Read this before having an opinion on economics

[NghtRppr]

Economics in One Lesson: http://www.hacer.org/pdf/Hazlitt00.pdf

It's a great read. It's brief. It doesn't go into a lot of technical detail but it does illustrate a central fallacy that many people, even some economists, make when thinking about economics. If you haven't read this book, I'm going to assume you're ignorant about economics until proven otherwise.

[1713555529]

1713555529

[1713555529]

1713555529

[1713555529]

1713555529

[1713555529]

1713555529

[malditonuke]

Economics in One Lesson: http://www.hacer.org/pdf/Hazlitt00.pdf

It's a great read. It's brief. It doesn't go into a lot of technical detail but it does illustrate a central fallacy that many people, even some economists, make when thinking about economics. If you haven't read this book, I'm going to assume you're ignorant about economics until proven otherwise.

I usually recommend Economics for Real People ( http://mises.org/books/econforrealpeople.pdf )

I think it comes off as less paranoid, even though I agree that One Lesson is sound.

[kiba]

Remember, folks...

Mises.org's books are free(well, the digital edition at least) thanks to the hardworking anti-intellectual property movement.

P.S. We need a bitcoin address for mises.org.

[Gluskab]

Remember, folks...

Mises.org's books are free(well, the digital edition at least) thanks to the hardworking anti-intellectual property movement.

P.S. We need a bitcoin address for mises.org.

A bitcoin address for LewRockwell.com would be good as well (guy who founded mises institute).

[goatpig]

Remember, folks...

Mises.org's books are free(well, the digital edition at least) thanks to the hardworking anti-intellectual property movement.

P.S. We need a bitcoin address for mises.org.

Do you have something against IP?

[benjamindees]

From this aspect, therefore, the whole of economics can be reduced to a single lesson, and that lesson can be reduced to a single sentence.  The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy;  it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups.

I can't help but find the premise of this thread to be hilariously ironic.

I can be evicted by the owner of any owned property.  If you're on my property and refuse to leave after being asked, you're trespassing. You're the aggressor, not me.

What if you are a child and the owner is your family?  Still apply?

Of course it applies. Nobody is forced to care for their children, even with our current system.

[da2ce7]

Economics in One Lesson: http://www.hacer.org/pdf/Hazlitt00.pdf

It's a great read. It's brief. It doesn't go into a lot of technical detail but it does illustrate a central fallacy that many people, even some economists, make when thinking about economics. If you haven't read this book, I'm going to assume you're ignorant about economics until proven otherwise.

'It's brief' my ass

[NghtRppr]

Do you have something against IP?

Intellectual property laws are incompatible with Libertarianism.

'It's brief' my ass

Maybe this is more your speed.  

[Grinder]

Unfortunately this book is about as valuable as a teaching book for economics as Das Kapital. If what it says is in line with what you already wanted to believe, you'll love it. If not it's just political propaganda.

[NghtRppr]

Unfortunately this book is about as valuable as a teaching book for economics as Das Kapital. If what it says is in line with what you already wanted to believe, you'll love it. If not it's just political propaganda.

I disagree. Most people understand the broken window fallacy. This book shows them how that same reasoning applies to other things like price controls, protective tariffs, minimum wage laws, rent control, etc. If you understand the broken window fallacy, you'll be forced to agree with the other arguments presented. It's taking something that people implicitly believe and making it explicit. That's the most powerful educational tool there is.

Of course, that requires intellectual honesty. If people are just being closed-minded then your analysis holds.

[da2ce7]

'It's brief' my ass

Maybe this is more your speed.  

Look, If I asked my friends to read Economics in One Lesson, they would go 'what do you think I am? somebody with spare time?'

A short essay around 10 pages long is the most that anyone has time for.  It needs to have graphs and diagrams to explain some of the more complex features, not just large blocks of text.

[NghtRppr]

A short essay around 10 pages long is the most that anyone has time for.

That's perfectly fine. It's not a crime to remain ignorant of economics. However, these people that can't be bothered to educate themselves have no business opining on economic issues. They can't have it both ways.

"I'm too busy to read but here's my stupid uneducated opinion."

[goatpig]

Intellectual property laws are incompatible with Libertarianism.

Lemme rephrase. Do you have anything against the concept of intellectual property?

[NghtRppr]

Intellectual property laws are incompatible with Libertarianism.

Lemme rephrase. Do you have anything against the concept of intellectual property?

Yes, it's incompatible with Libertarianism. Why? Because it makes you a partial owner of my property against my will. That's theft, if only partial theft.

I own paper. I own a printer. I should be able to do whatever I want with them, including printing out copies of the latest bestseller and hocking them on the street.

[goatpig]

So if I come up with something smart and profitable you should be allowed to copy it without my consent and profit out of it too?

[da2ce7]

"I'm too busy to read but here's my stupid uneducated opinion."

Now that is plain arrogant!

Economics is rational and common scene. What you are saying is that unless people have worked out the right 'words' they stupid.

I like laissez-faire capitalism, not because I have read up extensively on the subject.  But because it is EASY to understand.  Economics isn't hard, it is just applying rational logic to real life.

It is the people who make economics into a super complex science who have got us into all this mess.

On a rational view, inflation is theft, leading to mal-investment. However once it has been covered up with 100 layers of complexity the logical fallacy (inflation is good) can more easily be hidden.

[da2ce7]

Intellectual property laws are incompatible with Libertarianism.

Lemme rephrase. Do you have anything against the concept of intellectual property?

IP can more easily be debunked from this prospective:

An non-violent act (copying information), needs a violent act (the enforcement of IP rights) to be stopped.

[Grinder]

I disagree. Most people understand the broken window fallacy. This book shows them how that same reasoning applies to other things like price controls, protective tariffs, minimum wage laws, rent control, etc. If you understand the broken window fallacy, you'll be forced to agree with the other arguments presented. It's taking something that people implicitly believe and making it explicit. That's the most powerful educational tool there is.

Of course, that requires intellectual honesty. If people are just being closed-minded then your analysis holds.

If you were a communist you would say exactly the same about the arguments made in the books communists like. And of course you're now thinking "but the difference is that I'm right", just like anybody who's chosen an ideology would.

[goatpig]

Intellectual property laws are incompatible with Libertarianism.

Lemme rephrase. Do you have anything against the concept of intellectual property?

IP can more easily be debunked from this prospective:

An non-violent act (copying information), needs a violent act (the enforcement of IP rights) to be stopped.

That "debunk" is redundant. You assume intellect cannot be a property so that to copy without consent does not consist in theft. To debunk it, you need to start from the assumption that it consist in property and prove that at some point it contradicts itself or makes no sense. In this case your attempt fails, since you have to assume it stands as a property, in which case the copy is theft, which is aggression.

[NghtRppr]

So if I come up with something smart and profitable you should be allowed to copy it without my consent and profit out of it too?

Yes. Why not? If you steal my bicycle, I can't use it anymore. If I steal your idea, you can still use the idea. Only one of us can use the same oven to bake a cake but an infinite number of people can use the same cake recipe.

Economics is rational and common scene.

If that were the case, the last 200 years would look extremely different. Economics is not common sense precisely because people tend to consider only the things they can see but fail to take into account the things they don't see because their idiotic economic polices prevent those things from coming into existence.

If you were a communist you would say exactly the same about the arguments made in the books communists like. And of course you're now thinking "but the difference is that I'm right", just like anybody who's chosen an ideology would.

There's nothing I can say to that. It's like saying that I beat my wife but of course I will deny it because that's what wife-beaters do. It's not a fair argument. Maybe I am delusional, brainwashed or simply mistaken but asserting that it is the case won't convince me of it. You'll have to dig deeper.