“Top down” and “bottom-up approach”
"I think it's an argument for Keynesian economic policy, basically an abridged version of this paragraph from the Wikipedia article: Keynesian economists often argue that private sector decisions sometimes lead to inefficient macroeconomic outcomes which require active policy responses by the public sector, in particular, monetary policy actions by the central bank and fiscal policy actions by the government, in order to stabilize output over the business cycle. ""private sector decisions"" are bottom-up: millions of businesses and individuals make economic decisions and ""the economy"" is the sum of what they do. ""monetary policy actions by the central bank and fiscal policy actions by the government"" are top-down: central institutions implement measures that are intended to have a positive effect (such as reducing unemployment) on millions of individuals." "Top down approach needed when bottom-up approach of markets leads to   periods of high unemployment Imagine a chart that starts with one point at the top and breaks it down into the details by the time you get to the bottom. People can read this chart either from the top and go down or from the bottom and go up. Wikipedia does have articles on Top-down and bottom-up design if you want more detail than I give here. Top down refers to the idea of starting at a high level and then working down to get into the details. For example, in planning a vacation, one could start with what continent to go, then which country, then which cities in that country and so forth. Thus, the idea here would be to start with macroeconomic trends and then create a strategy to fix this as the other way is what created the problem. The idea of taking a subject or system and breaking it down into individual pieces would be another way to state this. Bottom up refers to the idea of starting with the details and then build up to get a general idea. To use the vacation example again, this is starting with the cities and then building up to build the overall itinerary. Within political circles you may here of ""grassroots"" efforts where citizens will form groups to gain influence. This would be an example of bottom up since it is starting with the people. The idea of taking individual components and putting them together to build up something would be another way to state this. The statement is saying that a completely different style of approach will be necessary than the one that created the problem here."
The tried-and-true policy would be government spending (and not just any government spending, but one with positive feedback on the whole economy) such as specific subsidized industry or high-tech projects (most likely wind/solar, high-efficiency and hybrid cars, etc.).  And this includes something like addition education in fields that are needed.    Instead we give money to banks, tax breaks for the already wealthy, and then deregulate finance when the problem seemed to stem from deregulation and non-enforcement.  If we don't hit a bigger bottom in 1-5 years - I'd eat my shorts. Upstream is into businesses that supply the original business; downstream is into businesses that make use of the original product.  So in that description, what they are saying is that the original business received products from plantations and sent products to manufacturing. This is also called vertical integration.  Meaning that they are diversifying along their supply chain so that they control more of it.  This is in contrast with horizontal integration, where they move into new products that either compete with the existing products or which are entirely separate.   In general, the upside of vertical integration is that a company is less reliant on suppliers (and intermediate consumers) and has more control over its supply chain.  The downside is that they have less opportunity to partner with other companies in the same supply chain, as they compete with them.  Some companies are better at managing to do both.  For example, Amazon.com has integrated fulfillment and sales.  But partners can still do their own fulfillment and/or sales, choosing how much to send out to Amazon.   If you are investing in individual stocks, integrated companies can be problematic in that they cut across diversification areas.  So they can be harder to balance with other stocks.  You can either buy plantations, transport, and manufacturing together or not buy at all.  If your investment strategy says to increase plantations and reduce manufacturing, this can be difficult to implement with an integrated company.  Of course, everyone else has the same problem, which can lead to integrated companies being undervalued.  So they may be an opportunity as a value stock. The risk of the particular share moving up or down is same for both.   however in terms of mitigating the risk, Investor A is conservative on upside, ie will exit if he gets 10%, while is ready to take unlimited downside ... his belief is that things will not go worse .. While Investor B is wants to make at least 10% less than peak value and in general is less risk averse as he will sell his position the moment the price hits 10% less than max [peak value] So it more like how do you mitigate a risk, as to which one is wise depends on your belief and the loss appetite It all depends on the country.  In the US, mobility at the top is reasonably high (ie first generation millionaires, first generation billionaires, etc).      In other western countries, mobility at the top is very poor.  This is typically due to regulation and taxes that make it incredibly difficult for small businesses to be compliant and compete (ie hire a bad employee as a small startup, and it can cripple the business if you cannot easily fire them).     Mobility at the bottom is reversed.   Getting out of abject poverty in the US is incredibly difficult, almost impossible.  In other western countries it is not easy, but far easier than the US thanks to those social safety nets. I like the article concept, about seeking help where needed. This is something where an advisory board comes into play.   That said, it is super important that you seek advice specifically in areas you are lacking. You want fresh ideas and people that will challenge your ideas. I'm aware that this is not how modern economics works. I considered pursuing a graduate degree in the subject, but chose not to because I disagree with the epistemological foundations of the approach.    My ideas aren't based in explicit observation of reality, as I prioritize reason above observation. The difference between the two approaches is similar to the difference between pure mathematics and applied mathematics, where the rationalist (my perspective) is pure math, and the empiricist (the modern economist) is applied math. If you would include the theorems and abstractions of pure mathematics as fantasy, then my ideas are indeed based in fantasy, but you'd then have to explain why such an approach is wrong given how often the seemingly useless work of pure math ends up proving highly valuable in the long run (e.g. number theory and computer science). "My problem with this is that there's no ""one size fits all"" approach to eliminating poverty. These are very much middle-class values and I don't think imposing them on impoverished children is the right approach. And besides, poverty itself can be fluid. Most kids already in poverty are stuck in generational poverty, but there's also situational poverty that can affect anyone at any time. For kids in generational poverty, it's about survival. They don't plan ahead because they don't have the luxury to do that. It's day to day with them, with each day bringing a new challenge.   Do I know what we have to do to eliminate poverty? No, and I don't think anyone does. But I do think whatever approach we take should be multifaceted and take into account the environmental contexts that shape a person's life. This kind of lazy policymaking isn't gonna cut it" True but it isn't too difficult . Perhaps a classic example would be Sony - 5 years losses , this last year US$1.1B , how long can it last ?! However the trick is not to initially concentrate on the corporates but to concentrate on the small to medium sized companies and to ensure that they are strategically placed engineering wise to step in and take over . Business wise they will be used to adapting quickly . "I like stuff like this for perspective but I found the article lacking in mechanics as to how to unlearn, how to apply it, etc. I may have missed it though. This reminds me of my CEO challenging everyone at every level to ""innovate"". Need more of the ""how"" behind these kinds of objectives. It's great to shed preconceptions, think outside the box, etc but that's been managerial buzz speak for years, and yet we still find ourselves within the box. Focusing on how to get out of it seems like a worthy cause." The best ask is the lowest ask, and the best bid is the highest bid.  If the ask was lower than the bid then they crossed, and that would be a crossed market and quickly resolved. So the bid will almost always be cheaper than the ask. A heuristic is that a bid is the revenue of the stock at any given time while the ask is the cost, so the market will only ever offer a profit to itself not to the liquidity seeker. If examining the book vertically, all orders are usually sorted descending. Since the best ask is the lowest ask, it is on the bottom of the asks, and vice versa for the best bid. The best bid & best ask will be those closest since that's the narrowest spread and price-time priority will promise that a bid that crosses the asks will hit the lowest ask, the best possible price for the bidder and vice versa for an ask that crosses the best bid. "In that example, ""creating money"" could be used interchangeably with ""making promises"".  There's no inflation, and no problem, so long as everyone keeps their promises. Which sounds like a horrifying thing to say about the foundations of the economy, but the remarkable thing is that people mostly do." I'd still take the lower total pay with higher hourly pay, because I'm saving myself time. It ultimately represents an increase in efficiency for my time, or an increase in my ROI of time, which most business people would agree is a good thing. I can supplement my income with side jobs or a side business, with the extra time I have. What's really key is what happens to overall employment. If it gets low enough to where workers can find 2nd jobs, then it may truly leave some low wage workers worse off, and the entire demographic worse off as a whole. I don't know what you are asking. Can you give me an example of what fits the question?   That you use phrases like profit extraction make me think we have a different assumption base, so I think we have to find common syntactic ground before we can exchange ideas in a meaningful way. I would like to do so, though, so I hope you respond. Have you read is letter? He's saying thanks to the government for basically saving the economy. Warren Buffet was from day 1 a strong supporter of the bailout program.   I'm sorry for my ignorance but what ''output'' are you talking about? As I understand you don't just want to establish a basic income but want to change the whole monetary system? And you can't even explain it? "I assume you are referring to Multi-Level Marketing, which have organizational structures that look like pyramids.  As others have pointed out Ponzi schemes (often referred to as pyramid) are illegal.    The key to multi-level marketing is understanding the true objective.  It is not to sell soap, vitamins, cell phone plans or whatever.  The key is to understand that you are building a marketing organization.  You must motivate and train others to do the same.  You cannot rely on others to do it for you, you must do it yourself. If you just are there to sell product, you won't make any money.  If you have a lot of friends that you can convince to sign up, you won't make any money.  If you can build a marketing organization, you can make a lot of money. While the marketing for MLMs often say ""anyone can do it"", such things waste people's time.  There are certain personality types that are not suited for such skills.  Also if one posses those types of skills, there may be better opportunities in traditional companies.  Maybe."