I'm relatively unsure of whether or not that has been an effort to track key economic and financial news and trends on 8/pol/ before, but now is the best time as ever to start a new trend.
Would love to see more economy related threads on here. They pop up from time to time but do not get that many replies. I assume due to anons lack of knowledge pertaining to economic affairs. Regardless, we should try and keep a thread like this going.
Lincoln Bell
What are some good, unpozzed books about economics?
Elijah Phillips
Sublime. If you're scrolling and see this thread, don't hesitate to ask questions. Economics is the lynchpin. , I don't know any books but I'll answer q's to the best of my knowledge.
I was thinking yesterday, actually, that it's nonsensical to operate on a political basis without a proper understanding of economics and finance. I'd ask you anons, whenever thinking of using the term 'political' use 'politico-economic' and other such relationships.
off topic: if the mods fuck this up on the basis of wanting to steer the board towards some mouthbreathing, uneducated, soundbite toting, controlled op alt right circlejerk, here's hoping you know where to go
Hudson Bailey
How did nations like America afford to have such low taxes before the Great War?
Camden Miller
They actually do get many replies, but it's at a much slower pace and it's because replies are usually more in-depth and analytical than the kind of emotional faggottry we see in e-celeb threads and what not.
Evan Jackson
We weren't subsidizing 30+ million beaners and ~40 million niggers.
Aiden Morgan
I remember the last thread we had was on the current economic happening and discussing how trillions had been lost since september last year but it had only gotten up to around 140 replies. In fact it might still be in the catalog near the bottom but I'm on mobile so I have no idea.
The slower and more thought out replies are exactly why I enjoy these threads and hope to see them flourish.
Jordan Gonzalez
Presumably, it's because of minimal debt; minimal, or well balanced, social welfare; and a healthy relationship between government and the industries or businesses it aids.
For context: cursory investigation suggests that there was no income tax, and that most income was levied via tariffs on imports, a cardinal sin in modern neoliberal economics. I'm unsure as to whether or not there was a land tax, but regardless, this suggests low spending.
The majority of tax spending in government budgets serves social welfare these days. This includes America. The USA last year dedicated approx. 2/3 of its budget to a vast assortment social welfare programs. The majority of the remainder is dedicated to propping up a powerful and obtuse military-industrial complex. What's more, your current government is irredeemably indebted.
If memory serves me well on your history, America came about as a point of economic liberty: the erasure of crippling debt and the liberty to be prosperous. Reason infers that pre-WW1 USA held no quarter to the interests of international finance, and legislated government backed fiat. A point of note: fiat currency is not necessarily inflationary, as goldbugs scaremonger; so long as the velocity and supply of money accompanies the true production of the economy, it serves well. This also explains the vast political – and by proxy, economic – wealth to be gained in currency manipulation.
The USA was also I believe federated to a far lower degree in the past; the monolithic bureaucratic mess you suffer today was a pipe dream. Social security came into being under Roosevelt; Medicare, Lyndon Johnson.
tl;dr the economy is a big system made up of simple components. If each component is self-sufficient, or self-sufficient to the nth degree, the economy will prosper. If not, not.
Jaxon Perez
What's the fucking difference?
David Howard
OP here. Post economic stories and answer questions.
How can we get mods to possibly sticky these threads? It could become a catchbasin for all things economic and finance and allow for more threads on a wide variety of subjects.
Aiden Price
IRC. Since you had to ask, you'd better familiarise yourself with IRC first. Get ready for a clusterfuck.
My personal theory is that Paul Ryan and the establishment Republicans, along with Obama, are determined to create precedent for federal bailouts of failed Democrat states with financial positions that are making creditors and state residents increasingly nervous.
For example, examine the outstanding debts for each state:
Primarily Democrat states, with New York, Illinois, Colorado, Washington, California, and Minnesota leading the pack. South Carolina and Kentucky are difficult to determine, but it could be massive de-industrialization in both states and declining coal/energy production in Kentucky.
State and local government unfunded liabilities now exceed $3 trillion. If these states, such as California, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, etc. are unable to pay, then the Feds will need to step in. Puerto Rico is about acclimating the general public to federal bailouts of Democrat shitholes.
Jason Richardson
Wow, thanks.
Nicholas Lee
It's saddening that meaningful responses are so surprising user. If you've got any questions I'd adore to set up a dialogue here.
Austin Jenkins
Thanks. I know this might seem like a fairly basic question:
From what I understand:
1) Usury is the charging of interest when paying back a loan
2) Fascists/National Socialists wish to abolish usury.
This leads me to the following two questions:
1) In a usury free world, how does the lender ensure that the indebted party pays back their debt?
2) In a usury free world, because inflation causes money to lose value, doesn't that mean that the amount paid back is worth less than the amount originally loaned?
On another note, why did Hitler say: “For every Mark issued, we required the equivalent of a Mark’s worth of work done, or goods produced”?
What is the benefit of that?
On a less related note, what do you think of perishable currency as outlined here:
Because the state linked printing of currency with job creation,
The reich, in nationalizing corporations such as Volkswagen, would basically set job quotas for companies to reach; a company, offering to employ six million people would recieve a certain amount of reichsmark in return for employing them, these companies would pay their workers a wage with this same currency, and the currency thus circulated; and goods were produced. All of this was regulated by the state.
Thus the mark was matched with employment/work
Pic related
The lender was was the state, and in cases of absolute theft, it was a matter of prosecution and state programs, also since unethical loaning was illegal, paying the money back was pretty much ensured by the government
Inflation was hardly an issue when the country refused to involve itself in international markets beyond barter of goods, and a country that nationalized most industry, this was a matter for state economists to manage
Ryan Hill
Thanks, I'll check them out.
Isaac Collins
Manifesto for the Abolition of Enslavement to Interest on Money by Gottfried Feder
Every book by Feder
Thats all you need
Connor Flores
Thanks.
Bentley Garcia
What is 'unethical loaning'? Loans have inherent risk. Thus the interest. There's no point in loaning money if you do not receive something from it. Not only is loaning money inherently risky, which is why lenders go to great lengths to analyze a person or business before investing, but simply not having the liquid capital available is a negative.
That money, instead of being tied up somewhere, could be put to use to create more capital. Lenders perform a service in the market in which they determine what products and services the people will value the most. Their entire purpose is to weed out the shit that no one is willing to buy and direct money towards things people benefit from and want/need. Bad lenders will run of money and good lenders will make more money.
That's not even getting into the disasters that government-insured loans would generate.
Also, in regards to that chart.. Most countries that go from a capitalist system into a socialist system typically see a huge GDP boost at first and then after a few generations, it crashes and burns. I think this is mainly due to how the capitalist market already engineered a functional system. The people are already trained, the machines are already in place, etc. A few generations down the line, all of that goes away.
It's reminiscent of debt. If you give some poor loser a bunch of credit cards, and he goes and lives a lavish lifestyle for 20 years, it certainly looks like he's doing something right from the outside and must make a lot of money. But in reality, he simply postponed the cost of his consumption to a later date, and he will pay dearly.
Jack Morris
In the case of a currency being backed by the full faith and credit of the people (sound familiar?), it could simply be produced and credited in infrastructure programs, corporate subsidies, etc. and not expected to be returned. This way government backed fiat necessarily depends on the good will of the government; go figure. Private lending would as always need rigorous checks and balances to insure against risks of spurious debtors (we already have credit ratings) and creditors (financial regulations against, say, sub-prime mortgage packages).
This, coupled with the above, tells me that you haven't studied economics. The textbook definition of inflation is the rising price of a good or service. When demand outpaces supply, you get a shortage of that good or service, and we say it has an inflationary effect on its price. In the money market, it's a little bit different. The credit creation process (i.e.: fractional reserve lending + usury double trouble) necessarily increases the supply of money. Relative to the demand for money (which for our sake we can simply relate to aggregate demand, or how hot the economic machine is running), this increase leads to a fall in the value of money: your dollar does not purchase as much as it did yesterday. Even though the value of money itself has lowered, in the money market, we call this inflation.
The critical thing to understand is that the relationship between the prices of goods and services and the supply of money is the same as the relationship between demand and supply for any good or service. Because money is required in every transaction, its demand is inextricably linked to the productivity of the economy. Because it can only come from creditors, its supply is inextricably linked to how it is produced. Put two and two together, and it becomes clear that so long as the supply of money keeps pace with the demand for money, the value of money will remain constant and you will kill monetary inflation despite engaging economic growth. This answers your third question also.
Charles Howard
Tariffs. Taxes in ye yonder era were difficult to collect due to government inefficiency and corruption. But it's easy to sit in a seaport and collect tariffs for cargo coming in. This is why shitholes today still have high tariffs.
Jeremiah Scott
Spot on. I will do some reading though.
Are taxes truly better than tariffs?
Henry Morris
Tariffs are just import tax. Say there's a tariff on automobiles. The US car costs market price, the JPY car costs market price + 8 per cent, afforded by you, the taxpayer.
What you should be asking is how best to organise the tax system. I've heard that the US tax code is fucking labyrinthine.
Jordan Stewart
Besides being a revenue that's easy to collect, tariffs are good for protecting industries you don't want to be out competed by foreign countries. They are basically a tax since producers won't eat the cost of paying a tariff but rather increase the price of their good to make up for the loss.
They are very bad for certain international cliques since it increases their cost to do business.
Matthew Moore
Thanks. I will definitely do some reading so I am not so economically illiterate.
Aiden Ortiz
You've gotta be shitting me.
Henry Morris
So will America. Investing trillions in subhuman labor and Israel's safety isn't going to bring big returns any time soon.
