Post: #1

Sorry if this is a dupe, but I searched and didn't find anything like this. The Milton Friedman thread and seeing the Wolf of Wall Street really opened my eyes up to the interesting world of money and how it makes this country work. I've been obsessed with Friedmans Free To Choose series, and one of my favorite economists minds has been Thomas Sowell. However, as I listen to them, I realize I'm not getting as much as I should. I'd like to know the best internet resources, books and other media I could consume to help me get a base knowledge of economics. Any other recommendations for other media would be greatly appreciated too. Thanks a lot guys.

Post: #2

I find this site interesting because government figures seem to be manipulated.

http://www.shadowstats.com/

Quote from the site.
Have you ever wondered why the CPI, GDP and employment numbers run counter to your personal and business experiences? The problem lies in biased and often-manipulated government reporting.

Post: #3

A lot of good material here
http://www.econlib.org/

If you want to learn about basic econ 101 analysis then Khan Academy is good.

edit: This course looks promising if you want to learn about finance
https://www.coursera.org/course/financialmarkets

Post: #4

Have a look at this thread, maybe choose a few titles recommended and read 'em: Best economics books

Post: #5

If you're going to get into econ, you need to get a good grasp of the basics before you start.

The best basic economics book around is Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics. Sowell's a conservative guy, and he's got a knack for explaining things in a way that's easy for a layman to understand. I took a bit of economics in college, and I would say I got more out of the book than I did two full quarters of macro.

There are a lot of people specializing in economics in the manosphere, and some of them are good and some of them aren't. The 'sphere doesn't have the layers of fact checking and editorial control that occasionally keep even smart people from saying something stupid. Now, that's not always a bad thing; those same layers can also shut out voices that need to be heard. One obvious example is how everybody in the mainstream media thought subprime loans were the greatest thing in the world, right up until the crash of '08. But it does mean that you need a foundation of knowledge to realize when what you're hearing is bullshit. This book will give you that knowledge.

Post: #6

(01-25-2014 05:46 PM)Faust Wrote:  If you're going to get into econ, you need to get a good grasp of the basics before you start.

The best basic economics book around is Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics. Sowell's a conservative guy, and he's got a knack for explaining things in a way that's easy for a layman to understand. I took a bit of economics in college, and I would say I got more out of the book than I did two full quarters of macro.

There are a lot of people specializing in economics in the manosphere, and some of them are good and some of them aren't. The 'sphere doesn't have the layers of fact checking and editorial control that occasionally keep even smart people from saying something stupid. Now, that's not always a bad thing; those same layers can also shut out voices that need to be heard. One obvious example is how everybody in the mainstream media thought subprime loans were the greatest thing in the world, right up until the crash of '08. But it does mean that you need a foundation of knowledge to realize when what you're hearing is bullshit. This book will give you that knowledge.

I don't know how much you know about economics dads, but I think its a subject where a little knowledge is worse than none as it can lead you to make misinformed opinions. Personally Id read the book Faust said (which I enjoyed) before moving onto any more specialist books in the other thread.

Post: #7

(01-25-2014 05:50 PM)Cyr Wrote:  

(01-25-2014 05:46 PM)Faust Wrote:  If you're going to get into econ, you need to get a good grasp of the basics before you start.

The best basic economics book around is Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics. Sowell's a conservative guy, and he's got a knack for explaining things in a way that's easy for a layman to understand. I took a bit of economics in college, and I would say I got more out of the book than I did two full quarters of macro.

There are a lot of people specializing in economics in the manosphere, and some of them are good and some of them aren't. The 'sphere doesn't have the layers of fact checking and editorial control that occasionally keep even smart people from saying something stupid. Now, that's not always a bad thing; those same layers can also shut out voices that need to be heard. One obvious example is how everybody in the mainstream media thought subprime loans were the greatest thing in the world, right up until the crash of '08. But it does mean that you need a foundation of knowledge to realize when what you're hearing is bullshit. This book will give you that knowledge.

I don't know how much you know about economics dads, but I think its a subject where a little knowledge is worse than none as it can lead you to make misinformed opinions. Personally Id read the book Faust said (which I enjoyed) before moving onto any more specialist books in the other thread.

Little to nothing. I have the intelligence to put most of two and two together, but I know very little beyond what I've gathered through a semester of economics in high school (that I slept through 85% of) and Milton Friedman's Free to Speech series.

Post: #8

(01-25-2014 05:45 PM)MSW2007 Wrote:  Have a look at this thread, maybe choose a few titles recommended and read 'em: Best economics books

Out of that list, I'd like to highlight Henry Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson". Make it through that and you will have a solid foundation.

Post: #9

It is an easy and fun read as well. Great book.

Post: #10

I don't know, reading a book like "Basic Economics" is a bad call to me. Firstly, the book doesn't really delve into any substantive academic learning. It's a thick book (that is an easy read) so a lot of uninformed people read the book and think they are the next Keynes (or rather Hayek). Secondly, the book is extremely biased towards a conservative point of view that "the market never has ill effects if left unadultered." Which is wrong.

Post: #11

Economics is a strange subject since any two experts will disagree on most things. So even when you have studied alot you are still no clearer in your understanding on alot of important issues.

Post: #12

I got into economics by listening to 'Econtalk' with Russ Roberts.

He interviews well respected and some not so well respected figures in modern economics and tangentially related fields. If you go read the books and essays written by his guests you can get a pretty good feel for how economists view the world.

http://www.econtalk.org/

Post: #13

(01-26-2014 11:38 AM)cardguy Wrote:  Economics is a strange subject since any two experts will disagree on most things. So even when you have studied alot you are still no clearer in your understanding on alot of important issues.

Depends. On the internet it's about 99% Austrian Economics, whereas in real life it isn't.

Post: #14

(01-26-2014 11:18 PM)TheKantian Wrote:  

(01-26-2014 11:38 AM)cardguy Wrote:  Economics is a strange subject since any two experts will disagree on most things. So even when you have studied alot you are still no clearer in your understanding on alot of important issues.

Depends. On the internet it's about 99% Austrian Economics, whereas in real life it isn't.

I respectfully beg to differ. Ordinary life is all about Austrian Economics (i.e., real every day common-sense economics). That is the way that every individual on the planet must apply economics in their own life -- or else face bankruptcy.

Government and academia discard common sense for the facade of false intellectualism. That is not real life. That is a grand illusion. How many ordinary people do you know who have spent their way into solvency or prosperity?

Post: #15

(01-26-2014 11:38 AM)cardguy Wrote:  Economics is a strange subject since any two experts will disagree on most things. So even when you have studied alot you are still no clearer in your understanding on alot of important issues.

Before I studied economics, I thought the same thing. But it is not true. You must simply make a choice between reality and false intellectualism. Between the blue pill and the red pill.

Do this simple exercise: Ponder upon what every person on the planet must do to avoid insolvency in their own lives. Then apply that simple test to each school of economic thought and determine which one makes the most sense. It is really just that easy. Seriously.

Post: #16

If I were you i'd start with a book that explains the basic principles of economics. After that a book on history of economic thought, that will teach you how existing theories came to be.

After that you can swing away. There's more in the world of economics than milton friedman.

Post: #17

depends on if you want to know dinner cinversation economics (conflicting theories) or analytical economics

Post: #18

(01-27-2014 01:08 AM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  

(01-26-2014 11:18 PM)TheKantian Wrote:  

(01-26-2014 11:38 AM)cardguy Wrote:  Economics is a strange subject since any two experts will disagree on most things. So even when you have studied alot you are still no clearer in your understanding on alot of important issues.

Depends. On the internet it's about 99% Austrian Economics, whereas in real life it isn't.

I respectfully beg to differ. Ordinary life is all about Austrian Economics (i.e., real every day common-sense economics). That is the way that every individual on the planet must apply economics in their own life -- or else face bankruptcy.

Government and academia discard common sense for the facade of false intellectualism. That is not real life. That is a grand illusion. How many ordinary people do you know who have spent their way into solvency or prosperity?

not really, austrian economics takes complex things and tries to simplify them to self-proving, logical axioms. it sometimes works, it sometimes doesn't. it gets flak for being just that: largely self-proving axioms that re necessitated upon flawless logic.
in this case, cardguy's claim is completely accurate. for example, the austrian school says that lowering state spending will increase employment (spending implies either higher taxes or crowding out). you can look up a number of analyses and find that sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't, and sometimes there isn't any link whatsoever between the two.

Post: #19

I am no expert. But I think economics is still centuries away from being an accurate science.

The evidence so far seems to show that no one economic theory is correct in all situations.

Post: #20

(01-27-2014 04:22 PM)cardguy Wrote:  I am no expert. But I think economics is still centuries away from being an accurate science.

The evidence so far seems to show that no one economic theory is correct in all situations.

Wrong. It has far more to do with poor understanding of of the intellectual history of economics.

For instance, Friedman argued the Great Depression was exacerbated by a tight money policy of the Federal Reserve. In this, he and Krugman in fact agree a great deal. Both felt the government ought to have restored activity to the economy through stimulus, the disagreement was merely on the best application: fiscal or monetary.

You would seem to think they have fixed that problem. After all, Bernanke has done a lot of academic work on the Great Depression and understands it thoroughly. And yes, the Fed is pumping huge amounts of cash into the economy.

But that money is not getting out to borrowers or new businesses (so-called broad money). Base money, the reserves in the banking system, have increased dramatically, but not broad money. Why? Because of GOVERNMENT.

The financial crisis is the culmination of decades of cultural decay in US society - not least the end of thrift. Dealing with the poor savings behavior of Americans, politicians try to do all sorts of shit. Social Security, turning everyone into owners of real estate, and so on, and so forth. At the same time, they are clobbering savings behavior by encouraging the destruction of traditional families, forcing families that previously had just one home to have two, to spend money on shit for their kids when the kids would happily forego it all just to be a family again.

Government, my friends, is not the source of the problem. The real problem is the cultural revolution that came to fruition in the 60's. The government is, however, a powerful enabler. And no liberal economist will EVER understand this, because he fails to recognize that his entire ideology hinges on a perception of reality shaped by the very revolution, the cultural revolution, that has driven a stake right through the heart of America and created these problems in the first place.

Post: #21

(01-28-2014 12:50 AM)ElJefe Wrote:  

(01-27-2014 04:22 PM)cardguy Wrote:  I am no expert. But I think economics is still centuries away from being an accurate science.

The evidence so far seems to show that no one economic theory is correct in all situations.

Wrong. It has far more to do with poor understanding of of the intellectual history of economics.

For instance, Friedman argued the Great Depression was exacerbated by a tight money policy of the Federal Reserve. In this, he and Krugman in fact agree a great deal. Both felt the government ought to have restored activity to the economy through stimulus, the disagreement was merely on the best application: fiscal or monetary.

You would seem to think they have fixed that problem. After all, Bernanke has done a lot of academic work on the Great Depression and understands it thoroughly. And yes, the Fed is pumping huge amounts of cash into the economy.

But that money is not getting out to borrowers or new businesses (so-called broad money). Base money, the reserves in the banking system, have increased dramatically, but not broad money. Why? Because of GOVERNMENT.

The financial crisis is the culmination of decades of cultural decay in US society - not least the end of thrift. Dealing with the poor savings behavior of Americans, politicians try to do all sorts of shit. Social Security, turning everyone into owners of real estate, and so on, and so forth. At the same time, they are clobbering savings behavior by encouraging the destruction of traditional families, forcing families that previously had just one home to have two, to spend money on shit for their kids when the kids would happily forego it all just to be a family again.

Government, my friends, is not the source of the problem. The real problem is the cultural revolution that came to fruition in the 60's. The government is, however, a powerful enabler. And no liberal economist will EVER understand this, because he fails to recognize that his entire ideology hinges on a perception of reality shaped by the very revolution, the cultural revolution, that has driven a stake right through the heart of America and created these problems in the first place.

even this is not accurate and it only reinforces what cardguy said. it's not a precise science in the same way physics or chemistry is because there's so many variables that no "experiment" can really be accurately run. A lot of people will say things like this, the government is messing everything up and it does not function well despite the fact that scandanavian states have some of the highest levels of government intervention and social programs and do not have the problems of "lazy people not working." Take the other thread now about how it is cheaper to just give the homeless houses than to try to fix any of the systemic problems of homelessness.
social sciences don't deal in absolutes, the phrase is "usually, most of the times, on average, x and y are corollary."

Post: #22

(01-28-2014 01:22 AM)clever alias Wrote:  even this is not accurate and it only reinforces what cardguy said. it's not a precise science in the same way physics or chemistry is because there's so many variables that no "experiment" can really be accurately run. A lot of people will say things like this, the government is messing everything up and it does not function well despite the fact that scandanavian states have some of the highest levels of government intervention and social programs and do not have the problems of "lazy people not working." Take the other thread now about how it is cheaper to just give the homeless houses than to try to fix any of the systemic problems of homelessness.
social sciences don't deal in absolutes, the phrase is "usually, most of the times, on average, x and y are corollary."

Argh!

OK. First off, you are partially correct about economics not being an exact science in so far as psychology is not an exact science, because of what economists call lack of exogenous variation.

That said, humans behave in certain ways, and we can predict certain outcomes with high or low degrees of uncertainty. Behavioral economics is a rapidly growing field, and there are plenty of well-established results. The law of supply and demand, for one.

Your comment on Scandinavia is just flat-out wrong AND proves my point exactly. Denmark was one the countries the hardest hit by the financial crisis. Norway is hard to tell because of their immense oil-wealth that disguises the country's underlying problems (this phenomenon even has a name - the curse of natural resources). Sweden has made inroads in cutting taxes, but they are already suffering from a slow-down and their country is going to suffer terribly for the hundreds of thousands of Muslims that have migrated there the past few decades.

Government IS the problem in every Western country, and most non-Western countries as well. It's not for nothing Smith, de Tocqueville and Montesquieu all put their finger on government being a problem more often than not. The government is prolonging the crisis, not shortening it

Post: #23

I never said they werent in recession. I said that they have one of the highest standards of living in the world. which they do
also it would be easy to measure how norway was affected by resources because the dutch disease primarily affects the manufacturing sector
but mainly i mever said that the government wasnt prolonging the problem. My point was, or i thought it was, that there's no cookie cutter solution. maybe things work better in scandanavia because people arent as fat, or they have blue eyes or whatever. across the board in a sweeping "its government" doesnt really work. especially consodering that tje government can and has provided services the private sector would be unable to.
but even if we got everyone to agree that yes, it is the governments fault, they wouldnt even agree on how. some peopke would say it was monetary policy, some would say fiscal, some would say that a centeal bank is inherently unstable. and even in the camp that agrees, everyone would disagree.
and im not "partially right" about it not being an exact science, im absolutely right, parrly because of outside variables, and partly because causal relationships are hard as fuck to prove

Post: #24

Milton Friedman discussing Scandinavia:

Quote:A Scandinavian economist once stated to Milton Friedman: "In Scandinavia we have no poverty."

Milton Friedman replied, "That's interesting, because in America among Scandinavians, we have no poverty either."

Post: #25

(01-28-2014 02:54 PM)cardguy Wrote:  Milton Friedman discussing Scandinavia:

Quote:A Scandinavian economist once stated to Milton Friedman: "In Scandinavia we have no poverty."

Milton Friedman replied, "That's interesting, because in America among Scandinavians, we have no poverty either."

I'm sure this is somehow a brilliant statement....but why?

- does he mean the mentality of the scandinavians is such, that they don't allow poverty to exist in their society?
- does he mean that scandinavia is a much smaller part of the world than the USA and as such, it is easier to handle poverty.
- if above is the case, then why wouldn't he have said: in xxx state we have no poverty either.

no idea really