In my part of the world, all digital currencies including bitcoins are considered illegal and by default, they are not valid legal tender in which any financial transaction can be conducted. But unfortunately, as much as illegal they are, they are also considered as taxable and so often, the tax deduced on their behalf is very enormous. Along with tax, mind you, they come with fines too by the court of the economic advisory council.

What is the status of bitcoins in your country? What logic can be applied behind making something both illegal yet taxable?

By profession, I am a doctor and I know the huge costs involved in good quality healthcare.The mind boggling bills have made it nearly impossible for people without health care insurance to depend on modern medicine for treatment. The dilemma is to utilize single 'disease specific' insurance packages which comes with a less premium amount or to utilize the general healthcare insurance which suites the general population covering the more common but less serious diseases.

Which do you think is the right option to go forward?

I am thinking of short term investment in the real estate sector. What I plan is to use 1 million US$ to buy a land and use that plot as mortgage to secure a housing loan and build a house with it. Later, I can sell it for a slightly higher price and take the profit and keep on investing the rest of the money in the real estate sector again and again.

I built three houses two of which was sold recently. The third house is nearing completion and I plan on utilizing the funds for yet another house.

What do you think of the investment plan?

Today's article is sharing my opinions on Economics: A Very Short Introduction. I read this as part of an assignment at my University for my Development module. Having already studied Economics for 3 and a half years, I didn't expect much from this book that I didn't already know.

What is the book?
Economics: A Very Short Introduction aims to look at the reasons why two lives from different parts of the world can become so different. The book is written by Partha Dasgupta, a professor of Economics at the University of Cambridge, and is published by the Oxford University Press.

What did I think?
The book itself was written in a very different direction than I expected. It is less to do with the explanation of Economics as a whole, as it is more narrowly associated with the topic of development economics. Having to read this book for my development course made me cautious before beginning that its account of Economics would be rather limited, and to a certain extent I think that proved to be the case.

The book starts with a rather limited and vague look at macroeconomic history. It does what it needs to do for those just wanting an introduction to a topic that they haven't experience before, but for anyone with a deeper interest in Economics, you will notice a lot of missing details and information.

It isn't a complete introduction to economics as a subject, and misses out many important aspects which you would associate with the introductory part of economics. However, what is discussed tends to be done so well in sufficient detail that I believe someone who is reading this without prior knowledge of economics can learn some basics and understand the subject a little bit. That is, if the maths doesn't confuse you first. The maths used to describe some concepts is, in my opinion, rather messy and confusing. It is hidden in a wall of text, whereas I believe it would be better to separate it into its own subsection. As a result it can often be confusing to follow and mean you have to reread pages to follow the maths. It can make understanding the topics rather hard, even for someone who has studied the topic for 3 years. But the topics discussed are often done so at a good length where you can sometimes forget that it is a short introduction.

The book itself also seems rather disconnected. The first few chapters seem to tie in well, but it seems to then lose its flow. The chapters on science and technology, households and firms, sustainable economic development and social well-being and democratic government seem out-of-place for the book and the previous four chapters before them. In fact, it seems at time that the final four chapters can sometimes contradict the points made in the first four chapters.

As usual there is a great list of further reading at the back of the book so you can review different topic areas in more depth if they take your fancy. Overall it is a decent read which touches on some interesting topics within the field of economics, but it isn't a complete introduction to economics and I would argue it is aimed more towards development from an economics perspective than it is teaching the actual fundamentals of economics as a whole.

Real Value is a 2013 documentary which looks at how you should value products or services. Should it just be based on profit, or should it also be based on the effects on the community and environment? Through looking at behavioural economics and psychology with a favourite of mine - Dan Ariely, alongside business owners who have seen profits increase by acting more sustainable, a picture of a future where businesses think about the community and its impact on the globe is pictured.

The picture portrayed is something that seems achievable, but as Ariely points out, it is often the price that is the easiest measure to see and think about, which leads to decisions which can often be irrational in comparison to the whole picture. It certainly wouldn't be an easy thing to achieve and can at times seem rather anti-capitalism in my opinion. The businesses seen in the documentary are often small, local community businesses suggesting they are better than the big corporations in the same field. This is true, as they think about the environment and community. But it doesn't show the full picture. My question is, how would these businesses scale? With an estimated 7.5 billion people on the planet as of April 2017, how would these businesses be able to think locally, source locally, and cover the entire population in a timely manner? - especially when it comes to food production and fuel production. The examples in the documentary seem very small and community focused, and I personally can't see how that scales to the entire globe, or how any of these businesses would break out of being a local business to providing on a larger scale. It seems the suggestion is to not have large businesses, but have little businesses doing the same thing in each separate community. Is this actually practical?

Cleverly, the business owners still realise profit as a crucial asset - it helps them survive and is a part of sustainability which can help the owners to give back to the community. It is self-aware in that sense. Profit is still necessary, rather the approach is to negate some of the possible profit or shareholder value in order to give back to the community, or do things in a way that impacts the environment less.

The documentary itself can seem a little preachy. At times it seems more like a marketing tool to try to make people think about their habits more - which is in poor taste for a documentary. The business owners can be a little pushy in terms of trying to impact other people's decisions and the constant violin or piano music played in the background to try and emote the person watching can wear thin.

Overall, the documentary can give some good ideas and approaches, but I would argue it doesn't exactly fit into the capitalistic society we live in today and simply wouldn't really match the needs of our huge population.

You can watch the documentary yourself if you want. It is 1hr and 10mins in length.

Rating: 3/5

The Freakonomics documentary is a 2010 adaptation of the book which has the same name. The documentary aims to inform the viewer about incentive based thinking, and stars Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner. In similar fashion to the book, the documentary looks at human behaviour through the use of case studies.

The documentary has different episodes of sorts, where different actions are described through case studies. These can often make the documentary feel disjointed as it can quickly move from one point to another. It doesn't seem to really add up to a complete package because of the small featurettes.

A point which links the increasing ability to receive an abortion and falling crime rates in the US can be seen as a bold statement, but evidence backs up the claim at least to a decent enough degree.

The documentary tries to convey the same opinions and evidence as the book, but falls short when compared in terms of detail. The case studies are often interesting and thought-provoking, but are too light on detail to really make someone connect with it. A better approach would likely be to reduce the number of shorts shown in the film and explore a fewer number in more depth, giving each topic the attention they deserve.

A favourite of mine was the question on whether children can be bribed to get better grades. However this piece seemed unfinished and it seemed like research was still undergoing, which was disappointing as it is something I would like to have seen further explored and a more concrete answer given.

At least the people in the film are engaging. They bring life to the dismal science as economics if often referred to as. However Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner are scarce in terms of screen time, which is a shame as they were the most interesting and engaging element in my opinion. The documentary certainly asks some interesting questions, but seems to fall through in terms of answering many.

If you have read the book, I don't see much point of watching this documentary. I don't think it offers anything fresh enough to make it worthwhile. If you've not read the book, I think it is an okay place to start before delving deeper into the Freakonomics book.

Rating: 2/5

I will today be letting you know about my thoughts on a recent read of mine - Capitalism: A Very Short Introduction. Capitalism is something which is mentioned in many of the modules I have taken at University, but I have never learnt about it on its own and therefore do not know it in-depth. I thought reading this book would help fill in the blanks.

What is the book?
Capitalism: A Very Short Introduction, is a brief introduction to the subject area of capitalism. The author, James Fulcher, looks at the history and development of capitalism, the forms capitalism has taken, its tendency towards crisis, whether capitalism has gone global and whether capitalism has a future.

What did I think?
Having seen capitalism mentioned briefly in many topics I have studied over the years, as well as in political debate, I was extremely interested to learn a bit more about the topic. The book taught me many new things, how capitalism developed, and the forms it has taken across the world were the most interesting parts. It was a shorter read, even by the Very Short Introduction series standards, but it did enough to convey the important information of capitalism - and as always the book has further reading links if you wish to delve deeper.

Another more interesting bit was the final section, titled 'Crisis? What crisis?' - which looked at the tendency of capitalism towards crisis through overproduction, as well as touching on whether there is any other forms of planning that seem likely to overtake capitalism.

History takes a major role in this book, and therefore can be seen to be boring to some people. I personally like knowing the history of things, as I believe it helps provide context to a greater degree and therefore didn't mind it. But it is something to consider if you aren't a fan of history yourself.

The main takeaway is that a second year Economics student found this book to provide new and interesting content that I personally didn't know, therefore it should be worthwhile reading for those with and without prior knowledge of surrounding subject areas.

Some reviews I have seen suggest the author is biased against capitalism, which I personally don't see. I think the book is relatively well-balanced and the conclusion advocates a development of capitalism rather than replacing it with a new method, which I think leads to suggest a balanced view in this instance.

I would highly recommend this book to anyone interested in learning more about capitalism. It was a very interesting read and one of the better Very Short Introductions I have read to date.

I recently watched a 45 minute interview style documentary on YouTube. It was titled 'abolishing capitalism' and starred the opinions on Peter Joseph. Below is the full interview if you are interested in watching it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HwFOo5rbZA

Some interesting facts are given in this interview, but the overall tone of the interview is very pessimistic. Joseph also continuously uses phrases similar to "what people don't get is", which can be annoying in my opinion as it seems to imply that he believes he is smarter than anyone who believes in capitalism as an ideal approach.

His view is that capitalism is something which has eroded our capacity for empathy. We realise there are winners and losers in capitalism and accept that as a natural occurrence. To Joseph this is wrong. He also mentions advertising, the stock market, class divisions and debt.

Quote:The average person often fails to recognise the cancer of capitalism. By design, the process is covert and muddied in complexity. The movers and shakers of the financial industry in the United States - the Wall Street traders and tycoons - create nothing. They merely make money from money. The elite line their pockets with increasing bundles of wealth while the lower and middle classes continue to struggle. Corporations are equally ruthless in their attempts to exploit the vulnerable masses. In one such scenario, Joseph exposes a major company that takes out life insurance policies on its employees. Every aspect of the financial sector is driven by profit, including the sanctity of life and death itself. 

Overdose: The Next Financial Crisis is a 2010 documentary by Journeyman Pictures which explores the 2008 financial crisis and looks at the possibilities of a future crisis.

The documentary starts by giving a decent look at the financial crisis of 2008 and the lead up to that. It looks at the use of cutting interest rates and the bailing out of banks in the period of the recession, alongside aid and development project funds, to showcase how many countries created a bubble in order to get out of the previous financial crisis.

Looking at the 2008 financial crisis, it is believed that the government created a moral hazard by making banks believe they were too big to fail, and by previously encouraging people to take out mortgages even if the homeowner could not afford repayments, as they were protected by the government and no down payments were needed due to government initiatives. This led to overspending and eventually meant governments had to spend large sums of money protecting banks and investing in the economy in order to prop the economy up, creating a bubble. Mass debt was the result.

This leads on to the main point, which unfortunately isn't really discussed until the final moments of the documentary. The idea is that when the bubble created to end the 2008 depression bursts, the traditional methods of recovery wont work - interest rates are already very low, and the government won't be able to keep investing more money due to their heavy debt - in some countries this is more than 100% of GDP. They argue that one day, something similar to the collapse of the banks in the 2008 recession will happen with governments and countries instead. The debt will be so high that when a recession strikes countries will have no choice but to declare bankruptcy which will lead to mass chaos with other countries not knowing if/when it will happen to them - similar to the chaos caused by not knowing which banks were secure in the 2008 financial crisis.

It is a very interesting, if not pessimistic, view of a possible future financial crisis, which suggests that to stop this happening - the governments will need to stop creating and inflating bubbles as a reactionary measure to a recession.

The documentary is available for viewing on YouTube and I would highly recommend giving it a watch. It is under 50 minutes in length and is rather interesting.

Rating: 4/5

Today I am writing a short opinion piece on a recent read of mine, Global Economic History: A Very Short Introduction. I read this book as a preface to a subject which I will be studying when I return to university - economic history, as I wanted to get a little bit of a feel for the subject before I actually studied it.

What is the book?
The book is a short introduction, consisting of 170 pages. It is a part of the Oxford University Press series - a very short introduction. The book is written by Robert C. Allen who is a professor of economic history at the University of Oxford. It looks at why some countries are rich and some are poor, with analysis on the interplay of many different factors to show the wealth and poverty of nations in a historical context to ultimately explain why the world we live in today is unequal.

What did I think?
Coming from an Economics background myself, I was expecting this to be a different sort of read than it actually was. Before really getting into the book I expected an overview of economics based on the different theories and how they gained popularity in the context of history. For example I was expecting details of Classical, Keynesian, Neoclassical, and Marxism in the context of history in terms of how those theories became prevalent.

Instead I was met with a discussion on empires, the industrial revolution and a discussion of why some nations are wealthy whilst some are poor. This by no means makes the book a bad read, on the contrary it was actually very interesting and taught me new things which I could apply to economics as a whole. A lot of statistics were thrown my way, including a lot of dates of when things happened and where. These are basically impossible to remember, but I picked up the main themes and events that are important to understanding the history of economics.

The book included many different subject branches, which was of a surprise to me. It wasn't just economics and history - technological change, policy, geography, globalisation and institutions were also key themes. Whilst the author relied on using a limited number of institutions (technology, labour, government) to explain why countries have ended up at different levels in terms of income and wealth, which can be argued to be a rather basic and limited account.

The account starts in 1500 CE, when there was little to no difference between the incomes of countries around the world, and through to modern times, where there is a large divergence between countries, which he argues was spurred on by uneven gains from globalisation.

It would have been nice to have seen more on the political side - such as the differences between free market capitalism and state planning, and what differences this made in terms of the development of the economies.

As always, the short introductions provide an excellent list of references and further reading sources to help you get a greater understanding for each topic discussed in the book - should it entice you enough to look into the subject in further detail.

Overall it was a very good read, and something I felt has prepared me well for my course for next year at university. Obviously it isn't a light read, but the way the book is written and the way facts are used makes it easy enough to follow.