Economics

Free market solves everything, government = bad, taxes = bad, social security = entitlement.

Piketty.

>>8586561
t. neoliberal bootlicker

sorry but this hasn't worked over the past 30 years. its done nothing good for the world

>>8586687
Central banks + taxation + fiat + public schools + quantitative easing are not products of the free market.

>>8586540
Honestly, it's not much fun to read and in my opinion, socialism isn't that hard to grasp.

>>8586540
Best to start would be a class and a good textbook. I'd recommend picking something on coursera or a similar website. Find some economic department online and check out what they offer.
For Das Kapital, you don't need any knowledge of economy. The theory is very cleary laid out from the ground up. It`s a tough read but it`s full of examples and is very thorough.
Don't listen to the people here who tout ideology, they have just read their first intellectual book. Keep an open mind, even the hardest of liberals will find something interesting in Marx, as he was a solid thinker.

>>8586578
wew lad

>>8586540
Read this first for an overview of the development of classical political economy:
http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft367nb2h4&chunk.id=d0e36&toc.depth=1&toc.id=&brand=ucpress

>>8586940
That's completely and utterly false, Capital is a dense mess if you're not roughly familiar with classical economics

>>8586540
As someone who studied economics, I wish they taught us about the historical development of economics as a social science, instead of teaching us supply vs demand and the bell curve.

So, I'd suggest getting a textbook about the history of economics. From there, you can dwelve into the micro aspect of economics if you fancy.

Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell

Very easy read and super informative

>>8586718
None of those things are a problem. The problem has been the deregulation of private has lead to the consolidation of money, power and influence that we see today.

File: http___www.ratepublic.com_wp-content_uploads_2012_02_zeitgeist-addendum-2008.jpg (86KB, 340x397px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 340x397px

>>8586540

>>8587005

This. Thomas Sowell is a based economist.

Only thing I would add:

Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt

These two works should serve as an excellent introduction to economic thought. You can essentially ignore anything academic, practically all academic economics is just astrology at this point. Other thinkers worth indulging in:

Frederic Bastiat*
Thomas Malthus*
David Ricardo*
Eugen von Bohm-Bawerk*
Mises
Hayek
Hoppe

Those with stars are just before or contemporary with Marx and deal with many of the same issues, so they are useful for background. The latter are past Marx and work from the insight that the significant problem with communism and socialism is the problem of economic calculation. That said, I would really insist on getting to Hoppe before you move on to Marx. Hoppe links these strands of economic and sociological thought with Marx, showing which of his propositions are bunk and which are very useful (e.g. Marx' claims about class warfare).

I've found Ha-Joon Chang's Economics: The User's Guide is the most balanced introduction. There's enough recommendations in it to plan out further reading that suits your own particular interests.

I've found Ha-Joon Chang's Economics: The User's Guide is the most balanced introduction. There're enough recommendations in it to plan out further reading that suits your own particular interests.

>>8586540
Check out David Harvey's reading Capital course on YouTube

If by starter you actually mean starter, then I would recommend «The undercover economist» by Tim Harford, and Freakonomics by Dubner and Levit. In this type of books you get no formulas, and a massive load of the intuition which shows you how to think like an economist. They're both pretty easy and fast to read.

On the other hand, if you want a little bit more formal education, you should read something like the textbook «Introduction to economics» by Mankiw.

If you look for more books with zero formulas, easy to read, but discussing economics from the newest perspectives, and don't mind reading big books, I have two recommendations for you: 1) «Why nations fail» by Acemoglu and Robinson, and 2) «Capital in the Twenty-first centory» by Thomas Pikketty. These books oppose each other on their view of economics, and are fairly new. The book by Pikketty is even more relevant for two reasons: 1) it follows the idea (although updated) of Marx that capital keeps accumulating, and hence the capitalists shall gain even more power, and 2) it starts with a quick survey on the history of economic thought, including Marx.

File: descarga.jpg (2KB, 141x90px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 141x90px

I meant century

>>8587211

Economicsfag here. DO NOT read Freakonomics. There are too many errors that will only lead to misconceptions and confusions about economic thought.

It has been demonstrated that Piketty's math is fundamentally flawed and it completely invalidates his conclusions in Capital. Avoid.

Acemoglu and Robinson is okay though.

>>8586540
A principles of macroeconomics textbook. Then a principles of microeconomics textbook. Then an advanced macro textbook. Then an advanced micro textbook.

THEN you should start reading theoretical literature/full books. Get an understanding of the principles before you read very focused arguments for particular economic theories.

File: marxx.jpg (119KB, 566x566px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 566x566px

>>8587245
How is his math flawed? It's all very simple: r > g is simple enough to grasp. Most of the issues with Piketty comes from him being a NEOCLASSICAL economist. He equates capital and wealth i.e. there's no difference between machines in factories, housing and shares in companies. From this his research shows that in recent years: return on wealth > rate of economic growth
He claims because of this you see rising inequality... but if he actually distinguished between different types of "capital" and striped out financial assets Piketty would see that the capital-output ratio has actually stayed roughly constant. The value of financial assets has rapidly increased which is causing an increasing concentration of wealth at the top of the scale. The lack of real investments in fixed-capital has resulted in low growth, shrinking wages and growing inequality... but Keynesianism and Friedmanite economics are obsessed with TFP growth over actual total capital (constant and variable) growth so they cannot understand any of this

File: AlexGrey4.jpg (218KB, 1280x803px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 1280x803px

>>8587161
This dude knows what is up but he forgot the GOAT Rothbard!

>>8586540
You see why I recommended both books? Just a few minutes have passed and we already have people from both sides of the equation discussing.

>>8587245
No, it hasn't been «demonstrated» that his math was flawed. Some people have argued (sometimes pretty well) against it, but that's as sexy as it gets. I also like Acemoglu-Robinson.

>>8587280
In the book he said he intended to differentiate among different types of capital, but his data didn't allow for it.

File: 1474247442980.png (9KB, 508x193px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 508x193px

>>8586561
>>8587123
It doesn't matter what group you are in or what side you are on or what ideas you have. It doesn't matter and you don't matter.

>>8587154
Idealists are cucks, when you grow up you realize they are just selling their snake oil just like the politicians.

File: 1445207497696.gif (2MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x240px

>>8587154
>activist film festival

opinion discarded and dropped

>>8586540
Go to college and study economics, you numale fag

A 101 textbook.

Bernanke's Principle of Economics is a good one.

>>8587245
>Acemoglu and Robinson is okay though.

Not really. Their view is extremely simplistic and ignores critical factors like geography and genetics.

>>8586687

In the last 26 years, global absolute poverty has fallen from 37% to 9.6%.

>>8586540
The first volume of Capital is a fine starting point, not to mention a great read. There are some really good online lectures by David Harvey that I can't recommend enough.

http://davidharvey.org/reading-capital/

>>8588136
Have the standards for what defines poverty changed in the past 26 years?

Economics as it it studied in the West is a cult on the level that Marxist dialectical philosophy was a mandatory cult for intellectuals in the USSR and China.

Just about everybody outside of the insular and radically stereotyped Economics departments hates them and views them as cultists.

There is a big difference between "Economics" and economic history. "Economists" hate historicism because their cult tells them that Economics studies perennial, categorical aspects of human nature and The Free Market.

If you want to study economics, study historical economics, coming out of the German historiographical schools in the late 20th century and helping to birth a lot of different branches of social history, sociology, and economic history. Study Marxism too so you can understand Marxist frameworks in scholarship. But stay away from the Economics department unless you want to join the cult.

>>8588156
lmao

>>8588136
Since the 1980 African incomes have only declined.

not sure where you're getting your stats from.

>>8587245
How is his math flawed? I've heard this a few times.

If you read the second half of Capital it's really good. If you want to know the labour economics, some theory, and his empirical work + policy recommendations I highly recommend.

All of the inequality stuff you hear about in politics now is the stuff that he addresses in his books, like the sections on CEO pay, marginal tax rates and capital ownership.

>T ass blasted libertarian.

Don't read pleb economics like Sowell that is essentially 'much free markets' 'much liberty', and 'muh efficiency'.

Sowell is chicken soup for the pseud.

Is confessions of an economic hitman anygood?

>>8588156
suggest some books lad

>>8588419
Yeah, it's pretty good read. (Doesn't really pertain to this thread though)

>>8588421
You can see how broad-minded and well-versed in these schools he is.

>>8586980
>That's completely and utterly false, Capital is a dense mess if you're not roughly familiar with classical economics

For you

>>8586561
hmmm...and in the case of market failures who/what intervenes?

>>8589185
Nobody and nothing. You let it correct itself.

Wherever a piece of legislation is introduced in order to "correct" the market the problem becomes even worse and as it becomes worse the failures of the state is placed on the market, using it as an excuse for even more interventionism. You only need to look at policies implemented during the great depression which made things even worse. From the Smoot-Hawley Tariff to the National Industrial Recovery Act they only worsened the problem.

File: 1453301316586.png (603KB, 712x840px) Image search: [Google]

603KB, 712x840px

>>8587161
>academic economics is astrology
>austrian school isn't

OP make sure you read Keynes' The General Theory, Sraffa's Production of Commodities and some Post-Keynesian economists like Kalecki to not fall for these free market cultists.

>>8588419
Bairoch's Economics and World History: Myths and Paradoxes

Eichengreen's The European Economy since 1945

Maddison's Contours of the World Economy 1 - 2030 AD

Marglin and Schor's The Golden Age of Capitalism

>>8588421
Bairoch's Economics and World History: Myths and Paradoxes

Eichengreen's The European Economy since 1945

Maddison's Contours of the World Economy 1 - 2030 AD

Marglin and Schor's The Golden Age of Capitalism

>>8589240
Why would you base your economic philosophy on history or experience? Shouldn't morality and logic precede economics?

File: 1449905679116.jpg (20KB, 460x259px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 460x259px

>>8589240
>Unironically being Keynesian scum

>>8587154
I haven't seen that but isn't its conclusion basically techno-communism?

>>8589264
well it works dunit.

>>8589207
>le market is infallible

If governments had control of their own central banks and were able to make their own money (i.e. money that is interest free) a lot of countries would not be in the situation they are in now.

We have been living in a market that is essentially as free as it gets in the real world. The libertarian ideal of market freedom is just as Utopian as Marx's communism. It simply has not worked and has only lead to greater income inequality, a worse environment, and literally billions of people condemned to penury.

Free, open markets destroy nations and the people living in them.

File: 2b4fb21e8a7c7291d4c280e5fda642b57b57f394112fb6cdf4228d000db67652.jpg (27KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 640x360px

Is there a Chronological Economics reading list anywhere.

Google has provided me nothing.

>ctrl+f econometrics
>not a single result in this thread

hahahahahahahahahahaha

maybe start with spivak's "calculus" or casella and berger's "statistical inference" before moving to economics, desu

>>8586540
Hyman Minsky is your man.

>>8587161
These are what I call the head-in-the-sand economists, OP. They're worth reading, but only to understand why some people are so confused.

>>8586540
start with the greeks with aristotle. historical readings are always the best if you really want a near-autistic level of understanding

File: images.duckduckgo.com.png (470KB, 994x768px) Image search: [Google]

470KB, 994x768px

>>8589784
Plz respond

>>8589264
It could be worse. He could be reading Hayek or Friedman, the two men most responsible for the American right's confusion.

>>8589784
I can get started with some names mixed with political/philosophy because the first economists were moral philosophers. This is a list of people I am planning on reading so if anyone who knows more would give a critique of my list I'd appreciate it.

Locke and Rousseau (much less to do with economics and more to do with liberalism)
Smith and Hume (Scottish enlightenment)
Bentham and JS Mill
Ricardo (David not Ricky)
Hegel
Marx and Engels
Dewey and Veblen
Alfred Marshall
Mises, Hayek, Rothbard (Austrian School)
Keynes
Hyman Minsky
Friedman, Thomas Sowell

Sowell separates the men from the Marxist cucks.

>>8590328
Read an econ 101 textbook before delving into economic lit. You'll get much more out of the philosophical side of econ when you have some understanding of the functional side.

>>8589773
You're right, the only solution is national socialism.

>>8591307
I'd rather call it economic nationalism

>>8586540
Start with an economics textbook of an econ 101 course and go from there. Don't waste your time with Marx. Read technical books, avoid ideological books, avoid fringe trash like the Austrian school or Marxism.

File: only the dead can know peace from this ideology - zizek.jpg (83KB, 500x579px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 500x579px

>>8591449
>Read technical books, avoid ideological books
>Read technical books, avoid ideological books
>Read technical books, avoid ideological books
>Read technical books, avoid ideological books

>>8591278
I have read at least one and I'm familiar with the basic concepts already. I read a lot of contemporary essays and articles relating to economics and I don't have trouble understanding the arguments.

>>8591861
If you want to read Capital you should just read it. It would be impossible to get everything out of it in one read anyway, so the best way to start is to start. He synthesizes previous economic theory and gives a very systematic exposition, so there aren't really prerequisites.