(Part 2) Top products from r/economy

Jump to the top 20

We found 21 product mentions on r/economy. We ranked the 128 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the products ranked 21-40. You can also go back to the previous section.

Next page

Top comments that mention products on r/economy:

u/taniquetil · 1 pointr/economy

>you're using nominal dollars as the marker of the 1%

Why is this a problem? Take the net worth of everyone in the world, pick out the households that have the highest, and keep going down the list until you hit 70 million people (about 1% of the world's population). Or we could do it by household income too with a similar method. How would you measure "the 1%" of the world?

>Flip to actual net WEALTH, and adjust for PPP and you end up with an entirely different picture...

Well, since you brought it up, why don't you link the data? I'm going to give my source:

Credit Suisse estimates that the Top 1% globally has >$1M in total net worth. This chart says .7% but I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and round up.

So in terms of total net worth, I stand by my statement. At $1M total net worth, minus house and retirement savings, how much money in "trust funds and foundations" are we really talking about here?

I'm going to repeat. the only foundations and offshore corporates you're starting with that money are "Rainy Day Fund Association" and "Offshore Splurge on a New Sedan LP". $1M liquid net worth on a household basis is far from your comical depiction of guys with top hats and monocles (who of course, later in the day will don hooded robes, chant in a circle around an eternally burning flame and plot to stop the world).

>The Times had estimated the threshold for being in the top 1 percent in household income at about $380,000,

According to the article, that's only using Federal Reserve data for the United States. As you noted, the OP was speculating on the Top 1% all over the world.

World Bank economist Branko Milanovic wrote a book once. He calculates therein that the Top 1% in earnings per year is about $35k per person per household. So this is a little over $100k by household. Certainly a lot of people in the US would qualify. Wikipedia says the top 10% of Americans would comfortably qualify into this bucket. So you have to be successful (or married), but not insanely so. And yet you can say with certainty that the Top 10% of people are all just lazy bums who had everything handed to them and don't have any practical skills? Not in my experience.

That's 30 million people dude. How many big time non-self-made CEOs in that bucket? 10,000? 20,000? 100,000? A rounding error no matter how you slice it. Most people in that bucket will be people who have skills and work hard.

As for "da 99 percent" left behind? Well, here's the funny thing about percentages, there always has to be someone at the top. Of those left behind, "da one percent" of those people own productive assets and businesses and also be hard workers.

Will we send those people out on ice flows too?

u/LWRellim · 4 pointsr/economy

Just some further "food for thought" from my own experience that I felt people might find interesting.
-----

---

While the article itself is about the additional costs (childcare, etc) related to the "second earner" in a two income household (which I think E. Warren fully delineated -- and even made additional points the article did not address, things like income/financial vulnerability -- in her book, "The Two Income Trap").

But I think there is ALSO a lot of merit in looking at even the original/single/primary earner's "costs of holding Job X" in a similar fashion as well.

When I switched from a full-time commuting job (and one just a 30 minute drive away no less) to working from home, I noticed a dramatic drop in attendant expenses, to wit:

  1. No longer was I piling on 20,000 to 25,000 miles per year -- some 15,000+ of which were just going to/from work (60 miles per day, 5 days per week, ~50 weeks per year = 15,000 miles). At the IRS's current (and probably understated) "cost" of 55 cents per mile that's about $8250 a year. And remember that commuting costs are coming out of your NET (after tax) earnings.

  2. While the ending of that daily commute also meant the "loss" of the ability to stop at the grocer "on the way home" (and so grocery shopping becomes a specific additional trip) -- this ended up NOT being a "loss" at all, but rather the source of additional savings for at least 3 reasons:

  • I could now CHOOSE the specific grocery based on best-value, rather than simply buying at the one that was the "easiest" (read "closest to my commuting route").

  • Since grocery/food shopping is no longer being done when "weary" and on a "time to get home" constraint -- rather than buying a significant percentage of food as things that would be either "no-need to cook" or "quick/painless to cook" (i.e. various take-out, frozen dinners, box-mix-meals, etc.) -- I am able to be more relaxed and "selective" about it all, and can develop a real "long view" shopping list related to the quality/value of the food (which also has health & just general sense of well-being benefits).

  • And of course, "fast food" for lunch has become a rarity instead of a "default" option. (When you work at home, making your own lunch is significantly easier/faster in every possible way -- when you commute, it is all too easy to "default" to some fast-food option when you either forget to pack a lunch, or are tired of the same-old cold sandwich routine. And even if only a 2x per week and tight-fisted $5 per meal, that can come to $500 or more a year -- add in "snacks" bought from vending machines, or the quick-stop on the way to/from work and you can toss another $500 or more... and again all coming out of one's NET, after tax income.)

  1. Surprisingly enough, while I had expected that -- absent the ability to "stop on the way home" -- that I would get some kind of "cabin fever" and as a result would end up making a LOT of additional OTHER "trips to town". Turned out the opposite was true: as I grew accustomed to NOT driving on a daily basis, it became a habit to NOT drive places (i.e. driving begets more driving; not driving begets LESS driving) -- and I also began to "plan my trips" much more efficiently. End result was that instead of putting on an additional 5,000 to 10,000 miles per year on my vehicles (over and above the commuting mileage), instead I was able to reduce my mileage to around 3,000 miles per year. (Which not only engenders a HUGE savings on fuel, but also via the wear & tear on the vehicle -- so tires and everything else, including the vehicle itself, last a lot longer.)

  2. With the change in driving patterns, and the more extensive planning of shopping trips, I became much more "aware" of the costs of "comparative shopping" (aka additional driving as a means of "bargain hunting"). Since driving across town to another store (where object X might be $2 cheaper) -- rather than being something that might "happen anyway" in the near future -- instead meant a significant change in plans and extra fuel/mileage, I began to realize how those "bargains" often were not bargains at all (especially since "while you are there" at the other store you are very likely to buy extra things you don't need).

    Long story short... even though I am single (so no childen, no child-care costs) I found that I was spending anywhere from $10k to $15k of my NET after tax income on basically "having a job" (that I commuted to/from daily). That meant for my income/tax situation, on a GROSS basis I needed to make (at least) an additional $20k to $25k a year -- in essence because employees cannot deduct all expenses like a business can -- I was "subsidizing" my employer by that amount to have me work "on-site" for him. I could live the exact SAME level of lifestyle, while making significantly LESS (and of course as your income drops, so do your taxes... so you functionally get to "keep" substantially more of the value of your own work/efforts).

    ---

    EDIT: Also, I would like to note for all of the "ride a bike" folks that the location of that particular employer (as well as the previous employer) was in an area with significantly higher housing costs (both rental AND/OR purchase would have more than doubled my monthly housing expenses), so "moving closer in order to bike to work" would have not only shifted the costs from driving to housing, but would have actually significantly increased my total costs as well (HUGELY with the prior employer, which was located smack dab in the middle of the highest-cost housing in my state).

    Plus, of course I LOVE the relaxing, laid back location of my nice, but inexpensive and paid off, rural home (in an area that OTHER people buy second/vacation homes in, and spend 3+ hours driving to on Friday evenings, and another 3+ hours driving home from on Sunday night) -- a short distance from and with rights to several lakes, plus nearby state forests with walking/biking/XC & downhill skiing, not to mention my large almost 1 acre lot with garden, fruit trees & vines, etc -- in short by I don't need to travel to a relaxing destination for my "vacations", I already LIVE there!

    ---

    EDIT2: Note also that I am NOT claiming to be "perfectly frugal" -- I do still buy things I probably don't need, take occasional "wasteful" trips to town, etc. -- just that now that I am NOT commuting every day, the "opportunities" to do so are significantly fewer (probably 1/10th or 1/20th of what they were before); and I have been able to reduce what I previously budgeted for them (and then, SURPRISE! I have often found that over a whole year I have significantly under-spent what I had budgeted... who knew that would happen?)
u/nagdude · 1 pointr/economy

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:

  • Ray Dalio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Dalio)
  • Hugh Hendry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Hendry)
  • James Grant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Grant_%28finance%29)
  • Bill Gross (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gross)
  • Mohamed El-Erian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_A._El-Erian)
  • Kyle Bass
    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:

  • Robert Prechter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Prechter) You can choose to believe or ignore his wave theory, but his observations on human emotions and how they run our lives are incredible informative and mind opening.

    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:

  • The bond market (http://www.amazon.com/Bond-Book-Everything-Treasuries-Municipals/dp/0071358625)
  • The history of precious metals
  • Keynesianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Maynard_Keynes)
  • Ludwig von Mises and the Austrian School of economics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises)
  • Capitalism, Socialism, Fascism, Collectivism and Corporatism. These are extremely important to learn as much as you can about with as much depth as possible. Incredibly enough this is the topic most of the population struggles most with but at the same time have very strong opinions on. Correctly identifying objectively what kind of "ism" that is the current dominant one and what was the dominant one at different stages in history. This is an extremely difficult topic because people get so emotional so fast, its difficult to find rational conversation partners.

    5.
    I would be careful putting too much faith in these notable people:

  • Peter Schiff (He is blind to the real possibility of a deflationary shock)
    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&qid=1322700761&sr=8-1
  • Paul Kruegman (He has blind faith that governments can allocate resources adequately good during a crises - a money printer)
  • Max Kaiser (I dont know what to say, he is both a genius and a moron, you just dont know which one at which time)
  • Gerald Celente (He seems very observant, but he always says the same thing, stagnant)
  • Jim Rogers (He provides no real insight)
  • Warren Buffet
  • George Soros

    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.
u/nwilli100 · 1 pointr/economy

http://www.rfe.org is good first stop if you're looking for raw data

Most university library (particularly my alma mater of UC Davis) is likely to have a large selection of previously published economic journals and publications available electronically.

The Nation Bureau of Economic Research Working Papers (https://www.nber.org/) has a pretty decent selection but you have to become a member to read beyond the abstracts

http://repec.org/ is also a great source for papers, though one should note that they tend to be working papers and lack full peer review.

If you're looking to gain a greater understanding of more basic economic theory I recommend you up pick up a primer) or textbook from amazon. Thats how most people get started (either through classes or self-study).

u/ThunderSnowStorm · 1 pointr/economy

I would greatly recommend that you read the book Pax Technica.

Here are some excerpts:
> In a world in which most of our political, economic, and cultural lives are mediated by networked devices, power lies in setting technical standards. Simply put, you either set technical standards or you follow them. International tensions over competing technology standards are only going to increase as governments and firms identify the engineering protocols, licensing arrangements, and telecommunications standards that will allow them to use the [internet] to advance their goals.

> Information activism is already a global ideological movement, and competition among device networks will replace a clash of civilizations as the primary political fault line of global conflict. Samuel Huntington famously divided the world into nine competing political ideologies, and described these as largely irreconcilable worldviews that were destined to clash. What is more likely, in a world of pervasive sensors and networked devices, is a competition among device networks. The most important clash will be between the people and devices that push for open and interoperable networks and those who work for closed networks.

> The dominance of technology over ideology has two stabilizing consequences. The first is that information activism is now a global movement. Every country in the world has some kind of information-freedom campaign that allows for a consistent, global conversation about how different kinds of actors are using and abusing digital media. The second is that the diffusion of digital media is supporting popular movements for democratic accountability. Some Silicon Valley firms build hardware and software for dictators, and as I’ll show in the next chapter the serious threat to the pax technica comes from the rival network growing out of China.

> The [internet] will help bring structure to global politics, but we must work for a structure we want. This is a challenging project, but if we don’t take it on our political lives will become fully structured by algorithms we don’t understand, data flows we don’t manage, and political elites who manipulate us through technology. Since the internet of things is a massive network of people and devices, structural threats will come from competing networks. There are two rival networks that seriously threaten the pax technica: the Chinese internet and the closed, content-driven networks that undermine political equality from within the pax technica.

> The Chinese internet is already the most expensive and elaborate system ever built for suppressing political expression. The Chinese are trying to extend it by exporting their technologies to authoritarian regimes in Asia and Africa. Russia, Iran, and a few other governments are also developing competing network infrastructures. The Chinese government controls the entire network, the network is bounded in surprising ways, and the network can, and does, mobilize to attack other networks.

> The Communist Party has developed a dedicated army to resist the spread of the technologies and values of the West. By one estimate there are more than 2 million “public-opinion experts,” a new category for jobs that involve watching other people’s emails, search requests, and other digital output. In other words, the army of censors is as large as the military, and often military units are given censorship and surveillance tasks.

> Government agencies need censors, but the government also makes tech startups and large media conglomerates hire their own censors to help with the task of watching the traffic. Pundits have referred to these people as China’s fifty-cent army because some get paid small amounts of money to generate pro-regime messages online. But that moniker makes the army of censors seem like freelancers who are inexpensive to hire. In actuality, they are a well-financed force deeply embedded in the country’s technology industry.

> Lots of other authoritarian regimes employ censors, but let’s put the numbers in perspective. If there are 2 million people occupied with Chinese censorship tasks, and 500 million users, that’s one surveillance expert for every 250 people. Aside from the human resources put into censorship and surveillance, China’s device networks have three unique features: the government controls the entire network, the network is bounded in surprising ways, and the network attacks other networks.

> First, the Chinese government owns and controls all the physical access routes to the internet. People and businesses can rent bandwidth only from state-owned enterprises. Four major governmental entities operate the “backbone” of the Chinese internet, and several large mobile-phone joint ventures between the government and Chinese-owned media giants offer additional connectivity.

> The research on China’s censorship efforts finds that the government works hard to support Chinese content and communication networks that it can surveil, and discourages its citizens from using the information infrastructure of the West. In one study, researchers went through the process of launching a social media startup in China. They took notes each time they encountered a new regulatory hoop to jump through, and they kept track of the amount of information they were making available to the state-security apparatus.

> Second, the Chinese resist Western device networks by making sure that connections within China are extensive and reliable, and connections to the rest of the world less so. Chinese device networks are bounded by the Great Firewall of China, as we call it in the West, though the more poetic translation is the Golden Shield Project. Some consider it the largest national security project in the world, and its singular task is to protect Chinese internet users from access and exposure to outside content.

> Third, the Chinese government is aggressively assaulting international information infrastructure. Corporate cyberespionage, design emulation, patent acquisition, and technology export are the key weapons of this attack. Some of these are subtle defenses that smack of cultural protectionism, while others are aggressive strategies for attacking outside networks. Cyberattacks on Western news media regularly originate from within China.

> The Chinese are trying to win over other nations, co-opting the device networks of poor countries into nodes of their rival network. The Chinese are not just seeking to protect their citizens from the West, they are aggressively expanding their networks to rival the pax technica through cultural content, news production, hardware, software, telecommunications standards, and information policy. In terms of content and news, their rival strategy involves:

> • Direct Chinese government aid to friendly governments in the form of radio transmitters and financing for national satellites built by Chinese firms.

> • Provision of content and technologies to allies and potential allies that are often cash strapped.

> • Memoranda of understanding on the sharing of news, particularly across Southeast Asia.

> • Training programs and expenses-paid trips to China for journalists.

> • A significant, possibly multibillion-dollar, expansion of the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC’s) own media on the world stage, primarily through the Xinhua news agency, satellite and internet TV channels controlled by Xinhua, and state-run television services.

> China’s aggressive efforts to build a rival network are not the only form of resistance to the device networks of the pax technica. The Russians have been successfully pioneering another strategy, one emulated by Venezuela, Iran, and some of the Gulf States. The Russian gambit is not to build its own network from the ground up, it is to join the internet by sponsoring pro-regime internet users to generate supportive commentary online.

> The critical rivalry in the years ahead will not be between countries but between technical systems that countries choose to defend. Rival information infrastructure is the single most important long-term threat to international stability. The empire of the Western-inspired, but now truly global, internet isn’t the only major system in which political values and information infrastructures are deeply entwined. Indeed, there are many internets.

u/gosnomad · 1 pointr/economy

Short answer: All economic growth derives from increases in efficiency. The govt could help with that by reforming patent system (remove the trolls), remove useless regulation (e.g. ADA compliance that is really an extortion racket), and ensure a level playing field (big banks vs small credit unions).

Long answer: See William Bernstein's "Birth of Plenty", which is an excellent economic history book http://www.amazon.com/Birth-Plenty-Prosperity-Modern-Created/dp/0071747044/

u/[deleted] · 4 pointsr/economy

That's the consensus of most economists, and countries which started out with low paid labor intensive industries like India, S. Korea, China and Japan are evidence that sweat shops do mature.

A good book on the subject is In Defense of Globalization. it's a well rounded look at the benefits and problems the system has had.

It seems safe to say that Globalization and trade liberalization has done more to help the developing world that any system yet tried.

u/yaboykanye · 2 pointsr/economy

The Wordly Philosophers a great book explaining how we came to think of economics today by looking at it's most influential thinkers

Stigum's Money Market a fundemental look at how modern money markets work

History of Economic Thought looks at economics throughout history, taking into consideration the unique historic and cultural context of different schools of economic thought.

u/numberjack · 2 pointsr/economy

I don't remember what it's called but I had a textbook in college that was basically a bunch of short stories or case studies that I absolutely loved. Can't find the book but for whatever reason I remember one of the stories was "The Trashman Cometh..."

I'll check when I get home tonight, it's still on my bookshelf. One of the few textbooks I kept!

Edit: The Economics of Public Issues

This isn't the same cover, but I recognize the authors so this might be it. Will confirm tonight.

u/thebrightsideoflife · 9 pointsr/economy

>That's because it became an alternative to public schools. Trade skills have been privatized, from education to job placement.

Only because public schools quit teaching it. The mandate from the federal level came forth that ALL students should be taught to a standard in preparation for going to college. The result was the gutting of "shop class" for classes that teach to the test. It didn't happen overnight. It took a couple of decades to shift the public perception that public schools shouldn't teach some kids just to be farmers or auto mechanics because EVERYBODY should be lined up to go into the highly profitable higher education market.

here's a good book on the need for shop class and why we shouldn't be teaching everyone to work in white collar jobs.

u/RPLLL · 2 pointsr/economy

This is a negligent representation of taxes and the externalities they provide under the advanced form of civilization we live in today.

If you like the subject please give Power and Prosperity a read.

u/Paddington_Fear · 1 pointr/economy

this is a great book I read in grad school about 10 years ago (this is the updated version), it's not a long book and it's a surprisingly easy read: http://www.amazon.com/International-Money-Finance-Eighth-Edition/dp/0123852471/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1413755532&sr=8-1&keywords=international+finance+melvin

u/Mercedes383 · 1 pointr/economy

You might be interested in a book Legacy if Ashes



Makes you get the impression everyone is just off doing their own thing.

u/bwwwbwwwb · 1 pointr/economy

Its hard to get a solid introduction to the subject without a hidden political view. Most people I know have enjoyed Naked Economics (http://www.amazon.com/Naked-Economics-Undressing-Science-Revised/dp/0393337642). Also, Colander's economics textbook (http://www.amazon.com/Economics-David-Colander/dp/0073375888) tries very hard to present a wide variety of view points, which is sadly not typical

u/babbles_mcdrinksalot · 3 pointsr/economy

You're quite right when you say it's politically unfeasible. The current US body politik would rather see the country utterly destroyed than confront a few basic ideas about the future of human society.

At its essence, the system doesn't function during periods of negative growth. The whole idea of interest depends on whomever you're lending to having more next year than they did the year before. Simple things like that are built into the economy as we know it.

Ideas like these get at the heart of how we've structured our economy and our society. Theories that question these basic tenets are not well received, and for good reason. People with money shy away from ideas like peak oil and climate change because they represent a threat to their way of life.

That isn't to suggest that alternative systems aren't possible. I haven't read too much on things like steady state economic theory and I certainly haven't read any credible accounts indicating it as a feasible alternative, but at some point we're going to have to acknowledge the fact that there are limits and act accordingly.

I believe that we are approaching or breaching those limits today and the last 8 years of relative stagnation are the result. Market bulls, please note the use of the word 'relative'. Yes, economic growth in OECD countries is still a thing, but it is significantly less than what we're 'used' to. I don't believe it's going to get better in the long run.

So what does that mean, doom and gloom? A forever recession? No. We'll adapt. But we'll adapt with less than what we had and that's goddamned near guaranteed at this point.

Build resilient local communities, evaluate ways to decrease your dependence on petroleum and decrease you carbon footprint. At some point (very likely within the next decade), it won't be some alcoholic on the internet telling you to do these things, it will be your government.

For more information, consider these resources:

u/unjung · 4 pointsr/economy

There's something about it... it fits with the anti-establishment mindset, it fills a desire for parsimonious explanations for complex problems. The young people especially who have bought into this anti-fed thinking... it worries me. I know the Dark Ages are called that for different reasons, but I worry we are moving into another intellectual dark age... critical thinking is not encouraged, no one reads anymore - they take their talking points from Twitter or YouTube. It's all glib catchphrases and everything is open to question. Economics is especially bad for it because it as a science has let us down so much lately. It's made worse by the fact that politicians with specific axes to grind have selectively grabbed chunks of economic theory to support their own beliefs, and academic economists don't do a great job at defending themselves.

As an aside, you might find this book interesting. Many of these theories/worldviews fit together and are held by the same types of people.

u/errantventure · 1 pointr/economy

>... what the imf did to the third world ...

Develop its industry? Build its infrastructure? Seed its capital markets? Bring its population from malaria-ridden jungles and into cities? Those heartless globalizing bastards!

But seriously though, get educated:

Niall Ferguson:
http://www.amazon.com/Ascent-Money-Financial-History-World/dp/1594201927

Milton Friedman:
http://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Freedom-Anniversary-Milton-Friedman/dp/0226264211

Matt Ridley:
http://www.amazon.com/Rational-Optimist-How-Prosperity-Evolves/dp/006145205X

Hernando De Soto:
http://www.amazon.com/Mystery-Capital-Capitalism-Triumphs-Everywhere/dp/0465016146

u/OpeningProcess · 2 pointsr/economy

If you think that's what Karl Marx wrote, I'm pretty sure you have actually have never studied Karl Marx.

Marx's experience was deeply rooted in 19th century Europe. This was the period after the 1789 French Revolution. The period when for the first time, democracy emerged, the market economy grew and finance and industrialization spread. European societies went through an unprecedented transformation when millions of peasants moved to cities and started become employed. There were no labor law or rules.

Marx argued that every society throughout history is based on a hierarchical structure. Elites at the top enjoy great wealth and free time. Non-elites have no free time or restrained free time. The conflict between those two classes take different forms in different societies. He mentions the Pleb and the Nobility in Ancient Rome, the Slaves and Masters in Greece, and the Lords and Peasants in Feodal Europe. He notices those classes have been in conflict with each others because every hierarchical order has been market by violence and revolts from the lower order when they feel that the upper order has been too abusive.

Marx did not argue against capitalism or oppose capitalism in any way.

People who claim this have never read him. Marx believed Capitalism was a formidable force that allowed to overthrow feodalism. He saw the emergence of a new class, the bourgeoisie, replacing the feodal one, as a formidable event in human history. This class made its wealth through trade and has a strong interest in rule of law.

At the time people worked up to 12, 16 hours a day in terrible conditions. This led to regular episodes of violence. Marx predicted that the bourgeoisie in a capitalist system was a formidable class because the most educated bourgeois would eventually realize that to keep their power and privilege, they would have to make concessions on the political ground and on labor grounds. For decades, strikers were beaten up, killed, and riots broke out until labor unions were recognized. Wealthy families such as the Cadburries started taking care of their workers and arguing for stronger norms to protect the most vulnerable people.

Marx also worked on Globalization. He predicted that Capitalism would always feel restrained in a national territory. He saId business, by it's very nature, would always feel an unresistible need to thrive on an international level and that one day this would happen. Marx however warned that this could also lead to great threats as each national ruling class would try to beat commercially the foreign bourgeoisies, leading to great tensions between European powers. Marx turned out to be right and this is one of the key reason why France almost went to war with Germany in the 19th century to obtain exclusivity over commercial trade outposts on the African West-Coast.

Marx believe that the business bourgeoisie played a key role in in the emergence of parliamentary democracy in England then in France, and the establishment of rule of law. He predicted that all European Kingdoms would fall under the pressure of capitalism and those countries would transform into democracies. At the time, only property owners had the right to vote. Workers, who tried to demand the right to vote, were repressed. Marx predicted that in a future society this would evolve and every citizen would have the right to vote.

Marx predicted that Capitalism would fall into crisis because of accumulation. Lack of profits because lack of a consumer base would become a major problem and would lead to falling stocks unless the government, whichh represented the common interest of the elite, decided to intervene with major public spending. He argued that Financial Crisis would happen regularly because they are normal features of the Capitalist system.

Marx supported the revolutionary movement against the Tsar in Russia. He, however, worried that another exploitative group, pretending to represent the working class, would seize power and create a dictatorship as savage and ferocious as ever before. This is exactly what happened in both Russia and China.

____



Marx is a man who observed the end of feodalism. Things he predicted would happen include :