I want to get into economics but have no idea where to start.

File: Trudeaufails.jpg (93KB, 600x337px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 600x337px

Google economics basics and go look on investopia. Not gonna lie, lefties are pretty good at social issues but suck ass at econ so thumbs up for trying.

Biz bro. Get mankiw's principles of economics and read. Get it second hand if it's too expensive. U need a uni level textbook to get fundamental understanding. Getting from websites and stuff is craps and opinion. U don't have to choose this book, but at least make it uni level.

Tldr:
http://www.amazon.com/Principles-Economics-N-Gregory-Mankiw/dp/0538453052

>>1114134
>Learns economics
>People think you are a cold bastard now

Don't do it OP it's a trap!

>>1114146
Thanks, I'll definitely take a look at it. Seems to be a good starting point.

>>1114154
Why do you find this textbook to be better than others? Is it more theoretical or mathematical?

Also, what do you think about KhanAcademy's economics program?

>>1114156
I am sure there is a reasonable middle ground.

File: Mount-Stupid.gif (32KB, 500x664px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 500x664px

>>1114134
>I simply want an understanding of economics such that I can develop some of my political and philosophical beliefs.

I got a degree in political science and econ, and I dont' know nearly enough about either to be able to make informed decisions on most of the issues, anon. The truth is--and this is something every economist and political scientist will tell you--is that the more you learn about something, the less obvious the answer becomes. When people say they know how to solve X, they're either politicians appealing to stupidity, or stupid people with messiah complexes.

At the end of the day, if you learn as much as an intro-to-micro theory class, which is your basic supply and demand, deadweight loss, etc shit, you'll walk away thinking you know all sorts of stuff about economics and you'll take your newly found free-market, Ayn Rand-esque attitude out in the world and proclaim the government as a ruiner of a naturally efficient economy. This is when pic related comes in, and it's where every person who took intro econ courses for gen ed credits is.

The fact is that economics is a complex and flawed field predicated under mathematical models which ONLY work under certain assumptions. The second you are in a market without perfect information and perfect competition, for example, the models start to become irrelevant.

If you want to really learn about economics, learn the basic theory from investopedia like >>1114146 said, but keep in mind the whole time that models are just models, not predictive of the real world. Once you have a good grasp of the basics, start exploring empirical economics, where those models are tested.

And I'll give you a spoiler for politics: I have no clue which side is more "right", but as far as teh models are concerned, cutting taxes like the right wants to do and increasing expenditure like the left wants to do are both predicated under the same exact economic theory. Sorry for the rambling.

>>1114176
But the American Civil War really DID have very little to nothing to do with slavery.

That image scream of the pseudo-intellectualism it's trying to talk about.

What you have to remember is that right wingers have a habit of learning some surface level information and terminology about economics and getting uppity about it. You hear Libertarians who have no idea what IS and LM are or why a central bank would want to raise inflation at a certain time screaming "Abolish the Fed" with no idea why the Fed is even kept partitioned from Congressional influence.

>read the thread

Or >>1114176 , this explains it pretty damn well.

Also remember that Economics has no native tool to predict a change in consumer preferences, which renders it's white room predictions more or less useless.

File: 1397426754750.jpg (79KB, 400x452px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 400x452px

>>1114182
>the American Civil War really DID have very little to nothing to do with slavery.

Redpilling is the ultimate pseudo-intellectualism, senpai.

>>1114176
So, basically, economics can't really say much about economic policy in terms of American Government?

Why is it that someone like Sanders or Obama gets hounded on all the time with the economic argument, while the right is generally seen as the superior.

>>1114221

The right isn't superior in terms of economics. At all.

Think of it like this:

>Argument in favor of Right-Wing view on economics: Understandable by ~30% of people, no need for nuance to understand it.

>Argument in favor of Left-Wing view on economics: Only understood by maybe 5-10% of people, you have to get deep enough into econ to comprehend why the surface level bullshit you already learned in macroeconomics isn't gospel truth.

So even though they're right, more or less, the Left has to resort to sneaky emotional appeals to persuade the public. Yes, it is every bit as ridiculous as it sounds.

>>1114221
The fact isn't that economists can't predict polciy. It's that all economic policy has winners and losers. Republicans' winners for cutting tax is a lot more apparent than the losers, whereas the losers from increasing taxes are extremely apparent from the start.

As a result, Republicans seem like defenders of the economy and Democrats seem like blood-suckers.

Make no mistake, however, Democratic policy in practice is essentially just as bad as Republican. Nobody seems to actually care to get the deficit below 2% GDP on either side, and whereas trickle-down economics is bullshit, Dems are wrong on very salient issues like opposing free trade and advocating for very large increases in minimum wage. Republicans are just as wrong on being against small increases in minimum wage.

File: 524690_1427905420754361_747975054_n.png (351KB, 883x574px) Image search: [Google]

351KB, 883x574px

>>1114134
Honestly if you want to improve your ability to discuss those things you mentioned, you should just look at international and central banking. About 90% of foreign and domestic policy can be explained with banking (Wars, bubbles and crashes, etc.)
If you're interested in the philosophical side of it, people basically end up in 2 camps. One says that leaving people as free as possible is moral, and one says that forcing people to do things against their wishes is moral, as long as the end goal is good.

>>1114239
>implying QE isn't sold as trickle down

>>1114239
>>1114226


What about "economic authorities" like Robert Reich, Alan Greenspan, Milton Friedman, or Richard Wolff.

It seems as though people like Reich and Wolff are easily dismissed in the economic world because they are left-leaning and, on the case of Wolff, marxist.

While on the other end, we praise someone like Milton Friedman, or Greenspan (not so much now).

Also, how can we determine how effective economic policy is under a presidents administration. I am under the impression that someone like Reagan, at the time, was considered an economic giant. Now, some people are dismissing him because of the long term consequences of his policy. Also, Clinton was always seen as a great president for out economy, now, all his successes are attributed to outside factors (technology boom, general economic trends), while Bill's policies ruined us in the long term.

>>1114252
First
>Implying I'm somehow in support of QE because you've decided to strawman me

Second, the mechanisms are definitely not the same, and if it was "sold" as trickle down, it was likely done so in an attempt to politicize it.

>>1114256

Robert Reich is dismissed because he isn't an economist in the slightest

>>1114260
>>1114252

'trickle-down economics' is a meme designed to discredit certain economic views. Nobody serious has ever described their own views as 'trickle-down economics'

>>1114256
Presidents get too much credit or blame for how the economy does while they're in office. There's congress, state and local taxes and policies, natural market fluctuation and changes in global commodities, just to name a few.
Also, keep in mind that there are studies out there to support literally any opinion because economies exist with and among sooooo many confounding variables.

>>1114256
I don't know who "we" are in this situation. I don't consider Reich or Greenspan on the same level as Friedman, but the Chicago school is based entirely on theory--not empiricism, so how he's significant isn't the same as how people like Krugman, Krueger, Card, and other left-leaning economists who are actually embraced by the economic community. The fact is that lots of "right-wing" economists stick to models and many left-wingers work with empiricism. The problem with the former is obvious. The problem with the latter is that in reality there isn't that much solid info out there and due to the changing nature of markets, research that demonstrates one thing one year might not be correct the next.

>how can we determine how effective economic policy is under a presidents administration
I think you can just as easily point to Fed chairmen as just as important as both of those presidents. We recovered from stagflation because of Paul Volcker, even if Reagan got credit for it, and the Greenspan put kept us moving so fast in the 90s, and it's debatable whether or not that was a good thing.

The fact is that some policies are obvious and blatantly good for bad. The Bush tax cuts, for example, didn't benefit the economy in the long-run at all. Clinton encouraging the sub-prime mortgage growth was also bad, but at the same time how much his policy actually affected the market verses the deregulation of the banks and general speculation is again up for debate.

Ultimately, it's just not that simple. And I know people hate that answer, but it's how the world fucking works. The true effects of economic policy are basically impossible to isolate because there are a billion other variables that correlate with things like time and changes in technology. If we could find a causal link proving policy X was certainly bad and policy Y was certainly good, then government would be a lot simpler. The reality is we can't. We can just guess to the best of our ability.

>>1114264
Obama didn't term it Obamacare but everyone still knows what you're talking about when someone says it, no? Your argument is one of semantics. If you want to argue that pumping money into the upper echelons of society will increase investment and aggregate demand better than pumping it into the middle class, I'm all ears.

>>1114262
I was under the impression he was educated in economics. He tends to focus mainly on economic issues.

>>1114276

I'm not claiming to know what economic system is better I just want people to be on the lookout for these subversive memes. A lot of people just hear 'hurr durr trickle-down economics, the fat cats are so dumb that we would believe that' and think they actually know anything. 'Trickle down economics' was originally termed to discredit supply side economics, and now you are using it to discredit quantitative easing. These are two entirely different things. Don't muddy the waters.

>>1114277

He got some undergrad political science, philosophy, and econ hybrid degree. I wouldn't consider that a good education in economics.

>>1114277
He is educated, but he relies on empirical research that's only correlative, not causal. That puts him on shakey-as-fuck ground. You can't just graph two things side by side and say "proof"!

>>1114277
Is he the one in those videos attempting to defend Sanders' plans? I've watched them, and he seems to do a lot of what i and >>1114273
have been warning against: Assuming to know the exact effects of policies in a field that's full of too many variables to control for. He also blatantly cherry-picks data if i remember correctly.

>>1114282
>now you are using it to discredit quantitative easing
That's literally a different person, m8. Go back and read.

>>1114256

>Reich
Meh.
>Greenspan
He was a stooge. He was weak as fuck while in office. Don't give a shit about his economic credentials.
>Friedman
Strongly against him. In my view he creates a moral and ethical framework as justification for a certain approach to economics favoring a specific outcome, but he cribs it in implicitly so that he doesn't have to defend it.
>Wolff
Kinda meh, but while I'm a Leftist I'm not sold on Marxism.

>>1114287

Sorry. Still don't like the term 'trickled down economics'. Just call it supply side economics, which is what the people who support it actually call it.

>>1114273
How does one develop this kind of insight into economic and political matters? Is it enough to have some foundational economic knowledge and then follow history? If we assume that there are too many variables to judge most issues then how do we know when a proposed economic idea is good or not?

>>1114283
>>1114286
Yeah that's him. I know basic science says correlation Is not causation, but isn't correlation a valuable tool when uncountable variables screw up economic models in general?

>>1114299
>valuable tool when uncountable variables screw up economic models in general?
That's why you need to design your research in such a way that limits variables. Assuming that correlations that happen over 50 years of a nation's history are causal is beyond flimsy.

>>1114299
It can be a valuable tool, but like any tool it can be (and very often is) misused in a lazy, bias confirming way.
But to your first question, look at how banking works. Once you have an idea about how it works, it'll be like having cheatcodes to explain world or domestic affairs.

>>1114307
As a starting point, look up the "petrodollar" it's simple enough to understand in one night and explains a LOT of what the USA does.
You'll be hooked i think.

Dang >>1114313
was meant for >>1114299
sorry to make this thread more confusing

File: 1385925256032.jpg (41KB, 492x310px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 492x310px

Econ here, the basics of econ (especially microeconomics) are mostly outcomes of mathematical masturbation, same goes for macroeconomics, the part thats a bit more complex even for math majors is econometrics, but then again, if you have a degree in mathematics you should be able to cope with the basic shit.

>>1114182
oh man, pick up an US economic history class or something man, that is just pathetic

>>1114325
>econometrics
What makes this area so much better than the others? I was under the assumption that macro and micro were the two top dogs.

>>1114313
So most of US economic policy is based around what the arab world does? What happens when we convert to green energy?

>>1114309
Where could one get started on learning about banking?

>>1114325
macro has nowhere near the same level of mathematical masturbation

>>1115171
You're a beginner, so go for this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6zpfE7WjHI

It's not exactly scholarly, but it does a good job explaining the structure of banking systems, their history, and their activities in the world today.
Just treat it as an intro, not gospel truth.
I think petrodollar is discussed in it, too.

>>1115171
>What makes this area so much better than the others?
Econometrics is empirical research. It's not always accurate and there's a growing consensus in the field from top researches that the shortcuts it uses to account for variables are actually not very reliable, but the fact remains that it's how a lot of large trends that we cant' exactly set upa n experiment for are examined, and at the end of the day empiricism should always trump theory.

>>1114146
>>1114176
>>1114187
>>1114188
>>1114239
>>1114251
>>1114256
>>1114276
>>1114273
>>1114293
>>1114325
>>1115402
>>1115417
>>1115518
I have recently started a group dedicated to investments. I am only adding a handful of people that provide something of use to the group.

Trolls will not be tolerated and will be kicked out.

If anyone is interested then go ahead and add me on Skype.

The_Resistance CRF