Goddammit, I just can't get my head around mainstream and Keynesian economics and quantitative easing. Too little demand is the problem? Too little consumption is the problem? Too little debt is the problem? Too many savings are the problem? Um... WTF?! What kind of sense does that make, on a fundamental level? If I need more resources, I am helping the economy? If I disregard saving and get in debt, I am helping the economy? What on earth?!

Can anyone explain to me in very simple terms, how the hell does this add up?

I mean I see how it would work... It would work if people had a tendency to systematically produce more than their goal. Like, if they simply cannot not help but produce more than what they intended. So the more they consume, the more they produce to cover their consumption, and the more excess is generated due to this inexplicable overzealousness. Like if I grow apples and I want tomatoes and the tomato farmer wants 1kg of apples for 1kg of tomatoes, then I cannot help but grow more than 1kg. Seriously? Seriously? The exact opposite is the case! People are trying to produce as little as they can get away with to cover their spending! I will try to slack off as much as I can, I will add a few half-rotten apples to the basket if I can get away with it!

I mean I feel like a total idiot questioning whole generations worth of academic output based on a few days of reading stuff on the internet, but in the name of god, this just does not add up!

You might want to read some of the slightly older threads in the economics forum. This might help explain a couple of your questions. http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...9&postcount=55 Well atleast why debt and spending are important now.

Um... I have no trouble seeing why debt and spending are important now. I have trouble seeing how they could be anything but harmful to the economy in the long run. I mean aren't most big economics professors in mainstream and keynesian economics saying that it is all well and good in the long run as well? How could they support a policy that they think is bad in the long run?

You guys have probably had this question a lot already but - where does a beginner start?

I've got not really got a load of experience in this field but am looking to get at least some basic knowledge in preparation for applying for graduate jobs next summer, being in the middle of an Economics degree.

Should I just be reading a bunch of 'fundamentals' books or is there stuff online which should be read? I've had a look at the Books sticky and have downloaded a bunch of e-book samples so far to have a look.

Man, Schiff is like the only person that makes sense to me. Not going to say that he is the smartest, but can you recommend some other people, who at least make sense in the same way?

Don't forget that Schiff is talking up his own book and is trying to sell something. Plus, he never talks about the stuff he gets wrong.

Vantek: when you're starting out you tend to have bias built-up which leads you to what you want to hear. While you may think you're trying to be unbiased in what you read and hear, it can be tough to actually do it.

Most new small businesses don't start with pure cash on hand. They invariably go into debt to get started. Sometimes they take on more. Growth has to start somewhere and that often means in debt.

But eventually they don't need to go into debt, or if they do choose too the loaner can be confident of repayment based on either a budget surplus or continued growth that outpaces the debt interest.

In the case of our wonderful country one of them will never happen again most likely and the other? Well, that all depends on what China, et al, view as the risk of holding the dollar.

Debt in and of itself is not terrible. Its the debt interest ratio that gets you. Not being able to pay a monthly debt means default which means bankruptcy. Our country though will likely never outright default by not paying - we'll default through inflation.

So the economists and government paint a rosy picture of our future where the debt levels will be overcome through growth (and inflation). They don't want to paint a negative picture - the next election cycle they will be unemployed.

So basically you are saying that the bulk of economists in fact systematically do lie/delude themselves?

That's precisely why I am asking for people other than him! But so far, he is the only one who makes sense on a fundamental level. And he might be wrong about some things, but other people are typically even way more wrong. So people that are similar to him but disagree on some things seem like the most interesting thing to investigate next. Any names/links?

Actually, my initial assumption was that mainstream economics are probably most reasonable (same way as mainstream of any science is generally most trustworthy by definition). My initial thoughts about Schiff was "lol, another crackpot hero of the anti-government herd". But, his explanations seem extremely sound on the most simple fundamental level, and that is something I could never say about any other economist or theory. Furthermore, they offer effortless explanation to why such false economists and theories would spawn and persist.

I definitely have my suspicions about Schiff. He seems right in the fundamentals but often wrong in the specifics, and yes he does hide it when he is wrong, his media charachter is way overconfident. But, he is only guy so far that seems right in the fundamentals. Other people tend to speak in such convoluted and seemingly deliberately obscure terms which makes me heavily suspect they're just full of ****. With Schiff, at least his argument is crystal clear. I'm not yet signing with Schiff, but would only ever sign with someone who has that same kind of crystal clear style.

I checked Roubini for an example, but he talks in the same obscure hazy terms as everyone else. Set the fundamentals first, dammit! With Schiff it's extremely simple to understand his main points. If someone disagrees, they should be able to do it in terms of extremely simple fundamentals as well. Instead, people sound like they are just throwing around fancy terms just to sound smart without actually knowing what they mean.

prediction of itt tech price in the coming months?

it will fluctuate.

I would say delude more then lie.

Oh, some might know they are blatantly lieing - at least about what they really feel - but I'm sure some are truly believing what they are saying. You will rarely hear these types say that things are looking bad and forecast a figure for a market index lower then where it is now and they rarely talk about where it might be later once things turn around...but as soon as the bullishness is nearing its peak here they come!

The Bernank I'm sure is knowingly lying through his teeth. Hell he did it in that CBS interview the other week (not printing money). Problem is when he was asked the exact same question about MBS' two years prior by the SAME GUY, he did in fact say they were printing money after a little prodding. But this time the proding was absent and his "no we're not printing money" is all that was left. I'm sure that was a discussion point prior to him coming on the air. Nevermind if you swap "treasuries" with "MBS" the mechanism being used is identical...it was printing money then, but not now. No sir.

Okay, I've diverged somewhat into a politicale/economic course. Probably best to head to the Econ sub-forum of Politics.

I do believe there is a strong bias in the system that promotes/rewards economists whose work supports the need for a large governmental role in the economy, esp. for the party in power.

Forecasting: Making astrology look respectable since 1820

Why is Schiff right on the fundamentals? And why is he more right than other economists? Is this based on something or just your bias towards him?

I don't think there are any real economists who can be taken seriously that use Youtube to sell their stuff, so I don't think there is anyone that would interest you.

+1

Jim Rogers is another Austrian. He also runs money however his track record is way WAY better than Schiffs. He and Soros managed money together decades ago and put up really good returns for a long time. So, he has an opinion that is worth listening too imo. Especially because his background is history.

Schiff and Rogers would argue that there is only one correct way to view economics. Their core view is that pure supply and demand forces will best allocate resources and lead to a more structurally sound long term than any other alternative.

Pretty much any other alternative will cause unintended consequences in their view.

Even though Schiff isn't an economist and, by all accounts, a rather poor money manager, he does understand supply and demand very well and does a good job explaining it.

I don't think too many successful traders (which is substantially smaller than the group who offers opinions) spend much time worrying about where the economy is headed. Some good macro traders may let fiscal and monetary policy changes influence their decisions.

I currently have the majority of my money split between FAIRX and VSS, thinking of moving some money to VEIEX/VGSIX, thoughts or other suggestions?

As of now I just invest passively, risk tolerance/income are pretty high

Thanks.

Let me put it this way.

Without ever studying any economics whatsoever, I had in my own head come up with certain very basic fundamentals. I mean 2+2=4 kind of fundamentals, really obvious stuff. Now recently I have started checking out what economists do say, and most often I find they simply don't make sense from these basic fundamentals. It just doesn't add up. Their 2+2 equals 3 or 5.

Now obviously I assumed that it's my fault, that I'm just clueless and don't understand. But then along comes Schiff, and suddenly everything makes perfect sense. He has the exact same fundamentals that I came up with in my own head with zero influence. Furthermore, he has the exact same complaints about mainstream economists that I felt too incompetent to make myself, and it becomes apparent why mainstream economists would make such a blunder. Because remember, they do make blunders on a regular basis. That majority of economists are clueless, is a fact. The question is, is Schiff clueless as well, or did he just get lucky.

Is that bias? Meh, I don't think so. I'm even kind of embarrassed that I agree with Schiff so much because he seems like a bit of a pompous dick.

I assume that there are much better economists out there than Schiff, and finding them is the point of all these posts. But I anticipate they have WAY more in common with Schiff than with majority of economists, that's why I started to talk about him.

What does youtube have to do with it? I'm just asking for people who start with fundamentals. People whose fundamentals are not in their entirety composed of "you need to encourage consumption" (WTF!!!).

Yeah, actually that was one guy that I was keeping an eye on. But from him I'm mostly finding discussions about short-term without really touching the big picture and fundamentals. I can't really follow his thought process without seeing those first. Can anyone link to something where he talks about the really basic fundamentals a lot?

EDIT: Is Rogers saying that it's still worth it to buy gold or silver as well? I'd feel really stupid buying something when it is near all-time high and everyone is saying buy it lol, can't believe it when these guys both are still recommending it, we must be in deep **** then.

Ty for this thread. I think it will help me start learning.

I think your thinking is good, as are your picks. You can double check but I don't believe VEIEX has a high allocation to South America, so also check out EWZ which is a Brazil ETF.

Can anyone recommend a good book or web resource on the mechanics of futures trading? Thanks.

Holy Jesus F. Christ. Oh my god. I always thought economy is really complex and stuff and I was just being clueless when mainstream economists seemed to be badly flawed in their thinking. But it's so simple. Oh sweet lord. It's the mainstream economists who were clueless and I was able to sense this logic flaw with zero formal knowledge. Jesus christ. I cannot believe it. This is travesty. How can such idiocy reign. Motherfrauding hell. I will have trouble falling asleep tonight.