Best international economics books according to redditors
We found 180 Reddit comments discussing the best international economics books. We ranked the 60 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
7. Monsoon: The Indian Ocean and the Future of American Power
4 mentions
Random House Trade Paperbacks
From an economics perspective:
From a social perspective:
From a moral perspective:
There's many more than just these, and there's a lot of underlying philosophy that modern conservationism is based on. I'd also categorize these books as a basis for "intellectual conservatism" as opposed to say "cultural conservatism". Something to note is that little of the conservative mindset is focused on policy and politics, per se. There is instead a strong emphasis on personal action and collective culture, the value of morals, and a focus on introspection. So while these books will perhaps help you understand a conservative perspective better, they will not likely provide a good basis for engaging in political debate. For that maybe you want a book by Ben Shapiro or something.
Dr. Ley wrote a book on the migration of millionaires from China to Vancouver and blames the government for failing to do anything about the skyrocketing cost of housing driven by foreign money. He has long said that the housing market in Vancouver is detached from local incomes and driven by foreign money. His prediction of +/- 5% is based on the government doing nothing to stop foreign money, which is very reasonable considering it's clear they have no intention of stopping foreign money. If they did actually ban foreign money, it would be a different story altogether.
UBC's Thomas Davidoff stated that if foreign money were removed from the Vancouver housing market, prices would drop 25-50%. It's common sense that if you were to ban all foreign money the housing market would basically implode. Obviously they're not going to do that.
Preface: I own a successful SEO company, as well as a half dozen other solid online businesses.
For learning SEO, I would recommend starting with the Moz beginners guide. This should be your first step, and will let you build a solid foundation.
After that it depends what kind of SEO you're looking for. I'm a recovering grey-hatter, and have been at this for the better part of a decade. With good experience under your belt trying to bend the rules can be ok sometimes (looking at you blackhatworld), but for a newbie it's just a recipe for disaster. I've seen literally thousands of webmasters get their projects and income completely wiped out by breaking Google's rules without knowledge on how to properly do it and how to mitigate risk. Google is only getting smarter with A.I. thrown in so I would personally never recommend someone new jump into the black/grey-hat stuff. It's an uphill battle that you will probably lose. Best to start with clean white-hat stuff until you're comfortable. And please don't create sites that don't provide real value, it's just not going to last. Affiliate bullshit is on the way out.
Some people who I do actually have some respect for in the SEO industry are Terry Kyle and Brian Dean. Follow them and you'll learn a lot. Becker did have some solid free info at one time (but all of his products sucked really hard), but I don't know if it's still any good or not. Remember that these guys are all marketers, so don't fall for the sales pitches & copywriting they will throw at you unless you really know what you're getting.
My personal recommendation is to learn from the Digital Marketer guys. Here are some of their courses, and here is kind of an intro to stuff. These guys are way over the top promotional, but there is zero question that they understand their topics like no other. If you master the funnels they talk about in detail first, marketing becomes much much easier. I know people who have doubled their biz's by just understanding the funnels.
So my recommendation is to learn some solid basics about SEO, and then diversify and learn other stuff. The people making the real money are not just SEO'ers, they are well rounded marketers who know when and how to use each skill (SEO, PPC, copywriting, funnels, content marketing, social media, etc). This is coming from experience. Even though I'm great at SEO, knowing when and how to apply all of these things is what created my real success, not just ranking a few sites in Google.
The quickest way to learn is probably from an apprenticeship. This site is ran by a friend of mine, and the entire purpose of the site is to help people like you learn from people already doing it.
> requiring knowledge of economics, computer programming, and the blockchain.
Unfortunately, to become an expert in Bitcoin, those are the competencies you'll need to master. There are some better ground-up instructions. What I would recommend.
If you even skim those three books you'll know more than 90% of the people who hold Bitcoin today.
My admittedly untrained opinion on Diamond's work is that, while incomplete, it's probably still worth reading (though, in your case, maybe not worth prioritizing). If I might offer an alternative "big history" sort of text with a similar thrust, I would recommend Ian Morris' "Why the West Rules -- for Now." It's an easy, fun read and generally more well-regarded around these parts.
I have three that I like to turn to:
Simon Kuper is one of the best writers in football. Anybody who likes this should read The Football Men: Up Close with the Giants of the Modern Game, Soccernomics or Football Against The Enemy.
Also I hate when footballers are labelled idiots. It requires extreme intelligence to be a top class player. Not "book learning" intelligence or even basic common sense, but extreme intelligence nonetheless. It's no different to how a top tier Physics academic might not be able to book a hotel room online. They are brilliant in their field, bit sometimes dim in other areas.
Interesting.
It looks like the ranking compared to how the teams did in their respective leagues strongly supports the main conclusion of the people who wrote "Soccernomics": the greatest predictor of how a team will do, is how much they are spending on wages.
There are some overachivers (Man Utd, Tottenham in the EPL) and some underachivers (Liverpool seems to stand out for the EPL, and obviously Man City given that they are using in excess of 25% more than Man Utd), but it mostly seems to be a really close correlation.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Soccernomics-Simon-Kuper/dp/0007457847
/u/papermarioguy02's reading list outline:
Several people have asked me about what things to read to get initiated in the stuff I'm interested in. I don't really think that I'm the best teaching resource, but I can at least list off the pieces of media that have influenced my thoughts to a certain extent. This is just an outline, and you should probably use /u/integralds' list as a more authoritative resource, he's not 14, but this is how I got where I am (I also don't 100% agree with all of the arguments presented on the reading list, but they have influenced me).
Articles
In Praise of Cheap Labor - Paul Krugman
The Obama Doctrine - Jeffery Goldberg
The Case for Reparations - Ta-Nehisi Coates
How Politics Makes us Stupid - Ezra Klein
What the Fox Knows - Nate Silver
Books
Principles of Economics - Greg Mankiw
Thinking, Fast and Slow - Daniel Kahneman
International Economics: Theory and Policy - Paul Krugman and Maurice Obstfeld (READING STILL IN PROGRESS, and reading Princples of Economics or some other 101 textbook is probably a prerequisite here)
Capitalism and Freedom - Milton Friedman (READING IN PROGRESS, and again, you should probably read the 101 textbook before this one)
Non Print Stuff
Any of the Crash Course series hosted by John Green. They aren't anywhere near perfect, but they do a good job of introducing you to subjects, and giving some insight on how to think about some topics.
Any of Khan Academy's math stuff. All very good explanations of many different ideas
Grant Sanderson's Essence of Calculus series, a way of getting a good visual intuition for how some really important math works.
____
Again, this is just one 14 year old's list. I do not pretend to be authoritative or that anything here is perfect, but they are things that have influenced the way I've thought about things. This is still an outline, so I might add things here in the future.
/u/Devjorcra, /u/Shawshank_Fanatic
He's absolutely correct. Now we have an underlying network of trade routes, pipelines and connectivity with hubs that comprise the real architecture of our global economy. Some countries, notably China are aware of this and exploiting it. We are tied up in knots with maps drawn post WW2 that have little relevance to the world as it is. A must read on this topic is Connectography: Mapping the Future of Global Civilization
http://www.amazon.com/Connectography-Mapping-Future-Global-Civilization/dp/0812988558/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1458857900&sr=1-1&keywords=connectography
This book has incredible maps that suggest emerging political alliances that eclipse the old view of hegemonic relations held by those in power in the US.
> You can't let someone else tell you what your goals should be.
This is pretty much exactly my point. So many people want to buy an ebook to follow this one simple trick to be able to retire on a beach somewhere with a bunch of bikini clad girls, but it doesn't work that way. It's a process and you have to work through it.
> In what way do you think you're a pioneer? What are you doing that hasn't been done before?
I don't think I'm a pioneer. There has to be a better word for it, I just don't know what it is. More and more people that are able to leave their home country as more businesses allow remote work and as entrepreneurship becomes more widespread (The End of Jobs is a good read on this). This isn't "new", it's been around for years, but it's gaining momentum. Digital nomads might seem "mainstream" now, but I bet if you look back on 2018 in a decade or two, someone that starts this year will have "gotten in early".
Here's a couple I'd recommend:
Why The West Rules: For Now- this is a book by Stanford Professor Ian Morris, in which he details the rise of Western and Eastern Civilization and the effects of geography, philosophy, and nature upon this rise, asking questions such as: Why did the industrial revolution occur in Western Europe first? Fantastic book.
Link- https://www.amazon.com/Why-West-Rules-Now-Patterns/dp/0312611692
A Short History Of Western Civilization- This book by John Harrison traces the development of Western Civilization starting in Mesopotamia then Egypt and through Crete to Greece and eventually Rome and Western Europe. Really helped me to conceptualize the concept of Western Civ.
Link- https://www.amazon.com/Short-History-Western-Civilization-Combined/dp/0070268975
This, I think.
A similar interesting read is [Why Mexicans Dont Drink Molson] (http://www.amazon.ca/Why-Mexicans-Dont-Drink-Molson/dp/1553654064)
Once you start accepting orphans, how are you going to feel if you have to turn away children because you've reached your limit or they don't fit your age group? This is one of those things a lot of people struggle with.
I think that having some foreign volunteers is great, but I'd caution too much about depending on foreigners volunteering (or being paid) for too many things. Remember that any time you can hire locals you're providing a much larger contribution to the local economy than when someone volunteers for a year. Not to say you won't need volunteers or use them, but try to be careful to use locals when you can.
I'm not sure what you have as far as land, but hopefully you can set up a small scale farm, so as to provide most of the food for your orphanage as well as have some to sell/trade for the things you don't grow/raise. Vegetables/bananas/Chickens/etc are all fairly easy to raise and provide a return very quickly. Also, children can learn valuable skills as well.
While their may be profit in minibuses and other ventures, remember that you're a foreigner. It can be difficult to deal with all the petty theft and extra bribes that come with the knowledge that the owner is a Mzungu. Not to say don't try-but be careful.
Africa is an awesome place, and I often long to go back. You'll learn to love it too. It does have some issues from time to time though, as you're noticing. Long term you are likely going to want to invest in a generator and perhaps some solar panels. Until you're more developed and established though you probably can't plan out that need.
These books don't quite relate to orphanages, but more in general to Africa and aid throughout the world-if you haven't read them I'd recommend you get your hands on them as it can help with understanding a lot of why things are the way they are in Africa.
Africa Doesn't Matter
The Fate of Africa
Festival Elephants and the Myth of Global Poverty
And not quite related, but a nice story from a wonderful woman (who's sadly now passed away) that went to Africa in her youth, lived there her entire life, and ran an orphanage: Land of a Thousand Hills (Disclaimer: I lived very close to her house at Mugongo and I knew her as a child; I last saw her in 2005 on my last visit to Rwanda.)
Sadly, my work keeps me busy where I am and I don't really get a chance to volunteer... I'd love to transition to working with an aid agency though instead of what I do now. No luck so far, but I'll keep trying...
But the support is different in Asia. They don't fit the european 'one club for life' system (what Kuper & Szymanski refer to as the Hornby model). Some of them may have switched to Barca/City/Real Madrid within recent years... and will change again after that.
In Soccernomics they reference estimated united fan numbers.
>"2003, 75 million :source Mori,
>2007, About 90 Million :source Manchester United,
>2008, 333 Million (inc. 139 million 'core fans) :source: TNS Sport"
Extract from: Soccernomics
Obviously the definition of fan isn't the same for everyone.
Depends on how you define civilization and destruction. Personally, I like Ian Morris's ideas. The fall of Rome was accompanied in a fall in development, but it wasn't the total destruction of western civilization.
You should read this book.
So, I'll be honest. I haven't any of these books, they might be a good primer for a more modern take on Hallyu, though the blog points out that these might be better for the more 'mainstream' kpop (or ga-yo).
If you're more interested in Korean history, particularly modern history, there are a lot more sources--Bruce Cumings is a decent source (though he's way, way, way too kind to North Korea in some of his historical readings), and this book by Daniel Tudor is also a good primer.
Regarding the "cultural-industrial" complex I mentioned, I'm not sure how many would term it as such, or if many articles have been written on it--largely because it's such a strange thing, to Western eyes, to have the government invest so much in something that is so hard to define.
Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind by Yuval Noah Harari
Why the West Rules--for Now: The Patterns of History, and What They Reveal About the Future, by Ian Morris
Was in the book Soccernomics. IIRC his stats said he was tackling less often which contributed to Fergie selling him, but his tackles decreased because the team as a whole had improved meaning he was needed less often.
You can't go wrong with Krugman, Obstfeld, and Melitz. These guys "wrote the book" on trade, literally and figuratively.
I have a lot of admiration/respect for Qaboos. I've been to Oman many times and while I really enjoy Muscat, I'm planning on making my next trip there out to Musandam. I developed a greater appreciation for Oman after reading Monsoon by Robert D. Kaplan. One of the most eye-opening books I've ever read on foreign policy and an excellent primer for anyone interested in the history/geopolitics of S.W. Asia. He spends a lot of time discussing in depth Oman's rich history and it's strategic position within the region in the coming decades. He also paints a very intimate profile of Qaboos - one that I don't think most people would expect:
>"Qaboos is one of a kind in the Arab world. He is unmarried, lives alone, plays the organ and lute, and composes music. A graduate of Britain's Sandhurst military academy, he may arguably be the most worldly and best-informed leader in the Arab world, who understands in depth both the Israeli and Palestinian points of view even as he balances Americans off against Iranians and provides U.S. forces with access agreements. Infrastructure projects, women's rights, and the environment are mainstays of his rule, and he has avoided creating the sort of personality cult that plagues the region. His shyness on the world stage is in line with the minimalist manner of Scandinavian prime ministers and in contrast with bombastic bullies like Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Venezuela's Hugo Chávez. One Western expert calls Qaboos the only head of state in the Arab world you can call a "Renaissance man." In 1979 Oman was the only Arab state to recognize Egyptian President Anwar Sadat's peace agreement with Israel."
Also since he is 72 years old, has no children and has not formally announced an heir, the succession of power could amount to one of the biggest political shakeups in the Gulf in years and perhaps the adoption of democratic form of government.
Have you considered reading Ian Morris' Why the West Rules...For Now? The book attempts to find why Western Civilization became dominant over all the other civilizational cores that have emerged in human history, as well as whether the West's position is tenable. As the book starts with an introduction of human evolution out of Africa and goes through a summary of human history into speculation into our future, I think you may enjoy this book. I know I did.
read this http://www.amazon.com/Why-West-Rules-Now-Patterns/dp/0374290024
answers it in more depth and with greater clarity.
the short answer is that 12,000 BCE, people were hunter gatherers, and the people that happened to live at each end of asia (the yangtze and the anatolian plateau) happened to live in an area that has naturally occurring cereal crops. small bands gathered. people had a decent life, they stopped wandering as much. First evidence that people began to think: "hey, let's take some of these rye seeds we are beating into our baskets and plant them closer to home." Small rodents that were not aggressive or fearful could live off human trash. Same for wolves--becoming dogs (although that perhaps came about sooner). But in general things just happened to be really ideal there and in China.
Then disaster struck. earth tilts a bit, north america gets a little warmer, the glacial lake agassiz (roughly size of all great lakes combined) breaks and funnels into the atlantic ocean where it shuts down the jet stream for 1,000 years. New mini ice-age. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Agassiz
Most hunter gatherers go back to huntering and gathering, but for the guys in turkey, this may have been an impetus for more intensely preparing and cultivating food. still not full agriculture, ox-drawn plow type stuff, but working in that direction. Around this time is when non-utilitarian structures start showing up. Suddenly things are colder, it's harder to find food, and you start making weird religious stuff. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe
Back in 9000 BCE, things have changed in this "fertile crescent" area. Most other groups are the hunter gathering type. But these guys just went through 1,000 where they have religious roots. They have invented modern grains whose seeds don't fall off the stem when they are ripe. Well, they unconsciously selected for them and these seeds became over-represented in each subsequent generation.
keep repeating this cycle: grow a little more food, have a few more babies, need a little more food, cultivate more intensely, develop social customs of ownership, property, religion, etc. until you have the sumer you know. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubaid_period
Then, just that reinforcing cycle.
tl;dr. Sumerians didn't "settle" in mesopotamia, the land gave birth (sort of) to that civilization there.
also, yeah, middle east used to be much different--read the bible about the "cedars of lebanon" or abraham coming out of sumeria-ish area and settling in fertile valleys. Right now it all looks like a wasteland. Jared Diamonds book http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse:_How_Societies_Choose_to_Fail_or_Succeed to see just how easily we can screw up our environment.
I'd highly recommend What Makes a Terrorist by Alan Krueger, one of the most respected economists in the world (and an absolute wizard of statistical analysis). You'd be stunned at the amount of evidence which shows that most terrorists are fairly educated and wealthy.
EDIT: Holy shit, I'm an idiot for forgetting. You should also buy J.M. Berger's book, Jihad Joe.
If yoyu found this article interesting, you should check out his book Monsoon. I haven't finished it yet, but it's about the geopolitics of the Indian Ocean and quite good.
It's been vastly superceeded by more scientific based research, (I still loved the book though) instead of Diamond's approach more on "is one society better"-type outlook.
I recommend Why The West Rules--For Now by Ian Morris - basically the best book on the subject of why the west rules ever written, its a bit advanced though, having read Guns first will vastly help.
Next would be 1491 by Charles C. Mann an educated look on the pre-Colombian Americas and why we were so wrong in viewing them and why the myths persist. Highly recommended.
FYI, I was just looking at the reviews for this book on Amazon (just for curiosity, I read this a few months ago) and the top reviews are by two of the best writers on geopolitics and world affairs in my opinion, Robert Kaplan and Walter Russel Mead. Kaplan has written a number of fantastic books (I'd recommend starting with Monsoon. Mead writes and regularly updates a blog that even if I don't always agree with, I find to generally be ahead of the curve and pretty insightful.
I think the interesting bit is encapsulated in this image - specifically the dotted lines in the top half.
'mTTV' is the valuation of the team as compared to the median of the league - therefore, we can see that City had just about a mid-table squad up until 2008. (By mid-table I mean in terms of the team's cost, which these guys equate very closely to success.)
*How they work out the cost is quite complicated, I don't completely understand it, but they work in wages, "football inflation", and transfers, as well as the "usefulness" of players I believe.
Now in the earlier years of the Premiership you could win the league with maybe 2x the median. This was what circa late '90s Arsenal and Man United had, more-or-less - although the Invincibles were actually very low, I think 1.66x the median. Nowadays, to win the league you need 3x or 4x.
So, we can clearly see the stratification into a top 3 of Mancs + Mancs + Chelsea, and the chasing pack of Arsenal, Spurs, Liverpool.
So basically the guy is saying Arsenal need to invest quite a bit to break back into that new top 3. (Duh I hear you say, as that's what the title is.)
Disclaimer: I haven't actually read the article, I just looked at the image, but I've read [Pay As You Play](http://transferpriceindex.com/), [Why England Lose/Soccernomics*](http://www.amazon.co.uk/Soccernomics-Simon-Kuper/dp/0007457847/) and also some of this writer's other articles - I quite like his stuff actually but I don't pretend to understand the specifics, just the main gist of it.
Edit - another interesting thing with that graph - it seems like beyond a certain point, the mTTV seems to be a diminishing quality - otherwise, Chelsea would have walked the league every season since 2004. Or perhaps, it's a huge credit to what Ferguson has achieved (you would have expected him to be runner-up much more often).
Daniel Tudor wrote a good chapter on Han and Heung in his book (Chapter 10).
Korea: The Impossible Country
The following books are taken from the General section of our books and resources list:
I'm sure more books can be found in the book list.
Happy reading :)
I'm personally very disturbed by the many instances in world history of the chaos and literal collapse of civilization that has followed modest changes in climate. The fact that we are living in such a period now, and that we are doing it to ourselves, worries me.
The complacency with which people dismiss climate change as "no big deal" is startling (even among many who accept that mankind is causing it). It seems to betray an ignorance of history over the last five thousand years.
The idea seems to be that the modern world could absorb such a shock (and the resulting migrations and power shifts) more gracefully. But I'm not sure what evidence there is of this.
Sources:
If you ever get a chance, check out this book: http://www.amazon.com/Why-West-Rules-Now-Patterns/dp/0312611692
It argues that cultural thought is rarely the spark that starts a major historical movement, but rather the post-fact rationalisation resulting from tectonic shifts in resources and other external circumstances in the world. You're right, nitpicking inevitably happens, whether in successful independence movements like the USA or India, or stymied groups of people like those in Scotland or Quebec or Okinawans with their Ryukyuan language.
I suppose I'm personally on the side that looks for progressive solutions to our actual current state, instead of nitpicking and navel gazing, fixating on a single issue and dominating the conversation in a much longer standing stalemate.
I'm not actually arguing there shouldn't be a discussion on independence. Nor am I against independence per se, and I think making the subject taboo just raises its profile more. But is it a movement? Is there an actual viable plan? Regardless, violence should have no place in rational discourse, and any group that would instigate physical violence should be condemned and prosecuted in accordance with existing laws.
>It's the closest experience I've got
The fact that you think that is close reveals the shallowness of your understanding.
>The certainty of comments in this thread are laughable.
I find your lack of intellectual curiosity laughable too. I guess we have different senses of humour.
Seriously though, your time would be better spent reading an international economics textbook than arguing with me.
It contains stuff I used to teach 19 year olds. If they got it, I see no reason why you cannot.
It might help you understanding economics issues better than the popular press articles that your diet seems to be centred around.
Goodbye, and have a nice day.
i suggest you read a bit
https://books.google.ca/books?id=s-LSCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA192&lpg=PA192&dq=In+what+is+known+as+total+war,+these+economies+are+often+seen+as+targets+by+many+combatants.+The+Union+blockade+and+Union+General+William+T.+Sherman%27s+March+to+the+Sea+during+the+American+Civil+War+and+the+strategic+bombing+of+enemy+cities+and+factories+during+World+War+II+are+examples+of+total+war.&source=bl&ots=OzziNll3fq&sig=GmMQws0ysGQ68RnVpL--1zad-xI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAmoVChMI36jUw92GxwIVSTs-Ch0ZyQNE#v=onepage&q=In%20what%20is%20known%20as%20total%20war%2C%20these%20economies%20are%20often%20seen%20as%20targets%20by%20many%20combatants.%20The%20Union%20blockade%20and%20Union%20General%20William%20T.%20Sherman's%20March%20to%20the%20Sea%20during%20the%20American%20Civil%20War%20and%20the%20strategic%20bombing%20of%20enemy%20cities%20and%20factories%20during%20World%20War%20II%20are%20examples%20of%20total%20war.&f=false
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/fdrarsenalofdemocracy.html
https://www.amazon.com/Geopolitics-Resource-Wars-Routledge-Studies/dp/0415463785
it has always been driven by war its not a new thing it never was a new thing
It's not really an economics book so much as a development book, but Africa Doesn't Matter (http://www.amazon.com/Africa-Doesnt-Matter-Poorest-Continent/dp/1559708786/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1303704171&sr=1-1) taught me a lot.
>Even more embarrassing for contemporary leftists is the fact that they will concede that different races have different gross physical attributes, are predisposed to different genetic diseases, and respond differently to different types of medication, all while claiming that despite all of these differences, every race has the same genetic mean intellectual capacity.
Race is not a valid method of categorizing human beings. The groupings are far too vague and based more on cultural norms than biology. There are two reasons that different "races" have different outcomes. Firstly, racial groupings can partially overlap with actually meaningful groupings of human beings, as in the case of relatives of victims of the American slavery and the wider African-American community. The second is just statistics. If you compare two groups you're likely to find differences. This is the reason that the moment a researcher starts breaking racial categories down into valid classifications the racial category loses all of its coherence.
>in spite of the aforementioned fact and every study done on the topic of race and mean IQ concluding that the gap between races appears to be caused by genetic differences
If you're referring to the studies from the Charles Murray debacle, that's not what they show. What's more, IQ has very little to do with factors that affect children from birth. Looking at trends across generations is quite complicated. Although, I'm willing to bet that there is not a single respectable historian that will endorse the level of importance that you place on IQ. If you you want to get a better understanding of how disparities can be created across large groups of human beings, then I suggest you read Why the West Rules for Now. Hint: it's not IQ
https://www.amazon.com/Why-West-Rules-Now-Patterns/dp/0312611692
Hi, here's a good list of books to get things going. https://www.reddit.com/r/Geopolitics/wiki/book
/u/alexderlion /u/n4kke /u/thucydidesnuts
Recently, there's quite a bit of interest in starting a book club in /r/geopolitics. It would be a great idea to team up.
/u/uppityworm and I were talking about working together with them, and he has contacted /u/fusionsc2 about that. /u/fusionsc2 is a fellow book lover and is interested in discussing geopolitics with people of similar interest.
Given the large amount of responses to reading a book about Africa in the thread mentioned above, we were thinking about doing a book on Africa for our next book. Let us know about your opinions.
/u/fusionsc2 has mentioned African Conflicts and Informal Power: Big Men and Networks. In the book list listed above, there are also some additional great books on Africa,
[The Fate of Africa: A History of the Continent Since Independence] (http://www.amazon.com/Fate-Africa-History-Continent-Independence/dp/1610390717), a critically acclaimed book that provides a comprehensive primer on political, economic, and major social developments in post-colonial African nations.
Season of Rains: Africa in the World, This book captures the broad spectrum of political, economic, and social foundations that make Africa what it is today. According to the Amazon reviews, it touches on recent economic and tech development in reviews. So might be good for future estimates.
China into Africa: Trade, Aid, and Influence Among the specific topics tackled here are China's interest in African oil; military and security relations; the influx and goals of Chinese aid to sub-Saharan Africa; human rights issues; and China's overall strategy in the region. It seems to be THE book on the relationship between China and Africa, according to many of the Amazon reviews.
So take a look at the books and also the book list, and we can discuss our next book after the our 3rd sessions. It would be great if you have any other additional books to recommend on Africa.
China into Africa: Trade, Aid, and Influence Among the specific topics tackled here are China's interest in African oil; military and security relations; the influx and goals of Chinese aid to sub-Saharan Africa; human rights issues; and China's overall strategy in the region. It seems to be THE book on the relationship between China and Africa, according to many of the Amazon reviews.
https://www.amazon.com/Why-West-Rules-Now-Patterns/dp/0312611692
There has never been a collapse everywhere at once. So when one region collapses, another is in a rebirth.
Naill Ferguson simplifies things with his "Six killer apps of Civilization". When this article was written, China had 5 out of 6 of the apps. They are now getting the 6th.
http://www.npr.org/2011/11/02/141942357/how-the-west-beat-the-rest-six-killer-apps
"Why the west rules for now" this author is interesting in that he divides humans into 7 major groups. But the then goes PC correct and says geography determines things.
But he again shows there is a similar pattern.
http://www.amazon.com/Why-West-Rules-Now-Patterns/dp/0312611692
The speed of rebirth is a lot quicker. Mao drove China into the stone age, less then 40 years later they are building projects like these.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/13/business/international/in-china-projects-to-make-great-wall-feel-small-.html?_r=0
Snide comments like that where made about the Empire state building, Hoover dam etc 80 years ago. What the critics failed to reason is that the project itself might be useless, but it is what is learned in the process.
In the book "Why the west rules for now" is people forget the amount of ideas that where transfered from India/China to Britain. A civil service is an Indian/Chinese invention. The Brits go ahold of the idea and improved on it. By the same token, China is getting western ideas that work, fusing them to their own culture and improving on them.
Later the "west" when it rebirths, will take the new and improved Chinese ideas and improve on them.
He's published it, as well as written a book. Anyone can access it. The government could begin undertaking a study tomorrow if they really wanted to.
http://www.amazon.ca/Millionaire-Migrants-Trans-Pacific-Life-Lines/dp/1405192925
Why the West Rules - for now is a good overview of history written in an easily accessible way - with history, social sciences and economics thrown in.
For a great easy read on financial history, I recommend Niall Ferguson's The Ascent of Money, which will teach you a ton - and it includes all of the above (how influential psychology can be is astounding).
Because all good things are three, I'll throw in Against the Gods. A book on the history of risk analysis, you do get a hefty dose of psychology as well as a great understanding of how that all-important field works.
Anyone interested:
Why the West Rules For Now
Holy fuck, man.
> Typically they're defined by factors like economic performance, social stability, resources, political structure, etc.
So what made their economic performance, social stability, and political structure that of a 4th grade level? Who did that?
Here's something you should read to help you, and here's another, and I guess even this one, although it's not nearly as good. But I'm sure you won't- you just stumbled into a very complex topic with the faintest of knowledge- so it really doesn't matter. What you'd learn from it is that geography is about the only thing that is really deterministic in human development- everything else is what you decide to do. And geography isn't what's determining the difference between North and South Korea, so...
It seems as if we should be comparing them all, instead of infantilizing whole nations of people so you can make some awkward and cringeworthy conspiracy that isn't even correct anyway.
Wow. Just wow.
My kind of contest! :) I think you might suggest to a fellow non-fiction reader Why the West Rules--for Now: The Patterns of History, and What They Reveal About the Future; I found it on the /r/AskHistorians book list. Happy birthday!
Loretta Napoleoni has been writing about this for a few years now.
What's ironic is that Napoleoni has worked for the UN, but apparently the UN Office of Drugs and Crime is only now getting the word (and not even from her!).
EDIT: factual statements
Not true. There are cycles that were primarily influenced by regional climatic changes resulting in migration, war and disease. Unfortunately, Africa never had that upswing other than the Sahel region about 6,000 - 8,000 years ago. China and the ME were booming in the BCs era, while Europe languished. Then Europe (basically Rome), rose then fell. The ME and China flourished from the 9th - 12th centuries, then Europe...etc etc etc.. A really good read on these cycles is [Why the West Rules for Now.] (http://www.amazon.com/Why-West-Rules-Now-Patterns/dp/0312611692)
You should read this book http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/0007457847?pc_redir=1407687343&robot_redir=1
It disagrees with you that stats mean less in soccer than american sports. It is an insightful read and I recommend giving it a chance.
Here’s a link to the amazon kindle version. It starts at the three kingdoms period (ancient history). Covers through the Japanese occupation, Korean War, economic boom, and current day. It’s more than a history book as it covers a lot of current issues in Korea as well as explaining the culture. Really insightful! Explains things like their current obsession with standardized exams during education which is rooted in their historically confusion government entrance exams.
Korea: The Impossible Country: South Korea's Amazing Rise from the Ashes: The Inside Story of an Economic, Political and Cultural Phenomenon https://www.amazon.com/dp/B009CH9FA8/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_ciRsDbFM27JYH
Thanks, I've downloaded a sample. Ian Morris discusses the costs and benefits of the Neolithic and Industrial Revolutions in his book, Why the West Rules -- for Now.
this. Don't let the title fool you into thinking its west-centric, it's pretty much about the whole world and delves into what makes civilizations succeed and fail.
This isn't exactly responsive to your question, but I highly recommend reading Korea: The Impossible Country before you go. It will explain a ton about Korea and make your trip much more enjoyable.
I don't get what all the fuss is about...Tim Horton's was bought by an American company (Wendy's) 20 years ago...so it's just an American company with lots of outlets in Canada being sold to another American company. What's the big deal?
Of course, it is telling about the ability and ambition of the business class in Canada that there are no Canadian national champions or indeed virtually no widely-recognized Canadian international brands of any sort.
This is a great documentary. For anyone who likes the sort of thing there is a book I just read called Why the West Rules - For Now which is very much in the same vein.
If you want a book that takes a look at this dynamic, regarding pack animals, check out Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond or Why the West Rules—for Now by Ian Morris.
If India is to lead the 21st century it must look beyond the USA, and Europe. It must look at everything that the ideologies of the past 200 years have done wrong, which have lead to the chaos, and destitution in the world. It is for that reason that they're rich, their imperialistic tendencies, and to respond to that system we must create a new world, and look towards new ideas, and a different future that addresses other aspects of humanity other than the ever pervasive GDP. We must in essence redefine, and rework all the "progress" of the past 200 years.
To think that there was no rule of law, and that this is some new European invention is a load of bull, each country, each culture, each people, from the muslims, to the tribes in Africa had their own systems that worked well for them, and the destruction of those systems is exactly what is causing the chaos in the Middles-East, and Africa (especially Africa since much of it was based in an oral tradition), because the traditional institutions that were in place to deal with the problems were destroyed. The destruction of that cultural basis is tremendously useful for exploitation, and it is through that exploitation that Europe, and America, to this day even, have tremendous wealth. Look at European history, and you will realize that they had a very interesting culture that lead to their rise (read Why The West Rules - For Now by Ian Morris for an overview.). In essence it's when a traditional institution is destroyed that chaos arises, and the area is ripe for exploitation, but that may not be a bad thing in the long run as those institutions also restrict progress towards better ways of doing things.
With that said we must put an end to that exploitative ideology, including the very basis of our economics values, and capitalistic goals.
I think India is in a unique position to literally change the course of history in the 21st century, and redefine what is the goal of humanity as a whole. From education, to the economic goals of nations, and even redefining nationhood as an entity, and the political paradigms within that nation. The very essence of governance needs to shift in order to meet the challenges of the 21st century, and the reason I think India is in a unique position ranges from its culture, philosophy, history, but more concretely is its young population, and focus on technology.
The answers for the 21st century lie in technology, and are fundamentally based in decentralization of governance. This requires a tremendous amount of communicative powers, which thankfully to the technology bit provides. Communications allows for a people to assemble together to solve problems, and gives unparalelled ability for the common man to educate him self. The communication of ideas, not laws (not throwing away the concept), is what provides the stability, and progress within a people. So that's what I mean dismissing Law, and Order because I think it's going to be replaced in one form or another by basic communication abilities of a people.
Just jumping in here because he is right:
1.) Is the American empire running out of gas? Foreign policy analyst and former Brookings Institution fellow Parag Khanna thinks that only inertia keeps us going. The collapse of the Soviet Union left America as the world’s only superpower, but we are not universally loved, feared, or even respected. “Does the world no longer need the United States?” asks Khanna. “Anti-Americanism continues even as America’s dominance fades.” China and the European Union (E.U.) have joined America as first-rank powers, although the nature of their power is different. China is working hard to become America’s military equal; already, its economic influence extends around the world. “Globalization is happening on China’s terms,”
2.) Trump's decision to kill TPP leaves door open for China
3.) US leaving TPP: A great news day for China
4.) With a population of 1.3 billion, China recently became the second largest economy and is increasingly playing an important and influential role in the global economy.
5.) Book: “For those who fear that the world is becoming too inward-looking, Connectography is a refreshing, optimistic vision. . . . The most convincing point in the book concerns policy prescriptions. To become part of global supply chains, Mr. Khanna argues, it is essential to invest in infrastructure. China, in particular, has built a sprawling network of ports, canals and the like across the world to acquire and transport natural resources. By contrast, rich countries, especially America, now underfund capital goods, in an attempt to reduce public spending. This short-term skimping bodes ill for future growth.”—The Economist
The list could really go on for miles... It is very widely known China is unabashedly and effectively and gunning for world trade / economic dominance.
Why the west rules — for now. https://www.amazon.com/Why-West-Rules-Now-Patterns/dp/0312611692 Lembra Sapiens, mas é mais científico, menos especulativo. Também é um Guns Germs and Steel mais bem embasado.
For the second half I'd recommend Caliban and the Witch by Silvia Federici as a good starting point. It's going to respond to a lot of other thinkers, including Marx, so it can be a good starting point for further investigation on all the subjects I mentioned.
The first half isn't going to be the thesis of any works that I know of; but more of a truism that appears throughout a ton of works. I'll respond in part with an explanation and recommend some basic readings that might flesh out the ideas more.
The word "economy" comes from the Greek "oikos" meaning "home" and "nomos" meaning which refers to the function of it. It's very similar to the word "ecology" which is the combination of "oikos" and "logos", or the logic of the home. As a result, for the ancient Greeks, "economy" referred to the functioning of the household. The house and surrounding land in Athens was referred to a "demo" and constituted a single economic unit run by a single family. A government built with these units was called a "democracy", or a nation of "demos". You can read more about this in The Ancient City by Numa Denis Fustel de Coulanges to understand the basic terms and theories going into the structures of our society today, which are based heavily on the ancient Greek language and understanding of the world (as the article above indicates as well).
A fun book that discusses the theme of economics and the formation of society is Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals. It's not full of references or citations, but more of a thought experiment on the subject that I think lays some good groundwork for understanding some of the motivations for the creation of a society. A more specific analysis on the goals and aspirations of an economy can be found in the general cannon, like Smith's Wealth of Nations and the critical response from Marx in Das Kapital. These are both introductory texts on the subject and a little outdated of course. If you want a more contemporary understanding of economic systems and what they do today, I'd recommend Wolff's Contending Economic Theories. These books aren't about why economies come first in society (other than the Genealogy of Morals), but they are a knowledge foundation as to why societies are organized in order to create an economy.
>Content Warning: Math (I mean it’s just high school algebra but if you really have a phobia of numbers, I can’t really help you)
>
>Economist Paul Samuelson once said that comparative advantage is the most important principle in the social sciences that is both true and non-trivial (i.e. it isn’t immediately obvious). This probably means it’s pretty fucking important to learn about. I mentioned it as one of the principles of this post. But that was a fairly basic overview. This won’t be as long as some of the more broad posts I’ve made here but it’s also very important. Comparative advantage is at the heart of most of what this sub suggests in terms of trade policy. It’s the thing that when I learned it, I suddenly had an interest in economics, it’s pretty hard to deny it once you realize how it works and knowing about it makes free trade much more appealing.
>
>#Absolute Advantage
>
>Before we get into comparative advantage, it’s useful to talk about absolute advantage. This is what people would usually think drives which goods a country would manufacture or import. Absolute advantage simply means you can make more of something at a lower cost. The US has an absolute advantage over other countries in most things for instance. American workers have the technology and resources to be able to make most things better than almost everyone else, so why don’t they? The easy answer is that it’s cheaper to make in other countries, but that doesn’t make a whole lot of sense, wouldn’t the extra productivity of American workers be worth the wage premium. Clearly something is at play that’s more substantial than absolute advantage, but what. Here’s where we get into:
>
>#Comparative Advantage
>
>Here’s the thing about costs in economics, you can’t just look at the monetary cost of a thing, you need to look at opportunity costs. If you benefit from something but could better spend your time doing something else, that thing could still have a net cost. What determines what countries will actually import or make for themselves relies not only on their productivity in that thing, but their productivity in that thing relative to other things. If the US can make flowers just as if not more productively as, say Ecuador, it might still make sense for Ecuador to to make them if the US could also make other things, say hammers, even more efficiently compared to absolute advantage in flowers than Ecuador could make them. Then Ecuador could make the flowers and the US would be free to make more hammers and everyone would be better off for it.^1 I love this so much, it makes perfect sense once you explain it, but if you didn’t already know about it you would be pretty hard pressed to come up with an independent explanation for why countries with an absolute advantage is almost all things have a reason to trade. That being said this only says what can happen and not what will, but before you start telling me we need central planning to maximize gains from trade I’m going to try to prove here that the profit motive is enough to maximize gains from trade, and I can even tell you what my model is.
>
>#The Ricardian Model of Trade
>
>The Ricardian model of trade is probably the most famous/significant economic model other than like, the supply and demand graph. In the 1817 book On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation^2 Classical economist David Ricardo lays out Comparative Advantage using the Ricardian model. This model has a few simple characteristics, there’s only one factor of production, labor, there are only two nations to trade between and two goods that can be produced.^3 Let’s just focus on one country, we’ll call it Freedomland and see what their local economy looks like without trade. They have a total labor supply L and can use this labor supply to make some amount of two goods, say tea and coffee. We can measure productivity from here by using the unit labor requirement, pretty much just a fancy way of saying the amount of man hours needed to produce another unit of a thing. As such this means this equation holds where Q is the quantity of the good made, g is the good and A is the unit labor requirement. From here we can draw out the production possibilities frontier a graph of the combination of goods that can be made with one good on the x axis and one on the y axis. Let’s give our economy 500 man hours to work with, give a kilogram of coffee a unit labor requirement of 1 and a kilogram of tea a unit labor requirement of 2. This production possibilities frontier can be drawn out so the economy can produce 500 kilos of coffee, 250 kilos of tea, or something in between.^4 The nice thing about the production possibilities graph is that its rise/run slope is the negative opportunity cost (in terms of what’s on the y axis) of producing another kilo of whatever’s on the x axis. In our example the slope and as a result the opportunity cost is constant of making another kilo of tea or coffee. The reasoning for this is that there’s only one factor of production (labor) that can be moved freely between sectors with ease. But all of this is still about what can be produced, we want to see what a free market actually will produce.
>
>Firstly in this example, we have a completely frictionless and competitive economy, so workers make whatever the selling price of the thing they’re making is and there are no economic profits. So the economy will just make whatever good has the better selling price per hour of work. If the relative price of wine is the price of tea divided by the price of coffee and the relative unit labor requirement is the same thing with the unit labor requirement, whether coffee will be more profitable is dependent on whether its relative price is greater than its relative unit labor requirement (0.5 in our example). The relative unit labor requirement also happens to be the opportunity cost of making that thing, as such in a free market economy, the more profitable good will be the one that has the best return compared to its opportunity cost, and the economy will want to specialize in that good. The issue is that people still want to consume both goods, the only way that would be possible is if their relative price equals their relative unit labor requirement so the economy doesn’t specialize.^5 If we add another country into the mix though…
>
>Let’s say we have another country existing in this world called Crumpetland. They also have 500 man hours to work with but their opportunity cost of making a kilo of tea is only 0.5. Their production possibilities frontier ends at 250 kilos of tea and 125 kilos of coffee. Thus despite Crumpetland not having an absolute advantage in anything they have a comparative advantage in tea making. We can formalize this by saying that a comparative advantage is had when your relative unit labor requirement of making a good is greater than other country’s’.^6 Now once we allow free trade between these two countries the price of the goods will equalize between Freedomland and Crumpetland because if the price was different between countries people would engage in arbitrage until supply and demand make prices equalize (arbitrage just means making a thing where it’s cheaper and selling it where it’s more expensive). The particulars of where this price will settle are important but for the sake of this Reddit post all you need know is that if the relative price of a good is above the opportunity cost of making said good in a country, the country will specialize in it.^7 If the relative price is below the opportunity cost, the country will specialize in the other good. You can set some prices with the powers of the free market with relative supply and demand and you can see that the magical situation where both countries get more stuff simply by trading becomes true, that’s pretty great. Now Freedomland can specialize in coffee making and Crumpetland in tea making, they can trade, and everyone is better off, that’s the power of the free market with Comparative Advantage in the Ricardian Model.^8
>
>____
>
>Obviously this isn’t quite how the world works but the conclusion of it has been tested and we can see comparative advantage in action in real life (the post war UK and US are a particularly good example, and why I named the countries the way I did). The Ricardian model is a relatively simple explanation for a phenomenon that doesn’t make a whole lot of intuitive sense. The basic idea for this obviously comes from David Ricardo. But some of the presentation here comes from Paul Krugman and Maurice Obstfeld’s International Economics textbook. Though their examples were longer, more in depth and heavy on the math for a Reddit post, so this is a much thinner version of their explanation with different examples. Anyway, I hope you gained some appreciation for why this sub loves free trade. I’m also only some teenager on the internet with some Economics textbooks and too much time on his hands, so I very well have made a mistake here or there, so if you want to correct my mistake, make a joke about my age, tell me that I’m paid off by George Soros or just want to meme, please give feedback below.
>
>#Footnotes
>
>1. I should be clear that I just pulled this example out of my ass, there’s nothing special about flowers or hammers that lend them to this situation, you can substitute most any two goods in here.
>
you have Stockholm Syndrome bad. so bad that you cannot make the distinction between consumer and shareholder. seek help from your brainwashing!
and bribery and monopoly is NOT capitalism. source: adam smith
https://www.amazon.com/Wealth-Nations-Adam-Smith/dp/1505577128/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1502204263&sr=8-1&keywords=adam+smith
'Why the west rules for now' by Ian Morris. Best overview of human history I've ever read.
Amazon link
If you're trying to actually make a point, you should try to do it more clearly.
>we don't and the people who absorb the vast majority of the gains use their gains to make sure that we don't.
First of all, false, there have been plenty of policies aimed at doing just what you said we don't. Second, it is unclear who you're implying these people are. I could take some guesses, with varying degrees of specificity, but I still wouldn't be sure. Third, it is unclear what you are implying they do to make sure "we don't." It sounds like you have some point here but for some reason you are taking large tiptoes around saying exactly what it is you mean.
>You can't just arbitrarily treat economic and political systems as separate of each others influence.
Unclear who you think is doing this, because it's not me. Nor is it the economists who model trade, because the political economy of trade policy is quite well understood (a standard reference for undergraduate-level courses has at least an entire chapter devoted to it, for instance).
Kindle price is $16.99 for me -- and "this price was set by the publisher".
Book recommendation for those who loved Germs, Guns & Steel.
Why the west rules, for now
I recommend reading The End of Jobs, by Taylor Pearson. I am currently about 70% through the kindle version. Check out the description here and see if it is something you are interested in. http://www.amazon.com.br/End-Jobs-Meaning-9---5-ebook/dp/B010L8SYRG/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1453811457&sr=1-1
If you want a great and contemporary work on this topic I would recommend Robert D. Kaplan's Monsoon: http://www.amazon.com/Monsoon-Indian-Ocean-Future-American/dp/0812979206
On China, India, the US and the shift of both the economic and military center of gravity from the West to the East.
Yeah I do too. I'm just bad for it. It's like teachers in schools; they limit you too much on what you can do for people, and then after they limit you, you still have to get malpractice insurance because "for some reason," DERP, treatments don't work all that great. And by that I mean for prisoners and my profession is mental healthcare. Because in the real world, most of the people would have eventually fixed their own problems, with or without a therapist. I think the science says something like 80% of people would fix themselves. Forgot the exact numbers; but a vast majority would fix themselves.
I am not saying things in psychology do not work, but a lot of it comes down to stuff that people who are not fucking up their life know. If you're a person who isn't fucking up their life, and you meet someone who is, chances are you can develop a type of therapy that is as successful as what's out there now, without getting a college degree.
And the thing I find the most fucking stupid is, a lot of the people you study are from like the 70s, and they basically said "I studied psychology and this stuff is bullshit; I am going to come up with my own treatment method and keep track of the results to prove mine is better," which they did. So it was less than 50 damn years ago, and they ignored that shit they learned in college because it was basically garbage, but now we can't do the same thing. Mind you, they kept the good parts, which anyone with half a fucking brain cell could do now with current and older psychological methods, but that's it.
And because pieces of shit who can't fix their own fucking lives and want a "miracle pill" think psychologists can make them fart butterflies and piss rainbows, they decide to sue psychologists if they can't make it happen the exact second they want it to.
If you are thinking about paying a psychologist, I would try these first:
http://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Life-Other-Dangerous-Situations-ebook/dp/B00F8LP88U/
http://www.amazon.com/Cognitive-Behavior-Therapy-Second-Basics-ebook/dp/B005HROKHU/
http://www.amazon.com/Coach-Your-Own-Life-Barriers-ebook/dp/B00VQL4VW0/
http://www.amazon.com/Get-Life-You-Want-Neuro-Linguistic-ebook/dp/B001OD41PC/
http://www.amazon.com/Reboot-Your-Life--Work-Were-ebook/dp/B01344BZ3E/
http://www.amazon.com/End-Jobs-Meaning-9-5-ebook/dp/B010L8SYRG/
Those books have just enough technical knowledge (how/why to do stuff), inspirational ideology and "mystical psychological mumbo jumbo" to help you fix most of your own problems.
And the worst part is, you know in college the biggest message they kept stressing over and over? "Get paid up front; get a retainer if you testify in court, or you won't get paid, or it won't be in a timely manner." Like the #1 message over and over "Get paid." Pffft. What a jackass-filled tom-fuckin'-foolery inspired joke institutional psychology is. I wipe my ass with my whole college experience, and don't much enjoy the profession. It's not the people; it's the fucking invisible leash that makes it so you can't really help people.
Would not recommend, unless you just want a tedious job helping people who would mostly eventually help themselves anyway.
>Again, name a non-asian stable country.
>not knowing when our stability started, not knowing Western history, forgetting what nuance is yet again
>White people built the cities and their wealth
Fuck off. Don't reply to me anymore. I'm done with this White Pride^TM historically revisionist bullshit. Non-white people aren't people to you, and any of their contributions, innovation, or leadership in the Western world since its inception are invalid, so frankly, you aren't a person to me either. Your brand of culture that you express is trash.
It's cultish vomit, you should kys, and you should export yourself elsewhere where you aren't enjoying the fruits of past immigrants' labour out of ethical commitment.
Not completely on this topic (I don't have the time to find literature on hand for our conversation), but because of your illiteracy (combined with brash, dehumanizing extremity) I've noticed in some areas, here are a few accessible books I'd recommend reading in general
https://books.google.ca/books?id=XzJdpd8DbYEC&printsec=frontcover&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://www.amazon.com/Why-West-Rules-Now-Patterns/dp/0312611692
http://www.amazon.com/Guns-Germs-Steel-Fates-Societies/dp/0393317552
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe_and_the_People_Without_History
and, just to really get on your nerves, here's some interesting triggering history of philosophy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muqaddimah
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Khaldun
http://www.historyofphilosophy.net/islamic-world
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_al-Haytham
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avicenna
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Averroes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ghazali
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahab_al-Din_Yahya_ibn_Habash_Suhrawardi
http://www.salaam.co.uk/knowledge/al-jahiz.php
Islamic scholars also scoured the earth to obtain copies of books and texts so that they may build on that knowledge and share it with future generations. But progression in society is not always a certainty.
It's a book. Here you go!
In that case, I'd recommend Ian Morris's book from last year, "Why the West Rules--for Now." It looks at much of the same questions as Guns, Germs, and Steel, but from a different direction. Also, the conclusion (about the near future) is kind of astonishing, though the entire book leads up to it. I won't spoil it for you, but it's worth reading just for the conclusions.
If you're going to read this book, do not read any reviews or spoilers first.
Ian Morris does a good attempt at explaining Why the West Rules--for Now: The Patterns of History, and What They Reveal About the Future.
A good sequel to Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond.
I don't think they're the best nonfiction books I've read, but really relevant today and with lots to think about and new books to explore after..
Here is the mobile version of your link
1) How would dumping low-skilled labor into the US labor pool not displace or devalue US low-skilled labor?
I think the problem that a lot of people who look at it this way have is that they don't account for entrepreneurial expansion or the fluidity of human capital. I'm going to use farmers as my example for consistency but there are factory jobs, construction jobs, and other jobs in the food service sector that low/wage immigrant workers tend to take.
If a farmer sees a reduced cost of wages due to increased competition between domestic and international laborers on his/her farm, s/he has two possible ways to react: lower costs to the consumer (unlikely) or reinvest the excess money into the operation. This, in turn, increases demand in other areas of the economy in different ways and creates openings in other low-wage/low skill areas like factories, chemical plants, etc. Though these low-wage workers may not be able to work at a farm anymore, there's always the low-wage canning factory, farming supply store, repair shop, or other jobs that will grow as a result of an expansion at the farm.
What if these jobs don't exist in their area? Then the people may have to move to an area where the jobs do exist. The reason why the US economy is able to meet the demands of the world market so well is because most Americans are willing to move to get to the job that gives them the life they want. If immigrants come to Baraboo and push a bunch of farmer laborers out, they can always move to Stevens Point and work for Del Monte.
This reaction also ignores the fact that a person can, at any time, improve their skill-sets or education. Right now, we're having a discussion about people with very low skill-sets: lacking a high school diploma or GED, generally in the agricultural sector. The US has many opportunities for these people to advance to the next level of education or training if/when jobs become scarce. This is why Congress passed a bill that expanded tech colleges immediately after the Great Recession in 2008 to meet the expected demand of new students.
In all reality, though, the data is inconclusive as to whether or not a displacement or devaluation of domestic low-skilled labor occurs. When we talked about this in one of my econ classes, the only group of people affected by more immigration were the immigrants already in the US, legal or otherwise. I would actually like to see some research that demonstrates the sort of effect you're talking about here because I haven't seen any, yet.
2) What explains the flood of high risk-taking by immigrant labor?
This is widely believed but, I think, widely misunderstood. Most people who ILLEGALLY immigrate to the US are not taking excessive risks because only one incident with the police will demonstrate that they don't have legal documentation and send them to jail or to be deported. Here's an article by NPR (I know, biased but I'm doing this on the fly) that talks about it. From personal experience working with Latino immigrants to the US, I can say that the majority's biggest fear is that the police will have any reason to stop them because it would mean that they have to be sent home. A kid I worked with at a restaurant was pulled over for not having his car fully registered and he never showed up to work again.
I agree though, the places where most of these people are coming from are also some of the poorest states in their country. Nowadays, what we're seeing an increase of is immigrants from further south: Honduras, Nicaragua, Guatemala, etc. and an overall decrease of Mexican immigration.
3) Though I'm aware of many border factories, didn't our subsequent deal with China wipe out the full promise of NAFTA?
Short answer: no. Long answer: Our investment in Mexico allowed Mexico to gain a competitive advantage in a lot of the manufacturing jobs that were displaced there. Though many of the factories that we initially relocated to Mexico have subsequently moved to China (and now to Vietnam, Bangladesh, and Indonesia) the Mexican domestic demand for many of these products remained and so the factories did, too. It's also easier to do business with Mexico because of our more similar cultural expectations, free trade agreement, and trust between nations. Mexico is a natural partner for the US and Canada.
4) I see you've referenced the Hamilton Project of the Brookings Institution; do you have non-political-thinktank sources to support your point?
Sorry, no, I looked hard, but the subject hasn't had a truly "independent" look yet. I can say that the book I read that initially discussed all of this was pretty balanced in its approach, but Paul Krugman and the professor teaching the class are both considered "liberal" economists.
4) Stuff on the bottom of your point
Yes, Mexico's inequality does remain very high and will continue to do so until they fix their institutions. The influx of wealth from the North did not fix their problem, it only helped alleviate ours a little. It's sort of like a teacher putting a kid's homework into their backpack every night. The kid still has to do the homework, but at least it's there for him to do.
And it will and should. I'm a free trade guy, so my take on this is that Mexico didn't have the infrastructure to effectively and efficiently produce corn that could fully compete with US corn. I whole-heatedly agree that agricultural subsidies should be reexamined, but I haven't studied it much so this opinion is based solely on the fact that I see it as spending the US government can't afford. I don't know the benefits of the system very well.
I strongly recommend listening to Dan Carlin's Hardcore History which has a multi-part set of episodes on this. (His podcasts on other topics are fantastic too.) As others have mentioned this is a very complex topic and there are many different threads woven through it.
I also strongly recommend reading Why The West Rules. Ignore the title and final section. The majority of the book is about human history showing how things progressed and regressed in various parts of the world over time and is absolutely fascinating.
> I'm not sure where you're getting your numbers from
This book.
How would we do that, if I may ask? Sorry, I am forced to downvote your comment since it is extremely vague as it stands now. Do explain your position further. I will subject it to scrutiny and cross examination. If it passes my scrutiny, I will give you an upvote.
Nonetheless, I doubt that would work.
The Mutazilites in the 11th century tried to promote a slightly less literal interpretation of Islam. They were brutalized and killed and their books burned by the Asharites. Do read the following book when you get the chance:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Closing-Muslim-Mind-Intellectual/dp/1610170024
It has also been documented by economists that Muslim terrorists are not poor and uneducated as some in the media and the ruling elite would like the rest of us hoi polloi to believe. Do read the following when you get the chance:
http://www.amazon.com/What-Makes-Terrorist-Economics-Terrorism/dp/0691138753/
Afghanistan and Iran were much more liberal once than they are now. Islam crushed liberalism there.
Something seems to be fundamentally problematic with Islam as opposed to any other religion.
What do you think?
I'm not a huge Ron Paul supporter but he's absolutely correct. Read Terror Incorporated The US government isn't as innocent as we're led to believe.
God damn you love the BBC. Do you work for them?
Who the fuck says "I know they were biased against my country's referendum" then goes on to be an apologist for them.
So its not about left and right. That is just a distraction. It is about whatever the Government supports. Since that is all over the place (left and right) it makes sense that both sides point fingers and idiots like you think they have it all figured out. "See they cant be biased because both sides accuse them".
The reality is there is only one side to the BBC. The Government side. Because they are Government mouthpiece..
Prove me wrong.
Was the BBC for the Scottish Referendum?
Was the BBC for the Iraq War?
Was the BBC for the invasion of Syria?
Do they support Israel at every turn?
Yep, just like the British Government...
This is how the free market works. If you have a good or service people want, they pay for it. You do not profess to be fair and balanced so the Gov should institute a tax and make everybody pay for it for you.
Here is a book you might want to read if you can get your brainwashed ass out from in front of the BBC--- Oh, and Fuck you...
http://www.amazon.com/Wealth-Nations-Adam-Smith/dp/1505577128/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1427228310&sr=8-1&keywords=adam+smith