As I have a bachelor in economics I have the info I need about most areas in economics.
"Fractional reserve banking supposedly has its roots in an era when gold and silver were traded. Goldsmiths would issue promissory notes, which were later used as a means of exchange. The smiths used the deposited gold to issue loans with interest, and fractional banking was born.
In the U.S., the National Bank Act was passed in 1863 to require banks to keep reserves on hand to protect depositor funds from being used in risky investments. In 1913 the Federal Reserve Act created the system of Federal Reserve banks we now know collectively as the Federal Reserve System. Banks were required to keep reserve balances with the Federal Reserve Banks."
What Is the Life-Cycle Hypothesis (LCH)?
"The life-cycle hypothesis (LCH) is an economic theory that describes the spending and saving habits of people over the course of a lifetime. The theory states that individuals seek to smooth consumption throughout their lifetime by borrowing when their income is low and saving when their income is high.
The concept was developed by economists Franco Modigliani and his student Richard Brumberg in the early 1950s."
I think you should read some about economics before I read anything.
This might be a good start, 101 in economics from Yale by legendary Robert Shiller.
I would not tell you to read about coding before having a conversation about coding with you, as I know that you have great knowledge in that field. I wish others would show me that same respect.
School or tradition: New Keynesian economics, Behavioral economics
That tells me everything I need to know. Keynesians already failed to indoctrinate me despite years of trying and immense government funding. It appears your mind was fertile ground for them. Anyway, I’m done with this discussion.
He is a smart cookie, start with him. Or if you are more hardcore you can start to read the papers of Fama-French, Modigliani–Miller, Black–Scholes, Solow-Swan and so on. I can link some from my bachelor thesis and education.
As they teach the same in Yale as in any economic school all over the western world, it is as good as any to start with Yale. As Robert Shiller and all other economic teachers always refer to known economic theory when they teach, then their field of expertise or background becomes in most times irrelevant. You can use that Yale course to pass any exam in economic schools all over the western world.
Is an early theory about stabilizing general economy macro economic trends. Later replaced by stabilization policy and low inflation goals related to Fisher’s work.
You don’t gain respect for doing a degree in a specific subject and becoming knowledgeable. In fact this expectation of respect probably makes people lose respect for you. A little humility goes a long way.
I always start with humility but when challenged and not get met with humility then it forces me to change gear, step up and raise the stakes.
But feel free to backtrack the discussion and give me a optimal strategy on how to do things different, to get respect and also get people to understand that there is large % chance that I know a subject more because of many years of study than people who don’t have the same level knowledge.
It is common sense to start to know a subject by first learning the general accepted theories of a subject and understanding them before wandering of in a direction to challenge them.
Read Moonofalabama.org on why Hersh may be getting played on this.
Seems there is little here that was not known shortly after this Yankee assault on Europe.
As my follower on Mastodon @JPL (he posts on Safe Network (@safenetwork@mastodon.social) - Mastodon) will no doubt confirm, you folks really need to get on Mastodon and follow us (both my accounts please) because if not you’re missing out on so much.
For me Mastodon is now better than old Twitter which was awesome (no longer true unf.). Better because old Twitter, carefully curated and not using the algo, meant it was a great source although all but the chosen ones had very low engagement. On Mastodon that engagement goes everywhere, yep people see even my toots!
Sorry for piling up here, but this statement in particular reminded me that I’ve been meaning to share this book:
Anyone who has been putting it off like I was, do yourself a favour and get stuck in, Graeber writes very nicely, it’s amazing. Buckets of received wisdom getting playfully torn to bits.
The first few chapters cast very large amounts of very reasonable doubt on the very notion of “economics” as a subject, taking Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations from 1776 and going from there. I expect people with bachelor degrees in economics to be too far gone, but anyway, there it is.
[NOTE: the link is to Anna’s Archive, where pdf and epub files can be downloaded for free - I have only included the link so you know specifically where to NOT go and get free books, as that would be illegal, and wrong.]
Did only have to read the description of that book to rule it out as garbage, maybe useful to wipe your arse with or throw in the fire to keep your house warm.
“Every economics textbook says the same thing: Money was invented to replace onerous and complicated barter systems–to relieve ancient people from having to haul their goods to market. The problem with this version of history? There’s not a shred of evidence to support it.”
People who don’t understand that money makes trading things of value easier and more effective needs to get their head checked. How to fail to understand such simple logic is beyond me. Failing to understand such simple logic and you would fail to understand even the most simple logic like if A is better than B and B is better than C, that gives that A is also better than C. If so many people fail simple logic then how is this project going to succeed? Why don’t we just start painting pink unicorns on rainbow colored clouds and make something useful with our time instead of trying to solve complex logic that almost none seem to have the brainpower to achieve?
Finding a book to support your claims means less than nothing, as there are a few written books in the world you can probably find one that support any claim, that don’t tell anything if that claim is good or bad.
Don’t waste your precious brainpower reading that book, as it seem very scarce, find a color book and start painting. As I read you are a musician, that is close enough depending on the level. Keep doing creative things, stay away from logic, the world is a better place when people try to maximize what they are good at. Another logic learned from economic education.
You are very good at design and presentation. With what you write right now it makes sense why there have been problems with logic/rational on the SNT supply RFC. Not your fault but it should have been given to someone that is more suited for economics.
I hope that RFC finally gets good because if the big sharks in crypto in the future looks at the project and see that it fails on a fundamental general logic level, then I believe they will take a bite and spit us out whole.
“An alternate history of the rise of money and markets, a sprawling, erudite, provocative work.”
—Drake Bennett, Bloomberg Businessweek
“Fresh… fascinating… Graeber’s book is not just thought-provoking, but also exceedingly timely.”
—Gillian Tett, Financial Times (London)
Maybe you should give Bloomberg and the Financial Times a ring, you could have saved them some time and money here, you’ve got it all figured out! Even after just reading the description of the book - remarkable. That bachelors degree in economics you’ve got is really some hot stuff.
I was going to refrain from responding, as your previous message speaks for itself - pure petulance, to a comical degree. But then I saw your message to Jim above which is really too much.
Judging people based on what you perceive to be how well they fit into the category of “logical person” or “creative person” is an exceedingly poor heuristic for apprehending the world. It’s common, but baseless. For example, this last paragraph:
I do music, yes, mostly Irish traditional, blues and jazz, with maybe three main instruments, and I’ve been living off that for a while now. I also studied mathematics and philosophy at university, and some of my favourite courses were in propositional logic. I’m halfway through a very nice book about Common Lisp too, which I suppose is another “logic”-y activity, by your definitions.
You bandying about transitivity there (with letters even! Ooh) to seem learned was a great laugh, I nearly spit my coffee out. There is an actual subject of logic which exists, and if someone learns about it during an economics degree, it’s usually incidental.
I can confirm however that I’m terrible at painting.
One of the unexpected practical benefits of these studies was I got to hang out in the maths department and the arts department - theoretical physicists and maths nerds on one side of the college, economics and politics and sociology cool kids on the other.
In short, and to put it bluntly: overly self-important goons like yourself are unfortunately a dime a dozen in this world, and I’d respectfully like to suggest you get back in your box. You’ve firmly established the limits of your abilities to interact with new ideas for all to see, and lashing out at others won’t help.
You attacked me and I responded in a similar way. My response to Jim was based on earlier discussions and observation on the SNT supply RFC. I wrote it because this project is important and it is my responsibility to be open and transparent with problems around the project. I contemplated with sending a direct message to David Irvine instead but felt I had to be open about the problem. I maybe should have been more straight forward earlier when David asked if he should let someone else handle that RFC, then maybe this could have been avoided. But it is hard to make judgements and correct decisions when there is unknown outcomes. Jim is a great guy and very good at what he is good at.
I sing and have been singing for many years. My reply earlier was similar to what you wrote to me and lacked the same truth as yours. But it makes me curios why you know math but seem to have problem applying it to general logic, does it become abstract when it is about the real world instead of numbers?
What you judge me as have very little impact based on what you shown.
Maybe it was a bought review. Maybe books can be interesting and show different perspectives and be good even if they are fictional. But when the first description fails in logic, I don’t think that book will be in the study literature for the near future.
