The country I live in is now going through an economical and political crisis. There's riots everywhere

are you in venezuela? i recently overheard someone in a private club in dc who is to be named the colombian ambassador say that 1.5 trillion in oil revenues have gone missing over the past decade in venezuela.

Country would help make my answer more specific, but p. sure no matter where you are my answer will be moar free market capitalism. Also I love the cover so

Yeah, I live in Mexico

Dingdingdingding lo sabía

Stay strong brother, or hurry up and get a new TV before everything goes back to calm complacence

jump the border, trump didn't build the wall yet

But how are they going to pay for it if the country is broke?

debt can go on forever

Stay in Mexico. The violence will end soon. If Republicans dismantle NAFTA your country will recover as US goods will not flood your country as easily. Study up on agriculture and biofuels so that Mexico can become more independent from the USA.

I wonder what the people doing that think. I mean, people are always whining about the government stealing from the people, but now these people are stealing stuff from supermarkets and private companies that have nothing to do with the government. How does that help lower gas prices?

I'm mainly just looking to understand general economics and maybe try to understand if gas prices really needed to go up since the president said he wouldn't raise them anymore , I'll look into this thanks

My career has a little bit in common to agriculture, but is focused on the forestry and wood industry

Stop being a rapist.

I read wealth of nations and halfway thru it dramatically changed my understandING of economics.
Next I want to read john Maynard keynes' other book on employment and tax.

>but now these people are stealing stuff from supermarkets and private companies that have nothing to do with the government.
The government owns the gasolineras though. People want to pay for gas but if you just can't with your spiralling inflation and low wahges then this kind of shit happens. The surefire way to incite a revolt is to raise the price of a basic commodity. Mexico has in my (certainly anecdotal) experience a lot of mobility dependent jobs, whole fucking businesses are carried in the back of a truck. I mean gas keeps my job running and food in my families mouth. If I couldn't get gas I'd steal that shit too.

I do understand about the gasolineras, Andi you're right, a lot of jobs depend on mobility, even if you don't own a car, diesel is also becoming scarce for public transportation (at least in my city). But I was actually referring to people stealing tv's and shit from wal mart, also there's photos of people stealing washing machines , beer, and a lot of stuff that are surely not a basic commodity.
The thing is, you would steal gas to keep your job running and feed your family, and that's fine by me (given the situation) but you don't need to steel a tv to do that

I just found out that Trump has promised to keep Ag. deals from NAFTA so Mexico will still be in bad shape. Mexico must become independent of US agriculture if you want to improve the country.

>Says a person from the US.
Damn dirty liberals

I'm shitposting from Spain so what do I know.
Anyways I was not trying to justify the looting, but once someone starts stealing gas and people see fuck all happens then it can only snowball to worse. I hope you guys get your shit together, Mexico is a lovely country and your people do not deserve the absolute shitheads in charge of the administration

I'll look for it, who's the author?

>Wealth of Nations
>Who is the author?
Goddamn I sure hope you're trolling

Wealth of Nations? Adam Smith
The other one is John Maynard Keynes...

I wasn't trolling, user :c
Alright, thanks

>free market capitalism
Free for prices to be raised, wages to be lowered, and all public services to be privatized for (((profit))), you mean.

Yeah, that's why life is so great in North Korea and Venezuela.

a wage is a price, user

>if you don't like free market capitalism you must be a FRICKIN' communist
You need to get the HECK off my Veeky Forums.

...

dumb aardvarkposter

this, free market capitalism isn't a consensus even inside the whole "right" spectrum (only the lowest race inside the right actually: neo/cuckservatives and libercucks)

I second this book. Him and his wife also wrote a book called Free to Choose that is very good, and he made a documentary series that went along with the book. They're all on youtube and you will learn a shitton about Economics.

youtube.com/playlist?list=PL10CF0016FC94D2ED

Yeah the richest person in Venezuela just so happens to be Chavez's daughter who has a net worth of more than a billion dollars. I wonder were all that money came from?

It's obviously Venezuela or some Latin American nation because they're the only ones in economic crisis yet still with access to the internet.

well first off we know it's obviously not a consensus in the right, that's why spending goes up regardless of whether it's republicans or not. Secondly but pretty closely related, neocons and free market guys tend not to see eye to eye, and I can't believe people don't know that.

>It's obviously Venezuela or some Latin American nation because they're the only ones in economic crisis yet still with access to the internet.
Except it's Mexico, dipshit. OP said he was from Mexico later in the thread.

So I hear Milt the Stilt Friedman advocated for a basic income. Your thoughts?

Communist lies. What else would one expect from a gook butterflyposter.

I think he just proposed it as an alternative to other welfare programs, I still think he would rather have none at all. Hayek on the other hand did think there should be a basic income.

The reason Milt supports it over other welfare is that it gives everyone the same amount of money, including to the rich. This way, it doesn't discourage work as much. With normal welfare, getting a job, or a raise can actually decrease your total income by decreasing your welfare benefits, so people end up not trying to get jobs/raises.

It's an interesting idea in that respect. Couldn't tell you myself how viable it is, would require a lot of math that I don't know how to do.

and by the way I believe he backed down from supporting it because it always became an ADDITION to other welfare programs instead of a replacement of them

>With normal welfare, getting a job, or a raise can actually decrease your total income by decreasing your welfare benefits, so people end up not trying to get jobs/raises.
That's a misconception. Welfare often doesn't have hard caps and if you go over the minimum requirement to receive benefits your aid will diminish in proportion to how high your income is compared to the cutoff. You will always make more money by improving your income.

That's a misconception. Current welfare system is complicated, it's never just "okay you make this much, that means you get this much". There's a billion little boxes to check that affect how much you get, and you have social workers trying to get you as much as they can. And yes, some people would end up making less, because it's such a messy system.

I'm not Korean.

I figured he'd have bent the idea in that direction. Slimy cur.
He probably thought schools, the post office and the fire department were guttable welfare

>I'm not Korean.
I know you're some kind of gook, dumb butterfly poster.
>He probably thought schools, the post office and the fire department were guttable welfare
IT'S NOT GUTTING IF THE FREE MARKET IS FIXING IT YOU STUPID IDIOT COMMIE >:^(((((((
ALL YOU NEED IS RULE OF LAW
PROPERTY RIGHTS
BUY GOLD

I know he was a huge supporter of voucher schools. Which means, the government gives people money, and they spend it on a school of their choice, instead of the money just going directly to the school, which leads to them not giving a shit about the parents. And the other advantage is you can take that money, add in money out of your own pocket, and spend it on an expensive private school. The normal way we have it, you have to spend your money on a public school through taxes regardless, and then if you want to go to a private school you have to pay for that on your own, so it's like you have to pay twice.

But milton friedman was a guy who thought pragmatic politics and some compromising, so many things he suggested are not what he wants as an endgoal, but an improvement in his eyes, and possibly a transitioning step towards whatever his end goals are. I don't know if his end goals involved completely ending government funding of education, and I can't remember him ever mentioning fire departments or post office, so I don't know for sure.

>it's like you have to pay twice.
If you have the cash to go to a private school. No one's putting a gun to your head.
Schools should be publicly funded and fully integrated. By class.

But I'd like us to transition out of using the stuff entirely, of course.

No, they put the gun to your head to make you pay for the first one, and if you don't want to use it, too bad

If someone wants to pay for their own schooling, why not, and why should they then also have to pay for the public schooling?

>which leads to them not giving a shit about the parents.
The schools are run by the school board which is elected by the parents. There is also the PTA to provide input from the community. School money mostly comes from real estate taxes which are tied to real estate value which is tied most heavily to public services provided to the community. With public schools input from parents is taken more seriously than with charter schools.

Your taxes don't pay for your children to be educated.

Your taxes pay for your country to be educated.

This is why economics and politics doesn't belong on Veeky Forums...

You simply do not have the rhetorical chops to be the kinds of dicks that deal in civics.

>and if you don't want to use it
It's bad that people are to whipped to let governments and their wealthy owners destroy the public utility of education.
>why should they then also have to pay for the public schooling?
The money is a sick and twisted one. If you're going to have it, it should be divvied up evenly.
Just imagine if people were paid what they were worth.

White Power by George Lincoln Rockwell

my children would be part of the country. And it's not just I pay for your kids, if I send my kid to public school, then other people are paying for my kid. HOWEVER, if I pay for my own kid to go to a private school, that does more than get them a nice school, it also alleviates the burden of everyone else paying for them. So why again, am I going to pay AGAIN it taxes, to pay for others when others did not pay for me, while I have already saved them money?

SOME people are capable of talking economics/politics here, but not all

The parents being in control of the money gives them more direct control over schooling than your twice removed bureaucracy, obviously.

What kind of backwards thinking is this? In the public system you get to tell the administrators what to do, with a private system you don't. The only way to get more control over education is home schooling but then you are relying on your neighbors to teach your grandchildren's grandparents.

>and if you don't want to use it
It's bad that people are too whipped to stop governments and their wealthy owners from destroying the public utility of education.
>why should they then also have to pay for the public schooling?
The money game is so sick and twisted. If you're going to use money at all, it should be divvied up evenly.
Just imagine if people were paid what they were really worth.

it is very limited what you can tell them what to do, and even in doing that, you're telling someone to tell someone to tell someone what to do, it's extremely far removed. It's basically impossible for bad teachers to be fired, for example. At public schools, not private ones.

>Reading Keynes after he got BTFO'ed by neo Marxian economists
Senpai read this nigga Michał Kalecki

>It's basically impossible for bad teachers to be fired, for example.
It is easy to make them want to quit or transfer.
> you're telling someone to tell someone to tell someone what to do
With private schools you aren't telling anyone anything. You lose all control.

This. Kalecki and SRAFFA, not KEYNES and mises, ok? Praise full employment.

> If you're going to use money at all, it should be divvied up evenly.

Why? Even if this was done, it wouldn't stay evenly distributed

There will always be an above-average overclass that will make use of knowledge more effectively than those around them, as well as an underclass resulting from below-average decision making, plus the effects of chance. People who maintain their goods purchased with today's dollar will have an advantage simply for being competent stewards of whatever it is they maintain.

No matter how many times you reset the economic wheel, it will becomes unbalanced

Inequality isn't a symptom. Those who convince you that they can "fix" the economic system will simply become the next overclass because they will be in the most informed position to pass wealth along to their children.

in places with teachers unions it always just ends up the teacher sits in some room all day, not teaching, but still getting paid, that's the most they can do

If you actually look up voucher schools you can see how much more choice they give you and how much more satisfied the parents and kids are. But obviously, you have control because you literally control the money, the actual money that goes to their paychecks, you can take it somewhere else if they don't do what you want.

Ossification of inequality is a larger problem than inequality as it takes money out of circulation which could be spent more efficiently as decided by market forces. Systems can take advantage of inherent biological and environmental inequalities to drive up quality of life for the population as a whole.

Pic related was an interesting read.
Short and to the point, based on relatively real examples and fully annotated with references to other economic works including biographies of the Rothschilds

>it wouldn't stay evenly distributed
And this is why it should be banned. Because of fetishists sickos like this.

>Inequality isn't a symptom [of capitalism]
Oh yes it is. The patient is dying of this cancer. High time for the chemo.

> Systems can take advantage of inherent biological and environmental inequalities to drive up quality of life for the population as a whole.

I think I agree, and seeing the ugly truths of the existence of an underserved population hides the fact that by definition poor decision making and shortsightedness (and of course, bad luck) naturally lead to worse conditions, but those conditions breed motivation. Meanwhile, society is kicking it's legs and extracting resources from the environment that lead everyone to have a higher standard of living, even the homeless.

>but those conditions breed motivation
Not really. People born into these conditions adopt a mentality focused on survival, rather than long term planning, which traps them.
>Meanwhile, society is kicking it's legs and extracting resources from the environment that lead everyone to have a higher standard of living, even the homeless.
Resource extraction should be reduced to allow for higher quality of life in future generations. We must use what is available now in an efficient manner to preserve, current trends are to flood the markets with as much supply but this has made us squander the available supply and consume at a rate that is not sustainable and damaging to future generations.

You can't plan an economy from the top down

You can't distribute resources without a class that has advanced knowledge of the deployment of resources, thus creating an inherent overclass

You can't even convince two families that they have "the same" things if one family uses the resources to grow a nicer garden or teach their children an instrument

Communism (or, the abolishment of... money?) can't function outside of a simulation where the "population" has completely shared knowledge of the system, or better yet, is one entity (like an ant colony) driven with a shared purpose.

Which would be nice and all, and would work for an AI controlled "species" consisting of zero humans.

The circulation of money is just the circulation of contracts.
The strength of one paper to another is the strength in trust in the system as a whole, and the workers sharing the contracts.

Why would you ban contracts?

I really don't understand the communist viewpoint at all no matter how much I read about it

And what is the alternative, price controls? Lol

Free market capitalism is a consensus even among centre-leftists

Op read octavio paz instead. Start with labyrinth of solitude and proceed with his two follow ups. No amount of economic theory will help you to understand Mexicos dilemma bc it is not an ordinary problem. Mexicos issue runs deeps and could almost be called pathological. Not to say that you should disregard economics but it is of my belief that a two pronged approach to the problem works best. Take care and stay safe, Mexico can still be beautiful

> Not really. People born into these conditions adopt a mentality focused on survival, rather than long term planning, which traps them.

Baseless conjecture; under terrible economic conditions that distribute resources evenly to the under class from countries all over the planet, somehow generation after generation has thrived and provided for their families through planning and resource allocation. There is inherent difference between how two individuals plan for the future, and the children of those who fail to do this suffer. This isn't caused by a boogeyman, this is caused by nature. There is no reason you would be a better long term planner if you lived in a planned society; you wouldn't even know how to make a plan, or why. Everything is given to you and you are told how to think.

Meanwhile, people born into the upper echelons of society (usually but not always due to the successful long term planning of their superior ancestors) do not have "long term plans", they have drug habits and anxiety disorders and a bank account they think will generate interest forever, until they realize they spent it all.

>Resource extraction should be reduced to allow for higher quality of life in future generations.

False, we are not fully utilizing the resources of our solar system, let alone our galaxy, there is no reason to stop with Earth. Now, that doesn't mean strip mine the planet and dump the plastics into the ocean, but improve and deploy more efficient means of resource harvesting to sustain growth and push humanity forward

Nice meme leftypol now kindly gtfo lit.

* distribute unevenly

>2016 Trump says mexicans are criminals, generating worldwide accusations of racism
>2017 Mexicans siege and loot stores across the country because muh gas price

Is this sarcasm?

I'm new to this and Keynes was the first result to pop up on google, but now you made take interest on this guy Kalecki, I'll definitely look for some of his books.
I'll be looking into this too, thx for the recommendation
This is an interesting comment. I've always overlooked that author, but you make it sound interesting so I'll give it a try. Thanks for caring, too

Not quite. He advocated a Negative Income Tax which IS linked to how much you earn. That is, your payments are proportionally reduced as you earn more. This is much more equitable and fiscally responsible than a Basic Income.

>Marxist anything

Nope.