(Part 3) Best business & money books according to redditors
We found 42,093 Reddit comments discussing the best business & money books. We ranked the 12,862 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the products ranked 41-60. You can also go back to the previous section.
Well this seems like a good opportunity to post a few of the lessons I learned in my 20s.
To my former self:
If you're depressed, here's how to turn it around
Fap less, and never to porn
Gratitude
Wealth
Theories
Girls
Career
Flow
Meditation
*****
Edit:
To answer some requests, here's my list of resources.
Wealth/Metaphysics
This audiobook has the best summary I've found of how wealth works
Lifting
How Procrastination works:
How Business works
What innovation actually is and how to do it:
How economics works:
How to get things done:
Task Management tool:
Spiritual Books
How to be a man:
Audiobooks (most of these can be found on audiobook):
Frame Control (Anytime you feel like you're trying too hard or begging for something, you lost the frame)
This is my favourite book of all. They talk about the new type of conscousness which is really really interesting to me. May not apply to all people.
If anyone find this book interesting I'd love to talk about it:
How the world works:
That the fact that women as a group earn lower wages than men as a group is evidence of massive sexism in America.
My rebuttals, which were brushed aside by a college professor:
>Don't women, though, earn less than men in the same job? Yes and no. For example, the Bureau of Labor Statistics lumps together all medical doctors. Men are more likely to be surgeons (versus general practitioners) and work in private practice for hours that are longer and less predictable, and for more years. In brief, the same job is not the same. Are these women's choices? When I taught at a medical school, I saw that even my first-year female students eyed specialties with fewer and more predictable hours.
>But don't female executives also make less than male executives? Yes. Discrimination? Let's look. The men are more frequently executives of national and international firms with more personnel and revenues, and responsible for bottom-line sales, marketing and finances, not human resources or public relations. They have more experience, relocate and travel overseas more, and so on.
>Comparing men and women with the "same jobs," then, is to compare apples and oranges.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/05/opinion/05farrell.html
Farrell's book: http://www.amazon.com/Why-Men-Earn-More-Startling/dp/0814472109
A Department of Labor study made similar observations:
>Although additional research in this area is clearly needed, this study leads to the unambiguous conclusion that the differences in the compensation of men and women are the result of a multitude of factors and that the raw wage gap should not be used as the basis to justify corrective action. Indeed, there may be nothing to correct. The differences in raw wages may be almost entirely the result of the individual choices being made by both male and female workers.
http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pdf
Income inequality is also heavily correlated with a whole host of social and public health problems, with significantly worse outcomes in more unequal countries, whether rich or poor.
EDIT: The graph comes from The Spirit Level and is an aggregate of these indexes:
Look to sell options only in premium rich underlyings (IV rank > 50). Sell around 45 days until expiration. Close between 25% to 50% of max profit. Make sure to roll to defend positions (look to roll around 20 DTE). Sell the 30 delta options, and look to collect 1/3 the width of a spread. If you really want to be a big dick player, beta weight your portfolio to SPY, and keep it delta neutral.
Edit: I got a lot of PMs concerning more information to this approach. Both TastyTrade and OptionAlpha are great resources to learn, and spell out this approach further. Other, more in depth, sources to consider are Option Volatility and Pricing and Options, Futures, and Other Derivatives.
The part you quoted is actually copy/pasted from my book, Blood, Sweat, and Pixels, which is where this YouTuber got his information. This paraphrasing is also a bit misleading, because Hennig's team was playing with a lot of ideas, some of which might not have made it into the final game.
If you want the full story of Uncharted 4's development (plus the stories behind nine other games), you should check it out! https://www.amazon.com/Blood-Sweat-Pixels-Triumphant-Turbulent/dp/0062651234/
It's kind of funny to see conservatives think neoliberalism is some kind of left wing phenomenon.
Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher were two of the greatest proponents of Neoliberalism - free movement of capital, people, goods, and services across borders. Everyone should read A Brief History of Neoliberalism by David Harvey.
Just wanted to highlight the source at the bottom of the graph. The Spirit Level is an excellent book for those interested in reading about the myriad amount of social problems associated with increasing inequality.
What's even more interesting is that large amounts of inequality hurt all socio-economic classes, from those at the very bottom all the way to the top 1%. To quote from The Spirit Level:
>p.g. 84
>We also found that living in a more equal place benefited everybody, not just the poor. It's worth repeating that health disparities are not simply a contrast between the ill-health of the poor and the better health of everybody else. Instead, they run right across society so that even the reasonably well-off have shorter lives than the very rich. Likewise, the benefits of greater equality spread right across society, improving health for everyone - not just those at the bottom. In other words, at almost any level of income, it's better to live in a more equal place.
I recommend a book Bad Samaritans about how developed countries made their problems even bigger.
Africa had hard time developing for example because western banks constantly enable capital flight from those poor countries. Developed countries forced underdeveloped countries to open the markets for many goods but at the same time they maintain very high tariffs on products they could export like food. Blaming everything on African warlords while forgetting about post-colonial practices of exploitation and imposing failed economic ideas is very dishonest.
I dared to contradict a politically correct textbook, and the professor singled me out for ridicule.
The textbook repeated the old claim that women earn 70 cents for doing that same work that earns a dollar for a man, and that this wage gap is due to widespread sexist discrimination.
I said this statistic was broadly accurate (men due tend to earn more) but misleading. It compares all male workers to all female workers, and neglects to factor in things like experience on the job, overtime, etc. When we compare apples to apples -- when men and women have similar training, experience, hours on the job, etc. -- the "wage gap" vanishes.
http://www.amazon.com/Why-Men-Earn-More-Startling/dp/0814472109
Here you go:
___
Studies
An Analysis of Reasons for the Disparity
in Wages Between Men and Women
Gender Pay Gap in the Federal Workforce Narrows as Differences in Occupation, Education, and Experience Diminish
The Gender Pay Gap - Have Women Gone As Far As They Can?
Articles
NCPA - The Wage Gap Myth
Forbes - It's Time That We End the Equal Pay Myth
AEI - A Quick Fix For The Gender Wage Gap
CBS News - The Gender Pay Gap is a Complete Myth
Trigger Alert Blog - The Almighty Wage Gap - A Comprehensive Analysis
Market Watch - The Gender Wage Gap is a Myth
AEI - The Gender Wage Gap Myth
Huffington Post - The Wage Gap Myth Exposed - By Feminists
Freakonomics - Goldin and Katz on the Male-Female Wage Gap
Real Clear Markets - [White House, Women's Wages, Myths] (http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2011/03/03/white_house_womens_wages_myths_98895.html)
Videos
Straight Talk About The Wage Gap [3:00]
Do Women Earn Less Than Men? [4:00]
John Stossel - The Gender Pay Gap [10:36]
Why Men Earn More - The Startling Truth Behind the Pay Gap [1:16:11]
The Gender Wage Gap is a Myth [2:21]
Thomas Sowell - Gender Bias and Income Disparity: A Myth? [3:30]
The Gender Wage Gap Uses Bogus Statistics [4:45]
The Pay Inequality Myth: Women are More Equal Than You Think [2:37]
Audio
The Myth of the Male/Female Wage Gap by Thomas J. DiLorenzo [7:49]
Books
Warren Farrell - Why Men Earn More
I imagine you're already aware of it given your interest, but in case you (or others) aren't Jason Schreier's book Blood, Sweat and Pixels has a whole chapter on Destiny's pre- and post-launch troubles. Schreier's the guy who broke the story on Anthem's awkward development just this week.
When you consider that they were forced by their publisher to make DA2 in only 16 freaking months. It is amazing to me that DA2 was even a playable video game, let alone anything resembling a good video game.
Then on top of that, DA:I was created in just 3 years, and Bioware was forced to use Frostbite, even though it had none of the tooling required to make an RPG. Sure if DA:I were going to be an FPS Frostbite would have been cool, but for the entire first year of development Frostbite was basically an unusable mess to everybody but the environment artists and level designers, and even then their work was just an educated guess because the level designers couldn't even playtest their levels, they jsut had to make levels that would probably work given knowlege about the broad strokes about how the game was supposed to wind up.
On top of all that, they were forced to scrap a ton of stuff in DA:I because it was mandeated that the game come out on PS3 and XB360, even though those platforms only wound up consisting of 10% of DA:I's sales.
They didn't even have Iron Bull implemented in the game until 8 months before ship. All of the play testing up until that point was without a fufll party, because the party system had to be developed in Frostbite specifically for that game.
"The biggest differentiator between a studio that creates a really high-quality game and a studio that doesn't isn't the quality of the team" said one person who worked on Destiny. "It's their dev tools. If you can take fifty shots on goal, and you're a pretty shitty hocky player, and I can take only three shots on goal and I'm Wayne Fucking Gretzky, You're probable going to do better. That's what tools are. It's how fast you can iterate, how stable are they, how robust are they, how easy it is as a nontechnical artist to move a thing."
Once again, it is incredible that DA:I resembles anything close to a decent game given the tools and timeline they were made to work with.
Reading Blood, Sweat and Pixels made me want to rip EA's eyes out.
If you's havent heard about it, i recommend picking up the book by Kotaku journalist /u/jasonschreier - 'BLOOD, SWEAT AND PIXELS', its available online and has a section all about the origins of Stardew Valley and lots of interesting insight (Such as how Barone learned to fake lighting in his video game due to his lack of knowledge around it)
The shit that gamers throw at devs on social media is unwarranted, transparency or none. Developers make games, and sometimes those games are good, sometimes they are bad, and sometimes it is or isn't their fault. Regardless, they still deserve to be treated like human beings.
Transparency is great; I love how Blizzard handles OW (that netcode video with the paper cups was awesome), and I think writing like Jason Schreier's Blood, Sweat, and Pixels are really cool and can help people understand the pressure and challenge of making any game, let alone a good one, but really, a lot of gamers need to grow the fuck up.
Yeah... but it's done by the writer of Blood, Sweat, and Pixels: The Triumphant, Turbulent Stories Behind How Video Games Are Made. Each time he posts it's something worth reading, IMHO.
This phenomenon is called antifragility.
You should read A Random Walk Down Wall Street.
The main takeaway is that nobody can consistently beat the market and you will likely come out behind if you try. Instead, you should invest in the entire market and go along for the ride. And diversification lowers risk.
VTSAX is an index fund for the entire US stock market so it's very diversified.
VTIAX is the complimentary fund for the rest of the world outside the US stock market.
Both are actually components of the Vanguard Target Retirement funds (along with their US and International Bond funds)
Rather than use a Target Retiement fund, I follow the "lazy portfolio" concept of self-managed investing for retirement...
https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Lazy_portfolios
Specifically, the three-fund lazy portfolio...
https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Three-fund_portfolio
...which includes VTSAX, VTIAX, and VBTLX as the three funds.
Another reason people sometimes prefer VTSAX over Target Retirement funds is when the fund is held in a taxable brokerage account. Target Retirement funds include bonds and bonds aren't considered "tax-efficient" investments so it's not optimal to hold them in a taxable account. It's better to hold bonds in a traditional 401k or traditional IRA.
More info...
https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Tax-efficient_fund_placement
For his point on energy, the USA's huge oil production capacity for the last 100 years has given us a real competitive advantage against other countries. One could argue that our country's ascendance to sole world power was completely due to the our access to cheap energy. For instance, look at the role access to fuel played in the second world war.
We have always been one of the largest oil producers in the world. Even today US companies basically control the world oil market as middle men (I highly recommend Daniel Yergin's book for a long but informative read on this subject.). However, the fear is that we will soon lose our cheap energy advantage and become dependent on foreign oil... it maybe true that right now the US consumes a lot of domestically produced oil, but the writing on the wall says that will not be the case forever.
This recession was coming either way. The economy never actually recovered from the last recession because the core problems of bad loans and inflation were not only unaddressed, but worsened. The economy isn’t built on fucking spending. It’s ridiculous that this is what mainstream “economists” think. An economy grows through savings and production, and everything the Fed does to try to fix a struggling economy only worsens malinvestment. Recessions happen not because spending is low, they happen because malinvestment is high and real savings are low (which in turn cause spending to dip, but you actually want that in that situation). You can’t just drive consumption and have that manifest a stronger economy. It’s about as legitimate as alchemy.
Edit: wow, I’m actually getting upvoted :). I wonder how many of those upvotes would’ve been downvotes had I explicitly mentioned that I’m arguing for Austrian economics. If anyone interested in learning how the economy actually works, here are steps One, Two, and Three.
A lot of this is based on their history and what they learned.
From the Opium Wars, learned firsthand what can happen when foreign companies become too powerful and exploit the fuck out of the locals. So when the Communists came to power, they made sure this could never happen again by requiring majority Chinese ownership.
This is no longer the case anymore though. These days, companies are allowed to be majority foreign owned, but behind the scenes, if you want to really succeed, then you'll need a Chinese partner.
The second thing they learned is to see how protectionist policies, and even outright IP theft, helped Western countries grow.
And of course more recently, the "Asian tigers" of South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, and Hong Kong (add in Japan as well).
So they learned to emulate the policies of these countries.
For those interested in learning more, check the book Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism
Is "income inequality" a new way of saying "poverty"? Because I believe poverty is a real issue and every election cycle I gripe that it's now been over 20 years since the topic of homelessness came up in a Presidential debate. But the term "income inequality" carries the connotation that incomes are supposed to be equal for everyone, and that's a lot harder idea to get behind.
> , but for Bernie to be posting about it now just shows his true colors.
White. :-)
There was a book originally published in the UK called "The Spirit Level", summing up 30 years of research into inequality and purporting to demonstrate the significant benefits to society when things are more equal. As soon as Bernie started running I expected The Spirit Level to be brought up again and again as it's really the defining work on the topic.
As the weeks wore on I was surprised to note Bernie never brought it up. I read Sanders interviews and again, not only no mention but no mention of any of the research covered in the book at all. It finally dawned on me... Oh my God, he's never even read the book! That's when I started looking into his background. I imagined he had been an economics professor in a tweed jacket for 30 years at some rural Vermont college before entering politics. Instead, I discovered he reached his political conclusions circa the age of 18 after being exposed to Marx in college and apparently never questioned or expanded on those early beliefs. I realized his conclusions were determined by ideology, not investigation. Even if he was right about anything, it was by accident (much the same as Trump). That's when I got on the anti-Sanders bandwagon, relatively early on.
Well, we hit the 10000 limit. Reserving this comment for the misc. section.
FREE TIME/FUN/MISC.
The Art of Deception: Controlling the Human Element of Security
The Art of War
Steal This Computer Book 4.0: What They Won't Tell You about the Internet
How to Disappear: Erase Your Digital Footprint, Leave False Trails, and Vanish without a Trace
The Best of 2600: A Hacker Odyssey
Super Crunchers: Why Thinking-by-Numbers Is the New Way to Be Smart
Casting the Net: From ARPANET to INTERNET and Beyond thanks sjhill
A Quarter Century of UNIX thanks sjhill
A Reading List For the Self-Taught Computer Scientist thanks zinver
How to Talk So Kids Will Listen & Listen So Kids Will Talk thanks segamix
The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable thanks AgonistAgent
Snow Crash thanks AgonistAgent
Cryptonomicon thanks Mirple
Some people might define it as socially liberal, fiscally conservative.
Some might define it by the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP)- which states no one has the right to use force or coercion against anyone else except in forms of self defense.
Either way you look at it, it's more of a philosophy than a mix-match of certain platforms other political parties just pick and choose from.
For a deeper understanding, please read these books in this order, each are available for free in pdf or eBook, just right click and save:
Once you’re done with those, I’d suggest purchasing the following books:
Afterwards, if you have any questions about monopolies, consider the resources in this thread. Enjoy! If you need further reading suggestions let me know.
Edit corrected the years to nearly 70 from nearly 60. Did anyone else know it's 2016 and not 2006?
Dr. Atul Gawande, who is a surgeon who also writes for the New Yorker, wrote a book called The Checklist Manifesto. It's about how the use of checklists, which are drawn from the aviation community, can do a lot to reduce complications in healthcare. It's an interesting read.
https://www.amazon.com/Checklist-Manifesto-How-Things-Right/dp/0312430000/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8
Your rent is really quite high, but it's Vancouver so I get it.
One thing that looks possibly missing is budgeting for longer term or infrequent regular expenses. This might be things like:
Perhaps not high on your list, but if it's your thing, setting some monthly budget for charitable donations is a good idea. Alternatively, just have a budgeted "flex" category that can include this, so that you aren't off-budget for random purchases ( within reason ).
Move-out expenses: I've got about a $1000 bill for IKEA furniture in the 1 bedroom place I live in now. This did not include a bed ( additional ~$800). You can certainly do this cheaper (kijiji etc.), but budgeting $2000 or so would be a comfortable start. It sounds like you have the savings to do so. You'll want a good set of cookware, cutlery, plates, and kitchen knives as well, which could set you back a couple hundred, depending on quality and sales.
Retirement savings: Typical suggestion is 10-20% of your pre-tax income. Since you have a defined benefit pension, you could aim for the low end, if you expect to stay in this position long enough to get full value out of the pension. $600 / month would not be a bad starting point. At 7% yearly growth, starting from zero, this would get you to savings of 1.5 million at age 65. 4% withdrawal rate gives a retirement income of $63,000 a year which inflation adjusts to about $30,000. Disregarding the DB pension, if you include CPP of ~$7000 / year, this would give you enough in retirement to more than cover your current expenses.
For your current savings, you should keep an emergency fund of about 3 - 6 months income in a regular savings account that is easy to access. This is to cover you if something unexpected happens like you lose your job, or have to take extended time off to help a family member, or have some unexpected bills. As somebody who owns neither a car nor a house, your "unexpected bills" are likely to be less frequent and smaller, so you could aim for the lower range of this. I would keep at least $20,000 for an emergency fund though.
For the rest of it, you need to decide what your long term goals are. If you intend to buy a car in near future (5 years), then you should keep an appropriate amount of money in a savings account, or other guaranteed instruments (such as GICs). GICs often (sometimes?) pay more interest than savings accounts, but have specific maturity dates. If you pull the money out before then, you forfeit all / some of the interest (depending on the terms of the particular GIC). If you think you will buy a car in 3 years, don't buy a GIC with a 5 year maturity date. If you intend to buy a house in the future, basically the same story. Keep the appropriate down-payment savings in a savings account or GIC so that there is no chance of losing it before you need it. Stock market investments are great in the long term, but for short term savings there is too much fluctuation, and you could be underwater when you need the money.
If a car, house, or other large purchase (Planned big vacation, wedding, etc?) is not coming in the near future, then you should invest the rest for retirement. I recommend you pick up the book "A random walk down wall street" for more information about how you should be investing for retirement. The short version is to get a low-fee online brokerage account (I use TD direct investing), buy ETF index funds, and just hold them. No day-trading or "I think this will go down tomorrow, I'm going to sell and buy it back then!".
You sir, are 100% correct. Nassim Nicholas Taleb, one of the sharpest logical minds in the world, the same guy who developed the concept of antifragility (and thus was one of the few thinkers who predicted Trump's ability to withstand attacks) has recently written on how extreme minorities make decisions for the majority. It's about a 20 minute read.
https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictatorship-of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15
This book explains the history and thinking super concisely. But broadly, GOP needed a voter base that wouldn't question power of the state being handed over to private industry -- thus they won over the devoutly religious who wouldn't question anything beyond simple morality. Then beginning with Carter, and going full steam with Reagan, to escape 70's stagflation (rising inflation causing a stagnant economy) America rejected the economic theories of the preceding 40 years under Keynes and embraced slow but steady deregulation of all markets and public services, or at least everything they could, under the guise of "small government" and an ideal of the individual. Around the time of Clinton's presidency, Democrats could do nothing but sustain the cycle as Reagan had butchered much of what was previously under government ownership -- to turn the tide back would be far too costly and lose the election, as it would be a total U-turn of the country.
The Checklist Manifesto: How to Get Things Right, by Atul Gawande. This one?
The simple answer is that a better distribution is significantly less unequal than 1/10th = 50%+ of wealth.
There is a really large base of empirical data that shows a clear trend that more unequal societies have diminishing returns on aspects of quality of life for EVERYONE including the most wealthy and their lifespan (See: https://www.amazon.com/Spirit-Level-Equality-Societies-Stronger/dp/1608193411 )
Inequality is associated less societal trust, empathy, effectiveness of social institutions and social services. Rich people in super unequal places have to spend money on security services and other things that rich people in places with well funded, distributed transport and social services etc. don't have to deal with.
Eh, this one's got pictures: https://www.amazon.com/How-Economy-Grows-Why-Crashes/dp/047052670X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1487282355&sr=1-1&keywords=how+an+economy+grows+and+why+it+crashes
Cryptocurrencies are the only monetary technologies that eliminate or work around counter party risk, instead of costly and (necessarily) imperfect mitigation. While it might seem like a small thing, in computer science this is the equivalent of finding the philosophers stone. It will allow such sufficiently advanced technology to emerge it will be indistinguishable from magic to those that don't understand the inner workings.
It's hard to imagine why this is important now, because it's never existed before. Hell it's the biggest reason so many people keep getting their coins ripped off, old habits die hard (almost happened to me but I got luck when my wallet host actually managed to refund me).
You have to try to imagine a world without the need for trust.
How much more could people be capable of if they didn't have to worry about chargebacks, identity theft, (hyper) inflation, banking externalities (bank profits should count against GDP it's pure cost of doing business with no upside once you have cryptocurrencies), etc?
Imagine if banking "just worked", flawlessly all the time. That's possible (implementation is going to take time and a massive investment but that's happening faster than I have ever seen before, complainers need to watch this) with cryptocurrencies, and not possible otherwise due to aforementioned counter party risk (Murphy's Law).
Richard Brown, one of IBM's chief financial architects explains what's possible (if you only click one link click this one) due to the discovery of a solution to the Bysintine Generals Problem, better than I ever could.
Cryptocurrencies aren't just "not stupid" they are actually "smart", as in programmable. On the blockchain nobody knows you are a refrigerator. The blockchain doesn't sit around just waiting for a human to interact with it, it's a complex system with a life of it's own, makes decisions, and adapts based on fitness functions. Users are just nodes in the decisions making tree.
Add all that together and you have an antifragile system, with the potential to become a black swan as we witness the world's first digital hyper-monetization event.
So if you want to get in on this revolution, if you think living in a world that's provably fair is cool and good, if you want to take a chance and be rich, if you value security and freedom, cryptocurrencies like Bitocoin are the only game in town. The good news is due to the adoption cycle, it's still in the very early adopter phase. Freedom really can cost a buck-o-five, then just wait a few years.
Sure it might fail, but really for the cost of a soda you can not only help it succeed but potentially make a shit ton of money doing so, it's the greatest hedge opportunity the world has ever seen.
I hoped that helped. Good question by the way even though you got downvoted, I know what you meant, thank you for giving me the opportunity to share. =)
Every minority at IBM gets a 1% raise. Women are considered a minority. They get paid more for the same work at IBM.
The idea that women make less than males in tech is preposterous. There's ample evidence that firms will go out of their way to recruit women by paying them more. The book Whey Men Earn More talks about all of this in great detail.
If I may - I humbly recommend to read a proper book on bitcoin, not some fluff piece.. Just assuming from the way that you chose your post title that you might be interested in a more substantial bitcoin reading :) Please ignore if that's not the case, don't wanna ruin your reading pleasure or anything.
Economic perspective: The Bitcoin Standard - The Decentralized Alternative to Central Banking
Not technical at all, very beginner friendly, but also not a lot of practical information: The Internet Of Money
Gently technical, beginner friendly: Inventing Bitcoin: The Technology Behind the First Truly Scarce and Decentralized Money Explained
Technical deep dives:
Sorry for your loss..
Given your financial position (able to support yourself through school without borrowing) I would invest in ETFs, something like a Vanguard ETF with a minimal MER. I'd also transfer that mutual fund over to the same ETF as the management fees are typically too much, eating away at your returns. Even though the management fees may seem small, compounded over X years to retirement at age 21 is seriously significant..
If you invest this inheritance at your age and follow something like the 4% rule, you'll be retired before most people even start saving for retirement..
If you don't really follow what I'm saying, I highly suggest reading Millionaire Teacher.
https://www.amazon.ca/Millionaire-Teacher-Wealth-Should-Learned/dp/0470830069
Check out Blood, Sweat and Pixels for a bit of in depth info about the creation of The Witcher 3 and the seriously humble beginnings of CD Projekt. It has several other stories of games being made in a crunch period as well, it's a great read.
Early on, I was in nasty drawdown period and I was having trouble figuring out what was off. I made the same mistake virtually all traders make, I caved to the vast collection of trading psychology books. When the guy mentoring me found out what I was reading, he gave me the following gem: Only pikers worry about psychology, either you have an edge and you exploit it, or you don't have one and you lose and chase every other excuse.
Trading and Exchanges
Options, Futures & Other Derivatives
Option Volatility & Pricing
Volatility Trading
Dynamic Hedging
99% of finance books are garbage, but those are the ones I thought helped me in some way or another. There's also plenty of interesting research papers if you've got access to some databases.
There's a whole chapter here about how much trouble DAI went through because of that janky engine.
https://www.amazon.com/Blood-Sweat-Pixels-Triumphant-Turbulent/dp/0062651234
Frostbite is a cancer. I'm hoping Jedi Fallen Order sells like hotcakes so that EA's forced to reckon that (a) single player games are relevant and (b) that non-Frostbite games are easier to develop.
My recommended reading list includes One Up on Wall Street, Fail-Safe Investing, The Black Swan, How an Economy Grows and Why It Crashes, and Extraordinary Popular Delusions and The Madness of Crowds. The first book talks about picking individual stocks based on what you already know, the second about structuring a portfolio for growth while still playing defense, the third about common fallacies and hubris, the fourth about basic economics, and the fifth about irrational behavior.
If your money is sitting in a US bank account, then you're making a 100% bet on the future of the US dollar. At a minimum, diversify your currency holdings by buying sovereign and high-grade corporate debt in countries with strong currencies.
Hello! Also from Ontario Canada! The best advice I can give you is.... Spend less than you make (create a budget and stick to it), pay off all your credit cards in full every month, try to keep the life style creep to a minimum, and live in a low cost of living (LCOL) area (if you can).
In terms of buying vs renting there are calculators for that and it's personal choice, but try not to buy more house than you can handle (we live in the GTA so house prices are crazy right now...) If you can live with your parents for a while, you can save a lot of money that way too (just contribute to the household!! If not in cash, at least do the dishes and laundry or something...!).
If you want to buy and do nice things, budget and save for them! Striving towards FI doesn't mean you have to live like a pauper... But be reasonable and have your ultimate goal in mind.
Some nice books to read (that are Canadian!) Would be Millionaire Teacher by Andrew Hallam and The Wealthy Barber/The Wealthy Barber Returns by David Chilton (you can just borrow from the library as an e-book or actual book!).
Since you are unionized and have a pension, I would say max out your TFSA first (check out the index fund model portfolios from Canadian Couch Potato and then your RRSP (whatever room you have left after your pension adjustment) and once you still have money left over open a marginal account (if you you are married by then,max out both those accounts for your spouse before you open any marginal accounts).
Also, read the side bar and the stickied posts. Enjoy your journey to FI. It's important to plan for the future, but you shouldn't forget to enjoy the present as well!
Not really. It's popular because it's so easy. Check out some of Kevin Mitnick's stuff if you're at all serious about this opinion. Dude literally wrote the book on how easy Social Engineering is in the modern age. Example cited quote from his Wikipedia:
> At age 12, Mitnick used social engineering and dumpster diving to bypass the punch card system used in the Los Angeles bus system. [...] Social engineering later became his primary method of obtaining information, including usernames and passwords and modem phone numbers.
Oh, he also hacked a TON of analog systems. Like John Draper who hacked phone systems with a whistle from a box of Captain Crunch. Switching to digital systems can help raise the barrier to hacking above this low bar.
I think you should do some more looking into your statements, because your vague explanations are far outnumbered by anecdotal evidence stating otherwise.
The hypocrisy is amazing. Britain, Germany, America certainly had no problems with stealing intellectual property [see below] or erecting huge barriers to trade [https://www.amazon.com/Bad-Samaritans-Secret-History-Capitalism/dp/1596915986/]. In fact, they even invaded and drugged a nation to steal wealth [https://www.amazon.com/Chinese-Opium-Wars-Jack-Beeching/dp/0156170949/].
 
IP theft is a century's long Western tradition
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-05-26/china-didn-t-invent-industrial-espionage
http://www.amazon.com/For-All-Tea-China-Favorite/dp/0143118749
http://www.infoworld.com/article/2608141/internet-privacy/snowden--the-nsa-planted-backdoors-in-cisco-products.html
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/26/a_nation_of_outlaws/?page=full
http://www.amazon.com/Operation-Paperclip-Intelligence-Program-Scientists/dp/0316221031/
http://japanfocus.org/-Christopher-Reed/2177/article.html
> (https://www.amazon.com/Bad-Samaritans-Secret-History-Capitalism/dp/1596915986) If post length were the basis for winning an argument, you'd win. However, you have little idea what you are talking about due to your neoliberal blinders. Try reading the book at the link, which exactly supports the point I made.
Why is your only source a book that supports your prior beliefs? Why is it that a huge majority of economists support free trade, and you choose to disagree based on one book?
Maybe "you have little idea what you are talking about due to your
neoliberal blinders" corporate shilling.God their constant attempts to redefine "neoliberal" are so fucking annoying. Also the "post-ideological" posturing. How do they not realize how transparent this is?
In a fair society, this book would be in their sidebar.
That reminds me of something that Nassim Nicolas Taleb mentions in his book Antifragile. Apparently, quite a few scientific discoveries in the 19th century were made by English rectors with a nondemanding job and plenty of free time to devote to whatever they were interested in.
Of course, to participate in citizen science, you do need the drive to actually do something other than, for example, reading and commenting on Reddit, but I think enough people do have, or can find that drive.
Read this book - https://www.amazon.com/Bitcoin-Standard-Decentralized-Alternative-Central/dp/1119473861
As most bitcoin books are either technical in nature or written by journalists who don't understand it well. This book answers the "why" of bitcoin, the economics and monetary policy that makes it so special.
Overview - https://medium.com/@jimmysong/why-bitcoin-works-fe32879a73f5
The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money & Power
"[...] The Prize, winner of the 1992 Pulitzer Prize for nonfiction, is a comprehensive history of one of the commodities that powers the world--oil. Founded in the 19th century, the oil industry began producing kerosene for lamps and progressed to gasoline. Huge personal fortunes arose from it, and whole nations sprung out of the power politics of the oil wells. Yergin's fascinating account sweeps from early robber barons like John D. Rockefeller, to the oil crisis of the 1970s, through to the Gulf War."
Don't be a cheapfag and order this book. Read a chapter every night before your nightly fap session. When you've finished reading it cover to cover, read it again, and again, until you finally become straight.
Take a break from accounting and finance books. I have a few recommendations from my recent reading:
The Intelligence Paradox
The Evolution of Everything
Delusions of Power
Equal is Unfair
The Feminine Mystique
How an Economy Grows - And Why It Crashes
Floating City: A Rogue Sociologist Lost and Found in New York's Underground Economy
Buddha's Brain
The Red Queen
Obviously there's a political bend in some of those choices, but I can suggest others (it's always important to challenge your beliefs).
I love to read, can provide some other recommendations, but those were just some recent books I just pulled off my Nook. There's some fiction as well.
Well, there's a lot of shit the government does, but it looks like you're most interested in the defense and regulation portions. Robert Murphy does very well on the topic and cleared it up for me when I was discovering anarcho-capitalism, but if you're looking for something to read on the topic, his book Chaos Theory is basically the same thing as the lecture.
The housing bubble was caused by The Federal Reserve lowering its interest rates, making easy money that made banks say "hey, we have more money to loan out to make money on," and by definition the only people to loan out to were those with the riskiest intentions: Building housing and hedging stocks. If I recall correctly, this is Tom Woods' lecture on the matter, and he also has a book on the matter.
Realize that you always need to be learning and taking in new information. You will never "master" the market, nobody else has mastered it either, so take others' opinions with a grain of salt.
As much as people joke around here it can be a good way to spur new thought. If someone says the market will crash in 3 days? Why? Do you agree? If so, why? What data can you come up with to support that? (Etc, etc). Your goal should be to become knowledgeable enough to look at the economic landscape and come up with a personal opinion about what will happen next.
Once you have an informed hypothesis on what will occur then you make investments based on those convictions.
Web resources:
http://markets.wsj.com/
http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/stocks/futures
https://www.tradingview.com/
http://seekingalpha.com/
WSB Cheatsheet = www.3xetf.com
I generally like Ted's posts and I really dislike adding process to software development. However, saying "no process" is overly simplistic.
Some of the things glossed over:
In short (and it's a huge topic), in most cases, IMHO, it comes down to a tradeoff: what's more important, not ever fucking up or maintaining speed and flexibility. Unfortunately, leads/stakeholders on most projects think that not ever fucking up is the absolute priority, while realistically it's not.
Again, this is a broad topic, so I will just add a couple of things without going too deep:
I'm reading The Spirit Level at the moment.
It is a well-established fact that in rich societies the poor have shorter lives and suffer more from almost every social problem. The Spirit Level, based on thirty years of research, takes this truth a step further. One common factor links the healthiest and happiest societies: the degree of equality among their members. Further, more unequal societies are bad for everyone within them-the rich and middle class as well as the poor.
IMO the higher the income gap gets, the more people will act like this. There is a whole book on this subject, and how it affects people.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Spirit-Level-Equality-Societies/dp/1608193411
Not OP, but I asked the same question years ago and I compiled this list:
​
​
​
​
​
​
A book on the fall of the Ottoman Empire is another good place to start. I have not read this one yet. I've heard that it is a good read.
​
​
Guys, if you're interested in the making of Destiny, or stories like this in general, i encourage you to read Blood, Sweat, and Pixels. It is really good.
Meltdown By Thomas Woods is what you are looking for in regard to the causes of the collapse.
His later book, Rollback outlines the solutions.
Do you honestly believe that if a billionaire makes a dollar, that it somehow prevents you from making a dollar as well? Do you think that there is legitimately a finite amount of money in this world? Do you think that billionaires actually have a scrooge mcduck vault full of all their billions? Cause if you've answered yes to any of this I recommend you read this book :
https://www.amazon.com/Basic-Economics-Common-Sense-Economy/dp/0465022529
What John is essentially talking about here is Neoliberalism. If anyone is interested in learning more, David Harvey has a fantastic introductory book called A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Our current economic develop trajectory began in the 1970s and is increasingly creating these enticing investment opportunities for corporations at the expense of the masses. Whether you're liberal, conservative, republication etc., your government has been economically neoliberal for the past 45 years.
> OP needs to seek out a trained financial adviser.
Don't. Financial advisers are mostly just salesmen, and most sell shitty products with high fees. It's impossible to navigate which ones are good and which ones aren't unless you know finance yourself, in which case, you will no longer need a financial adviser and can invest yourself for the lowest fees (use Vanguard for the lowest fees).
It's really not all that complicated to invest if you play the game of diversification and just try to get the average market return. Trying to beat the market is another game (a game which we who are interested in bitcoin are playing) and takes another level of sophistication.
Just read these two books and you'll know all you need to know to invest your own money well for the lowest fees. That is if you're playing the simple diversify-and-get-average-market-return game.
The Investor's Manifesto: Preparing for Prosperity, Armageddon, and Everything in Between
A Random Walk down Wall Street: The Time-tested Strategy for Successful Investing
I have an eccentric obsession with the oil/energy industry. Some of these books were mentioned already, but below are my absolute favorites:
If you're looking for a history of oil and gas check out The Prize, and The Frackers covers the more recent energy revolution. Oil 101 and Fundamentals of Investing in Oil and Gas deal more with the technical side.
Daniel Yergin's The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money, and Power
Historical account of the oil industry, which is particularly relevant in today's markets.
It's a book written by Andreas Antonopoulos.
https://www.amazon.com/Mastering-Bitcoin-Programming-Open-Blockchain/dp/1491954388
> current stock's price right?
No. If you own 300 shares, you can create 3 options. Think of an option is a legal contract where, depending upon the contract, someone has a CHOICE to force the buying/selling of the underlying shares.
So, you own 300 shares. You can create up to 3 options. But you only want to create 1 option in this example, for 100 shares.
Now, when you create the option, you can choose at what price you want the option to become "in the money" which basically means the option is worth >= $0.
In this case you are SELLING someone else the choice for them to purchase shares, at or before the expiration date, at or above the strike price.
You pick the strike price when you create the option.
If the current price right now of a stock is $100. You can pick any strike price, at, below, or above $100. A strike price of say, $90 - $110 is called "around the money" for selling a call. A strike price at or below the current share price is called "in the money". A strike price above the current price is called "out of the money".
So lets say you're selling a call for a stock currently at $100. The options expiration date is 30 days out. And the strike price YOU CHOOSE is $120. That option will only execute IF the stock price, within the next 30 days, goes above $120. Since the person you are selling the option to has the OPTION to buy it at $120, they don't necessarily always execute their option to. They want to make as much money as possible. So if in 1 of the 30 days, the stock price of the option hits $120.01, technically the buyer can cash in and force you to sell your 100 shares. Netting them 1 cent per share, or a grand total of $1. However, they wont because their break even cost is the strike price ($120) + cost of trade (lets just say $5) plus the cost of the option (lets say 10%). So their break even price would be $132.05. ((strike price * 1.10) + $5/100 shares)
Now, if they don't execute the option within that time period (30 days) you get the option price (10%) netting $10/share and you keep the shares. Option prices vary wildly depending upon time to expiration (the longer the option lasts for, the more expensive, because the greater chance it has of reaching that price) as well as how deep in the money or out of the money it is. There are other factors, as we get deeper into theoretical values for instruments. Things like time decay, the fed funds rate, volatility, etc are all used for a "basic" model of calculating the theoretical value of such a contract. But thats a more advanced topic.
If you're selling far out of the money options, most likely you'll make maybe 1-3%, depending.
This is also why people on /r/wallstreetbets can yolo SPY calls/puts 3 days out for like $10. Because the chance of it reaching in the money is slim to none. But sometimes happens.
The guy that taught me options wrote a really great book called Option Pricing & Volatility. I suggest this book. The first 1-3 chapters goes over the real basics of options.
I have all his teaching materials laying around somewhere, if they're not copyrighted maybe I can scan and share.
Also just a small disclaimer, I might've gotten some of the terminology wrong. I always get the whole buy/sell put/call twisted when commenting on the fly on my phone.
This doesn't make any sense to me. If there is more capital, that means larger projects can be invested in. Roads, high speed rail, moon colonies, what have you. Speculation or investment can occur at any level of capital, and there's no reason to have more of one than the other.
People keep trying to make the point that speculation causes bubbles, but I don't buy it. People are always speculating, but bubbles only occur when that speculation is pointed in a systematic direction. There are so many investors with so many different ideas that there's no reason for a systematic unification of investment, unless there is some significant outside force operating on the market. There is a strong argument that the federal reserve system provided that outside force for each of our bubbles.
The Art of Deception by Kevin Mitnick is what first got me looking into the subject.
Here's one.
Some relevant parts:
> There are observable differences in the attributes of men and women that account for most of the wage gap. Statistical analysis that includes those variables has produced results that collectively account for between 65.1 and 76.4 percent of a raw gender wage gap of 20.4 percent, and thereby leave an adjusted gender wage gap that is between 4.8 and 7.1 percent. These variables include:
>
> - A greater percentage of women than men tend to work part-time. Part-time work tends to pay less than full-time work.
> - A greater percentage of women than men tend to leave the labor force for child birth, child care and elder care. Some of the wage gap is explained by the percentage of women who were not in the labor force during previous years, the age of women, and the number of children in the home.
> - Women, especially working mothers, tend to value “family friendly” workplace policies more than men. Some of the wage gap is explained by industry and occupation, particularly, the percentage of women who work in the industry and occupation.
>
> Research also suggests that differences not incorporated into the model due to data limitations may account for part of the remaining gap. Specifically, CONSAD’s model and much of the literature, including the Bureau of Labor Statistics Highlights of Women’s Earnings, focus on wages rather than total compensation. Research indicates that women may value non-wage benefits more than men do, and as a result prefer to take a greater portion of their compensation in the form of health insurance and other fringe benefits.
I came across that study a while ago, when reading the Washington Post's fact-checking article about an Obama speech. I've seen a whole bunch of other stuff both before and since then, including possible explanations for the few percent that remain unexplained, but I haven't saved all the links. I do vaguely remember skimming through this book, too.
>While today you can develop a great game with descent graphics and story, etc for less than $100. Hell mods that can be the size and quality of real published games with entire campaigns, voice acting,multiplayer modes, etchave been produced costing nothing.
Lies. Especially that last thing.
You're making the mistake of assuming Time =/= Money. Time absolutely equals money.
Those "free" mods, with voice acting and all that, absolutely have a cost. Someone spent hundreds to thousands of hours setting it all up. Sometimes teams. Someone spent dozens to hundreds of hours reading out voices, and someone else made executive decisions on which reading to use. That all of the time was volunteered does not mean it cost nothing. Were it done by a business, every single person there would get a paycheck for their time.
Skyblivion was started in 2013. Assuming 30 hours were spent on it per week on average, between 2014 and 2018 you're looking at 6,240 hours. At $10 an hour (an underpaying rate) you're at $62,400 to make what they've made of it.
Comic Books take roughly 6 months from start to publication (if not more, some have their stories finished and ready to print 6 months ahead of the print date) and if there's only one artist and one writer (usually there's also an inker, sometimes two writers), you're looking at $84,000 a year for the pair. If you only get six months of work out of them, that's still $42,000, signifigantly more than your "few thousand" estimation. And that's before we even get in to printing and distribution costs.
The current average feature length budget for a Hollywood Film is between $70-90 million.
This book gives a figure of $10,000 per person per month to develop a game, meaning a 400 person team given 3 years for an AAA game would need $144,000,000 to make a game.
A 50 person team taking 2 years for a more A level game is going to use up $12,000,000.
And 5 people taking a year to make a little indie game need $600,000 to do it.
I.. uh.. don't see how Gaming is in any way falling behind.
Hijacking this comment: Every single person in this sub needs to read A Brief History of Neoliberalism by David Harvey
https://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Neoliberalism-David-Harvey/dp/0199283273
It's short and jam packed with great info.
"cannot tell the future or predict the market"
"when the price drops back down again"
Can't have both. You're trying to time the market if you do it and will lose in the long run even if you get lucky a few times. It's like playing Blackjack, the house has an edge (in this case, I guarantee you whoever is on the other side of the trade knows more than you do).
If you're saving for the future, you do not change your behavior with the movements of the market. Otherwise you're just another day trader.
I suggest you read A Random Walk Down Wall Street and try to perish these thoughts from your mind.
The Art of Deception is pretty popular and written by famed Kevin Mitnick.
Here's a great explanation for how blockchain works: https://youtu.be/bBC-nXj3Ng4
For a more in depth understanding of Bitcoin, Mastering Bitcoin is great: https://www.amazon.com/Mastering-Bitcoin-Programming-Open-Blockchain/dp/1491954388/ref=sr_1_1_sspa?ie=UTF8&qid=1537090991&sr=8-1-spons&keywords=mastering+bitcoin&psc=1
​
To get an idea of why Bitcoin has value, The Bitcoin Standard is great: https://www.amazon.com/Bitcoin-Standard-Decentralized-Alternative-Central/dp/1119473861/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1537090929&sr=8-1&keywords=the+bitcoin+standard
​
There are lots of videos by the authors of these books that are great also.
Great post.
Highly recommended.
Is it possible that hierarchy itself causes massive social dysfunction? This was Bakunin's argument. He called it the "power principle." A similar argument is made in The Spirit Level.
Bakunin didn't reject the idea of hierarchy based on merit, but claimed that it should never be institutionalized. He and Kropotkin pointed out -- rightly -- that in "primitive" societies, hierarchies come and go. Someone is better at something? Great, let he or she take charge. But the moment that individual tries to hoard wealth or exercise power over others, we have a problem.
If you want to know how Warren Buffett invests just read "The Intelligent Investor" by Benjamin Graham https://www.amazon.com/Intelligent-Investor-Definitive-Investing-Essentials/dp/0060555661
After that read "Security Analysis" by Graham and Dodd. With these 2 books alone you will have a deep understanding of how to invest like Buffett.
https://www.amazon.com/Security-Analysis-Foreword-Buffett-Editions/dp/0071592539/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=security+analysis&qid=1565532515&s=books&sr=1-2
TLDR: Benjamin Graham was Buffett's mentor, taught him how to invest, and wrote everything down in his books so that you can do the same. Also you could just buy BRK.B (or BRK.A if you've got the cash) shares and let Buffett do all the work for you.
Sub about Value Investing /r/SecurityAnalysis/
Some background info if you're interested... after Warren Buffett graduated from Penn he applied to Harvard for graduate school but was rejected and ended up at Columbia University instead. Ben Graham was one of his professors at Columbia. Graham was incredibly intelligent, he grew up poor in NYC and received a full scholarship to attend Columbia and by the time he graduated he was offered tenure as a professor in 3 separate departments (Mathematics, English, and Philosophy) but he declined those offers and went off to Wall Street instead where he was credited at the time for creating systems on how on invest based off of specific signals and criteria instead of blindly gambling in the market. Graham later returned to academia because he wanted to write a book on the investing techniques he created. This is when Buffett and Graham crossed paths at Columbia. Buffett studied Graham's investing style and it obviously worked out well for him, he credits Graham to this day as being his mentor and says he still reads The Intelligent Investor every so often.
Blood, Sweat and Pixels
The Checklist Manifesto is a great book on the subject.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Checklist-Manifesto-Things-Right/dp/0312430000
Oil on the market is what they call 'fungible'. What that means in practice is that all the oil on the export market acts like it all goes into one huge wholesale pool, and from there is divided up by customer. So it really doesn't matter where the oil country A is produced. All the suppliers are getting the market price.^1 And since most of the oil that one nation can import from another nations is exported by an OPEC nation,^2 picking one over another really has no impact on the earnings of any of them. The reason being is that the production capacity of exportable oil isn't that far greater than the import demand. It is larger, which is why OPEC keeps trying to convince its members to restrict output. But it's not so much greater that any of the exporters could be cut out of the system.
So for example the US refuses to buy from Iran. Fine. Iran sells to India and China instead. And the US buys the same amount from Mexico, Canada, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, others. It all just washes out.
The importers lack the threat of simply collectively boycotting imports. For their economies are far too dependent on imported oil to function on a day to day basis. Importers attempt to limit imports by high taxes to discourage use, or by maximizing domestic production, or regulations to discourage use. But those policies only very slowly change energy consumption patterns.
For a history of oil production, see Pulitizer Prize winning book The Prize by Yergin.
^1 Just to keep things from getting confused on this, not all oil is created equal. Some is of a quality which is easier or less costly to refine into usable products. Some comes from locations that are far less costly than others to produce. Some are in locations which makes export much more economically viable due to geography.
^2 Back in the heyday of OPEC, The Soviet Union wasn't the major oil exported that Russia is now. And Canada wasn't exporting like they are today either. And US production was in a relative low spot because the easy stuff had been pumped, and advanced extraction methods like fracking hadn't been invented yet. But Russia's interests more or less align with OPEC's interests. So they aren't really lining up to help the importing nations. And Mexico and Venezuela have long term production problems due to not properly investing to maintain their capacity. So as a whole OPEC's bargaining position is a poor one currently.
I havn't watched this doc yet, but if you're curious to read in depth into this topic, and it's truly fascinating. I can't recommend the book The Prize enough. It's a great read and you'll see how modern power was shaped well into the 20th century.
https://www.amazon.com/Option-Volatility-Pricing-Strategies-Techniques/dp/155738486X
Mais um capitulo da série de coisas que achei para ouvir durante a natação:
Perambulando pelo /r/lectures achei esse thread sobre o video : 23 Things they don't tell you about capitalism, do coreano Ha-Joon Chang, que supostamente foi aluno do Joseph Stiglitz.
No thread tem um link com referencias dos livros dele e teve um que achei particularmente interessante: Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism
Dei uma fuçada e achei o livro em formato de audio no youtube. Já ouvi o prefácio e achei interessante. O autor desmitifica muita coisa que é dita sobre o desenvolvimento da Coreia ao longo dos anos e o mito da Coreia ter sido um dos bastiões do mercado livre.
Como o livro é um pouco longo baixei no meu celular para ouvir enquanto dirijo/ ando de bicicleta também.
Para quem se interessar baixar eu sugiro essa ferramenta (Win/Linux/OSX), que é uma GUI para o youtube-dl
> Give everyone shit, or give nobody shit, or you breed resentment.
This is true. We have lived in extremely egalitarian societies for about 95 percent of our history, so it's not surprising at all that human beings become extremely dysfunctional in hierarchical/unequal societies. The more inequality the more dysfunction. More unequal societies fare worse on every single quality of life indicator.
The right is fighting biology, essentially, a doomed mission that will probably end in extinction. The modern "left" -- also steered by billionaire psychopaths -- is no better, as they also support extreme hierarchy. Though the "left" at least talks about class and war, they reduce the most important issues to an afterthought, and focus relentlessly on ID politics.
There's actually a very interesting book titled The Not So Wild, Wild West that discusses this very topic. The Native Americans developed property rights for resources that were scarce. Fishing equipment, for example, was generally owned by a single person. Before the introduction of horses the Native Americans didn't divide hunting land because it wasn't feasible for them to destroy entire herds of buffalo. After the introduction of horses their hunting strategies changed and their ability to wipe out entire herds was realized. Tribes began marking out hunting territories using rocks with pained icons on them and defended the marked territories against other tribes.
In general property rights are nonexistent for super abundant resources. It isn't worth the time and effort to defend something that can be easily obtained anywhere. Property rights generally come in when a resource is scarce, at what point it is worthwhile to defend any claims to that resource.
>People have been disputing things like the wage gap, college rape stats, etc since before the MRM even became a thing.
You don't even know what the MRM is, because MRAs existed before feminists started talking about college rape stats to begin with. And Warren Farrell wrote the book on the wage gap
The whole history of this plus many other currencies all the way up to bitcoin are laid out in this amazing book https://www.amazon.com/Bitcoin-Standard-Decentralized-Alternative-Central/dp/1119473861
A must read for every crypto enthusiast
Not random malfunctions. It was incredibly precise.
It would look for specific serial numbers on specific brands of controllers. It would send fake data to the operator's screen, then let the centrifuges spin themselves into destruction. The worm was designed entirely to take out just Iran's centrifuges. It was completely benign to any other device.
E: also, in the vein of human stupidity: https://www.amazon.com/Art-Deception-Controlling-Element-Security/dp/076454280X/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1492349753&sr=8-4&keywords=mitnick
And with the glut of pop-econ books on the market lately, now has never been a better time to start studying.
I recently met Peter Leeson at a talk about his book The Invisible Hook:The Hidden Economics of Pirates who gives a fascinating(and accessible) study of what piracy actually was and the incentives behind it(for example they weren't racist, they were remarkably democratic, and there was a reason they fostered that rough and tumble reputation).
If that isn't your cup of tea there is also The Not So Wild Wild West(whose authors I've also met) about how the Wild West reimagined on the silver screen is hardly more than just imagination(during a 50 year period associated with the "Wild West" you could count the number of bank robberies on your fingers[no toes]).
If you are looking for something a little more general you can pick up any number of History of Economic Thought books. My personal favorites are The Worldly Philosophers and Teachings of the Worldly Philosophers. The former of which gives an overview of the works of economists from Smith to Keynes(you'll have to pick up another book for history after 1950) with quotations from the original works. The latter switches the ratios of summary and quotations(its practically an anthology of greatest hits of economists with brief introductions).
I didn't get to meet Heilbroner, but he has spoken at the same economics club I met the others through(though long before my time).
Antifragile by Nassim Taleb. Things that are Anti-Fragile are better than things that are fragile... In FI terms it means things like being debt free > being in debt, low living expenses > spending everything you earn and then some, etc.
In general being FI is inherently anti-fragile.
Book plug which you are referencing:
Antifragile
I'm actually in the middle of reading it. Great ideas!
> There's still a persistent gap of 5-10% even when corrected for position and hours.
Yes, because there are more variables to correct for. Subspecialty. Qualifications. Years on the job. Willingness to travel.
> You looking at the same stats as everyone else?
Probably not. I read Warren Farrell's book, which goes deeper than most of the other analyses I've seen out there. If women are getting nudged, it's into more comfortable jobs that give them better quality of life, while men are getting nudged into more demanding, more dangerous jobs because they can bring home higher pay.
As were Bush, Reagan, and numerous other high ranking US officials, both military and civilian. There have long been close links between Riyadh and DC. For good reason.
The House of Saud, while now a convenient boogeyman for those with no sense of even recent history, has provided not just oil for many decades when there were inadequate supplies in North America (and Europe), but more importantly has been a key ally in the gulf, a place where instability is the natural state, and where Wahhabism especially would rapidly fill a power vacuum.
Is Saudi Arabia an ideal ally? No. We have many differences with them. But they are far better than the alternative. Through taking donations from the Saudis, Clinton was shoring up an important relationship while furthering the impact of her family foundation.
So you can criticize Clinton's relationship with the House of Saud, but see how quickly Trump cozies up to them.
I guess in summary, two things. One, these things aren't black and white, as cute as it may be. And second, keep your friends close and your enemies closer.
For more detail you can read the following:
https://www.amazon.com/Inside-Kingdom-Modernists-Terrorists-Struggle/dp/0143118277
https://www.amazon.ca/Prize-Epic-Quest-Money-Power/dp/1439110123
The Design of Everyday Things by Donald Norman
It doesn't matter what field you work in, this book will really change the way you look at how you interact with the world.
This is a classic around designing for usability. Worth taking a look if you haven't already read it.
https://www.amazon.com/Design-Everyday-Things-Donald-Norman/dp/1452654123
A good primer on the subject of economics by Sowell is Basic Economics.
I gotchu fam, been saved in my amazon wishlish all this time. "How an Economy Grows and Why It Crashes" by Peter Schiff.
Take some of that money and invest it into some good books because Redditing will not give you anywhere near the amount of information a well thought out book will.
The one listed below covers a ton of information everyone should know involving the stock market, including mutual funds, bonds and etfs
https://www.amazon.ca/Millionaire-Teacher-Wealth-Should-Learned/dp/0470830069
Progression systems, squad controls, over-the-shoulder third person, and expansive environments all needed to be adapted to make Frostbite work with Inquisition and Andromeda.
Check out Jason Schreier's Blood, Sweat, and Pixels for some additional information. He has an entire chapter on what the Inquisiton team had to do to adapt Frostbite for Inquisition.
I agree though, my favorite parts of Inquisition and Andromeda are without a doubt the environmental design and the technical prowess behind any type of magical/biotic/tech explosions. Those games at their best look as good as any game I've ever played.
The term neoliberalism is usually heard in the pejorative sense, often coming from Latin American leaders such as Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales. The term refers to an international economic policy that has been predominant in policy-making circles and university economics departments since the 1970's. The four faces on the cover of this book (Reagan, Deng, Pinochet, and Thatcher) are considered by David Harvey the primemovers of this economic philosophy. Reagnomics, Thatcherism, Deng's capitalism with Chinese characteristics, and Pinochet's free market policies marked the beginning of new era of global capitalism.
Neoliberlism as a philosophy holds that free markets, free trade, and the free flow of capital is the most efficient way to produce the greatest social, political, and economic good. It argues for reduced taxation, reduced regulation, and minimal government involvement in the economy. This includes the privitization of health and retirement benefits, the dismantling of trade unions, and the general opening up of the economy to foreign competition. Supporters of neoliberlism present this as an ideal system. Detractors, such as Harvey, see it as a power grab by economic elites and a race to the bottom for the rest.
http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Neoliberalism-David-Harvey/dp/0199283273
Edited to account for comments
The Guardian had this great overview of the leftist criticism of neoliberalism a few months ago.
If you want something a little longer but also very good, look at David Harvey's A Brief History of Neoliberalism. As /u/ThickTurtle rightly points out, Harvey is a Marxist and that's the approach of the book here. Even if you disagree with the methods, the bibliography is a valuable resource.
/u/leehyori suggested that the article is not balanced. That criticism is correct. It is absolutely a criticism of neoliberalism. However, the term "neoliberalism" is used almost exclusively as a term of opprobrium. Advocates of a radically free-market tend to use other terms for their beliefs. I take OP's use of the term "neoliberal" to mean s/he is looking for these criticisms, and if so, the sources listed are a good starting place. One other book that is worth considering is Daniel Jones's Masters of the Universe. It is more properly a history, but it's a history that goes from the early 20th Century roots of neoliberalism through its economic conceptualization in figures like Freedman to its practice in Reagan and Thatcher. The book argues the three stages are not all cut from the same cloth, and it looks at how neoliberalism in practice is not what it was in theory (among other things).
>Once routine settles in, people become lazy, and laziness leads to accidents…
Exactly. This happens pretty much everywhere. Hospitals, airplanes, etc etc.
There is an interesting book regarding this called "The checklist manifesto"
I see your point. Little mistakes can happen to anyone and some small slips can have grave consequences, that's why sometimes simple actions require checklists, given the disastrous impact an error can have, no matter how improbable.
Still, in this case, I maintain you're totally inept. This cannot happen unless you're still unlicensed, a noob training and not legally able to drive [in which case it wouldn't be your fault, as someone is responsible for your training].
Or, you know... if you're an imbecile.
Not sure if really relevant, but in other fields where attention to detail is vital they use checklists. For example, even pilots who have been flying for years use checklists.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0312430000?pc_redir=1396411218&robot_redir=1
How an Economy Grows and Why It Crashes.
I read it in grad school and it was OK. It's very macro-focused. If you like that, that's fine. I find macroeconomics to be sort of boring and useless in many situations. It's good to know basics about how the economy functions, but you really don't need to know that much unless you're in the business of policy making or research.
> N Taleb claimed that, for Bitcoin to succeed, it must be banned by a few governments. I generally agree; the effects of a formal ban could be either good or bad.
Well that does it. I've gone and ordered Antifragile , Taleb is just too reasonable and I think I need to soak in his wisdom. Im a big proponent of neccessary friction in society, and I think that bitcoin needs it to succeed, which I do think it has quite a lot with statist crying terrorism, drugs, murder for hire, etc, despite all the empirical evidence pointing to the fact that it is our established banking system that is the source of the majority of these issues.
I would recommend Option Volatility & Pricing: Advanced Trading Strategies and Techniques by Sheldon Natenberg. I have worked on several commodities options trading desks and that is the standard text.
I did use the Hull book while studying options and derivatives at university, however. I am not as familiar with the others.
I'm not precisely sure about which aspect of the problem you want to learn about, but The Spirit Level is a good introduction to the effects of inequality, whilst Capital in the twenty-first century discusses why inequality is growing.
From Blood Sweat and Pixels:
"Every time I worked with Joe [Staten], I said, 'Joe, I'm really out in the dark here on where the story's going - I don't understand what's happening with the story, " [Marty] O'Donnel said. "And he would say that he was frustrated too. And at least what he told me was that he was frustrated with the lack of commitment from Jason. Jason would say, 'Yes this is good,' then a month later say, 'No, we shouldn't do this.' So there was a lot of what looked like indecision coming from Jason."
In the summer of 2013, months after Jones and Staten had hyped up the story of Destiny to press and weeks after [the gameplay trailer released at E3], O'Donnell went to the hospital to get sinus surgery. Just a few days after he got home, catastrophe began.
"I got a sort of panicked email from [Bungie's production director] Jonty Barnes saying, 'Oh my gosh, Joe released this supercut thing, and everybody's up in arms and worried about the story,'" O'Donnell said. "And I was lying on the couch, in a drug haze from recovering, and I was just sort of like, 'You've got to be kidding me. This is horrible.'"
Said "supercut thing" - or, as it was more commonly called, the supercut - was a two hour internal video that was meant to convey Destiny's entire story. To most observers, it was a mess. Staten had compiled and edited the supercut almost entirely on his own, peppering it with incomplete dialogue, half-finished voice acting, and rough animation. People at Bungie, many of whom were already nervous about the state of the game's story, found it impossible to understand.
In the supercut's version of Destiny's story, the player's main goal was to hunt down an artificially intelligent war machine named Rasputin, who had been kidnapped by the swarming, undead alien Hive. On the journey, the playuer would head to Earth, Venus, Mars, the Moon, Staturn, and a mystical temple on Mercury, where an Obi-Wan Kenobi-like wizard named Osiris would offer advice and words of wisdom. Along the way, the player would befriend and team up with characters like "The Crow," a suave alien with pale blue skin and slick hair [Note, the Crow's character model was repurposed to be Uldren].
Opinions varied on this story's quality, but almost everyone outside the writer's room agreed that the supercut itself was a disaster. "Joe's vision probably made tons of sense in his own mind," said Marty O'Donnell. "And Joe was just [thinking], 'Come on, everybody, we've all got to go in the same direction. We've got to star now. Here it is. This isn't perfect but we can fix it . . . ' Instead it backfired completely . . . Just about everybody in the studio thought, 'Oh my gosh, this is going to be a train wreck.'"
Perhaps by putting out the supercut, Joe Staten had hoped to force the studio's hand. Maybe he wanted to make Jason Jones and the rest of Bungie's leadership commit to a suingular vision for Destiny's story and stick to it. One former Bungie employee said Jones had actually requested that Staten make a presentation so they could all assess the state of the story. Few people at Bungie anticipated what would happen next.
Shortly after the supercut circulated, Jason Jones gave the studio a new edict: They needed to reboot the story. It was time to start over. Staten's story was too linear, Jones said, and too similar to Halo. Starting now, Jones told the studio, they were going to rewrite Destiny's story from scratch.
> Anyone recommend some useful books that can help me
http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Neoliberalism-David-Harvey/dp/0199283273
http://www.amazon.com/Dealing-China-Insider-Economic-Superpower/dp/1455504211/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1452819640&sr=8-4&keywords=China+economy
http://www.amazon.com/Age-Ambition-Chasing-Fortune-Truth/dp/0374535272/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1452819640&sr=8-1&keywords=China+economy
http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-China-Economy-History-Political/dp/0809016516/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1452819640&sr=8-2&keywords=China+economy
A Ramdom Walk Down Wall Street
This is quite interesting so I will go ahead and put MAXIMUM EFFORT into it
chapter 1 - ikuto's talent would have gone unnoticed if chiyuki (someone born into the fashion industry) hadn't gone out of her way to hunt him down and then had a moment of self-realization "impossible probably".
chapter 2 - chiyuki's dad (an insider) happens to get a call from a former co-worker and decided to back ikuto who stood up to him for chiyuki's sake.
I have had me mentor pull some strings for me too when I used to work in research and academia...one phone call and I was having lunch with a top government official
chapter 4 - well he is a raw talent born in unfavorable circumstances which isn't unheard of in real life
chapter 5 - not unheard of...people in influential positions use opportunities to further kids all the time
chapter 6 - again, not unheard of...in fact, it is quite common in event management for things to fall in chaos when someone isn't able to come (either travel/overwork/sick)
chapter 7 & 8 - creative work is hard to....predict/control. There are moments when you shut down wondering how you managed to do it before and others where everything falls into it's place like a jigsaw
chapter 9 - not much of a cliffhanger here
chapter 10 - not unheard of...people managing the event and those managing the inventory have an instance of miscommunication. All events are susceptible to failure due to a lot moving parts
chapter 11, 12 - resolutions, no cliffhanger
chapter 13, 14 - MC mentions earlier (chapter 1) that he wanted to give up his dream because of his unfavorable circumstances...we were going to find out the full extend of it sooner or later
chapter 15 - I liked this one a lot...we have to wait a week before we find out the result of ikuto's self-reflection...chiyuki has her moment of self-reflection back in chapter 1.
Up until now, it's been been other people pushing him into it and he is responding to situations. Now he needs to figure out why he wants to be fashion designer. To be one is to design clothes that appeal to the masses, It isn't enough to want to make clothes (for his sisters/mom). He has the talent but it isn't good enough he needs to be obsessed about it to keep at it long enough.
Remember, chiyuki had other agencies willing to take her on or she could have compromised and moved into another profession where she wouldn't denied for being short. She chose her namesake, Mille Neige.
chapter 16 - resolutions, no cliffhanger
chapter 17 - cliffhanger...first one that is not set up well enough but I'd wait for the next chapter to pass judgement on it.
I have no idea about the fashion industry but I have heard people quitting companies in the middle or right before key events in the video game industry for health or creative differences.
>it so often just gets me rolling my eyes and sighing and this little last page dramatic twist cliff-hanger perfectly embodies why
I think you have been quite harsh in your assessment. I found none of the cliffhangers hard to believe/outlandish.
It's not like the MC fell on top of a female while she was in a public bath (every ecchi manga ever) or ran into his girlfriend's (and step-sister) step-sister and saw her underwear.
>At every turn it feels like the author is trying to use every little trick they can find to make things just a little more intense, more dramatic, as dramatic as they possibly can and it just ends up feeling overplayed.
I disagree...I could relate to it esp. working in a high stress environment. I mean sure the manga is structured in a fashion that maximises the impact but all of those things are quite common in industries like fashion, event management, animation, video games, research and academia which subsists on creative work and crunch (over working to meat deadlines that are hard to predict/pin down) is the norm.
If you ever happen to start things from scratch or attempt a startup, you will realize that more often than not find that one little thing or other can lead to near total collapse...it is dramatic by it's nature
If their stock dropped 61% because apple pulled out - they don't have a bright future. You sound like the kind of person interested in investing in coal.
Edit: Educate yourself: https://www.amazon.com/Security-Analysis-Foreword-Buffett-Editions/dp/0071592539
The past is not an indication of the future in investing. You are speculating, one of the worst things you could do as an investor - here, educate yourself some more: https://www.amazon.com/Intelligent-Investor-Definitive-Investing-Essentials/dp/0060555661
Yeah, semantics aside, I would agree with you that China dodged much of the pitfalls primarily due to not liberalizing their capital account too quickly. Not relying on hot money like Mexico, Thailand, ID, etc likely helped dodge the bullet of the financial crises of the 90's.
SOEs still represent about 30% of Chinese GDP, though most are owned locally rather than nationally and of the latter more than half are publically traded.
However, if China hopes to transition out of the middle income trap, I would argue they need more reforms for underperforming SOE's, domestic consumption, and more liquid and transparent financial markets.
P.S. I said "poster boy" simply because Deng Xiaoping is literally on the cover of Harvey's textbook on Neoliberalism, not because China embodies every facet perfectly.
It's not just an insult. They really are neoliberal. They want market solutions to all the things. They will fund the NHS but they want to privatise it. Healthcare is inelastic. It's a service in which the market fails. To try and apply market solutions is just an excuse to extract profit for shareholders.
Liberalism doesn't really say anything about how economic systems or even political systems should work. It's just philosophy about how people should interact with each other. Neoliberalism is an obsessive fact ignoring ideological drive to turn everything in the world in to markets so they can be exploited.
Go and read a brief history of neoliberalsim.
This can be explained in another way without resorting to the crude personification of cultural movements (like the hippies were lazy and spoiled, wtf?). The concept you're looking for is Neoliberalism. They key thinker of this concept is the geographer [David Harvey] (http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Neoliberalism-David-Harvey/dp/0199283273). The basic idea is that during the 70s, labor and capital reached an impasse in which the power of labor (its ability to maintain high wages and good benefits) was getting in the way of capital accumulation, which hadn't been a problem during the post war boom, but became one as western europe recovered and access to oil became problematic. As a result a massive political effort was undertaken, especially during the Reagan and Thatcher years, that involved the dismantling of labor unions and state programs, and deregulation that allowed capital to move east and begin production in asia, a geographical region in which labor can be purchased for far less, with far fewer labor laws. This is also how the process of deindustrialization occurred. The steel belt didn't become the rust belt because American workers were just lazy, it's because it became more profitable to invest in (or to exploit) foreign workers.
tl;dr It's not quite accurate to say that our parents did this to us. Rather it is the result of specific historical period of capitalism in America.
A Random Walk Down Wall Street
https://www.amazon.com/Random-Walk-down-Wall-Street/dp/0393352242/ref=dp_ob_title_bk
I'm kind of in the same boat. The folks at /r/personalfinance suggested A Random Walk Down Wall Street, which I'm about 20 pages into. It gets updated every so often, so the info should be pretty current. Seems pretty good so far.
You owe it to yourself to understand what you are actually buying when you "invest in the market." A Random Walk Down Wall Street cannot be recommended highly enough. Check out the newest edition from your local library.
I think most modern anarchist thought regarding non-state security production does not formally rely on vigilantism (although this is a component).
Instead, there is a concentration on risk management via insurance and co-insurance. When you are robbed, there are two components:
No one can make you whole on #1. No state, certainly.
2 is a different story entirely. If someone steals your money or jacket, are you satisfied with only receiving your money and jacket, or equivalents? The insurance market is constructed to replace you, to indemnify you against loss. The concept from here is that competing insurers and co-insurers then make decisions regarding how much they will indemnify via cash, and how much via other loss-prevention mechanisms. These mechanisms may include private security, mobile panic buttons, neighborhood watch programs (join a program, get a discount on your premium), or any other of a number of solutions.
Because we know that a private insurer has to remain profitable while satisfying customers, we know that the production and types of security provided will be appropriate to the market. That is, you will get the right kind of security at the right price. You won't get 10 cops in a town of 200 (mainly issuing traffic citations), while there are 100 for a town of 100,000 down the street (dealing with robberies).
Additionally, you won't pay security companies to take unnecessary risks, since the security companies are liable for their employees. You won't see SWAT-style raids of weed dealers, or officers hanging around on highways looking to generate revenue. Only a state would offer services this inefficient.
Really, there are whole books on this subject, including historical analysis such as the "Not So Wild West" (http://www.amazon.com/Not-So-Wild-West-Economics/dp/0804748543)
A synopsis of the former here: http://mises.org/journals/jls/3_1/3_1_2.pdf
>Look at the homicide rates in the old west of America, where there was little to no government intervention.
About that, the rate of murders in western towns was quite low according to records. For instance, the real town of Deadwood had fewer recorded murders in it's whole history than what they depicted in the first episode of the HBO show. Further reading I recommend http://www.amazon.com/Not-So-Wild-West-Economics/dp/0804748543
This sums it up pretty well.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0814472109?pc_redir=1407654181&robot_redir=1
The 77% stat tends to get skewed because men work longer hours, have higher risk careers (think firefighter, etc) and tend to log more in sales based or commission goals due to those longer hours.
A woman can take time off for maternal leave, and tend to have less certifications in their chosen field. Yes, a masters degree is important, but is it relevant to an administrative assistant position?
>So Bitcoin’s main goal is to let people use their money when/how/where they want and replace or bypass the banking system of the world?
Bitcoin has no main goal. It's just a ledger. It trustlessly moves tokens on a digital ledger between parties that don't trust each other.
>Is there an endless amount of Bitcoin available to the world ie printing paper and susceptible to inflation/deflation?
Bitcoin is deflationary. There will only ever be 21 million coins. A certain number are mined every 10 minutes. Every ~4 years the distribution amount halves (we call this the halvening).
>“Okay I’m ready to buy some bitcoin but this site is charging a fee for my purchase”. Where is a good place to buy bitcoin from the U.S. without having to pay a fee?
Limit orders on a professional exchange like Coinbase Pro or Gemini often have low/no fees. This is the best way to go about it.
>What is the state of Bitcoin ie is it close to being recognized as a form of currency on the world stage and from governments? If not, what would it take for Bitcoin to surpass say an entire continents financial system and maintain a regular usage instead of paper notes?
World governments are very differing in their positions on Bitcoin. Iran for example isn't a big fan. Venezuela's government isn't either, but their citizens are. The G5 countries are tolerating (and taxing) crypto earnings. The SEC is regulating some of the projects in the space. Merchants do accept it for payment, but the tax structure makes it harder to spend as a day-to-day currency currently. Calculating capital gains on every purchase of coffee is a PITA.
>Can Bitcoin handle Billions of people using the system for daily use? Is this where other crypto currency’s come into play to fill the void of an overloaded system?
Right now? No. But Bitcoin is scaling up slowly. Other crypto currencies are mostly pump/dump scams that serve no real purpose. They would have issues scaling up to a large payment network without compromising decentralization. Check out the lightning network, segwit, schnorr signatures a bit technical, but you can find some great summaries.
>Does Bitcoin become the “gold standard” and nations start to utilize hoarding Bitcoin or will it turn into nations valuing their own currency against Bitcoin like the world values everything against the USD? (If that last part makes sense)
Here's a great book. https://www.amazon.com/Bitcoin-Standard-Decentralized-Alternative-Central/dp/1119473861
Tell them to.
SHUT Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism | http://www.amazon.com/Bad-Samaritans-Secret-History-Capitalism/dp/1596915986/
THE Confessions of an Economic Hit Man | http://www.amazon.com/Confessions-Economic-Hit-John-Perkins/dp/0452287081/
FUCK http://www.amazon.com/Killing-Hope-C-I-Interventions-II--Updated/dp/1567512526/
UP http://www.amazon.com/Rogue-State-Guide-Worlds-Superpower/dp/1567513743/
1.) Answers will vary depending on what "wing" of libertarianism someone adheres to. I'll just focus on two.
Minarchists (Ron Paul/Gary Johnson types) would argue some level of taxation is necessary to maintain an exponentially smaller government than exists now. This vision of government would operate essentially only defense, courts, and police. Minarchists will generally argue for a simplistic consumption tax or flat tax of some sort. Some argue for limited tariffs instead so our citizens are not directly taxed at any point. Their approach is debated internally, but united in that the net taxation would be dramatically reduced. In this world, government continues to collect revenue and spend it on its very limited endeavors - not much has changed besides the scale of collections and operations.
Anarcho-capitalists (Rothbard types) would say that you cannot be logically consistent in arguing the inefficiency of government and moral issue of taxation, which minarchists do argue, and then still accept its role in society. These types will argue for a peaceful transition to an entirely pure market based economy via the privatization of all government services. They point that government services already have private equivalents which are always more efficient: Fedex/UPS vs USPS, government schools vs. private schools, privately operated toll roads, private airport security (which is already the norm in some other developed countries), private binding arbitration, etc. This includes regulatory bodies: NSF and Underwriters Laboratories are real examples of private sector regulators where companies pay to have their products evaluated and approved based on their objective third party standards. So, to answer your question: in their world, government doesn't operate at all and instead all interaction is through voluntary contracts in the market.
Minarchists are usually somewhat sympathetic to the anarcho-capitalism view, but will say it is fantasy because the general populace already views government as a wholly benevolent entity. Personally, I generally believe in anarcho-capitalism and do believe government as we know it is obsolete and unnecessary in the modern world. In the 20th century capitalism brought us a previously unfathomable increase in the standard of living while the institution of government meanwhile slaughtered hundreds of millions in the name of communism, World War I and II, etc. But, off my soap box for now.
2.) This is hard to answer concisely, so I'll instead recommend three books.
The first is FDR: New Deal or Raw Deal. It reviews objective data to argue that FDR & friends were not the godsent savior of the world that government schools teach. The, very oversimplified, conclusion of this book is that FDR terrorized the market with incredibly arbitrary and tyrannical intrusions during his tenure and prolonged what could have been a comparatively simple market correction into the "Great Depression" as we know it. After his death, it argues, the market was returned to a state of normalcy and we were given the incredible boom that followed the end of World War II. If you're really interested in the topic, I suggest giving it a read. It's rather dry, but very interesting since it goes against everything we're taught.
The second book is to review how the government, via the Federal Reserve, intrudes into the economy by manipulating interest rates and thus exacerbating the natural cyclical nature of the market. The Austrian School of Economics, the economic theory that is most often associated with all of libertarianism, argues this is where the Great Depression and, more recently, Great Recession, came from. An easy introduction to this topic is End the Fed. Its, very oversimplified, conclusion is that the Federal Reserve artificially stimulates demand by fixing interest rates below what they would be in an untainted market. This then leads to overconsumption (the bubble) in a whatever area of the economy the government decides is politically fashionable to push at the time.
The third book is to bring in a modern context about the government's role in the 2008 crisis: Meltdown. It applies the Austrian Economic view onto the most modern economic crisis. It's writing style is much more interesting than the first two books I offered and, frankly, it's just more interesting since it happened in our lifetime. The principles can also be applied to the Great Depression and it also references the mistakes made in dealing with it as well since we basically followed the same path. Its, very oversimplified, conclusion is that the government is wholly responsible for the 2008 crisis by setting up an environment that incentivized overconsumption. By violating basic economic laws, it argues, the government created a situation that was doomed to fail and nothing could have stopped it from all crashing down.
3.) To be logically consistent, yes. Heavily regulating economic activities will inevitably spill over into regulating social activities. As a small example, the IRS selectively targeted conservative groups because of their views and sought to destroy them. By having this economic intrusion into the market (the entirety of the IRS as an institution), the government attempted to purge these groups of their basic human right to self-expression.
4.) I do not believe in it. Simply by being born in a physical location does not enslave you into what a former generation believed was your "role" in society. As a small example, you are in no way morally obligated to pay for the inactivity of senior citizens through Social Security (or whatever similar program your country has if you are outside of the US). To say that you are because FDR & friends, before you were ever born, decided to deploy Social Security as a cash grab is sheer nonsense. You are not a slave to some ivory tower politician(s)'s whimsical views on what your "lawful role" in society is supposed to be.
edit: formatting, oops.
You'll hear this a thousand times but read A Random Walk Down Wall Street. It has a good overview of America's market history, specifically the last decade. Make sure you buy a revised version.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0393352242/ref=dp_ob_neva_mobile
Some people may suggest Intelligent Investor and Securities Analysis but I found them very dated.
Also here is the r/personalfinance reading list:
https://www.reddit.com/r/personalfinance/wiki/readinglist
> In a small community - say a village of 350 people - I would say 'Yes, we are all in this together and our collective success or failure is intertwined with one another and we must all contribute to helping each other by specializing in different things which together allow the best functioning society.
This is one of the many arguments for federalism, its why services should be supplied by states and local communities, the states can act as laboratories and people can move in and out of areas they favor.
> Capitalism measures success by the amount of money we have
No, capitalism doesnt measure anything, it is simply the economic system that allows individuals to exchange their goods or services as they see fit.
Dont anthropomorphize an economic system. Capitalism allows for taco bell to sell taco's at 2 for 99 cents and a Jackson Pollock artwork for a few hundred million dollars, it doesnt measure success.
I measure my personal success different than you do, it has nothing to do with an economic system.
> is a very difficult one when we get into details and I am unresolved in where I stand on it (where is the line drawn? Cue a reference to 'death panels'...).
All the more reason why putting a bureaucrat who does not care about you or even know you exist in charge of your health is such a bad idea.
> I am of the belief that our entire nation is stronger when we are looking out for each other.
I agree, but having the government forcing people at the point of a gun erodes the voluntary individual responsibility we have with each other. Looking out for eachother doesnt mean forcing one group of people to pay for another.
It is certainly not society's job to fill in the gaps where you have failed. It is your job to pick yourself up.
If you are actually genuine with your questions and actually want to learn I strongly recommend reading Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics: A Common Sense Guide to the Economy (https://www.amazon.com/Basic-Economics-Common-Sense-Economy/dp/0465022529) I think it would help a lot with your understanding of economics.
https://www.amazon.com/How-Economy-Grows-Why-Crashes/dp/047052670X
How an Economy Grows and Why it Crashes. https://www.amazon.com/How-Economy-Grows-Why-Crashes/dp/047052670X
It's got pictures, and teaches very easy to understand concepts which will allow you to refute economic nonsense. This is the best choice because non-avid readers aren't going to read Bastiat or Hayek or anything heavy.
I, Pencil
After that I highly recommend reading Peter Schiff's How an Economy Grows and Why It Crashes
It's an easy read but drives a lot of very important points home.
It really depends what you want to save for. Are you planning to buy a new car soon or go on a nice vacation? Saving up for a downpayment on a house? Saving for retirement? Some combination of these?
For any portion that is shorter term (car, vacation, house) you're probably good with just keeping it in savings accounts, though you might want to check out some high-interest TFSA accounts that probably pay a much better rate than what you're currently earning.
For retirement savings, you should invest in stock markets and bonds, though not directly. Mutual funds or exchange-traded funds are your best bet, ideally sticking with low-cost "index funds". There's a lot to be learned before you begin this journey, and so I suggest you start out by reading these great personal finance books:
Both of these provide solid coverage of all the basics of personal finance, and a good intro into investing. They are somewhat lacking in the actual implementation of the investment strategies they discuss, so for that I recommend an eBook called The Value of Simple, which you can get from Chapters, Amazon, or from the author's website.
Not only is inequality bad for people at the bottom of society; its also, surprisingly, bad for the people at the top too. The Spirit Level from 2011, lays this out in excruciating detail showing that for every conceivable metric of societal well being, more equal societies are better than than less equal ones. It does this by comparing both OECD countries and comparing between US states.
You need to study Austrian Economics.
I recommend this book if you really want to understand what is going on.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1119473861/ref=cm_cr_arp_mb_bdcrb_top?ie=UTF8
hey I read that! Matt Simmons ended up being dead wrong about peak oil, but otherwise I enjoyed the book. But The Prize by Daniel Yergin is the king of oil books - it is brilliant.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Prize-Quest-Money-Power/dp/1439110123/ref=pd_bxgy_14_img_2?ie=UTF8&refRID=04AERX02B4996WQXBJA0****
The Prize by Daniel Yergin is a great history of the O&G industry.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1439110123/ref=redir_mdp_mobile/188-3799228-4803548
it is about exactly what it sounds like, but not in an industrial engineering sense, but in a design and usability sense. Like, this might sound simplistic, but there's an entire chapter on doors.
The author, Don Norman, is a big time design guru.
Whether or not you're a design, if you're interested in why things are the way they are, and how they got that way, it's a great read. https://www.amazon.com/Design-Everyday-Things-Donald-Norman/dp/1452654123
Outstanding answer my man!! I have been interested in getting into blockchain development as well, and I am planning to do a project on it for my networks course this semester. My experience mainly lies with C++, and I'm comfortable with sockets as well in it(boost and regular UNIX sockets), I also did take a distributed systems course as well.
Any ideas for a semester long project? I am currently reading [this] (https://www.amazon.com/Mastering-Bitcoin-Programming-Open-Blockchain/dp/1491954388/ref=dp_ob_title_bk#reader_1491954388) and this to get started.
Option Volatility and Pricing. Very detailed book. Or, you know, can just google "butterfly spread".
There is a readme that describes the mechanics of how Etheropt works, but it sounds like you want to learn more about options in general. The classic options book is Natenberg, and having read it cover to cover I do recommend it. For a quicker introduction, the Investopedia guides are pretty good.
If you really understand the basics, you should be able to answer your own questions. Since you can't, I assume you don't understand the basics, so read this book. When you finish, read it 9 more times.
Don't bother with a 4 year Comp Sci degree or any 4 year degree if you're looking to become a programmer. I've done software engineering for the last 9 years without a degree and without massive debt. Life is much better and you will learn skills that you'll need later.
You need to be able to teach yourself programming skills because of the nature of the job. Teach yourself a few languages which cover various paradigms of languages. Start with more practical ones like Python, then move towards languages that will teach you to solve problems differently like FORTH or Squeak.
Understand what your fellow software people will expect of you. Move towards being a more competent programmer. Build things that are just slightly larger than anything you've built before - but finish your projects before you start a new one and don't let your eyes get bigger than your stomach. If you want to work with smaller businesses, learn a breadth of skills. If you want to work with large companies, find something you have a serious interest in and exploit it until you're a specialist in that domain. Pay heavy attention to design. Software is not a strictly technical field like accounting.
Most importantly, have fun with it. You will gain the ability to create amazing things without worrying about the cost of resources or building materials.
Blockchain Basics is probably the best high level overall business blockchain book, which focuses on proof of work mostly.
Blockchain Revolution is a good use case book. Not technical, but gets a little sci-fi with how blockchain may be used in the future.
But if you want technical, the best I've found is Mastering Bitcoin.
Business Blockchain was pretty good and gave me ideas for a couple extra slides for my Blockchain 101 presentations throughout my company.
But Book of Satoshi was probably my favorite read. It was great to get a slight history of bitcoin and see some of Satoshi's views from his perspective.
A rally is a period where the price continues to rise, because either new fiat money is flowing into crypto, or people are leaving one crypto for another at that time.
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/rally.asp
I use bittrex and coinbase and like them, but there are many options for exchanges. I live in Washington state, so I have less options because Kraken and Poloniex are not available here.
I'd recommend getting either a ledger nano s or trezor hardware wallet. I have a ledger and it's really cool. Others like the trezor, but I don't have experience with it. Look into both and figure out which one you like more. This is the most secure way to store many coins.
This stuff is definitely worth the effort. I think it will be a multi trillion dollar market in five years, so it's still really early days. If you have a background in tech, then you have a good advantage in assessing the technology and making a lot of money investing. Good luck to you!
Oh also, if you want to dive deeper into the tech, a good first read is Mastering Bitcoin. Even though it's about bitcoin, you'll learn the fundamentals that are used by all cryptocurrencies.
book link
Check out this. (It's on the sidebar)
https://www.amazon.com/Option-Volatility-Pricing-Strategies-Techniques/dp/155738486XIt's like the Bible of options trading
If you frame this as a "our free market" vs "their central planning" debate, I have some recommended reading.
Economic planning, done right, can be incredibly beneficial.
Would that be before or after the USSR looted East Germany for anything of economic value?
As for growth, there's a reason I said "long term". Some measure of central planning is necessary for economic development (and, in fact, it is argued by some that the developed, capitalist world today owes its success to central planning and restricted trade during its earlier stages of development), but the levels of growth seen in the Eastern bloc were unsustainable. The collapse was not just some unfortunate event that derailed the great socialist experiment, it was its consequence.
Paul's position has that the market will regulate itself and that the government is there to enforce contracts and punish anyone who commits fraud.
I'll explain it in my own words about banks since I'm not sure if Paul would agree with me 100%. So here's the deal: if you open a bank account and deposit money in it, the bank is 100% obligated to allow you to withdraw your money on demand. If they are unable to return customers' money, the bank has broken the contract and has basically committed an act of fraud. It might be given say a 30 day period (I'm just making this up as an example) to come up with the money, and if not, the owners of the bank would be punished - personally I'd like to see life in prison or the death penalty for such incidents b/c ruining peoples' financial lives is equivalent to ruining their lives, so ruining the bankers' lives by giving them life in prison or taking away their lives is fair punishment (you can disagree, that's my personal view).
In a libertarian world, the market would regulate itself: bankers want to make money and they don't want to be thrown in jail. You don't need regulators watching over the bankers b/c bankers would police themselves in fear of being thrown in jail - it would be a whole lot nicer to live free and make money instead. But wait - why did the banks take the big risks and not police themselves and cause a financial meltdown? They had incentive NOT to do so provided by the government. Back in the year 2000 I believe there was a front page headline on the Financial Times talking about the "Greenspan Put". Let me copy a passage from Ron Paul's friend Tom Woods who wrote in his book Meltdown:
>Analysts have called this the "Greenspan put," what the Financial Times describes as the views that "when markets unravel, count on the Federal Reserve and its chairman Alan Greenspan (eventually) to come to the rescue." The Times reported in 2000, in the wake of the dot-com boom, an increasing concern that the Greenspan put was injecting into the economy "a destructive tendency toward excessively risky investment supported by hopes that the Fed will help if things go bad." "All the insane dot-com investment we've seen, all this destruction of capital, all the crazy excesses of the past few years wouldn't have happened without the easy credit accomodated by the Fed," added financial consultant Michael Belkin.
>Try letting a few major firms - yes, even the financial sector, where we superstitiously believe no failures can be allowed - actually go bankrupt for a change. Make perfectly clear once and for all that there will be no bailouts, no looting of the public, on behalf of any firm, period. That would do more to jolt the financial sector into being sensible and cautious instead of reckless and irresponsible than all the regulatory tinkering in the world
Did the bankers get bailed out? Yes. Did anyone get thrown in jail? No. That is exactly the opposite of what would happen in a Ron Paul world - in fact he did talk about in this debate how fraud was committed and no one went to jail.
I'm part of the underemployed and for now work part time at a moving & storage company. What would happen if you entrusted your household items to movers or to a storage house and they "lost" them? They would be liable to compensate you or be punished. Do you see a wave a movers and storehouses committing fraud? I don't. Yes there will be criminals, but there will always be criminals. You could defend your goods (or money in the case of a bank) by purchasing insurance. BTW, there are several first-world countries that don't have the equivalent of an FDIC.
Hopefully now you're starting to understand Paul's hatred of the Fed. For more information, see my essay on how the richest bankers of the world were responsible for creating the Fed, see Eliot Spitzer's outstanding article Fed Dread that describes how the bankers are still in charge today, and scroll down to the section 'economic renegade' in my other essay for more info on Ron Paul and the Fed.
So why did banks go bust before the days of the Fed? An article covering that is on my 'to do' list, but the short answer is that government gave them a license to commit fraud. Instead of saying "you're going to jail if you can't return depositors' money", it was more like "well its okay if you only keep 20% of depositors money on hand and if there's a run on the bank and customers demand 100% of their deposits, we'll that's just the way it is but you won't go to jail so long as you followed the letter of the law").
"[bailouts are] the most basic function of the Federal Reserve. It was why it was founded" - Paul Volcker
That's what happens when you have central banks destroying our currency.
There's a transfer of wealth from middle class/poor to wealthy. How? The money we use reflects our productivity. As they counterfeit our money (i.e. print out of thin air), our money loses value (since there are more of it chasing the same amount of goods).
So where does that stolen value goes to? Well, in order to artificially lower interest rates, central banks print money. Then they lend the money to banks at 0% who then lend it back to us at 5%. So as our money loses value, that lost value gets transferred (it is theft) to the banks.
I'm a hardcore capitalist but central banks and money printing are destroying our standards of living.
The best and easiest to read book on the subject is: Meltdown
You might have a look at some of these:
https://www.amazon.com/Inside-Video-Game-Industry-Developers/dp/0415828287
https://www.amazon.com/Extra-Lives-Video-Games-Matter/dp/0307474313/
https://www.amazon.com/Blood-Sweat-Pixels-Triumphant-Turbulent/dp/0062651234/
https://www.amazon.com/Changing-Game-Transforming-Future-Business-ebook/dp/B001I8QVJC/
https://www.amazon.com/Gamers-Work-Stories-Behind-People/dp/1430233516/
https://www.amazon.com/Innovation-Marketing-Video-Game-Industry-ebook/dp/B01G2BOQGY/
https://www.amazon.com/Total-Engagement-Virtual-Changing-Businesses/dp/142214657X/
They've updated Security Analysis too.
No no I will not. Your sub could be called John Maynard Keynes for all I care, but if that sub is advocating austerity during a recession it is does not fit the definition Keynesian economics. Your sub and people of your following who identify as "neo-liberals" have co-opted an economic term. That is why the books written on the subject feature such famous political figures as Ronald Reagan and Margret Thatcher.
https://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Neoliberalism-David-Harvey/dp/0199283273
I'm gonna go against the tide here and recommend that you don't read the older books written by Marx, Engels, etc., and find books that discuss socialism today. Here are some I would recommend:
If you haven't read it yet, I definitely recommend The Checklist Manifesto.
Pirates
The Not So Wild West
Havent read the book, but heard it is a good resource:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Not-Wild-West-Economics/dp/0804748543
https://mises.org/daily/4108
http://www.amazon.com/Not-So-Wild-West-Economics/dp/0804748543
This book talk about the wild west.
I learned this concept under a different name in Nassim Nicholas Taleb's book, Antifragile
This is the book you're looking for:
Antifragile: Things That Gain from Disorder
The "gender pay gap" issue has been debunked so many times no real academic scholar or serious thinker views this as a legitimate issue. If this is a big issue for you, i strongly suggest you read this book with an open mind.
Men do not "get paid" more, they choose to EARN more on a playing field that is tilted toward women. Yes, men are more than 17 times more likely to die at work. They constitute a similar percentage of workplace accidents that do not result in death. Yet they take far fewer sick days, make fewer insurance claims, including worker's compensation, and so on (relative to events), meaning women receive a disproportionate share of employer-funded healthcare (government healthcare also, but that's another story), while doing considerably less than a proportional share of the work. Consider the research done at the University of Washington in the Department of Vocational Rehab. If a worker takes paid time off for "carpal tunnel syndrome" there is an overwhelming and statistically significant prediction you can make about the worker: It's a woman. All of those paid days off are funded primarily by men, and enjoyed primarily by women. If perquisites are distributed in this way, one must consider that if women's cash earnings are 2% more per hour, their total compensation, including perks, is much more.
Add to that the fact that women take fewer entrepreneurial risks. While they control more capital than men, they like bonds, not starting new businesses. Of course this moves the average earnings of men up relative to women, but does not indicate they are victims of discrimination. In fact, it could be said to indicate that they take an equal or greater share of the benefits of living in a country where men increase the GDP, pay taxes that provide good schools, safe air travel, and medical research, but they are unwilling to contribute equally in sacrifice and risk.
See this landmark books for a deep investigation of why men don't merely receive more in wages and salaries, but why men EARN more in wages and salaries: http://www.amazon.com/Why-Men-Earn-More-Startling/dp/0814472109/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1310457878&sr=8-5. Then teach your children the meaning of equality.
>why don't women rule the world instead of men?
I have two replies.
First, in many ways, women do rule the world.
here's the proof:
And second, women are underrepresented in politics and CEO-type positions because women are less willing than men to make the sacrifices required for success. Women are less willing to travel for work, to work long hours, to be responsible for the financial bottom line, to endure at a job that they find unfulfilling, etc. http://www.amazon.com/Why-Men-Earn-More-Startling/dp/0814472109
If you read this i guarantee you'd reconsider your position. https://www.amazon.com/Bitcoin-Standard-Decentralized-Alternative-Central/dp/1119473861
You're completely missing the point on what a non-sovereign money brings to the global marketplace. Do you do business internationally? Send money across borders ever? International banking absolutely sucks. What about the several billion people that are unbanked because it's a permission based system that they don't have the privilege to be a part of? How about you're living in a country like Venezuela, Iran, Turkey, Greece, etc that are experiencing hyper-inflation and seeing their savings absolutely devastated by poor economic policies instituted by broken governments?
If you think bitcoin is all about speculation you haven't done your homework. It's about taking back control of your finances and being your own bank.
The linked graph shows the negative correlation between economic inequality and societal health in general. I was disappointed that in the Frum and Sullivan talk, when they talked about how life expectancy had been decreasing in the US, they didn't even mention how when comparing cross culturally, income inequality predicts lower life expectancy.
Dr. Richard Wilkinson would be an amazing guest
Se queres ganhos a curto prazo compra antes raspadinhas.
A longo prazo A Random Walk Down Wall Street
Basic and Applied Economics by Sowell.
How an Economy Grows and Why it Crashes by Peter Schiff. You could even read it to your kids!
A lot of this comes down to how actively you want to engage in the process, how much of an "enterprising investor" you want to be as opposed to a defensive investor.
For the more defensive position, a lot of /r/investing appreciates Graham's approach emphasizing value, even if a substantial quantity of capital is devoted to playing the market itself (something Graham called speculating). If that approach is interesting to you--which seems likely given your stated desire for low to medium risk with steady growth--then the main adjustments you'd need to make are as follows:
Also jesus christ asterios not to be mean or anything but it seems like you don't even have a basic understanding of taxes and just regurgitate talking points about rich people.
https://www.amazon.com/Basic-Economics-Common-Sense-Economy/dp/0465022529
Read this book please
Relevant:
>An international poll conducted by The Economist magazine found more people in favor of protectionism than of free trade in Britain, France, Italy, Australia, Russia, and the United States. Part of the reason is that the public has no idea how much protectionism costs and how little net benefit it produces. It has been estimated that all the protectionism in the European Union countries put together saves no more than a grand total of 200,000 jobs--at a cost of $43 billion. That works out to about $215,000 a year for each job saved.
>In other words, if the European Union permitted 100 percent free international trade, every worker who lost his job as a result of foreign competition could be paid $100,000 a year in compensation and the European Union countries would still come out ahead. Alternatively, of course, the displaced workers could simply go find other jobs. Whatever losses they might encounter in the process do not begin to compare with the staggering costs of keeping them working where they are. That is because the costs are not simply their salaries, but the even larger costs of producing in less efficient ways, using up scarce resources that would be more productive elsewhere. In other words, what the consumers lose greatly exceeds what the workers gain, making the society as a whole worse off.
**
>Only part of the problem of getting the general public to understand international trade is due to their not having the facts. Another part of the problem is their not having enough knowledge of economics to withstand the barrage of self-serving arguments put out by many in business, labor, and agriculture, who wish to escape the consequences of having to compete in the marketplace with foreign producers.
-Basic Economics: A Common Sense Guide to the Economy* [link]
Bitcoin is based on Austrian School of economy instead of Keynesian economics which is used in current fiat currencies. There's a great book How an Economy Grows and Why It Crashes showing Austrian school. I can't recommend it highly enough. It's written in such a simple way that even your grandma gets the idea.
> Expansion of the money supply is a normal feature of a currency.
I live in a country where inflation devalued the currency almost by 50 % within several years. And it's not that bad, in Greece, Venezuela and other countries it's way worse. People in UK, USA may not see the problems with inflation.
Currency should hold value. Yet expansion of money supply decreases the value.
> Deflation is undesirable in a currency.
Why?
Deflation is bad for borrowers. That's maybe why central banks and governments hate deflation. If you owe something and next year you owe more, then you don't like deflation. Debts of countries is so huge that deflation would be bad for the countries. Inflation on the other hand makes the debt to be smaller.
Bitcoin isn't only about deflation. Bitcoin's property is that you can be your own bank. You don't have to trust others. Currently you have money in banks in order to pay online. The banks lend your money for 10-20 % interest because of Fractional-Reserve Banking.
The following two books are highly recommended and also suggest Index fund investing. My wife and I just swapped everything over to this strategy as well.
Millionaire Teacher: The Nine Rules of Wealth You Should Have Learned in School
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0470830069
The Wealthy Barber Returns
http://www.amazon.ca/Wealthy-Barber-Returns-David-Chilton/dp/0968394744
The Art of Deception: Controlling the Human Element of Security
What Every BODY is Saying: An Ex-FBI Agent’s Guide to Speed-Reading People
Manwatching: A Field Guide to Human Behavior
How to Win Friends & Influence People
Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion
Games People Play: The Basic Handbook of Transactional Analysis
The 48 Laws of Power
You should check out Jason Shreiers "Blood, Sweat, and Pixels." Recommended read for anyone interested in development.
Blood, Sweat, and Pixels: The Triumphant, Turbulent Stories Behind How Video Games Are Made https://www.amazon.com/dp/0062651234/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_0m3eAbXMVFBFM
You might also be interested in Jason Schreiers article covering Destiny's messy messy development. http://kotaku.com/the-messy-true-story-behind-the-making-of-destiny-1737556731
And also interesting(maybe?): he's going to publish a book covering all of these stories and more later this year, named blood sweat and pixels. https://www.amazon.com/Blood-Sweat-Pixels-Triumphant-Turbulent/dp/0062651234
Read these -
https://www.amazon.com/Intelligent-Investor-Definitive-Investing-Essentials/dp/0060555661
https://www.amazon.com/Security-Analysis-Foreword-Buffett-Editions/dp/0071592539/ref=pd_bxgy_14_img_2?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0071592539&pd_rd_r=NQ9JQNS97TSCDHPSDTEM&pd_rd_w=LxdWn&pd_rd_wg=9nDBB&psc=1&refRID=NQ9JQNS97TSCDHPSDTEM
It's not hard to understand once you understand the driving principles. This dip/crash was predictable.
Seeing Like a State by James C Scott
A Brief History of Neoliberalism by David Harvey
There's influence from a lot of different techniques, but they key for me is having a checklist to follow so that when I start working, I don't have to think about it or make decisions. It's just mindlessly going down the list of steps I have to take and checking things off.
I picked this up from The checklist manifesto
One of them was The Checklist Manifesto. I read this one and really enjoyed it.
When i first read your rant, I was a bit annoyed, but working through it, it became clear that you are pointing to some of the weak spots that a lot of other practitioners have also noticed. fx a lack of coherent definitions, people practising "nudging" without any idea of what it is, a systematic lack of knowledge of the psychology behind the interventions.
So please read everything below here with the kindest voice you can make in you mind. :) Text is a horrible medium for some things.
Realization #1
>He did a great job explaining that "Nudges" are subtle changes to the environment that do not require effort from the Nudger or the Nudgee. Indeed, they work implicitly by acknowledging underlying (system 1) psychological processes. Examples he gave were classics: painting a fly on a urinal, traffic stripes to slow drivers, defaults in organ donation.
I thoroughly agree that many people don't understand what nudges are. It's understandable that lay people don't know, as they have very little reason to care at all about it. However, I also see many practitioners and even academics that somehow comes to very different ideas about what nudging is, but seems to have no interest in forming or accepting a proper definition.
To this point I have to add that I have never seen anywhere, that a critical part of a nudge is that it is (1) subtle, (2) confined to being changes in the environment or (3) effortless for everyone involved.
At (1); there is several examples of nudges that work particularly because they are not subtle. Think of trucks backing up making beeps. A clear attention-grabbing nudge, using an audio version of the fly in the urinal. Not at all subtle though.
At (2); Changes in psychology, that does not stem from direct environmental change can also be regarded as nudges. People get a lot less critical of different ideas when they are horny. :)
At (3); There is a classic prompt for increased sales, where you are offered a complimentary good at checkout. "Do you want a lighter with those cigarettes?". everyone involved knows that lighters available, but still the sales increase when the prompt is in place. It does require continual effort from the sales person however. Better examples might come to mind later.
> Folks who worked in the NHS wanted to come up with structural challenges like figuring out ways to rearrange doctor's (GP's) check-up routine
This is a dream scenario for any choice architect to work with. If you ever read The Checklist Manifesto you will see that there is tremendous opportunity in structuring rutine tasks more.
Realization #2
To repackage and replicate preexisting nudges, is one of the most promising ways of figuring our what parts of the nudges actually works and in what way. As artifacts of the ways people process information and not the information itself, nudges are usually not sector specific, meaning, that the same ideas that works really well in tax collecting, might be worth a shot in healthcare as well.
Most people will learn some very valuable lessons about what kind of nudges that makes the most sense, when they have to test them. Having the experiment as an integral part of implementation of any behavioural intervention is whats going to change the world, by showing that you can do more than raise awareness or make laws, and that it will actually have an effect. The bad ideas will fade, and the good ideas will stand strong. :) (Hopefully)
Don't worry As a lot of people might be considering nudging a fad, it has been gaining considerable ground in the last 10 years, and behaviourally informed interventions is now fast becoming a part of the "standard" public policy toolkit. Because it has proven merits, it will remain in one way or another. However the name might change. :)
I'd like to post just a bit of clarification on this expiration from a developer perspective - firstly with some addition details on the code-signing certificates specifically and secondly some speculation on how oculus got here.
Example
Think of this scenario - you have an application that you built and seldom release updates, maybe once per year. Additionally, you don't have an auto update mechanism in your application so your users have to seek out an update. This means some users may never update, some may update every 3 or 4 versions, or some may update every version.
Even if you are diligent on keeping your certificates up to date, you can't go back and put the new certs in old versions of your software as the public key is baked into the executable. What this means is inevitably your code signing certificate will be renewed and some users will have software with an old, expired certificate. This is why the certificate timestamp mechanism exists - the certificate says "this executable was produced by ABC Software on 1/1/2010" but the countersignature/timestamp says "this signature was valid on 1/1/2010 when it was signed and verified by Symantec on 1/1/2010".
Oculus Speculation
Now, with all that said above one of the things I left out was the amount of details that go into building and releasing software. Many times these details are figured out once and then put into an automated build system such as TeamCity, Jenkins, or TFS. Many times when a process like a build gets automated, it gets handed off at some point and all the details that led up to its creation are no longer in someone's head. This can lead to details getting dropped or missed even when they're extremely important. More than likely the certificate signing is deep in the build chain and the details are obscured.
One important thing to mention is Oculus DOES have an automatic update mechanism in their software so deploying updated executables with renewed certs is much easier for them. This doesn't mean that their renewed cert gets added to their build chain but that they at least have the ability to push updates more regularly than my example.
Does this excuse Oculus? Not at all, but I don't believe there should be calls for people to resign over something like this. While it's an unfortunate outage, this is a great opportunity to teach an individual engineer (or set of build engineers/managers) and learn as an organization. Rest assured mistakes like this happen all the time especially when automated processes and approvals are in the chain without a checklist at the end of the process. One of the books we recommend to our clients when we are going through process and quality improvement is The Checklist Manifesto. For some insight into what might be going on at Oculus right now this is a great youtube video about debugging in production by Bryan Cantrill, a former Sun engineer who is now CTO at Joyent
Exactly what I was going to recommend. Fantastic book.
Another which had a great impact on me was Burton Malkiel's A Random Walk Down Wall Street...
https://www.amazon.com/Intelligent-Investor-Definitive-Investing-Essentials/dp/0060555661/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1491278610&sr=8-1&keywords=the+intelligent+investor
https://www.amazon.com/Random-Walk-down-Wall-Street/dp/0393352242/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1491278661&sr=8-1&keywords=random+walk+down+wall+street
So to buy A Random Walk Down Wall Street in bulk, these bastards are charging 17.16 a copy, around $5 more than what it would cost individually on friggin' Amazon.
[Something something EMH is crap]
Should add The Design of Everything Things by Donald Norman
http://www.amazon.com/Design-Everyday-Things-Donald-Norman/dp/1452654123?ie=UTF8&*Version*=1&*entries*=0
Uplatio sam prije par sati, sad kažeš da sam mogao doć mukte. Nije fer.
Zar niste mogli prvi dan počet u 10:00 da se ljudi malo aklimatiziraju na Split.
Izabrao sam poslovnu radionicu kod Luke Klancira? Jesam se zeznuo? Inače sam programer ali me zanima taj dio, veza banaka, platnog sustava i budućnost financija.
Kod registracije sam izabrao riblji menu ali ako dobijem frigane srdele uzet ću piletinu.
Edit, moje predznanje je ovo:
Od korica do korica, skoro
Uvod pa još malo
Do pola
Plus skidanje jsona sa:
https://bitkonan.com/info/api
https://www.cryptocompare.com/api
za neku iPhone aplikaciju u izradi
Have a look at Bad Samaritans. In short, the World Bank perpetuates economic neoliberalism. Neoliberal policies promote the liberalization of trade, which means that developing countries are not given the chance to nurture the infant industries that could make them competitive in world markets. Essentially, the World Bank is in the business of ensuring that developing countries never develop.
A violation of the rights of the person being taken from.
Put simply, Anarcho-Capitalism is based on the common understanding of private property and the rejection of the idea that anyone, particularly the government, can legitimately override these property rights for any reason. Ancaps may abbreviate this as "The non-aggression principle", understanding 'aggression' to be "violations of person or property."
For a complete treatment of the crash from an ancap perspective see the book Meltdown.
It's not a problem, or to the degree that it is, economics puts a check on it.
Yes. By institutions that society does not treat as having the legitimate authority to violate rights. E.g. The agents of the State murder innocent people and get away with it. Private security agents, in the rare circumstances where they do murder someone, are much more likely to be held accountable. The State collects taxes and people accept it, while the Mafia collects 'protection money' and everyone knows it's a racket.
I'll bite.
First and foremost, there are many different breeds of libertarians (or people that call themselves libertarians). For instance, Glenn Beck has even used the word to describe himself as such--however, I don't think many libertarians really take him seriously on that claim.
More seriously, libertarians tend to be divided into two camps: those that want small government providing basic protection of individual rights (called minarchy) and those that want no government at all (usually labeled as anarcho-capitalists, voluntaryists, agorists, etc.). I consider myself a voluntaryist, which in addition to being an anarcho-capitalist, also qualifies me as someone who does not wish to participate in electoral politics and views it as an approach that really cannot help--and also means that I only prefer voluntary means through which to achieve a voluntary society.
To make matters more complicated, the anarchists of us have two different ways to speak of a free market: a David Friedman approach which concentrates on how free markets solve problems more efficiently than States, and a more deontological approach made famous by Murray Rothbard. Usually, you'll see us taking both angles--sometimes it helps to show how a free market is ipso facto better than a State, and sometimes it's better to show that we have the ethical high ground. (And some of us can be absolute in this sense--some might even recognize a failing of a free market but say that it still doesn't justify violating the ethics of libertarianism.)
There is, however a hurdle that needs to be jumped, I think, to truly grasp the libertarian position: familiarization with Austrian Economics. Austrian Economics is usually regarded as a fringe school of economics, and not taken seriously--it is taught in only a few of the colleges around the United States. In spite of that, Austrian business cycle theory, which puts the blame on fractional reserve banking, and specifically, the Federal Reserve, for the ebb and flow of today's marketplace, has proven itself time and time again. Frederick Hayek, the pioneer of this theory (and a winner of a Nobel Prize because of it), predicted the 1929 stock market crash, and more recently, Peter Schiff used it to predict the current recession. (It also explains bubbles that have inflated and popped in the past, when applied.) The best layman's explanation and the theory's real world applications that I can give you is the recent book Meltdown by Thomas Woods. It's not too long and does a great job at explaining Austrian business cycle theory.
There are many differences between Austrian Economics and the more mainstream schools, but I highlighted Austrian business cycle theory because that is the really important one. To emphasize this even more, I can say that if I could change one thing about the current State (sans abolishing it), it would be to abolish the Federal Reserve by establishing a free market currency. Unhesitatingly.
I personally arrived to my conclusion through a deontological perspective, and later familiarized myself with how free markets can provide services that most people widely regard as services that only States can provide. The deontological perspective essentially leads up to the non-aggression principle (NAP): aggression, which is defined as the initiation of physical force, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property, is inherently illegitimate. (I can hammer out the details of the NAP's justification if you like, but I've chosen to omit it here in the interest of brevity.) The most important thing to realize about the NAP is that it is proportional: if you violate my property, I don't have the right to kill you (i.e., the idea that I can shoot a little boy that trespasses onto my yard to collect his baseball). As once I have quelled your aggression, any further aggression on my part is an over-abundance, and therefore an initiation of aggression--and that is illegitimate.
So with this in light, you can see that libertarians (at least, my style, anyway) are a bit of a mix: we simultaneously believe that libertarianism is the only ethical stance consistent with the idea of liberty, and its natural conclusion, a free market, is an inherently better solution to the problem of "infinite wants" and "scare resources" then centralized control through a State. That is, the State is both illegitimate and inefficient.
So the key to the free market, or capitalism, is to understand its most fundamental truth: two individuals voluntarily committing a transaction. What does it mean to commit a transaction? It means that I am giving you X in return for Y because I value Y more than X, AND because you value X more than Y. It's a win-win scenario, and not zero-sum: we both get something we desire.
For example, if my toilet is clogged, and despite my best attempts, I cannot unclog it, I probably need to call a professional. When the plummer comes over, he tells me that it will be $100 to fix my toilet. Immediately, his actions indicate, "I value $100 more than the value of my services as a plummer." When I agree to his proposal, my action indicates, "I value your services as a plummer more than I value $100." At this most basic level, we can see the Subjective Theory of Value in action brilliantly. That is, things don't have intrinsic value, only the value that each individual assigns.
Now, with that background, I think I can answer your questions:
(Wow, I went over the character limit for comments... yikes...)
I have read the book published by the scientists who gave the TED talk I linked, which is probably the best-known book on this subject. In the introduction they dealt with the question of causality at length. If you are truly interested in the subject matter then I would highly recommend giving it a read.
E: Also note that this discussion is about inequality, not poverty. The two are not synonymous. Incidentally, an interesting feature of inequality is that its negative impacts are not confined to the poor but reach right across society.
Inequality creates crime and many other social issues.
http://www.amazon.com/Spirit-Level-Equality-Societies-Stronger/dp/1608193411?ie=UTF8&*Version*=1&*entries*=0
Well there are instances where we had near anarchy such as the so called "wild west" which was one of the most peaceful times in human history.
Even the gold rush where many people (white, black, asian etc.) got together in a fiercely competitive and temporary environment, there were very few instances of recorded violence. Considering the circumstances and the fact that they were armed, it's quite astonishing to most people.
For more info you can read An American Experiment in Anarcho-Capitalism: The Not So Wild, Wild West by Terry L. Anderson and Peter J. Hill the authors also have a book The Not So Wild, Wild West: Property Rights on the Frontier.
(funny I am having this exact conversation in another thread)
We are operating anarchistically every day. In many ways, we succeed in SPITE OF the state, rather than because of it. The vast majority of our choices are just made with voluntary, organic interaction. Organic is the keyword here because complex systems work best when allowed to find the best-path via "bottom-up" organization (for example, skin cells forming Voronoi patterns).
Economics, as the observation of human action, "maximizes value" because of these really fundamental mathematical truths. Even services like security and rights claims are better served by a system that can adapt both in context and efficiency like this.
EDIT:
For a good discussion of this, see Everyday Anarchy by Stephan Molyneux (written well before he became a weird race-realist nut and abandoned his own principles for some reason I dunno maybe just that he's getting old).
For a good discussion of how such a society has worked in the past, check out the not so wild wild west paper.
This is a long shot, but could it be Antifragile by Nassim Nicholas Taleb? He has written more than 2 books, but his last big hit, The Black Swan, may have been the controversial book your customer mentioned.
Nassim Taleb wrote a book called Antifragile that gives one possible perspective on your question.
By putting yourself in a "safe" place (not 100% dependent on a job to pay bills, spending all your income, etc) you're making a small contribution to the health of the whole.
A small thought experiment: If everyone in America started saving 40% of their income tomorrow, what would happen?
Plenty of jobs would disappear, but there would be more than enough reserved to fund those who lost their jobs until something else became available.
Right now I'm planning on making significant contributions for my in-laws when they can no longer work. I'm 26, and am positive that I'll be providing a lot of care for them in less than ten years. That means that the more I can save now, the more I can care for them later, and keep them healthy and happy, while preventing them from being a drain on "the system".
Last thought - there's not a fixed dollar cost per child's life saved. If it was that simple, some huge foundation (Gates, Zuckerburg) would kick all the money needed to eliminate all malaria-related deaths ever. They could afford it. The challenges are so much more nuanced than that. So you couldn't save 30 lives a year with your $100k, even if you tried.
Great question, though. I love thinking through all of these kinds of things.
PS have you read Your Money or Your Life? I think it might help answer some of these questions.
edit: spelling
Wow. You're just completely dishonest in reading anything I wrote to ensure that you're still correct. That link doesn't even address my point. It's apparent women have less promotions and lower wages on average than men.
I only mean to show that this wage gap isn't systematic sexism inherent in the corporate structure of America. If women and men did the exact same work, but women get paid less. Then why would a company even hire men? The difference in pay cannot merely be accounted for by sexism. Even if it was, there are legal protections in place. Even from your article, "I think companies want equality, but they will have to redesign jobs so flex-time and working from home aren't negatives for the fast track, says Ms. Bartel, who has also conducted research on women's presence in senior executive positions".
This quote shows us that a significant reason for this wage discrimination is that women use flex-time and work from home more than men, while men work more hours. Career choices have much more influence over wage than gender. William Farrell has a great book on the subject. You can read a summary on wikipedia.
Or one could read "Why Men Earn More" by Warren Farrell and actually understand the intersection of gender with capitalism.
http://www.amazon.com/Why-Men-Earn-More-Startling/dp/0814472109/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1214242962&sr=8-1
Warren Farrell, specifically The Myth of Male Power and Why Men Earn More.
learn the book the bitcoin standard
https://www.amazon.com/Bitcoin-Standard-Decentralized-Alternative-Central/dp/1119473861
​
its simple on exchanges you have uncovered bitcoins and covered bitcoin.
if you take btc to you own wallet the coin can no longer be double lent it is out of the exchange suppley!
btc is limited , and CAN NOT be created out of thin air like bank can with fiat money.
Read The Bitcoin Standard by Saifedean Ammous, it's a great introduction to bitcoin's deflationary "hard money" properties.
Kingpin
Ghost in the Wires
The Art of Deception
most hacking is social engineering.
call a random # in a company & request access to X.
they ask for your employee ID #.
you make up an excuse & get off the phone.
Now you know what you need to get access.
Begin plan to get someone's ID
rinse & repeat as you hit each roadblock, all the while staying as random & anonymous as possible.
This is a great book if you're interested in an in depth discussion of this:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Art-Deception-Controlling-Security/dp/076454280X
http://www.amazon.com/The-Art-Deception-Controlling-Security/dp/076454280X
This book was really helpful/interesting. Art of Deception.
Anthony De Jasay is one the most smartest yet underappreciated libertarians I guess. Just look up on his books. Besides that Edward Stringham and Peter Leeson are important figures. I always liked Bruce Benson's works. You should also read his article enforcement of property rights in primitive societies
This article on wild west is excellent. It's based on their book Not So Wild, Wild West
I mentioned Peter Leeson, his article on pirates An-Arrgh-Chy is a different perspective on organization outside the state, his book on same subject, The Invisible Hook is a must read. Also his article on Somalia, Better off Stateless: Somalia Before and After Government Collapse is perfect.
And this is another article on law and justice by Bruce Benson.
The realistic answer is that private property is defined as "that which you can defend." If you have an apple tree in your front yard, the assumption is that a small percentage of that fruit will be taken by sojourners since guarding it 24/7 would be impractical and would not be cost effective. Likewise if you claim to own 10,000 acres of land but squatters occupy 1,000 acres, realistically only 9,000 of those acres are your property. Socialists would be totally okay with this if they had any semblance of ideological consistency or pragmatism.
But obviously private property as a construct is necessary for society. So in an anarcho-capitalist society people would take measures to secure their property in a communal fashion, i.e. arbitration and hired security guards. It would be similar to the system that early settlers had in Texas where the "homeowners association" you would willingly join would essentially fulfill all purposes that the government does. And it was very effective by the way.
Homeless people do not automatically go to jail.
I really am not following the idea that capital requires tax, it makes no sense whatsoever. Just because so far everything approaching modern capitalism has occurred since the 1700s (in which time the state was already established) then you can't say that therefore since capitalism is younger than the state and always coexisted with it, therefore it requires it, it doesn't necessarily follow. It's a classic case of "correlation is not necessarily causation."
There were actually parts of the american west where capitalism actually existed for a period of decades without there being any state representatives or presence in those unincorporated areas. The settlers expanded quicker than the state was able.
So in actual fact you're incorrect in that assertion that it's "never happened before."
http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Not-Wild-West-Economics/dp/0804748543
I won't be replying any more because I have things I need to finish before bed.
I'd say that the closest thing to anarchism is probably ancient iceland, where you could pick your chieftain, who would serve as your arbiter and would enforce law on you, and you could switch at any time. Crime rates were extremely low.
However, it was not anarchist. It did have some elements of polycentric law, and that's about as close as we can get in that regard.
I think the "not so wild wild west" was as close as you can get in the modern age. There is a book called The Not So Wild Wild West (http://www.amazon.com/The-Not-Wild-West-Economics/dp/0804748543) which is a fantastic read about the myths of the frontier west.
>and they tend to forgot about things like roads, street lights, stop signs, school zones, police, fire departments, etc.
Do you know there are places where these things are already provided by the private sector? There already are private police and security forces, private and volunteer fire departments, privately maintained roads, private courts of arbitration and so on... and I'm not referring to Somalia. I'm referring to places in the western world, here in the United States.
>just that I thought this was already tried and what ended up was the wild wild west and robber barons.
Give this and this a read some time. "I thoughts" don't mean much if you've only approached the issue from one perspective.
There's plenty of literature that promotes the same things:
Drive by Daniel H. Pink
[Antifragile by Nassim Nicholas Taleb]
(http://www.amazon.com/Antifragile-Things-That-Disorder-Incerto/dp/0812979680/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1465069079&sr=8-1&keywords=antifragile)
Organize for complexity by Niels Pflaeging
Reinventing organizations by Frederic Laloux
Management 3.0 by Jurgen Appelo
Agile is a paradigm, not an instruction guide, and so all of these including the one you mentioned can be incorporated. Agile is not some stubborn point-by-point fieldbook, its a general attitude.
Many of the books I mentioned never make a single reference to Agile, because its being implemented in fields completely unrelated to software engineering (nurses doing homecare for seniors, auto part manufacturing, etc..)
The author of the article has a highly-rated book, Free Range Kids.
> FREE RANGE KIDS has become a national movement, sparked by the incredible response to Lenore Skenazy's piece about allowing her 9-year-old ride the subway alone in NYC. Parent groups argued about it, bloggers, blogged, spouses became uncivil with each other, and the media jumped all over it. A lot of parents today, Skenazy says, see no difference between letting their kids walk to school and letting them walk through a firing range. Any risk is seen as too much risk. But if you try to prevent every possible danger or difficult in your child?s everyday life, that child never gets a chance to grow up. We parents have to realize that the greatest risk of all just might be trying to raise a child who never encounters choice or independence.
^ I remember reading about that story a while ago and wishing that my parents had taken a page out of her book.
I'd also make the same criticism of my school/education experience. My education was "touristified," to use a term coined by Nassim Taleb in his book Antifragile, which, in my view, prevented me from being able to learn as much as I would have been able to otherwise.
You might be interested in reading Taleb's Antifragile. It touches on models ("solutions") that are predicated upon assumptions prone to prediction error and how the models' outputs changes when the "improbable" occurs.
The problem with censoring "hateful talk" is that it really is just "let's censor opinions I disagree with." Hate speech laws are very subjective, and typically used by those in power to censor those who they want to keep out. ("Criticizing the King or his political allies is now hate.") Hate speech laws are censorship, and antithetical to freedom of speech.
When you are a leader, you get shit all the time, and if that triggers you or offends your delicate sensibilities, you are not cut out for leadership.
Competent, effective people are opinionated and will tell their leadership exactly what they think, because they're the most invested and the ones who want success the most. They're full of energy. They get things done. Even disagreeing with them is energizing.
What I can't stand are the belly aching whiners who never do anything and want to pull down everyone else to their same level of staid ineffectiveness. Their ideas are lame and their execution is a guaranteed failure (if they ever get around to actually doing any of their time wasting ideas). These people are energy sucking vampires. Even listening to them is draining.
If you want to be a leader of effective men, you need to become antifragile.
> If we could acknowledge that good people can unwittingly be part of a bad system, so that we could tackle the systemic issues without pointing fingers, then we could make some progress
Strong finish, and I hope we can all hop aboard that train. That said, time for some form finger pointing. (haha, apologies, sarcasm :-)
> The fact that the pay gap exists at all is a problem that needs solving.
The whole premise of the article is that there is no gap in pay, only differences in how one chooses to work. Apparently, studies show that men work longer hours, in more dangerous, uncomfortable jobs, and prioritize their job over family. Source: OP's article, and [this] (http://www.amazon.com/Why-Men-Earn-More-Startling/dp/0814472109) book, which I read ages ago. Yes, the title is highly unfortunate, may even strike one with modest sensibilities as grotesque. Its important to not that the author - a man - was once a prominent feminist, but who later because a Men's Rights Activist? Puke. I hate that term. It shouldn't have to exist, except for the unfortunate fact that it may have to soon.
All I'm saying is that much of the data in the article above is either old news; or else a better, more accurate analysis of old news (one should hope).
You may enjoy [this] (http://www.amazon.com/Why-Never-Remember-Women-Forget-ebook/dp/B001LF3YHE/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1396987980&sr=1-1&keywords=why+men+never+remember) book as a way of approaching a common ground. I found it fascinating, and its been one of the most helpful books I've ever read.
In it you will find that there are very good reasons why a man is 4 times more likely to bargain over salary, and why a vast majority of engineers are men. It has far less to do with power structures or discrimination, and more to do with what testosterone does to the hominid brain. Most great mathematicians are male, and probably always will be. So also, most great serial killers and psychopaths are male, and always will be. In a vacuum, males will more naturally enjoy activities such an engineering, gaming, gambling, doing drugs, and other risky behavior. The reason for all of these attributes? Testosterone's impact on the brain! Dont believe me? Look it up!
Women use FAR more unique words per unit time, are FAR better in social situation, and, in my option, are the better half of humanity.
Buuuut, men and women are really fucking different! And, there are reasons for this. There are inherent differences between people, and the sexes. That's just the way it is.
Now, how does all of this all relate to creating a fair and equitable society? That is the tough part, and is open for debate.
As per this issue of why a "pay gap" exists. After reading this articles - and ones like it for the umpteenth time - I think its okay to entertain the idea that maybe the "pay-gap" has at least something to do with the inherently different choices either sex is likely to make.
Edit: spelling
>Statement: Women earn a fraction of what men do.
>Source: http://gao.gov/new.items/d0435.pdf
response:
___
You completely rephrased your statement from before.
Your original statement was this:
>women being paid less than men to perform the same jobs,
this is what I refuted, with this challenge:
>If you offer me a solid reference proving that women are being paid more than 10% less FOR IDENTICAL JOBS, WITH THE SAME TIME IN JOB, AND THE SAME NUMBER OF SICK DAYS, I promise I will look at it.
>But you won't.
And you didn't. The GAO report does not show that women in the same jobs, with the same time in job, and the same number of hour worked, are paid less. It explicitly states in bold letters on the first page of the report that work patterns partially explain the difference between mens' and women's earnings.
I determined this by reading the first page of the report, where it said, "Work Patterns
Partially Explain
Difference between
Men’s and Women’s
Earnings "
You have failed here to meet my challenge.
However, by eliminating the challenges:
you created your own challenge and met it.
Here's a book for you:
http://www.amazon.com/Why-Men-Earn-More-Startling/dp/0814472109
Even the AAUW cites a differing amount if time at work and time in job as significant factors in the wage gap:
http://www.aauw.org/research/behindPayGap.cfm
THis looks at the AAUW study closer, and finds flaws in
http://feck-blog.blogspot.com/2009/09/pay-gap-persists-women-still-make-less.html
This report by CONSAID, included this statement from in the a forward. this statement was from the US Department of Labor:
> However, despite these gains the raw wage gap continues to be used in misleading ways to
advance public policy agendas without fully explaining the reasons behind the gap.
http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pdf
(CONSAID did the research, US Dept. of Labor provided the forward.)
and look at this:
>"At any given level of the career hierarchy, women are paid slightly more than men with the same background, have slightly less income uncertainty and are promoted as quickly," it concludes. "We concluded that the gender pay gap and differences in job rank in this most lucrative occupation is explained by females leaving the market at higher rates than males."
Quoting a Carnegie Mellon University study.
http://feck-blog.blogspot.com/2009/09/pay-gap-persists-women-still-make-less.html
"Why Men Earn More" by Warren Farrell, PhD
A self-described feminist wrote a reasonably unbiased book exquisitely sourced... on why 'Men Earn More'. The book sums up 25 reasons.
> Farrell clearly defines the 25 different workplace choices that affect incomes–including putting in more hours at work, taking riskier jobs or more hazardous assignments, being willing to change location, and training for technical jobs that involve less people contact–and provides readers with specific, research-supported ways for women to earn higher pay.
Source: Cato Introduction to 'Why Men Earn More'
Because the man is a feminist, he also adds prescriptive lessons for how women can earn more. However, by the end of his book, it becomes clear that there is more than mere misguidance that leads to the pay gap. Men and women make different choices, have different temperaments, and different desires for sociability, which all make them unlikely to heed the author's advice. This is discounting the tail-end men who put in absurd hours and years of commitment to rise to the top of their respective industries, wherein this inclination is far less often seen with women across cultures.
Warren Farrell's Why Men Earn More.
A thorough review from an ex-NOW member who realized that if women really made $0.70 for every $1 men made, any company which didn't hire only women would be driven out of the market due to overhead...
This is an earlier work by Warren Farrell, author of the EXCELLENT book
Why Men Earn More
Both should be required reading for anyone interested in Mens rights and the fabricated victimhood that feminism portrays.
>Anybody in the bitcoin sphere delve deep into what economies actually look like and function using bitcoin as default world currency/reserve?
No. We're all just a bunch of "lambo moon boys" and none of us have any formal study or experience in the world of economics. ^(/s)
You do realise that this is a multi-billion dollar industry? A lot of very smart people have spent a lot of time and effort examining this from many angles.
If you want a good introduction to what a world based on Bitcoin might look like, I'd recommend starting off with forgetting about Bitcoin specifically and first reading some of the basic works from the Austrian economists such as Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek. Once those concepts are in your head (whether you agree with them or not), then move on to "The Bitcoin Standard" by Saifedean Ammous (which also spends over half the book not talking about Bitcoin before it finally does; for good reason).
The reason I suggest to start off with the Austrian economists is that you need to first realise that you've got a lot of assumptions that might not necessarily be grounded in reality. One of the most common that I see for example is people saying, "deflation is bad!" as a general rule without further context. I agree that under our current economic model, deflation causes significant issues, but things that are true under our current model are not necessarily true under every model.
>Any experts that talk about the reality of Bitcoin adoption?
As above, Dr Ammous is an economist with multiple degrees in relevant fields. I think he qualifies as at least one kind of expert.
There's also myself, but since you don't know who I am and I have no intention of linking my pseudonym to my real name, any credentials I say that I hold are something you'd just have to trust me on, and I fully understand you have no reason to.
>And also, what will psychological make people trust a newly created digital asset class? It's untested.
Everything new is untested and untrusted at some point and over time this changes. I've seen enough "new tech" in my lifetime to know that this really isn't such an issue.
>And whether true or not people will assume it's 'so-called' security will eventually be compromised as just about every technology becomes obsolete and has breaches. I'm talking public opinion.
This is a combination of education and experience. Everybody knows that theoretically banks can get hacked, but they still trust their money to the bank. Even if they wrongly assume that Bitcoin is somehow able to completely compromised (and this definitely is wrong, because it's based on a false assumption of how the network operates), they only need to trust it to a similar or greater level than their bank in order to be willing to use it. And for that trust to be built, it only takes enough time of the system not being compromised.
https://www.lopp.net/bitcoin-information.html
https://medium.com/@vijayboyapati/the-bullish-case-for-bitcoin-6ecc8bdecc1
https://www.amazon.com/Bitcoin-Standard-Decentralized-Alternative-Central/dp/1119473861/ref=sr_1_1_sspa?keywords=the+bitcoin+standard&qid=1562269778&s=gateway&sr=8-1-spons&psc=1
https://www.amazon.com/Mastering-Bitcoin-Programming-Open-Blockchain/dp/1491954388/ref=sr_1_1_sspa?keywords=andreas+antonopoulos+bitcoin&qid=1562269799&s=gateway&sr=8-1-spons&psc=1
​
If you're looking for a single article, the medium article (second link) by Vijay is a great one.
u/TheGreatMuffin gave you golden advice. you need a solid philosophical foundation of what bitcoin is - otherwise you'll get rekted by the price and fud.
start with andreas antonopoulos - watch every single video no matter how old they are or how long they are because all of the info is relevant to today. the q&a after his talks are sometimes even more valuable than his lecture.
then for a deep dive visit jameson's site to get into detail about what andreas talked about. andreas also has a couple of books:
https://www.amazon.com/Internet-Money-Andreas-M-Antonopoulos/dp/194791006X/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540574615&sr=1-2&keywords=internet+of+money&dpID=4137Zf9hIaL&preST=_SY344_BO1,204,203,200_QL70_&dpSrc=srch
https://www.amazon.com/Mastering-Bitcoin-Programming-Open-Blockchain/dp/1491954388/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540574648&sr=1-1&keywords=mastering+bitcoin&dpID=51nnYGq964L&preST=_SX218_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_&dpSrc=srch
​
also check out saifdean ammous' book: https://www.amazon.com/Bitcoin-Standard-Decentralized-Alternative-Central/dp/1119473861
very easy read and a clear explanation to the economic significance of bitcoin. good luck.
Link: https://www.amazon.com/Bitcoin-Standard-Decentralized-Alternative-Central/dp/1119473861
For those who still didn't read this amazing book The Bitcoin Standard is a must read if you really want to get into Bitcoin Revolution.
>"[Russian Central Bank Governor, Elvira Nabiullina's] gold buying makes me think she has read Saifedean Ammous’s The Bitcoin Standard: The Decentralized Alternative to Central Banking. Don’t let the title fool you. This book is not the cover-to-cover crypto cheerleading/gold bashing other authors attempt to jam down our throats. Dr. Ammous Is actually a Professor of Economics, and none other than “Black Swan” author Nassim Taleb wrote the introduction."
The Bitcoin Standard is a good place to start.
Perhaps give Bitcoin a fair handshake before you call it stupid?
Here’s what I would call a very good resource on it:
https://www.amazon.com/Bitcoin-Standard-Decentralized-Alternative-Central/dp/1119473861
https://www.amazon.com/Prize-Epic-Quest-Money-Power/dp/1439110123
; Or, what happens to oil-dependent communities and countries since 1880
Here, read this to answer your questions related to oil trap
http://www.amazon.com/The-Prize-Quest-Money-Power/dp/1439110123
Nice! I have added both to my reading list! The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money & Power sounds really interesting, I have been looking for an older book on the Oil Industry... those greedy bastards always make for a good read! I have found it hard to find books on Oil (or many renewables for that matter) that don't have a little slant.
[Children of the Sun: A History of Humanity's Unappeasable Appetite For Energy ] (https://www.amazon.com/dp/0393931536/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_R02xCbQ1V4B98) looks like a really good in-depth read as well. I think the title of the book sums up an uncomfortable truth about humans in general. I also find that books that take a more general overview of energy have less of that "rah rah" in one direction or the other.
I linked them so others could find them easily!
I think that's a great article, and definitely something I keep in mind when doing level design. Understandably it gets a bit trickier to do on a large scale for a 2D platformer.
I suppose another good general reference that's applicable to pretty much all design is Donald A. Norman's "The Design of Everyday Things". One of the big take-aways from this book is designing things with affordances that encourage the desired behavior. For example, if you want people to pull a door to open it, give them something to grab, and conversely, if you want people to push the door to open it, don't distract them with a handle to grab and make an obvious cue where they should push the door.
So perhaps for your 2D platformer, I would try to steer players by guiding them through paths by peppering the different paths with things that they would expect to find in the different regions, to clue them into what lies off screen. For example, imagine there's a city section that has lots of taxi cabs, and another that's got a school. You come to a branch where one path takes you to the taxi cab area, and another takes you to the school, place an add for a taxi service on a bench for one path, and the other a school crossing sign. Even having background characters like children walking to school or getting on a school bus, versus people waiting for cabs could help convey this information while at the same time helping to cement your environments as a living breathing worlds.
Subtle things like these can foreshadow the directions players should take without having a giant obnoxious arrow that feels like it's saying "HEY STUPID PLAYER - GO THIS WAY FOR CABS." This foreshadowing can also be emphasized with shifts in the color pallet and art scheme too.
> Why do people use Sketch more over PS?
Sketch is light weight, easy to use, and largely focused built. PS is a generic image editing tool that isn't.
Don't get caught up in tools though. UXD is a process not a toolset competency.
> Do you guys have any beginner friendly tutorials for a material or flat design interface?
A large chunk of user experience design comes from interaction design which inherits a sizeable chunk from anthropology. So, instead of starting you off on a tutorial which will likely focus you on technology as the process I'd rather start you off with reading.
Plans and Situated Actions - Lucy and other researchers at XEROX Parc defined Interaction Design. This is the birthplace of the idea.
https://books.google.com.au/books/about/Plans_and_Situated_Actions.html?id=AJ_eBJtHxmsC&source=kp_cover&redir_esc=y
Lucy Suchman again - Human-Machine Reconfiguration talks about a higher level of thinking when it comes to how people interact with machines.
https://books.google.com.au/books/about/Human_Machine_Reconfigurations.html?id=KES20V7aP4YC&source=kp_cover&redir_esc=y
Alan Cooper is one of the early leaders in Interaction Design. In this book he goes over the 101 of user research and how it has been applied in digital technologies.
https://www.amazon.com/About-Face-Essentials-Interaction-Design/dp/0470084111
Love him or hate him Donald Norman helped define early Usability and the transition to Interaction design.
https://www.amazon.com/Design-Everyday-Things-Donald-Norman/dp/1452654123
Don't make me think. Was one of the definitive books highlighting the approach of user centred design.
https://www.amazon.com/Dont-Make-Think-Revisited-Usability/dp/0321965515/ref=pd_sbs_14_t_1?ie=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=TN8VJJHK9NKZ1KAA10V5
After you get through all of that I recommend that you spend some time in whatever tool you think works for you and then replicate somebody else's design. Say there's a mobile app (choose a small app) that you use all the time. Replicate every single screen and document with a flow chart how you interact with it to get to every single screen. Break them all up into individual interactions.
Make sure that you design it in the most reusable way possible. If your tool lets you make your own widgets then use them. If your tool allows you to inherit multiple layers, like Axure, then use that too.
Now find some people and test with them. Do some User Testing on the product to find flaws. Do some high level User Research to find out what their core goals are. Iterate. Don't forget that you're an amateur, it's okay to reuse your friend base.
They're probably talking about the design of everyday things.
https://www.amazon.com/Design-Everyday-Things-Donald-Norman/dp/1452654123
In a similar vein, "The Design Of Everyday Things" is a great read. And iirc uses quite a few examples like the one you gave.
Essentially, the money value of time is baked into futures contracts. That's why futures that are further out in time are always worth more. You seem to not understand basic pricing models regarding futures if I'm reading your comments correctly, and prices of the underlying and arb opportunities won't yield any interesting conversation if you don't understand the basics first.
EDIT: Here's a great book for options, and the first part of understanding options is understanding future contracts. As such, it's in the first couple of chapters, a long with exact formulas on why the prices are the way they are, regardless of what is being traded.
These two books explain everything about options and the how to play them. Like how to roll from a uncovered call option to a spread. Anyone who trades options has read these books.
Options as a Strategic Investment
Option Volatility & Pricing: Advanced Trading Strategies and Techniques
https://www.amazon.com/Option-Volatility-amp-Pricing-Strategies/dp/155738486X
In addition to Mr.ShortStrangles' book
This is the industry standard
You can find the pdf if you look.
Its also like 600 pages long & I gave up 250 pages in. I intended to come back to it ^eventually. Just decided to try & create a different strat right now.
http://www.amazon.com/Option-Volatility-amp-Pricing-Strategies/dp/155738486X
Implied Volatility (IV) comes from the price people are willing to pay for the option, and so is dependant on the amount of interest by market participants in trading it. This can become inflated if a news event is coming like an earnings release after which the stock may reprice higher or lower outside of regular trading hours, thus the higher IV and higher option prices.
If you would like to dig into the underlying option pricing using the greeks Option Volatility and Pricing is a dry read on the theory.
Here are the basics of the greeks:
And yes calls and puts can have a different IV, usually based on things like interest rates and cost to borrow stock.
I think Japan was very protectionist in what products it would let in. Was and still is.
Korea did the same thing post Korean War to become the industrial power it is today. Went from poorer than Bottswana to what it is now.
Really great book discusses how great powers become great -- easy, wonderful read:
https://www.amazon.com/Bad-Samaritans-Secret-History-Capitalism/dp/1596915986
The point about scab goods isn't specific to the border. The idea is that scab products get rejected regardless of where they are produced. Now, judging whether the union involved in genuinely democratic and not racist isn't something we can generalize about. Democracy has to deal with these issues on a case by case basis. Dealing with them somewhat imperfectly or even arbitrarily is better than ignoring them and continuing to support slave labor practices.
Rather than spending your time nitpicking about current tariff rates (which tell you nothing about the history of a nation's development), why don't you read more thorough and comprehensive analysis of the history of development?
In addition to the recent IMF admission about some aspects of economic liberalism that they imposed as loan conditions leading to boom and bust cycles that impoverished their
victimsbeneficiaries, there is a strong argument by Ho-Joon Chang based on actual history that today's economic superpowers―from the U .S. to Britain to his native Korea―all attained prosperity by shameless protectionism and government intervention in industry.> You need to understand math before discussing economics or you might as well be discussing religion or philosophy.
Counterpoint: Basic Economics, by Thomas Sowell. Very informative and insightful. Not Austrian. No math.
> One question I have though is regarding internet equality. Specifically, if Libertarian is for zero government involvement in business, that wouldn't a Libertarian say that if an internet service provider wanted to prioritize or slow down traffic for certain websites, then it is their right to do so?
Yes, generally (if they should is another issue, of course). Though we would also say that the reason there is no competition between ISPs is because of government regulation. In areas where ISPs actually compete with each other, their service generally tends to be quite good.
>any limiting of the internet, be at speed or censorship, might as well be another form of oppression.
Someone inconveniencing you is not oppression. When the ISPs start shooting people in the streets for uploading the wrong YouTube video, you can call it oppression.
> I believe that the right to own guns should not be taken away from us. But to me, background checks, psychological screening, and training are not exactly bad.
So, you're okay leaving the decision of if you have that right to a government bureaucrat that, I promise, does not let their own political or personal views influence their decisions at all?
Would you be okay with a government bureaucrat pre-screening and approving your reddit posts? You know, just to make sure they aren't terrorism. Make sure you fill out the paperwork right and everything will be fine, I promise.
> I tend to think that corporations generally shouldn't be allowed to fund campaigns.
Corporations are run by people, why can't I run my company the way I want, including supporting whomever I'd like?
And what actually constitutes "funding campaigns"? Can I put a pro-Rand-Paul logo on my website? In the lunch room? Can I show up on TV and say I'm voting for Rand? Can I put up a YouTube video talking about how I like Rand's policies? A TV ad?
Do you want to live in a country where a CEO posts a nice video of how Rand's policies will impact their business, and then gets thrown in jail for illegally contributing to his campaign?
> A corporation-backed candidate would have the advantage in any campaign when compared to smaller, independent candidates.
Historically, this is not true. The overwhelmingly vast majority of elected officials are not backed by any corporation, let alone large ones.
The reason presidents, senators, and representatives are often supported by corporations is--surprise surprise--they want the politicians to pass laws that harm their competition (remember the only way monopolies can exist?). Libertarians say that legislation like that should not be passed, and, consequently, corporations will have no incentive to attempt to influence elections.
> What are your views on the "no-fly" list debacle?
No due process; if it's not illegal, it's immoral.
> If a business is allowed to deny service to a person for one of the above reasons, aren't their rights being violated?
As a guy who's not straight, let me tell you: I don't want anti-gay people making my wedding cake. I want them to voluntarily put a big huge sign in front of their store that says "NO GAYS" so I know not to accidentally give them my money. Forcing them to serve me is absolutely unethical.
> Even if they aren't being violated based on that service alone, wouldn't the ability to do this eventually lead to groups of people being shunned or outcast, thereby violating their rights?
No.
> Most Libertarians would be for allowing immigrants into the country and creating a path to citizenship for them, right?
We already have this, it's called "legal immigration." It's hideously dysfunctional, like all government programs, but it exists and does not need to be "created."
> I've seen little on this sub to determine whether or not a Libertarian would be for allowing Syria refugees into the country.
Because libertarianism is not a cures-all-the-world's-evil-with-this-one-weird-trick philosophy.
Some problems are hard, sorry.
> I am pro-gay rights and gay marriage, and can't really pinpoint a "common" Libertarian sentiment on the topic though.
Historically libertarians have been ridiculously pro-gay rights and gay-marriage (well, and anti-government-being-involved-in-marriage, but that's another story).
> I am of the opinion that with a basic education, future generations will be able to obviously create more informed thoughts, decisions, and figure out better future for themselves.
You're young and naive, we get it.
> Wouldn't a national standard aid in this goal?
No, absolutely not. Teachers are supposed to be subject matter experts. Why the hell should a bureaucrat who knows nothing about a subject be telling an expert how and what to teach?
> I can't really make an informed decision regarding student loans.
They're a huge clusterfuck caused by massive government distortions of both the higher education and student loan markets.
> If the current idea is to tax the rich more to pay for a higher education and make it free. Which is a noble goal, but taxing this rich (to Libertarians I'm sure) would be a direct violation of rights.
And, more importantly, wouldn't solve the problem. The market distortions were caused by government intervention--throwing even more money at it will only make it worse!
> Other views I hold, that would contradict a Libertarian's, are that vaccinations should be required (I believe you're putting others in danger by not doing so)
Look--"required" means, to the government, "we will send people with guns to your house and force you to, and kill you if you resist." Are you okay with enforcing vaccination in this manner?
Sure, the government may start with nice letters, but eventually CPS and the Swat team show up at your house, take your kid, and vaccinate him against your will. And then, oops, it turns your kid was allergic to the vaccine just like you've been telling them for the past 15 months, but the bureaucrat (who can't be fired and has legal immunity) fucked up your exemption paperwork and now your kid is dead.
OTOH, if a private school had a policy that kids needed to be vaccinated--no child murder.
I'm sure you think I'm being extreme, so here's an example: the media has recently claimed that 307,000 veterans have died while waiting for care since 1998. If that were true, that would be ~1,500 dead/mo. Or, to be dramatic, one 9/11 worth of dead every other month. That's a lot of people. The VA disputes this on the grounds that, and I quote: "[the database is] unreliable for monitoring timeliness or determine if a record represents a veteran’s intent to apply for VA health care." Their defense is that they are too incompetent to even attempt to keep track of if people are even seeking care. Consequently, they can't even tell us what the real number is.
Do you want those people to be responsible for safely vaccinating your child? I sure as hell don't!
> I do not support the death penalty
AFAIK most libertarians don't. Some do, though.
> As you can no doubt tell, Im a very ill informed on the details of Obamacare, Foreign Policy, and other broader topics. I am trying to fix that though.
You should start with some economics classes. Having a real understanding of even the most basic economics will get you much further than knowing trivia about specific policies like Obamacare.
Here's a good popular-level intro: http://www.amazon.com/Basic-Economics-Common-Sense-Economy/dp/0465022529
But you should take real classes, too.
> Now, on candidates, I'm surprised at the anti-Bernie sentiment in this sub.
Socialism is literally anti-libertarianism.
> As I understand it, Libertarians are for starting everyone on common ground, but then leaving them to their own devices afterword, regardless of whether or not they need help.
No. Libertarians are for not forcing anyone to help someone else (and to help their way or you are going to prison).
https://www.amazon.com/Basic-Economics-Common-Sense-Economy/dp/0465022529
You should read Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell. It essentially goes over all the fundamental economic principles and he answers that question.
My (relatively poor) summary is: We have a huge amount of resources. That's has never, and for the foreseeable future, will never be the problem. There is simply a cost to finding and extracting those resources. As our technology increases, so does our access to those resources (this can include recycling as extraction) because the cost goes down.
Seriously, though, if there is one book everyone should read before discussing economics, that is it. That way they can spot the plethora of inaccuracies in logically-dead posts like that of noamsky's.
The other guy has presented nothing but insults, incase you hadn't noticed.
Do you live in Australia? I have not provided numerical facts. However It is a fact that it takes 2 months to receive benefits, it is a fact that you need to obtain and present more ID than homeless teenagers have immediate access to, it is a fact that there are families that are intergenerationally dependent on welfare, and that in some areas they are relatively common. How common I don't know, there is no data on that, American data suggests around 5% of the population is stuck in an integenerational poverty cycle, I don't imagine this is much different in Australia, although it is probably less here.
Data suggests that governments are on average about 30% efficient, whereas charities range from 40 to 85% efficient, don't donate to the shitty ones.
Why are governments inefficient?
Read this http://www.amazon.com/Basic-Economics-Common-Sense-Economy/dp/0465022529/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1374490137&sr=8-1&keywords=basic+economics
Read the article I posted, and read the Australian government expenditures publications,if you can navigate them, they are intentionally obtuse and difficult to read, and only exist because of laws requiring them to exist.
The inefficiency is because of the cost of employing too many bureaucrats roughly 60-70% of the budget of most departments, I know this because I used to work in the offices of the shadow minister for materiels. Having also used government welfare infrastructure, the bureaucrats are unnecessary, and incompetent. What is needed is accountability for the recipients of welfare, and a cap on total amount of accessible welfare. This prevents abuse, and allows it to be used as a safety net, and creates demand for private charities to provide employment rehabilitation, and allows for the amount of welfare available to be increased as it is limited in time frame. It also increases the incentive to be responsible for ones self.
Start with this one:
how economies grow and why they fail
This next book is a bit more cerebral but you understand the world if you read it
Thomas Sowell’s Basic Economics
Have you read the latest version of this story by his sons, Peter & Andrew Schiff called Why an Economy Grows and Why it Crashes? If so, your thoughts on their changes/updates would be greatly appreciated.
Say you want to open a small business or take vocational classes or buy a car. You go to the bank to take out a loan. You win by getting the loan and pursuing your goals, the bank and the depositor wins by getting interest.
If the depositor didn't deposit any money, the bank would just turn you away.
This is basic Econ101 stuff, so any introductory econ book would explain it in more detail. Also, you can read
http://www.amazon.com/How-Economy-Grows-Why-Crashes/dp/047052670X
I would recommend Economics in One Lesson (which you can also buy here) because it teaches you how to use reasoning in economics and figure out where people are using bad logic in their economic thinking.
I would definitely recommend this as one of the first books you read because there are a lot of economic fallacies out there put forth by pundits, talkshow hosts, and even some economists; this book will allow you to see whether or not their economic thinking and logic is sound.
On a personal note, this is one of the first books on economics that I read, and I absolutely loved it. While it might not be the most entertaining read, it is certainly more interesting than your standard economics textbook.
After you finish that book, I would recommend you read How an Economy Grows and Why It Crashes because it explains, in a way that even a child could understand, why an economy grows. The overall concept is fairly simple, but it is vital to fully understand it before trying to understand more important concepts.
All excellent books, but I would add How an Economy Grows and Why It Crashes by Peter Schiff as an excellent intro to economics book.
I would suggest reading How and Economy Grows and Why it Crashes. In my opinion, it has dethroned Hazlitt's Economics in one Lesson as the simplest and most enjoyable way to understand basic economics. It is essentially written in comic book fashion and just flies by. Of course, you won't be an expert after reading it, but will be much more informed than the average person!
I believe it was How an Economy Grows and Why It Crashes.
No worries! Learning this stuff can be fun so I do encourage you to read, at least the CCP website and guide. It's easy to get lost in a lot of the finance noise on the Internet so the CCP site is about all you need for basic knowledge of getting started. For books, Millionaire Teacher was the first book I read and it provides a solid understanding of passive/index investing (I actually gave a copy of this book to a friend today and she's loving it so far). The Value of Simple is the next book I read, which provides a straightforward description of the technical aspects of investing. When you get to the end of The Value of Simple, you'll make an investment plan, open a DI account, and you're off to the races. If you don't know the answer to something, search the CCP website or this sub and you'll probably find an answer (or an entertaining discussion thread).
These few websites and books are the totality of what I had when I got started. Now I also read Garth Turner and Mr. Money Mustace pretty regularly, partly for the finance talk but mostly for the entertaining writing styles. I've adopted a variation of Garth's millennial portfolio for myself but it's arguably more complicated than it needs to be: a CCP portfolio covers you globally and for fixed income and equities.
There are a few books by Andrew Hallam that I found useful.
https://www.amazon.ca/Millionaire-Teacher-Wealth-Should-Learned/dp/0470830069
https://www.amazon.ca/Global-Expatriates-Guide-Investing-Millionaire-ebook/dp/B00N99IK74/ref=sr_1_sc_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1483884205&sr=1-1-spell&keywords=millionaire+exapt
Other than that, questions asked on Reddit and the CCP have been helpful. Other books often recommended on this sub that I have read are often on personal finance in general, and what I like about Andrew Hallam's books is they are more on simple investing.
Once I found out how to view ETFs names and see what they meant, I googled ETF-A vs ETF-B. This helped me learn the difference.
The 3 largest ETF creators:
I ended up just going with Vanguard. There is no reason you cant mix an match (BMO bond, Vanguard Canadian Equities, etc.) but you need to be aware of the different holdings of different ETFs.
Example: iShares has south korea listed as a developed nation, where vanguard has south korea as developing. So if you buy the vanguard developed and the ishares developing nation ETFs, you would not own any south korea and you would lose exposure to companies like Samsung, LG, etc. You could also go with an ETF for all contries excluding canada (example: VXC - Vanguard excluding canada). You pay slightly higher MER but it keeps things simple. So you would hold VXC, A bond Fund (VAB for Vanguard), and a Canadian equities ETF (VCN for vanguard). If you wanted to break up VXC into 3 new etfs (you would have to manage 5 ETFS at that point), you would need to buy a US equities ETF (VUN), a Developed country ETF (VIU), and a developing nations etf (VEE). Or you can just keep it simple and manage 3 ETFs. CCP talks about transaction costs in some of the links i posted below, so there could be potential savings by paying a higher MER for the 3 ETF portfolio instead of managing the 5 etf portfolio.
I would recommend the following posts on the CCP website:
Posts on rebalancing:
http://canadiancouchpotato.com/2011/02/22/why-rebalance-your-portfolio/
http://canadiancouchpotato.com/2011/02/24/how-often-should-you-rebalance/
http://canadiancouchpotato.com/2014/06/23/rebalancing-with-cash-flows/
On ETFS:
http://canadiancouchpotato.com/model-portfolios-2/
http://canadiancouchpotato.com/recommended-funds/
On Asset Allocation:
http://canadiancouchpotato.com/2011/08/09/do-you-have-the-right-asset-allocation/
http://canadiancouchpotato.com/2010/03/09/how-much-risk-do-you-need-to-take/
http://canadiancouchpotato.com/2010/11/10/ready-willing-and-able-to-take-risk/
How much canadian, US, Developed, or Developing equities should you have (no right answer, you will need to decide yourself):
http://canadiancouchpotato.com/2012/05/22/ask-the-spud-does-home-bias-ever-make-sense/
VXC (Vanguard Equities excluding canada) contains USA, Developed, and Developing - but these are not weighed equally in the index. So if you break it down into 3 ETFS - you should have a lot more of the USA ETF than the Emerging market. 56% of VXC is USA.
https://www.vanguardcanada.ca/advisors/mvc/detail/etf/overview?portId=9548&assetCode=EQUITY##overview
But once you finish your research and determine what ETFs, and the portfolio %s it is easy (2 hours/year to buy ETFs and rebalance).
If you have concerns, or would like your portfolio reviewed - you can post it on this website. Personally, my breakdown is as follows:
5% VAB (Vanguard Bond Fund)
30% VCN (Vanguard Canadian Equities)
The next 3 funds can be replaced by VXC - Vanguard equities excluding canada - but i opted for the cheaper more complex approach:
40% VUN (Vanguard USA equities index fund)
20% VIU (Vanguard Developed Nations equities indexed fund)
5% VEE (Vanguard Developing nations equities indexed fund)
I was going to recommend /r/PersonalFinanceCanada as well. I also recommend the following books:
They are both super easy to read and I can almost guarantee they will make you hate high MERs enough to switch to DIY investing or robo-investing.
Got it.. 1st, find out from your employer if they offer an employer match. Make sure you capitalize on that because that is free money. 2nd, 15% of your income should go into retirement (pref. after tax- better to get taxed on ex. $5,000 now, then to get taxed on $2 million when you retire and withdraw). There are two types of mutual funds, actively managed (have higher expense ratios) and index funds (lower expense ratios). Vanguard has tons of low cost index funds (thats what the author in millionaire teacher advises. He shows data in their also on how index funds have outperformed actively managed throughout history.
Dave recommends the current mix of funds:
Growth and income: These funds create a stable foundation for your portfolio. Brant describes them as big, boring American companies that have been around for a long time and offer goods and services people use regardless of the economy. Look for funds with a history of stable growth that also pay dividends. You might find these listed under the large-cap or large value fund category. They may also be called blue chip, dividend income or equity income funds.
Growth: This category features medium or large U.S. companies that are still experiencing growth. Unlike growth and income funds, these are more likely to ebb and flow with the economy. For instance, you might find the latest it gadget or luxury item in your growth fund mix. Common labels for this category include mid-cap, large-cap, equity or growth funds.
Aggressive growth: Think of this category as the wild child of your portfolio. When these funds are up, they’re up. And when they’re down, they’re down. This volatile growth usually accompanies smaller companies. "So small-cap funds are going to qualify—or even a mid-cap fund that invests in small- to mid-sized companies," Brant says. But size isn’t the only consideration. Geography can also play a role. "Aggressive growth could sometimes mean large companies that are based in emerging markets," he adds.
International: International funds are great because they spread your risk beyond U.S. soil. That way your retirement fund doesn’t totally tank if America goes through an unexpected downturn. It also gives you a chance to invest in big non-U.S. companies you already know and love. You may see these referred to as foreign or overseas funds. Just don’t get them confused with world or global funds, which group U.S. and foreign stocks together.
source: https://www.daveramsey.com/blog/how-to-invest-in-right-mix-mutual-funds
Hope this helps. If you would like more details on how to invest I'd be glad to send you millionaire teacher free (https://www.amazon.com/Millionaire-Teacher-Wealth-Should-Learned/dp/0470830069). Was actually written by a school teacher lol. I've been in your shoes and have always enjoyed guiding people. Seriously considering turning this into something I do on the side where I can help more people achieve financial freedom.
Hey dude, kind of in a similar position as you. Started reading about PF a little more than 2 months ago and wish I had started 10 years earlier, haha!
Take some time and read before jumping into anything! Here's what I started with:
Wealthy Barber
then read
Millionaire Teacher
and now I'm working through
Guide to Investing
and
Random Walk Down Wall Street
You will learn a crazy amount about investing with these few books.
I also keep my eye on the RFD Personal Finance forum along with Canadian Money Forums, the latter being a lot more mature.
Cheers!
Social engineering attacks are not unique to T-Mobile unfortunately. The person posing as an employee most likely did a lot of prep to be able to convince the person on the phone that they are actually an employee. Learning the company lingo, obtaining an employee ID by overhearing it somehow or perhaps coming up with an employee ID that is the correct format at least. Using a store number as an Identifier to legitimize their claim etc..
This is my favorite defcon talk on social engineering.
[Good book on social engineering] (https://www.amazon.com/Art-Deception-Controlling-Element-Security/dp/076454280X/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1468027366&sr=1-2&keywords=kevin+mitnick)
The Art of Deception by Kevin Mitnick who was a famouse hacker and social engineer is a great read for anyone interested.
I know a couple of professional pen-testers and they go onsite and plant devices on networks to allow easier remote access often. They're the good guys only mimicking what the bad guys also do.
For a good (but a bit dated) read, of a bunch of examples:
https://www.amazon.com/Art-Deception-Controlling-Element-Security/dp/076454280X
Hackers use social engineering and the planting of devices a lot.
https://digitalguardian.com/blog/social-engineering-attacks-common-techniques-how-prevent-attack
I would second Ghost in the wire, though that is more of a autobiography. Still goes over some interesting stuff he did back in the day. He also helped write The Art of Deception and the Art of Intrusion
Rockstar gets a lot of deserved flack, but according to this book CDPR don't do unpaid overtime like nearly all American studios do.
D1's launch was the result of a combination of multiple factors. Including changing trends in the gaming industry and a rocky development. NOT the source, initial cause or root of the trends you are perceiving.
For more on this:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0062651234/ref=cm_sw_r_sms_awdo_jsBOzbXZTSWFV
If you want a good example of Bungie's development problems, read the Destiny portion of Jason Schreier's book, Blood, Sweat, & Pixels.
But yea, they seem to be a poorly managed studio. They take way longer than most studios to patch the game. They take months to do small sandbox updates, while letting some problems just go on forever (OEM, seriously wtf?). They have about 600 employees, according to Luke's interview prior to Shadowkeep. That's 2-3 times more than studios like Santa Monica (God of War) or Naughty Dog (TLOU). Sure, they do a 'live service' game.. but come on.
A Random Walk Down Wall Street directly contradicts The Intelligent Investor.
I'd like to recommend another book, more advanced than The Intelligent Investor. Security Analysis.
Although a challenging read, this book is extremely helpful: Security Analysis: Sixth Edition, Foreword by Warren Buffett (Security Analysis Prior Editions) https://www.amazon.com/dp/0071592539/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_iRlnDbSBKEB1T
The Intelligent Investorand Security Analysis are not the same book.
If you don't want to make a career out of trading, a helpful rule of thumb is a 90 / 10 principle popularized by Andrew Hallam in his text Millionaire Teacher: Stick 90% of your capital in tax sheltered, virtually passive forms of investment like index mutual funds or ETFs with an IRA wrapper and stick the other 10% in whatever investment vehicle you want to learn.
For example, I put 90% of my capital in a batch of index funds and ETFs predicated on John Bogle's suggestion of "your age in bonds, the rest in common stock" index funds and ETFs by way of an account with Vanguard for my IRA and my company's 403(b) program. Vanguard makes this really easy through their target retirement funds, which automatically adjust the ratio of stock / bonds over time. I'm really interested in value investing; so, I take long positions in individual stock that meets the criteria Benjamin Graham identified in Security Analysis and The Intelligent Investor with the other 10% of my capital via a brokerage account with TD Ameritrade--this isn't tax sheltered like my retirement accounts but it's basically an ongoing education in investing since TD Ameritrade offers a ton of instructional materials on topics like options, commodities, etc. and I want to see my money grow.
Let's take a look at what this could look like for your situation. Starting with $5k and doing something like what I'm doing, you would:
Any follow up questions?
Glad you read intelligent investor first.
Next is Ben Graham's Security Analysis
This book is really excellent and gets a lot more technical with the numbers.
Securities Analysis by Graham is good too, also One up on Wall street by Lynch is another great one for investors.
Nonfiction books:
How to Hide an Empire: A History of the Greater United States
In How to Hide an Empire, Daniel Immerwahr tells the fascinating story of the United States outside the United States. In crackling, fast-paced prose, he reveals forgotten episodes that cast American history in a new light. We travel to the Guano Islands, where prospectors collected one of the nineteenth century’s most valuable commodities, and the Philippines, site of the most destructive event on U.S. soil. In Puerto Rico, Immerwahr shows how U.S. doctors conducted grisly experiments they would never have conducted on the mainland and charts the emergence of independence fighters who would shoot up the U.S. Congress.
A Brief History of Neoliberalism
Neoliberalism--the doctrine that market exchange is an ethic in itself, capable of acting as a guide for all human action--has become dominant in both thought and practice throughout much of the world since 1970 or so. Writing for a wide audience, David Harvey, author of The New Imperialism and The Condition of Postmodernity, here tells the political-economic story of where neoliberalization came from and how it proliferated on the world stage.
Just sayin... I suspect the wholesale adoption of neoliberal economic policy from the mid 70s onwards might be somewhat more responsible for the erosion of the western middle class than television.
A couple of books give pretty compelling evidence of this:
https://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Neoliberalism-David-Harvey/dp/0199283273
https://www.amazon.com/Capital-Twenty-Century-Thomas-Piketty/dp/067443000X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1499813570&sr=1-1&keywords=capital
Here you go, educate yourself:
https://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Neoliberalism-David-Harvey/dp/0199283273
I'm surprised at the outrage. Do people not understand that this is how our economy works? Large industries are given all kinds of incentives, whether that's cash, tax breaks and deductions, interest free loans, capital cost allowance acceleration, exemptions from carbon pricing, etc.
Take a look at the effective tax rate paid by corporations, and you'll find that it's much lower than whatever the rate announced by the government is. A lot of companies are paying taxes in the range of 0-10%. This is neoliberalism, our economic philosophy for the last 30+ years. Maybe you need an introduction?
I honestly think any kind of customer service. That is where I was able to develop a lot of soft skills. Volunteering for a nonprofit thrift shop or something like that would give you a good start and would be minimal hours.
In addition, taking on a leadership role in anything (a local chapter of rotary, etc.) can be very good experience.
That being said, a certain amount of soft skills will have to do with personality type and personal motivation. I was personally motivated to go out of my way to attain leadership positions throughout my high school and college years and have been overall successful with it.
One book I see recommended a lot is How to Win Friends and Influence People. Dale Carnegie has a lot of other books as well that pertain to your interests.
Also, my work has a special obsession with The Checklist Manifesto and The Advantage. The equity firm that owns my company requires all managers and higher ups to read those two books, so obviously they've got something going for them!
Great book to read for this is the The Checklist Manifesto. Might also give you ideas of how to approach it. Details how this fixed errors in Aviation industry and Surgery. It is pretty short and full of good info on how to look at things.
There is a bestselling book on this:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Checklist-Manifesto-Things-Right/dp/0312430000
I use http://todotxt.com/
Checklists.
http://www.amazon.com/Checklist-Manifesto-How-Things-Right/dp/0312430000/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1383063171&sr=1-1&keywords=checklist+manifesto
I've implemented them with my team, and we're starting to roll them out across IT. Each person figures out the best way that works for them, and then they've developed checklist for everything they do. One person on my team has a checklist for reading email, and one sending email, they are both posted next to his monitor. It's overkill for me, but for him it fixes one of his biggest gaps, e-mail communication. Previsouly he would upset almost everyone who recieved an e-mail from him, now nobody gets upset. His e-mail checklists address one of his gap areas, something that was becoming a career derailer.
+1 for Checklist Manifesto (https://www.amazon.com/Checklist-Manifesto-How-Things-Right/dp/0312430000)
Also Tim Wu's Attention Merchants (https://www.amazon.com/Attention-Merchants-Scramble-Inside-Heads/dp/0385352018)
and AGM's Chaos Monkeys (https://www.amazon.com/Chaos-Monkeys-Obscene-Fortune-Failure-ebook/dp/B019MMUAAQ)
edited to add that I'm currently reading "Predictive Marketing: Easy Ways Every Marketer Can Use Customer Analytics and Big Data" (https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01AOOH2MA/) to get down with CDP's...
Humans as a whole have a shit track record when it comes to performing small, routine tasks reliably. That has little to do with intelligence; it's true for doctors, pilots, and everyone else, too. If you're interested in some reading, check out The Checklist Manifesto for a writeup on the efforts that go into getting people to remember to perform small tasks that ensure they or their patients don't die.
From that perspective, a contraceptive method that requires the user to perform a 30-second task reliably every single day is a high-failure approach. Studies I've seen that track pill compliance typically find that a great majority of users regularly skips doses, and younger users (who are unfortunately more likely to conceive) miss the most doses--several a month on average in some data sets. Perfect use is not a relevant statistic for a sizable majority of users.
Wow. Ok, two things:
The Richest Man in Babylon
A Random Walk Down Wall Street
> Okay, but it'd be much worse under socialism. Men would not be able to opt out.
They are not really able to "opt out" at present. Unless you want to go live in shack in the woods. I don't see why socialism would make that issue better or worse.
>No society has ever actually been completely equal men will always be competing and hypergamy will always exist to select the winners.
About 97% of our history was spent in hunter-gatherer bands where the defining ethos was egalitarianism. More equal societies are simply far healthier by all indicators. Which makes sense, since that was how we evolved.
Less inequality = less hypergamy.
>This is the most socialistic than America has ever been in
Not by a long shot. The most socialistic period in American history was the 1950's: huge taxes on the rich, huge job programs for men, strong labor unions etc.
>At the turn of the 20th century, we were ruthlessly capitalistic and so women had to act better.
Women had to act better because they didn't yet have reliable birth control and because it was a pre-feminist society. However the average man had few rights. Most men lived as virtual slaves in company towns.
More equal societies generally have lower drug use and mental health problems, higher life expectancy and better overall health, lower rates of obesity, better educational performance, lower teenage pregnancy, less violence, lower rates of incarceration, higher rates of recycling etc.
The Spirit Level by Kate Pickett and Richard Wilkinson covers these issues and more.
This is just a reframing of the one argument you all bleat like sheep, the answer is supposed to lead back to the body count. In realty your question rules out those regimes.
Catalonia is a good example.
Highly democratic, worker owned and controlled co ops.
On a large scale, nationally owned industry. Which is still an important part of any economy, nationalized health care, large scale state investment in modern infrastructure too.
Social democracy got us out best gains.
Liberalism just kept most poor, and now we have Neo liberalism its stagnation or going backwards as is the emerging trend.
https://www.amazon.com/Bad-Samaritans-Secret-History-Capitalism/dp/1596915986
Yeah nice job with the revisionist history. https://www.amazon.com/Bad-Samaritans-Secret-History-Capitalism/dp/1596915986/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1500865163&sr=1-1&keywords=bad+samaritans
You should read up on the "Austrian theory of the business cycle". One book that might be a good starting point (and particularly relevant to our current era) is Meltdown.
It sounds to me like you're definition of "deregulation" is government-granted corporate privilege.
The Gulf: B.P. had a liability cap at $75 million. This is an artificially-imposed government-granted privilege. Actual damages are running in the 10's or 100's of billions. Under an actual libertarian system, damage to private property requires legal restitution. Full liability would be imposed, and oil companies would have to factor the added risk factor into their policies. This makes oil spills very expensive (think of all the class-action law-suits), and therefore the incentive to avoid them far greater. It's easy to pay off inspectors, but it's not so easy to cover up an oil spill.
I could go on if you'd like...
The Economy: This is quite complicated of course, but I'd like to suggest that you read Meltdown by Thomas Woods, if you want to understand the libertarian point-of-view on the subject.
It's certainly worth taking into account that throughout the lead-up to the economic collapse, members of the Austrian school of economics (closely associated with libertarianism) such as Peter Schiff, Thomas Woods, Ron Paul, etc., were all predicting an imminent housing bubble collapse. All the while, members of the Keynesian school (more commonly associate with liberal/statist theorists) such as Ben Bernanke and Paul Krugman were convinced that the bubble either didn't exist or wasn't a problem.
The reasons that the Austrian theorists gave for predicting that the housing boom was a bubble, and that it was ready to collapse (which turned out to come true), were several fold: First, the government created moral hazard (incentivizing risky behavior) in the housing market by A) subsidizing housing lenders and borrowers, creating a falsely inflated market B) putting pressure on banks to lend to lower-income, higher-risk borrowers in the name of 'equal opportunity', and C) rewarding risky behavior through bailouts.
And if you're going to try to blame libertarians for Bush's "cut taxes, but put spending on steroids" policy... well... I hope you understand why that's wildly off base.
If any of that is what you call deregulation, then I assure you, no true libertarian is for "deregulation".
I could add more to this subject if you're interested...
Ecuador: I don't know much about Ecuador, but here's what you said:
>Texaco came in, took what they wanted, and polluted the region beyond repair, destroying lives and property with impunity.
Again, libertarianism puts the protection of property rights above all else (as we believe the right to self-ownership is the primary property, and all else is an extension of that, etc.). A true "libertarian paradise" (as you put it) would protect the property rights of those who were harmed by the work of Texaco.
>Now that the courts there have found them guilty and ordered damages, Texaco, now merged into Chevron has simply declared the court ruling invalid.
I don't see how a corporation ignoring a just court ruling really makes a case against the theory of libertarianism. We're not against the rule of law, if that's what you're implying. Most libertarian minarchists would say that the courts ought to have had enough power to force restitution from Texaco or its new owners. Those of us who are anarcho-capitalists would make the argument that introducing market competition into the law-enforcement industry would solve the problem of inefficient government law enforcement (but that's a whole other topic).
>If you care about liberty, you should be at least as worried about this type of corporate tyranny as you are government tyranny.
I certainly am, this sounds like an outrageous affront to liberty. Corporate aggression is no less egregious than government aggression. I will admit that some libertarians can tend to seem blind to this fact, but that no more discredits the ideology than does a liberal who seems to think that government can do no wrong.
Meltdown and Nullification by Tom Woods.
Road to Serfdom by F.A. Hayek
Taking briefly from wikipedia
> Woods argues that government intervention in the form of support for housing and excessive monetary expansion caused the current crisis.
Banks did not need money lent to them, they were running a con where they could assemble a pile of garbage, and if it was big enough, it would be rubber stamped as AAA and sold for an instantaneous profit, turn around and do it again. This con would have worked without the federal reserve, freddy/frannie, or any other boogiemen the media is trotting out to spin the issue from a failure of the right.
But at least the 1 star discussion on amazon does look interesting though.
https://www.amazon.com/Meltdown-Free-Market-Collapsed-Government-Bailouts/product-reviews/1596985879/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_hist_1?ie=UTF8&filterByStar=one_star&reviewerType=avp_only_reviews#reviews-filter-bar
> the capitalist class (which brings you your iphone, reddit, a robust internet, tv, whatever the fuck else you shit on
All the technologies you claim are created by capitalism are actually the result of public sector research and government funding, lol (in fact almost all technologies are the result of public research, not private sector research): http://time.com/4089171/mariana-mazzucato/
> But for capitalism, you'd be in a mud hut picking through your shit for leftovers. Capitalism is what has brought people out of extreme poverty. Not govt programs.
Wrong again!
>its the corporatist class (your beloved government getting cozie with big business) which benefited from the US govt "saving the economy."
The Capitalist class wouldn't even exist anymore were it not for the bailout! That's what you fail to understand! The "corporatist" class is just capitalism in the real world. Capitalism and government will always collude because Capitalism relies on a capitalist state to violently enforce private property claims. And what's with all this nonsense about blaming "corporatism" anyway? A minute ago you were singing the praises of Capitalism but suddenly we're corporatist not capitalist!? Which is it!?
May be interesting
https://www.amazon.com/Bad-Samaritans-Secret-History-Capitalism/dp/1596915986
Sometimes it feels like our entire political economy is locked into extinct ideological framing and are fighting over how to pull is to one or the other nonsensical extreme.
In the beginning, there was no American economy, only the British imperial economy. The plantations, or colonies, in North America were intended to help the British Empire in its rivalry with the other major powers of Europe. In the centuries before it unilaterally began to adopt free trade in 1846, Britain, like other European states, practiced mercantilism, a policy that treated the economy as an instrument of state power. Mercantilist policies included subsidies and preferential tax treatment for favored industries and their raw material inputs, efforts to obtain surpluses in precious metals like gold and silver and in high-value-added exports, and the conquest or founding of colonies whose inhabitants would provide markets and raw materials for the mother country. In his 1684 treatise England’s Treasure by Foreign Trade, the mercantilist theorist Thomas Mun wrote: “The ordinary means therefore to increase our wealth and treasure is by Foreign Trade, wherein we must ever observe this rule: to sell more to strangers yearly than we consume of theirs in value.” The king in 1721 told Parliament that “it is evident that nothing so much contributes to promote the public well-being as the exportation of manufactured goods and the importation of foreign raw material.”
No philosopher influenced the American Revolution more than the seventeenth-century English political thinker John Locke. Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence is practically a paraphrase of Locke’s writings on natural rights and liberty. In economics, Locke was a mercantilist, not a libertarian. In his Letter Concerning Toleration, Locke says that “the pravity of Mankind . . . Obliges Men to enter into Society with one another, that by mutual Assistance, and joint Force, they may secure unto each other their Properties in the things that contribute to the Comfort and Happiness of this Life . . . But forasmuch as Men thus entering into Societies, . . . may nevertheless be deprived of them, either by the Rapine and Fraud of their Fellow-Citizens, or by the Hostile Violence of Foreigners; the remedy of this Evil consists in Arms, Riches, and Multitude of Citizens; the Remedy of the other in Laws.” For Locke, as for other early-modern mercantilists, military power, economic growth, and population growth were mutually reinforcing, and all three enhanced the ability of the state to defend its people in an anarchic world. In a journal entry in 1674, Locke wrote: “The chief end of trade is riches and power, which beget each other. Riches consists in plenty of moveables, that will yield a price to foreigners, and are not likely to be consumed at home, but especially in plenty of gold and silver. Power consists in numbers of men, and ability to maintain them. Trade conduces to both these by increasing your stock and your people, and they each other.”
The policy of mercantilism that Britain shared with other European empires included a division of labor in which British manufacturers sold finished products to a captive market of consumers in the American colonies, Ireland, and India, which in return exported raw materials and food to the British Isles. In 1721, the British Board of Trade told the king: “Having no manufactories of their own, their . . . situation will make them always dependent on Great Britain.” The British parliamentarian Edmund Burke, who sympathized with the American colonists, summarized the policy: “These colonies were evidently founded in subservience to the commerce of Great Britain . . . On the same idea it was contrived that they should send all their products to us raw, and in their first state; and that they should take every thing from us in the last stage of manufacture.” Adam Smith made a similar observation in The Wealth of Nations, which was published in 1776, the same year in which the American colonies that would form the United States declared their independence: “The liberality of England, however, towards the trade of her colonies has been confined chiefly to what concerns the market for their produce, either in its rude state, or in what may be called the very first stage of manufacture. The more advanced or more refined manufactures even of the colony produce, the merchants and manufactures of Great Britain choose to reserve to themselves, and have prevailed upon the legislature to prevent their establishment in the colonies, sometimes by high duties, and sometimes by absolute prohibitions.”
Beginning in the seventeenth century, England (which became Great Britain with the 1707 Act of Union with Scotland) sought to prevent the development of colonial manufacturing that might compete with British manufacturing by a variety of methods. The Navigation Acts, passed in 1651, 1660, and 1663, required all English trade to be carried in English ships with majority-English crews. All items in “enumerated” categories going to or from the American colonies had to be unloaded in Britain, taxed, and then reexported. The colonists were permitted to buy only British goods or goods that had been reexported from Britain.
The imperial government outlawed American exports that competed with British manufactured goods. For example, the 1699 Woolens Act forbade the sale of woolen cloth outside of the place where it was woven. This destroyed the Irish woolen industry and prevented the emergence of one in the American colonies. In 1732, Britain similarly destroyed an emerging beaver-hat industry in the colonies by outlawing the export of hats to other colonies or foreign countries. When Parliament lifted a ban on exports of pig iron and bar iron from the colonies in 1750, it outlawed further development of the industry. But the colonists ignored the prohibition and by 1775 the annual production of iron in the colonies, most of it for domestic consumption, was roughly the same as in Britain, despite the smaller colonial population.
Even as it banned manufactured exports from the American colonies to Britain or other parts of the empire, the imperial government encouraged the export of raw materials from the colonies to Britain. Import duties on wood and hemp from the American colonies to Britain were abolished. The colonists also received bounties, or subsidies, for exporting raw materials. Timber from the abundant forests of North America was particularly important. The purpose of regulation was to create a buyer’s market in raw materials and a seller’s market in manufactured goods for British industry.
Hindering the transfer of technology from Britain to America was another British mercantilist technique. In 1719, Britain banned the emigration of skilled workers in industries including steel, iron, brass, watchmaking, and wool. The law punished suborning, or recruitment, of skilled workers for employment abroad with fines or imprisonment. Skilled immigrants who did not return to Britain within six months of being warned by a British official faced the confiscation of their goods and property and the withdrawal of their citizenship.13 Britain followed its ban on the emigration of skilled workers with a ban on the export of wool and silk technology in 1750. In 1781 and 1785, the act was enlarged into a comprehensive ban on machinery of all kinds. The ban on skilled emigrants was repealed only in 1825, while the ban on technology exports lasted until 1842.
Evaluated in terms of its goal of fostering domestic manufacturing at the expense of other countries, Britain’s mercantilist system was a great success. Between the reign of the Tudors and the nineteenth century, Britain’s state-sponsored program of economic development turned the island nation first into a commercial and financial powerhouse and then into the first superpower of the machine age. But Britain’s imperial trade laws thwarted American manufacturers and frustrated American merchants, who frequently smuggled goods from other colonies and countries. The government also antagonized the colonists after the Seven Years’ War (French and Indian War) of 1756 to 1763, when it attempted to ban white settlement of large areas of the trans-Appalachian West, in order to avert conflict with the Indians. This enraged land-hungry Anglo-American frontiersmen as well as rich American colonials like George Washington who owned vast tracts of western land. These economic conflicts, along with struggles over power and status, helped to ignite the American War of Independence from 1775 to 1783.
Try this if you really want to know what went on and why we aren't going to "recover" from this "recession" but are heading into another collapse.
http://www.amazon.com/Meltdown-Free-Market-Collapsed-Government-Bailouts/dp/1596985879/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1371881724&sr=1-1&keywords=meltdown+tom+woods
Anything by Peter Schiff is also a great read.
I wouldn't recommend Paul Krugman myself, though you might want to read him and then compare what he says to something like this,
http://www.amazon.com/How-Economy-Grows-Why-Crashes/dp/047052670X/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1371881329&sr=1-5&keywords=peter+schiff
by Peter Schiff.
He appears on TV, which I don't watch, and in Youtube videos, which I watch four times a year. So I mostly don't care about him. However:
So I think he must have some other good points. You're welcome to post questions like "Hey Libertarians, Glenn Beck proposed/opposed X. What do you think about that?"
Just read this:
http://jim.com/econ/
This is the famous "Economics in One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt. It is still the best introduction to economics that exists, and it's easy to understand.
If you're interested in more, you can try this:
http://www.amazon.com/Meltdown-Free-Market-Collapsed-Government-Bailouts/dp/1596985879
which is also easy to understand. Or this:
http://mises.org/books/mespm.pdf
which is a more systematic treatise.
>The reason we need a government is to regulate and control those who absolutely require it. If you did not figure that in 2008.
If you think greed and a lack of regulation caused the crash in 2008, you have not been paying attention.
The crash was caused BY government regulation.
Everyone is greedy. The whole point of capitalism is to channel greed into productive uses.
Government is the one that redirects it into disaster and gets in the way of the normal market forces that punish those who are not serving the greater good. Think about it:
The market reacts rationally to the dot-com slump by reducing spending to replenish savings (government also had a leading hand in the dot-com bubble but that's a separate discussion). Savings rates reached a 17-year high. Alan Greenspan decides that saving money is destructive because consumer spending supposedly drives economic prosperity and we need more consumer spending to get out of the dot-com slump. So he pushes interest rates down quarter after quarter. Government makes mortgage interest (a result of spending) a tax deduction while taxing interest on savings and capital gains, furthering the century-long goal of America's central economic planners of punishing savings and rewarding spending, which they wrongly view as the "engine" of economic growth. They ensure anyone trying to save dollars loses out via inflation, pushing even the more conservative savers and investors to jump back into the economy despite being uncomfortable with their capital levels. Fannie and Freddie make it possible for virtually ANYONE to get a home mortgage.
Who's irresponsible? The banks who make financial trades based on the government's rules, or the government who makes the crazy rules that are not based in reality and are ACTIVELY TARGETED at doing things that don't lead to a REAL healthy economy (like making sure investment comes from capital instead of debt, making sure overvalued assets are allowed to correct, allowing bad investors to lose their capital)?
The problem is you say you want "more" regulation -- you have to realize that Fannie, Freddie, Community Reinvestment Act, the FDIC, the Federal Reserve, these are ALL regulations. And if you think the problem is we didn't have ENOUGH regulations, I'm honestly afraid of what would have happened if we had any more regulations like those.
If you want to read a great book that challenges your view of who's fault the 2008 crash was, check out Tom Woods' very accessible book "Meltdown". Seriously, you'll thank me later.
First off, understand that the people who are handling TARP control the message coming from the economic world. They've controlled it for years, so it's unlikely you're going to hear anything other than what a great decision was made and how great they're doing.
One chart or one article won't convince you of anything because you are hearing "green shoots" 24/7 from the media. It's their job, they're owned by (about 6) large corporations who depend on the public continuing to buy stuff. If the public perception of the economy begins to darken then the things will get messy very fast. We need people to spend money to keep the economy rolling.
So.. . you have massive amounts of influence telling you that what they did was aok.. it won't be easy for you to see another side to the story. Here's my suggestion on how to understand what went wrong and why the "solution" that has been used will only hurt in the long run:
either watch these videos
or
read this book
I agree with the above comments, but you might additionally consider:
Alors j'allais gueuler contre le PEL mais tu l'as déjà fait.
As-tu une limites basse sur ce compte? Un virement minimum attendu? Le seul intérêt du PEL pourrais être l'accès à des taux intéressants à long terme, donc à garder si tu peux conserver le minimum d'argent dessus.
A priori pas de frais pour le fermer, j'avais fermé le mien pour des raisons similaires. Mais il faut que tu vérifies avec ta banque.
Il faut que tu sois conscient que l'AV t'expose à du risque (pas beaucoup mais quand même). Donc de mon point de vue il ne faut pas trop en mettre dessus.
Vu les sommes en jeux, ça ne sert pas à grand chose de diversifier.
Ce qu'il faut c'est maximiser l'intérêt composé.
Cad choisir le meilleur support et mettre de côté régulièrement en repérant le meilleur moment pour faire tes virements et ne pas pourrir ton rendement de la quinzaine.
Quel est le rendement de ton livret jeune? C'est probablement le plus intéressant. Tu devrais avoir 8k dessus.
Et sinon oubli la bourse en direct, c'est de la merde.
Intérêts composés, intérêts composés, intérêts composés.
Je te conseille de lire ceci (existe en français mais la version anglaise est plus à jour):
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393352242/ref=pd_sbs_14_t_0/168-7907036-0075604?ie=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=43GZXMPXXRH3SNG814JX
Start with this: Basic Economics 4th Ed: A Common Sense Guide to the Economy
Actually the way it works out is actually fair and gives you freedom, something socialism and communism doesn’t give you.
It is fair because if you work hard and are successful then you will reap the rewards. If you are a bad businessman then you will fail, a good one will succeed.
You also have the freedom to choose whatever you want. If you want to be a boss you can, if you want to work for someone you can, if you want to be lazy and not work then you can be you just won’t have any money.
Socialism isn’t freedom. If you work hard you will still make the same amount. So guess what happens? People don’t work as hard, they don’t invent things like they do in a capitalist society because they don’t have an incentive to motivate them.
You make good choices then you get rewarded, if make bad ones then you suffer as you should.
You should really read a book on economics, you will be very surprised about how much you don’t know and how much people on tv and in Congress are either economically illiterate or are purposely lying about economics/ either way it’s not good.
Read this book and open your eyes. Link is below:
link
Or more accurately, this.
It's a pretty large subject, roughly split into two parts: microeconomics (looking at the market for a single type of product, important for running a business) and macroeconomics (looking at the entire economy as a whole, important for analyzing things like taxes, government spending, imports/exports, outsourcing, etc). For voting you mainly want to learn macro, but it depends on core concepts from micro ("supply and demand" is the phrase you will hear many times, and it's important to learn exactly what these are). I'd recommend Basic Economics: A Common Sense Guide to the Economy by Thomas Sowell. This book is often used in university economics courses for non-majors (the main difference being that economics majors have to do a lot of math that most of us don't need if we just want to understand the concepts).
But our oil IS priced differently. And the price of oil is not "global". It would seem you lack understanding of how prices work. Is the price of bread global? Certainly, every country consumes some amount of bread. How much bread is produced in the U.S. and what cost? How about Singapore? It's not about "having enough oil", which I disagree with, by the way. But if we can produce oil and other energy here cheaply, then the "global" price becomes irrelevant for American consumers and American industry. If the "global" price of bringing oil to the U.S. is $140/barrel, but I can purchase the same amount of oil/energy LOCALLY for $120/barrel, then I will.
You need to discard this notion of a "global" price. Prices are not determined by the "globe". Prices are determined by the people willing to buy the particular good.
I strongly suggest a little reading on the subject.
How an Economy Grows and Why it Crashes is a really good primer for macroeconomics and will set you on the right path.
Economics in One Lesson is a great book that will give you a solid theoretical foundation and perspective.
I also recommend anything by Thomas Sowell, such as Basic Economics or Applied Economics.
Dude, if you're going to even try to engage in a discussion about economics, I'd suggest you actually read an economics text book first so that you can at least try to sound like you know what you're talking about.
Here's one.
> Debt usually has interest attached to it as it is considered as a loan, which needs to be paid back
This part is spot on.
> Credit is simply issuing value without expecting it to be returned with interest
This part isn't. When we talk about credit we typically are using it in one of three different ways.
> This is a very complex topic and you have made it slightly less complex for me..
The whole thing is incredibly complex, and you're thought process has brought you into the convoluted conjunction that is Macro-Economics, Game Theory, and Financial Markets.
If you'll accept a bit of unsolicited advice, I would really recommend reading:
The Ascent of Money by Niall Fergusson. [Amazon Link] (http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Ascent-Money-Financial-History/dp/0718194004/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1382204864&sr=8-1&keywords=The+Ascent+of+Money). It's not super technical, and overgeneralizes a bit, but I think putting all of the different aspects the currency system into a historical context might help you pin what all is going on, and give you a little clearer picture of how all of the moving parts fit together.
Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell. [Amazon Link] (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Basic-Economics-4th-Edition-Economy/dp/0465022529/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1382205024&sr=8-1&keywords=Basic+Economics+sowell). It's a bit dry, but is still a pretty easy non-technical introduction. Sowell is also a little over the top with his "Gung-Ho Free Market Fuck Yeah!" mentality, but it's probably the best introductory text that I know of that a thoughtful person could get themselves through without any outside guidance.
(I hope this doesn't come across as condescending, I certainly don't mean it be)
Lots of great recommendations in this thread; I've added a few to my reading list. Here are my suggestions (copied from a previous thread):
And, the following two are a look into the lives of two great men that lived in the 20th century; both offer many points worth emulating.
A better (contemporary and with more hindsight) battle would be Sowell vs Piketty.
That entire fiishing analogy and the whole Irwin 'The Tax Dodger' Schiff and Peter 'The Gold Shill' Schiff book: How and economy grows and why it crashes is aimed squarely at shallow thinkers. It appeals very well to those who would like to believe everything is just so simple.
That said I do actually like the book from a stylistic point of view, it really does present Austrian Economics spam in a interesting and easy to understand format, the style is brilliant I think.
But unfortunately dunning krugerand libertarians read it and subsequently think they are experts at socio-economic policies because herp derp everything in society is just like two men on an island fishing.
Private ownership of natural resources, discrimination, historical oppression all doesn't real and doesn't matter even if they were.
Our complex society can just easily be hyper reduced to two men fishing in the sea. (Two men who started off on equal footing btw)
As you said once you change the scenario to where one man owns the entire island and everything on it and the second man only has the option to either pay rent by working as a chattel slave or rely on mother nature and hope he can evolve into an aquatic mammal before he runs out of energy and drowns in the ocean., the fairy tale doesn't sound as great any more does it.
How an Economy Grows and Why it Crashes by Peter Schiff
You're going to be getting a lot of counter-Austrian perspectives in your macroeconomics classes. Basically the majority of macroeconomics is oriented towards Keynesian/Monetarist economic philosophy. Honestly just pick up a macroeconomic book and go through the history of economic though in the 20th century and you'll see what I'm talking about. I'm not bitter about this, it's just simply oriented towards those avenues.
If you want to watch some videos: here is the Austrian perspective in a modern sense.. I especially like this one for its informative value. And if you want something for entertainment anything by Bob Murphy is great because he's just so entertaining but his bit on the Great Depression is probably my favorite.
As for books:
Principles of Economics
How the Economy Grows and Why it Crashes
Also for foundations of liberty you can go with Mises or Rothbard.
Are you saving/investing everything? Geez man....what kind of savings/investments do you have? You could easily pull back and work part time - if not now, maybe in five years? Are you single? I'd seriously consider downsizing/simplifying your life, save everything and invest like a shark. Have you read The Millionaire Teacher and lurked on r/financialindependence?? I don't make as much as you, but I'm re-evaluating my finances and seriously looking at taking a lower stress/lower pay job in a few years. Life is too short to waste away in Corporate America.
Depending on what you are looking to do I would recommend reading Millionaire Teacher, and then The Value of Simple.
Those two combined with reading some stuff at the Canadian Couch Potato Blog was enough to get me from 0-to investing.
http://canadiancouchpotato.com/couch-potato-faq/
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/investment-ideas/actively-managed-funds-vs-the-index-once-again-no-contest/article21580578/
http://canadiancouchpotato.com/model-portfolios-2/
Start by reading these,
https://www.amazon.ca/Millionaire-Teacher-Wealth-Should-Learned/dp/0470830069/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1465920829&sr=8-1&keywords=millionaire+teacher
Then pick up a copy of this book.
Dont feel like you need to manage your own funds...this is a personal choice that a lot of people here like to do (you can make your expenses 0.17-0.2%). If you are not comfortable managing your own funds, there is nothing wrong with sticking with Tangerine's Indexed mutual fund (1.07%).
On a portfolio of 30k, tangerine would charge $321/year. If you took on DIY investing in ETFs, you could get this cost down to $60 per year + trading commissions. There is nothing wrong with paying a bit extra to keep things simple.
The Canadian Couch Potato blog puts some guidelines on how much you should have invested before switching to ETFs, but this info is outdated. Questrade (a discount brokerage) came to Canada since 2014 (I believe). With questrade you dont have to pay any fees to purchase ETFs, you can start low cost ETFs with a portfolio as small as $1000. ETFs are the cheapest form of indexed investing
Some other terms you might want to understand:
Dollar cost averaging http://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/dollarcostaveraging.asp?layout=infini&v=5B&adtest=5B&ato=3000
Investment re balancing
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/rebalancing.asp?layout=infini&v=5B&orig=1&adtest=5B
http://canadiancouchpotato.com/2011/02/24/how-often-should-you-rebalance/
Growth is good, but you can do better by getting directly into the underlying funds themself. However, if you just choose 'growth' option, you'll be doing a lot better then most people who just ignore super completely and waste away a lot of potential earninigs.
It would be easy for me to say to you "just invest in X Y & Z", but the problem is that it would be much better for you, if you took the time to understand why I would be telling you that in the first place. Learning about investments properly and having a competent understanding will change & improve your life a great deal and will give you a big edge over other people your own age.
I highly recommend that you find & read this book:- https://www.amazon.com/Millionaire-Teacher-Wealth-Should-Learned/dp/0470830069
I recommend this book specifically because I have found it is very easy to read and not intimidating for anyone from a non-financial background. I used to give this book to staff members who worked for me in a previous job where I had a lot of 18-25 year old staff members reporting to me, and they all said they wish information like this had been taught in high school.
There are other books you could read of course, but I have found this one is the best for people who are "newbies" to dealing with finance, wealth & investments.
Of course, I'm happy to answer any other questions you might have.
https://www.amazon.ca/Millionaire-Teacher-Wealth-Should-Learned/dp/0470830069
Depends, but basically you should try to balance through contributions rather than sales. If the TFSA is your only account:
It's not crucial that you stay in balance all the time, especially if you're doing automatic contributions. One of the selling points of the couch potato is that it's easy and you only need to spend a few minutes, once per year, to bring it back into balance.
More details found down this rabbit hole. (Also, read Millionaire Teacher if you haven't already.)
I only bought them in December, but all of them track only one index (except the bond one), so it would be rather simple to calculate.
I'm guessing they are e-series versions of their regular mutual funds, I would stick with the indexes - lower MER and minimum investment.
Here's a great link:
http://canadiancouchpotato.com/model-portfolios/
Global Couch Potato option 2 is basically what I have with a lower bond allocation (I hold ETFs/Stocks in a BMO account).
This was also a really good read:
http://www.amazon.ca/Millionaire-Teacher-Wealth-Should-Learned/dp/0470830069/
Since you're just starting out, highly recommend you read Millionaire Teacher: The Nine Rules of Wealth You Should Have Learned in School.
Millionaire Teacher is the book I wished that I had read before I started investing and that I like to recommend to beginning investors.
The Little Book of Common Sense Investing is the book that opened my eyes and set me on the right path.
Read some books like millionaire teacher. It's easy to read and it will give you a good place to start
https://www.amazon.ca/Millionaire-Teacher-Wealth-Should-Learned/dp/0470830069
Read the The Millionaire Teacher, it’s all you really need to know.
Check out Canadian Couch Potato
Check out Bogleheads forums to learn more.
Simplicity is best.
Read this book first: "Millionaire Teacher." Seriously, run, don't walk, to the nearest Chapters and buy it. GO. NOW. Before the internet hoards descend on you! ;)
Next book: "The Wealthy Barber Returns." (skip the first "Wealthy Barber" book which, having been written in the 1980s, the author admits is out of date)
Those books will give you the "what" and "why." The Canadian Couch Potato website will give you the "how."
http://canadiancouchpotato.com/couch-potato-faq/
http://canadiancouchpotato.com/model-portfolios-2/
Finally - some decent investing information on reddit. For anyone who is looking for more info, I recommend you check out Millionaire Teacher - its a simple investing book for low-mid income earners and its written so anyone can understand it.
Congrats on cleaning out that debt! I know the great feeling I had when we finished off my wife's student loans, you really can't beat it.
Just putting in my two cents here. The book "The Millionaire Teacher" has a great section on things to watch out for in Financial Advisers (link). They also list typical things Financial Advisers will say and how to respond to them. Great ammo for any meeting with one.
That being said, if you are confident in your principles of investing (indexing, expense ratios, stocks/bonds mix) AND you understand HOW the Edward Jones guy is being compensated, then you may consider the meeting.
Even with all that, I wouldn't allocate any significant portion of my stash with anybody from Edward Jones.
Personally I like to meet with people like this. I like to bust their balls and see how well they know investments, early retirement, tax law, picking stocks, what their personal investments look like, insurance (for early retirees), education level, trading experience, net worth, etc. It's like being a black belt in personal finance and checking out a rival school to see what they have to offer (or not offer).
Senior Level Software Engineer Reading List
Read This First
Fundamentals
Development Theory
Philosophy of Programming
Mentality
Software Engineering Skill Sets
Design
History
Specialist Skills
DevOps Reading List
Yes that book, I have that book, and also grab the art of deception by kevin mitnick here. If you want to learn pickpocketing, or removing wristwatches, etc..here is a book on that.
Not sys admin, but security, The_Art_of_Deception.
A great read.
I picked it up cheap at Ollies and have read it front to back. That is amazing for me seeing I don't really read unless forced.
http://www.amazon.com/Art-Deception-Controlling-Element-Security/dp/076454280X
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Deception
Kind of like how your "take my word for it" isn't really proof enough for your claims.
There's a book by Kevin Mitnick, though, that well documents the art of social engineering in regards to this topic. https://www.amazon.com/Art-Deception-Controlling-Element-Security/dp/076454280X
If you can't take my word, definitely take his. He went to prison for it.
Any book that focuses on something else than a specific programming language.
Examples:
Upvoted for mentioning The Art of Deception! That is one of my favorite (technical-ish) books of all time. Another great book by that author is The Art of Intrusion.
If you want to keep attackers out of your organization, you need to learn how they operate. These books provide an intersting insight, as well as having some really interesting stories.
Mitnick's books are indeed mostly anecdotal, but The Art of Deception spends quite some time to explain WHY the attack worked and how it could have been mitigated. If you are to read one of Mitnick's books, this is definitely the one closer to what you want to do
As /u/demonbrew suggested, Cialdini's Influence is an iconic book on how you can use psychology to manipulate others. There are other schools, and you can read more about it in this thesis (as you can see Social Engineering was really popular at my university). My focus was Cialdini's work, my colleagues focused on comparing different psychological frameworks used in Social Engineering.
Carnegie's book is indeed focused in socializing, but the TL;DR of the book is: "How do i make people like me?". If you combine this, with one of the Cialdini principles - "Liking" - you can see how it can help you improve your Social Engineering skills
Since I don't know exactly what aspect of movies you are talking about, I will just give a general answer.
Movies and popular conception is mostly wrong, the wild west was not so wild. Just because there was no government, did not mean there where no laws. Different groups organised them-self in different way in order to solve the problems that normally a policy or a government would solve.
The wild west is one of the primary things studied when economics, or political scientists study what is called self enforcing contracts and anarchy. I'm not really a expert on the wild west but I have studied the topic of anarchy a bit. My main source for the wild west is this book:
It goes in the many topics, like mining towns, farmers, homesteading, water rights and so on. Its really a very good read.
Better source: https://www.amazon.com/Not-So-Wild-West-Economics/dp/0804748543?ie=UTF8&*Version*=1&*entries*=0
Worse source: http://www.cracked.com/article_20372_5-ridiculous-myths-everyone-believes-about-wild-west.html
https://www.amazon.com/Not-So-Wild-West-Economics/dp/0804748543
Thankyou for the link. I appreciate it. I don't know about Medievil Iceland, but to use the American Old West a bastion of free market trade is beyond absurd. If you're interested, I can explain that comment in detail. For now, suffice it to say that the person most responsible for starting that myth is one Terry L. Anderson who is a tool of the ultra rightwing Hoover Institute that has argued for privatization of all federal lands and privatization of Indian lands as well. Nevermind the fact that he completely ignores the genocide of the Native Americans in his paper that led to his book on how tame the Old West was (for rich white people). That wiki should probably be edited for clarity.
Fucking charlatans. For more: Antifragile
Postmortem -- https://landing.google.com/sre/sre-book/chapters/postmortem-culture/
Do one. Learn from it.
Be ANTIFRAGILE -- https://www.amazon.com/Antifragile-Things-That-Disorder-Incerto/dp/0812979680
There are a few things to unpack, here.
>CMV: Holding opinions so dearly that you consider them part of your identity is fundamental damaging to pubic discourse and conversation.
I think it is only damaging to public discourse if you let it be. It's damaging when you believe you are being assaulted and refuse to listen or debate calmly and rationally.
>Changing opinions is usually seen as a sign of weakness or incompetence, and most people are subconsciously terrified of being wrong.
I think there is a happy medium. If you're stubborn in the face of truth and facts, then you're also showing fragility.
>With that being said, I believe that the reason why the split between the political community is so much larger than before isn’t solely because if echo chambers, but the unneeded ego-centric reinforcement of opinions that convince the holder that any attack of their ideas translates to an attack on them.
Bingo. Check out The Coddling of the American Mind. It's a highly impactful article which saw the trend you mentioned years before it spread. There is also a book with the same title. I found out about it on the Joe Rogan podcast.
There are 3 implicit harmful rules:
This style of thinking is at odds with cognitive behavior therapy. It causes distress and depression. If you want to be antifragile then you must expose yourself to different viewpoints. Your mind works similarly to an immune system: If you limit exposure to minor stressors, you will only be more distressed when you encounter something in the future.
I disagree that it is wrong to hold an opinion so deeply you consider it part of your identity. We are all a culmination of our experiences and beliefs. Some of those beliefs have a stronger impact than others and define us more. I think it is okay to have a belief define you but you should be willing to slow down and listen to an opposing viewpoint.
>Speech is a physical, tangible thing that can and does do damage to people's mental health when misused.
Lots of things could potentially damage people's mental health. Strong criticism could potentially harm my mental health. Insults (they don't have to based on race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or gender) could harm my mental health. Honest criticisms could harm me mentally. Expressions of hatred based on my political leanings could harm me mentally. Honest criticism has the potential to harm me mentally.
What are you going to do about them? Ban people from insulting one another and using strong language? Are you going to stop people from calling Tories evil scum because that could mentally harm someone who is a conservative ? Are you going to stop people from celebrating the punching of Nazis because neo-Nazis might me harmed by the celebration of violence against them? Are you going to stop people from calling Brexiteers stupid and idiots because that has the potential to harm them mentally? Yes, speech does have the potential to affect someone mentally. The problem is that the mental harm is so subjective that everything is potentially harmful mentally to someone. What another person might brush off easily might make a fragile person hurt. The subjectivity of experience of speech is one of the reason why you just can't go around forming objective policies around this issue.
Another thing is that we human beings are anti-fragile. Our bones get stronger the more they are used. Our muscles build when we tear them through exercise. Our immune system gets stronger when they encounter viruses and bacteria. A great book to read is Anti-fragile by Nassim Taleb who goes into this whole question and shows that a lot of what people believe about human fragility is counter productive. The more you shield others from things you think might hurt them emotionally and mentally, the more mentally fragile they are going to become. There is a perfect analogy with allergies and fragility. The more sanitized the environment, the greater the risk for that becomes.
I also take objection to your characterization of speech.
Speech =/= action. One of the thought experiments I think about around these issues is regarding somebody who sincerely holds a belief that the Holocaust didn't happen.
Now no country has banned thinking such things because they couldn't. However, most of continental Europe has decided to ban expression of such opinions. Now suppose a hypothetical case where this person who sincerely believes that the Holocaust didn't happen is asked a question about it in public. Based on the laws of Continental Europe, that person has to lie in public. The person can't sincerely tell the world that he doesn't believe in the Holocaust because that would mean jail. So we have government requiring/forcing people to lie.
I consider this just an egregious violation of a person's freedom of conscience, and while it is just a hypothetical, it does have bearings on what actually happens, because a lot of people who sincerely don't believe the Holocaust happened do have to lie at the threat of being imprisoned.
You cannot separate the freedom of thought/opinion/feeling and the freedom to express those thoughts/opinions/feelings as you have done. They are inextricably linked.
Speech is not the same thing as an act. A politician can say that he is going to do something. That politician's speech is not the same thing as an act, as most people participating in democratic societies quickly realize.
Stephen Covey's The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People contains a bunch of principles that I really internalized and still rely on, almost a decade after reading it.
Nassim Nicholas Talib's Antifragile changed my outlook on life and got me thinking about viable long-term strategies.
John Medina's Brain Rules is especially useful if you're in school, studying, or in some line of creative or intellectual work. I've applied its principles to my presentations, teaching, and personal studies, and I'm really happy with the results.
Happy reading!
Jo-der. No se si sos un economista, un biologo, o un sabelotodo -- pero la gente como vos es peligrosa... Agarras el narrativo ideal y lo justificas atacando la cruda realidad (y sin fundamento). Espero que seas un interlocutor valido o que por lo menos, vos tambien, tengas autores a quienes haces referencia.
Aca van los mios:
"The Delphic Boat: What Genomes Tell us" by: Antoine Danchin (un groso..... en serio.)
"The Free Market Existentialist" by: William Irwin (phD philosophy).
"Antifragile" by: Nassim Taleb (este tipo es una eminencia, lee su CV
Ademas, tal vez te interese este video informativo (porque no tenes ganas de leer tanto) acerca de la historia del capitalismo... son 11 mins. y bastante claro.
"The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins. (si no leiste esto todavia, te lo recomiendo!!!! mucho!!!!! pero me parece raro que seas biologo y no entiendas a lo que me refiero con decir que el gen es la unidad basica)
Ito Calculus es un buen lugar para comenzar.
Este video course de MIT acerca de finanzas es basicamente TODO la matematica que necesitas para entender finanzas o macroeconomia moderna.
Este video course de MIT es mas orientado a la economia y el rol de la politica en el desarrollo economico.
Cualquier duda NO QUEDO a disposicion por consultas, pero espero que contribuyas algo de tu parte.... para enriquecer la discusion
Y a los downvoters: You're all dirty slags.
EDIT - agregue un video
The best strategy, the one JBP and DJT employ, is to become anti-fragile, meaning that attacks make you stronger.
Nice. Great post. I couldn't agree more. So I'll just help (circlejerk?).
The intuitive, irrational, and crazy part of my personality I only just started developing as I realized I mistyped myself as an INTJ for over 20 years (unhealthy INFJ for that long). The book Antifragile by Nassim Taleb points out the valuable Dionysian part of our nature and just how fragile these social-economic models are in the face of time.
When BP asks "Fine. RP works, but will that make you happy in the long-term?" the jaded RP reply is "Probably not, but what choice is there for men like me?" Others live and die by the Redpill, but can anyone really believe Chateau Heartiste is a happy, healthy, secure individual? No extreme personality and total rejection of the Other emerges from a healthy psyche. You can't take a man who naturally values long-term mating into a short-term mating box and not expect -- nevermind. You already get it.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0812979680/
Skin in the game. Read Antifragile by Nassim Nicholas Taleb.
http://amzn.com/0812979680
For those interested in learning more about the earnings gap, and how it's not a result of discrimination but rather is a result of the different choices men and women make in their lives, I recommend reading the book Why Men Earn More: The Startling Truth Behind the Pay Gap -- and What Women Can Do About It.
The Bitcoin Standard covers it in detail
I don’t know how I knew. Maybe you have a youthful and optimistic writing voice.
I’m 37, and I actually manage money for a living as an RIA (registered investment advisor). If you’re unsure about a career for yourself, I’d highly recommend it. Someone only 20 years old with your expertise would have no trouble getting into the business and be very successful.
Using Bitcoin or any hard currency as opposed to fiat adds immeasurable value to society. Read “The Bitcoin Standard” by Saifedean Ammous and your perspective will be expanded
https://www.amazon.com/Bitcoin-Standard-Decentralized-Alternative-Central/dp/1119473861 and buy
And get a copy of the reference tome: Options as a Strategic Investment
https://www.amazon.com/Options-as-Strategic-Investment-Fifth/dp/0735204659
And your investment game will be better than most advisors by the time you’re 22. That’s the best advice I can give👊
If technically-minded, there are two topics that if you mastered them would put you among the most educated Bitcoin users:
There are many scholarly resources regarding (2). No so much (1), but you can find good leads in the footnotes to the Bitcoin white paper.
If socially-minded, how about the role that financial privacy or trust plays in modern society and what Bitcoin's role is likely to be? This essay is packed with resources: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=998565
If financially-minded, you might think about whether restricive money supply policies help or hurt the poor (or some group you might care about). There's a lot of academic research on that. Bitcoin offers a laboratory to test these ideas, and a lot has been written about this as well.
For example, a new book is:
https://www.amazon.com/Bitcoin-Standard-Decentralized-Alternative-Central/dp/1119473861
Saifedean is the author of The Bitcoin Standard. Probably the most important book for any Bitcoiner to read, alongside Mastering Bitcoin by Andreas Antonopoulos.
https://www.amazon.com/Bitcoin-Standard-Decentralized-Alternative-Central/dp/1119473861
Read and understand.
Your statements are long debunked by several people.
> price based pyramid scheme
Here you have another link, of course you "don't need to read" it now, but maybe when you become older and feel like you don't know everything and want to learn more about it. https://www.amazon.com/dp/1119473861
Have a nice day
> How does the LN affect your ability to use BTC as p2p permissionless cash? You can simply choose not to use it.
if LN or any second layer solution is the preferred scaling method it would take ~8 years for 1Billion users to open just one LN channel, no other commerce happening on chain just opening LN channels (lets hope none of them need to close their channel in a hurry) onchain fees will sky rocket (considerably less than 100 million people using Bitcoin in Dec 2017 led to $50 fees) that's how LN affects people who can't afford $50 fees to move a few hundred dollars around.
They wont' be able to choose to simply not use it when the fee is a significant percentage of the value they want to move.
or do you align with Samson Mow that Bitcoin is not for the poor.
the alternative is CUSTODIAL 2nd layer / or Bitcoin "Backed" Credit Cards that's what all you maxi's have been railing against but is in fact what the likes of the the author of BTC Maxi White Paper 2.0 Saifedean Ammous espouses we can have Bitcoin backed credit cards which by their very nature will be custodial
https://www.amazon.com/Bitcoin-Standard-Decentralized-Alternative-Central/dp/1119473861
> You mentioned our GDP. 2/3 of our GDP comes from consumer spending.
Consumer spending and the output of the economy is impacted by how much people have to pay for gas, heat, oil, etc ENORMOUSLY(think about how much the average citizen spends on gas throughout a year and then think about them spending that on other things). Like I said you are uneducated in subject matters that are essential to comment on these matters and you are going to go on as if you aren't. All while arguing a position no analyst in the world would(hyperbole).
https://www.amazon.com/Ascent-Money-Financial-History-World/dp/0143116177/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1466453148&sr=8-1&keywords=Ascent+of+money
https://www.amazon.com/Prize-Epic-Quest-Money-Power/dp/1439110123/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1466453203&sr=8-1&keywords=The+prize
Read these two books and you will have a clearer picture of this macro picture I was referring to and you will understand how absurd your position is. The ascent of money was made into a pbs documentary, albeit a 4 hour one. It doesn't do the book justice though.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/ascentofmoney/
The Prize was a Pulitzer Prize, non fiction book that will educate you on oil and why the middle east is important.
https://careers.state.gov/work/foreign-service/suggested-reading
Click on the suggested reading list on that page.
To get the whole macro picture I was referring to, read these books. You may want to start with their recommended International Relations textbook. These are books the State Department recommends you read if you are going to negotiate and do diplomacy on behalf of United States government(pretty hardcore stuff).
Best of luck with your studies/investigations and enjoy the rabbit hole, it really is an eye opener into another world that is not really discussed in the media.
It's a long read, but it's thorough - http://www.amazon.com/The-Prize-Quest-Money-Power/dp/1439110123
I'll never forget reading The Prize by Daniel Yeargin. He simultaneously tries to tell you about how Standard Oil was some unstoppable monopoly...while also telling you about how Branobel was eating away at their monopoly. They got to something like 30% before Stand Oil got trust-busted. So trust-busting only came after Standard's market position was already eroding.
Go read history books instead of copying out-of-context newspaper quotes -
US interest in the mid-east started in ww2 - FDR signed an alliance with Saudi Kind that stands to this day. Israel was not even a country back then.
The US army does not fight wars for Israel - even though Israel does benefit from some of those - and Israeli politicians like to take credit for having influence in the US (does not mean they actually do).
The Israeli army on the other hand did fight a war purely for the US - in which 3000 of its soldiers died (equivalent to US casualties Vietnam in terms of relative population size) and many more injures - it was in October 1973 and it was a war in which the US administration demanded Israel does not strike early even when Egyptian and Syrian forces were massing at its borders. The reason? US wanted the Suez Canal - and Egyptian president promised to give it if US "gives" him a victory over Israel.
TL;DR
Read/Watch The Prize - understand the importance of oil to (American) strategic thinking post ww2. Stop thinking things in the world have reason X or nation Y behind it - it's simplistic wishful thinking. World is complex, though cookie.
As a more personal aside, I think that The Prize is a really interesting book; however, it is not truly focused on engineering but more on the impact of the "most influential industry in history."
Ohh! You should definitely look into The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money, and Power by Daniel Yergin.
It depicts the history of the global petroleum industry from the 1850s through 1990.
Its extremely well written and an incredibly powerful part of human history.
Link: http://www.amazon.com/The-Prize-Quest-Money-Power/dp/1439110123
> ppl will have hard time telling the back from front and top from bottom.
Which is, ostensibly, a bad thing
Design goes even further than the list you suggested! It's awesome.
I studied interaction design, exploring how humanity interacts with technology and services. Which was always a nice mix of visual, physical design and technical skills to produce the things you design.
I'd recommend reading Designing Interactions by Bill Moggridge and The Design of everyday things by Don Norman. Both books are staples for the IAD discipline but I think in general, are just fantastic places to start with design as a concept, not just the technical skills.
https://www.amazon.com/Design-Everyday-Things-Donald-Norman/dp/1452654123
http://www.designinginteractions.com/book
https://www.amazon.com/Design-Everyday-Things-Donald-Norman/dp/1452654123
https://www.amazon.com/Dont-Make-Think-Revisited-Usability/dp/0321965515/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_t_1?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=MKZ2AKCZHRJ1Q5H175AH
​
https://www.amazon.com/Microinteractions-Full-Color-Designing-Details/dp/1491945923/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=microinteractions&qid=1550595462&s=books&sr=1-1
That just means whoever designed the door is a moron.
http://www.amazon.com/Design-Everyday-Things-Donald-Norman/dp/1452654123
Having a good art or design teacher can help tremendously, but you can get quite a bit out of those classes even if they are bad. It's not graphic design you necessarily want. I was speaking of design itself. You may laugh but, learning interior decorating is pretty important. Color theory from art courses. Eye travel/focal point theory can really help level design. Lighting & exposure theory from photography(used in rendering). Architecture/engineering(gotta build stuff somehow). Geology(so you can make pretty rocks right/better). Animation techniques(omg do this). Biology, cellular structures and how/why things such as leaves grow the way they do. Statistics(Loot tables, enemy spawn rates, hit rates). Graphic Design(UI & any other sign in a game).
I highly suggest reading books on design. The Design of Everyday Things](https://www.amazon.com/Design-Everyday-Things-Donald-Norman/dp/1452654123) is a freakin manual for making stuff actually functional/look functional.
History can help too. For instance, the horse is basically the reason towns are as far apart as they are. It's the distance a rider on a horse can travel in a day. Its for a personal project by I just used that to decide distances between towns for an RPG setting(table top).
The courses themselves may be a sham, the teacher may suck, heck the book may be garbage too, but they should still help you build a foundation on which you can do more research into the subject. I remember a post about an electrical engineer that went into Dying Light and drunkenly posted about how the power transformers made no sense found the article. Now this is clearly a case of the artists wanting power lines, and just making them "look" like power lines, but with maybe a little research or understanding they could have made it just that much more believable.
You don't necessarily need to do any of this, but you can draw inspiration/knowledge from anywhere.
Sorry for the long post.
Keep at it, and good luck!
This is what many of the cool kids (and your new competition) are doing:
​
​
There are a lot of programs around right now to help career-changers get their foot into UX Design. Do not follow the advice of youtubers. A lot of the core of UX you cannot really learn without being hands on. Moderating user tests, ideation sessions, conducting interviews, and group/team activities like journey mapping, persona building, affinity diagramming, card sorts, etc. all need to be done in collaboration with other people.
​
Additional knowledge in subjects like Human Factors, Human Computer Interaction, Interaction Design, User Interface Design, Motion Design, User Research, is also attractive in someone who is transitioning into UX Design.
​
Otherwise, start reading through this list: https://designerhangout.co/books
​
The first two on the list are especially good:
​
A side note: As a UX designer, you'll likely have to wear even more hats. And be better at wearing them too.
Industrial design. Read this and if you like it, then please consider this as your new major.
Don Norman is not just an ex-Apple employee. He is the author of The Design of Everyday Things, which is the most popular and probably most influential work written about user-centered design. Many of the terms that we use to discuss user-centered design originate from that book.
As far as designing orienting around people and making systems people respond to, there's a lot of grist in The Design Of Everyday Things
I have heard this book is good -
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1491954388/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_awdb_t1_sgWIAb8E696K5
Maybe it would help you to:
Watch Andreas youtube channel
Read : Mastering Bitcoin
thank you but I heard that book is mostly about why we need bitcoin and basically hypes it up. I as thinking of more along the lines of what is a btc lol. Would this be good?:
https://www.amazon.com/Mastering-Bitcoin-Programming-Open-Blockchain/dp/1491954388
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Mastering-Bitcoin-2e-Andreas-Antonopoulos/dp/1491954388/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540555073&sr=1-1&keywords=MASTERING+BITCOIN
Read this first,
You can also get it free off Github
Downloading the blockchain is much easier than understanding the code. I just synced the Bitcoin blockchain from scratch in less than 30 hours.
Just diving into the code won't get you far, I'm afraid. Monero uses difficult cryptography and Bitcoin has been optimized for performance rather than readability. (By comparison: downloading the 6 GB Fastcoin blockchain, based on an older version of Bitcoin and Litecoin, took me two weeks.)
To understand Monero, I'd start by reading the Moneropedia and the Monero StackExchange. For Bitcoin, there are educational books like the Princeton Bitcoin book, and Mastering Bitcoin by Andreas Antonopoulos (free draft).
Some resources for you to help get you started:
https://www.amazon.com/Mastering-Bitcoin-Programming-Open-Blockchain/dp/1491954388
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=990348.0
https://bitcoin.org/en/posts/how-to-run-a-full-node
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Original_Bitcoin_client/API_calls_list
Interesting.
The issue for you here is that BI is really just expected to know SQL, Excel, and Tableau. Maybe some very light programming in R or SAS; but honestly if you knew python reasonably well you would probably have a major advantage over everyone else in most BI departments. I imagine your company changed titles for this exact reason when they realized they didn't need the full skillset of a data scientist/analyst (or didn't want to pay for it). Anyway, most of this stuff is not directly applicable to blockchain so even though you would hypothetically have more credibility simply by the fact you are working with technology, I don't know if it would necessarily give you enough to make the jump to blockchain. An equal concern would be you getting the experience necessary to do so which as I mentioned is not likely.
Of course if you really feel this is your best way to move into tech then by all means go for it. But if I were in your shoes, I would take a second look at cloud. Building cloud based applications will give you experience that is very directly applicable to what you are trying to do. There's also more ways into cloud than data. You can come in through a lower end web/frontend role or even a devops/admin role. There's a lot of resources and employers are more willing to hire 'unconventional' candidates because they need more bodies coding. You can get by with self-learning and then build something eye catching.
I'm not sure if you have seen this already but you might look into this book:
https://www.amazon.com/Mastering-Bitcoin-Programming-Open-Blockchain/dp/1491954388/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1527055715&sr=8-1&keywords=blockchain+python
I have read parts of it and it seems very good. It approaches the topic from a programming perspective though, but after you learn python it could be useful to you to align your knowledge of coding with blockchain.
Online resources are great - but I'd also advise a good book.
A good book will contain accurate, well-researched, information and is easier to learn from than the, sometimes conflicting, online information.
Mastering Bitcoin by Andreas Antonopoulos comes highly recommended.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Mastering-Bitcoin-2e-Andreas-Antonopoulos/dp/1491954388/ref=pd_sim_14_3?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=0HP80T1Q51BYJ4PT1182
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1491954388/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1518297199&sr=8-1-spons&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&keywords=mastering+bitcoin&psc=1#
I just purchased the following books:
They have good reviews and seem nice reads for the money. However, the Ethereum book - "This text was written for people with a fast grasp, who are not programmers." Still missing a book on Solidity for programmers.
Don't take investing advice from acquaintances. Don't invest in something if you can't figure out how to research it on your own.
I'm guessing your acquaintance was just trying to pretend they're smart by dropping words like 'volatility derivatives'. Nobody who is seriously involved in trading VIX options would recommend that random people start getting into it. It's kind of a specialized field.
Anyway, here are some books that can help:
http://www.amazon.com/Option-Volatility-amp-Pricing-Strategies/dp/155738486X/ref=pd_sim_b_1
http://www.amazon.com/Volatility-Trading-CD-ROM-Wiley/dp/0470181990
http://www.amazon.com/Trading-VIX-Derivatives-Strategies-Exchange/dp/0470933089/ref=pd_sim_b_2
But if you don't already understand what the terms 'volatility derivatives' means and you're not into math, those books aren't likely to help you.
This is the one every options trader has: http://www.amazon.com/Option-Volatility-amp-Pricing-Strategies/dp/155738486X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1408507055&sr=1-1&keywords=sheldon+natenberg+option+volatility+and+pricing
You can get the e-book online for free if you want to search Google for it. Shouldn't be hard to find.
"options volatility and pricing"
https://www.amazon.com/Option-Volatility-Pricing-Strategies-Techniques/dp/155738486X
TSLA options strikes are at $2.5 increments, so 220, 222.5, 225, 227.5 etc. There are no strikes of 228.5 and 223.5. Base on Thursday's closing price, the most likely strikes you got would be the 227.5 calls and 225 puts.
To answer your question, no, you are doing it wrong.
Based on the price you got, the options you got were weekly options that expired today. That means you had one day for the stock to make the move you need to make some money. What you have today is pure luck, and it's not even that good a return, for you are risking 100% of the money for a 14.7% return.
It sounds like you don't even know what you don't know. For the love of God, stop doing anything with options until you read this book at least twice back to back.
Well, since you have some clues....get a copy of this
https://www.amazon.com/Option-Volatility-Pricing-Strategies-Techniques/dp/155738486X
Once you have a good grasp of the basics take the time to learn the option greeks. Understanding the greeks is essential for anyone looking to get into the options' market. Of course I have no idea if you are contemplating a jump into options. But just in case you are I'll leave these links.
This PDF has a pretty good rundown of the greeks:
http://i.investopedia.com/inv/pdf/tutorials/OptionsGreeks.pdf
If you're very serious about options then a copy of Sheldon Natenberg's 'Option Volatility & Pricing' is a must have.
http://www.amazon.com/Option-Volatility-amp-Pricing-Strategies/dp/155738486X
And McMillan's 'Options as a Strategic Investment'.
http://www.amazon.com/Options-Strategic-Investment-Lawrence-McMillan/dp/0735201978
Here is the mobile version of your link
While I respect your position, I profoundly disagree. The Soviet Union was subject to international sanctions, sabotage, attacks, etc. from the beginning of the revolution. And your point about European developments in science and technology does not defeat my earlier points about how the USSR profoundly helped its people escape illiteracy and desperate poverty.
You are mistaken in attributing the economic problems of modern Russia with what the Soviet Union did to it. It was precisely as a result of the collapse of the USSR that life expectancy in Russia [dropped dramatically] (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1116380/), suicide rates spiked, alcoholism (long a problem in Russia) spiked, and the [GDP fell dramatically] (https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/012116/russian-economy-collapse-soviet-union.asp#ixzz584zZqmfu).
> Despite Yeltsin’s reforms, the economy performed horribly through much of the 1990s. From about 1991 to 1998 Russia lost nearly 30% of its real gross domestic product (GDP), suffered numerous bouts of inflation that decimated the savings of Russian citizens. Russians also saw their disposable incomes rapidly decline. Further, capital was leaving the country en masse, with close to $150 billion worth flowing out between 1992 and 1999.
Pensions, worker protections, trade unions, the constitutionally guaranteed right to a job, and other social services provided by those socialist countries and which had improved the quality of life for millions of people were shredded (i.e. privatized).
Lastly, there is good research pointing out that market economies in fact do not help to develop "poor" countries. One such example of this research is Ha Joon-Chang's book "Bad Samaritans "
Very interesting topic. The economies of Korea and Japan are not the neo liberal free market capitalistic states that the mainstream would like you to believe. I highly recommend reading Ha-Joon Chang’s book bad samaritans, which is basically where my knowledge of how Asian economies like Japan and Korea work https://www.amazon.com/Bad-Samaritans-Secret-History-Capitalism/dp/1596915986
I’ll try to phrase the spirit of your question the best I can, thanks!
maybe you should read some books on economics:
http://www.amazon.com/Free-Trade-Doesnt-Work-Replace/dp/0578079674/
http://www.amazon.com/Bad-Samaritans-Secret-History-Capitalism/dp/1596915986
Here's one study on that issue: The Spirit Level
Because human beings are not Pareto efficient. This book summarizes a lot of research over multiple social indicators that people are significantly better off in a less unequal society, even if their absolute level of wealth is lower.
As one of those progressive jerkoffs (and big time Yang supporter & phone banker), the concern about the 1% is an entirely data driven perspective. Two points.
First, political science research has consistently shown that elite economic interests consistently suppress democratic outcomes, to the point that some have even labeled America as an oligarchy: see Gilens https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf and of course Pikkety https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://amp.theguardian.com/books/2014/apr/28/thomas-piketty-capital-surprise-bestseller&ved=2ahUKEwihmIzyvuDkAhUSjq0KHfR9C5oQFjAWegQIDBAB&usg=AOvVaw26KCDNjdkHZHP9l5l4QMSo&ampcf=1
Second, work by Payne, Wilkinson & Pickett, and other researchers has also shown that inequality, specifically - NOT just the existence of poverty or a sufficient economic floor, but there mere existence of deep socioeconomic differences - is a primary driver of social dysfunction: see https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/03/opinion/sunday/what-monkeys-can-teach-us-about-fairness.html and https://www.amazon.com/Spirit-Level-Equality-Societies-Stronger/dp/1608193411/ref=asc_df_1608193411/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=312111868709&hvpos=1o1&hvnetw=g&hvrand=10151662887925155100&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=m&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9010330&hvtargid=pla-435491454448&psc=1
Democracy Dollars and the FD will go a long ways toward combating these political dynamics, but they will remain concerning in the long term. As an anarchist, I believe it is any citizen's right to secede from a nation that they no longer wish to be a part of. OTOH, as a scientist well-informed on the social dysfunction that is created by large socioeconomic inequality, the most stable societies are clearly those with the lowest inequality, which is the kind of society that I want to be a part of (even if it means me & you can't be billionaires).
Hope that sheds a little light on our perspective.
>So one of my core believes is all people should have as much freedom as possible. Part of freedom is keeping the product of your labor. When we tax income, we are taxing labor.
and what is the product of the labor of Wall Street traders?
what is the product of the labor of cigarette makers?
what is the product of the labor of a mining company whose runoff pollutes the river and kills the fish that people downstream depend on for their livelihood or survival?
should they be able to keep the product of their labor and be free?
this is why economists, after much reluctance, now study (in their parlance) externalities.
>I would argue that the best result is achieved when individuals making choices for themselves is the clearest route to "best result for society", where society really means the sum total desires of the individuals in society.
the term society is not interchangeable with the sum total of individuals' behavior. society is an emergent construct with emergent properties. for example: how do people who have less feel about those who have more (regardless of whether the rich people really do work harder, or whether they are lucky)? so the poor start killing the rich people. or the poor people rise up and overthrow the social structure, which might be detrimental to everyone temporarily, but good in the long run. that is an oversimplified argument, but the point is this: people live in a society, and how that society functions is not just a sum of how every individual behaves. so we need to analyze how successful a society is, and how it can achieve that. it is ultimately defined in terms of concrete outcomes for people, to be sure. but you can't understand the world around you if you just want to reduce everything to individuals.
this is likely connected to why you value freedom more than equality. that and your physiology, which determines which outcomes you value more than others.
I would argue that the way you feel isn't any less valid than they a lot of others around here feel, but ultimately it will lead to worse outcomes. driven in some sense by these externalities, and by very foreseeable outcomes like social discontent and environmental destruction. personally I don't want to see those worse outcomes. I think that more equality will lead to better outcomes. please read The Spirit Level because it has lots of data on how equality affects societal outcomes.
It’s a shame that’s what you think.
I’d recommend you read this book. May help you understand what goes into and how games are made. 80 hour weeks, missed birthdays, no OT pay. It’s a miracle any game gets made.
Blood, Sweat, and Pixels: The Triumphant, Turbulent Stories Behind How Video Games Are Made https://www.amazon.com/dp/0062651234/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_OxCHAbH8FWXPM
Jason has connections all over the gaming industry. He even wrote a book about a few game developments: https://www.amazon.com.br/Blood-Sweat-Pixels-Triumphant-Turbulent/dp/0062651234
He keeps posting on troubled development stories on Kotaku too (the Anthem and BO4 articles, for example). He earned my trust in regards for info in the game industry.
>"Italy is very similar to Greece in terms of climate and terrain (with some important differences), and classical Roman architecture took a lot of cues from Greek styles (again, with important differenes). Point being, they could re-use - if not the models - a lot of the same textures from Odyssey, cutting down on the amount of work they would have to do.
>
>It fits within the same era. AC games seem to usually run in series based on time period; you had the Ezio trilogy which hearkened back in Revelations to the first game; you had ACIII and Black Flag in similar eras (Edward was Connor's grandfather), and those plus AC:Unity, AC:Rogue, and AC:Syndicate are all within about a hundred and fifty years of each other (from 1715 at the start of IV to 1868 for Syndicate). Since they've been working in the ancient period with Odyssey and Origins, if they're going to do another game set in that era, it would make sense to do it immediately afterwards - and I don't think they're stupid enough to never make an AC game set in the Roman Empire."
I agree with your points. But at the same time, if we look at their situation right now....they surely will want a game that will be playable on old and new gen next year. So Montreal has 3 years to release it, right?
They surely will not want a brand new era/assets in a game that will have to release in both systems. In that case, they needed something that could use what they have in Origins/Odyssey. Of course, this would give points to Rome, which was something that even I was believing some time ago.
But then, Jason reports puts a wrench into the situation. And when you think about it...Vikings can fit very well (conquests battles, naval system, mercenaries, huge natural landscapes, etc) and also show a more medieval vibe after the 1 year gap, helping to fight series´s fatigue
And yes, I agree that the Roman EMpire would be fantastic. I was believing on AC: Legion a few months ago (at least we got the tittle in another franchise). Is it trully gone? Now that is another question. It would not be impossible to happen after Vikings. We had Odyssey and Black Flag happen right after 3 and Origins, so it would not be that weird for a prequel after a sequel.
The schedule is interesting if they do follow the current formula:
2013 - Black Flag (Montreal)
2015 - SYndicate (Quebec)
2017 - Origins (Montreal) - 4 years of development
2018 - Odyssey (Quebec) - 3 years of development
2020 - Kingdom (Montreal) - 3 years of development
202? - ??? (Quebec) - ? years of development
Will they skip 2021 and then have 4 years for their next gen title? Or only after 2021 will they skip a year and then having their first new era? That is up in the air for now. I think Ubi would give a lot of time for their next gen title and really nail it.
Look at the replies to your post. It really wasn’t funny.
Do some research. Crunch is real, it happens a lot in the industry. I don’t think NetherRealm has denied it either. Here’s a good book that shares a lot of stories about crunch and how damaging it can be:
Blood, Sweat, and Pixels: The Triumphant, Turbulent Stories Behind How Video Games Are Made https://www.amazon.com/dp/0062651234/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_5nooDbZGYAZP0
Pretty sure the crybabies in this scenario are the people whining they’re not getting their DLC fast enough.
Check out Jason Schreier's Blood Sweat and Pixels
Blood Sweat and Pixels graver også i crunchkulturen hos en lang række udviklere, nærmest som en sidebemærkning. Men indtrykket er mest af alt at computerspilbranchen bare er en ung, kreativ og passioneret branche med helt sindsyge deadlines, hvor det ikke rigtig bliver godtaget at sige stop. Jeg tror det var en af Naughty Dog udviklerne der sagde at han i en måned ikke så sin familie, boede i sin bil og spiste morgenmad og aftensmad på den samme tankstation. Der var bare en forståelse for, at hvis ting ikke blev leveret til tiden kunne udgiveren dræbe projektet fra dag til dag, og så var alt tabt.
Så troede man at crowdfundingrevolutionen endelig ville gøre en ende på problemet, ved at udviklere kunne tage ting i et lidt roligere tempo uden at være afhængige af "Big Brother" til finansiering. Det var så løgn.
You should read his book, Blood Sweat and Pixels, it deep dives into a lot of games developments just like in this article (including Dragon Age Inquisition). It’s an absolutely fascinating, if sometimes depressing, read.
https://www.amazon.com/Blood-Sweat-Pixels-Triumphant-Turbulent/dp/0062651234
Buying him computer hardware might be nice, but there's a lot of other ways to give something related to games and game design.
There's always a great big pound of dice. It's full of dice of assorted numbers of sides, and a game designer remotely interested in tabletop (which should be all of them) can use a healthy supply of dice for making tabletop games. There's always the fun of just rolling dice giant handfuls of dice.
I'm out right now but I'll add the link when I get back home.Here's the link: Pound of diceI'd also look into games he hasn't tried. BoardGameGeek has a lot of board games listed and reviewed that you could get, and of course there's always steam. For board games I'd recommend:
There's also a lot of books on game design you can get him. You may have to check to see if he owns some of these already, but I've found them to be great reads that I can recommend to anyone interested in game design.
intelligent investor is a great read, but for some more in depth stuff i like security analysis
There's one way to consistently make a lot of money investing over a long period of time. It has worked repeatedly for nearly a century, producing numerous billionaires. It's the only approach that enables someone outside of Wall Street to consistently beat the market and get rich (over many years).
The Intelligent Investor by Benjamin Graham
https://www.amazon.com/Intelligent-Investor-Definitive-Investing-Essentials/dp/0060555661
Security Analysis by Benjamin Graham
https://www.amazon.com/Security-Analysis-Foreword-Buffett-Editions/dp/0071592539
Margin of Safety, by Seth Klarman [pdf of book, out of print]
https://files.leopolds.com/books/Margin.of.Safety.1st.Edition.1991.Klarman.pdf
Buffett: The Making of an American Capitalist by Roger Lowenstein
https://www.amazon.com/Buffett-American-Capitalist-Roger-Lowenstein/dp/0812979273
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits by Phil Fisher
https://www.amazon.com/Common-Stocks-Uncommon-Profits-Writings/dp/0471445509
Ações mesmo. Mas sem participar de fundos coletivos, e comprando empresas boas, sub cotadas em bear markets e sair fora delas quando der bull, quando todo mundo quer comprar. É menos difícil pro investidor individual fazer isso do que os grandes fundos, pois os pequenos podem se posicionar (e tbm sair fora) com mais agilidade. À medida que o patrimônio cresce além dos milhões, a fricção aumenta junto. Os 15% não seriam um retorno consistente, mas sim uma média de desempenho dividida entre o período total.
The Intelligent Investor
Security Analysis
Daqui uns 15 anos eu volto pra avisar se deu certo.
You're still being quite general, but I'll answer the best I can.
To be honest, as a trader I mainly traded OTC (Over-The-Counter) interest rate products that are not available to trade for retail investors, so you learn most of it on the job, other than pricing and valuing the products themselves, which appears on textbooks, but nothing that can be of much use for a retail investor.
Each financial product is different, so although there are some "transferable" skills, it truly depends on what you are trading, but again, trading is very short-termist so I wouldn't recommend it to a retail investor in spite of all those guru books that sell you that you can be a successful day trader, you can't: you'll just bleed losses, bid-ask spreads, brokerage fees and short-term taxes, plus again there is no way you'll beat full-time pros.
In terms of learning Economics and Finance, I'm afraid I'm of little help because I learned it all during my degree and masters at a very in-depth, specialised level, purely through textbooks. Also, a lot of it is very theoretical and not sure if of much use for an amateur level, or for real life, for that matter.
I did watch quite recently a video by billionaire hedge fund manager Ray Dalio, which explains quite well and succintly how the economy works. For those readers that don't speak English very well, if you go into Bridgewater's youtube account, you can find the video in different languages.
If what you refer to is equity investing, but not anything related to the Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH), I quite sympathise with the value investing approach. In that sense, books I'd recommend are:
Oh, and you'll have to learn public company accounting and valuation inside out, as well as get used to reading annual and quarterly company accounts (amongst other things) on a regular basis.
The info sidebar of /r/SecurityAnalysis is probably a good starting point.
Anyhow, the real and only way to learn about investing is to get down to it and put some money on the line. Books will only get you so far.
Two books that would be pretty good starting points (and a 3rd book for extra measure):
The first book you wanna pay special attention to Chapter 8 and Chapter 20, but read it ALL:
https://www.amazon.com/intelligent-investor-book-practical-counsel/dp/0060115912/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1557126552&sr=1-7
This one is more detialed
https://www.amazon.com/Security-Analysis-Foreword-Buffett-Editions/dp/0071592539/ref=pd_rhf_eeolp_s_pd_crcd_0_4/143-0942938-6072313?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0071592539&pd_rd_r=98601957-062a-4d2b-b4e5-10c14a0c824b&pd_rd_w=EmVty&pd_rd_wg=tAgWo&pf_rd_p=36c62ed8-9692-4b91-aa9a-c4b3b85cc759&pf_rd_r=XJ4NTWQMJ5KPRKTHCEZT&psc=1&refRID=XJ4NTWQMJ5KPRKTHCEZT
This third book isn't "reuired reading" but wouldn't be a bad idea to read---it teaches a healthy degree of cynicism about the things you read in financial reports and the things CEOs will tell you on TV---like CNBC etc
https://www.amazon.com/Fooling-People-Complete-Updated-Epilogue/dp/0470481544/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=david+einhorn&qid=1557126776&s=books&sr=1-2
GOOD LUCK!!!!!
> So what you've stated there again sounds different to the "real" neoliberalism I've had explained to me by others who claim to be neoliberals. This probably because a lot of different things could be seen as "the new liberalism".
Indeed, but how did those you talked to differ from what I said? The views I espoused are pretty consistent with other self-identifiers; see the Adam Smith Institute and Charles Peters.
> Where is it written down what a "real neoliberal" is?
There is no "written" definition because it's not an academic term. As your observing, it means different things to different people, and as with an analysis on "Marxists" you're going have to decide who to listen to. But in none of your character portrayals did you study someone who identified as a Neoliberal or advocated for the ideology.
> As I understand it, the founding text is Road to Serfdom - which reads as pretty libertarian to me.
Neoliberalism goes back to the 1930s and predates Hayek, but he's not a bad place to start. Other good historical texts:
Unlike some other ideologies, Neoliberalism changes because we try to stay up to date with both social justice and economics, which means admitting some of our past beliefs were wrong. This is why conflating us with libertarians is unfair: we don't hold the same beliefs in market divinity as they do.
>The label neoliberal itself, in its modern meaning at least, I understand appeared in the 80s as a means to criticise the policies of structural adjustment, but tracing the ideas back to Hayek and similar thinkers. Therefore isn't neoliberalism whatever those scholars were observing (market fundamentalism), as opposed to something else that later decided "hey no, we're neoliberalism!"
The people who employed "neoliberal" had no qualifications to do so. For example, a book that's becoming more common in Critical Theory discourse is David Harvey's A Brief History of Neoliberalism, which is similar to your podcast but makes the same mistakes. Harvey is a marxist anthropologist writing a book about economics, political science, and history, none of which he has any formal training in. "Neoliberal" does not appear in economic or polisci literature because it's not an academic term.
A good analogue for this is to consider "capitalism." The term is rarely if ever used in economics because of how bloated, charged, and imprecise it is. An anthropologist may write a book about European colonialism and all of its destructive, racist madness, and then ultimately conclude that "capitalism is bad", when really this had less to do with an economic system and more to with the age-old process of imperial extraction.
> What you describe just sounds like economic liberalism.
It is, but with social liberalism baked in.
> If the term neoliberalism is broadly understood by most to mean market fundamentalism... Well isn't that it's definition then?
> Again I sympathise that the "real neoliberalism" for one set of supposed neoliberals has been warped by another bunch of supposed neoliberals (see also - the various groups who claim to be the "real Marxists"). The debate could go on forever.
> If almost all people understand neoliberalism to be market fundamentalism, and those who claim to be neoliberal all seem to disagree on what it is, well I'm inclined to go with the most popular definition.
Who is this "other group" you speak of? I'd be very interested to know who you talked with that self-identified as neoliberal before embarking on your project.
The reason why this is important is because of a fundamental query in your presentation: who is your target audience? People who lobby 'neoliberal' as a pejorative already agree with you. Academics won't take this seriously. Neoliberals of my stripe would be offended. Is your intent just to criticize bad economic policies and ascribe them to an ideology? Even this is bizarre because you posit economic liberalism as inherently bad too. I almost feel like it would be useful to go over your podcast line by line, but that would tax not only your patience but your trust in me.
I think r/socialism got a lot of newbies today from the r/bestof link.
I'm highly critical of capitalism, and as far as that goes I was very interested in this sub. Now that I see people will be downvoted and condescended to for offering an opposing viewpoint, I can't say I really plan on spending more time here. Shame on you, r/socialism.
u/todoloco16 gave a pretty good response. My only addition to his comment is a little more subjective. I'm of the opinion that there are many forms of poverty. Determining human happiness based on GDP or GNP is an enormous oversimplification. That viewpoint certainly would assume a poor quality of life in many places where ethnographic accounts show us quite the opposite. I'm not sure if that was the case for China, but honestly I would be surprised if the average rural villager (excluding factors such as war) was happier than her grandfather. If someone is more informed than myself on early 20th century China, please jump in.
I base some of these opinions on Harvey's Brief History of Neoliberalism, where one chapter specifically covers the last 50 years of Chinese economics. In his view, people are suffering much greater abuses (such as working repeated short term jobs with excruciating work weeks, being promised pay, and never receiving it before a factory closes) now than when people collectively owned land and capital (which did have it's own problems, but again, they weren't pseudo slaves as in the current system).
the danger is that the dude isn't accessible to rational argument. you could give him some homework, and if he does his readings in good faith maybe he'll change his mind. chances are your buddy doesn't think of himself as a racist, so maybe some basic understanding of history will help him out.
but again, probably he's going to feel very skeptical about this whole thing, so he's not really going to engage with the arguments properly. and the problem with wanting to attack things that are systemic is that sometimes you need to look at a large amount of evidence before you start thinking that there's a system pulling the strings.
i think the way people change their minds is by surrounding themselves with folks that have a certain viewpoint -- over time you begin to understand it much better than just by swallowing a bunch of books. essentially if all your friends think that X is a given, you're much more likely to believe X than if half your friends are desperately trying to convince you.
if he's starting to hate his job, and if he's starting to hate capitalism, then that's something that's directly accessible to him, that's something you can work with. stupid example: get him into street fight. they mostly talk about the pains of working minimum wage but it's from a clear left perspective, so they point out the way the system fucks black people whenever the subject does come up. more robustly, try getting him into left spaces (as long as he's not going to be a dick to others there). over time, he'll get to interact with racial minorities on the receiving end of this fuckery, and begin to understand that "hey, if all these folks agree with me that my boss is a dick they're probably on my side, so maybe i should listen to them about black people".
There is so much more that I could get into with all of this, but I have work in 2 hours and this has already gone on far too long. If you somehow made it all the way through this and are still not convinced that the original post is a massive misrepresentation of what is actually going on in Venezuela right now, the only thing I can do is point you to some of my sources so that you can hopefully get a more articulate deconstruction of what's going on in a less-clunky format.
The main sources I cribbed from with this post are:
I highly recommend anyone who's interested in the history of Venezuela to read the literature. The history of the people there is not only fascinating but deeply profound, in my opinion. If anyone has more specific questions I'm not against answering them here, but I you'd be much better off just looking into it yourself. Understanding what's happening in Latin America is key to understanding the flow of capital worldwide and you can't be an informed political actor without educating yourself on the dynamics of modern capitalism.
Love & Solidarity.
I'd personally start with a few videos, then work your way into literature. The literature I suggest below is intentionally easy to read.
Literature by Marx and Engels:
I guess somewhere around here you can start reading Marx and Engel's other works, with Capital being your priority. Where you go after that is up to you.
Some interesting literature:
> From the wikipedia article
To someone who likes to say what others do and do not understand: you don't understand what constitutes a reliable source. Even Investopedia would have provided a more concise, accurate definition: "Neoliberalism is a policy model of social studies and economics that transfers control of economic factors to the private sector from the public sector."
In a North American context, the nomenclature is somewhat difficult to reconcile with the rest of the world. Neoliberalism is more closely associated what is referred to as "neoconservativism" as in the "neocons" of George W. Bush's presidency. We're probably going to see it again under Trump.
Here is a book that will get you started on what neoliberalism means inside and outside of North America. However, familiarizing yourself with the Washington Consenus will give an idea of what mainstream American economists have advocated domestically and globally for the last half-century. The associated "Structural Adjustment Programs" (SAPs) have been implemented more easily outside North America, as they were conditions attached to IMF and World Bank loans (the conditions have since been largely abandoned because they've been empirically shown to not work). But there has also been less resistance since political masters in developing countries have been more easily bought (or supported by the UK and the US in other ways).
EDIT: including sources.
Anyone with a serious interest in what neoliberalism is would benefit by reading David Harvey's A Brief History of Neoliberalism.
https://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Neoliberalism-David-Harvey/dp/0199283273
Neoliberal policies favor markets and capital, gut social programs, and privatize EVERYTHING.
The book The Checklist Manifesto talks about how the air travel industry overhauled itself after some high-profile, avoidable disasters. It's fascinating, as is the rest of the book.
On the whole the book basically asks "How do normal people, who make normal mistakes, manage to do incredibly complex things, nearly perfectly, nearly every time?"
https://www.amazon.com/Checklist-Manifesto-How-Things-Right/dp/0312430000
We all want to do well, but we also all want others to think we're doing well. That's why it seems like everyone else is doing better: they're trying to make it look like that. They're managing their image. It's like Facebook, when your friends are only posting the good things that happen to them, and it looks like you're the only one anything bad happens to.
Unless you're a celebrity, you are your own harshest critic.
> Medical school, for me, has been a never-ending cycle of wanting so badly to be better, trying, failing, and barely making it to the next course.
Why did you keep trying each time you failed or nearly failed? What made you think it would be any different the next time? Here's my theory: because you believe you have the potential to succeed. That's the paradox of ADHD, the blessing and the curse: it's not that you try, fail, and assume you're just not capable. You try, fail, and believe that you failed despite being capable. This is the dangerous part - if you didn't fail due to lack of skill or knowledge or innate intelligence, you and others assume it must be a character flaw. This is why people with ADHD are often labelled "lazy" instead of "stupid." People look at a person with dyslexia, and it looks like they're trying hard but still failing, so they assume that person is stupid. People look at a person with ADHD, and it looks like they're doing fine for a bit, but then they just get distracted and stop trying - if only they had a bit of self-discipline, they'd do fine. So they assume that person is lazy and weak-willed.
Hidden in all these negative perceptions is an important but easy to miss fact: if it's not clear that someone has the potential to succeed at something, then people don't blame them for failing or wanting to give up. It's clear that you have incredible potential. You're in med school at 24 despite having ADHD and depression. You've accomplished a lot, and you know you can succeed. That's why you're hard on yourself.
> I have to believe it will get better. I don't believe it right now but I have to eventually.
There's a huge difference between not believing you can, and not believing you will. If you don't believe you can do something, then it's very easy to say, "why bother trying?" It's logical, if a bit defeatist. It's how many people live their lives, content because they don't think they could do better. If you don't believe you will do something, that just means you could do it, but when you try to picture yourself doing it, you see it just not happening, for some reason or another, and you judge your hypothetical self. This is a symptom of depression. All you can think of are the times you failed in the past, not the times you succeeded - in getting through high school, in getting through college, in getting into med school, in meeting your SO and maintaining a relationship with them (That's hard for people with ADHD).
Because you know that you didn't fail because you just aren't smart enough or clever enough, that means there was just something wrong with your approach. Try looking at one of your recent mis-steps from a detached, analytical point of view. Instead of treating it like evidence of some weakness of character, treat it like a symptom, because that's what it is. Put on your medical professional hat and scientifically examine what went wrong, as if it's someone else's experience.
Imagine a person recently diagnosed with diabetes. Maybe a kid with type 1, or an adult with type 2. They try to keep in mind their disease, but sometimes they get caught up in the moment, maybe at a restaurant with their friends, or too absorbed in their work or school, and they crash or spike. It's not that they're stupid, and it's not that they lacked the willpower to constantly mind their levels. It just happens sometimes, because people tend to assume they're normal, and it's easy to forget when everyone else can do something "the normal way" that you can't. The wrong approach is to tell that diabetic person that they can never participate in "normal person" things, that they must always eat at home from carefully prepared special boring meals and must choose a job, a life that makes it easy to manage their diabetes. No. You work with that person to help them come up with strategies that let them live life by dealing with their illness as just another part of life. It's just a slightly different way of doing things. Maybe they carry a little finger-pricker thing and some emergency glucose in their purse or manly man bag when they're out with friends, and they set up subtle reminders on their phone to check themselves every so often at work or at school. With the right support system, they can get used to it and live life with relatively little overhead.
Like that diabetic person, you can't pretend you can approach life exactly the same way someone without ADHD can. Someone else can say, "Oh, I'll remember that," and have a chance of actually remembering. Us, not so much. But that doesn't mean you're doomed to a life of forgetting important things and your license expiring or your rent being late. It means every time you get a bill, you ALWAYS put 5 different reminders in your phone to beep at you before it's due. It means when you get some important paperwork, you leave it paperclipped to your keys, or taped to your bathroom mirror, somewhere you CANNOT miss it. It means when a patient mentions a symptom, you write it down, and when your boss verbally asks you to do something, you ask them to please send you an email and then you write that shit down in two different places right then and there because you carry at least 3 moleskines or folded-up pieces of loose leaf or just ANY paper you can write on, and at least 5 pens with ink on your person AT ALL TIMES, and then you put a reminder in your phone or your Outlook or both to remind yourself to do that thing. It means that you take the Checklist Manifesto to the n^th degree. It also means you plan every day, and schedule time to plan every day, and set multiple reminders that hey, it's planning time for the next 15 minutes and hey, that's enough planning for today, you're getting bogged down in details.
There are so many of these little coping mechanisms mentioned in various books and various threads in this subreddit that it seems overwhelming. But once you have one in place, it melts into the background, and it's just there helping you, and if it doesn't work, you're not a failure, it's just not for you, and you try another, because it's worth it to have a life that's not consumed by your ADHD. You can be in crisis mode, or you can be in management mode, and once you can get into management mode, it just gets easier and easier. You don't remove the structure you created for yourself any more than a diabetic person would stop checking themselves and assume they know what low or high feels like; you just optimize your systems for your life.
Here's a good book on the subject: "The Checklist Manifesto" by surgeon Atul Gawande (M.D., M.P.H., FACS). He's written a lot on the subject of process and environment and the role they play in medicine and elsewhere.
The long and short of it is that checklists and repetition have huge positive influences on outcomes.
I'll only advise on the "how to write checklists" portion, by recommending this really excellent read: The Checklist Manifesto
Seriously. I thought I was good at writing procedures until I read this book. Now I'm good at writing procedures.
>After a few dates we realised that we still love eachother and that not maintaining our relationship was the biggest mistake we made.
On this point specifically - I ran into a similar problem many years ago. Like 6 months into my marriage, the honeymoon period was over, as they say. All relationships have their ups & downs & it's super easy to feel like quitting when you feel like there's nothing left. We talked it over & looked at the situation & realized that we weren't dating each other anymore. When you're married, you're just kind of there at home all the time, so why go out & why put any effort into anything? The chase was over, you got what you wanted, end of story, right?
As it turns out, actively doing things together is what helps you bond & grow (this is only obvious once the lightbulb goes off in your brain, haha!), whether it's dating or moving in or fixing up an old house or having kids or whatever. The core thing that we realized was that we weren't actively planning out any kind of one-on-one time, so - as dumb as this sounds - we setup a weekly appointment for a date. We were both very busy at the time with our respective jobs, but we made it a point to carve out a date night every week. We alternated who planned it, so it was my job to figure out dinner & an activity every other week. That way, the job load was split, we both had to put some effort into doing something fun together, and it was a surprise what we'd be doing together on the weeks when I didn't have to plan.
Sounds pretty lame, but it worked AWESOME! It also opened my eyes to the concept of "plot vs. story", especially regarding checklists - checklists were the plot, the required parts, the engine - to keep the story moving; checklists were NOT the purpose or meaning of the story! It's super easy to get those confused, because using things like a personal productivity system requires interaction with the system's controls on our part, and we get duped into feeling like the system is the point, not the output of the system, which is getting stuff done & enjoying stuff!
Being kind of a free-range artist growing up, things like checklists & schedules were mentally & emotionally extremely demotivating for me. Mainly, they felt super restrictive. I didn't like feeling tied down to a schedule or locking out my options. As it turns out, in practice, that is not the case at ALL! As it turns out, living by checklists & alarm reminders is like having a secret superpower! One of the books that really cemented this concept into my brain was The Checklist Manifesto by Atul Gaw:
Adopting checklists with triggers across the spectrum of my life & my responsibilities proved to be a real gamechanger in several ways:
I lived an incredibly reactive life before adopting a checklist-based personal productivity system; using checklists allowed me to be proactive & actively decide not only what I wanted to invite into my life, but how I wanted to experience things & what kind of results I got. The system we implemented in our marriage was pretty simple & outwardly boring, but had profound impacts on our relationship, because we weren't just on reactive cruise-control anymore, we were proactive about taking adult control over our lives. I've since applied these basic concepts to pretty much every aspect of my life:
The list goes on & on & on. We have to be aware of what all of our personal situations are, and then we have to decide how we want to tackle each situation, and the way we implement that, after the decision-making is done, is via trigger-driven checklists (in my case, mostly via smartphone alarms). This creates a shift from "bah, I have to do this" to "what do I have the opportunity to do right now?". For example, when I was in school, having things broken down like that into step-by-step lists of next-action items mean that I suddenly had the opportunity to knock out my homework right away & get it done early, rather than procrastinating & putting it off day after day & letting it build up to horrific levels of work, lol.
So I had a very distorted view of what checklists really were & what they really meant in my life. I thought they were restrictive, when in reality, it was my own poor, non-productive behavior that was trapping me in crappy situations, like having to stay up late to do homework because I goofed off first & being tired the next day, or having my relationship drift apart because I wasn't treating it like a living thing & feeding & caring for it on a regular basis. All of which simply boil down to checklists with alarms, haha!
there are 3-4 books that I keep at least 2 copies on-hand of, because they are informative and I like giving them to people with no expectation of giving them back.
Ok this sounds like I am talking about religious texts - they aren't. They are:
- Normal Accidents: Living with High-Risk Technologies
- The Checklist Manifesto: How to Get Things Right
- The Bogleheads' Guide to Investing
- The Little Book of Common Sense Investing: The Only Way to Guarantee Your Fair Share of Stock Market Returns (Little Books. Big Profits)
​
The first two are must-reads for engineers working in any kind of system, be it computers, electronics, mechanical, or people systems (project management, etc)
​
The last 2 I tend to recommend to people who think that reasonable investment awareness and decisions requires a lot of specialized knowledge and attention
Atul Gawande - Better, Complications, and checklist manifesto.
Sandeep Jauhar - Intern
Jerome Groopman - How doctor's think
Michael Collins - Hot lights, cold steel and Blue collar, blue scrubs
Samuel Shem - House of God
Brian Eule - Match day
Paul Ruggieri - Confessions of a surgeon
Emily R. Transue - On call
Okay so I was in the same position you are in right now. I wanted to read as much as I could because I truly found it fascinating. I read these books and I'm glad I did. These books just give you an idea of how hard doctors work and what the life of a doctor is like. Another recommendation is Anthony Bourdain's Kitchen Confidential. It has nothing to do with medicine but I read it and I think you should too. He talks about the life of a chef and how perfection and long long hours are demanded of him. I feel like there are some overlaps between the different settings. Chef/doctor and Restaurant/hospital. Anyways, This list should last you a long time. Hope you enjoy.
Edit: Added links.
Well, if you're actively working on Mr. Smith's case or file or whatever, I would do the two minute task. As I said, if it's important to log your progress for a project, I would definitely do it. If you have a template that you use for many customers, I would personally create a checklist and then attach a copy of that checklist to every person's file. That way you can see whether or not you've done X or Y for any given customer. I'm a huge proponent of checklists. If you're interested, I would seriously recommend The Checklist Manifesto.
> but there is no standard thing for surgery.
It's "below" many doctors. But this is not a new concept. See the book "The Checklist Manifesto."
It is estimated that at around 44,000 to 98,000 people a year die from preventable medical errors. Imagine an airliner filled with people going down in the French Alps on a weekly basis. Don't you think that everyone would put their foot down and do something about it?
But for some reason doctors and the medical establishments they belong to are given a complete pass.
Interest rates have been mostly dropping over the last 30 years, for whatever reason. That means the "risk free" rate of return has been dropping, to near 0. Which means the return on newly-bought competing investments should also drop very low. Which means stock prices paid by newcomers should rise very high. Which is what's happened.
Now, if interest rates were to rise dramatically, I think we'd have a crash, like we did in October 1987. The old classic book, A Random Walk Down Wallstreet explains my reasoning, using 1987 as an example.
Listen to this:
https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2019/01/23/688018907/episode-688-brilliant-vs-boring
Read this:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0393352242/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_9PSjDbKQQF2MQ
A Random Walk Down Wall Street. This book should be required reading in high school. It's super simple, doesn't overly complicate investing, and is the one thing people just don't talk about enough. We should all have a certain amount of financial literacy.
maybe give "a random walk down wallstreet" a read. It's written in a way that you can fairly understand it without a background in econ.
https://www.amazon.com/Random-Walk-down-Wall-Street/dp/0393352242
Random Walk Down Wall Street
Yeah completely understandable, it's not too complicated, but from an outsiders perspective can look daunting. I can't really recommend any specific financial advisors, but if you have the time to do some reading I can recommend a few things that will help you out. A Random Walk down Wall Street and The Intelligent Investor are great, easy to read introductions to value investing, while this post on /r/AusFinance gives some pretty straightforward and practical advice.
While its not the advice you're looking for right now, do consider it as it may help save you thousands of dollars in the long run.
It boils down to the fact that game studios, especially the ones that are owned by larger parent companies, are under pressure to hit deadlines. Game development is a business, and studios have financial goals to hit to justify investments in what they're doing. Most video games are sold on marketing and hype anyway, and final builds are usually delivered for distribution well in advance in release day. Generally teams expect to have day-1 patches to fix those bugs, but in many case then can't all be addressed day one. In those cases they triage the largest bugs, and fix smaller ones in later patches.
[Blood, Sweat, and Pixels: The Triumphant, Turbulent Stories Behind How Video Games Are Made]
(https://www.amazon.com/Blood-Sweat-Pixels-Triumphant-Turbulent/dp/0062651234) is a pretty great read, and give some interesting insight into what it takes to get a game out the door.
Adding on to this, Jason Scherier's book, "Blood, Sweat and Pixels" expands on and includes many more of these stories.
Blood, Sweat, and Pixels! I've heard great things about this book from a friend of mine - a good behind the scenes look at how some games are made (or sometimes fail).
>Fine here's some math, Hellblade took 10 million to make and has only sold roughly 1 million copies, so the game sold at $30 would have made 30 million minus the 10 million and minus roughly 10-15% cut that Sony, Microsoft and Steam take from each sale. So that's close to a 20 million dollar profit, nothing crazy and nothing that would have Microsoft a ton of money to buy.
You still didn't answer my question. You merely did back of the envelope math of potential profit.
Let me repeat it for you:
> What is much (or not) to you?
..................
>Not really, there's a load of marketing talk but State of Decay 2 has fallen off the face of the Xbox Live's most played games at the time of writing this and before you start crying for a source here you go, if it's there by the time you see this maybe it'll have changed but I can't imagine by much.
Yet it exceeded MS expectations. Of course anyone can have "higher" expectation and proclaim it low. Heck, you don't have any hard numbers on that list. That is why it is called "relative".
> Not just critics but also developers,
What is that supposed to mean?
>No that isn't just an opinion, if you were to say the same thing in a court of law you'd be laughed out of the room.
The only one being laughed at is you right now. You don't know what contract work is.
>The same guy who said who said Sea of Thieves would be "2018's PUBG"? Sure looks like a completely unbiased journalist to me?
Yup, an opinion makes him unbiased. /s
Goes in line with your other "I can't imagine" things.
>No I'm pretty sure they could have sued for embezzlement if there was any, a similar situation happened with Sega and Gearbox with Alien Colonial Marines but Sega couldn't sue because technically Gearbox fulfilled there end of the deal, they completed the game and released the game on the agreed release date but Scalebound was never finished.
I don't know what to tell you man. If you told that in a court of law, you'd get perplexing looks of confusion at the stupidity of that statement. Video games are delivered by milestones. Look it up, Mr I know how it all works.
>So like I said, there's a clear line of communication between the Devs and Publishers and they're someone to ensure deadlines are met.
That has literally nothing to do with how much a studio and MS negotiates how much they are going to pay. A studio can literally say, I want 100 million or 10 million, and MS can ya, nor nay. Having a producer has nothing to do with that.
>You're one of the smuggest, most condescending people yet you're pathetically misinformed about basic steps in game design.
No, I just met somebody that makes a shit ton of assumptions and can't imagine any other way. It speaks more about lack of imagination than anything else.
>Source them.
Try this book, it's a great read: https://www.amazon.com/Blood-Sweat-Pixels-Triumphant-Turbulent/dp/0062651234
>Something presented without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. Until you can provide something besides a flimsy rumor, I don't believe it.
Evidence is the rumor. Believe it or not, up to you. That said, I can say that about everything else you have said.
For instance, prove that Platinum Games spending money they earn on contract work on other projects is embezzlement. I'm waiting.
In fact, prove that GaaS makes all games bad and while you are at it, prove that the cost of purchasing Ninja Theory is not a lot.
>Plenty of games have tons of planned content and features axed and since Microsoft was willing to ax full video games in mid-development, it's not outside the realm of possibility for them to ax a gimmicky TV tie in.
Then you are thorougly confused about how video game development work. The TV tie in is a design pillar of the game.
>Again just saying "Your opinion" does invalidate my statement. Also I can fathom it, but it's literally the least likely scenario.
It does, because it is just an opinion. Not a universal fact. I can have an opinion as well. I like yellow. What color do you like?
https://www.resetera.com/threads/microsoft-studios-partners-current-and-future-landscape.1061/page-465#post-7839552
>Nobody refuted him? It's pretty easy to refute his Scalebound claim.
Please do so. Your opinion doesn't count nor does it serve as proof or evidence.
>So because people like these games and actively indulge in these practices make these practices any less scummy and predatory?
Yes, because they by and large don't complain. In fact, many of them actively embrace it. Just because you think it is predatory doesn't mean it is. We already established though, you thought RBS implemented it well.... Are you now backtracking and claiming it is predatory and hence bad?
> Oh I guess you just gave a pretty good argument for justifying most atrocities throughout history.
Depends on what you consider atrocity.....
>Let me repeat it for you:
> What is much (or not) to you?
You're complaining about me being vague yet you're asking vague questions. To ME 20 million would be a fuckton of money but to a company that spends 10 million on making a game, 20 million is not a lot.
>Yet it exceeded MS expectations. Of course anyone can have "higher" expectation and proclaim it low. Heck, you don't have any hard numbers on that list. That is why it is called "relative".
What the hell were Microsoft's expectations exactly? Apparently Quantum Break exceeded expectations but it didn't warrant a sequel.
> What is that supposed to mean?
That's developers also share these self evident criteria for a good game. No developer sets to purposely make a buggy, repetitive, shallow game. Also don't come at me with that low tier shit like "Just because you can't imagine, doesn't mean it doesn't happen"
>The only one being laughed at is you right now. You don't know what contract work is.
Coming from the idiot who doesn't know about game development.
>Yup, an opinion makes him unbiased. /s
Having such a blatantly wrong opinion is a clear case for bias, Sea of Thieves was clearly going to turn out to be a No Man's Sky situation although that doesn't mean it won't be a better game in like 2 years.
>I don't know what to tell you man. If you told that in a court of law, you'd get perplexing looks of confusion at the stupidity of that statement. Video games are delivered by milestones. Look it up, Mr I know how it all works.
Dude are you fucking stupid? Aliens Colonial Marines met it's milestones so Sega couldn't sue where as Scalebound didn't meaning Microsoft could at least attempt legal action if they believed something fishy was going on.
>That has literally nothing to do with how much a studio and MS negotiates how much they are going to pay. A studio can literally say, I want 100 million or 10 million, and MS can ya, nor nay. Having a producer has nothing to do with that.
We weren't talking about negotiating 10s of millions dollars though, we were talking about Microsoft giving money to studios (like platinum) to spend on games they paid to make and I essentially said that Microsoft would have someone ensure that doesn't happen by ensuring deadlines are being met and that funds are being used properly.
>No, I just met somebody that makes a shit ton of assumptions and can't imagine any other way. It speaks more about lack of imagination than anything else.
Assumptions really? Christ you're a smug prick.
>Try this book, it's a great read: https://www.amazon.com/Blood-Sweat-Pixels-Triumphant-Turbulent/dp/0062651234
LOL you throw a bitchfit over me telling you to Google something and link me a book? Get the fuck out of here.
>Evidence is the rumor. Believe it or not, up to you. That said, I can say that about everything else you have said.
The rumour is hardly evidence.
>For instance, prove that Platinum Games spending money they earn on contract work on other projects is embezzlement. I'm waiting.
Look up the definition of embezzlement.
>In fact, prove that GaaS makes all games bad and while you are at it, prove that the cost of purchasing Ninja Theory is not a lot.
Hahahaha okay so I've brought up valid reasoning why it's logical to assume that the Ninja Theory's acquisition wasn't a lot and your response is.... "Nah huh prove it"
>Then you are thorougly confused about how video game development work. The TV tie in is a design pillar of the game.
Jesus Christ you're dense, it's might be a pillar but it doesn't mean that it can't be removed. It literally had little effect on the actual game
>It does, because it is just an opinion. Not a universal fact. I can have an opinion as well. I like yellow. What color do you like?
Christ you're so fucking petty and dumb. It's like saying "I can't imagine eating shit and Liking it" and you were to say "It's just you're opinion", people probably do eat shit and like it but it's an UNLIKELY SCENARIO.
>Please do so. Your opinion doesn't count nor does it serve as proof or evidence.
It's not just an opinion, it's a logical argument based on the deduction of the available facts.
>Yes, because they by and large don't complain. In fact, many of them actively embrace it. Just because you think it is predatory doesn't mean it is. We already established though, you thought RBS implemented it well.... Are you now backtracking and claiming it is predatory and hence bad?
Already answered that in my other comment.
>Depends on what you consider atrocity.....
Jesus fucking Christ, how about slavery, genocide, systematic racism etc. None of these things can happen without a massive group of people "embracing" these actions as moral.
Try this Blood, Sweat & Pixels
Take "Blood, Sweat, and Pixels" for example, I just purchased a new copy from Amazon and on the publisher info page inside it says "1st Edition", and the "National Bestseller" text is worked into the cover graphic in a rather integral way. Does that mean some people have the same exact copy just without that text?
Edit: here's the link
Here you go, link for you:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Blood-Sweat-Pixels-Troubles-Triumphs/dp/0062651234/
£12.xx
Blood, Sweat, and Pixels
https://www.amazon.com/Blood-Sweat-Pixels-Triumphant-Turbulent/dp/0062651234/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1504183877&sr=8-1&keywords=jason+schreier
Do a tonne of reading. A lot of things are US based but the principles apply to Canada too. Read the investing for beginners info at about.com to get a grasp. Joshua Kennon is a pretty smart guy when it comes to investing and business but he really just follows the principles of Benjamin Graham (Warren Buffet's mentor). Security Anaylsis is very good as well as The Intelligent Investor.
You mean this book? https://www.amazon.com/Security-Analysis-Foreword-Buffett-Editions/dp/0071592539/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1474598387&sr=8-1&keywords=security+analysis
A guy I know recommends this one but I'm not sure if he's read the book you recommended: https://www.amazon.com/Intelligent-Investor-Definitive-Investing-Essentials/dp/0060555661/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1474598469&sr=8-3&keywords=security+analysis
>I’m 20 right now with 1.5M in savings.
You have a great head start compared to most people! Don't squander the money. You'll realize 1.5M isn't that big soon enough, if you haven't already.
>While I really do appreciate the groundbreaking and insightful concepts that he introduces in his books, I feel like it doesn’t specifically teach you how to invest especially if you are an absolute beginner
Yes, I noticed this too but there was one crucial lesson he taught in the book that people miss - cashflow management. What did you learn about cashflow management?
Don't underestimate that lesson. It's literally the key to becoming and staying wealthy. It's probably more important than learning how to analyze a company's financial statement, forecast price movement, etc.
Once you feel like you're ready, go and study the different methods for analyzing a company. I would suggest reading this book: Security Analysis and this. Those two books will teach you exactly what you're trying to figure out now in terms of "learning to invest".
Keep learning, don't stop growing.
Start With Why [Simon Sinek]
48 Laws of Power [Robert Greene] (33 Strategies of War, Art of Seduction)
The 50th Law [Curtis James Jackson]
Tipping Point:How Little Things Can Make a Difference and Outliers: The story of Succes [Malcolm Gladwell]
The Obstacle is the Way, Ego is the Enemy [Ryan Holiday] (stoicism)
[Tim Ferris] (actually haven't read any of his books, but seems to know a way to use social media, podcast, youtube)
Get an understanding to finance, economics, marketing, investing [Graham, Buffet], philosophy [Jordan Peterson]
I like to think us/you/business is about personal development, consciousness, observing recognizable patterns in human behavior and historical significance. It's an understanding of vast areas of subjects that connect and intertwine then returns back to the first book you’ve read (Start with Why) and learn what you've read past to present. Business is spectacular, so is golf.
To Add:
Irrationally Predictable:The Hidden Forces that Shape Our Decisions - [Dan Ariely] (marketing)
The Hard Things About Hard Things - [Ben Horowitz] (business management)
Black Privilege: Opportunity Comes to Those Who Create It - [Charlamagne Tha God] (motivation)
The Lean Startup: Use Continuous Innovation to Create Radically Successful Businesses - [Eric Ries]
Zero to One: Notes on Startups, How to Build the Future - [Peter Theil]
Depends on what you're interested in -
Most of my work is in derivatives so would recommend
Those are good starter books and far, far beyond what you'll get out of all three levels of the CFA. There are much more mathematically focused books out there as well.
If you want to get mathy -
This was my first serious finance book in undergrad and I still reference it today.
Fixed Income
I'm probably least strong in the equity space but most people recommend this book (I haven't read it)
Assuming you are not trolling, you can glance through this book, this one or several others. Without knowing how to read financial statements (one of which is a balance sheet), you'll just be speculating on the value of a company.
The best two books anyone worth their salt would recommend are The Intelligent Investor and Security Analysis....in that order.
first: Reminiscences of a Stock Operator by Edwin Lefevre
Next:
Whichever version of http://www.amazon.ca/Security-Analysis-Foreword-Warren-Buffett/dp/0071592539/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1374797721&sr=8-1&keywords=security+analysis
Liar's poker is interesting. Skip wealth of nations in my opinion. I like it, but there are more pressing things to read.
Next, I'd say read this "Options, Futures and Other Derivatives by John C. Hull'
Read Brett Steenbarger's books on managing yourself (enhancing trader performance, and other)
Check out Jeff Augen books on options trading.
next: Trading in the Zone : Maximizing Performance with Focus and Discipline by Ari Kiev
>>>Most importantly, read on different topics.<<<
Read anything by Fabozzi fixed income, mortgages
I had a few in mind, but this was a great help to me: GS summer reading list has great titles: https://www.quantnet.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Goldman-Sachs-Suggested-Reading-List.pdf
Graham, Bill Gross, John Train, Peter Lynch
I really liked The Predators’ Ball and Den of Thieves
Also, consider spending some money and getting one of these courses: http://www.wallstreetprep.com/programs/ (I'm not affiliated with them, but when they were starting out, I got one of the programs on discount, didn't fully persue it, but I found presentations to be very helpful on valuations and LBO introduction.. I imagine they got even better overtime)
Security Analysis.
This one?
Okay, thats the meat of it I suppose. That also answers the other question I was hoping to as vis a vis what is you understanding how dominant political power functions to insulate ideology. All I can say is that in my world you are the dreaded reality of a neo-liberal society. The result of the deconstruction of the individual's democratic influence on politics through their labor or through community solely relying on the spectacle of a sham electoral process, but I don't think you really care what I think.
You may never see it yourself, but I think over the coming years you might get a peak under the curtain of how oppression functions. I guess try talking to people on the otherside? I have witnessed oppression, I've seen state violence with my own eyes so forgive me if I think this way of thinking is not grounded in reality. Here's a parting gift, Some books (and a movie) that will really piss you off.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afBmN7icFRw
(I hope this movie doesn't turn you into a monster)
https://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Ghost-Story-Arundhati-Roy/dp/1608463850
https://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Neoliberalism-David-Harvey/dp/0199283273
Keep doing you, never want to meet you
It was my understanding that neo-liberal economic policies were about dismantling social services, consumer protections, and trade barriers. Thatcher and Reagan led the way in the 80s - the former famously threw down Hayek's The Constitution of Liberty and vowed to break down government services. Clinton continued with NAFTA and welfare reform.
David Harvey wrote a book about it.
David Harvey put a great book out on all aspects of this horrific event, blaming Reagan, Thatcher, Deng and Pinochet. Of course Murdoch was the prime mover of most of it. Called "A Brief History of Neoliberalism". http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Neoliberalism-David-Harvey/dp/0199283273#
Brief History of Neoliberalism by David Harvey. Although it's not specifically about Reagan, the book covers lots of ideas and policies employed since 80s by not only Reagan Administration on large scale. Book was published in 2005 for the first time and it's amazing how almost everything Harvey describes happened during erstwhile macroregional economic crises is again in progress since 2008. Although the late actions were results-wise mushy at best.
>And now even more weird is how Reddit is shifting it toward meaning "(((globalists)))" now.
Afaik Neoliberalism has been synonymous with and considered a direct cause of globalism in economic literature since at least 2005 - see books like this and this. It's also been used similarly by activists for at least as long, see this site from circa 2004.
That said, I've been led to understand it has a very different definition in international relations, so it wouldn't surprise me if it was different in other fields as well.
When are you going to start discussing the issues? I suspect neoliberalism is out of your league, since you don't know appear to know anything about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism
http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Neoliberalism-David-Harvey/dp/0199283273
There is nothing I said by which you can infer I was a neoliberal; further, as I pointed out, Bush and Clinton are both neoliberal in governing ideology, so that's really the angle you wanted to hit on how they're the same.
Looking through your post history, it looks like you quite like the term. If that's the case, might I recommend either Harvey's A Brief History of Neoliberalism or Peck's Constructions of Neoliberal Reason. Of the two, I prefer Harvey. You might also look into Foucault's lectures on biopolitics, he traces neoliberal thought back through the ordoliberals in Germany.
To be clear, I'm not condescending here, if you are actually interested in these ideas, I really do want you to take them up and if you already have, perhaps we could discuss why you think pointing out the previous presidents support Clinton makes one a neoliberal...
OP, please don't just try and pick up Shock Doctrine. It's pretty much a 2x4 of Leftist thought to the face. If you're interested in the class and labor perspective start with something by David Harvey. He's much less... strident. I would suggest Neoliberalism
A brief history
You just keep clowning yourself https://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Neoliberalism-David-Harvey/dp/0199283273
Depends on how old you are.
Checklist Manifesto
interesting as hell read
I mostly do this in my head, but yeah sometimes I make real lists. It's a huge help. Real LPT material. Lists are incredibly useful both in professional life and personal life.
Also, be sure to adapt this idea for your personal style of thinking. You can see in these replies that people have different methods for breaking down large goals into simpler tasks. Figure out what works for you.
Further reading: The Checklist Manifesto
Or listening: NPR interview about The Checklist Manifesto
I just finished reading The Checklist Manifesto (Fantastic, I highly recommend it.) One section details the Miracle on the Hudson and credits it to a synchronized effort of a Team sticking to their checklists. Apparently when Sully and the co-pilot deboarded they looked at each other and said, "Well, that wasn't that bad." The author makes the point that we tend to celebrate lone heroes. The myth of the "master builder." One man has all the information and experience in his head to accomplish a complicated task. When the truth (and more importantly, saving lives) is about teamwork, management, and following a checklist.
nothing you said seemed like a big deal.
i mean, maybe you're a flake, idk. you sound pretty normal to me.
if you want to change it, then start making a list. use a list app like "any do" or something. and just write down what you want to do so you don't forget. get in a habit of doing the list.
read "checklist manifesto" by Atul Gawande
https://www.amazon.com/Checklist-Manifesto-How-Things-Right/dp/0312430000
I just use Excel, the world's most flexible tiny database management system. Work item, due date, assigned to, done date. If the checklist needs other columns, like checked by, it's easy to add them.
Have you read The Checklist Manifesto, by Atul Gawande?
Here's an amazing read on checklists: "The Checklist Manifesto"
http://www.amazon.com/The-Checklist-Manifesto-Things-Right/dp/0312430000
https://www.amazon.com/Checklist-Manifesto-How-Things-Right/dp/0312430000
The surgical industry got the idea of using checklists from the construction industry, which actually has a really good track record historically (there have been a lot more botched surgeries than buildings that fall apart). Source
I probably have 50 or 60 books in the queue, i'm a bit behind!
I finally finished Zero to One by Peter Thiel. It's not a long read, but I've barely had time to read.
Here are some of the books:
I can't even remember what else I have. What do you enjoy reading?
Sorry for the picky correction, but it's A Random Walk Down Wall Street, amazon link here - and it's a great book, really changed my opinions on investing too
Curioso, acabei de o ler há umas duas semanas :P
Para além das sugestões dadas, sugiro também que leias a "continuação" do Rich Dad Poor Dad, o CASHFLOW Quadrant. Estou a lê-lo atualmente e se gostaste do RDPD, também vais gostar.
Um livro que eu também vou ler em breve é o A Random Walk Down Wall Street. Já o comprei, já vi muita gente referir-se a ele como obrigatório para qualquer pessoa que pretenda investir na bolsa.
O conceito de fundos e de acções aplica-se em Portugal tal como em qualquer outro país. E mesmo que não se aplicasse ou os aches demasiado instáveis por cá, nada te impede de investires na bolsa ou em fundos de outros países. O PSI 20 seguiu sempre as tendências do Dow Jones nos últimos 25 anos, de acordo com este gráfico, à exceção dos últimos 5 anos. Muito provavelmente por causa da austeridade / instabilidade nos bancos, diria eu. Mas a economia funciona de igual forma em qualquer lado, a tendência é sempre subir. Pode é demorar mais nalguns casos.
Só por curiosidade, começaste-te a interessar pelo tópico por alguma razão ou com algum objetivo em específico? Podes também procurar blogs de pessoas que tenham objetivos semelhantes, ou que já os tenham inclusive atingido. Costumam ser leituras bastante interessantes. Posso-te sugerir alguns se o teu objetivo for atingir independência financeira o mais rapido possível :P
Check this book out .. definitely helped me a lot starting out!!
A Random Walk down Wall Street: The Time-tested Strategy for Successful Investing https://www.amazon.com/dp/0393352242/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_-7sNyb3CDVQKD
I would advise you to learn more about the history of the stock market, and how difficult it is to beat the market. Books like A Random Walk Down Wall Street will give you a great history of the market.
I personally have a hard and fast rule of never putting more than 10% in a single stock. I'd recommend putting the majority in a retirement account in an S&P 500 index fund, and then using whatever money you're completely OK with losing entirely as a trading account you can go crazy in. :)
This video is a good TL;DR despite the clickbait title.
The Bogleheads' Guide to Investing is a really good, practical book on investing.
A Random Walk down Wall Street: The Time-tested Strategy for Successful Investing is a pretty thorough takedown of stock analysis and picking.
A Random Walk down Wall Street: The Time-tested Strategy for Successful Investing
Bogle On Mutual Funds: New Perspectives For The Intelligent Investor
Here is a random article I found about stock simulators.
How do you like to learn things? There are tons of books, podcasts and blogs about investing. Here are some popular ones or ones that I have read and used
Warren Buffett famously/supposedly read every book in the financial section at the library by age 12--I think the important thing to take from that is you are still young and have tons of free time and aside from starting to invest as soon as you can (you can usually start as soon as you have earned income) you should be investing in yourself...getting good grades, figuring out what you want to do after high school, trying out businesses, learning marketable skills (e.g., coding, good writing skills, good interpersonal skills, good organizational skills, etc).
Good Luck!
I've been reading https://smile.amazon.com/Random-Walk-down-Wall-Street/dp/0393352242 lately and it hammers home how often bubbles and investor lust for quick and easy profits happen in history. It's like we never learn. :-( Hell I'm no better, having been caught up in the Bitcoin craze losing a couple hundred to panic selling.
Don't limit oneself to one's own imagination
https://www.amazon.ca/Art-Deception-Controlling-Element-Security/dp/076454280X
If you're interested, I would recommend reading The Art of Deception. It's written by Kevin Mitnick, who actually spent time in prison for hacking and today runs a security firm that gets paid to probe systems and find their weaknesses. The aspects of hacking are often more social than you might realize.
Kevin Mitnick
http://www.amazon.com/The-Art-Deception-Controlling-Security/dp/076454280X
and no this isnt social engineering, this dinner/party/bar scenario i wouldnt be trying to get you to give me your social security #
http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/076454280X
https://www.amazon.com/Not-So-Wild-West-Economics/dp/0804748543
So I recently read this book https://www.amazon.com/Not-So-Wild-West-Economics/dp/0804748543
Which provides a pretty good case study of anarchism in practice. People moved out west in the United States before governments and despite Hollywood portrayals of the West as a lawless place, people were able to create a number of informal institutions that keep the peace and allowed people to thrive and flourish.
Hmm, this answer doesn't address the conflict of interest the state has in being both the adjudicator and the prosecutor in matters between itself and others. Maybe the undefined ordering principle takes care of it and there's nothing to worry about. Still sounds like a superstition to me, but what do I know coming from the wild west where everybody is literally shooting everyone else all the time? We've gotten really good at treating bullet wounds but it's an exhausting way to live.
I wonder why we don't use this monopoly-taming ordering principle for other things we rely on, like communications systems, airlines, automobile manufacturing, or pet food. Seems like it could eliminate overproduction, get rid of unnecessary competition and bring order to a chaotic market.
https://www.amazon.com/Not-So-Wild-West-Economics/dp/0804748543
>devolve back to the old west
The "Wild West" is a myth propagated by historically inaccurate John Wayne movies. The real old west was painfully boring and quiet (though difficult), which doesn't make for good cinema.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Not-Wild-West-Economics/dp/0804748543
>a few arbitrary laws that we can agree upon.
What if we can't agree upon them?
This is pretty good...
The Not So Wild, Wild West: Property Rights on the Frontier (Stanford Economics & Finance)
http://www.amazon.com/The-Not-Wild-West-Economics/dp/0804748543
If you are interested in resources I would highly recommend the PERC (Property and Environment Research Center). They try to take these ideas from Coase, Ostrom and others and try to apply them to real live environment situations.
> https://www.perc.org/about-us
> here a video with one of the main guys: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBcpal2le2Y
I would also recommend 'The Wild Wild West' a book about resource management in the West of the US before the government arrived. It is exactly what you are looking for.
> https://www.amazon.com/Not-So-Wild-West-Economics/dp/0804748543
I'm reading 'Elinor Ostrom: An Intellectual Biography' right now, that might interest you as well, but its more a overview over here hole research program. A bit more depth would be 'Challenging Institutional Analysis and Development: The Bloomington School'.
If you are more interested in case studies I would look at the individual papers by her and her students. Many of them are comparison between different resource management systems.
You might be also interested in something like 'The Parable of the Bees: Beyond Proximate Causes in Ecosystem Service Valuation'.
I would invite you to extend your research a bit. Collectively shared resources are only part of broader research on stateless interactions. You can also look at the law, law enforcement, court systems, defence and others.
> I'm interested in reading about how different groups have collectively shared resources without the state or market.
I would suggest to that what free market people talk about when they they say 'market' they include these kinds of common property systems. When they talk about a market solutions that includes thinks of that nature.
Not too likely. This well-researched book addresses your question in detail:
https://www.amazon.com/Not-So-Wild-West-Economics/dp/0804748543
If you don't want to drop the coin for it at least read the description to be exposed to a different perspective than is often parroted in mainstream culture (as visible on this thread).
Also, you can find reviews of the book and other content by the authors on the subject via your favorite search engine.
Check out:
The Not So Wild West
The Invisible Hook
The Private Production of Defense
The Myth of the Rational Voter
I would also recommend Robert Nozick's "Tale of the Slave" since it can be youtube'd and is only about 2 minutes long.
If you like long, heavy reading with huge citations Hoppe is great for that. I'm a lighter reader and I prefer the younger authors, hence pirates. Bryan Caplan is a nice in between author. He's deep but can take you down that rabbit hole with him.
RE: Pirates killing and plundering. A standard deal on the high seas was surrender and you'll be spared, dropped off at the next port. Forced conscription happens now. "Shanghai'ing" is alive an well. I agree, it's wrong. Obviously it's not a tenant of anarcho capitalism but that's why the civic appeals to me. It isn't selling utopia.
> Also, the brutal lawlessness of the areas made it untenable
There was no "brutal lawlessness". You sure you are not getting your history from Hollywood westerns? In reality property rights were respected, and crime was lower than in the East. A good proportion of people in the "Wild" West chose not be armed, because crime was so low.
> why would people vote to become states?
It's called "special interest". Some big business interests wanted to bring in the Army to steal lands and resources from Indians, for example. That's an implicit subsidy, if you can get land for free from the Feds instead of having to buy it from it's previous owners (which was what happened before the Feds got involved, fighting with Indians broke out only AFTER that, not before).
I reccommend to you the book The Not So Wild Wild West that I mentioned earlier if you want an accurate picture of property rights institutions and their evolution in the American Frontier. If the whole book is too long for you, you can read the paper that the authors based their book on. I say this because to me it's clear you are basing your arguments on stereotypes on the Frontier, and not on hard facts. The Frontier is a very interesting historical phenomenon, especially if you are interested in this sort of stuff, I bet you'll profit from reading this.
> it was the government ... that ran these courts
No, they were private. The litigants paid the attorneys (if they used their services) and the rest of the judicial system, directly through fees. These courts were not paid for by the Crown. At that time the English Crown handled the criminal law side of things, which was the less often used one, and did not handle torts (and their only punishment was hanging).
> winning a tort case against your liege lord (e.g. land lord + boss + unelected government representative + judge) was impossible
I'm putting it as an example of a judicial system that worked very well for the people it was intended to work, was cheap, privately funded and operated, etc. But of course, it was Medieval Europe, what do you expect? The Lords were conquerors, as all states are. It's no surprise they they gave themselves privileges, which happens even today. That does not mean the system did not work, because it did.
Also, I don't get what you are saying about "landlords" or "bosses". Those are not conqueror, those are simple owners of property. They in general don't have legal privileges, as politicians have. And even in medieval times landlords and employers lost lots of cases thrown against them, as happens today. I don't see why you would complain about them.
Again here you seem to base you arguments and opinions on stereotypes around medieval institutions, and not on hard facts. It's not a good idea to base your worldview on Hollywood flicks.
> The wild west was an invasion, by the U.S., against a group which had no states as we conceive of them.
Not exactly. There's more nuance to that then you seem to know. The first waves of non-native settlers in the West did not invade. The homesteaded, they traded with the natives, etc., but they very seldom fought with the natives, it was an extremely rare thing... until the feds got involved, especially after the War of Southern Secession. You see, stealing and fighting is not profitable nor feasible most all the time, unless you get a State in order to force other people to subsidize the effort against their will. So yes, there was an invasion, but not because of the settlers, they were almost all peaceful, and the ones who weren't were almost always dealt with.
Now, if you are talking about how to deal with a much larger invading force that you can muster, there are few ways to do it, and mostly it can't be done. A State will not help you there, even big States fail to defend against other big States (see WW2 France, Poland, etc., they also fail, and fail more). Having a State is far from being a guarantee against invasion. Sometimes there's nothing you can do. Saying "what would happen if a much bigger State decided to invade?" is like saying "what would happen to your house if someone decided to throw a nuke at it?", yeah, in that case not even turning the house into a bunker would help, bad question.
> Because a part of private property enforcement we haven't gotten to, is the fact that absolute ownership of private property makes common investments like roads problematic.
It does not. Most all early railroads, ports and highways were 100% private. And they worked just fine, they had no problem securing the property they needed without State assistance. Even more, there are cases like Vanderbilt's ferries or some railway companies that even competed successfully against State backed ones, with 0% State help. The thing about private roads being problematic is a myth that has never been proven and many times busted.
> Why would companies care about investing in a common defense?
Why would you care about investing in a common defense for your and your neighbors' homes? Do you think they don't care if their investments and properties are stolen, damaged or destroyed? Why do you think that businesses hire security guards and invest in security, even though police is provided by the States etc.? Do you really think they would not try to protect their stuff, employees and customers?
You might find this an interesting read:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Not-Wild-West-Economics/dp/0804748543
>wild west anarchism
Not lawless
I only made a bad joke because your last comment seemed like it was supposed to be funny but came off as stupid.
Anarcho-capitalism is not based on a rational choice theory or market equilibrium theory or any of that nonsense.
Examples of voluntary governance are terms of service agreements, break the terms and lose the service.
Decentralized justice has happened in history, if you look up the history of the American west you might have a little better imagination regarding these scenarios. This is a good start
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0804748543
Anarcho-capitalism depends on nothing more than the non-aggression principle and free trade.
> what happens when I break the rules but choose not to be governed. Or shoot someone and then ride to the next town..
That would only be possible in some sort of lawless zone, if you break the rules in one zone, you will be prosecuted no matter where you hide I would imagine, just like it is done today.
You can not look at things like that in a vacume. The rules of the game very much depend on local situation. If you want to see how this can work, the american west has many good examples. The devopment of mining right for example were very complicated and specific to that situation. The cattle farmers handle there property rights in a diffrent way.
There is not one way of doing everything, the hole point of anarcho capitalism is that you allow a broad range of possible solution and people wo can come up with workable solutions.
Check out the book: The Not So Wild, Wild West: Property Rights on the Frontier (http://www.amazon.com/Not-So-Wild-West-Economics/dp/0804748543/ref=sr_1_1)
Depends on what New Age Tech faction you belong to. "Antifragile," from Nassim Taleb's Antifragile: Things That Gain from Disorder is supposed to mean that some processes, when properly engineered, gain additional resilience from disorder. Apologies for any mischaracterization.
This is not, as I understand it, the same as getting stronger from being stressed, as you might expect a system to get more resilient from lessons learned from the usual "game day" exercises. It's more the concept: "Make armor better by establishing an anti armor team whose job it is to find the weak spots in the armor."
I like the way things were expressed in the video, but I find Taleb a bit much. He actively despises academic work in his area, especially if it contradicts his thinking. YMMV.
I like the general way you're thinking. I've become interested lately in why states form and how they are destabilized or prevented from forming from an anthropological standpoint. What conditions, technological, ecological, cultural, can place limits on their growth and aggregation? Shatter them into small manageable pieces or keep them from forming in the first place?
This book really got me thinking about that angle, and you might enjoy it.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Art-Not-Being-Governed/dp/0300169175
This one also carries some similar thoughts, I recall an excerpt about the advantages of smaller city-states vs. large modern nations:
http://www.amazon.com/Antifragile-Things-That-Disorder-Incerto/dp/0812979680
This one also has some interesting thoughts about the vulnerabilities of modern states and what enables the groups that are currently able to resist them, though I'm still undecided as to how much of it was just current conventional military thought regarding guerilla warfare repackaged as Silicon Valley fluff for people that have never had a standard western military officer's education. I've read a couple of books by David Kilcullen, who I believe closely represents the current "establishment" thinking on western counterinsurgency doctrine, and he repeated some of Robb's points about the decentralized network nature of modern guerrilla movements. Still, food for thought.
http://www.amazon.com/Brave-New-War-Terrorism-Globalization/dp/0470261951/ref=la_B001ILOBMI_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1409237873&amp;sr=1-1
>Jesus Christ dude, learn English. That is not what I wrote, I quoted exactly what your unfalsifiable statement was. Trying to explain even the most basic things to you is a massive hassle.
>And yeah, I'm sure you're going to cry now that I'm being a meanie. But seriously, you have shown a failure to comprehend the most basic form of discussion. I explicitly stated, using quotes, what your unfalsifiable claim was, and you completely missed that.
Hahaa you make me laugh man..
You quoted nothing,
I have made no unfalsifiable statement, if I did one please quote it to me.
I am waiting.
>$&gt;So Bitcoin being anti-fragile is an unfalsifiable statement?
>And the answer to your question is no, I've already explained to you why it is not anti-fragile. You failed to address that and just repeated what was written previously like the braindead zombie you are:
>&gt; Him: Bitcoin is antifragile
It show you basic misunderstanding of Bitcoin.
Bitcoin clearly show characteristics of anti-fragile system.
I recommend you educate yourself a little bit:
https://www.amazon.com/Antifragile-Things-That-Disorder-Incerto/dp/0812979680
Your are the classic small blocker that feel that Bitcoin need "expert" to adjust his economic property or it will break.
You love central planning I recommend returning to FIAT :) you will love it, some many smart people involved in it. Wow!! The future I can tell you!!
Another read, but I am not sure that's you thing :) easier to follow authorities than educate yourself!
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2905459-rivalry-and-central-planning
>You made no attempt to actually justify what you wrote, let alone argue against what I wrote. Seriously, what do you think you were contributing there? Are you just here to regurgitate what you've heard others write on /r/btc in broken English?
You keep repeating yourself, you have yet to make an arguments.
It is almost like, you have no idea what you are talking about :)
I am still waiting for your arguments.. but I don't hold my breath, English man!
>But why should I even bother? Do you even understand the words I'm writing now?
Well I can pick up when someone use personal attack to hide ignorance :)
>Do you have the mental capacity to learn basic English?
Obviously I don't!
Hahaa thank for the good laugh!
If you're further interested in this idea I think that Antifragile by Taleb is definitely along this vein
https://smile.amazon.com/Antifragile-Things-That-Disorder-Incerto/dp/0812979680?sa-no-redirect=1
I also have to recommend Antifragile by Taleb. Extraordinary.
All of Nassim Nicholas Taleb's books, but especially Antifragile: Things That Gain from Disorder.
Also, get yourself an Audible account.
I am going to apologise in advance if this sounds unclear but this is me trying to articulate a world view I have developed over years of contemplating the existence of mankind and reading volumes of what others have concluded (this, this and this among others)
Before societies and civilisations were formed, groups existed by meeting the challenges of basic survival:
Each of the above led to an exponential growth in all the areas of human development:
Groups therefore developed systems and tools to more efficiently meet these challenges.
The more these groups grew into societies and civilisations, the more efficient their methods of survival, the larger the distance between the group and these dangers.
Societies reach a fork in the road where they have two choices:
I have concluded from my years contemplating this cosmic riddle, that taking the second path which leads to an equilibrium generally leads to the society leaving it's survival capabilities to stagnate and atrophy. This might sound like I am saying the society is decaying but it's actually the opposite, they have reached such a status in terms of organisation and command of their environment that they can exist and thrive in a stable state almost indefinitely.
That is, until they come into contact with a civilisation that remained on the hard road of honing the mechanisms of survival. Building on the fundamentals of survival (by that I mean tool building to production, skills to science, tribal councils to political machinery) do not lead to equilibrium, they lead to conflict yes but ultimately growth and strength.
To sort of clarify:
the native americans and their culture had a full command of their environment, they no longer feared nature and their fellow man posing an existential threat to them. As a result they diverted their attentions inwards, towards the meaning of nature, spirituality and identity. That was great when they were the only ones roaming the lands in full command of it. Unfortunately, having not built on their already solid base from 20,000 years of survival skills/mechanisms in the americas, they left themselves defenceless in the face of a civilisation that was forged in the fires of centuries of chaos, war, conquest and disease. Technology, politics and the art of war are not these monoliths that are thrust upon humanity. They are incremental advances over centuries by hard work, risk taking and sacrifice from millions of society's best and brightest. The fatal flaw that the native americans committed was that their best and brightest gradually turned away from working on the basics of survival and instead chose to focus on the metaphysical. The rich and beautiful culture they accumulated was useless as tools in the face of gunpowder, iron and germ warfare.
---
How does this relate to the trends in western countries in relation to restructuring the systems of gender identity? I believe that it is a small thread in a grand tapestry of ideologies meant to create an artificial form of equilibrium, drawing the energies of its citizenry down a path diverting them from building on those tools/mechanisms based on the basics of survival and into the metaphysical/spiritual. The general consensus being that society has reached a peak that leaves them unchallenged by outsiders: the advances of previous generations in science, technology and military prowess have been perfected, are no longer a pressing matter for society at large.
There is nothing inherently wrong with seeking an equilibrium or focusing on the metaphysical, it is the vector that society is set to follow, the vector veering away from the basics of survival, which is the danger.
Hope that clarifies my initial reply.
AntiFragile: Things that gain from disorder.
This kind of thinking is called Antifragile and if you're interested in reading about it, you can find it at this non-affiliate Amazon link.
Not if you're studying something valuable in STEM. There's too many bullshitters selling bullshit courses on campuses.
Why do you want tenure? I'm sure you have good reasons, but couldn't morally be tenured, if I wasn't 100% sure that I was teaching something valuable. If I didn't feel that what I am teaching, that is something people actually need and want despite my tenure. Just like if I were a drug dealer or a slaver, then my success would be dependent on people suffering from it.
What are you studying?
The books I am paraphrasing from are Antifragile, by Nassim Nicholas Taleb and Worthless, by Aaron Clarey.
> What do we mean by "complex systems"? As in complex-systems theory?
Yes, complex systems theory (the study of ecosystems, economies, chaotic systems, etc).
> Got a book you can recommend?
If you read one book by him, read Antifragile. The Black Swan and Fooled by Randomness are also good.
> You can suggest it in an open thread.
On /r/slatestarcodex or on the actual Slate Star Codex website?
> You can just tag him and see if he responds.
I tried this last time, but he didn't reply. Here it goes again: /u/EliezerYudkowsky
Depends on if you're sticking to the business-centric category or not. For instance, I think Antifragile (although the author is a bear to listen to) has even more impact than Zero to One. I personally know several startup founders or funded companies who swear by it and immediately dove into their systems to purposefully break the heck out them.
Similarly in slightly different direction, I found How They Succeeded: Life Stories of Successful Men Told By Themselves to be incredibly unknown and worthwhile, and Blue Ocean Strategy: How to Create Uncontested Market Space and Make Competition Irrelevant to be a "quake" book leading you down the rabbit-hole of marketing.
One last book, because I can't help myself, would be Traction. Although not necessarily a "must read," I perhaps took more notes from this than any of the others, save Antifragile.
http://www.businessinsider.com/harvard-economist-explains-the-gender-wage-gap-2016-3
http://www.aei.org/publication/there-really-is-no-gender-wage-gap-there-is-a-gender-earnings-gap-but-paying-women-well-wont-close-that-gap/
https://www.amazon.com/Why-Men-Earn-More-Startling/dp/0814472109
the salary gap is a myth because:
(a) it's been illegal for a company to pay men and women different salaries for doing the same job since the Kennedy administration.
(b) if business could really get away with paying women 70% of a man's salary, then businesses would hire 100% female crews given that labor is by far the largest expense for most businesses.
(c) the pay gap myth is based on the a logical error called "the ecological fallacy". in short, information that accurately describes groups does not necessarily apply to each individual in that same group. for example, most pro basketball players earn higher than average salaries (true). most basketball players are also taller than average (true). but from this accurate facts, you can't conclude that all taller than average people earn higher salaries than average.
(d) there is a pay gap between men and women. but the gap is not due to discrimination or sexism. instead, men and women make different career choices that tend to lead to higher salaries for men and lower salaries for women. for example, women tend to prefer lower salaries but more stable working hours, less travel, better fringe benefits. men tend to do more traveling, have unpredictable working hours (e.g., commission sales) and want more cash and fewer fringe benefits. men tend to work more hours overall, something like 45hrs/week while women work an average of about 37hrs/week.
for example, there was a claim years ago that male doctors earn more than female doctors. however, a closer look at the data showed that male M.D.s tended to work very different jobs from female M.D.s For example, men were more likely to be on call for high risk medicine (e.g., trauma surgeons) while women MDs were more likely to work steady office hours with lower risks. (e.g., pediatricians). after adjusting for those variables, there was no pay gap. male and female pediatricians earned the same pay; male and female trauma surgeons earned the same pay.
when you compare men and women in the same company, who do the same work, with the same seniority, same qualifications, same productivity, etc, men and women earn salaries within about ~3% of each other.
the pay gap is largely a feminist myth that's used to make women feel like victims.
read this book for more info on the subject: https://www.amazon.com/Why-Men-Earn-More-Startling/dp/0814472109
short intro here: http://www.warrenfarrell.net/Summary/
Read this: http://www.amazon.com/Why-Men-Earn-More-Startling/dp/0814472109
There is no systematic discrimination against women with respect to pay in the US today.
Most of the reporting you see on this stuff tends to ignore most factors which would tend to explain differences in income for different work. So it's a god of the gaps argument that you are (unwittingly?) making. If we take into account one or two things the "gap" shrinks, if we take account one or two more it shrinks further, if we take account of five or six there's maybe 5% left. And then we stop because that way leads to trouble.
So Warren Farrel identified about 20-30 factors to take into account. This included some that even by themselves reduced the gap's size of the order of over 90%. Obviously there's a lot of overlap. The point is that no study has attempted to do what you say and take into account, "all the other factors". Not even close. The studies don't even take into account the factors which are greatest in reducing the gap.
As a result your figure of 10% or so was pure bullshit. Mine was too; the data just isn't there. However the end result is certainly in favour of women because women have a greater value than men as employees because of the various anti-male laws feminists have introduced. You can certainly find some studies that result in a negative wage gap although it's usually more like 2%, but for the most part the research here is chasing ghosts. Indeed literally it uses the same technique as ghost hunters: throw out a few sensible sounding ideas for a phenomena, then after rejecting them say "therefore the answer must be ghosts" as an explanation for any remaining phenomena.
https://www.amazon.com/Why-Men-Earn-More-Startling/dp/0814472109
The single factors that tend to explain almost the entire gap by themselves tend to be something along the lines of comparing like with like as to family earning responsibilities. That is to say childless unmarried men and women tend to earn the same. Once people get married and have kids women choose to earn less and force the men to pick up the slack by earning more. So the pay gap is essentially a result of anti-male discrimination forcing men to work harder to support women's choices.
As a result you get odd results of things like black women earning more than white women (if you take into account education level) and lesbians out-earning straight women. I would explain these results in terms of the responsible-to-earn for someone else's consumption factor.
Hmm. Hard to find a nice link to a study on this one factor. But it typically knock out over 90% just by itself. These days if you Google those terms you get the various studies showing how much more young women are earning compared to young men. Of course that's mostly because women are 60% more likely to go to college.
-----
ETA: Also the wage gap is smaller in developing countries than in the West. As a general rule of thumb the better off you are in terms of privilege, the less you can afford to earn, which is why white women have the biggest "gap" of all. The entire topic misrepresents privilege as a oppression, which is exactly what you need to do if you're a feminist of course.
-----
ETA: Yeah I can't find any nice reports on family responsibility as a factor (usually it's referred to as "unmarried, childless"). It was common enough 20 years ago but these days the search results get swamped by by the stories of YOUNG and "unmarried, childless" women earning about 8% more than men. But as I say this is really more because women are getting college degrees far more than men are due to the massive amount of sex discrimination in education in the USA (though these results hold all over the English speaking world). maybe you'll have better luck if you want to pursue it.
> Women are statistically more likely to depend on their husband's wealth because (surprise surprise you moron) WOMEN MAKE LESS MONEY.
Hypergamy
> A woman with no money of her own is either homeless or somebody's wife. If she's convicted of a crime it's usually because she was an accomplice.
Married women don't have agency or free will, then? Okay. You're also forgetting that women have priority in social housing queues, especially if they have kids. All kinds of unmarried women, with or without kids, in geared-to-income social housing. Oh, I get it. Leaving a criminal's house to spend a couple months in a shelter before getting her own place just isn't an option. Better to have the criminal buy you shiny things, then play stupid or fake-cry in the courtroom than have morals, I guess.
> employment status of the husband in a relationship is the single outsize factor in predicting divorce.
Husband is required to be breadwinner, to maintain the hypergamous status of the relationship, and is disposed of as soon as this is lost. So far, you're doing a great job of upholding traditional gender roles, and positioning women as the weaker sex who can't make their own decisions. Well, aside from the part where the woman keeps half or better of the assets in a divorce, and bleeds the rest out through alimony and/or child support.
> You may find a screenshot from /pol/ or an article on Breitbart that claims to disprove it, but adults have accepted the wage gap is reality.
Nice Drumpfy Drumpf poltard projection. Here's a whole book by an adult.
> peer-reviewed study
I've seen enough of RealPeerReview to know that "peer-reviewed" in the social sciences doesn't mean shit. American Association of University Women? Yeah, no bias there. I like the part where their CEO is a fucking white male, though.
So, literally stop. I'm embarassed for you when you simultaneously cry about the "wage gap" and expect it to persist for your benefit.
yeah, it's sexist and unfair.
but as you get older you'll discover that women bitch & moan only about double-standards that work against them.
>I sometimes hear the complaint that women only make .80 cents to the men's dollar
this isn't exactly true. women as a group tend to earn less than men as a group. but that's mainly because women tend to make different career choices than men. men work more overtime, for example and prefer more cash, while women prefer lower wages to more comfortable conditions and better fringe benefits. when men & women have the same levels of dedication, training, expertise, experience, etc, they earn almost exactly the same wages in the same careers. more info in this book: http://www.amazon.com/Why-Men-Earn-More-Startling/dp/0814472109
There are a lot of factors involved in the wage gap. http://www.amazon.com/Why-Men-Earn-More-Startling/dp/0814472109
I love being my gender because of the higher incarceration rate! er, what?
http://consad.com/index.php?page=an-analysis-of-reasons-for-the-disparity-in-wages-between-men-and-women
http://www.learnliberty.org/content/do-women-earn-less-men
http://www.jec.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&amp;File_id=2a1f8ad4-f649-4ad3-a742-268d946962db
http://www.amazon.com/Why-Men-Earn-More-Startling/dp/0814472109
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cb_6v-JQ13Q
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2084582,00.html
I'm sure I don't have to link you any information on child support law and enforcement, because that would be like linking to a source that provides evidence that water is wet.
http://www.amazon.com/Why-Men-Earn-More-Startling/dp/0814472109/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1451964248&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=why+men+earn+more
At the end of the day, women and women alone bear the decision to have a child so long as they have access to abortions. Men are not allowed, nor should they be allowed, to decide for a woman if she should bear a child or not. If she chooses adoption, all costs are paid by the parents. If she chooses to have a child, and if she chooses to include the father in that child's life (choices she alone makes) then the father must by law pay for a portion of the cost of that child.
I do think that single parenthood is an burden more so on the mother in most cases. This is one area we still need work on for both men and women, I agree. I personally am a proponent of a single payer health care system, which would mitigate the prenatal and OB issue altogether. But until that happens, health care will cost more for women because women cost more to maintain their health on average. If you don't like that then you have to overhaul the insurance industry to make everyone pay the same regardless of genetics. So the person with huge amounts of preexisting conditions due to genetics would pay the same as a very healthy person.
The book Why Men Earn More by Warren Ferrel has all the information you could ever want on the Wage Gap Myth. I did agree that a small number (around 5% I believe) is due to unknown causes which could be bias. But when you account for all other metrics, the 75 cents on the dollar is blown out of the water. We have laws making it illegal to discriminate against women, we have every ability to contest when we are paid less. It is our job as women to demand we get paid what we are worth, just as men tend to do.
The IWPR link was exactly the methodology I explained, and the gap is 80%. Median of all workers. That does not take into account career choices, hours worked, time off, education, etc.
IN the second link this quote is telling:
> And even in 2014, women and men still tend to work in different kinds of jobs. This segregation of occupations is a major factor behind the pay gap.
So again, boiling down to women's choices. And again, this report depended on median income alone, although they did at least break it down to basic industries. But again, we do not know all those mitigating factors which make a worker more valuable to a company.
Third source is the same. These are not telling us much of anything. The studies are too broad to be of use.
Interesting link about choices "A new survey from PayScale this morning finds that the wage gap nearly evaporates when you control for occupation and experience among the most common jobs, especially among less experienced workers."
I would certainly be interested in the residual pay gap especially at the top and take it seriously if we started the conversation on a national level with the actual facts. But the pervasive 75 cents on the dollar just won't die in the national consciousness even though it is absolute bunk.
My bottom line on wage gap- the sniff test. If it were truly so easy to save 25% of the costs of hiring someone, why would anyone hire a man? Business is all about the bottom line. If truly you could save that much money (we are probably talking billions of dollars for some companies) why on earth would they not be taking advantage of this? You think they are so sexist they are unwilling to save a ton of money? I think you underestimate most businesses joy of money.
Yes, there are far more men in politics, I never said otherwise. Nothing is stopping women from entering politics except their own choices. Women do not run for politics in very large numbers and women do not vote for other women in large numbers. This is not patriarchy, it is women's choices.
Women control the same amount of income in the US as men, so money is not stopping them. Yes, there probably is an old boys network among the older politicians, but there are enough women and progressives around to give a hand up to anyone interested in trying. The republican party is practically begging women to join, they flaunt every women politician they have in order to try to seem more supportive of women, even though they are obviously not in many ways.
Read these two books to understand why Bitcoin matters :
If anyone needs this book it is you:
https://www.amazon.com/Bitcoin-Standard-Decentralized-Alternative-Central/dp/1119473861
If you intend on learning someday, here
Try the Bitcoin Standard https://www.amazon.co.uk/Bitcoin-Standard-Decentralized-Alternative-Central/dp/1119473861
As part of these neoliberal free trade agreements, foreign countries are forced to accept into their economies goods made by American corporations, as well as the goods made by other first-world industrialized nations. (You're right, a lot of these goods are not actually made in America, but overseas). I'm getting my information on this from this book.
Anyway, a developing nation many times cannot possibly compete with goods made by large multinational corporations, American or otherwise. Historically, the developed nations used high tariffs on foreign goods to protect their nascent industries. So, for example, when Japan was developing its auto industry, it put high tariffs on American cars so it was not economically feasible to import them, and Japan only allowed as many car imports as were necessary. The first cars Toyota ever produced were fairly terrible, literally falling apart as they came off the assembly lines. But people bought them because the cars were all that was available due to the high tariffs on imports. In time, Toyotas got a lot better, and after number of years became quality cars that are in demand worldwide. But this would have never happened for Toyota had it been forced to compete with foreign imported cars from the beginning. The Japanese would have simply bought American cars because they were better.
Through neoliberal trade deals, we force developing nations to accept the goods of American corporations and don't allow them to put tariffs on them. Many times, these deals deny developing nations access to money from the World Bank and the IMF if they put tariffs on American goods. So, we now deny developing nations the protections we ourselves used to get our own industrial economy off the ground. In this way, we exacerbate and prolong world poverty in the name of short term corporate profits. It's truly sad, because a more developed and industrialized world would do much to alleviate world poverty and unrest.
Here's 2 books you can read about china fucking everyone over on trade. both on the macro level here
https://www.amazon.com/Bad-Samaritans-Secret-History-Capitalism/dp/1596915986
and the micro level here
https://www.amazon.com/Factory-Man-Furniture-Offshoring-American/dp/031623141X
is it my fault you're a naive fuck who thinks china will abide by these SELF REPORTING bullshit metrics?
There are no free traders, but there are relative free traders over others and Japan was one of the most obstructionist, just short of being an autarky. South Korea followed the same model. China follows a different neo-mercantilist model, but still far from free trade.
The point is, trying to get a dirt poor country out of poverty by having them manufacture t-shirts will make their lives marginally better, but they will never get out of abject poverty in the long run and turn into some sort of economic powerhouse. I am appalled at all the wealthy countries who tell poor countries to open up trade to escape poverty when those same rich nations practiced protectionist policies to get to where they are.
The comment about silk was and some of the other ideas are chronicled in this book by Cambridge economist Ha Joon Chang (he talks a lot about the protectionist measures in his country of South Korea that got them out of poverty as well):
http://www.amazon.com/Bad-Samaritans-Secret-History-Capitalism/dp/1596915986/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1372781930&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=bad+samaritans
P.S. Japanese cars were WAY inferior to American cars up until the 80's.
no, trade restrictions are there to safeguard budding industries in a rising economy. only when their industry is strong enough to compete in the global economy does it make sense to allow competition from the outside. why allow competition from the outside? because if you don't let them in, they won't let you in. if you really care about whether you are right or not then you should at least read this book and decide for yourself. he proposes a very convincing argument. bad samaritan
the book answers a very important question. why does the western world want everyone to have a free market economy when they did not rise to that position with a free market themselves?
>And that just happened magically based on its geographic location? Hardly.
no it's not the location. it's the reliable english speaking port with english laws that the western world can trust when doing business with. after traveling half way across the world, you want to dump your goods at a reliable place and be on your way. you don't want to deal with bribing the locals and things like that. that requires addition expertise and labor and have much higher risk. your response to me really shows that you have not thought about it thoroughly at all.
also, im not going to ever argue with anyone here again. i don't think i've received a reasonable and well thought out answer yet. basically the responses have been, i'm right and you're wrong. i thought like you guys too in my early 20s. i saw the same videos you did. i didn't do any research at all. as it turns out, persuasion is a skill that is not necessarily related to logic or facts. you should not so readily believe what you see. someone spend 100s of hours crafting that message that you just absorbed in 1 hour. you can't fully understand the message's true nature in 1 hour.
I don't want to sound like a dick, but you're making assumptions and treating them as fact. There is no reason manufacturing jobs NEED to move overseas other than the top echelons of corporate America want it that way so they can maximize their profits at the expense of American workers. The supposed beauty and inevitability of neoliberal trade policies have been touted for so long by folks like Paul Krugman, that many have just assumed this is the inevitable way of the world. It isn't. This is not to say that free trade between equals in the global community isn't good and sometimes in fact necessary to spur on needed competition and efficiencies. But the idea that the American worker, as well developing economies overseas and their workers, must submit to free trade policies over all other tools of trade policy, such as tariffs, is simply untrue. There needs to be a more healthy mix of free trade and protectionism. Otherwise America and the world community devolves into a feudal system that does much to contribute to unrest, dissatisfaction and even violence all over the world.
The manufacturing jobs exist, they just don't exist in this country as much as they once did. Sure, some of these jobs are being replaced by automation. But free trade globalism and technology do not have to leave American workers or workers overseas ravaged. That happens as a result of political choices made in Washington, D.C. and elsewhere around the world.
Obama and Hillary have employed "incrementalism" in a vain effort to keep workers and others in need placated while they keep their richest donors happy. It doesn't have to be this way and it shouldn't be this way.
We can eliminate and/or redo trade deals. We can let workers have a meaningful seat at the table as these deals are negotiated. We can do much to restore the middle and working classes. That we haven't, again, is in large part a political choice.
Check out these books if you want, or at least know they exist. (https://www.amazon.com/Winner-Take-All-Politics-Washington-Richer-Turned/dp/1416588701)
(https://www.amazon.com/Bad-Samaritans-Secret-History-Capitalism/dp/1596915986)
These authors don't have all the answers, but it's a good start.
Nobody said 100% closed trade was ideal. The overwhelming majority of wealthy countries adopted a 3rd way of development economics to get out of poverty. They used tariffs, protectionism, subsidies, etc. to develop their economy at the expense of importers. i.e. the US had tariffs as high as 30-40% during the height of their GDP growth. Japan, for example, had a really shitty auto industry, but their ministry of trade kept bailing out Toyota and imposed import quotas on US car manufacturers until Toyota was finally competent. It's called the infant industry argument.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5-ojv5-b3U
http://www.amazon.com/Bad-Samaritans-Secret-History-Capitalism/dp/1596915986/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1427765176&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=bad+samaritan
This is the best book on the subject. A must read. https://www.amazon.com/Meltdown-Free-Market-Collapsed-Government-Bailouts/dp/1596985879
In short, it sure as hell wasn't the free market.
Life got busy again and i lost track of what was happening in terms of books. You said you read Ron Paul's book, so i thought i might throw out some of the books i enjoyed.
Henry Dent
George Soros
Tom Wood & Ron Paul
They're outdated, but provided some good economic thought behind what has happened and their forecasts. Tom Wood's and Ron Paul's book was interesting, but i'm not sure how relevant it ever was. At best, it served as a warning. Don't get me wrong, i'm a fan of Ron Paul, but the system will never remove the Federal Reserve. Also looks like there's some updated editions out too.
I'm looking at new books as we speak.
Actually, the stock market crashed because the housing market crashed. The housing market crashed because the government propped up ridiculously low interest rates on loans because they wanted 'everyone to have affordable housing.' The problem is, people with no money to buy houses, bought houses, because the government forced banks to have super low interest rates. But when the people couldn't pay, the market went bust. When that happened, the stocks plummeted.
Creating artificial 'opportunity' is a bad idea, and only messes things up.
If any of what I said didn't make sense, I suggest this book: Meltdown: A free market look at why the stock market crashed
> Yet the bankers just keep doing it again and again. They do it with and without central banks.
Fractional reserve should be prosecutable as fraud. Having said that, banks would be much more responsible if they faced a risk of going out of business. The occasional bankruns of the late 19th century, did not significantly impede the surging prosperity of the gilded age. They were a good thing -- just like when a crappy restaurant goes out of business.
> > but your own devotion to Keynesianism fails to live up to the standards by which you judge the Austrian School.
> I fail to see how. Keynesianism doesn't pretend to be deductive logic.
It seems to me that Keynesians are able to put numbers around little things. Unemployment, inflations (both of which are heavily manipulated). They have graphs and charts and look very much like their distant colleagues in the hard sciences. The play empiricism, but all the big things and important decisions are made by pure deduction, just like the Austrians. For example:
We need a central bank.
We need to bailout company/industry X
The economy can be centrally steared by manipulating the reserve rate in a positive way.
We need to force people to use their state's currency.
The liquidity trap occurs when there's a shortage of money circulating.
The free market is inherently unstable.
Crashes are caused by animal spirits / the bursting of asset bubbles.
> > it just restructures production for long-term projects.
> That directly contradicts the concept of "flight to liquidity".
Not a contradiction. A flight to liquidity can mean a flight to savings and checking accounts. That's money ready for lending.
> If savers were making long term investments, we wouldn't have a problem.
Ugh. Right now, you Keynesians think we need long-term investment, and your policies are creating an illusion of savings by lowering the interest rate to zero. In actuality, there are almost no savings. People need to work, busy consumer goods, and save (or not -- it's up to them). Keynesian policies have pushed a lot of land labor and capital into long-term projects at a time when people are thinking about the short term.
Your statement presumes a "correct" way for savers to be investing. The only correct way is one which is in harmony with the level of savings, and the market signal which creates that harmony -- the interest rate -- is centrally controlled and, for the moment, pushed to near-zero, creating an illusion of savings which don't really exist.
> How do you know? [regarding consciousness] . . . There is no evidence that the human brain consists of anything but physical processes
Because physics cannot even entertain (much less provide answers for) simple questions like what do you want to do? When there's meaningful progress on the Turing test, I'll reconsider.
> if you really believe it is such a great thing and will work well in the real world, go find a small country and convince them to adopt pure Austrianism. . . . Honestly, I'd write a letter … to advocate giving you guys an island in the Pacific ocean to test your system.
Liberty is a threat to the gov't. Allowing it would mean exposure of their fraud.
I'd love to, and I think about it often. Small states have many advantages over large ones. There's a theoretical project by Friedman's grandson which involves a nation consisting of floating barges.
> Even the anarcho-capitalist advocates say that there must be private militaries that are hired by insurance companies (which is really all a state is) to protect their customers. Overall, the idea that violence is magically going to disappear is very naive.
No one says violence is going to go away. A state is not a hired insurance company, because the client does not the right to walk away. The service of security is not subject to market pressure. The state unilaterally decides both the nature of security (invading Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, bombing Somalia and Yemen, TSA, full body scanners), and the cost of security. This is the difference.
> for placing the extreme long term conservation of value for mattress stuffers
It is not just mattress stuffers. Huge quantities of wealth are transferred from people in general to whomever is closest to the place where new money enters the economy. Even Keynes admits this:
"By a continuing process of inflation, government can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens."
And I think you're full of shit for trying to muddy the waters on the ethic argument I raised. The dollar is backed by force. Voilence will be used against Americans who attempt to work around the dollar system. Yes, violence has been used before in history. No, this doesn't justify today's.
> gold
You were comparing the dollar's 97% loss in value to the instability of gold. That dog don't hunt.
> As I said, the 1921 recession ended when the fed cut rates.
I'm going to look more deeply into this. It seemed that the 29 crash happened when they stopped their easy money policies. Do you think we can get out of today's easy money without a catastrophe?
>
> Please stop calling an increase in the money supply inflation... just say "an increase in the money supply".
No.
> voluntarily decided it likes fractional reserve banking. In 400 years or so of modern banking, full reserve banking simply hasn't emerged.
Not true. It's contradicted by the video you posted. Government enshrined and protected the fractional reserve system.
> That era was a miserable failure.
Not true at all. Yes, lots of banks went out of business. (It is good when bad companies go out of business). But it was a time of sky-rocketting prosperity.
Your baromoter is laughable. When banks go out of business this is bad. When today's commercial banks survive for a long time, this is good. Dark world. How much wealth has to be taken to give irresponsible banks a long life?
> So which is it? Do you support free banking or gold? A gold standard (at least in the form that the US and most other countries had in its past) is mandated from a central government, by the way.
Free banking gets my vote, though either one would be huge, mind-blowing progress. I'll mention again that fractional reserve banking should be prosecutable as fraud instead of enshrined by law.
> Except it has been done successfully that way for long periods of time. You shouldn't get your ethics confused with your evidence. You might not like central banking, but to say that it can't work is absurd given how successful the US economy was under the periods with central banks.
Typical of your positivist and keynesian approach, whenever you connect two data points you jump for joy. Can we likewise conclude that the Soviet system worked because it brought electrification, had zero unemployment and a growing GDP?
You know, Keynesian economist and Nobel Prize winner Paul Samuelson predicted into the late 1980's that the soviet union, the fucking soviet union!!!!! would outpace the US economically. He asked whether their surging economy didn't make the political oppression (43-62 million killed) worth while. But it's the Austrians who are cruel. Right?
Also, not all the evidence supports you. The biggest depression in American history. The only time there has been wide-spread malnutrition in the US. A 97% drop in purchasing power.
> I believe the burden of proof is on you if you want to make claims about government failure. You haven't done that with the CRA or with any other program.
The long history of bailouts are facts. What proving do they need?
Also:
FACT: In 2008, CRA loans accounted for just 7% of Bank of America's total mortgage lending, but 29% of its losses on home loans. Also, banks with the highest CRA ratings tend to have the lowest safety and soundness ratings.
FICTION: Only 6% of subprime loans were originated by banks subject to the CRA, so the vast majority of risky lending was not tied to the law.
FACT: Among other things, the figure does not count the trillions of dollars in CRA "commitments" that WaMu, BofA, JPMorgan Chase, Citibank, Wells Fargo and other large banks pledged to radical inner-city groups like Acorn, Greenlining and Neighborhood Assistance Corp. of America (NACA) after they used the public comment process to protest bank merger applications on CRA grounds.
[Earlier this week I noted that I had changed my mind on the Community Reinvestment Act. Contrary to my initial conclusion, the evidence is overwhelming that the CRA played a significant role in creating lax lending standards that fueled the housing bubble. Once I realized this, I had to abandon my suspicion that the anti-CRA case was a figment of the rhetoric of Republicans attempting to distract attention from their own role in the mortgage mess.]http://www.businessinsider.com/the-cra-debate-a-users-guide-2009-6#ixzz1RTwfW5or)
Prior to 1995, such subprime home loans constituted less than 2% of new home loans, but by 2000 they were over 9% of new home loans, and by 2008 they were 20% of new home loans. To make matters worse, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae began to buy and/or guarantee more and more of these risky subprime loans.
If you want more opinions supporting my view, look here,
here, here.
The very short and simple answer is that the Federal Reverse is the primary cause of the boom-bust cycle that constantly plagues our economy. The cycle is also sometimes called the "business cycle", bubbles and busts, downturns etc.
The Federal Reserve is the reason we had a housing bubble in 2007 and a dotcom bubble in the early 2000s. It's also the reason we had the Great Depression!
The Federal Reserve causes the business cycle when it artificially lowers the interest rate below what it would have be on the market, which in turn sends the wrong signals to entrepreneurs and investors and causes them to make bad investments (i.e. "malinvestment"). That's a bare bones explanation. You can find more information at the links below. It's a very interesting topic.
A short and simple introduction on the cause of the business cycle: http://mises.org/daily/606
An entertaining speech on the topic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJzXEsmZP0w
This is a great book on the topic that explains the matter in a way that is very easy to understand: http://www.amazon.com/Meltdown-Free-Market-Collapsed-Government-Bailouts/dp/1596985879
A more advance explanation: http://mises.org/tradcycl/econdepr.asp
This Book is what got me started studying Austrian Economics. It covered the financial crash and why.
Ouch, tough, man. It's always a delicate balance between living in your own bubble (http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/03/my_beautiful_bu.html) and making compromises to expand your circle of friends.
As to how to argue more easily, see
http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com/2012/12/22/success-socratic-style/
This will allow you to exploit the weaknesses in your opponent's arguments more easily.
As to the actual topics mentioned, here's what I have:
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2006/9/monetarypolicy%20winston/20061003
http://thelibertyhq.org/learn/index.php?articleID=257&amp;parentID=32
Working conditions are just another condition of employment besides wages, and is set by supply and demand. Furthermore, about OSHA - see the book linked in #1. It shows that OSHA has had no statistically significant impact on safety. You could also try http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-handbook-policymakers/1999/9/hb106-34.pdf
On occupational licensing and other licensing, see
http://econjwatch.org/articles/occupational-licensing-scant-treatment-in-labor-texts
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2013/06/your_sort_is_pr.html
http://t.co/WQKpPYM8Kw
As well as the book in #1. Summary of all of the above: licensing is useless at best.
After that, try http://www.amazon.com/The-Triumph-Conservatism-Reinterpretation-1900-1916/dp/0029166500
The above book is written by a socialist historian who actually argues that competition was alive and kicking during the Guilded Age, and that it was the big corporations which asked government for more regulations to control competition.
Also, point out that the actually bad robber barons got big through help from the government.
See http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/deregulation-caused-the-financial-crisis/
and http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/did-deregulation-cause-the-financial-crisis/
More about education: http://thelibertyhq.org/learn/index.php?listID=9
If you want to see the Socratic Method in action, check out this convo of mine:
http://libertyhq.freeforums.org/socratic-method-in-action-t477.html
But once again, I highly recommend reading my article linked in #1. It's a super helpful debate tactic.
Edit: Screw automatic fixing of numbering.
Read a few pages of the book he's talking about here. I'm sure there are also articles about it like this one.
Meltdown by Tom Woods.
https://www.amazon.com/Meltdown-Free-Market-Collapsed-Government-Bailouts/dp/1596985879
See here:
http://mises.org/story/3128
http://www.amazon.com/Meltdown-Free-Market-Collapsed-Government-Bailouts/dp/1596985879
http://mises.org/story/3165
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I0QN-FYkpw
The Austrians predicted the boom-bust perfectly, just as they always have.
You should all check out Meltdown by Tom Woods. He thoroughly shows how the fault lies with the incentives the government set for banks, new legal requirements, and the Federal Reserve. Blaming the 2008 crash on greed is like blaming an airplane crash in gravity.
The Law - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1936594315/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;tag=thmariwi-20&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=390957&amp;creativeASIN=1936594315
Economics in one lesson - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0517548232/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;tag=thmariwi-20&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=390957&amp;creativeASIN=0517548232
That which is seen and is not seen - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1453857508/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;tag=thmariwi-20&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=390957&amp;creativeASIN=1453857508
Our enemy, the state - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001E28SUM/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;tag=thmariwi-20&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=390957&amp;creativeASIN=B001E28SUM
How capitalism save america - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1400083311/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;tag=thmariwi-20&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=390957&amp;creativeASIN=1400083311
New Deal or Raw Deal - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1416592377/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;tag=thmariwi-20&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=390957&amp;creativeASIN=1416592377
Lessons for the Young Economist - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1933550880/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;tag=thmariwi-20&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=390957&amp;creativeASIN=1933550880
For a New Liberty - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1610162641/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;tag=thmariwi-20&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=390957&amp;creativeASIN=1610162641
What Has Government Done to Our Money? - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/146997178X/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;tag=thmariwi-20&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=390957&amp;creativeASIN=146997178X
America's Great Depression - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/146793481X/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;tag=thmariwi-20&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=390957&amp;creativeASIN=146793481X
Defending the Undefendable - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1933550171/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;tag=thmariwi-20&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=390957&amp;creativeASIN=1933550171
Metldown - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1596985879/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;tag=thmariwi-20&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=390957&amp;creativeASIN=1596985879
The Real Lincoln - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0761526463/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;tag=thmariwi-20&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=390957&amp;creativeASIN=0761526463
The Road to Serfdom - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0226320553/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;tag=thmariwi-20&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=390957&amp;creativeASIN=0226320553
Capitalism and Freedom - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0226264211/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;tag=thmariwi-20&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=390957&amp;creativeASIN=0226264211
Radicals for Capitalism - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1586485725/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;tag=thmariwi-20&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=390957&amp;creativeASIN=1586485725
Production Versus Plunder - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0979987717/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;tag=thmariwi-20&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=390957&amp;creativeASIN=0979987717
Atlas Shrugged - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0452011876/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;tag=thmariwi-20&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=390957&amp;creativeASIN=0452011876
The Myth of the Rational Voter - http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0691138737/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;tag=thmariwi-21&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;camp=1634&amp;creative=19450&amp;creativeASIN=0691138737
Foutainhead - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0452273331/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=390957&amp;creativeASIN=0452273331&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;tag=thmariwi-20
Anthem - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0452281253/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=390957&amp;creativeASIN=0452281253&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;tag=thmariwi-20
There are of course more books, but this should last you a few years!
This question has been a lot answered a lot — you should check the sidebar.
That said, the boring but generally good advice is to first save up an emergency fund large enough pay for three months of your life with no other income during that period before you start investing. A lot of people say 10k is a good round number for that fund, but it'll obviously vary from person to person.
Once you have that, you should check out Robinhood. It gets a lot of flak on reddit because it gives people who might have no idea what they are doing a lot of power to blow all their money on penny stocks and emotion. While most other brokerages will charge you $8 - $10 for every trade, Robinhood charges nothing. That saves you a lot, especially if you're starting out with a relatively low portfolio value, but it also means you have to hold your emotions in check on your own, since commission fees won't be there to do it for you.
Vanguard offers a great variety of ETFs, many of which are available on Robinhood. You should check out that list.
I'd also advise you read at least one book. I really like A Random Walk Down Wall Street. I'll spoil the ending for you: It's really hard to beat the market. But it's not so hard to match it.
I highly suggest Burton Malkiel's Burton Malkiel's "A Random Walk Down Wall Street" to any non-technical (and, frankly, even technical) persons seeking a general understanding of economics and finance. It is easy to read and touches on 95% of the key terms that would be covered in an interview.
Anything more in depth than this would likely require more time than you seem to have.
Edit: a word.
I would keep maybe 5k in cash as an emergency fund. With the 10k left I'd recommend a low cost stock mutual fund or ETF. Vanguard has good ones. VTSMX is the total stock fund, although that is weighted more towards large companies. If you want to focus on smaller companies, you could go with the small cap growth fund, VSGAX.
For books, A Random Walk Down Wall Street would be a good place to start.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0393352242/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1521043399&amp;sr=8-1&amp;pi=AC_SX236_SY340_FMwebp_QL65&amp;keywords=a+random+walk+down+wall+street&amp;dpPl=1&amp;dpID=51SyHrmTdTL&amp;ref=plSrch
>The problem is, the "market" doesn't do a good job deciding what people should earn.
I wouldn't agree with that statement. Probably the only time the "market" doesn't have a say in determining wages is in the case of executives who essentially determine their own pay. That's what comes to mind (I'm assuming) for most people when they think of "overpaid" workers. Point being, in that case, the market doesn't directly decide the pay of those who have the most exorbitant salaries. It's not a failure of the market. If anything, it's the lack of competition present due to government intervention...
>My point is this: If the country locked down wages in a tiered system, the market would still have to be based on demand
If the country is locking down wages, it's not allowing the market (including demand) to work as it should. It will cause a lot of problems. Examples of potential problems would be massive shortages of labor in some places and large surpluses (read: unemployment) in other areas. It would hurt local businesses in some areas and benefit them in other areas. The list could go on, but I think the point has been made.
>And if the workers' location was a non-issue, ALL states could develop really healthy and lucrative job markets.
It's not the workers' location that matters as much as the economic environment that they live in. Arguably the healthiest economy in the US today is found in North Dakota (3.8% unemployment and $1 billion budget surplus), which is about as far from Wall Street and the Silicon Valley as you can get.
Just wondering, how much exposure to economics do you have? A lot of the topics you're addressing have already been addressed by economists. If you're interested in seeing their take on things, I would recommend Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell, as a general introduction to the subject. Given what you've expressed thus far, I'm sure you'd enjoy seeing what he has to say.
here ya go:
http://www.amazon.com/Basic-Economics-4th-Ed-Economy/dp/0465022529
a preview:
http://www.altfeldinc.com/pdfs/BASICECONOMICS.pdf
off topic, but you might want to browse the old Krugman Truth Squad archives. Mr. Nobel Prize winner's newspaper columns were wrong on basic facts a shockingly high percentage of the time:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/206253/meet-krugman-truth-squad/donald-luskin#
A free market is the most efficient way to distribute scarce resources. Economics if the study of how this distribution of scarce resources happens.
Your ideals being well meaning are not rooted in reality. As of right now we don't have unlimited power sources, or even super efficient ones. We are coming to the point at which the basic necessities for humans can be provided with little effort, 3d built homes, food in abundance via advanced farming techniques (without oil though?), ubiquitous transportation thanks to computerized transport, an abundance of energy via new nuclear/solar/wind technologies. These will make the basic human life easy, but if you want to enjoy the scarcer resources, the nice property, the awesome vacations, the trip to Mars, then you will need to work and be more productive than the next guy. It is Basic Economics!
Since you like sci-fi, read about how this society deals with scarcity, this is the model we are moving towards.
http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm
http://www.amazon.com/Basic-Economics-4th-Ed-Economy/dp/0465022529/ref=dp_ob_image_bk
> Could you stop with the ad hominem?
Can you please stop using ad hominem incorrectly? "means responding to arguments by attacking a person's character, rather than to the content of their arguments. When used inappropriately, it is a fallacy in which a claim or argument is dismissed on the basis of some irrelevant fact or supposition about the author or the person being criticized."
I'm not attacking your character, I called your comparison ignorant, because it is.
> You've missed the point -- the point is that the market can't tell if the egg is broken or not; and behaves the same way for those twenty years until it is put to use (or not in the case of the broken egg).
I didn't miss your point at all. Your thought "experiment" is famously well known as Schrödinger's cat. The thing is, you can't use this paradox in economics. "The problem with Schrödinger's thought experiment is that the scientist doing it has to open up the box to see how the cat has fared. But the act of looking destroys the superposition. The quantum states “decohere” or collapse into one classical state or the other. In other words, whenever you actually look in the box, the cat is always either dead or alive."
You can't assume that simply because a bitcoin is not being used that it will never be used again. There has to be a consensus and way to prove to 100% of a degree that it will never be used again before it truly lowers supply.
> The act of holding is one of NOT spending. And as you seem happy with the idea that spending alters things, then so too, by definition does not spending.
Now, I'll agree that what I'm about to say is debatable, but inflation exists to encourage spending. Without it it's likely economies would collapse. Bottom line, not spending hurts instead of helps.
> Everyone does not do that though. And as I explicitly said -- that wasn't what I was advocating.
This is called Tragedy of the Commons - "an economics theory by Garrett Hardin, individuals acting independently and rationally according to each one's self-interest, behave contrary to the whole group's long-term best interests by depleting some common resource."
This is what I'm trying to give light to. Although you may think differently, your actions are in fact contrary to the whole group's long-term best interest.
> What on earth do you think "supply" means? You do understand that supply is a fluid thing, when we talk about supply and demand it is "supply at a particular price".
You are completely crossing supply with market cap. Price is completely irrelevant to supply when trying to analyze overall supply. And what price? Price compared to dollars? To gold? To tulips? It's completely arbitrary.
> I might be willing to sell my services at $100 an hour but not at $10 an hour -- hence, when I withhold my services at $10 an hour, the total supply of that service in the economy at that time is lowered.
This is called Fair market value. You don't set this, the market does. And if you think you do, well, then you're going to go out of business FAST!
> If I am a baker, and I choose not to bake some loaves does that not lower supply?
No, if it never existed in the first place it has no impact on the supply. A thought doesn't affect supply.
>If I am a baker and I choose to bake those loaves, but then throw them away, how is that any different from my not having baked them at all? Supply is lowered.
When you bake them, supply increases, when you throw them away, supply decreases. You may end up with the same total supply as there would have been if you had not baked them at all, but nonetheless, you still affected total supply during the time they existed. How do you not get this??
I don't mean to be argumentative, but I'm done trying to teach Economics 101 to you. None of your arguments have any backing and are completely suggestive. Do yourself a favor and please look at the links hyperlinked in this post and read this book. It will help you greatly.
Actual Conservative here. You seem to know nothing of our ideas other than strawmen put forth from lefist echo chambers (like this very sub).
Here is a good start for you if you actually want to have a basic understanding.
I cringe every time I say this because, being married and gay myself, the author has some fairly horrific social beliefs on equality for people like me. If you read his other writings (he's prolific) please do not attribute them to me or think I support them in any way. The guy would be perfectly happy to rip my family apart and have us enjoy limited protections under the law.
That said, I believe in being impartial and judging people by the quality of their work. Professionally, he wrote what is simply the best introductory topic for the layperson who wants a real-world understanding of the fundamental laws of economics and how they influence day-to-day life. It's called Basic Economics by economist Thomas Sowell. It is the book I gave members of my own family when they reached adulthood and took an interest in what I do.
Read it. It will be one of the few things that can pay dividends for the rest of your life. You'll end up with at least a freshman or sophomore level understanding of college economics in terms of the big ideas; the things that matter. Just as importantly, you'll know enough to be able to research topics that interest you further and that seem counterintuitive (e.g., understanding why economists hate rent control because it always leads to worse housing conditions and out-of-control housing costs for the poor and working class due to manipulation in the supply/demand curve.). It's far easier to get through than a textbook and will give you a lot to consider.
As for tax policy, not off the top of my head. I think the big thing is to get the fundamental economic ideas right because then you can at least understand how your stated goals relate to tax policy which involve, to some degree, moral decisions about fairness. When you get into tax policy, it's more about numbers; learning to analyze the data yourself to decide whether you are being manipulated.
>It's doesn't steal money from me.
This has been discussed many times on this sub. The definition of steal we are using is.
Steal: to take without asking for permission.
The State did not ask for your permission before it took your taxes. The definition of steal that you might have been using is.
"to take with the intention of using the stolen goods to help others"
Are you really OK with this definition of steal? If I'm hungry and I stop you on the street and take your wallet because it's for a "good cause to help the hungry" is this really OK?
You could be thinking "but The State doesn't actually physically threaten people for taxes". You know that isn't true though already. There are people in Prison for not paying taxes.
>Only you and a small number of people with your outlook think you're being stolen from.
Only a small number of people believed in the merits of a Constitutional Republic at one point too. Obviously it doesn't matter how many people believe something. That's an appeal to authority, not a very productive argument.
>The money we give over as taxes into a collective pool is used to support people who are in vulnerable situations.
All of the evidence that I've seen suggests that Welfare programs make the poor worse off not better. I highly recommend reading this book on the issue.
http://www.amazon.com/Basic-Economics-Common-Sense-Economy/dp/0465022529/ref=cm_lmf_tit_3
You also understand that your tax money is used to murder and cage innocent people right? Do you believe that people should be put in prison for victimless crimes? Do you believe your money should be used to bomb thousands of people in foreign lands?
> Lol I like how you cherry pick. You totally avoided the bulk of my last comment
Lol, I like how you stand up straw men... like the bulk of your last comment which I ignored because it was irrelevant. I also like how you use "lol" as an argument... just pretend your debate opponent is missing some painfully obvious point which everyone is aware of... and you don't have to argue whatever that imaginary point was.
The bulk of your comment started with this:
> So yes we’re talking about the disadvantaged. You’re pretending it doesn’t exist and you need me to spoon feed you instances where the wealthy take advantage....." yadda, yadda, yadda.
I never said there weren't people who are disadvantaged. I never said that rich people never take advantage of others. The whole bit is irrelevant and I ignored it because it didn't pose a question and contained nothing of substance with which I really disagree... just some huffing about how exhausting you find it that someone you're debating with doesn't just agree with you.
But your position is NOT that the rich sometimes take advantage of people but that they are only be rich because they take advantage of people. It's not that I "can't say anything bad about rich people" but that I'm saying there's nothing bad with being rich in-and-of itself... a rich person has to have done something bad for me to condemn them, for you it's just enough that they are rich and you assume, wrongly, that they must have done something bad to be so rich.
That is the premise which I'm contesting. I'm not bothering to argue with you about stuff on which we already agree, that rich people can be bad people and do bad things.
> Anyway have you actually read anything about income inequality? Can you link please?
Sure, here, here, really any decent economics textbook not written by by a marxist would suffice.
Right here: https://www.amazon.com/Basic-Economics-Common-Sense-Economy/dp/0465022529
Reactionary Thought
Chartism – Thomas Carlyle
Latter-Day Pamphlets – Thomas Carlyle
The Bow of Ulysses – James Anthony Froude
Popular Government – Henry Summers Maine
Shooting Niagara – Carlyle
The Occasional Discourse – Carlyle
On Heroes, Hero Worship & the Heroic in History – Carlyle
The Handbook of Traditional Living – Raido
Men Among the Ruins – Julius Evola
Ride the Tiger – Julius Evola
Revolt Against the Modern World – Julius Evola
Reflections of a Russian Statesman – Konstantin Pobedonostsev
Popular Government – Henry Maine
Patriarcha (the Natural Power of Kings) – Sir Robert Filmer
Decline of the West – Oswald Spengler
Hour of Decision – Oswald Spengler
On Power – Jouvenel
Against Democracy and Equality – Tomislav Sunic
New Culture, New Right – Michael O’Meara
Why We Fight – Guillaume Faye
The Rising Tide of Color – Lothrop Stoddard
Liberty or Equality – Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn
Democracy: The God that Failed – Hans-Hermann Hoppe
****
Economics
Economics in One Lesson – Henry Hazlitt
Basic Economics – Thomas Sowell
That Which is Seen and That Which is Not Seen – Frederic Bastiat***
Man, Economy, and State – Murray Rothbard
Human Action – Ludwig von Mises
****
&#x200B;
GFC has everything to do with QE (book) and why the effects are so large.
Since we're having the argument and /r/newzealand loves a good inequality post - Britain's richest 5% gained most from quantitative easing
As has been mentioned. QE is a last resort. Not a luxury to help exporters.
> That's just not true.
well, obviously you're always going to have some. but the gov't was too new at that time for business influences to infiltrate it deeply. Esp relative to the situation today.
> It would tend to be professionals who are trained in that speciality voting on how to go about their tasks
how is that any different from having politician running things? who decides who gets to vote? doesn't direct democracy require that all citizens vote on all policy initiatives? what's to stop this small group of voters from colluding?
> No because it's a system designed for self-sufficiency.
i don't give a fuck if i can survive on potatoes and a hut I grow and build myself. I want a plasma TV and to fly from New York to Seattle in 4 hours and a nice house and medical care. I think you're making a LOOOOT of assumptions about people's willingness to accept self-sufficiency for a horrible quality of life.
> You could just as well say that we're currently sacrificing our planet for more wealth.
that's veeeery subjective opinion. i agree global warming is real, but it's a huge step to say it threatens life on Earth.
> For one, money isn't the only incentive.
true, but it's the strongest one.
> America didn't just become rich because people 'busted their asses'
we'll have to disagree on this.
> if you look at what happened after the crash, the biggest losers were actually people in the middle class
this was not due to capitalism though, it was entirely the gov't bailouts, bank deposit insurance, and low interest rates.
> Basically, you seem to have a very romanticized vision of capitalism in your head that simply doesn't reflect historical facts.
I would say the same of you and communism.
It seems our debate ends here. We seems to disagree on points that would take a lot of effort to explain to each other. And I'v got boards in a week. Take it easy. If you have time and interest to learn about Austrian Econ, I'd recommend http://www.amazon.com/How-Economy-Grows-Why-Crashes/dp/047052670X/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1370971957&amp;sr=8-4&amp;keywords=peter+schiff
It's short and explains things from scratch.
>well, obviously you're always going to have some. but the gov't was too new at that time for business influences to infiltrate it deeply. Esp relative to the situation today.
Not true at all. The country was founded on the principle that the role of government should be to protect private property from the majority of people. Originally, you couldn't even vote if you weren't a landowner. Businesses didn't infiltrate it, they completely controlled it.
>how is that any different from having politician running things? who decides who gets to vote? doesn't direct democracy require that all citizens vote on all policy initiatives? what's to stop this small group of voters from colluding?
You honestly can't see the difference? If a factory (for instance) needs to make policy decisions, the workers all vote on what to do. They're all collective owners so they all get a say. It's not that difficult really.
>i don't give a fuck if i can survive on potatoes and a hut I grow and build myself. I want a plasma TV and to fly from New York to Seattle in 4 hours and a nice house and medical care. I think you're making a LOOOOT of assumptions about people's willingness to accept self-sufficiency for a horrible quality of life.
That's nice. I'm sure you also enjoy buying designer clothing that is drastically overpriced and made in sweatshops where the owners hire thugs to keep workers from organizing. I think you're also assuming that self sufficiency requires abandoning technology and living in a hut. It definitely doesn't. I can't tell if you're being deliberately ignorant or not.
>that's veeeery subjective opinion. i agree global warming is real, but it's a huge step to say it threatens life on Earth.
Then you must not know too much about global warming.
>this was not due to capitalism though, it was entirely the gov't bailouts, bank deposit insurance, and low interest rates.
According to Marx's social analysis, yes this is 100% capitalism. The bailouts and recession basically happened exactly how Marx predicted that the capitalist economy will function. According to Marx, it's not just about free competition, it's about the wealthiest companies using their wealth and power to stamp out competition and rig the system for their own interests. After all, they're only trying to make money so why wouldn't they? Money is such a strong incentive, isn't it?
>It seems our debate ends here. We seems to disagree on points that would take a lot of effort to explain to each other. And I'v got boards in a week. Take it easy. If you have time and interest to learn about Austrian Econ, I'd recommend http://www.amazon.com/How-Economy-Grows-Why-Crashes/dp/047052670X/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1370971957&amp;sr=8-4&amp;keywords=peter+schiff
Peter Schiff is an idiot and a pseudo conspiracy theorist. I've already taken time to learn about Austrian economics. It has some decent ideas but if you're getting your view of Marx from Austrian economists then you're not going to know what you're talking about. All in all, it's one school of economics but it's not the only school or even the most practical school.
The best book for economics. A follow up to that is Peter Schiff's book How and Economy Grows and Why it Crashes.
Another is The Road to Serfdom by F.A. Hayek
How an Economy Grows and Why It Crashes
By: Peter Schiff, a modern Austrian economist amazing!!
I had this moment back in 2006/07 when it became incredibly clear to me something was seriously out of whack and i needed to at least try to make sense of it all. It has been quite a journey but in the end i ended up basically changing my entire outlook on life, the economy and politics. I will come with some suggestions for reading and watching material but i just want to give one piece of advice: Every book you read, every article, every blog, every youtube lecture you see. You have do think, decode and analyze as best as you can. They will provide you with "lenses" that you can see the world through. The more you learn about a subject the sharper your lense will be able to focus information before it enters your mind. When you obtain new knowledge you might have to substitute a lens because this new one provides a better way of interpreting the world. When you have read so much that you have accumulated a good set of lenses about economy, history, philosophy, physics etc you can stack them and filter the information you perceive through all lenses at the same time, effectively they work like binoculars at this time. It is then that you will understand that you can maybe not grasp everything, but at least you will see a lot clearer than people only using simple and crude lenses. In addition you will be able to recognize, through their actions or words, the lenses that people around you use to understand reality. Im sorry if this was abstract.
1.
History, most undervalued subject when it comes to economics:
Read, watch listen to everything from Niall Fergusson. This man has a grasp of history that is very rare.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niall_Ferguson
2.
Do not be afraid to listen to fund managers, they are the most brutally honest, no nonsense people you will ever hear from. Their only goal in life is to obtain what they refer to as 'alpha', the truth. If you know the truth and everyone around has a clouded judgement or preconceptions about the economy you will win.
Of the most outspoken and knowledgeable managers:
I would watch all videos on youtube that any of these people are involved in, twice. Any term they use i would google and research thoroughly.
3.
Other notable economic/political figures:
4.
You also have to learn a lot of new words and what they mean. Everything your read or watch will refer to a lot of strange terms, people and philosophy, if you want any deeper understanding you have to read books on some of these specific terms. I would advice to learn in detail about:
5.
I would be careful putting too much faith in these notable people:
Even if he is blind to this he has the most perfect introductory book to economics:
http://www.amazon.com/How-Economy-Grows-Why-Crashes/dp/047052670X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1322700761&amp;sr=8-1
6.
Be very weary of people who have a very binary view of economics or politics, they often only see the world through one lens. This gives them a very polarized outlook.
7.
Stay away from very technical blogs (like zerohedge) in the beginning. If you don't have a very clear and deep understanding of what you are reading it will just confuse. You need to know all the terms used and what they really mean, and not on a superficial level.
I spent the last 5 years basically reading any book on any relevant subject, now i'm pretty content with my overview now. I have taken a somewhat negative short term view (the next 4-6 years) on behalf of the developed economies but an incredibly positive view on the long term outlook for the human race, the developing economies in particular. It is too late here now, i must sleep, i have probably forgotten a great deal of good names.
OK see when you say that non-substantive buzzword salad it shows me that you don't understand economics at all, you're just repeating things you've heard.
https://www.amazon.com/How-Economy-Grows-Why-Crashes/dp/047052670X
Here's this. It's a quick read, as it's meant for children, but it lays out basically how the economy works. Really good book, don't let its juvenile appearance put you off. I'm actually serious, too; I just read this again recently and it explains a lot of things that I sometimes have trouble articulating very succinctly and neatly.
How an Economy Grows and Why It Crashes
http://www.amazon.com/The-Creature-Jekyll-Island-Federal/dp/0912986212
http://www.amazon.com/Economics-One-Lesson-Shortest-Understand/dp/0517548232/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1346725691&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=economics+in+one+lesson
http://www.amazon.com/How-Economy-Grows-Why-Crashes/dp/047052670X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1346725707&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=how+an+economy+grows+and+why+it+crashes
Here is some reading material:
https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/economic-freedom-of-the-world-2017.pdf
https://www.amazon.com/How-Economy-Grows-Why-Crashes/dp/047052670X
https://www.heritage.org/budget-and-spending/report/the-impact-government-spending-economic-growth
https://www.mercatus.org/publication/does-government-spending-affect-economic-growth
I am sure we can both cite lots of sources to support our own claims. But the fact of the matter is that Keynesian economics have a horrible track record of predicting economic downturns, compared to some other schools of thought.
>I use her car for work
Shouldn't you have some sort of insurance then?
>(down approximately 6% on the year)clearly i suck at that game.
I recommend you read up on some books! (An index of stocks are up 7.69% in Canada so far this year and 4.16% in the USA)
A good one about investing is "The millionaire teacher". It's a good book for everyone.
Another more 'general' one about finances is "The Wealthy Barber Returns".
Also a general website: http://canadiancouchpotato.com/
There are a number of books or blogs that you can follow as well.
Millionaire Teacher book
DividendEarner
SureDividends
Start somewhere and you will adjust what you need to learn.
Read this book
I recommend you read up on index investing. This is a good book:
http://www.amazon.ca/dp/0470830069
Also understand the power of passive investing. Another good book:
http://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/0470592206/
At the very least read the first recommended book. I feel that index investing is the best way to go, but you should do your research and decide if you think it is as well.
Compound interest is the closest thing to magic in this world. You need to at least learn the very basics of investing. Check out r/financialindependence and read this and this.
Never stop exercising. Start doing 5x5's if you aren't already. If you have time to watch TV you have time to lift.
Don't waste your time and attention on mental opiates. Kill your facebook account. Fuck social media.
The top 1% pays 47% of all taxes, here are some sources TaxFoundation, Wall Street Journal, CNBC, and finally The IRS.
Now I want the bottom half who [pay 2% of all taxes] to pay their fair share.
Now the question becomes what is someone's fair share? Is it proportional to the amount of wealth someone has, The top 1% have 34.6% of the wealth but as I pointed out earlier they pay 47% of all taxes.
My solution is to take away voting rights for people who are net negatives when it comes to taxes; that is, you should not be able to vote to take more of someone's money because you feel you deserve it.
____
Millionaire flights are already happening in The US, France, and in the UK (three sources there) to the tune of billions in lost tax revenue.
____
Read this book called Millionaire Teacher It’s true that many millionaires have earned their money by starting (or selling) their own businesses or finding high-paying positions within organizations. But this certainly isn’t the only way to amass $1 million. In his book “Millionaire Teacher,” Andrew Hallam explains how he saved over $1 million as a teacher well before retirement age, outlining how he used low-cost index funds and a disciplined approach to saving, investing and living on a budget to build a nest egg most of his fellow teachers would envy.
In addition to investing in the stock market, like Hallam, other millionaires boost their bottom lines by adding second jobs or passive streams of income. For instance, investing in real estate can allow a middle-income wage-earner to develop rental income as a second, reliable income stream. Artists who pay the bills and invest with the income earned through a day job might sell paintings for hundreds or thousands of dollars on the side and bank the extra income. Those who don’t earn million-dollar paychecks can still reach the $1 million mark; it just requires discipline, creativity and focus on the goal.
The largest group of millionaires from 2014 actually came from media – Graphic chart
____
Our problem with economic growth is that the government pushed everyone to get a college degree so hard that now even the most menial jobs are asking for a degree and years of experience, either internship or volunteer/hobby, or a masters degree for relatively basic work. The government created an education bubble and when our manufacturing jobs went overseas, which was always going to happen due to our short term WWII based monopoly on manufacturing (We bombed nearly all of Europe's manufacturing and China was still agrarian), creating a bubble and popping. So now we have a bunch of college educated kids fighting for minimum wage jobs for two main reasons:
The following is from a HUD memo quoted here
>For many potential homebuyers, the lack of cash available to accumulate the required downpayment and closing costs is the major impediment to purchasing a home. Other households do not have sufficient available income to to make the monthly payments on mortgages financed at market interest rates for standard loan terms. Financing strategies, fueled by the creativity and resources of the private and public sectors, should address both of these financial barriers to homeownership.
____
Cool, so the housing crisis was largely a problem of government telling people to go out and buy houses, in some cases four or five, that they could not afford and the banks that we instructed by HUD to lend them the money anyway. Next, you have the college bubble, both the education bubble and the accompanying debt bubble, which are due to pop within the next three to five years at most, again due to government overregulating and pushing an equality of outcome secnario.
Now if you want to increase my taxes, which we have already established I pay a disproportionate amount of (47% on total percentage, 34.6% on wealth – which isnt even taxed) to fund what? Another government intervention in social welfare, or even worse social justice, that will cause a new created asset bubble and tank the economy in 20 years for my children?
No thanks.
> Is it silly to ask a professional for their help on my first trades and pay them for their service?
Not at all, plenty of smart and well-paid people do it.
The thing is, there is plenty of evidence that paying someone to manage your portfolio is just not worth the fees. IMO, internet_poster is right about buying index funds.
I highly recommend this book:
Millionaire Teacher
It is available at the public library.
[Millionaire Teacher: The Nine Rules of Wealth You Should Have Learned in School] (https://www.amazon.ca/Millionaire-Teacher-Wealth-Should-Learned/dp/0470830069/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1481135004&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=Millionaire+Teacher%3A) seriously this has been a bit of a godsend and has changed a lot about the way I think about personal finance.
A "rule" I have heard over and over is keep a 6 month emergency fund. If you cut it down to that you free up 80k, I enjoyed this book. http://www.amazon.com/Millionaire-Teacher-Wealth-Should-Learned/dp/0470830069
TL:DR. put 80k into an index fund.
> every time I get an idea to invest and start reading about it I get frustrated and give up.
> It can't be that hard because it seems like everyone and their baby has investments in one thing or another but I'm too dumb to figure it out.
Read one book: The Millionaire Teacher.
Kevin Mitnick's The Art of Deception
I believe in the idea of a human element. It is the system has more to do with your actions than you do. Just like walking into an empty diner. They set the tables/chairs etc. And the seat you pick will probably within good accuracy be the first seat the majority sits at. I am really enjoying this book right now by Kevin Mitnick "The Art of Deception". The first few stories had me laughing and cringing.
Di ko maia-upload lahat ng books kasi around 7gb sya. :( Though yeah may mga mega bundles ng IT books online gaya ng sabi nung isang reply.
Well anyway, if you're into those books, I recommend The Art of Deception by Mitnick and Simon (si Steve Wozniak nag-foreword sa book na 'to haha) tsaka The Art of Exploitation. Di ko tanda kung meron ako nung books pero afaik may mga online pdf copies naman. Happy reading! :D
The Art of Deception is nominally about protecting you and your company, but it also gives you an idea of his social engineering. Again, it's focused on modern day cons, but I do enjoy reading about all sorts of cons, fictional and nonfictional.
https://www.amazon.com/Art-Deception-Controlling-Element-Security/dp/076454280X
I recommend the books "The Art of Intrusion" and "The Art of Deception" by Kevin Mitnik. One of the most famous hackers in history (the movie Hackers was inspired by him and Hackers 2: Takedown is a moderately historical adaptation of his escapades). The books gives a breakdown of what he did and what hacking is really like (in the 80s and 90s, at least). In short, its more research, reading, trial and error, and social engineering than actual typing.
Intelligence – Analysis – Insight
---
> The Art of Deception: Controlling the Human Element of Security (2003), Kevin Mitnick https://www.amazon.com/Art-Deception-Controlling-Element-Security/dp/076454280X/
> Red Teaming: How Your Business Can Conquer the Competition by Challenging Everything (2017), Bryce Hoffman https://www.amazon.com/Red-Teaming-Competition-Challenging-Everything/dp/1101905972/
> Shortcut: How Analogies Reveal Connections, Spark Innovation, and Sell Our Greatest Ideas (2015), John Pollack https://www.amazon.com/Shortcut-Analogies-Connections-Innovation-Greatest/dp/1592409474/
> Red Team: How to Succeed by Thinking Like the Enemy (2015), Micah Zenko https://www.amazon.com/Red-Team-Succeed-Thinking-Enemy/dp/0465048943/
---
Here are some other news items:^credits ^to ^u-sr33
> NIST Wants To Know How Utility Companies Can Deter Hackers
> Vitaly Churkin, Russian Ambassador To U.N., Is Dead At 64
> Russia's ambassador to U.N. dies suddenly after falling ill in New York City
> Current national defense models don’t work in cyberspace
---
^I'm ^a ^bot ^| ^OP ^can ^reply ^with ^"delete" ^to ^remove ^| ^Message ^Creator ^| ^Source ^| ^Did ^I ^just ^break? ^See ^how ^you ^can ^help! ^Visit ^the ^source ^and ^check ^out ^the ^Readme
I'll keep it short, since I have other things to do.
Edit:
> ...so it makes no sense to say that the income equality is more beneficial than economic development.
Again, that's not the assertion! I'll try to say it for the last time. The claim is that income equality is more beneficial than further economic development specifically for the rich countries. Notice the word "further". In other words: if we take the countries that are already rich, from now on they will benefit much more from increases in equality than increases in GDP. (The same is not true for poor countries. Poor countries still need both: more growth and more equality).
https://www.amazon.com/Spirit-Level-Equality-Societies-Stronger/dp/1608193411
Pick up this book if you like reading, the economy, ethics, any combination of the former. In essence, the book says how greater equality makes societies stronger. In ALL aspects, culturally, mentally, AND economically. It basically discusses how with the ever increasing wage gape in our society, there has been a paralleled increasing inequality. And the moral implications, therefore, of an economic system should be to promote equality.
No, it is not a book that argues in favor of wealth distribution or any other sort of socialist undertones one may have take away from what I just described. The book is supported by decades of research and statistics that support a clear message: Inequality and the economy are indisputably and intricately linked. Improve one. Improve the other.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The book The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger argues, as do other works, that inequality itself very often tends to produce harms.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Indeed, that book found the following. Take someone, call her Sarah, who is near the economic bottom of a rich society. Compare her to someone, call him Omar, who is near the top of a much poorer society, and has, in absolute terms, much less money than Sarah. In many ways, Omar has a better life than Sarah, the book found. I think.
EDIT: Also, and if I may ask this despite not really providing any data myself, do you have some figures or sources for your claim that 'poverty levels decreased significantly'?
In English and Norwegian.
I'll give you a reluctant upvote, because while I agree with every policy suggestion you have, we'd also do better as a society in most measures of well-being (polled happiness, crime rates, children's behavioral problems, drug addiction rates, mortality, etc.) if we merely enacted policy that sought to reduce the amount of economic inequality. There's growing evidence to support this... I'm reading about it right now in a book called The Spirit Level.
The easiest way to reduce economic inequality is to return to highly progressive taxation (like we used to have when we rebounded from the Great Depression), and to use the extra revenue to provide social services (including those you mentioned, like healthcare and education). My point is that adding the highly progressive taxation part improves the outcome.
I don't think there is any single right answer to that. Although I give a lot of weight to Marx's analysis of capitalism and his musings on human nature and alienation, I disagree with his proposed solutions. I think class war and revolution are outmoded in the modern world and in the past have lead to corrupt, domineering and incompetent political parties.
I think the answer is still out there and it is up to us to find it. My own two cents would be that a re-envisioning of democracy would be the best way forward: a situation where policies and economies are controlled by the people rather than capitalists and political parties. A de-centralised, participatory democracy. This won't always lead to socialist policies, but I think over time the human species would be able to find its balance, its equilibrium, according to its own will and nature, as opposed to being dictated to from above by rigid ideologies, parties, privately owned media, corporations, economic forces, religions and so on. But that's just my view. If I had the answers I wouldn't be sitting around typing shit on Reddit.
Regardless of how we get there, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence to suggest that equality is the most suitable environment for human beings: I strongly recommend this book if you've not read it.
I think working is an important experience, and I'm glad it brought positive things to you. Your post was an interesting read. But yeah, I was mainly referring to the macroeconomics of it.
In an ideal world with extremely low unemployment rates, it'd be excellent for everyone to at least have a small part-time job during their studies, if only for the experience of working 8 hours shifts and extra income. But right now, it's having an impact on everyone.
I'm from Quebec, where we had a major debate on rising tuition costs 2 years ago, and I was baffled to see a massive amount of low-wage workers screaming at the "entitled students" to suck it up and accept the higher tuition, and work their way like everyone else did. They never realized that the students would compete with them for low-wage jobs, and it'd make nearly everyone worse off.
Your comment on the respect for tradesmen is interesting, and I would direct you to Richard Wilkinson's TED Talk and even his book, which is absolutely a must-read for anyone ever I think, as far as social sciences go. Basically, the current research suggests that socioeconomic inequality increases tension between members of different classes/education levels and tends to push people to try really hard not to be associated with "lower classes". Conspicuous consumption and disdain for "lessers" are byproducts of that.
Finally, your comment on the negative impact on your grades I can 100% relate to. I've always been at the top of my classes without working very hard, while maintaining massive interest in the topic we saw (mainly urbanism and economics), and I saw how different the experience was for people around me who worked during their studies. I don't think my experience was different mostly because I'm smarter, but because I managed to make sure I had enough time and mental energy to actually spend it on what was important at the time; understanding my scientific field. The semesters when I worked while studying, I noticed I was less interested and way more stressed, so I learned a lot less. It's all about balance I guess.
By the way, this is the other book, just looked it up on my shelf:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Spirit-Level-Equality-Societies/dp/1608193411
The authors:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kate_Pickett
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_G._Wilkinson
There may be some pointers here, even though I have not read it myself.
I suggest you take a loot at Wilkinson's work on inequality. Work is based on UN data, and also separate date from the US states. Trust is for instance something that is larger in equal societies. Health seems to be better also for rich people in equal societies.
One good direction into their (Kate Pickett and Richard G. Wilkinson) work is a book called The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger. Wilkinson has, however, held a TED talk, and also a 90 minute talk on the subject.
Their conclusion is that it matters, on so many levels. Then again, people on the right side of the isle disagree.
Wilkinson & Pickett's The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger is written by two British social epidemiologists who talk about the social and individual effects of inequality globally based on international research, and it's wonderful. Here's a link if you're interested: http://www.amazon.com/The-Spirit-Level-Equality-Societies/dp/1608193411
Amazon.com link to book here
I have nothing to do with the project, but I am interested in how both the book and, presumably, the film, delve into the effects of inequality on the psyche on both micro and macro levels.
> yet still i was referring more to the abject poverty and deplorable conditions of the proletariat. which i think has still improved considerably
Understood. The problem with comparing that is any comparison is completely arbitrary. Systemic problems arise from vast inequalities, or as Smith said Social Distance, not from the relative comparative condition of the bottom 20% in 2010 in contrast to, say, 1700. Because at that point what 'good', 'prosperous', and 'healthy' even mean become utterly meaningless. I'm sure Genghis Khan would've considered having a refrigerator or cellphone awesome; doesn't mean he didn't live as a king.
--
I'm not a huge fan of this book, but will recommenced it anyway. It presents some complex subjects in simple terms, sometimes to its detriment. But all-in-all it will give you a good understanding, if only to serve as a jumping off point, of the relationship between vast inequalities and social health.
--
Furthermore large disparities are bad for the economy anyway. If the majority of citizens cannot afford cars, homes, or even take-out, the demand for consumer goods falls, decreasing supply, and resulting in further unemployment.
It's hard to go back and try to find what really clicked about Bitcoin. I had kind of a background on network security and cryptography (although not at the level to be a Bitcoin developer myself, unfortunately...).
I first heard about Bitcoin on the Security Now podcast probably in 2013 and completely ignored it. I didn't know anything about investing, money or the economy so I just didn't care.
Later in 2015/2016 I started to hear about it again. I was starting to get interested in economy, finance, valuation and all that stuff. So I've tried to read the wikipedia article about Bitcoin and didn't understand any of it. Public ledger and all that stuff...
Then finally I've stumbled on the original Bitcoin whitepaper. Read it. Loved it.
I was lucky enough to have just enough background in cryptography to understand it. It's very well written, very easy to read. You should read it if you haven't done it already. I believe you only need to have an idea of what a hash function is and what public key cryptography is to understand it pretty well.
Then I've started to dive into the question of "What is money?". Everyone will have a different opinion on it. In my opinion money is just a technology to help people make transactions and if possible to store some value that can be used in the future...
I've read The Bitcoin Standard which is kind of interesting and the famous post Shelling Out: The Origins of Money by Nick Szabo which some people believe might be the real Satoshi Nakamoto.
I really don't care if some economists believe that money needs "intrinsic value" or it needs to be "backed" by something. If you are trading it for goods and services and you can store it it is some sort of money.
And then there are some properties that makes some money more desirable than another.
Some of the properties of Bitcoin are very similar to the properties that make gold a good store of value. It is kind of neutral, nobody controls it, there's a limit amount of it. But it adds a lot of stuff that can make it better than gold:
I can certainly remember some more properties that make it more interesting than gold. But of course it doesn't have the track record. It just didn't exist 1000 year ago... It is not a good electrical conductor and it is not shinny and beautiful. ¯_(ツ)_/¯
Bitcoin might not work out but it looks like a good asymmetrical bet to take. Gold current market cap is around $7 Trillion. Bitcoin's market cap is around $150 Billion...
Here you go ... https://www.amazon.com/Bitcoin-Standard-Decentralized-Alternative-Central/dp/1119473861
Edit: Please make sure you read this by any means. It can turnout to be the most important piece of literature you will ever ready in your lifetime.
The following comment by ScienceRecruit was silently greylisted(for 21.2 hours).
(It was mod approved at: 2019-05-06T09:03:35.000Z UTC)
The original comment can be found at this link:
np.reddit.com/r/ Bitcoin/comments/bku8vr/-/emjz7zq?context=4
The original comment's content was as follows:
---
> If you read The Bitcoin Standard by Saifedean Ammous it will make sense.
If you read The Bitcoin Standard by Saifedean Ammous it will make sense.
Everyone interested on the subject should read:
The Bitcoin Standard: The Decentralized Alternative to Central Banking by Saifedean Ammous
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1119473861/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o00_s00?ie=UTF8&amp;psc=1
I have spent 3 fascinating days reading non-stop.
The Prize by Daniel Yergin
This is the history of oil. I felt like I saw the word in a very different way after learning how oil had been so important to so many crucial moments of modern history. You will come out of the book seeing modern politics in a very different light.
Basically if you are from the EU (or China, or whereever that's not the USA) and you want to by crude you will have to pay in USD as most countries will only sell in USA. Therefore you have to buy USD then buy your oil, this creates demand for the dollar and keeps it's price up.
The ME countries (read as the twats in charge of them) would typically end up with more USD than they knew what to do with in their own country and would start spending elsewhere, typically on US products.
That's the TL:DR of it, though if your interested in the oil industry and it's history i'd really recommend The Prize though there is a youtube series as well here but i haven't watched that.
A book on novel writing.
Anything be Jared Diamond.
The Prize.
If he likes Mac, a subscription to MacWorld.
It's like I'm listing off everything my husband likes. :-P
Osama bin Laden was not acting at the direction of the Saudi government. I believe O. B. L. had been disowned by his own family, the Saudi royal family and had had his Saudi citizenship revoked.
The Road to 9/11: A Brief History of Conflict in the Middle East
Meeting Osama Bin Laden
House of Bush, House of Saud
The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11
The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money & Power
If you really want to know, you should read Prize - The Epic Quest for Money, Oil and Power. It's basically a parallel history book of the last 150 years and helps explain geopolitical motivations and power struggles, almost all of which are either started by or kept up because of access to oil.
Which is to say, security of and access to, oil is as much as a priority to our national interest as having an anti-missile defense system.
"The Prize" by Daniel Yergin is a long but fun place to start. Bit more historical.
I don't know of any that compare, but, the Napoleon's Buttons is SUPPOSED to be good.
http://www.amazon.com/Napoleons-Buttons-Molecules-Changed-History/dp/1585423319/
Other books, engineering related, that I liked are:
Norm Lieberman's Process Troubleshooting books, the guy cracks me up!
Working Guide to Process Equipment (3rd edition probably cheaper): http://www.amazon.com/Working-Guide-Process-Equipment-Fourth/dp/0071828060/
Process Equipment Malfunctions (not as good as the other one, some overlap, but still worthwhile, and covers more breadth for individual issues): http://www.amazon.com/Process-Equipment-Malfunctions-Techniques-Identify/dp/0071770208/
The Prize (mentioned above): http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1439110123/ref=redir_mdp_mobile/188-3799228-4803548
The Quest (Follow on to The Prize): http://www.amazon.com/Quest-Energy-Security-Remaking-Modern/dp/0143121944/
Oil 101: http://www.amazon.com/Oil-101-Morgan-Downey/dp/0982039204/
The Mythical Man Month (Not engineering directly as it pertains to software, but, projects and project management are huge in engineering, though this book is timeless): http://www.amazon.com/Mythical-Man-Month-Software-Engineering-Anniversary/dp/0201835959/
Piping Systems Manual (You can NEVER know enough about pipe!): http://www.amazon.com/Piping-Systems-Manual-Brian-Silowash/dp/0071592768/
Pumps and Pumping Operations (OMG it is $4, hardcover, go buy now! This book is great... did you know OSU didn't teach their Chem E's about pumps? I was flabbergasted, gave this to our intern and he became not a scrub by learning about pumps!): http://www.amazon.com/Pumping-Operations-Prentice-Pollution-Equipment/dp/0137393199/
Any good engineer needs to understand MONEY too:
The Ascent of Money: http://www.amazon.com/Ascent-Money-Financial-History-World/dp/0143116177/
It's Nial Fergesuon, who has had his own series of dramas and dumb stuff. The Ascent of Money has a SLIGHT libertarian tinge... but it wasn't bad enough that I didn't enjoy it. I consider it a history book, and he attempts to write it like one.
Have fun!
Learn about Shale Gas, OPEC, and what recently has been happening to the price of crude oil I'm certain they will ask about that.
This is also a great book
http://www.amazon.com/Prize-Epic-Quest-Money-Power/dp/1439110123/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1420766548&amp;sr=8-5&amp;keywords=oil+and+gas
/r/SecurityAnalysis maintain a decent reading list.
The following is taken from it:
History
https://www.amazon.com/Prize-Epic-Quest-Money-Power/dp/1439110123
The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money & Power by Daniel Yergin.
This is a non-fiction narrative masterpiece about more than just the oil industry, but about the driving forces that have shaped the world we live in and the world we will live in. If you want to understand how the 20th century was shaped through the prism of those shaping forces then I recommend reading this book.
Here's subsidies for oil, not to mention all the money that goes into diplomatic/military intervention protecting interests of which I'm sure you're already probably aware. Also, fossil fuels power so much of our economy, so that selective government spending/rights protection also applies to power companies, manufacturing companies... hell really any company that uses fossil fuels more than the average person. Or how bout the grants and subsidies for telecom companies... not to mention the massive government infrastructure spending? Are those not entitlements? How about something as simple as a concert venue that uses public security forces more than your average person. That's a "right" that's selectively applied.
The point is, no matter what, your definition of "rights" are always selectively applied. I'm not even arguing that the above examples are bad things. I like having a regulated telecom infrastructure, and I like the fact that having that infrastructure employs lots and lots of people. I like having security. Hell, I don't like the fact that our gov fights wars in the middle east, but I do like burning fossil fuels that keep me warm and power machinery and electricity. However, if you're just going to justify your position on some philosophical platitude about "rights," I'm sorry but there's no way you can be consistent unless you advocate complete and radical overthrow of the system.
Daniel Yergin's The Prize covers this and more. You can find the TV series based on it on YouTube:
The Prize: http://www.amazon.com/The-Prize-Quest-Money-Power/dp/1439110123
All you ever wanted to know about the last century but had no clue it happened
!!! It makes me happy to hear that people who do this stuff are interested.
I mostly deal with software so I don't have a ton of knowledge about hardware design in particular, but for more general design-related stuff, there are a few things that come to mind:
You also might find the GOMS model useful for thinking about design and thinking about how to evaluate designs, and "cognitive load". I've seen people use the NASA-TLX survey (Task Load Index, I think) to try to turn something amorphous like workload and effort and whatnot into something quantifiable. An important underlying point here is that sometimes fewer keystrokes, or faster processes, or whatever, are worse if they require more effort or cause more frustration.
There are also some academic papers and concepts that might be useful:
I'll think if anything else comes to mind.
I don't mind the phrase if it's true. But this looks as abstract as any other web framework. Only humans willing to get over the learning curve will use it.
My suggestion for anyone who wants to program for humans is to read The Design of Everyday Things.
https://www.amazon.com/Design-Everyday-Things-Donald-Norman/dp/1452654123
Und hier sein Buch, sehr empfehlenswert.
If you want a good resource for design and usability check out this book http://www.amazon.com/Design-Everyday-Things-Donald-Norman/dp/1452654123
The arguments for and against can be summarized with 2 simple points:
The reality is, Ethereum is not a robustly built and well-tested system, and neither is the Dao. Yes yes yes, this wasn't ethereum's bug, blah blah blah. That's irrelevant - Robust & well designed systems prevent failures by proper and clever design.
This isn't to shame or bash Ethereum. Ethereum is barely 2 years old. The internet took nearly 25 years to develop. It took 22 years to go from Unix to Linux. It took 20 years to go from public key cryptography to a usable SSL encryption system. It took 18 years to go from the development of a mouse to a widely usable graphical OS, and 5 more to reach something non-geeks could use.
In conclusion, Ethereum age 2 is not a robustly built and well tested system. It does not create a bad precedent to acknowledge this reality and apply the rule of law until Ethereum grows up. When Ethereum has grown up, miners will refuse to accept arbitrary transaction controls, which is why the Blockchain innovation works so well.
I can recommend this book!
Read it twice, really good examples.
https://www.amazon.de/Design-Everyday-Things-Donald-Norman/dp/1452654123
> it's reassuring to know that you're validating (heh) Blizzard's decisions
Well, I validate the reasoning. I do think deck slots should have been changed sooner, especially if the final decision was just to increase them.
I think they wanted to tie deckslots to the larger overhaul of the new player experience (with basic decks), the deck recipes and the collection manager changes. I feel that is a mistake, seeing how strongly the community felt about deck slots.
There's a lot to learn from this, in terms of more reactivity to QOL changes. This patch in particular was way off their usual schedule. You can see the patch graph here:
https://github.com/HearthSim/hs-data/graphs/commit-activity
The february tick was a reverted patch that didn't go live, so the gap is even larger than it looks at first glance. Tying a bunch of QOL changes to such a late patch isn't a great idea either.
Anyway yeah. They do put a massive amount of thought on this behind the scenes. Derek Sakamoto gave a talk at last year's GDC about UI, it's worth watching if you're interested. /u/bbrode also talked about deck slots in his latest stream (vod on twitch.tv/bbrode).
If you're interested in UX, I recommend the book The Design of Everyday Things (I'll PM you a PDF if you want it but can't afford it). It will open your eyes to how a lot of people don't put any thought into what they present to their users. Has a lot of applications in UI design (or HCI in general) - when you waste your users' time, you lose customers.
Fun thing to do if you're bored: Try buying Final Fantasy XIV and time how long it takes you until you enter your card #. Then do the same thing with World of Warcraft. Took me ~45 minutes for FFXIV, vs. ~5 minutes for WoW. Blizzard doesn't fuck around.
I would strongly recommend working through the interface guidelines for Android and iOS there are lots of good UX principles in there even for web development. For more general design theory read The Design of Everyday Things .
Check out, The Design of Everyday Things by Donald Norman. He does a whole section on refrigerator interfaces being horrible. Rest of the book is great as well.
I still don't think you're fully getting where I'm coming from.
I want the web-dev eqiuvalent of this: https://www.amazon.com/Design-Everyday-Things-Donald-Norman/dp/1452654123
The design of everyday things
Its what im reading while i procrastinate on "thinking fast and low"
It delves into the psychology of how we interact with everyday things. While not dedicated to biases there are cases in the book where certain designs have the ability to trigger autopilot responses ie biases.
Its given me a new insight on how humans interact with an interface and how to structure for it
Your brain is essentially a giant complex pattern-matching heuristic guessing machine. It looks at something and decides "yep that probably is a sabre-tooth tiger holy shit" or in this case "that is a boxy looking thing with a hole at the top, let me rummage through my list of known boxy shapes with holes, oh yeah that's probably a __." This is how people can operate on autopilot performing actions without thinking consciously, which is why someone whose washing machine is near the bathroom may experience an odd urge to throw their clothes in the toilet if they are carrying their clothes and see an open toilet first -- "round hole with a lid sticking up, yep that's where the clothes go."
When drunk the neurons still fire but the brain has trouble making a thorough analysis so you are more on autopilot than when not drunk, so more likely to make errors like this. So when you need a toilet anything remotely roundish/boxy looking with some kind of hole on the top looks like a reasonable place to go -- laundry baskets, trash cans, etc.
It's really just a case of mistaken identity.
Source: The Design of Everyday Things by cognitive scientist Donald Norman. Amazing book, will change the way you look at everything.
TL;DR of the book: fuck doorknob designers right to hell.
The Design of Everyday Things
True - it's about Design of Everyday Things design. Definitely not another Silicon Valley circlejerk.
https://www.amazon.com/Mastering-Bitcoin-Programming-Open-Blockchain/dp/1491954388
https://smile.amazon.com/Mastering-Bitcoin-Programming-Open-Blockchain/dp/1491954388/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1512055205&amp;sr=8-3&amp;keywords=andreas+antonopoulos
It is?
Then why is it for sale? Even the kindle version is for sale.
Maybe I'm wrong - can you point to where he said he intended the book to be free?
I don't give a damn about lambos. I'm a developer and what makes me thrive in my everyday life are coding challenges. But I won't ask you to understand that...
If you think the biggest interest about blockchains is making money, you are far from understanding a damn about it. Neo is a governance token, as Ethereum is too. And the real revolution rests upon that principle.
Again, some reading/watching suggestions, in case you wish to educate yourself instead of posting non-constructive comments :
I was in the same boat as you and read a number of books on the subject. Most of those book didn't have much proof and got redundant. It felt like the books were selling me on hypothetical scenarios about how blockchain could change the world instead of explaining how it is changing the world.
That all changed with "The Internet of Money: Talks by Andreas M. Antonopoulos". This book changed the way I look cryptocurrency. I definitely reccomend it.
If you're technically inclined and want to learn more about how crypto currencies work, "Mastering Bitcoin" is a good book too.
Both these books have open source versions that can be found on github:
Internet of money: https://github.com/erangadbw/IoMv1
Mastering Bitcoin: https://github.com/bitcoinbook/bitcoinbook
However if you would like the kindle/softcover version you'll need to purchase them.
The internet of money: https://www.amazon.ca/Internet-Money-collection-Andreas-Antonopoulos/dp/1537000454/ref=pd_bxgy_14_img_2?_encoding=UTF8&amp;psc=1&amp;refRID=P0PTRQG90Q7D8MZ8X9WE
Mastering bitcoin: https://www.amazon.ca/Mastering-Bitcoin-Programming-Open-Blockchain/dp/1491954388/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1525026587&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=mastering+bitcoin
To be honest I have more trouble selling bch than buying.
Try bitcoin.com for desktop and mobile wallet or Electron for desktop wallet.
Fees are at the moment below £0.02 for transfer.
Bittylicious is accepting gbp bank transfer, but it is not the cheapest site. Not most expensive either tbf.
When it comes to exchanges you have to read their rules individually as they are not the same.
Edit: I also highly recommend this book.
First edition was better, but this will save you a lot of money in long run.
There are a lot of great resources available. It looks a little daunting at first, but I highly recommend reading the original bitcoin whitepaper, and then spending some time watching some videos. I would first recommend this one, followed by anything that looks interesting to you from Andreas Antonopoulos - He literally wrote the book on bitcoin.
https://www.amazon.com/Mastering-Bitcoin-Programming-Open-Blockchain/dp/1491954388
Note the author.
Unfortunately that's beyond my level, but someone else may chime in.
You might find "Mastering Bitcoin" by Andreas M. Antonopoulos to be helpful or at least interesting. Even though it's not Monero-centric it still has good info. The [newest version on Amazon] (https://www.amazon.com/Mastering-Bitcoin-Programming-Open-Blockchain/dp/1491954388/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1497328728&amp;sr=1-3&amp;keywords=mastering+bitcoin) is releasing in about 2 weeks.
hmm so I am reading Mastering Bitcoin by Antonopoulos, and here is what he says:
>Transaction outputs consist of two parts:
> An amount of bitcoin, denominated in satoshis, the smallest bitcoin unit
> A cryptographic puzzle that determines the conditions required to spend the output
...
> The cryptographic puzzle is also known as a locking script, a witness script, or a scriptPubKey.
...
>The second part of each output is the cryptographic puzzle that sets the conditions for spending. Bitcoin Core shows this as scriptPubKey and shows us a human-readable representation of the script.
what the hell is he talking about :)
It is more like a high school final exam, not too difficult. Depends how much you know about bitcoin though. Funny thing is, the exam requires payment in bitcoin only, and that is a test on its own. If you used bitcoin wallets to transact you are probably half way through.
Here is the study guide
https://cryptoconsortium.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/CBPStudyGuide.pdf
You can just use this to research the internet to clarify those aspects you don't know. The generic questions such as what is money etc are easy. Concentrate on cryptography, mining and wallets, i.e. the technical stuff specific to bitcoin.
The exam is mostly true/false choices, but pace is very fast. You have to answer questions within 16 seconds on average (20 minutes for 75 questions).
If you use bitcoin on a regular basis you are probably a bitcoin professional without the exam.
Andreas Antonopoulos, who is on board of this exam, can answer almost all your questions. Just google topics, and if you see one of his videos definitely watch it. Last but not least, if you read through his book Mastering Bitcoin you are good to go.
Free book here https://github.com/bitcoinbook/bitcoinbook
Buy on Amazon https://www.amazon.com/Mastering-Bitcoin-Programming-Open-Blockchain/dp/1491954388/ref=dp_ob_title_bk
https://www.amazon.com/Mastering-Bitcoin-Programming-Open-Blockchain/dp/1491954388/ref=dp_ob_title_bk
mastering bitcoin by Andreas M. Antonopoulos
https://www.amazon.com/Mastering-Bitcoin-Programming-Open-Blockchain/dp/1491954388/
Goes pretty deep into tech and not all is necessary to know, but its a great book.
I haven't had a chance to give either a read but I've seen it recommended enough that I'll send it your way. Have you looked at either Fundamentals of Futures and Options Market or Option Volatility and Pricing: Advanced Trading Strategies and Techniques? Maybe that's the more of what you're looking for.
still natenberg
options vol and pricing. just posted to the main WSB with link
https://www.amazon.com/Option-Volatility-amp-Pricing-Strategies/dp/155738486X
When you are done, read this:
http://www.amazon.com/Option-Volatility-amp-Pricing-Strategies/dp/155738486X
Option Volatility & Pricing-Natenberg
Start with Natenberg . If you're not willing to put in (a lot of) time, options are not the way you want to go...
I worked at the CME in Chicago as a broker and the books the guys told me to get when I first started were Options Pricing and Volitility and Technical Analysis of the Financial Markets. Learn options is the best advice, you will get WAY more return for your buck plus learn to protect yourself in your various positions using various strategies.
Very dry reading but its worth it. Good luck!
Since you are into equity research. Here are some suggestions.
Write cash protect puts on stocks that you have done the research on. For example if you think Disney is a buy at $105-110. Sell a put for disney with a 35-45% delta 30-45 days out (should be around 105-110 for an Oct monthly. This is imo the most efficient way to collect that sweet sweet theta premium.
Of you can write covered calls on stocks you own. Same idea, 30-45 days out, 35-45% delta.
There two strategies would imo be the safest ones.
There are so many options strategies you can use. You mentioned that stocks rarely move beyond 2SD anyways. But I believe the tail end risk is more than what a normal distribution might suggest, so you definitely don't want to write naked puts and get wiped out. But in a bull market, you can always write monthly put spreads just outside of the 1-2SD monthly expected move depends on your risk appetite.
My favorite strategy back in Feb/March was buying weekly SPX strangles at the 1SD weekly expected move. It was quite profitable when the VIX was high.
edit: another strategy if you want to take advantage vega. Sell an ATM straddle for a stock the week of the earnings, But protect yourself with another strangle a few weeks out when the vega impact is less.
But I would read natenberg first. There are just so many strategies out there, should learn the basics first.
this:
https://www.amazon.com/Option-Volatility-amp-Pricing-Strategies/dp/155738486X
This is the standard book for new hires at most prop shops:
https://www.amazon.com/Option-Volatility-amp-Pricing-Strategies/dp/155738486X
Sheldon Natenberg.
If you code, then write an option pricing calculator and play with it.
Start with Options & Volatility Pricing by S Natenberg as an intro: https://www.amazon.com/Option-Volatility-amp-Pricing-Strategies/dp/155738486X