ponzi scheme?

No.

>It's fundamentally usury, a practice that has always been taboo.

Usury meaning lending. No modern economy can exist without lending. See the Middle East if you want an economy without lending.

>The counter arguement to this I've heard is that the economy isnt a zero sum game.

It's not. The real value--the real wealth--of your society is in the goods and services. Not the money. People don't work for money. They work for those things that can be got for money. Money is just the medium of exchange and store of value. Obviously, the money is of critical importance, but that does not change the underlying fundamentals of where the intrinsic value is at.

One only need to see 1770s America compared to today to see how wealth is not a zero sum game. Every unit of usefulness that consumes a product and every unit of labor that produces a product, when traded creates VALUE-in-exchange. That will always continue to grow and is theoretically infinite.

>But to this I argue that the value of the currency should merely increase.

The value of the economy increases. The money is just the river through which the goods and services flow. (And any sane person should want the money's ability to STORE value to remain relatively steady.) This flowing of goods and services on a society's money is why we call it currency--because it flows like a river. We call those revenues.

Price x Quantity = Revenue.

No, Adam Smith's policy with regard to North America is better.

That's such a broad question, I don't know how to answer it. To be candid though, I have zero expertise on the Austrian school or Keynesian school, etc.

I know Adam Smith, Alfred Marshall, Paul Samuelson, and Thomas Sowell.

Economics and politics is a meme field.

>QE was largely used to purchase things like toxic derivatives (of things like mortgage backed securities) right?

Yes.

>So in that case, is it almost like a completely separate economy based on betting on asset prices?

I don't know if I would use the word economy. And I'm uncertain what you mean by betting on asset prices. QE had nothing to do with making bets.

>How do derivatives interact with the "real" economy?

This goes far beyond basic economics--and to be frank beyond my area of knowledge--but in general my understanding is that QE interacted with the largest banks only; and only VERY GRADUALLY EASED into the society. Thus preventing inflation. It had never been done before, and likely prevented the West from collapsing.

With a question like that, I get the impression you don't even understand the purpose of a bank.

21 M Cauc

Roughly How much do mississipian and Louisianian businesses have influence where you are?

>I don't know if I would use the word economy. And I'm uncertain what you mean by betting on asset prices. QE had nothing to do with making bets
I meant that QE was used to buy up derivatives (bets on mortgages and such). Also, you said that the money from QE doesn't cause inflation because it doesn't enter the greater economy.

>I recently read that Milton's economic theories singlehandedly changed the post war economic structure (towards acceptence of union jobs, living wages, pensions that are honored) into "greed is good" by emphasizing that shareholder value is placed above all other obligations, and in my opinion, leading to the broken system of stagnating wages and unmanageable income inequality we see today.

Friedman has a famous Youtube video where he talks about, "Aren't you greedy? It's only the other guy is greedy!" Which heavily implies there is some virtue in greed.

He should have known better.

Two of the most well known economists Adam Smith and Alfred Marshall were DEEPLY concerned with destroying monopolies and helping the poor.

>Do you see any way forward towards resetting the balance between labor and business? If so what would be the most likely way economically?

Teaching children, teenagers, young adults, and under-educated adults the basic principals of economics and basic business principals directly from the sources of those who have been successful in those fields.

Once someone knows economics and business they can answer the question, "How do I increase my wages?" And they can also figure out very quickly how to turn their wages into profits.

It's the lack of knowledge in economics and business that creates 'human capital' gaps (the means of production invisible inside people's heads) thus occasioning much higher salaries in executives that would not be possible if people had the economic knowledge to take their market share away.

I intend to change that.

For you, here's a start:

Listen to the audio book Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell and the Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith. Then study business men who are already successful. Also, study the business you're currently in. Get as close to the money as possible, and constantly ask, "What is causing this money to flow into the company?" Both in terms of psychology and the logistics.

I've heard too much. Thomas Sowell is much more generous with regard to Walmart than I would be. I would have broken their asses up years ago had I the power.

Why do you believe economics is anything other than a meme? It isn't science

No, teach your child first the definition of value--not from the dictionary though. From an economist. See Alfred Marshall's Principals of Economics 8th Edition. It's online for free. Marshall adjusts Adam Smith's definition.

Next teach your child the definition of money. (Medium of exchange, Store of value, measure of account).

Explain Supply and Demand. What determines Supply? What determines Demand? Then see if he can apply these VERY basic principals with a sale of his own in some small market like in an online store, or at scool or a small stand.

If he can creates a steady revenue, then open a bank account; but not before he knows the basics first.

>So farming is the fastest way to develop a nation?

No. Look up Wealth of Nations online. Then do keyword searches for the words "marriage" and "marriages".

>protectionism serves no economic purpose

It does if it's for national security concerns. In short, if your nation cannot be imperiled by a particular good or service there is no reason why they should not purchase that good or service from the place that can produce it at the cheapest, fastest, highest quality rate possible.

>Do you have any formal education in economics?

The textbooks themselves.

>I've been taught that infantile protectionism, executed correctly, has many economic benefits.

For who? You? And what specific goods and services are you talking about? You're speaking in such general terms as to be borderline meaningless.

>implying natural resource profit margins are generally only 8 to 15%

Monopoly or competition?

>implying natural resources have negative profits

The cost to get gas to the station Cost $2.78 per gallon. The gas station prices it at $3.06 per gallon.

$3.06 REVENUE - $2.78 COST = $0.28 PROFIT per gallon

Suddenly there's a blizzard, and demand plummets. The gas station's cost of basic utilities and plus their two employees will make them go bust unless they sell their stock of gas by the end of next two days. The gas station is now forced to lower the price of gas to $2.58 per gallon.

$2.58 REVENUE - $2.78 COST = -$0.20 NEGATIVE PROFIT (i.e. a loss)

It's not implied. It's a fact of how resources are allocated in any economy.

>Thanks for replying I guess.

You're welcome. I guess.

>If automation (including software/AI for white collar jobs) ends up being more cost effective than humans are in most fields, isn't that basically just labor becoming as plentiful as sand?

Who determines "most fields"?

Humans do.

Until the day happens that software and machines can immediately respond to another field that human Demand creates, then there will always be jobs for humans.

In other words, if software and machines make certain types of Labor as plentiful as sand, it does't mean immediately that that labor has any value.

In order for the products of Labor to have value another human must determine the product has Utility (usefulness). Likewise, in order for the Utility of a product to have value, it must first be created through Labor.

(People used to argue whether it was Utility or Labor that determined Value, but that was like arguing whether it was the top blade or bottom blade of scissors that cut the paper. Units of utility--called marginal utility--determine Demand. Units of labor--called labor cost--determine Supply. Both can be expressed in units of money, but the underlying fundamental is that they represent units of consumption and units of physical effort UNDERNEATH the money's representation.)

Anyway, where there is an abundance of units of Labor relative to steady Utility you will find low prices. It's why plastic is cheap. Plastic when first created was not cheap. It eventually became cheap through abundant Labor (technology). New fields were created that built upon the cheapness of this plastic.

The same would happen with any other field. If iPhones became like sand, then someone would want to use their processing power to solve much larger, much more complex problems or simulate VR, etc. etc.

New fields would and will open up.

Engage in trade.

No, but you will have to lower the price of your wage as low as possible to find a job fast.

Your wage is determined by employer Demand. That Demand is determined by the units of usefulness of your labor.

Ask yourself, how useful is your labor (as paid in wages) to the employer for helping them get their inventory onto the market so they can keep in business with a (positive) profit?

If your labor is EXTREMELY useful relative to the supply (again, this has to be provable in terms of money) then you can start off right away with a high wage.

Chances are that will not be the case. Don't worry. Demand for your labor (as paid in wages) is not set by just one employer. Eventually those other employers will offer higher wages once your labor is provably more useful to getting their inventory onto market.

No, you're just having difficulty absorbing a large amount of information at once. Don't worry. Re-read what I wrote several times until you absorb it all.

What is that? You mean how much do businesses in Mississippi and Louisiana have influence on my location? How are you measuring influence? What unit?

>I meant that QE was used to buy up derivatives (bets on mortgages and such).

To the best of my understanding. It was.

>Also, you said that the money from QE doesn't cause inflation because it doesn't enter the greater economy.

It does enter the greater economy but only very, very gradually. To the best of my understanding, anyway.

Again, QE is far outside my area of knowledge.

Tyrone Simmons
Age 34, Male

Why you be lying to us the time 'bout how shit works man? Whats your gain?

I think if you read this entire thread you'll see it's far more forthcoming than what most anyone would expect.

My gain is that I spread prosperity, and bring a few miserable young men into a better life.

Bitcoin is the answer
youtu.be/y1DSVIVsNIY

Attached: IMG_20181217_164129_242.jpg (1070x918, 213K)

Ha, no. No, it's not.

Not until the day it's used in every day transactions; protected from government interference; and can be proven to not cause deflation.

Until then it's a speculative asset.

>what's a petrodollar?

Similar to what wheat was in the 1770s. The underlying commodity that affects all other commondities. And no, if oil disappears suddenly the dollar will not collapse. The dollar is attached to all goods and services within the economy. But like wheat in the 1770s, if the prices of wheat went up, that increased cost was also transferred to cattle and horses, etc. which then reverberated throughout the economy. Same thing happens with oil today.

>what's quantitative easing?

How the Fed prevented the entire West from falling into barbarism. Essentially, morons at the very top of the economy acted incredibly stupid and toxic assets had to be bought up otherwise our entire economy would have collapsed. A lot of money had to be printed to purchase these assets. If the money had been released into the greater economy it would have caused inflation.

The Fed innovated away around this problem by keeping this newly printed money tightly controlled so it was EASED into the greater economy. Quantitative Easing.

QE goes far beyond my area of expertise though.

>what caused the 2008 financial crisis?

Morons who had gotten too big for their own good, and very stupid incentives for these huge financial entities that made it obvious to them they could put the cost of stupid risks onto the tax payer.

I hope those responsible eventually go to prison one day.

>there's supposed to a recession next year. what's up with that and what's responsible?

It's already started, and that's a good thing. An overheated economy creates inflation. That takes away the purchasing power of the wages you are paid. Recessions cool that overheating down.

>what's your recommended reading for a complete and utter pleb to git gud at political-economics? My goal is to not to be an expert but to at least hold a decent conversation and understand world events in a better context.

1.) Basic Economics 5th Edition by Thomas Sowell. Either audio book or just the book.

2.) Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith. Again, audio book (read by Gildart Jackson) or just the book itself--preferably the version from Chicago University. (Note: Have a dictionary nearby. It'll take about a week or two to get used to the older dialect of English, but once you do the Wealth of Nations is one of the most pleasant reads or listen-tos I've ever experienced.)

3.) Principals of Economics 8th Edition. Either the e-book by Palgrave or the printed book by Cosimo

4.) Economics 19th Edition by Paul A. Samuelson

5.) Any articles or youtube videos that SLOWLY and CLEARLY explain what a Demand curve is, and what a Supply curve is, and walk you SLOWLY through how shortages and surpluses are shown on these graphs.

What's actually bad about deflation? Is it just that people would be hoarding money instead of spending and investing it?
Also:
>"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered
I understand the inflation part, but how are people robbed via deflation?

...

The real value in your society--the value-in-exchange/the purchasing power--is in the goods and services. Not in the money. Money is a store of value. It is not the intrinsic value.

Metals like gold or silver are used to distribute goods and services through prices. (Prices in turn are set by supply and demand).

Deflation is what happens when the economy--the goods and services--grow to be too much for the money supply to circulate. It would be like too many boats going down a river, and getting clogged and crashing into the shores.

Thus, the goods and services can no longer circulate; and accordingly the consumption and labor that drives the economy adjust downward (deflates) to match the money supply.

This is very, very bad. And it results in people losing their jobs when demand for their labor is clearly present, but unable to be circulated via a wage (backed by gold). And this is why we got away from the gold standard after the Great Depression. The economy had simply outgrown the amount of gold ore that we could mine.

Your 'economics' knowledge is bullshit and only valid from a historical perspective. Economics is now mostly computer science, stats-econometrics and mechanism design. All deterministic models of classical economics are mostly undergrad ass-prepping, you would be fired on the spot in any central bank if you started citing Smith.

The future is now old man. Get on with the times or die.

28, male

I don't nothing about the economy. I however watched Milton Friedman's Free To Choose video series that was conducted in the 80s. I've since been entirely convinced he's right is basically 90-95% of the time.

What are your thoughts on Milton Friedman and the ideas he put forth? Is it true? If not, who else should I watch or read in his stead?

Also what are your thoughts on crypto currencies?

Explain how 2% of the US can grab nearly 40% of its wealth, and do so legally.

Attached: RichJuden.png (600x463, 30K)

27, male.
Please explain why is it bad to have a gold-backed currency?
Wouldn't a gold backed currency make the economy more stable?

Lol dumbfuck. You think I'm going to touch on mechanism design when answering BASIC ECONOMIC questions. Re-read the OP and get out of the thread you dumb ass.

>Achktually

Yes.
>youtube.com/watch?v=CtIkFNhd-0Q

Fuck off you faggot

13 Female
OP is a faggot

>prevent your economy and inflation from overheating
You know how bodybuilders talk about 'cutting' and 'bulking'? For the past decade we've been 'bulking' at McDonalds 5 meals a day with interest free debt.

Attached: Capture0.png (666x517, 26K)

You will find the audio book, e-book, or hard cover of Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics 5th Edition even more useful than Friedman's PBS series.

But for what it was, Friedman's series was decent; and helped educate the public en-mass rather quickly.

Crypto-currencies are a speculative-asset. Ask yourself if all the hard work you used to sell whatever it is that you sell (labor or a physical product) were stored in a crypto-currency, and one day a new quantum-computing method came out that cracked all the other code to unleash all the bitcoin. (Could this happen? I really have no idea. But assuming it did....) Now all your wealth has evaporated into inflation.

Or on the other hand, imagine the entire nation starts using Bitcoin; and the economy grows so fast Bitcoin mining cannot keep up. Then comes deflation and mass layoffs because the Bitcoin can't circulate the goods and services.

For now, we need humans who keep the money supply in good working order. I recommend avoiding Bitcoin.

See:

Yep, I know. Last year I was asking, when is this going to start to go down? But it just kept going up and up and up and UP AND UP AND UP AND UP! (Trump gets elected.) UPANDUPANDUPANDUP!

I hope it goes down slowly--instead of crashing. Seems like efforts are now being made so the recession is gradual.

Great thread
30
Male
Would it be possible to Trump or any other president to end or annex the FED to the government? Would this improve the economy somehow?

You missed the key point that the subjects I cited are basic economics in this day and time, mutt. You live in another world. What a waste.

>Seems like efforts are now being made so the recession is gradual.
Interesting perspective. I'm feeling a powder keg looking for a scapegoat.
There is a lot of volatility based on simple rumors and 'conversations', ie the 'Trade Wars' and Fed Reserve gossip.

To be clear, Basic Economics 5th Edition was written for mass audiences. It purposely omits graphs and jargon, and it's written in plain easy to understand, language. Thomas Sowell's writing style is pleasant which also helps.

Totally outside my area of expertise. My uninformed *opinion* (emphasis) is more than likely no. And it would probably not help things.

My understanding of the Fed is that it occupies the middle ground between being a federal institution and being privately owned. It's somehow designed to be in the middle. But my grasp on the details is fuzzy at best so I will avoid saying more on that.

I forget exactly the chain of events of how low-interest rates cause over-heating. I just know that it does.

I have a much stronger grasp of microeconomics than macroeconomics.

I see that volatility, too; but at the end of the day it's tea leaves and tarot cards to me. Will it affect me eventually? Sure, but I lived through 2008 like it was a breeze. I'm not concerned.

If I were invested heavily in the stock market (I'm not) I would have taken measures so that even a drastic drop in price would not effect me because I'd be in it for the long term.

I view the coming recession as mostly a positive--so long as it's gradual and doesn't result in mass panic.

Alright, I'm done for the night. Hope you guys enjoyed the thread.

I recommend saving it for those who would like some answers and references to commonly asked questions on economic issues.

Have a good one.

Edit:
>Principals of Economics 8th Edition
>by Alfred Marshall