Millionaire next door.
Anyone know of any good Venture Capitalism books?
i hope they serve beer in hell also confessions of an economic hitman the rest is noise confessions of a street addict (covers trading, vc, dating, and losers from yale)
Nothing to Envy: Ordinary Lives in North Korea - Barbara Demick Book of interviews of people who have escaped NK. Very interesting writing style as it intertwines her analysis of the interviews and the lives of the interviewees. The Angels are the Reapers - Alden Bell Astonishly literary take on post-apocalyptic life. Yeah, it has zombies but they are not the main antagonist. The prose is very reminiscent of Cormac McCarthy. Lots of ruminations on life, why things happen, what can and can’t be changed, what you can run from and what you can’t.
brain_wash_your_face Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > “Bonfire of the Vanities” - story of my life. You were involved in a hit-and-run with a young black man?
robber07 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Does anyone have any suggestions for books dealing > with FREE MARKET CAPITALISM??? Atlas Shrugged is THE book on free market capitalism. Awesome book, I’m about 600 pages into it right now.
The Medici Effect The Snowball Liar’s Poker Ascent of Money The Cash Nexus
I thought Lords of Finance was a very good book.
Too Big to Fail Unbillable Hours (not investing per se, but still a good story) The Quants (It’s ok) The Murder of Lehman Brothers (not bad halfway through it) On my “Too Read” list: The Great Deleveraging American Psycho The Big Short Catastrophe: The story of Bernie Madoff
Would you recommend any books or resources for a beginner to learn corporate finance? A friend of mine who studied psychology would like to open a business with her family and asked me if I have any suggestions for her. I was thinking to sending her Damadaran’s CF materials from his website and some CFA level 1 books I have, but wondering it might be too diffcult for her to begin. Thanks guys.
^As well as the ones you mention WSPrep Simon Beninga Principles of Finance in Excel
dhyun3: http://www.amazon.com/Analysis-Financial-Management-Mcgraw-Hill-Insurance/dp/0077297652/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1305900920&sr=1-2#_ is a classic; expensive but worth it. Highly readable and almost unique in its approach. (If http://www.amazon.com/Analysis-Financial-Management-subscription-card/dp/007325858X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1305900920&sr=1-1 is the same book, pick up a used copy for $5.)
McLeod81 Wrote: > ----- > Atlas Shrugged is THE book on free market > capitalism. > > > Awesome book, I’m about 600 pages into it right > now. Agree with the broad thesis that capitalism/production/market forces/liberalism/fee economies are the best way to progress as a society but the book is a bit one dimensional imo in its eulogising of the rationalist / objectivist approach. For example, Hank Rearden, the great industrialist, rejects his own mother as she becomes dependent on him to live - or given alms rather than earn rewards based on mutual production in the language of the book. Yet there wouldn’t have been a Hank Rearden if his mother had adopted the same approach to him during childhood. Did she trade with him to give him a spoonful of porridge? Or expect something in return? Of course not. Similarly, would we have something akin to good comedy if everyone went around fulfilling their role as homo economicus? Unlikely. We would all be producing things or working for people who were better at producing things than ourselves (and who tended to come from wealthy families). I take Atlas Shrugged with a large pinch of salt. I think I may have said this before - Adam Smith ‘An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations’ (1776) would be a more worthy candidate of the ‘THE book on free market capitalism’ mantle. Less preachiness. On the other hand, I dig Dagny Taggart and her general slutiness (in the era it was written). Bedhopping at the raise of an eyebrow (Galt) and degrading sex (Rearden). Wunderbar. It must have been Ayn Rand in literary form (or her fantasy).
Just an FYI that you may be able to get deep discounts on finance-related books if you’re a society member. The toronto society for example has 40% off about a dozen or so titles that change every couple of months. One of the few useful member perks.
Muddahudda Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Agree with the broad thesis that > capitalism/production/market forces/liberalism/fee > economies are the best way to progress as a > society but the book is a bit one dimensional imo > in its eulogising of the rationalist / objectivist > approach. > > For example, Hank Rearden, the great > industrialist, rejects his own mother as she > becomes dependent on him to live - or given alms > rather than earn rewards based on mutual > production in the language of the book. Yet there > wouldn’t have been a Hank Rearden if his mother > had adopted the same approach to him during > childhood. Did she trade with him to give him a > spoonful of porridge? Or expect something in > return? Of course not. Similarly, would we have > something akin to good comedy if everyone went > around fulfilling their role as homo economicus? > Unlikely. We would all be producing things or > working for people who were better at producing > things than ourselves (and who tended to come from > wealthy families). I take Atlas Shrugged with a > large pinch of salt. > > I think I may have said this before - Adam Smith > ‘An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the > Wealth of Nations’ (1776) would be a more worthy > candidate of the ‘THE book on free market > capitalism’ mantle. Less preachiness. > > On the other hand, I dig Dagny Taggart and her > general slutiness (in the era it was written). > Bedhopping at the raise of an eyebrow (Galt) and > degrading sex (Rearden). Wunderbar. It must have > been Ayn Rand in literary form (or her fantasy). I think the main flaw is that every aspect of life is viewed as a absolute. The book says that love cannot be unconditional, and avoids the fact that love for one’s family IS unconditional, by not introducing any functional families throughout the story. Jim Taggart is a scumbag, and Rearden’s family members are a bunch of parasites. How would the story have been different if Rearden had a couple of kids to look after? Or if he had a family which was truly caring and appreciative but just slightly misguided? I think Rand purposefully avoids these grey areas in order to provide more emphasis and greater clarity to her thesis.