Economic security and Atheism+

[Flewellyn]

SGBM, there were similarities in the text, but not, to my eye, enough to make a case for plagiarism. There are only so many good ways to explain the same subject. Especially when the subject is basic federal reserve banking.

[sgbm]

How I confirmed it was plagiarism: http://google.com/search?q=%22So+here+w ... +rates.%22

Look at them side by side.

EDIT 2: I've now bolded the words 'Tis Himself takes in the following.

In fact, it is the US treasury that prints money, but it is the Federal Reserve that determines how much money is actually in circulation in the economy. Money printed by the Treasury is distributed to the twelve Federal Reserve banks around the country. The treasury and the government of which it is a part does not have any say on how much money actually gets injected into the economy, as monetary policy decisions are left up to the Federal Reserve.

Traditionally, the Fed has one tool for injecting new money into the economy, a tool known as “open market operations”. (I say traditionally, because in the last three years the Fed has devised numerous new ways to “inject liquidity” into the economy, which I will not get into now). To increase the nation’s money supply, the Fed buys US government bonds on the open market from commercial banks. Commercial banks invest some of American households’ savings into government bonds just like they invest some of our money into individuals and businesses by making loans and charging interest on those loans. Commercial banks will want to buy government bonds if the interest on them rises and will want to sell those bonds when the interest rate falls.

If the Fed want to increase the money supply to stimulate spending in the economy, it will announce an open market purchase of bonds. When the Fed buys bonds, the demand for bonds increases, raising their prices and lowering their effective interest rate. As the interest on government bonds falls as a result of the Fed’s open market operations, banks find them less desirable to hold onto as investments and therefore sell them to the Fed in exchange for, you guessed it, liquid money, fresh off the printing presses!

Remember, the money printed at the Treasury and held at the Fed was NOT part of the money supply, since it is out of reach of private borrowers. But as soon as the Fed buys bonds with that money, it is deposited into commercial banks’ excess reserves and is therefore now in the commercial banking system and therefore part of the money supply. So, “printing money” does not immediately increase the money supply since newly printed money only ends up in the Fed; only once the Fed has undertaken an expansionary monetary policy (an open market bond purchase) does the newly printed money enter the money supply.

Now, commercial banks have just sold their illiquid assets (government bonds) to the Fed in exchange for liquid money. Picture the money market diagram and you will see the money supply increasing.

So the next question is, why does this lead to inflation?

Banks now hold more excess reserves, most of which are kept on reserve at their regional Federal Reserve bank. Reserves held at the Fed do NOT earn interest for the banks, and therefore actually lose value over time as inflation erodes the purchasing power of these idle reserves. Banks, of course, want to invest these reserves to earn interest beyond the rate of inflation and thereby create earn them revenue. In order to attract new borrowers, commercial banks, whose reserves have increased following the Fed’s bond purchase, must offer borrowers a lower interest rate. The increase in the supply of money leads to a decrease in the “price” of money, i.e. the interest rates banks charge borrowers.

So here we see why an increase in the money supply leads to lower interest rates. With greater excess reserves, banks must lower the rate they charge each other (the federal funds rate) and thus the prime rate they charge their most credit-worthy borrowers and all other interest rates in the economy, in order to attract new borrowers and get their idle reserves out there earning interest for the bank.

Lower interest rates create an incentive for firms to invest in new capital since now more investment projects have an expected rate of return equal to or greater than the new lower interest rate. Additionally, the lower rates on savings discourages savings by households and thereby increases the level of household consumption. Households find it cheaper to borrow money to purchase durable goods like cars and it also becomes cheaper to buy new homes or undertake costly home improvements. So we begin to see investment and consumption rise across the economy as the increase in the money supply reduces borrowing costs and decreases the incentive to save. Aggregate demand has started to rise.

Additionally, the lower rate on US government bonds resulting from the Fed’s open market purchase reduces the incentive for foreign investors to save their money in US bonds and in US banks, which are now offering lower interest rates. Falling foreign demand for the dollar causes it to depreciate. A weaker dollar makes US exports more attractive to foreign consumers, so in addition to increased consumption and investment in the US, net exports begin to rise as well, further increasing aggregate demand.

Increasing the money supply (not so much by printing money rather because of the “easy money” policy of the Fed), leads to increased consumption, investment, and net exports, and therefore aggregate demand in the economy. The rising demand among domestic consumers, foreign consumers, and domestic producers for the nation’s output puts upward pressure on prices as the nation’s producers find it hard to keep up with the rising demand. Once consumers start to see prices rising, inflationary expectations will further increase the incentive to buy more now and save less, leading to even more household consumption. Firms see price rises in the future and increase their investment now to meet the expected rises in demand tomorrow.

It does not take much for inflation to accelerate in such an environment. If the the government and the Fed do not slow down the increase in the money supply (STOP THE PRINTING PRESSES!) then soon enough workers will begin demanding higher wages and resource costs will start to increase in all sectors of the economy, causing the nation’s aggregate supply to decline as firms find it harder to cover their rising costs. Now we have both demand-pull AND cost push inflation! The weaker currency also makes imported raw materials more costly to firms, further adding to the inflationary environment. An inflationary spiral is now underway!

Milton Friedman said that “inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon”. Controlling the rate of growth in the money supply, say the monetarists, will assure that the fluctuations in the business cycle will be mild and periods of dramatic inflation and deflation can be avoided. Stable money growth should lead to stable economic growth. But as soon as we start running the printing presses inflation will not be far behind. On the flip-side, contractionary monetary policies should in theory lead to the exact opposite of what I describe above and cause a deflation. If a central bank were to tighten the money supply too much, interest rates would rise, investment, consumption and net exports would fall, and falling prices would force firms to lay off workers, leading to high unemployment and an economic contraction.

I’ll leave you with one question to ponder (the answer to which would require a much longer article than this one!). If Friedman was right, and increasing the money supply will always and everywhere lead to inflation, then how is it that the monetary base in the United States increased by 142% between 2008 and 2009, yet inflation declined over the same period and fell to as low as -2% in mid-2009? That’s right, the money supply more than doubled, yet the economy went into deflation. Was Friedman missing something in his calculation that monetary growth always leads to price level increases? In other words, is an open market purchase of bonds by the Fed all that is needed to stimulate demand during a recession? Perhaps Friedman, who died in 2006 right before the US entered the Great Recession, would have to re-consider his famous quote if he could see the effect (or lack of effect) of America’s unprecedented monetary growth over the last three years!

EDIT: I've bolded the words that are Welker's in the following. The first "print money" would also be bolded, except Welker says "prints money". Some words are identical but have been made lower case; these are also not bolded.

Governments print money. The central bank, i.e, Federal Reserve, Bank of Canada, Bank of England, etc., determines how much money is actually in circulation in the economy. Money printed by the Treasury is distributed to the twelve Federal Reserve banks around the country. The Treasury does not have any say on how much money actually gets injected into the economy, as monetary policy decisions are left up to the Federal Reserve.

Traditionally, the Fed has one tool for injecting new money into the economy, a tool known as “open market operations”.* To increase the nation’s money supply, the Fed buys US government bonds on the open market from commercial banks. Commercial banks invest some households’ savings into government bonds just like they invest some of our money into individuals and businesses by making loans and charging interest on those loans. Commercial banks will buy government bonds if the interest on them rises and will sell those bonds when the interest rate falls.

If the Fed want to increase the money supply to stimulate spending in the economy, it will announce an open market purchase of bonds. When the Fed buys bonds, the demand for bonds increases, raising their prices and lowering their effective interest rate. As the interest on government bonds falls as a result of the Fed’s open market operations, banks find them less desirable to hold onto as investments and therefore sell them to the Fed in exchange for, you guessed it, liquid money, fresh off the printing presses!

Remember, the money printed at the Treasury and held at the Fed was not part of the money supply, since it is out of reach of private borrowers. But as soon as the Fed buys bonds with that money, it is deposited into commercial banks’ excess reserves and is therefore now in the commercial banking system and therefore part of the money supply. So, “printing money” does not immediately increase the money supply since newly printed money only ends up in the Fed; only once the Fed has undertaken an expansionary monetary policy (an open market bond purchase) does the newly printed money enter the money supply.

Now, commercial banks have sold their illiquid assets (government bonds) to the Fed in exchange for liquid money. Banks now hold more excess reserves, most of which are kept on reserve at their regional Federal Reserve bank. Reserves held at the Fed do not earn interest for the banks, and therefore actually lose value over time as inflation erodes the purchasing power of these idle reserves. Banks, of course, want to invest these reserves to earn interest beyond the rate of inflation and thereby create earn them revenue. In order to attract new borrowers, commercial banks, whose reserves have increased following the Fed’s bond purchase, must offer borrowers a lower interest rate. The increase in the supply of money leads to a decrease in the “price” of money, i.e. the interest rates banks charge borrowers.

So here we see why an increase in the money supply leads to lower interest rates. With greater excess reserves, banks must lower the rate they charge each other (the federal funds rate) and thus the prime rate they charge their most credit-worthy borrowers and all other interest rates in the economy, in order to attract new borrowers and get their idle reserves out there earning interest for the bank.

Lower interest rates create an incentive for firms to invest in new capital since now more investment projects have an expected rate of return equal to or greater than the new lower interest rate. Additionally, the lower rates on savings discourages savings by households and thereby increases the level of household consumption. Households find it cheaper to borrow money to purchase durable goods like cars and it also becomes cheaper to buy new homes or undertake costly home improvements. So we begin to see investment and consumption rise across the economy as the increase in the money supply reduces borrowing costs and decreases the incentive to save. Aggregate demand has started to rise.

Additionally, the lower rate on US government bonds resulting from the Fed’s open market purchase reduces the incentive for foreign investors to save their money in US bonds and in US banks, which are now offering lower interest rates. Falling foreign demand for the dollar causes it to depreciate. A weaker dollar makes US exports more attractive to foreign consumers, so in addition to increased consumption and investment in the US, net exports begin to rise as well, further increasing aggregate demand.

Increasing the money supply (not so much by printing money rather because of the “easy money” policy of the Fed), leads to increased consumption, investment, and net exports, and therefore aggregate demand in the economy. The rising demand among domestic consumers, foreign consumers, and domestic producers for the nation’s output puts upward pressure on prices as the nation’s producers find it hard to keep up with the rising demand. Once consumers start to see prices rising, inflationary expectations will further increase the incentive to buy more now and save less, leading to even more household consumption.

Milton Friedman said that “inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon”. Controlling the rate of growth in the money supply, say the monetarists, will assure that the fluctuations in the business cycle will be mild and periods of dramatic inflation and deflation can be avoided. Stable money growth should lead to stable economic growth. But as soon as we start running the printing presses inflation will not be far behind. On the flip-side, contradictory monetary policies should in theory lead to the exact opposite of what I describe above and cause a deflation. If a central bank were to tighten the money supply too much, interest rates would rise, investment, consumption and net exports would fall, and falling prices would force firms to lay off workers, leading to high unemployment and an economic contraction.

I’ll leave you with one question to ponder (the answer to which would require a much longer post than this one). If Friedman was right, and increasing the money supply will always and everywhere lead to inflation, then how is it that the monetary base in the United States increased by 142% between 2008 and 2009, yet inflation declined over the same period and fell to as low as -2% in mid-2009? That’s right, the money supply more than doubled, yet the economy went into deflation. Was Friedman missing something in his calculation that monetary growth always leads to price level increases? In other words, is an open market purchase of bonds by the Fed all that is needed to stimulate demand during a recession? Perhaps Friedman, who died in 2006 before the US entered the Great Recession, would have to re-consider his famous quote if he could see the effect (or lack of effect) of America’s unprecedented monetary growth over the last few years.

*I say traditionally, because in the last few years the Fed has devised numerous new ways to inject liquidity into the economy, which I will not get into now.

In a moment I'll edit this to bold all the parts which are Welker's words.

[Flewellyn]

Okay, that's a pretty compelling case. Now, let me take a step back from the question of plagiarism, and ask you something else: why do you care so much?

I mean, it's not as if this was a formal publication of any sort, or even a blog post. It's a forum comment. You can make the point that plagiarism is still a shitty and unethical thing to do even in a forum post, and you'd be right. But that still doesn't explain why calling out this case was literally the first thing you did on these forums. I mean, no hitting the introduction threads? Other posts?

It just looks to me like a bad case of obsessively carrying out a vendetta. And you're better than that!

Now, you've made your case. Please, for the sake of the discussion, can you drop it now? And, I don't know, go do other things on the forums here? Introduce yourself, throw out some ideas, get into arguments with some of the trolls. Use your prodigious mental powers for good! It's why we're all here, after all.

[sgbm]

Okay, that's a pretty compelling case. Now, let me take a step back from the question of plagiarism, and ask you something else: why do you care so much?

I've answered that over here. Short answer: I've been watching him do this for years now and I'm fed up.

I mean, it's not as if this was a formal publication of any sort, or even a blog post. It's a forum comment. You can make the point that plagiarism is still a shitty and unethical thing to do even in a forum post, and you'd be right.

Great. I am making that case.

But that still doesn't explain why calling out this case was literally the first thing you did on these forums. I mean, no hitting the introduction threads? Other posts?

I already answered this question for Setar. I wouldn't have registered an account here at all, except that I was lurking, reading the economics threads (too full of JAQers for my taste, but props to those who are willing.

It just looks to me like a bad case of obsessively carrying out a vendetta. And you're better than that!

I most certainly am not better than that. But no, seriously, ask yourself, you're reading a thread and all of a sudden you see someone plagiarizing an article -- and you saw them plagiarizing the exact same article two weeks ago (Stiglitz in this case). What do you do? Do you say nothing?

Now consider that you haven't made any other comments on that website. Well, maybe you would make introductions, great, but personally I'm not interested in making a bunch of happy introductions just so I can get the one thing off my chest that I wanted to say here.

Now, you've made your case. Please, for the sake of the discussion, can you drop it now?

I dropped it immediately after identifying the two cases of plagiarism. All I'm doing now is responding to you.

And, I don't know, go do other things on the forums here? Introduce yourself, throw out some ideas, get into arguments with some of the trolls. Use your prodigious mental powers for good! It's why we're all here, after all.

Good luck to you all. I only wanted to lurk. You know where to find me (on Thunderdome or Pharynguwiki) if I am needed for some particular argument. This place looks like a good start, but like I said, too many JAQers try my patience more than I'm willing.

[rawk]

Okay, that's a pretty compelling case. Now, let me take a step back from the question of plagiarism, and ask you something else: why do you care so much?

I mean, it's not as if this was a formal publication of any sort, or even a blog post. It's a forum comment. You can make the point that plagiarism is still a shitty and unethical thing to do even in a forum post, and you'd be right. But that still doesn't explain why calling out this case was literally the first thing you did on these forums. I mean, no hitting the introduction threads? Other posts?

It just looks to me like a bad case of obsessively carrying out a vendetta. And you're better than that!

Now, you've made your case. Please, for the sake of the discussion, can you drop it now? And, I don't know, go do other things on the forums here? Introduce yourself, throw out some ideas, get into arguments with some of the trolls. Use your prodigious mental powers for good! It's why we're all here, after all.

What an amazing reaction.

Why wouldn't you care about plagiarism? If not for the fact that many users here are looking to find out more about economics and are using the forum as a tool to learn. Had 'Tis Himself just posted the links, quoted the arguments and briefly commented on them, like a normal person, users could be clued in to the best places to look for those arguments. Perhaps get an insight on who is worth listening to on the subject and who perhaps isn't. Instead, he chooses to withhold that information because he wanted to sound much smarter than he actually is. Thats extremely anti-social in my view.

[Flewellyn]

What an amazing reaction.

Why wouldn't you care about plagiarism? If not for the fact that many users here are looking to find out more about economics and are using the forum as a tool to learn. Had 'Tis Himself just posted the links, quoted the arguments and briefly commented on them, like a normal person, users could be clued in to the best places to look for those arguments. Perhaps get an insight on who is worth listening to on the subject and who perhaps isn't. Instead, he chooses to withhold that information because he wanted to sound much smarter than he actually is. Thats extremely anti-social in my view.

I DO care about plagiarism. But, there's a history here of SGBM pursuing a vendetta against Tis Himself, and others, on FTB. I was weary of it long ago, and didn't want to see it popping up here.

That said, this IS disturbing.

[rawk]

What an amazing reaction.

Why wouldn't you care about plagiarism? If not for the fact that many users here are looking to find out more about economics and are using the forum as a tool to learn. Had 'Tis Himself just posted the links, quoted the arguments and briefly commented on them, like a normal person, users could be clued in to the best places to look for those arguments. Perhaps get an insight on who is worth listening to on the subject and who perhaps isn't. Instead, he chooses to withhold that information because he wanted to sound much smarter than he actually is. Thats extremely anti-social in my view.

I DO care about plagiarism. But, there's a history here of SGBM pursuing a vendetta against Tis Himself, and others, on FTB. I was weary of it long ago, and didn't want to see it popping up here.

That said, this IS disturbing.

It would seem that his/her vendetta isn't without cause, but whatever.

[sgbm]

I wish I didn't have to log back in to defend myself. Flewellyn, please, don't make unsubstantiated claims about me. It takes you very little time to fire off damaging words, but it takes me a great deal more time to bring the evidence showing that you're mistaken. I would appreciate it if you try to find at least one citation in favor of a claim you're going to make about me -- that way, if you can't find one, it may indicate that you've misremembered something. I think this is not unreasonable for me to ask.

This is incorrect:

there's a history here of SGBM pursuing a vendetta against Tis Himself

Here 'Tis Himself snipes at me out of the blue in a thread where I'd said nothing to him. Then he makes false claims about me; I neither proclaimed nor claimed what he alleges.

Next he selectively quotes -- hereafter referred to as the same selective quote -- and suggests I said something I didn't say. Nevertheless, I clarify my meaning two comments later.

He snipes at me over nothing.

Then he snipes again when I haven't even participating in that thread, and suggests I've made a claim I have not made. He goes on to make the already-falsified claim associated with the same selective quote.

Again he brings the same selective quote, this time telling me that he hopes I die an excruciating and lengthy death without anyone to care for me.

He snipes again, claiming I'm making hateful comments, which I was not. And snipes again. Later in that thread he makes that old already-falsified claim.

Next, over at Jen's blog, he snipes at me and, wait for it, makes that old already-falsified claim associated with the same selective quote.

I did not pursue any vendetta against him. You will be unable to find me trying to start fights with him. I would appreciate it if you would either cite evidence for your claim (I'm quite sure there's no such evidence, but in the event I've forgotten something, I'd like to know), or retract it.

[Flewellyn]

Look, SGBM, I apologize for not believing you when you posted about this. As for vendetta, I honestly did not pay much attention to how you and Tis Himself dealt with each other, because it bored and annoyed me. In particular, I was, and remain, bored and annoyed with how you dredge up old dirt and rehash it for these purposes.

So, if you want to consider my claim retracted, go ahead. Consider yourself on notice, though: you will not do this stuff with me. You will not dredge up old conversations to try and "gotcha" me in the future, and you will not hound me across forums and across sites if you think I am "wrong". In fact, don't even talk to me.

You have your apology, you have your retraction. Take them and go.

[sgbm]

I wish I didn't have to log back in again.

By the way, it may be useful to understand reactance when attempting to influence my behavior.

Look, SGBM, I apologize for not believing you when you posted about this.

That's kind of you, considering I haven't asked for any apology from you, and my last comment was not about the plagiarism, but only about defending myself from false claims.

As for vendetta, I honestly did not pay much attention to how you and Tis Himself dealt with each other, because it bored and annoyed me.

I understand. It bores and annoys me too, since I'm not the one initiating the disputes. If you knew that you weren't paying much attention, though, perhaps you could have been more careful about not making unsubstantiated claims. I'm sure you can understand why it bothers me to be blamed for starting fights with 'Tis when precisely the opposite is true, and why I'd want to set the record straight.

In particular, I was, and remain, bored and annoyed with how you dredge up old dirt and rehash it for these purposes.

You affirmed a claim about me in this thread: that I have a history of pursuing a vendetta against 'Tis Himself. It is a false and thereby damaging claim. In order to demonstrate that it is a false claim, it was necessary for me to show the truth.

Instead of complaining that I do what I have to do to defend myself, it would be more efficient for you to cease making claims against which I have to defend myself.

Consider also that by making your unsubstantiated and false claim, you were in fact dredging up old dirt and rehashing it, albeit inaccurately: that "there's a history here". I didn't bring this up. You did.

So, if you want to consider my claim retracted, go ahead.

Do you consider it retracted, or are you obliquely telling me I can believe what I want to believe? This isn't clear. I'll gladly consider it retracted if you do.

Consider yourself on notice, though: you will not do this stuff with me.

Doesn't it strike you as odd, that in your replies to me and rawk you've made this thread largely about me and now you're telling me that I shouldn't respond?

Does that seem fair to you?

I also don't understand what I've done to elicit this reaction. You were treating me decently earlier. Now I reply to an unsubstantiated claim, without insulting you or impugning your motives, and you respond by escalating.

You will not dredge up old conversations to try and "gotcha" me in the future,

I will discuss whatever is relevant.

and you will not hound me across forums and across sites if you think I am "wrong".

Here is an unsubstantiated insinuation. Why would you say such a thing? It is like telling me not to go skydiving. Okay. I don't skydive, never have. I do reply to people in multiple threads on Pharyngula regarding the same topic, when they are discussing that same topic in each particular thread; and there's nothing wrong with doing this.

I would appreciate it if you would either cite evidence for your insinuated claim, or retract it.

Take them and go.

Please don't presume to give me orders. In particular it does not even make sense for you to make this thread about me and then tell me not to respond.

[Flewellyn]

I wish I didn't have to log back in again.

You didn't. You're capable of choosing whether or not to do something.

But since you are here, what do you want? Really, what do you hope to accomplish here?

I don't want any further contact with you. But if you must, answer that one question and then stop talking to me.

[sgbm]

I wish I didn't have to log back in again. Or, if you're going to nitpick my obvious meaning: I wish there weren't false claims being made about me which I'm uncomfortable leaving unanswered.

But since you are here, what do you want? Really, what do you hope to accomplish here?

It's clear what I want; I want you to stop making false claims and false insinuations about me. Failing that, as a secondary option, I want to answer all of your false claims and false insinuations in order to defend myself.

I don't want any further contact with you.

And yet you presume you can make this thread about me and order me not to reply.

Weird thinking, that.

[Flewellyn]

Right, so! Economic security! Good topic. Let's talk about it.

Me, I think it's a shoe-in for A+ concerns. I mean, economics, at least the empirically-based schools (read: not the "Austrian School"), is a science, so it's a matter for skeptical inquiry. And economics intersects with so many axes of privilege that it's intertwined with everything we'd care to do anywhere else.

I think it'd be great to have some kind of plan of attack for addressing these issues. Do we know any good economists in the A+ community?

[sgbm]

Good topic. There's some texts at Pharyngula Wiki's page on social justice and economics.

Anyone can add more (including more subsections) to that page, if they like.

[Setar]

Right, so! Economic security! Good topic. Let's talk about it.

Me, I think it's a shoe-in for A+ concerns. I mean, economics, at least the empirically-based schools (read: not the "Austrian School"), is a science, so it's a matter for skeptical inquiry. And economics intersects with so many axes of privilege that it's intertwined with everything we'd care to do anywhere else.

I think it'd be great to have some kind of plan of attack for addressing these issues. Do we know any good economists in the A+ community?

I do not know of any in the community, but Yves Smith runs a good blog at Naked Capitalism, and there is also Brad DeLong's Grasping Reality With Both Invisible Hands. And, of course, Paul Krugman.

edit note: DeLong regularly posts transcripts and/or video of his lectures. Buried in the archives from last spring is his entire 107: Intro to Macroeconomics class.

[hyperdeath]

MODERATOR NOTICE: sgbm and Flewellyn, please keep personal arguments out of this thread.

[sgbm]

Thank you.

[often_partisan]

Personally, I'm massively concerned with economic issues, particularly in the wake of the decline of social democracy in Britain and elsewhere (while economic security has always been an issue it's I think becoming more of an issue in these western countries as well as just poor countries). It's a basic truth that we are material creatures and thus we need to eat, have shelter, etc. So the question is how do we go about it. Persoannly, I'm a big believer that we need to build the system in such a way that these needs can be met (i.e. people should not be reliant on the whims of charity to meet their needs as charity is at best an inconsistent manner of meeting needs). Then you get to the difficulty of how that can be achieved.

As regards knowledge of economic theory, my knowledge is sketchy at best, BUT I do have SOME knowledge of Marxian economics. So I might be able to help if anyone is interested in that economic theory. I also plan to read into 17th/18th/19th century political economy more generally (works such as those by Adam Smith, David Ricardo, etc). What's interesting I think from the limited amount of reading I've done is the comparison of "ideology" across the period and today.

For a critique of the current capitalist policies advocated by the wealthy (ie. libertarianism, Austrian School or whatever) from a social-democratic viewpoint, 23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism by Ha Joon Chang is worth reading.

Random economic fact of the day: Adam Smith was opposed to limited liability companies and stock markets.