I pay a lot of attention to politics and one thing that bothers

File: 1439401227494.png (506KB, 454x600px) Image search: [Google]

506KB, 454x600px

>I'm scared of buying a random book (like pic related) and getting a really biased view.
any book you read will be biased. either read them all to sort out the bias, or accept the bias. btw manifesto will tell you literally nothing about marxian economics.

any intro macro econ is good

>I will teach you to be rich
>thinking fast and slow

The only two I needed.

>>7673036
Krugman's Macroeconomics (he used to be an economist before becoming a journo/talking head) and Economic Growth by David Weil

Then you decide which area you feel like going in-depth in (or not at all). Regardless, those two texts will introduce you to the basic models, which you can then use to test out assumptions and hypothetical scenarios

>>7673064
>either read them all to sort out the bias,
Yeah, I suppose I have no choice.

>>7673069
Thinking fast and slow sounds interesting.

>>7673066
Any specific recommendations?

>>7673084
One of the best books I've ever read.

>>7673036
Economics is a pseudoscience. Existing models are scrapped as soon as some depression or economic catastrophe they couldn't account for occurs.

>>7673083
I think I'm going to go for one of these books first, thank you.

>>7673093
I can atleast try to understand it, right?

>>7673110
Sure, It's necessary to view these sorts of abstract issues within some framework, but keep enough of a distance to recognize that it might just be a theory you like because it validates previously held beliefs, and it might well fall apart down the line

>>7673127
Funny because a friend of mine told me something very similar a couple of days ago.
I'll keep this in mind.

>>7673093
Well, yeah, would you rather us keep going with a model that's flawed even after it's empirically proven to be wrong? Economic understanding is still very rudimentary, but it's growing. I'm going to agree with your point of being skeptical (since any economist that claims he has all the answers is lying), but I wouldn't write off the whole field of study

>>7673036
If you want the best analysis of current macroeconomics read Michael Hudson's book Killing the Host. The book throws a lot of financial terms and acronyms at the reader, this shouldn't deter you because you can just look up anything you don't know. Other than that he introduces most concepts in terms a layman could understand and builds up to a more sophisticated analysis.

In the 70's his book Super Imperialism laid the framework for how the United States could capture the world through financial manipulation. That's the book I would suggest next, or just reread Killing the Host because it is full of information.

>>7673036
robert reich's stuff, kahneman, capital, road to serfdom

>>7673036
>Communist economics
Is this a troll thread?

If not read "Basic Economics" by Thomas Sowell.

File: Clash of Titans .jpg (273KB, 1100x1399px) Image search: [Google]

273KB, 1100x1399px

>>7673036
Wealth of Nations->The National Gain(by Anders Chydenius)->The Works(by Ricardo)->The Conquest of Bread(also read 'What Is Property?')->Das Kapital(You don't have to agree with it, but you are a retard if you don't read it)->The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money->The Road to Serfdom->Capitalism and Freedom

Remember, just because some thinkers are in the dominate field of thought now, doesn't mean that things will say that way forever(so basically have an open mind).

>>7673036

If you want Marx's economic views read a summary online somewhere, I'm sure wikipedia is fine. The Communist Manifesto isn't actually about economics; Capital is too long and dense; other books like Wage Labor and Capital or Value, Price and Profit deal with only aspects of his economic thought.

It should be noted that orthodox economics doesn't pay particular attention to Marx. A good number of economists don't consider Marx to be a part of their discipline at all. I'll leave this up to you to decide, but it's probably important to understand basic college-level Microeconomics before you read any Marxist literature.

Marx is a mix of rich man guilt, millenarialism, catholicism, pseudohistory and pseudoeconomics. Don't read it yo.
Only leftists keep Marx as a noticeable author. He should be among all the bizarre scientific shit the 19th century brought, just like phrenology.

>>7673339
Read the OP again, you retarded piece of shit

>>7673470
Alright, I'm an econ grad student, don't listen to this advice.

Any economist in academia right now will think you a retard for trying to learn economics as you would philosophy.

Sure, if you're an econ student, flipping pages through good old Adam Smith and Ricardo is very interesting, but if you're not, your ideas will be outdated as hell if starting with them (although you might still enjoy yourself).

You seem like you want to know "relevant" economics as opposed to studying economics for fun.

In that case, read textbooks.

The deal is, economists and especially people who discuss economics, including your brothers, don't know what the fuck they're talking about.

Seriously, noone does, the field fetishizes mathematics for a reason (168+ Q on the GREs is bare minimum to be an econ grad, not to mention the math is rigorous and most people who don't have an aptitude for abstract modelling are done fucked) they're very into models, they've discovered nothing that works fully as of yet so they keep trying to come up with new theories and cross-checking it with empirical data.

Economists who pass out and get into politics (you'll see these ones on T.V. a lot) are usually whoring themselves out to whoever is paying the highest to interpret their policy in a favorable way. And this CAN be done.

People like you listen to the shit they're confidently dropping and think they're predictions might actually be true, they're not.

Really, most economics who are being true to themselves will add a lot of ifs and buts and wecan'tsaycertainly's before making any propositions about the world.

The field is dense and the only way you can call people out on their bullshit (for example when someone tries to say "there's nothing like a free lunch" to justify not providing free things to the poor) is if you know what they're talking about, and the only way you can know what they're talking about is if you're interested and read a lot, as I said, since nothing in the field is fully definitive and objective, there are a lot of theories to keep a track off.

If you're not interested in it, don't bother, maybe read a couple pop-econ books so you can take part in their filthy, masturbatory discussions and buy/sell the economic agenda of different people depending on your preferences of the person while using whatever "theory" you want to justify your decision.

Marxian economics is a whole other story and is usually seen as absolute steaming shit by academics.

>>7674046
>Marxian economics is a whole other story and is usually seen as absolute steaming shit by academics.

Just read Das Kapital, it won't take you too much effort to realize Marx is making no scientific claims and is talking out of his arsehole.

Also, ask on /sci/ instead, Economics is not literature.

>>7674046
i think op basically doesn't know that political economy and economics as a discipline taught in america are very different so we were just throwing out interesting stuff
he specifically said "economy literature"
i wouldn't have thought OP gave a shit about growth curves from what he wrote

>>7673083
I prefer Bernanke's Macroeconomics textbook.

>>7673093
Oh, you mean exactly like all other sciences abandon paradigms when they no longer account for the data?

Get bent you philistine, that's what science is. Read Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions and until you do, shut the fuck up about economics being a pseudoscience.

>>7674069
right but usually you get a few hundred years of cool shit before you have to switch
econ basically fucks up every cycle

>>7674046
If you're so knowledgeable, tell me then.

Is it actually possible to make meaningful money on the stock market without having a massive initial amount to invest?

>>7674069
Other sciences can produce models that actually work, instead of needing to be constantly discarded.

>>7674046
>there's nothing like a free lunch
>bullshit

El Oh EL

>>7674108
Different anon. You should be keeping the majority of your savings in the stock market and not the bank. What I mean by this is if you're an American you should be keeping your money in the Vanguard Total Index Fund (VTSAX). This isn't for getting rich quick, but rather to let your savings grow without having to do anything. This will allow you to retire very early if you have a high savings rate.

http://jlcollinsnh.com/stock-series/

I highly recommend this to all lurkers especially those with American citizenship.

>>7674046
Then can you list off some current journals or, texts? Then even if I can't understand it, at least I can sit in awe at my stupidity.

>>7674201
I'm interested in index funds, but how much do you realistically need to begin investing with one?