Reddit reviews Principles of Microeconomics

If you're new, read this.

When you're good, read this.

Like any science, you start by learning the basics and then journals will tell you where the discipline is going.

>PHASE 1: Pre-globalization: Workers are earning $25 per hour in stable jobs in the manufacture sector

>PHASE 2: Globalization: Workers lose their jobs due to competition from China because Chinese workers work for less money.

>PHASE 3: Post-globalization: Workers are earning $18 per hour in unstable jobs in the retail sector

Hhaahahahahaha

Oh man this analysis is gold.

For you:

https://www.amazon.com/Principles-Microeconomics-Mankiws-Economics/dp/0538453044

>Corporate tax cuts do not lead to higher wages.

This is empirically false.

>Wages are an expense that any company tries to keep as low as possible. The only thing that enables wage increases is worker empowerment, for which the usual tool is unions. It is misleading to make a statement that implies tax cuts leads to wage growth.

This is also empirically false.

https://www.amazon.com/Principles-Microeconomics-Mankiws-Economics/dp/0538453044

I'd recommend that book.

Thank you for actually replying with a well-thought out response. I couldn't believe how anti-scientific /r/science had suddenly become.

The main problem with cap-and-trade is not the bureaucratic costs (although the windfalls profits seen in the EU ETS may make this option politically untenable) but that it simply doesn't have good supporting evidence that it's particularly effective at reducing emissions. According to the latest IPCC report, "Their short-run environmental effect has been limited as a result of loose caps or caps that have not proved to be constraining."

In contrast, "tax-based policies specifically aimed at reducing GHG emissions—alongside technology and other policies—have helped to weaken the link between GHG emissions and GDP."

Have a look at the full report to get a synthesis of the evidence, but the consensus to date seems to be that in practice, carbon taxes are more effective than cap-and-trade at reducing pollution from fossil fuels.

As far as I can tell, most economists favor taxes over caps in theory, as well, at least for GHG emissions. Emmanuel Saez has some free lecture slides available on why, and Greg Mankiw also touches on this in his Econ 101 textbook, but I can't find a free version online.

Read this

> it's that the logical conclusion of free trade is lowering the wages of workers in the developed world to those in the developing world

It's not. If you really think otherwise, please buy yourself an economics textbook. Mankiw's Principles of Microeconomics come highly recommended, and the older versions can be purchased for at low price. Once you're wrong, if you still think economists are mistaken, feel free to get your PhD and win a Nobel prize.

There's virtually no difference between the 6th, 7th, and 8th editions of Mankiw. Except for the price. You can grab an used copy of the 6th addition for ~$10.

https://www.amazon.com/Principles-Microeconomics-N-Gregory-Mankiw/dp/0538453044/ref=mp_s_a_1_2?keywords=Mankiw+6th+edition&qid=1556377109&s=gateway&sr=8-2

> articulate, salient arguments

How about an economics textbook?

I think it's misleading of Jmdih123 to characterize what economists think as "right wing ideas". If economists agree on something, it's not because of ideological leanings (there are very left-wing as well as very right-wing economists), but because there's lots of evidence to support that view. Besides, is it a right-wing idea that "The United States should eliminate agricultural subsidies" or that "If the federal budget is to be balanced, it should be done over the business cycle rather than yearly"?

Amartya Sen does not oppose free trade. Check out this article, for instance.

>[Sen] supports the "themes" raised by anti-capitalist and environmental protesters at Seattle, Prague and Davos, but not their "theses", which he finds too simple. He says the problem is not free trade, but the inequality of global power.

I strongly, strongly advise you seriously to look at even an introductory economics textbook's explanation of what comparative advantage is and why it shows that free trade leads to mutual gain. (I will note that free trade is not the same thing as what many international trade deals have produced, viz., the bondage and not the freedom of many developing economies.) A thoroughly startling number of people, even very smart people, who criticize free trade don't understand the most important argument in its favour and can't explain the difference between comparative and absolute advantage.

This textbook has a chapter that explains comparative advantage well. I will disclose that the author ended up being an advisor to Romney, but if you prefer reading 200 pages by a centrist liberal to reading 30 pages by a right-liberal, Paul Krugman explains the benefits of international trade in his book Pop Internationalism. Krugman also wrote this piece on how frustrating it is that many people refuse to even try to understand Ricardo before dismissing him.