[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 424 KB, 637x377, oh no my liberal arts degree.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3912546 No.3912546 [Reply] [Original]

/sci/, I'm tired of hearing people who blindly join the OWS movement and don't know shit. Could you recommend me some books/articles so that I learn about how it all works and completely destroy anyone who talks to me about it. Basically, to the point where they have no fucking clue what I'm talking about? Maybe that will for them to do the same.

>> No.3912575
File: 103 KB, 500x379, rus.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3912575

sage

>> No.3912597

>>3912546
timecube, I promise you no one will know what the fuck you're blathering about

>> No.3912605

>>3912597
Don't reply to OP he's that same 16 year old stormfag who spams /sci/ all day.

>> No.3912631

>>3912597
That website that says modern physics is wrong?

>>3912605
Actually, I'm a second year physics student who doesn't come here often because I'd rather actually have a productive day by studying and reading books. But it's ok if you don't understand, you can keep spending all day raging at this "16 year old" and post in threads that have been done to death.

>> No.3912640

>>3912546
SCIENCE:
> here's the facts. What conclusions do we draw from it?
OP:
> here's my preconceived notions. What data supports it?

>> No.3912657

>>3912640

Yeah really. Especially in topics that in some way revolve around economics, its a horrible idea to look for literature that will support your opinion.

Im very tempted to just recommend the communist manifesto. As that probably provides everything youll want to agree with.

>> No.3912662
File: 34 KB, 256x382, Capital-by-Karl-Marx[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3912662

>> No.3912675

>>3912640
Yes, that's exactly it, I don't like using facts. You got me there...

I'm saying that a lot of people following this movement are just accepting the stuff they hear without an actual source or any proof. They just use anything they can to make the system look bad. Yes, it is bad, but they actually understand why.

>> No.3912689

>>3912675
>I'm saying that a lot of people following this movement are just accepting the stuff they hear without an actual source or any proof.

Meta statement of the day.

>> No.3912698
File: 21 KB, 250x365, capitalistman.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3912698

>>3912662

>> No.3912703

>>3912675
If you couldn't even understand my implication, you have no hope of following a detailed argument, and even if you somehow got lucky and did, you'd not be able to repeat it anyway.

>> No.3912722

There is no book that covers everything, you're going to have to be more specific, eell maybe there's an "economics for dummies" or something I don't know...

>> No.3912737

>>3912722
I never asked for a book about everything. I'm looking for the best books regarding government, the economy and maybe some alternatives.

>> No.3912749

>>3912675

Good thing you do know why the OWS movement is wrong. Now if you sweetly go back to bed, you'll get a lollipop in the morning, okay?

>> No.3912781

>>3912749
Are you able to read? I never said the movement was wrong, I obviously don't have enough knowledge in economics and politics to even form my opinion. However, what I'm saying is that I want to learn more about it to be able to understand better. At the same time, I could tell whether what someone is telling me is right or wrong and I could correct them. The only reason I haven't joined this movement yet is because I don't understand enough and I don't want to support something just because everyone else is.

>> No.3912788

Wow, op. You clearly have no standards whatsoever.

Physics majors general? Physics majors general.

How does it feel what the greeks would call an idiot?

>> No.3912802

no one on /sci/ actually understands finance or economics. We only know free markets are good assuming an ideal and unrealistic model like in econ 101

>> No.3912817

>>3912802
OP here, that's what I was starting to believe. I guess you might be right.

>> No.3912819

>>3912662
read this

>> No.3912826

>>3912819
Yeah, it's noted, thanks.

>> No.3912829

>>3912781
The thing is, champ, apart from trolling, we don't know how to make the world an awesome place. If we did, we'd already have done it. Maybe they are right for the right reasons, right for the wrong reasons, wrong for the right reasons, or just plain old wrong.

>> No.3912838

>>3912802
>no one ever actually understands finance or economics
ftfy

>> No.3912860

It doesn't matter how much of a smart ass you make yourself look.
It doesn't change the fact that the economy is shit and the government has been raping for a really long freaking time.
These people are here to stay.

>> No.3912881

>>3912546
The point of social movements isn't to propose a fully coherent and more accurate model of society. It's to get people to pay attention to the fact that something is wrong and disagreeable. It's like a piece of collective art - if it gets people talking about this issue in a serious way (like in your goal to understand the economics behind it), it has already done what it's supposed to do

>> No.3912891

>>3912829
"One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors."

— Plato

>>3912860
I guess you're right. But I'd still like to have a better understanding. If I get really interested, I might try doing something about it, probably fail like all the others, but at least try.

>> No.3912934

I was originally joking when I suggested the communist manifesto. Das Kapital (or "Capital" as that American swine book is labeled) is in the same bunch.

I own a copy of the communist manifesto. Its worth reading from a historical stand point to say the least. But it has pretty much no relevance in modern economics.

Just to put it in context. Karl Marx never had a job and sat in his room writing books all day, mooching off the income of his friends and family. He is the 1800s equivalent to a teenager on the internet. Very large broad opinions taken to an extreme extent with no empirical research.

Does that mean the sentiment or concern among Karl Marx, or the OWS protesters is wrong? Well, you cant say anything is right or wrong in the face of purely scientific and economic perspective. But I would hope we would be smart about how we achieve our goals and values, which I dont think the OWS protesters are.

>> No.3912948

>>3912891
The US has been waging never ending wars, the media lies, politicians are bought by lobbyists, the income inequality is worse than 3rd world countries, people can't find jobs, people are struggling to not get their homes foreclose, financial institutions are immune to the law, jobs are being outsourced and students are burdened by student debt.
How's that for an explanation?

>> No.3912957

>>3912934
>Das Kapital (or "Capital" as that American swine book is labeled) is in the same bunch.
uhm no.
Das Kapital is just a critical analysis of capitalist economy. You actually learn something from reading it and why the economy is the way it is and not only how you milk the most profit out of it (like other books on economy).
Its not about communism.

>> No.3912962

>>3912934
Yeah, don't worry, I could tell you were joking.

>Does that mean the sentiment or concern among Karl Marx, or the OWS protesters is wrong? Well, you cant say anything is right or wrong in the face of purely scientific and economic perspective. But I would hope we would be smart about how we achieve our goals and values, which I dont think the OWS protesters are.

That's exactly what I was thinking and one of the reasons why I want to understand these things.

>>3912948
Of course these statements are thrown around by a lot of the protesters, but the problem is, they don't know what it means. Neither do I, that's why I want to know.

>> No.3912971

>>3912962
Wtf do you mean they don't know what it means?

>> No.3912980

>>3912971
I mean that they don't know why those things happened. They're just saying a bunch of facts.

>> No.3912989

>>3912934
>philosopher, sociologist, economic historian, journalist
>implying writing isn't a job
>started a political movement
HE WAS POOR GUYS LOL WHAT A LAZY BUM

>> No.3912992

>>3912980
We know why:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Das_Kapital

>> No.3912995

>>3912980
> They're just saying a bunch of facts.
How dare they!

>> No.3912999

>>3912980
They happened because the American people allowed it to happen

>> No.3913001

>>3912992
>don't know why they are happening
>they are just saying a bunch of facts
??????????????
What do you want opinions

>> No.3913007

>implying you should be against protests that among other things demand that legalized bribing of politicians be done away with

but no, these are all just aimless hippies that have no legitimate grievances with our current government!

>> No.3913010

>>3912737
Wealth of Nations. Second Treatise of Government. The Harm Principle.

>> No.3913012
File: 143 KB, 1180x750, 53.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3913012

>>3913007
They're proud to be the 53%

>> No.3913019

>>3912980
If you want to get to the core of the issue you should look up corporate personhood.

>> No.3913028

>>3913007
Why do people actually think this?
sure there are alot of people just their for the ride or whatever, but the point is they have valid arguments. and yet you sit there and you belittle sorry but YOU are the problem with america not the "hippies" as you labeled them.

>> No.3913030
File: 756 KB, 1000x1575, take a shot2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3913030

TIME TO GET DRUNK GUYS

>> No.3913038

>>3913028
>implying i wasn't being sarcastic

>> No.3913063
File: 54 KB, 300x310, will hunting.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3913063

>MFW my brother thinks all the protesters are stupid, lazy, english-major hippies with no knowledge of anything intelligent
>he thinks very wealthy corporate officials are scrupulous people who got to their position by simply studying economics and not doing anything corrupt or having elite family connections
>mfw his views will take a 180 degree turn when he's out of college and jobless

>> No.3913071

>More jobs
>more taxes/regulation

pick one.

>> No.3913081
File: 302 KB, 486x322, tumblr_lllxksJlx51qkt0a3o1_500.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3913081

>>3913071
>mfw people still think less taxes will create more jobs

>> No.3913082
File: 26 KB, 256x256, Butthurt.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3913082

>>3913030
>1. systematic class warfare

HAHAHAAH oh wow. Good joke, comrade. Maybe if you work extra hard this year, Uncle Joe will give you an extra potato ration before he sends you to the gulag.

>> No.3913089

>>3913081
I didn't say that, i said that more taxes will take jobs away.

>> No.3913090
File: 101 KB, 392x288, facepalm.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3913090

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad to see Americans being politically active about ANYTHING...

But these guys are idiots. They're not making any demands. When French citizens protested last year, it was a direct response to the government trying to raise the retirement age, they took to the streets, halted economic productivity, and the government caved to their demands.

What are these Americans protesting? The education system? The recession? Wall Street bailouts? American foreign policy? Poverty? What are their demands? What do they expect the government to do, exactly? It's hard to take these people seriously when nobody knows what they're protesting or what they want fixed.

But it's refreshing to see Americans doing anything about the government, even if they do it in the most retarded manner.

>> No.3913102

op, you are too much of a scientist. You can start from the theoretical, but you don't have to.
Read articles or watch a documentary about the recent economic fall (from different political and economic viewpoints, of course), get a feel for how things work, and go from there.
If you read newspapers, the language they use shouldn't be too foreign. If it is, there's always google.

Read the communist manifesto, it's very short, written like a passionate speech, and might give rise to some emotions that the protesters have (specifically: how dare the bourgeoisie!).

>> No.3913111

>>3913090
>But these guys are idiots. They're not making any demands.
Thats because what they actually want is communism, but you cant say that because communism is evil.

Do you know that silly joke:
>What do you get when you cross a Jehovas wittness with an atheist?
>Someone who knocks on your door and doesnt know why.

Now what do you get when you cross a communist with an american?
Someone who protests against capitalism and doesnt know why.

>> No.3913115

>>3913090
>What are these Americans protesting?
There's so much fucked up shit going on in America that it would take days to list all of the possible things being protested.

The overarching theme seems to be against corporate personhood (i.e. legalized bribery of politicians). The average American has no voice in government when some rich ass motherfucker can donate a couple million to a politician or a political party and dictate what things he wants done.

>> No.3913120

>>3913089
Funny how there were more jobs before bush-tax cuts
>>3913090
Whatever

>> No.3913130

>>3913120
>>3913120
Hey, faggot, I DIDN'T SAY THAT CUTTING TAXES LEADS TO JOB INCREASES.

I SAID THAT INCREASING TAXES, PARTICULARLY IN THE SHORT TERM, LEAD TO JOB DECREASES.

HI. ARE YOU AWAKE?

>> No.3913146

>>3913130
And I'm saying that you're wrong!
Corporations like General Electric didn't even pay taxes!

>> No.3913149

Here is a fun anecdote.

Both corporate "personhood", and communism originated from Germany.

>> No.3913157

>>3912546
If you want to refute their arguments, refute their factoids e.g.:

US corporations pay the second highest tax rate in the OECD. That's *pay* so even after all the loopholes, the effective tax rate corporations in the US actually write checks to the government for is the second highest:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jan/03/pat-toomey/pat-toomey-says-us-has-hig
hest-corporate-tax-rates/

The Top 10% of tax payers pay a larger share of taxes relative to wealth than in other OECD countries (such as Germany, France, or Sweden):
http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/27134.html

The top 1% pays more taxes than the bottom 95% of tax payers:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/24944.html

>> No.3913171

>>3913115
>There's so much fucked up shit going on in America that it would take days to list all of the possible things being protested.

yeah, but the thing about a protest is that it usually proposes a solution against whatever it is they dislike. These Occupy Wall Street fellows are just going "fix it, fix it, fix it, fix it, fix it, fix it, fix it!"

>> No.3913172

>>3913146

When I looked up GE's financial statements they list their income tax of ~3 billion dollars, including international income taxes. I bet that includes state income tax too.

On top of that whenever they buy anything, or own anything, they pay taxes. And states have all kinds of funny corporate taxes.

Now, I dont know if what you say they dont pay taxes, you mean, they get all kinds of refunds or benefits from the government. So much so that it over comes taxes, but I dont know that that is the case. I wont assume that yet.

>> No.3913173

>>3913130
there is a difference between raising unemployment by increasing taxes, and increasing job opportunities by lowering taxes.
If you raise taxes, the result is certain. If, after raising the taxes, it is decided that they be lowered, it is not certain that any corporations will hire more labour.

>> No.3913176

Death to the Tsar!

>> No.3913181

The Wealth of Nations
Road to Serfdom
Economics in one lesson

>> No.3913187

>>3913172
their tax benefit was $3.2 billion. they didn't pay $3.2 billion, they got paid $3.2 billion.

>> No.3913189

>>3913171
Well politicians should "fix it"
Why the hell are they there if they're going to sit around doing nothing?

>> No.3913195

>>3913187

Oh excuse me. Thats right. I got confused about the red and black numbers regarding positive and negative accounts.

>> No.3913203

>>3913157
I'm not really looking to go against them for the sake of it. One of the things I want is to tell them they are wrong on one thing, right on another or just give them more info on the subject.

Also, thank you everyone who suggested me some books and articles to read.

>> No.3913214

>>3913187
>>their tax benefit was $3.2 billion

Tax benefit is not the same thing as taxes paid.

>"Current tax benefit" and "current tax expense" are so-called financial reporting numbers, used to calculate the profits a company reports to shareholders.

>They have nothing to do with what a company sends to (or receives from) the IRS. "Any correlation between the 'current tax expense' and the current tax payable is likely coincidental," says a leading tax authority, Ed Outslay, Deloitte/Michael Licata professor of accounting at Michigan State University's business school.
http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2011/04/04/the-truth-about-ges-tax-bill/

The blog goes on to explain how GE *did* pay taxes.

>> No.3913216

The fountainhead
Atlas Shrugged

Ayn Rand was kind of right but not really. She didnt count on the cooperates being like they are now i think. She got the people pretty much right.

>> No.3913219

Read some Adam Smith, Milton Friedman, John Stuart Mill, Ludwig von Mises, John Rawls or John Locke. In general, you're probably looking for the classics of Liberalism..

>> No.3913222

>>3913216
if there's one thing ayn rand didn't understand, it's people. her characters are all so wooden and one dimensional it's ridiculous.

>> No.3913224

Know this OP

many of the "blindly" joining people are spoiled hipsters

the first sum of people ARE/were REAL people affected by this shit

everyone else has lesser degrees until they are hipsters

>> No.3913247
File: 44 KB, 549x563, intredasting.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3913247

>>3913224
> you can only support people if you are in exactly the same place they are

>> No.3913249

>>3913216

Adam Smith was a bit out of touch. He was alive about 250 years ago. He believed that the market could perfectly bring everything to its optimal price. The Wealth of Nations is probably not a good place to start reading about economics.

Ayn Rand was hilarious

>>3913222

Yeah really. I think if you replaced every characters name with "Ayn Rand" the book makes a lot more sense.

>> No.3913269

>>3913247
>>3913247
no you don't

I'm not in a "99%" person state, I hope am never in one of the real persons positions

>> No.3913275

>>3913214

I read that. Im convinced.

>> No.3913288

>>3913171

Except... No it isn't.

>> No.3913294

i would pay that girl to suck my dick. instant employment.

>> No.3913306

>>3913222
lol true.

She was a horrible novelist, but i think she made some good points in the book. Disregard everything about acting like a sociopath and its pretty good.

>> No.3913307

Is this thread indicative of the savvy of /sci/entists?

Quoting Ayn Rand and Marx as arguments for or against anything?

I'm, honestly, a little disappointed.

>> No.3913313

>>3913249

>Adam Smith was a bit out of touch. He was alive about 250 years ago. He believed that the market could perfectly bring everything to its optimal price. The Wealth of Nations is probably not a good place to start reading about economics.

Have you actually read the book? He doesn't say that market forces always lead to desirable results, but they frequently do, even if individual agents act in their own interest.
His texts are still brilliant and relevant to this day, but you should interpret them correctly.

The term 'invisible hand' has an entirely different meaning from what it used to have.

>> No.3913319

>>3913313

No, Ill admit I havent. But I did think he believed that market forces could always bring us to an optimal point. I forgot where I heard that.

Anyway, Ill reaad it in light of this disagreement. I guess its inappropriate for me to recommend against a book Ive never read.

>> No.3913321

>>3913307
feel free to skip the ayn rand agruement, ive only been on this boad for two weeks. Its nice to actually see that people do talk about intelligent things.

>> No.3913364

Alright /sci/,

I'm going to give you the tools to educate yourselves on an issue you, clearly, are ignorant about. this is a direct answer to the OP.

First, go here:

http://databank.worldbank.org/ddp/home.do

This is where metadata goes to be found by educated people.

With data, what do you do? Where do you go? You need to be educated on the major Economic views. Here's a brief list, some including their major work. Others are obvious.

WW Rostow - The Stages of Economic Growth: a non communist manifesto
Max Weber - The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism
Talcott Parsons - Structure and Process in Modern Societies
Samuel Huntington - Political Order in Changing Societies
Andrew Gunder Frank - Capitalism and Underdevelopment in Latin America
Samir Amin - Unequal Development: An Essay on the Social Formations of Peripheral Capitalism
Fernando Cardoso - Dependency and Development in Latin America
Peter Evans - Dependent Development: the Alliance of Multinational, State, and Local Capital in Brazil
Harry Dexter White
John Maynard Keynes
David Ricardo
Karl Marx
Adam Smith

Familiar with all of these men and their viewpoints? Congratulations. You've just taken a Master's level course in economics.

-

Between the meta-data and the views, you will have enough to hold an educated opinion.

-

The vast majority of this thread is ridiculous. Ayn Rand.

>> No.3913373

>>3913319

Allow me to throw in a nice quotes from his text.

>This division of labour, from which so many advantages are derived, is not originally the effect of any human wisdom, which foresees and intends that general opulence to which it gives occasion. It is the necessary, though very slow and gradual consequence of a certain propensity in human nature which has in view no such extensive utility; the propensity to truck, barter, and exchange one thing for another.

>But man has almost constant occasion for the help of his brethren, and it is in vain for him to expect it from their benevolence only. He will be more likely to prevail if he can interest their self-love in his favour, and show them that it is for their own advantage to do for him what he requires of them.

>It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.

This is what is meant by the 'invisible hand'. People act in their self-interest and society ends up benefiting from this. Smith was simply saying that cooperation without coercion is, unlike what Hobbes thought in his Leviathan, possible and in a sense even 'natural'.

>> No.3913374

>>3913364

On one hand, I want to thank you for providing this collection of information. Ill be sure to keep it.

On the other hand opinions have no place in academia, which is where you are truly going to learn about economics.

>> No.3913417

>>3913374

Economics is not an absolute science, and economies and behaviour are far from static. There is no single economic model or even line of thought that applies everywhere. Reading and informing yourself about various theories (some of which are plain silly) is necessary if you want to critically analyse what's going on out there.

Until Economists/Neuro-scientists/Sociologists fully understand the workings of the human brain and societies, opinions will be highly relevant in Economics.

>> No.3913419

>>3913364
OP here. THANK YOU. I'll try to read a bunch of these during my week off in 2 weeks and during winter break. This seems pretty legit, thanks again.

>> No.3913420

>>3913373

You mean it doesnt refer to an unseen force that brings prices and quantities to their most optimal point?

I dont want to say Adam Smith is worthless. He made his contribution. Which I always figured was about labor specialization. That when people specialize in single tasks we all become better off and significantly more efficient.

>> No.3913473

>>3913420

>You mean it doesnt refer to an unseen force that brings prices and quantities to their most optimal point?

That was not his original point, but has for some reason always been attributed to him.
In a sense, you could see market equilibria as consequences of agents' self-centred behaviour, which in general provides some benefit to society, but Smith never said one would end up in a wholly equitable/fair point thanks to this process. He merely says that humans have the tendency to unintentionally improve each other's situation while acting in our own self interest, and that society thus largely benefits from such automatic behaviour; without this intrinsic need to trade, every man would live his life as some kind of autarky, ultimately most likely resulting in a lower standard of living.

>> No.3913484

LOL @ RSE and the other kid debating econ.

Good on you both.

I'm in my second year of Econ grad school, and the best econ shop talk I can scoop up is all math jargon.

Feelsbatman.

>> No.3913510

>>3913417
So, economics is just a bunch of special cases that only make sense in historical context, yet have no real predictive power beyond blind adherence by money managers.

>> No.3913549

>>3913510

No, there are still plenty of concepts that are valid in the vast majority of the world, and are practically axiomatic. What I'm implying is that it's more likely to see a fundamental paradigm shift (as is currently happening with the large growth of Behavioural Economics) in Economics than in the natural sciences. That doesn't discredit the work done in the field, though.
Understanding history does allow us to form more accurate expectations of what will happen should, for instance, some fiscal/monetary policy be implemented in the near future. It is inevitable that some form of error remains in predicting the future, but sound economic theory allows for the minimisation of this error.

>> No.3913621

>>3913484

Thats what it should be! I mean, in school its all math and concepts expressed in math.

I disagree with EconPoser about opinions being highly relevant. Perhaps when you get into education higher than mine you start to care more. But at least in my education opinions have had no part. Ive learned more about economic opinions from /sci/ than school, frankly.

>> No.3913722

>>3913621

Try being a bit more critical about what you read and what you're being taught. I know that in the first two years everything sounds like it makes sense, and one is almost willing to take things as facts, but there are many diverging theories out there that all make valid points, none of which should be taken as some indisputable truth.

>> No.3913736

>>3913722

Thanks. Im not sure how I sound on /sci/ but I am very critical of what I hear in school.

>> No.3913738

>hey /sci/ I think these guys don't know what they're talking about, will you validate my prejudice for me?

>> No.3913774

>>3913030

The font of that pisses me off. I hate that 'fake faded street spray' look. It reminds me of all the hippies and punks that have joined the OWS movement. It's not helpful, and it legitimizes the actual points to be made in the movement. Brockway on Cracked has some good points about all of this, from a comedy website of all places. My point is though that it IS important to separate government from politics and stop corporate greed and so on. What's equally important is how to go about doing it. This isn't about uprooting capitalism and raging against the machine, man. It's about setting reasonable demands on the regulation of market derivatives - exotic options and swaps, and so on; re-rigging the rewards system for funds and brokers to ensure more market risk is allocated to them (ideally as much risk as their investors are taking on or slightly more); and setting up BOTTOM UP regulatory mechanisms (eg. transparency clauses) that allow citizens to hold government accountable for their progress or lack thereof in exercising their regulatory authority fairly and with due diligence.

>> No.3913790

>>3913549
Well you've been misguided.

Your axioms only make sense when you believe them to be axioms. As soon as the zeitgeist shifts, your axioms are useless.

>> No.3913805
File: 57 KB, 400x312, mediaguideows.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3913805

>> No.3913810

>>3913774

Delegitimize, rather.

>> No.3913814

>>3913805
>implying any of the tea partiers have any idea who adam smith is

>> No.3913825

I assume this thread has been derailed but this is a good source.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.147.9865&rep=rep1&type=pdf

"We conduct a systematic empirical study of cross-sectional inequality in the United States, integrat-
ing data from the Current Population Survey, the Panel Study of Income Dynamics, the Consumer
Expenditure Survey, and the Survey of Consumer Finances. In order to understand how different
dimensions of inequality are related via choices, markets, and institutions, we follow the mapping
suggested by the household budget constraint from individual wages to individual earnings, to house-
hold earnings, to disposable income, and, ultimately, to consumption and wealth. We document a
continuous and sizable increase in wage inequality over the sample period. Changes in the distrib-
ution of hours worked sharpen the rise in earnings inequality before 1982, but mitigate its increase
thereafter. Taxes and transfers compress the level of income inequality, especially at the bottom of
the distribution, but have little effect on the overall trend. Finally, access to financial markets has
limited both the level and growth of consumption inequality."

>> No.3913828

>>3913805
God that comic's rage-inducing.

>> No.3913851

>>3913805
8/10

>> No.3913891

>>3913828

I agree.