/lit/ - Literature

ye
it doesn't include complex shit that people can hurt themselves with
its what ive recommended to people with no knowledge
how is sowell's in comparison

>>18154101
The most opinionated are the least well read.

>>18154101

I think it's a great read but the fact that we now live in a transparent fake and ponzi economy means that it's not totally true. It has got to the stage where even I look at montery policy and can recognise things are fucking weird.

>>18154200
eat da poopoo

>>18154184
>how is sowell's in comparison
Sowell's Basic Economics, I couldn't concentrate with it. it was also based on reasoning, and deduction (as opposed to using statistics to prove their points). But it was so banal and axiomatic that it bored me. It was like reading "the sky is blue." From my memory, maybe if I reread it it would be different. but Hazlitt was (like sowell) a total genius. but more importantly, he knew how to articulate it for the layman.

>>18154231
There's no time line on madness. It's unsustainable for government to load up on all this debt. Eventually taxes will become so over bearing it'll fail.

>>18154272
>He was filtered by Sowell

>>18154231
I'm done with people saying that the US has capitalism. Especially lately, with how much of people's income coming from government programs. I'm planning on reading "The Deficit Myth" about Modern Monetary Theory, and we've been living a lie. From the moment the Government got a monopoly on currency, taxes became irrelevant. America is no longer capitalistic.

>>18154287
>taxes will become so over bearing it'll fail.
especially in the form of inflation, which is a tax. plywood, lumber, housing, crypto, food prices, gas. Those are all a form of taxes I sold all my stocks about 3 weeks ago. I'm planning on investing in either memecoins or commodities, commodities being the best hedge for inflation. but it infuriates me how much we're taxed. My fiance is a lawyer, and she told me she is paying 80,000 in taxes. Fuck, and that's not counting state or local taxes or Social Security. fuck the homeless

>>18154248
why are you geh

>>18154101
Retard shit, imaging thinking "saving" is a productive activity lol

>>18154287
>Eventually taxes will become so over bearing it'll fail.
Why would you think that? The right in America totally bought into supply side economics starting in the 1980s and embraced the idea that you can increase growth by decreasing taxes, every time a right of center government comes in tax cuts are the primary policy they get passed. Deficits are way beyond what conservative retards thought were "sustainable" and yet whatever you mean by that things are being sustained

>>18154348
If you're using the term "tax" talking about anything but having some actual quantity of something taken from you than you're entering questionable territory... "opps buttcoin dipped 50% against USD today guess I got a big tax bill"
Actually inflation can make some peoples real net worth increase as the real cost of their liabilities decrease, deflation would make them poorer since the costs would be higher.

>>18154944
keynesians should be gassed

>>18155274
seethe pinokek

>>18154101
Economics is the language of the Jews

>>18154944
>imaging thinking "saving" is a productive activity
what are capital goods? You need someone (or a group of people) with a lot of savings in order to fund capital goods (the machinery for a steel factory, sewing machines, a highway system). Developing countries need to borrow the savings from developed countries in order to fund their infrastructure to get out of the dirt.

>and yet whatever you mean by that things are being sustained
yeah, we'll see. We'll find out soon if Modern Monetary Theory is truly as infallible as economists think. If you had read the book "Economics in One Lesson" you'd know that our economy has been investing in things that are not necessary for a very long time. I genuinely recommend the book to you. it's pretty small too.

>dipped 50%
it would be the opposite, if bitcoin (or food or gas) goes up, and it takes more dollars to buy 1 bitcoin, then bitcoin may have remained in value, and your dollar bill would have been inflated and lost value.

>inflation can make some peoples real net worth increase
yes, but it's a way the government picks winners and losers. they inject money in the money supply to pay for a social program, and it percolates through the economy unevenly. The last ones to get a hold of the new money are stuck with paying more for food, rent, gas until they do. in other words, old people and the handicapped are fucked.

>deflation would make them poorer since the costs would be higher
yeah, we've all been screwed over by how the price of computers and technology has deflated. that hasn't enriched our lives at all (p.s. you're kind of right but still)

>>18154101
its neoliberal garbage

>>18154101
What's the lesson? I've read Mises, Rothbard, and Marx btw

>>18154101
More people should read rothbard.but your book is also good.

>>18155503
Don't only focus on the seen effects of an economic program, but also look at the unseen unintended consequences. This takes many forms, which are listed in the book. The book should really be called One Lesson In Economics

>>18154287
Debt was planned mutual indebtedness, if everyone is in debt to everyone else we all become dependent on each other, it went out of control though and now the debts are all essentially meaningless. A rather large chunk of the worlds debt is technically null, we are in debt to countries who are in debt with us or we have bought their debts, instead of saying we just bought $1million of your debts so lets knock $1million off what we owe and we will toss this debt we bought, we keep the debts on the books, probably for political fun. Hell the EU wrote this into their charter, to be a member you have to put a certain amount of your GDP into playing the debt game with EU members.

There will likely be a huge forgiving of debts in the near future just because the mess is not worth unraveling.

>>18155588
I'm enjoying reading his History of Money and Banking. He goes on a lot of kinda gay, lib(er)tarded tangents, but it's very enlightening in many places.

>>18154101
duly noted

any easy read economics books on lesser known economics

>>18154101
>>18154272
It's unfortunate that the two most popular books titled 'Basic Economics' books are more like political pamphlets for particular heterodox schools of economic thought rather than balanced introductions to the field. It'd be like buying a book called 'Basic Philosophy' and the whole thing talks about why Kierkegaard is correct and everyone else is wrong.

>>18157150
>political pamphlets for particular heterodox schools of economic thought rather than balanced introductions to the field

agreed, like I told this guy
>>18155503
The book should really be called One Lesson In Economics, although I did learn a whole many economics principles. but the book did lend itself to harsh criticisms. Like, you read the goodreads and the low ratings it got were from people who should have read an econ textbook, but instead picked up this book. like in movies, parties, and food, it's all about expectations.

>>18154348
>especially in the form of inflation, which is a tax. plywood, lumber, housing, crypto, food prices, gas.
The inflationistas are consistent in their wrongness, I'll give them that.

>>18154101
I thought so too when I first read it, it feels like it reads itself. But later I tried to remember the chapters and realized it basically boils down to "don't use government money" which has been proven time and time again to be objectively incorrect. Please, for the love of god if you found this book on mises.org stop checking out their stuff because it's literally a thousand banal and hellishly boring ways of saying the same thing this book is saying. For your sake please just read economics textbooks like mankiw's macro and micro and watch marginal university on youtube. You will soon find how void the Austrian school of economics is, save for Bawerk and Mises. Don't read any of Rothbard's shit because he was just an idiot in the true sense that misinterpreted Mises. T. former ancap. I can give you thousands of better economics book suggestions as opposed to the shit on Mises.org.

>>18155447
>what are capital goods?
Not "savings", any industrial machinery or anything of the sort only depreciates in value after you purchase it. There's only the value of the scrap metal, and maybe in the long run some nostalgia market will emerge, but you won't be able to sell that after a year for the same price generally speaking.
>You need someone (or a group of people) with a lot of savings in order to fund capital goods (the machinery for a steel factory, sewing machines, a highway system).
You're assuming the resources are there and can be mobilized. If all you're missing is the "savings" you can create that out of thin air. Bitcoin was create out of fiat a decade ago and is now worth billions, total insanity
>Developing countries need to borrow the savings from developed countries in order to fund their infrastructure to get out of the dirt.
That's the ultimate deception. You can easily get the amount of foreign reserves necessary through allowing foreign direct investment, not sovereign borrowing, and staying out of international credit markets and just buying the foreign currency for international purchases (which shouldn't be large anyhow) as necessary.
>it would be the opposite, if bitcoin (or food or gas) goes up, and it takes more dollars to buy 1 bitcoin, then bitcoin may have remained in value, and your dollar bill would have been inflated and lost value.
You misunderstood, I meant the prices fluctuate up and down. When bitcoin loses 80% of its value against the dollar in like a week no one sees that as a tax because it's not since noting was taken from you and if the price goes up that's not welfare.
> we've all been screwed over by how the price of computers and technology has deflated
The production costs decreased through investment. The bad sort of deflation is when your a commodity producer and prices start collapsing but you're expenses stay the same.
>>18155652
>Debt was planned mutual indebtedness, if everyone is in debt to everyone else we all become dependent on each other,
That's totally wrong. If your borrowing something you don't control you can become fiscally insolvent and more of a "burden".
>Hell the EU wrote this into their charter, to be a member you have to put a certain amount of your GDP into playing the debt game with EU members.
It's kinda the opposite. They placed thresholds on debt levels and the idea was debt would be raised nationally not federally. It was peak 90s neolib idea by giving up national currencies market discipline would solve the primary issue which people feared inflation... of course it gave Europe insane unemployment levels and stagnation.

>>18154272
You're lying
Sowell doesn't use statistics but he backs every single arguement he makes with plenty of historical examples

>>18159933
I learned more about the dynasts of the Tata family from India than I did economics reading Basic Econ, it was a ton of fun

The sheer amount of people with little to no economic knowledge is honestly stunning.

If people truly knew the damage central banks are doing on a daily basis there would be a public outrage of the likes we have never seen.

But it's apparently more important to protest about some Marxist movements instead.

>>18154944
Please stop posting in economic threads. You have no knowledge of economics so why on earth would you choose this thread out of all threads to post in?

>>18159955
ABCT is basically as dumb as Marxism, both constantly refuted by reality.

>>18159995
Literally define something as simple as "savings" for me. Is the quantity at any given time fixed or potentially variable?

>>18154311
>I'm done with people saying that the US has capitalism
>America is no longer capitalistic.

I'm sorry but you are really airheaded.

>>18155274
based

>>18159747
>it basically boils down to "don't use government money" which has been proven time and time again to be objectively incorrect
almost as if he's boiling down concepts into one lesson. but to say it's been disproven is probably where we disagree. The purpose of the economy is not jobs for the sake of jobs, or velocity for the sake of velocity. The purpose is to meet the needs of people. Keep people from starving, keep them in good health and happy. You can't look at our current government spending, federal or municipal and tell me they're not wasting your money. government spending is by definition misallocation of resources

>>18159908
>any industrial machinery or anything of the sort only depreciates in value after you purchase it
wow, you're more retarded than i thought

>>18160243
get your head out of your ass

>>18154101
Economics is a pseudo science. On par with psychology and sociology.

>>18160428
>wow, you're more retarded than i thought
If you think you can easily recoup the costs of anything your buying to put in a steel mill or something you're in for a big surprise.

>>18160428
Please give me an established definition of capitalism that does not describe the USA's current system. Protip: You can't

>>18160575
The government determines the federal funds rate which determines the amount of credit in the economy, the return on bonds, the amount of loans your bank gives out, interest rates on your mortgage, and how many capital goods there are. They regulate all importing and exporting, the lightbulbs you can use, and the size of your toilet you can buy. They have a monopoly on the currency which means they can inflate it at will. Send money to Israel, Africa, solar panels, war in the middle east, any thing they want. And right now the national debt surpassed GDP. We can at least agree it's not free market capitalism

>>18159747
The central fallacy the book is addressing is look beyond the first group who receive something.

>>18160575
Capitalism is individual rights for property. What the US is suffering from is legal plunder, legal corruption. These are not limited to capitalist systems, because it stems from people who have power, which any form of government is susceptible to. Capitalism works when government doesn't interfere.

>>18159908
>That's totally wrong. If your borrowing something you don't control you can become fiscally insolvent and more of a "burden".
I agree but it is the idea that debt is an asset, and it can be but it has gone out of control.
> They placed thresholds on debt levels
and those thresholds include a minimum as well as a maximum.

>>18160490
pseudo science is the real science.

Pic related and the docukejtary "money as debt" were my introductions to economics.

What should I read now? How do I free my nation from the clutches of international banking?

Pic related and the documentary "money as debt" were my introductions to economics.

What should I read now? How do I free my nation from the clutches of international banking?

Pls and thank you

>>18162166
PLS HELP ME

>>18162066
Not that guy but that's a pretty weak take and even so America has one of the most secure system of property rights in the world. In some regards China can be more capitalist than America even though it has a lot less liberal property regime because they have a more repressed/controlled labour market to exploit and by not respecting property rights in land and intellectual goods they gain some benefits. You could have a private property regime without waged labour but that wouldn't be capitalism since central dynamic would be totally different. Really the core feature of capitalism is a lot of people needing to sell their time to survive, if most people could drop out of the labour market if they want to that'd surely not be capitalism but welfare isn't that liberal

>>18162186
PLEAAASE
>>18162166

>>18162189
You misattribute the ills of man to the ills of capitalism because you've been spoonfed propaganda by socialists.

Capitalism encourages people to drop out of the labor market through efficiencies in production and the return on capital through private ownership.

The reason why this isn't occurring is because of Government intervention in the market on the part of businesses to enforce monopiles and inefficiencies. If you read the book you would understand why.

>>18162209
Free our markets: a citizens guide to ...

>>18163249
Capitalism isn't seperate from man.

>>18163256
Capitalism relies upon the natural rights of private property and working. The problems you have are not because of Capitalism.

>>18163270
Natural rights don't exist.

>>18163424
Exist in what sense? If you mean there is no universal that writes them into existence or that countries are not underpinned by natural rights? Natural rights are derived from man's existence.

>>18163424
Most if not all European societies rely upon natural rights, so they most certainly do exist.

some of you take such simplicity like supply and demand and free market austrian priori of logic and think it cant be that simple so you need some statistics and "filtering" to take place, even though you get filtered by your own intellectual masturbation. the complex part of economics is there are infinite variables you can not keep track of other than the free market activity in which you participate in. i can see the costs as a business owner but it would be impossible to tree this out into each business that is attracted to the same materials and labor i need to buy, and then tree those out as well

>>18163486
Austrian economics is that the economy is too complex to understand and does not use modern keynsiean economic models. What are you saying exactly?

>>18163496
my first part was just a peeve but you said what i said in a better way

>>18163507
Tyranny of experts

>>18163447
They don't exist in the sense they are all made up and can be taken away from you with a snap of a finger. The only real "natural right" you have is death.
>>18163467
It's a delusion that people agree to follow.

>>18163524
Rights can't be taken away, they can be protected or they can be suppressed.

>>18163536
Rights don't exist

>>18163538
Natural rights are the most fundamental extensions of mans existence. Man has his own mind to express his opinions - that is his ability to speak. He was not granted this, he has it by his nature his existence. That right can be suppressed by despots or tyrants but he always has that right. Likewise because it can be suppressed, any moral and just form of governance would seek to protect that.

>>18163560
Ok. I don't recognize your natural rights

>>18163566
Natural rights do not need to be 'recognized', they exist before any form of recognition.

If I have built a house in the middle of the forest and you come and take it away, the mere act reinforces that my ownership of it was clear. It does not need to be recognized. Likewise because I own the house I have extended my right to defend it from you.

>>18154101
>it presupposes an exogenous money supply
>doesn't at all delve into even the most basic market failures, like perverse incentives, info assymetry, etc.
It's for incel pseuds, straight up. Anyone who admits to thinking this is some fucking authoritative work is a fag buster.

>>18163585
Why even have multiple books if we can write everything we know in one book?

>>18163584
>Natural rights do not need to be 'recognized', they exist before any form of recognition.
No they don't. They don't exist. You just made them up.

>>18163597
It's not making them up, it's identifying them.

>>18163524
If you have a right to die then you have a right to live. So life is the natural right and death is the conclusion of exercising that right.

>>18163605
No you made it up. They don't exist and they're not innate. The only thing that stops me from not taking over your house is your ability to defend it, which has nothing to do with your "rights" but the amount of power you have. If I kill you and take over your house, your "rights" (some shit you made up in your head) are violated and I get a free house.

The fact that rights are all made up is the reason nobody can ever seem to agree on the "list of rights". Some faggots think they have the right to healthcare, others think they have the right to own a gun, or snort coke.

End of the day you don't have any rights, there is a list of things your power allows you to do, and you should stop yapping like a schizophrenic about your "inalienable rights!!!!"

>>18163637
You don't have the right to live either, death is just a guarentee.

>>18163640
I'm not saying you can't kill someone. The role of the government would be to protect people from breaking peoples rights, that is justice and contracts.

Because you can kill me doesn't mean I didn't have rights. It means you violated them.

>>18163646
If you have no right to live then you have no right to die.

>>18163646
Live is not granted. You do not allow people to live. You not killing people is not giving them right to live.

>>18163650
Government takes away peoples rights all the time, it only enforces them when it's convenient. Different governments have different rights, and if rights are inalienable and innate they wouldn't radically change every fucking epoch.
>>18163654
Correct, you have no rights and you will die

>>18163640
The US bill of rights does not grant rights, it's the legal protection of inalienable and self evident rights.

>>18163596
You're not understanding. It's just fucking wrong. Its basic foundation (that money is an exogenous and therefore finite resource) is fucking wrong, so everything else is built on that wrong edifice and is also wrong, but explaining this to pseuds is like pulling teeth, and this is to say nothing of the other issues in the text, primarily its refusal to admit inherent market flaws like the principal-agent problem. This is like a user manual for an engine that some quack thinks can run on water. And all those issues are usually addressed in 101 and 102. This is for fags who never even went to the tech.

Economics is the right wing's "I fucking love science" hobby horse, exactly the same way the left fetishizes all the shit they're wrong about. "Dude the government is communism because the fucking science I love said so" is the basic axiom of these readers.

>>18163662
There are no rights, nobody gives you any rights and nobody gives you a right to live. The only reason I called death a "right" is because it's a guarentee of being a living being in a natural world.

>>18163665
You can't take natural rights away, they can only be suppressed/violated or protected.

>>18163671
The U.S bill of rights thought niggers should be slaves oh "whoops nevermind"
Some inalienable self evident rights huh
>>18163677
Natural rights don't exist they're made up. No one even agrees on what "natural rights" are

>>18163672
Its basic foundation isn't that money is a finite resource so maybe you should read it?

>>18163687
>if we don't all agree about something then it definitely isn't real
What is this argument? Fucking retard

>>18163687
You might want to actually read the bill of rights.

>>18163687
>The U.S bill of rights thought niggers should be slaves oh "whoops nevermind"
>Some inalienable self evident rights huh
Like I said, it doesn't GRANT rights. It merely protects them

>>18163704
Why are they real? Because you say so? It's your word against mine.
>>18163706
>>18163712
And the rights that it protects changes with a snap of the finger, meaning your rights are not so inalienable. I guess natural rights didn't exist before the fucking magna carta.

>>18163723
You're really dumb aren't you. Laws do not grant rights. They either suppress or protect them.

>>18163723
>Why are they real? Because you say so? It's your word against mine.
I've given you two examples of natural rights, freedom of speech/expression and private property.

>>18163736
For a right to be supressed or protected it has to be recognized and that changes all the fucking time you retard.

>>18163743
Ok, and i say they're not rights. Just because you say so are doesn't mean they are.

>>18163747
So rights do exist and it's merely our inability to identify which are the most fundamental, natural rights. Rights don't change. Laws are not infallible. Laws can protect things which are bad and can suppress things which are good. Do you comprehend that?

>>18163752
You can say so, that's your right.

>>18163758
>>18163767
I am done arguing. Retards like yourselves are the reason slavery should return as an institution.

>>18154311
the government doesn't have a monopoly on currency. The Federal Reserve is a private institution.

Here's a nice history of the fed:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Kt2De98Bck

>>18163847
a private institution that agrees with every government welfare program because it aligns with their private goals, how kind

>>18163774
first time talking with an american?

All I know is that financial markets and institutions have become subversive to democracy

>>18164247
Then when you look at how you will see who and why.

dont like how economics is perceived to somehow be this "true" science akin to natural law, when it is deeply a social science. the priests of economic mysticism are afforded entirely too much weight in our discourses.

>>18164216
Rights are real, sorry your country doesn't recognize any.

>>18164263
do you think the hypothesis: be on a gold standard, would be an easy one to test?

>>18154311
>From the moment the Government got a monopoly on currency
You mean since the introduction of currencies?

>>18164492
You're an idiot. Currencies have naturally evolved in many societies, from Viking hacksilver to prison yard cigarettes. Crypto and other such initiatives represent a brand new currency backed by no government at all that's growing before your very eyes.

>>18160052
>Is the quantity at any given time fixed or potentially variable?
what is this high school econ? lmao
embarrassing post

>>18164492
markets can regulate currency with gold standard and clearing houses. Banks issue script which is redeemable by other banks and represents what one bank owes in gold to another bank. Banks are in charge of how the print money since it's imperative they balance this to maintain their business which means on aggregate all banks balance currency, inflation, etc.

>>18154101
I think more people should refrain from trying to learn about economics from reading these pop-sci books. These books are eerily similar to the Neil Degrasse Tyson type of books trying to explain astrophysics in layman's terms. It doesn't work. Just stop half-assing your way through a complex field with a rich history in social science. Either learn the mathematical theories necessary to understand the axiomatic foundations of micro and macroeconomics or don't bother at all. All of these books about economics are akin to teaching someone how to do algebra before learning what numbers are. Either go all the way or don't do anything at all because your input will be closer to the contribution of a literal retard than of an insightful person

t.economics student

>>18163249
Capitalism creates unemployment, productivity increases just makes you redundant and forces you to find new work to survive. People can't just "drop out" of the labour market when they feel like and survive. No one could claim capitalism doesn't increases real wealth it's just a brutal slog of a process.

>>18163847
>The Federal Reserve is a private institution.
Except that's wrong, guess who gets to appoint the head of the Fed? The Federal Reserve has a public mandate they have to follow which could be changed by the government at any time.

>>18164518
He probably meant the spread and institutionization of money. Better to think about how gold coins got into circulation and used initially, spoiler: it occurred with the rise of civilization and government/militaries. Also crypto obviously isn't money since no one is denominating things in it and next to no one is using it as a means of payment, claiming cigarettes are money because they have been used as such in a small amount of cases is absurd. You can use crypto as money but that's not how people are using it since it's being used as a way to get more dollars.