Are there any unbiased sources for learning about economics?

>>1018108
Get a subscription to the Economist and stop entering every debate as a way to swing your duck around; the only idiot in that situation will be you.

>>1018113
>Get a subscription to the Economist
Alright.

>and stop entering every debate as a way to swing your duck around; the only idiot in that situation will be you.
If someone says raising the minimum wage to $15/hr will help everyone, i'm going to destroy everything they say.

>>1018113

>economist

What a heap of shit. Absolutely reddit as fuck. Not that the guys who write it are dumb, but it's not going to educate dumb people. They'll grow in to redditors who think that economics is a mathematical optimisation problem and who have zero thought for the moral questions underlying everything.

>>1018153

>If someone says raising the minimum wage to $15/hr will help everyone, i'm going to destroy everything they say.

Why? They'll just double down on their beliefs.

People get emotionally attached to their views and mistake it as an integral part of who they are rather than just a perception of the world they know.

>>1018175
The Spectator is pretty good. You should get that too.
I'm shilling British firms hard because I have a lot in FTSE trackers so pls buy.

>>1018108

>Are there any unbiased sources for learning about economics?

For microeconomics, yes.

For macroeconomics? No. You can choose which biases you think accurately depict the world, but there are zero unbiased sources.

>>1018193
Alright, where do you think I should start before I pick a bias? Are there any sources I can use to get a better understanding of things before getting in depth?

>>1018175
Have you ever read The Economist you dumbfuck? It's a 70/30 split between politics and economics/finance.

>>1018903

I would study all the biases at once to synthesize a personal bias.

There is one unbiased source.
The market.
Is it actionable, maybe, that depends on you.