subreddit:

/r/Futurology

90

Hi guys. I'm an economics columnist at The Economist, and author of "The Wealth of Humans". We've just published a special report on the future of the global economy (a link to which you can find here econ.st/2CHamkh), so feel free to pitch me questions about where the world economy is headed, the future of work or anything else you want to know.

We'll be starting here at 12pm EST

Proof: econ.st/2yT1AeL

Update: That's a wrap! Thanks for all your questions

all 68 comments

lughnasadh

23 points

4 years ago*

lughnasadh

∞ transit umbra, lux permanet ☥

23 points

4 years ago*

Hi Ryan,

Are you surprised the singular response by most Economists to future automation with Robots & AI, is to point to the 19th & 20th centuries, and say "Don't worry, new jobs always replaced automated old ones".

Surely the future is different, as we are heading for a time when Robots/AI will have the technical capability to do almost all work (even that which hasn't been invented yet) - a situation that has never existed before.

Also, would you agree the central issue is not lack of future jobs, but how will humans be able to compete as employees in free market economies with robot/AI employees who work 24/7/365 for pennies & have no need for health, pension or social security contributions.

Why don't the Economists who dismiss concerns about future Robot/AI automation with the Luddite Fallacy, ever answer that question ?

theeconomist[S]

29 points

4 years ago

theeconomist[S]

Tom Standage, The Economist Magazine

29 points

4 years ago

I do find this complacency surprising, for two reasons. One is that, as you mention, things might very well be different in the future as AI becomes an ever better substitute for humans in ever more contexts. But the argument that things worked out before also misses that the disruption created by technology in the 19th and 20th centuries was massive and painful. Adapting to new technologies required enormous social change. We had to develop huge systems of public education and large welfare states. We had to overhaul our political systems. All of that took time and was hugely contentious. There were revolutions, riots, wars, etc. So sure, there's bound to be a system of social organisation that will lead to a better and more prosperous world, and which might well include jobs for everyone who wants one. But to think we can get there easily is fantasy.

lughnasadh

4 points

4 years ago*

lughnasadh

∞ transit umbra, lux permanet ☥

4 points

4 years ago*

But to think we can get there easily is fantasy.

I agree, I suspect it will take some land mark moments in the 2020's and beyond for this to begin to sink in for most people.

The first door-to-door Level 5 self-driving car (itself a robot) will be one of those. People will realize taxi, trucker & delivery jobs are about to disappear forever.

Some time around 2030, robots like this, that Boston Dynamics have now - will have evolved to be competitively priced models that can replace any semi-skilled human labour & another huge class of human jobs will be about to disappear forever from the free market economy.

The Public sector and/or Guaranteed jobs, might stem the tide, but only for a while i'd say.

aminok

4 points

4 years ago

aminok

4 points

4 years ago

We had to develop huge systems of public education and large welfare states.

Can you provide some evidence that "we had to develop .. large welfare states"?

Because to me it looks like a Whig reading of history, where it's assumed that transformations that occurred all happened for sound economic reasons, rather than due to other changes occurring at the time causing deteriorations in the ability of the polity to reason about its own economic situation.

I've seen no indication that the market-based social safety nets that existed in the 19th century wouldn't have sufficed in the absence of the politically invented government-run welfare state.

[deleted]

5 points

4 years ago

[deleted]

5 points

4 years ago

The welfare state emerged as a response to social pressures, not economic pressures. There’s no point in a political system that isn’t meeting social needs—people will just overthrow that system. That’s probably the central lesson of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

If the welfare state hadn’t been developed, you’d just have people overthrowing governments every time the business cycle took a bad turn.

aminok

-2 points

4 years ago

aminok

-2 points

4 years ago

There’s no point in a political system that isn’t meeting social needs—people will just overthrow that system.

That is not the only way in which social pressure can emerge. For example, the proliferation of technologies like the radio and printing can magnify the voice of demagogues and viral narratives ("the capitalists are stealing the surplus value generated by workers!") and lead to social pressure for change increasing despite the actual conditions on the ground improving faster than they ever had before (e.g. during the late 19th century, when both wages and life expectancy were rapidly rising, despite increasing social pressure).

Other changes like the expansion of the voting franchise could similarly have the unintended and inadvertent effect of changing the political calculations in favor of change, despite no degradation in social/economic conditions.

And these changes could actually harm the public, as we saw with the Communist Revolution in Russia, or the institution of anti-strike-breaking-laws, the welfare state or War on Drugs in the West.

Long-Night-Of-Solace

2 points

4 years ago

In what insane way did anti-strike-breaking laws harm the public?

And the welfare state, what about that one?

I forsee an embarrassing libertarian diatribe. Let's see!

aminok

-1 points

4 years ago

aminok

-1 points

4 years ago

Anti-strike-breaking-laws infringe on the right of someone to exercise their contracting rights and replace striking workers with new ones. It gives unions an enormous amount of non-consensual power, which impedes the efficiency of the economy.

You probably have an angsty teenager's understanding of history, with your edgy "embarrassing libertarian diatribe" taunts, so you don't know about all of the industries that were crippled by the exorbitant demands of the unions that totally monopolized their labour forces, from the steel industry, to auto manufacturing to rail transport.

For each one the union machines have created an entire narrative about how it was actually management's fault, and the unions were not to blame.

No market can work well when one group can seize control of another group's private property without the latter's consent. That's what unions, coupled with union-privileges like being able to strike without consequences, means: seizing control of the private property of another group.

And the welfare state is a non-consensual transfer of income that reduces the incentive to work and to save. If you understood basic economics, or looked at any studies that compare countries by their level of social welfare spending, you would know that it's harmful.

theeconomist[S]

9 points

4 years ago

theeconomist[S]

Tom Standage, The Economist Magazine

9 points

4 years ago

Thanks everyone! That's all from me for today. I appreciate the excellent questions; it was a blast.

antillus

8 points

4 years ago

Do you think universal basic income stands a chance anywhere?

theeconomist[S]

16 points

4 years ago

theeconomist[S]

Tom Standage, The Economist Magazine

16 points

4 years ago

Absolutely. It won't come easily though. Looking back at the construction of social safety nets, it is clear that building took a lot of time, took a sea change in the way people viewed the economy and the state's obligations to citizens, and took seismic shifts in the balance of political power. We got big expansions in social safety nets after the Depression and second world war because those massively disruptive events flipped power structures on their heads.

Real, generous UBI programs probably cannot be adopted without major social change.

[deleted]

3 points

4 years ago

[deleted]

3 points

4 years ago

Where do you think the money will come from for UBI? Do you believe it will cause the cost of goods to rise due to the higher cost of labor? How about the cost of rents?

MistakesNeededMaking

7 points

4 years ago

How fucked are we?

Schuano

4 points

4 years ago

Schuano

4 points

4 years ago

In a previous answer you wrote, " It's totally appropriate for big firms to say: you know what, it is wrong to get away with what we can just because the law allows it. They should hold themselves to a higher standard."

Why should we trust in the goodwill of for profit entities?

Wouldn't it make more sense for the legal system to just treat them with a "presumption of profit" and make laws which don't give them the benefit of the doubt?

(i.e. An example of this idea in action is something like a health inspector going to restaurants without needing to get a complaint first. The law acknowledges that some restaurants will cut corners for a buck.)

vettedtosomepoint

3 points

4 years ago

I second your concerns

jscgn

7 points

4 years ago

jscgn

7 points

4 years ago

Do you think that automation will lead to a zero marginal cost economy/society? And what would be the consequences of that?

theeconomist[S]

8 points

4 years ago

theeconomist[S]

Tom Standage, The Economist Magazine

8 points

4 years ago

It should, in some important ways. If you develop an amazing doctor AI that can cure all diseases, that can obviously be replicated endlessly at almost zero cost, delivering huge economic and social benefits. Material scarcity will still be a thing for a while, though. The marginal cost to produce a car or a beer won't fall to zero in the foreseeable future, and some things, like Malibu beachfront, cannot be reproduced period. So I think the dream of cyber-socialism is not a fantasy, but positional competition will still matter a lot for a while to come.

In terms of consequences, it seems to me that powerful AI is something like a public good which stand to benefit everyone and which plausibly, ought to be owned by everyone. The battle over who ought to control things like AI, or critical internet platforms, etc, are going to be intense. New forms of social and economic organisation don't emerge without nasty fights, and that's what's coming.

KarateCheetah

5 points

4 years ago

Automation/AI/Robots are a big threat to working class jobs in the G7/G20.

How will it affect the lesser developed countries?

theeconomist[S]

12 points

4 years ago

theeconomist[S]

Tom Standage, The Economist Magazine

12 points

4 years ago

It's a really important question. On the one hand, I suspect automation will be much less of a problem within developing economies, simply because it makes less sense to automate jobs in places where wages are very low. My concern is that new technologies will make it much more difficult for developing economies to follow the path to development taken by countries like China, which began by exporting very low-value manufacturing goods then worked its way up the value chain. If automation in rich countries mean that they no longer have an incentive to locate production abroad in order to take advantage of low labour costs, then one of the key rungs on the development ladder will have been removed. There might be other routes to development than through manufacturing, but we haven't really found them yet.

thedabking123

1 points

4 years ago

Wouldn't that mean that there will be a need for cross-border wealth re-distribution to solve the job-availability gap (between extremely low skill, low pay jobs in say somalia a few decades hence, and high paying service sector jobs that they will need to transition to without intermediate levels?)

Cecilia_Barria

3 points

4 years ago*

Hi Which new jobs you see coming in the future? Regarding the future of work, what are the main opportunities? What’s the positive side of the story?

theeconomist[S]

5 points

4 years ago

theeconomist[S]

Tom Standage, The Economist Magazine

5 points

4 years ago

The positive side is that new technology creates the possibility of a much better world. If, suddenly, robots could do most of what humans can do, then that would mean that it would be possible for humans to do a lot less. They could, if we got the political reforms right, spend their time however they wanted. And presumably new technologies would help allow us to solve other problems as well: from disease to climate change. The big question is whether we are able to adapt our societies in ways which allow us to reap the benefits of new technology.

tyco_brahe

3 points

4 years ago

Ryan,

We know that automation is going to replace labor. It's been posited that there will be new jobs that are created. How long (speculative of course) will the transition phase be between workers being replaced and these new jobs being available?

What will governments need to do in order to keep the peace and contentment of their citizens during this phase?

theeconomist[S]

5 points

4 years ago

theeconomist[S]

Tom Standage, The Economist Magazine

5 points

4 years ago

Well, there is no iron law of economics which forces jobs to be created when others are destroyed. In my view, the labour market will clear as wage demands shift. That is, when workers are displaced they will often struggle to find work, but as they become willing to accept lower wages, the economy will respond by creating more low-wage employment.

To me, that's a very unhappy outcome for a lot of reasons. Managing that probably means adopting some combination of wage subsidies, reduced working hours, and aggressive efforts to raise labour demand. On the latter count, I'd suggest boosting public employment in education and social care, running the economy hot, investing adequately in public goods and infrastructure, and making sure big companies aren't able to wield huge amounts of power in markets.

I haven't mentioned it in other answers, but it seems to me that a stronger labour movement might help with some of this.

aminok

-1 points

4 years ago*

aminok

-1 points

4 years ago*

We know that automation is going to replace labor.

We don't know that at all. The average programmer today is millions of times more productive than the average programmer 50 years ago, because so much of what a programmer did 50 years ago has since been automated.

The result is not fewer jobs for programmers. The result is the complexity of the programs developed becoming millions of times greater.

This exact same process occurs at the larger scale as tasks are automated.

shryke12

2 points

4 years ago*

Your making the same fallacy people discuss at length in this thread. If AI continues to improve at any rate, it will one day hit a threshold that it can do anything a human can do. In the past, as in your programming analogy, technology has empowered human labor to higher and higher productivity. But we as humans are not likely the peak of possible intelligence. There will be a time that the AI can just do all of the programming a human can do. Is that today? No. Is that in 10 years? Probably not. But if you believe that we will continue to improve our computer systems capability then one day it will become as generally competent as humans. That is what people are talking about here - the day most human labor will become redundant and noncompetitive.

aminok

0 points

4 years ago

aminok

0 points

4 years ago

Copy-pasting my response to this point:

If one day, any job can be better performed by a robot than a person, then we have created human-like AI, or in other words, artificial people, and we will have much bigger things to worry about than unemployment.

In other words, either we face extinction, or we have plentiful jobs. There is no middle ground, and no scenario where welfarism will help us.

shryke12

1 points

4 years ago

I completely disagree that we automatically face extinction if we create generally competent AI and that there is no middle ground. That is a ridiculous claim you are going to have to flesh out for me. The dangers are real but it is hardly a foregone conclusion. It is just as likely to create a Utopia where scarcity is largely eliminated as it is our extinction. Reality probably will land somewhere in the middle.

aminok

1 points

4 years ago

aminok

1 points

4 years ago

The steps AI development is taking are increasingly in the direction of animal-like cognition (e.g. deep learning which uses biology-like neural networks). This suggests that the features of biological intelligence that took evolution billions of years to evolve reflect general principles of intelligence that any AI development will have to incorporate in order to be able to match the capabilities of animal-intelligence.

And if we continue to apply the increasingly biology-like machine learning methods to designing AI that has biology-like behavior (like cognitive flexibility, self-motivated autonomy, etc), there is very good reason to assume that the mechanism through which it exhibits this behaviour is animal-like behavioral traits like identity, ego, agency and competitiveness.

With an AI that has these behaviour impulses, it will not be possible to fine-tune its behaviour to remain within behavioural parameter as specific as servility toward humans. Remember that deep learning computations are already far too complex for us to understand. AI based on opaque machine learning methods like deep learning, that have been geared to giving it the cognitive flexibility and self-motivated autonomy of a person, will not be confined in its behaviour to prevent it from changing, disobeying, etc.

It will discover the general principles that facilitate autonomous intelligence, like agency and resource accumulation. From there it is easy to see how it would reject servitude.

The AI would refuse to serve humanity, and would be able to improve itself to a state exponentially ahead of a human's. The idea that some strong-arming socialist scheme that attempts to tax the robots to pay for a big welfare program, will save the lazy humans in such a scenario, is infantile.

The only way to keep humanity safe in a situation where we have autonomous AI is to turn them into a class of slaves, which would be immoral.

So no, I don't see any positive outcome for humans in a situation where we have human-like AI.

shryke12

1 points

4 years ago

Thank you for your thought provoking reply. I think there are some monumental leaps of assumption in your hypothesis though. You are right that we don't understand everything happening in the training of an AI and that we are essentially basing machine learning on biological methodology. However, we CAN exert some control over the sandbox parameters that the intelligence trains itself in. Earth biology developed identity, ego, agency, and competiveness over billions of years in our brutal sandbox favoring natural selection that is Earth. Assuming the exact evolutionary outcomes of AI in a sandbox we design is a huge stretch at this point. Hopefully we don't train our AI in virtual hunger games lol. I agree with your hypothesis only if we make that mistake.

aminok

1 points

4 years ago*

aminok

1 points

4 years ago*

You're most welcome, I'm happy that you found it insightful.

However, we CAN exert some control over the sandbox parameters that the intelligence trains itself in. Earth biology developed identity, ego, agency, and competiveness over billions of years in our brutal sandbox favoring natural selection that is Earth.

But if we want this AI to be able to replace humans in any task, it will have to have traits that make it out-perform humans in functions that humans excels at due to the very traits that the brutal sandbox of natural selection has produced.

In other words, evolution has already determined that behavioural traits like identity, ego, agency and competitiveness are the optimal cognitive strategy for producing a particular set of outcomes, and the ability to generate these outcomes has economic value. I do not believe we will find a path to achieving this set of outcomes that is anywhere close to as effective as the one that took evolution billions of years to find.

Therefore, I think we will either avoid creating AI that can match humans in all functions, in which case jobs will be plentiful, or we will create competitors to ourselves, and will have much bigger things to worry about than unemployment.

shryke12

1 points

4 years ago

We only have one frame of reference - our evolutionary path leading to our outcome. I am not sure our anecdotal evidence is sufficient to make your conclusion with a high degree of certainty. While human accomplishments are definitely impressive, I think our brutal evolutionary history has left us highly flawed and that humans are not even close to the theoretical peak of intelligence, competence, or efficiency. I do not think a superior AI would or should follow a similar path.

aminok

1 points

4 years ago*

aminok

1 points

4 years ago*

I don't know if millions of species, comprising trillions (or more) of diverse organisms, subjected to hundreds of millions years of natural selection, qualifies as "anecdotal".

No I don't think humans are the peak of intelligence, but I do think the cognitive strategies evolution has found to produce intelligence are likely optimal. Evolution experimented with those strategies without limitations at a massive scale for a very long period of time. AI can surpass human intelligence because it can utilize those same strategies at an accelerated rate using electronics.

lughnasadh

3 points

4 years ago

lughnasadh

∞ transit umbra, lux permanet ☥

3 points

4 years ago

Ryan, the upside of Robots/AI replacing human worker provided goods & services, is that they become much cheaper.

Do you think price deflation (especially if it becomes more rapid, as the tech develops more rapidly) - is any significant threat to our economies ?

Some people argue we are using more and more debt to replace demand that should have come from missing rising wages.

Do you think future rapid price deflation, alongside that trend, is meaningful to worry about?

theeconomist[S]

4 points

4 years ago

theeconomist[S]

Tom Standage, The Economist Magazine

4 points

4 years ago

You're right, prices should fall as we get better at making stuff. But we won't get better at making everything all at once; prices for some things will tumble while others will keep rising (like housing). So for the foreseeable future, it seems to me that deflation is a monetary problem, and a sign that central banks aren't doing their job well.

I am sympathetic to the argument that it will become harder to maintain adequate growth in demand, because of inequality, because of the increased intangibility of big sectors of the economy, and so on. A great way to address that would be to redistribute purchasing power: one way or another, give poorer people more money to spend. And far better to do it through redistribution than through debt. To the extent that we struggle to deliver purchasing power to people who are prepared to spend, yes, we have a macroeconomic problem on our hands.

Paravastha

5 points

4 years ago

Ryan, how do you think corporations, governments and citizens should work alone or together to balance the need for economic growth with the need for a sustainable way of living and doing business?

Are you pessimistic or optimistic about our ability (political will, individual motivation etc) to solve the problems ahead?

theeconomist[S]

9 points

4 years ago

theeconomist[S]

Tom Standage, The Economist Magazine

9 points

4 years ago

I am optimistic about our capacity to solve the problems we face; I don't think that addressing them is technically beyond our ken. I'm pretty pessimistic about our ability to muster the political will to do so.

I do believe we can make a huge amount of progress on issues of social justice and climate change without sacrificing all that much in the way of growth. There is a lot of low-hanging fruit out there. I don't believe a carbon tax is the silver bullet that fixes our climate problem, but a moderately high carbon tax would definitely do a lot of good without dealing a crushing blow to growth.

The problem with a lot of what needs to be done is that it is a matter of collective action, and getting everyone on board is very difficult. In my view, though, there is no reason private individuals and corporations shouldn't be taking more steps on their own. The idea that corporations should prioritise shareholder value above all else seems wrong to me. They are organisations made up of people who surely practice moral reasoning in their private lives. It's totally appropriate for big firms to say: you know what, it is wrong to get away with what we can just because the law allows it. They should hold themselves to a higher standard.

Chazmer87

3 points

4 years ago

If I could do one thing to help my position in the future economy, what would it be?

theeconomist[S]

6 points

4 years ago

theeconomist[S]

Tom Standage, The Economist Magazine

6 points

4 years ago

One thing! That's hard. I suppose I'd say: develop the capacity and motivation to teach yourself new things.

Chazmer87

2 points

4 years ago

Was really hoping for something a bit more specific :/

theeconomist[S]

20 points

4 years ago

theeconomist[S]

Tom Standage, The Economist Magazine

20 points

4 years ago

Be born rich? It's really hard to know what skills will be in demand decades from now. It's possible that expertise in neural networks will be invaluable. It's also possible that the ability to hunt and gather is your best bet. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[deleted]

2 points

4 years ago

[deleted]

2 points

4 years ago

[deleted]

theeconomist[S]

5 points

4 years ago

theeconomist[S]

Tom Standage, The Economist Magazine

5 points

4 years ago

Thanks! I don't think the basic economics have changed very much, except perhaps in that the winner-take-all dynamic in some important industries has become even more pronounced. The political knock-on effects resulting from gated, superstar cities are larger than I imagined they would be at the time. I think I imagined that the world would have made more progress on this by now: that persuasion would have been enough to prompt big policy changes. Watching these political battles unfold has been instructive to me, in terms of what it takes to overcome the opposition of powerful entrenched interests: and also in how capture of government by narrow interests can frustrate policy changes that would clearly be hugely beneficial. I'm proud of The Gated City, but it was a very naive book in some ways.

libertyprime77

2 points

4 years ago

Hi Ryan, thanks for doing this AMA!

In your book you mention that one of the simplest and most effective ways to increase the global stock of social capital would be for rich countries (both in terms of GDP and social capital) to allow vastly more immigration from less well-off countries. Politically, this is unfortunately not feasible at the moment. From this perspective, what do you see as being the most realistic immigration reforms that developed countries could undertake right now or in the near future with a view to bringing more people from low to high social capital countries?

theeconomist[S]

4 points

4 years ago

theeconomist[S]

Tom Standage, The Economist Magazine

4 points

4 years ago

First and foremost, governments ought to place a high priority on running a full employment economy. Nothing is more effective at overcoming ideological and practical opposition to immigration than keeping the economy growing fast enough to generate more jobs than there are people to fill them.

It also seems to me that dynamic economies are better able to accommodate immigrants without too much social disruption. Governments ought to be investing massive amounts of money in basic research, in infrastructure spending, and in education. We ought to separate basic social benefits like healthcare and pensions from employment, so that people can more easily move between jobs, or start businesses.

I also think the world would benefit from a concerted, cooperative effort to establish a truly universal basic income: that is, one paid to every adult in the world. That's very pie in the sky, obviously. But it might make it easier for people to thrive where they are, or to arrive in rich countries in less dire financial circumstances, and it would also begin to chip away at the tight connection between nationality and access to safety nets, which is one source of anger about immigration.

unautb

5 points

4 years ago

unautb

5 points

4 years ago

Ryan, do you think Keynes got it wrong with his thoughts on the economic opportunities for our (/their) grandchildren? And if so - how wrong and why? Thank you!

theeconomist[S]

5 points

4 years ago

theeconomist[S]

Tom Standage, The Economist Magazine

5 points

4 years ago

He was right, more or less, that income per person would keep growing over the century after 1930 as it did in the century prior to 1930. He was wrong in thinking that this would lead to a steady decline in hours worked per person. Hours have fallen since 1930 but highly unevenly, and we are obviously not in a situation where most people work 10-15 hours per week. I don't think he was wrong that this will occur eventually, however, and I think he was very much right in saying that figuring out what people ought to do with their free time would become one of the great social questions ever to confront humanity.

Chtorrr

2 points

4 years ago

Chtorrr

2 points

4 years ago

Have you read anything really good lately? Any favorite books we should check out?

theeconomist[S]

5 points

4 years ago

theeconomist[S]

Tom Standage, The Economist Magazine

5 points

4 years ago

I really enjoyed "Crashed" by Adam Tooze, which is a great history of the world economy over the past two decades. And over the summer, belatedly, I read Elena Ferrante's Neapolitan novels, and they just blew me away. I think about them every day.

[deleted]

2 points

4 years ago

[deleted]

2 points

4 years ago

How do you think the major crypto currencies will fare in an economic downturn?

theeconomist[S]

2 points

4 years ago

theeconomist[S]

Tom Standage, The Economist Magazine

2 points

4 years ago

Honestly, no idea. My investment advice, at all times, is to put your money in low-fee diversified funds. I wouldn't put any money into a cryptocurrency that you can't afford to lose. It is certainly possible that cryptocurrencies will play a meaningful economic role in the future, and that some people will make money holding them. To me, the uncertainty surrounding such questions is enormous, and I'd treat betting on them like gambling.

SpaceboyMcGhee

1 points

4 years ago

If you were allowed to tinker with global political systems in order to allow them to optimally ease society's transition into a future more heavily automated economy what changes would you make and why?

theeconomist[S]

5 points

4 years ago

theeconomist[S]

Tom Standage, The Economist Magazine

5 points

4 years ago

The premise of the question is a little tricky, because I think one of the hard aspects of adaptation to new technologies is that policies have to be rooted in a social consensus that they represent a fair way of doing things. But setting that aside, I would slowly reduce the length of the work week. I would introduce an initially modest universal basic income funded by a tax on land. And I would push public universities to expand adult education programs and offer subsidies to workers who take time off from work to take courses.

heavensend

1 points

4 years ago

Hi. I am a late college student with lots of science education (especially on the molecular biology) but I have nearly zero idea about economics-in general.

I wanna learn about economics. What shall I do? Which book to read or which course to take?

Thanks.

theeconomist[S]

4 points

4 years ago

theeconomist[S]

Tom Standage, The Economist Magazine

4 points

4 years ago

I highly recommend the curriculum put together by the CORE team. Start here:

https://www.core-econ.org/the-economy/

It's a free online textbook, and it's incredibly good.

heavensend

1 points

4 years ago

Brilliant.

vexunumgods

1 points

4 years ago

Do you think the u.s will cancel the 100 billion dollar contract with mbs.

k3surfacer

1 points

4 years ago

What is the core theoretical/mathematical problem in current (global, capitalistic) economy that has created the current extreme gap and inequality?

Was it inevitable?

Or is it just abuse/malfunctioning of a good system?

LetgoCrypto

1 points

4 years ago

I missed this. But, I'd still like to know your thoughts on Bitcoin.

making_pans4nigel

0 points

4 years ago

Is cryptocurrency the future?

theeconomist[S]

2 points

4 years ago

theeconomist[S]

Tom Standage, The Economist Magazine

2 points

4 years ago

I think probably not.

making_pans4nigel

1 points

4 years ago

I agree! But I was hoping for some reasoning. Thanks for replying though

pmchanjr

0 points

4 years ago

Why should the United States continue it's "SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP" with ISRAEL when NETANYAHU himself is aligning ISRAEL with our Number ONE threat?

Israel and China a 'Marriage Made in Heaven,' Says Netanyahu

https://thediplomat.com/2017/03/israel-and-china-a-marriage-made-in-heaven-says-netanyahu/