Hacker News Reader

Comment by NlightNFotis | Hacker News Reader

Jesus Christ mate, they're talking about personal finance, not political economy.

Basic personal finance, like interest rates, simple statistics (namely about casinos), sure.

BUT, during the European austerity footgun days, they put an animated talking bear on tv teaching this “financial literacy” and illustrating the “run your country as a thrifty household” tale as meritorious and not a fallacy, among other stuff like that.

I saw this YouTube video recently that said there are four main categories to spending money:

A. Your own money A1. On yourself A2. On others (not necessarily the same others)

B. Other people's money B1. On you B2. On others (not necessarily the same others)

It is kind of a wordy way to describe the principal agent problem.

Problem is that we can't really wrap our heads around large numbers. I get overwhelmed just thinking about how the relatively small town I live in manages its finances. I don't think I have the mental model to fit how the US economy functions much less how it should function.

Talk to some political scientists. You're never getting a polity that understands the issues and votes largely based on policy. Won't happen, not even remotely close. They'll always be voting on forehead-slappingly dumb shit like "running government like a business is a good idea", or more likely on a dozen extremely stupid misconceptions at once, plus just "do I perceive that bad things are happening, generally, regardless of whether they have anything to do with the office I'm voting for".

I've seen that point made before. In Portugal for example the left wing parties are openly against financial literacy in schools exactly because they say it is political. I get the point, if you're a socialist or a communist, having everyone participating in the stock market puts your goal further away. They also have an argument that financial literacy is correlated with losing money on the stock market. In general I don't think it's that separate of an issue, even though I'm not as left.

> They also have an argument that financial literacy is correlated with losing money on the stock market.

I think that the issue here is the definition of financial literacy that classifies people who effectively engage in gambling "financially literate".

It seems you have studied that exact tv talking bear’s lesson very well :D

I didn't get the reference unfortunately.

Unfortunately.

May I recommend a book by an Economics Nobel Prize winner?

Here:

"Arguing with Zombies: Economics, Politics, and the Fight for a Better Future" by Paul Krugman (2020)

And maybe even better:

"Austerity: The History of a Dangerous Idea" by Mark Blyth - 2013

I'm not sure I get your point still, I was merely describing the arguments of one side of the aisle of my country, did it give you the impression I'm somehow pro austerity? I'm not sure how you made that jump. And you still didn't explain the bear reference. Descriptive comments aren't endorsing something.

Recommending two books to someone that asks you to explain a short expression is a bit rich though. Good luck with that.

Simple: pro-austerity people made the bear show and used similar blanket generalizations to yours.

The books debunked them.

I'm not pro austerity! I didn't even make any generalizations, my whole comment is about the position of a few political parties in my country. Are you unable to distinguish relaying the position of a third party from relaying your own beliefs?

Is the bear show the kitchen TV series? I'm still trying to understand what the heck you are referencing but I'm starting to realize you are very difficult to talk to so this is me giving up. I'm sorry I don't have more patience you seem like you know some stuff but are too preoccupied with sounding smart rather than speaking plainly.

Ad hominem all you want - but I don’t really know what to say anymore.

Did you read our complete chain of comments / debate?

It is political of course, because the left would like to provide to the financially illiterates, such that they don’t have to manage their own money. If everyone is saving/investing, the socialist system is mostly redundant (except for the extremely poor, non-working, ill or disabled people).

Sure: poor people are usually guilty of being poor.

Nice thinking ;)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com