Here is a (currently not online) link from 2012 with Stockman calling for another immanent crash. Even a broken clock is right twice a day, so he will right one of these days. But timing is important. In retrospect, it was very foolish to follow Stockman's go to cash call. I did not follow his advice, but I am an active trader anyway. https://www.businessinsider.com/david-stockman-youd-be-a-fool-to-hold-anything-but-cash-now-2012-3
He is a smart guy. Money and Banking is an interdisciplinary topic in economics and finance, and many neo-economists are not that interested in it; thus they may have a cursory understanding of these topics that doesn't stretch much beyond the standard textbook models, some of which are obsolescent or just plain wrong. Krugman is not an expert on fiat money, but he at least has a better understanding of it than some pundits calling themselves economists but whose understanding of money is stuck in a pre-1971 world. I too, am a student of economics, and it has helped me immeasurably with both trading and investment. As Soros's his quantum fund grew, it seems his investment decisions became more dependent on his understanding of economics and banking. He paid attention to the defects in conventional economic thinking, how human nature interferes with blind theory, and how that interference affects real markets. Although he is not particularly easy to read, reading nearly everything that Soros wrote about trading and investment has made me a more profitable investor as well as a better trader. The Alchemy of Finance and The Soros Lectures at the Central European University are two books I can recommend. Also with regard to understanding fiat money and central banking, books by the MMT economists Wilson and/or Wray are very good. But one needs a basic economics background to read either. Also Pikkety's book is worth reading but not essential to investing and trading. It is, however, a great help if intelligent voting interests you. (There is nothing Earth shattering in Pikkety. His main contribution is his having collected a large body of economic research, much of it his and his students, in one big, fat monograph, and discussed it intelligently.)
All the Things Thomas Piketty Got Wrong The author of Capital in the Twenty-First Century has a flawed view of capitalism. https://www.kiplinger.com/article/i...-all-the-things-thomas-pikkety-got-wrong.html
yes. I agree. He is not what I would call a bad writer, but neither is he a good writer. Soros assumes the reader has a basic knowledge of economics, central banking, finance, and financial markets. I did not take any economics class in college. But much later in life I realized how important it was to have a basic knowledge. I began to read whatever I could understand at a rudimentary level. I was very lucky to have a close friend who is a well known economist and when he realized I was interested in economics he began to informally tutor me and answer my questions. He put me back on the right track when I went astray. Today he jokes that I am his best student. I got a hold of some of the classic undergraduate texts in economics and began to read them. Eventually my friend began to recommend books, one of which was John Quiggins "Zombie Economics," which he was using in a graduate class. I found that I had acquired enough knowledge to read it without difficulty. Other books I read along my path toward a better understanding of economics include a little book by Friedman, "Money Mischief," one of his favorite topics, I wonderful book called "Keynes and Hayek", which can be read by non-economists. I read Randall Wray's "Modern Money Theory." (The newer editions are expensive, look for the earlier edition, used) . I have also read some of Lord Skidelsky's work -- he is the Keynes biographer, and he writes well and clearly. And I have read a good bit of Keynes, not so easy because of his, now obsolete, writing style. You tube is a marvelous resource, as you can, for nothing, listen to lectures and debates by many famous economists. Hayek lived well beyond Keynes, so there are videos of Hayek available, also endless presentations by Friedman, Wray and Wilson, three major voices in monetary theory. The latter two have become major contributors to what's called Modern Money Theory, or "MMT." You have the entire community of academic economists available, Krugman, Wollf, Mankiw, Nordhaus, Stiglitz, etc. There are so many I can't begin to remember them all. So far as I know, lectures, talks, debates involving every one of these guys are available on You Tube -- what a wonderful resource that is! Some of the debates in which Skidelsky participates are absolutely wonderful. You get a feel for how unsettled the Field is. I imagine that's because economics, despite the best efforts of the neo-economists to pretend it isn't, is more social science than real science. There is of course endless nonsense by charlatans posing as economists on You Tube, absolutely crazy stuff, and endless promoters of delightfully ridiculous economic conspiracies, including tales of how your central bank has been taken over by the Rothschild family, and on and on. Raghurrams Rajans, "Fault Lines," is easy to read and worthwhile if you are interested in trade and political/social economics. He is was formerly with the IMF and now heads India's Central Bank, I believe. The barrier one has to get over is the strange economists vocabulary. They love to take common everyday terms and redefine them, I guess just to confuse us -- words like "Capital," "Rent", etc., and they love expressions like "opportunity cost", "agency", "elasticity," etc. Thankfully every good economics text on my bookshelf has a glossary at the back!
Thank you for leading me to some very good videos. Appreciate you sharing this. Have a great weekend.
The author of this article, Jeremy Siegel is a permanent bull, perpetual optimist just the opposite of Stockman. So I am not surprised he is negative on someone who is negative on capitalism. On second thought, capitalism reminds me of nature: survival of the fittest. In nature, if things are left unchecked, unprotected, eventually one species will dominate an environment, so perhaps Piketty is right, if there is no restrictions placed, eventually wealth will concentrate in a few hands and the rest of us will be left with nothing?