anonymous asked:

Hi, i am thinking of doing economics, do you have any post or blog that i can read so i can understand better of this faculty? (Sorry if there is any grammar mistake, english is my second language, and i am asking help because was really hard of finding something that i would kind of like to do for the rest of my life)!

Hello! I’ve never studied economics so I don’t know much about it. But, this website might help you. There’s also an economics section of the studyblr community who can help you.
Joseph Stiglitz: How I would vote in the Greek referendum
By Joseph Stiglitz

Neither alternative – approval or rejection of the troika’s terms – will be easy, and both carry huge risks.

The rising crescendo of bickering and acrimony within Europe might seem to outsiders to be the inevitable result of the bitter endgame playing out between Greece and its creditors. In fact, European leaders are finally beginning to reveal the true nature of the ongoing debt dispute, and the answer is not pleasant: it is about power and democracy much more than money and economics.

Of course, the economics behind the programme that the “troika” (the European Commission, the European Central Bank, and the International Monetary Fund) foisted on Greece five years ago has been abysmal, resulting in a 25% decline in the country’s GDP. I can think of no depression, ever, that has been so deliberate and had such catastrophic consequences: Greece’s rate of youth unemployment, for example, now exceeds 60%.

It is startling that the troika has refused to accept responsibility for any of this or admit how bad its forecasts and models have been. But what is even more surprising is that Europe’s leaders have not even learned. The troika is still demanding that Greece achieve a primary budget surplus (excluding interest payments) of 3.5% of GDP by 2018.

Greece debt crisis: Athens fails to repay IMF as bailout runs out - as it happened Greece has become the first advanced economy to fall in arrears to the IMF as its second bailout expires Read more Economists around the world have condemned that target as punitive, because aiming for it will inevitably result in a deeper downturn. Indeed, even if Greece’s debt is restructured beyond anything imaginable, the country will remain in depression if voters there commit to the troika’s target in the snap referendum to be held this weekend.

In terms of transforming a large primary deficit into a surplus, few countries have accomplished anything like what the Greeks have achieved in the last five years. And, though the cost in terms of human suffering has been extremely high, the Greek government’s recent proposals went a long way toward meeting its creditors’ demands.

We should be clear: almost none of the huge amount of money loaned to Greece has actually gone there. It has gone to pay out private-sector creditors – including German and French banks. Greece has gotten but a pittance, but it has paid a high price to preserve these countries’ banking systems. The IMF and the other “official” creditors do not need the money that is being demanded. Under a business-as-usual scenario, the money received would most likely just be lent out again to Greece.

But, again, it’s not about the money. It’s about using “deadlines” to force Greece to knuckle under, and to accept the unacceptable – not only austerity measures, but other regressive and punitive policies.

But why would Europe do this? Why are European Union leaders resisting the referendum and refusing even to extend by a few days the June 30 deadline for Greece’s next payment to the IMF? Isn’t Europe all about democracy?

In January, Greece’s citizens voted for a government committed to ending austerity. If the government were simply fulfilling its campaign promises, it would already have rejected the proposal. But it wanted to give Greeks a chance to weigh in on this issue, so critical for their country’s future wellbeing.

That concern for popular legitimacy is incompatible with the politics of the eurozone, which was never a very democratic project. Most of its members’ governments did not seek their people’s approval to turn over their monetary sovereignty to the ECB. When Sweden’s did, Swedes said no. They understood that unemployment would rise if the country’s monetary policy were set by a central bank that focused single-mindedly on inflation (and also that there would be insufficient attention to financial stability). The economy would suffer, because the economic model underlying the eurozone was predicated on power relationships that disadvantaged workers.

Greek debt crisis: protests as EC urges yes vote in referendum – as it happened Governments of France, Germany and Italy all warn that Greeks are voting on their eurozone membership on Sunday, as banks remain shut Read more And, sure enough, what we are seeing now, 16 years after the eurozone institutionalised those relationships, is the antithesis of democracy: many European leaders want to see the end of prime minister Alexis Tsipras’ leftist government. After all, it is extremely inconvenient to have in Greece a government that is so opposed to the types of policies that have done so much to increase inequality in so many advanced countries, and that is so committed to curbing the unbridled power of wealth. They seem to believe that they can eventually bring down the Greek government by bullying it into accepting an agreement that contravenes its mandate.

It is hard to advise Greeks how to vote on 5 July. Neither alternative – approval or rejection of the troika’s terms – will be easy, and both carry huge risks. A yes vote would mean depression almost without end. Perhaps a depleted country – one that has sold off all of its assets, and whose bright young people have emigrated – might finally get debt forgiveness; perhaps, having shrivelled into a middle-income economy, Greece might finally be able to get assistance from the World Bank. All of this might happen in the next decade, or perhaps in the decade after that.

By contrast, a no vote would at least open the possibility that Greece, with its strong democratic tradition, might grasp its destiny in its own hands. Greeks might gain the opportunity to shape a future that, though perhaps not as prosperous as the past, is far more hopeful than the unconscionable torture of the present.

I know how I would vote.

Joseph E. Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate in economics, is University Professor at Columbia University.

I wish tumblr actually cared about Greece right now. Everyone’s happy to reblog posts of pictures of Santorini and the Greek islands and to read books based of Greek mythology and quote Greek philosophers and live in countries built on the ideas and inventions that GREEKS CREATED but I am yet to see one post about the Greek crisis and it just seems like no one cares what’s going on. People do not have any money, all banks are closed and accounts are frozen. ATMs are only giving 60 euro a day to people and they are soon going to run out of money. Unemployment is at 28% if I’m correct. 272.7% increase in depression. People are committing suicide because of the living standards (around a 35% increase) . There has been electricity and hot water cuts in parts of Greece. Pensioners can’t get their pensions. The Greek PEOPLE are being blamed because apparently they are ‘too lazy’ but no ones blaming anyone else when it’s not the people of Greece’s fault. they’re being bullied and pressured by more powerful countries, the eu and imf to vote yes on the referendum meaning higher taxes and spending cuts putting the people of greece in even more poverty. not to mention that Greece already has a corrupt government to deal with. And no one seems to care that whatever the outcome is with Greece effects other countries such as Ireland, Portugal, Spain and Italy who are also in a very fragile state. Mind you the EU doesn’t seem to care if Greece goes bankrupt because they won’t give Greece debt relief, they are ruining a country and the lives of people! I have family in Greece right now and my yiayia (grandmother) has informed us that she is currently living off her last 20 euros because she’s on the island Lesvos in a village and can’t access any of her money in her bank accounts. It’s disgusting that people are making jokes of this situation when the people of Greece are suffering as much as they are, and I don’t think they realize what an effect Greece collapsing will have on them and the rest of the world! All I’m asking is for the people of tumblr to open their eyes to a major issue in the world right now because even if it’s not effecting you directly, it’s effecting millions of people. Greece needs help and even if it can get something as little as more recognition and acknowledgment of how bad the problem is, maybe just maybe things can get better. Just keep in mind that this could potentially ruin a country filled with such a beautiful culture, proud outgoing spirited people and an incredibly rich history

The Eurozone Crisis: A Reading List

As we continue to follow developments of the European economy, we pulled together a quick reading list to gain further insight into what has been happening across the EU:

Keep an eye out for updates from our @OUPPolitics and @OUPEconomics Twitter!

Image Credit: “Mr. Jean-Claude Juncker, Prime Minister of Luxembourg and Eurogroup President gives his remarks after the Eurozone Summit, 26 October 2011″ by European Council. CC BY NC-ND 2.0 via Flickr.

People are very simply tired and exhausted and angry with austerity measures that have devastated Greek society.
—  Costas Panayotakis, author of “Remaking Scarcity: From Capitalist Inefficiency to Economic Democracy.” Watch his interview on Democracy Now! today.

Greece’s crisis has hit a new low, as fear of a total financial meltdown grew so widespread that Greeks emptied over a third of the country’s ATMs on Saturday in a desperate attempt to pull out as much money as possible before the banks collapse.

The crisis is at a pivotal moment now, but it has been brewing for years. Despite what you may have heard, it’s not happening because the Greek government spent beyond its means and now is suffering the consequences. It’s happening because Europe isn’t sure whether it wants to be one country or many, and has in the meantime adopted policies that have created a humanitarian catastrophe for the Greek people.

The Greek crisis: 9 questions you were too embarrassed to ask


Here’s What You Need to Know About Greece’s Financial Crisis

Long story short -  you cannot spend yourself into solvency and you cannot have more takers than makers.  This affects you because you have morons who are running for the highest office in the land, like Bernie Sanders, who do not understand this basic economic principle and our country is starting to look a lot like Greece.

The “8888” Uprising refers to a series of protests that took place in Burma during 1988 that culminated on the date 8/8/1988, hence the name. The student protests that evolved into the nationwide uprising were sparked by (Dictator) General Ne Win’s decision that the Burmese government would no longer recognize the newly replaced currency notes, 100, 75, 35 and 25 kyats, leaving only 45 and 90 kyat notes. They were left, it is believed, because 45 and 90 are divisible by nine. General Ne Win was notoriously superstitious and he considered nine a lucky number. This wiped out people’s savings overnight and Burma, already poor and underdeveloped, was given Least Developed Country status by the UN.

Why is nobody talking about what’s going on in Greece right now?? Please educate yourselves, this shit is really important and could have a grave impact on other European countries.

Greece is having an economic crisis right now that is comparable to the US’s Great Depression. They’ve been having economic troubles for years now, and their bailout money ran out on Tuesday. Almost all the banks are completely shut down, and the Greek people are in crisis mode.

There is a vote coming up tomorrow, which will basically decide whether Greece sticks with the euro, or finds a completely new currency to use.
Canada is already in a recession, says Bank of America, and the loonie is set to get hammered
Forecast: A recession sets up the Bank of Canada for another rate cut this year and the downturn will knock the loonie to under 77 cents US by the end of the year

Bank of America Merrill Lynch has become the first bank to call for a Canadian recession this year.

Economist Emanuella Enenajor and her team now say that Canada’s economy will shrink by 0.6 per cent in the second quarter, following a 0.6 per cent contraction in the first. The definition of a recession is two consecutive quarters of contraction.

A recession sets up the Bank of Canada for another rate cut this year, said Enenajor, and she expects that the downturn will hammer the Canadian dollar — knocking it down to just under 77 cents U.S. by early 2016, the lowest level in more than a decade.

“The economy has surprised to the downside this year, and appears to have entered a recession in 1H 2015, even after policy easing in January,” she said in a note to clients.

Continue Reading.

There were strong economic reasons for the broad national reach of American slavery. Though Northerners gradually eliminated slavery in their states, Southern slave-grown cotton was the nation’s leading export. It powered textile-manufacturing revolutions in both New England and Europe, and paid for American imports of everything from steel to capital. In addition, the demand for slave labor in southwestern states like Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas drove up slave prices and land values throughout the South. In the 19th century, slave values more than tripled. By 1860, a young “prime field hand” in New Orleans would sell for the equivalent of an expensive car, say a Mercedes-Benz, today. American slaves represented more capital than any other asset in the nation, with the exception of land. In 1860, the value of Southern slaves was about three times the amount invested in manufacturing or railroads nationwide.

shredislove-shredislife asked:

Do you support free or at least drastically reduced college tuition? I'm more Republican alinging, but I'm also living just above the poverty line, so on that particular issue I tend to side with the Democratic thinking.

I don’t support free college tuition and here is why:

  • The average person goes to college for a 4-year degree, usually starting at age 18
    • Since I couldn’t find the amount of US citizens aged 18-22, let’s assume they take advantage of the free college system and go for a 6-year degree instead. 
  • The US census says there are  27,143,454 people in the US aged 18-24. 

Let’s say that we provide a free 6-year degree for all of these people. 

  • The college board reports that a "moderate" college budget  for an in-state public college for the 2014–2015 academic year averaged $23,410.
    • This includes room & board, various fees, tuition cost, and books to name a few. 
    • Does NOT take into account that some majors cost significantly more than others 

Now we need to find out how much it would cost to provide these people with a free 6-year degree

  • We multiply the amount of the education per person by the  27,143,454 people aged 18-24 (to get the total cost of educating all these people for 6 years), and you get the grand total of $ 635,428,258,140 per year
    • Assuming that all these students attend an in-state public college with a moderate budget. 
  • Distribute that cost among all 117,00,000 US taxpayers and it amounts to $5,431 per taxpayer per year. 
  • According to basic math and the current US tax brackets, taxes would be raised between 17.1% (lowest range of the middle class) and 83% (highest range of middle class). 

That’s WAY too much of a tax increase on our middle class, assuming that the students go to in-state public colleges with moderate budgets. Not everyone will go to in-state public colleges, and not all of them will have moderate budgets. 

This statistic doesn’t take into account the following:

  • Private colleges, which are around twice as expensive.
  • Cost of building new colleges and dorms to accommodate the greatly increased amount of students
  • Dropout rates
  • The reality that some kids will just screw around getting an “education” and end up staying in college for WAY longer than four years because, hey, it’s free, so why not?


There’s no real way to do that without drastically raising taxes on everyone else to pay for it. In theory, it would be nice, but in reality, it wouldn’t work because it’s too expensive. However, I would support going through the university systems and eliminating excess costs. I’m sure that there are many things that the university system spends money on that are unnecessary and I’m all for eliminating those inefficiencies. But I am not for spending taxpayer dollars to reduce college education when it’s so expensive to do so.

Chris Christie has only brought back 72 percent of the jobs lost in the recession. He just didn’t understand how to fix the economy. And when it came to crunch time, he became distracted with running for president.
—  Bob Hennely, political analyst and investigative reporter for WBGO, Newark’s NPR station, and a regular contributor to Salon. Watch him discuss Chris Christie’s bid for the Republican presidential nomination on Democracy Now! today.

The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. We see before us a huge community of producers the members of which are unceasingly striving to deprive each other of the fruits of their collective labor—not by force, but on the whole in faithful compliance with legally established rules. In this respect, it is important to realize that the means of production—that is to say, the entire productive capacity that is needed for producing consumer goods as well as additional capital goods—may legally be, and for the most part are, the private property of individuals. … 

Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists … The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights. … 

This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career.

I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society.

Nevertheless, it is necessary to remember that a planned economy is not yet socialism. A planned economy as such may be accompanied by the complete enslavement of the individual. The achievement of socialism requires the solution of some extremely difficult socio-political problems: how is it possible, in view of the far-reaching centralization of political and economic power, to prevent bureaucracy from becoming all-powerful and overweening? How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured?
Piketty Is Wrong: Rich Families Don't Generally Get Richer
Piketty is wrong that the rich get richer.

French economist Thomas Piketty made a huge splash last year with his Capital in the 21st Century in which he claimed that economic inequality increases as capital accumulates in the hands of the already rich. Piketty’s analysis as been comprehensively analyzed and dismissed by other economists. One of the moreinformative and entertaining takedowns of Piketty is by Northwestern University University of Illinois-Chicago economist Deirdre McCloskey.

Alerted to a new study, “The Rich Get Poorer: The Myth of Dynastic Wealth,” by TheEconomist’s Buttonwood column, I thought I would share some that study’s conclusions withReason readers.

From the study:

We believe Piketty’s core message is provably flawed on several levels, as a result of fundamental and avoidable errors in his basic assumptions. He begins with the sensible presumption that the return on invested capital, r, exceeds macroeconomic growth, g, as must be true in any healthy economy. But from this near-tautology, he moves on to presume that wealthy families will grow ever richer over future generations, leading to a society dominated by unearned, hereditary wealth. Alas, this logic holds true only if the wealthy never dissipate their wealth through spending, charitable giving, taxation, and splitting bequests among multiple heirs.

As individuals, and as families, the rich generally do not get richer; after a fortune is first built, the rich get relentlessly and inevitably poorer.

The “evidence” Piketty uses in support of his thesis is largely anecdotal, drawn from the novels of Austen and Balzac, and from the current fortunes of Bill Gates and Liliane Bettencourt. If Piketty is right, where are the current hyper-wealthy descendants of past entrepreneurial dynasties—the Astors, Vanderbilts, Carnegies, Rockefellers, Mellons, and Gettys? Almost to a man (or woman) they are absent from the realms of the super-affluent. Our evidence—used to refute Piketty’s argument—is empirical, drawn from the rapid rotation of the hyper-wealthy through the ranks of the Forbes 400, and suggests that, at any given time, roughly half of the collective worth of the hyper-wealthy is first-generation earned wealth, not inherited wealth.

The originators of great wealth are one-in-a-million geniuses; their innovation, invention, and single-minded entrepreneurial focus create myriad jobs and productivity enhancements for society at large. They create wealth for society, from which they draw wealth for themselves. In contrast, the descendants of the hyper-wealthy rarely have that same one-in-a-million genius. Bettencourt, cited by Piketty, is a clear exception. Typically, we find that descendants halve their inherited wealth—relative to the growth of per capita GDP—every 20 years or less, without any additional assistance from Piketty’s redistribution prescription.

Dynastic wealth accumulation is simply a myth. The reality is that each generation spawns its own entrepreneurs who create vast pools of entirely new wealth, and enjoy their share of it, displacing many of the preceding generations’ entrepreneurial wealth creators. Today, the massive fortunes of the 19th century are largely depleted and almost all of the fortunes generated just a half-century ago are also gone. Do we really want to stifle entrepreneurialism, invention, and innovation in an effort to accelerate the already-rapid process of wealth redistribution?

Buttonwood observes:

Indeed, the authors point out that the rapid turnover of the Forbes 400 suggests that inherited wealth is unstable. Three-quarters of the families in the original list no longer appear on it.

Of course, dropping out of the Forbes 400 hardly indicates a descent into penury. But family wealth tends to dissipate over time. The Astors, Vanderbilts and Carnegies were among the wealthiest families of the late 19th century; not one of their descendants makes it onto the modern list. Indeed a Vanderbilt family reunion held in 1973 failed to find a single millionaire among the 120 present.

The study concludes:

When great wealth is achieved through entrepreneurialism, innovation, and invention, society benefits, jobs are created, and life becomes easier and better. For generations, this process has fueled American exceptionalism. When great income is achieved through entrepreneurialism, innovation, and invention, society again benefits for the same reasons. We find it puzzling that Piketty underplayed what even he recognizes as the major driver of growing American income inequality: the massive appropriation of the wealth of corporations by their executives. When it is objectively deserved, terrific; when it is not, it siphons resources out of the macroeconomy and hollows out the opportunity set for the populace at large.

As the researchers note, a significant driver of rising income inequality in the United States has been the increasingly outsized pay packages awarded to corporate CEOs. They do not see much evidence that 9-figure CEO compensation boosts shareholder wealth and argue for corporate governance reforms that more tightly align CEO pay with increased shareholder value.

In an case, they find that the proverb “shirt sleeves to shirt sleeves in three generations” has more than a bit of truth behind it.