What can you tell about me by my modest economy/politics and

well i can tell youre a shit poster and in need of some of validation but thats about it

>>9038501
I can tell you probably didn't understand or read Kant, I can also tell that you have a very weak grounding in philosophy.

>>9038501
>What can you tell about me by my modest economy/politics and philosophy shelf?
You know very little about these subjects, lack any proper training in them, and are very insecure, needing approval and looking for a place to fit in.

>>9038561
I read it but I'm not sure on whether I understood him, myself. I think I started off on the wrong Kant book.

>very weak grounding in philosophy

Yeah, I am not that much into philosophy. I just pick things up every now and then.

>>9038564
Yeah, I'm a physicist by education (minor in economy and business). Definitely no formal training in political science or philosophy.

>needing approval
Not really. I didn't think a single shelf of books was going to inspire awe in anyone, but I was certainly curious whether people think it's a balanced selection.

>>9038584
>balanced selection
What do you even mean?

>>9038588
Well, I consider myself right in-between being a "alt-right cocksucker" and a "libtard cuck" and I'm just curious if my literature matches that or if people can tell that I'm leaning in one direction or whatever.

I was actually expecting people to claim I have some anti-American bias. Considering I'm not from the U.S., that might be actually true.

I have a hate-love relationship with the U.S.

>>9038501
the prize - Daniel yergin
the quest - Daniel yergin
end of history - fukuyama
line in the sand - james barr
coup detat - luttwak

these are just my recent reads, too many books too little time

You won't understand Keynes without reading David Ricardo, Carl Menger, and Irving Fisher, in that order.

Trust me it's a tough book.

>>9038601
>in-between being a "alt-right cocksucker" and a "libtard cuck"

If you think that's all there is to the political spectrum you have a long way to go.

>>9038584
>>9038564 here. Fair enough. I didn't actually zoom into your image, just made a harsh character judgment based on the fact that you posted a picture of your bookshelf.

>>9038601
Most of the books are pretty foundational for their subject, so even if you leaned heavily one way or another you'd want to be familiar with them anyway unless you were an actual idiot.

Even with something like Chomsky, owning it doesn't actually mean you don't disagree with everything he says.

>>9038620
David Ricardo - Principles of Political Economy
Carl Menger - Principles of Economics
Irving Fisher - The theory of interest as determined Impatience to spend Income and Opportunity to Invest It

>>9038616
>coup detat - luttwak

This one sounds super interesting. Thank you.

>>9038622
>Even with something like Chomsky, owning it doesn't actually mean you don't disagree with everything he says.

Yeah, he makes some good points but some of them came off a bit too aggressive and one-sides, especially in "Media Control". Perhaps because it's such a short book and he needed to be concise without arguing his points too much. In that book he bashed Bernays a lot, which is what motivated me to get his classic on public relations.

>>9038621
Yes, certainly. I just wanted to keep it simple.

>>9038620
>>9038628
Thanks, will do. I did actually read some Irving Fisher but don't remember reading anything from Ricardo or Menger (except perhaps some excerpts in uni).

Keyne's also mentioned a guy called Silvio Gesell. I read up a bit on him, although there doesn't seem much about him. His theories sound interesting, though. Might pick up one of his books also.

>>9038501
pretty random. you need more 'foundational' stuff.

btw i hope my shilling is what got you to pick up clash of civs

>>9038501
I can tell you're literally in first year college, probably a political science student. I admire that you're keeping your college course books, but it doesn't impress anyone here.

When you're into more obscure political philosophy, come back and then you'll probably be praised

>>9039868
Are you the Huntington poster I've been seeing around here lately? If so, kudos man.

>>9039885
No, I am not.

I'm >>9038584
>Yeah, I'm a physicist by education (minor in economy and business)

I'm 27, working as a software developer.


>>9039868
>'foundational'

Such as? And nah, I picked up Clash of Civs because of a friend trashed it and I thought that if someone I consider smart hates it that much, then there's gotta be something interesting in there.

>>9038501
>DAS KAPITAL

German?

>>9039955
>Such as?
Plato, for one.

>>9039909
Yeah. thanks bro

>>9039976
The book or me?

The book is in German. Most of the ones with the titled edited in are in German.

I'm not German. Am Kebap.

>>9040013
I tried reading 'Republic' a few years ago but I got super bored.

>>9040045
i dont blame you.

try reading euthyphro, apology, and symposium. see where that gets you.

I can tell your someone who exposes themselves to different opinions

>>9040054
Thank you. Will check it out.

>>9040062
I try to, yes :)

>>9040045
>cant even read seminal political philosophy work
>thinks he can skip ahead to modern political philosophy and understand it

uhh you might want to kys desu

>>9040071
:(

Well, I am trying to read and understand as much as I can. I know I am jumping back and forth but frankly I consider this way better than trying to read some Greek philosophy, to find it boring as fuck and then to go "Well, guess I don't need to bother reading any modern philosophy books then"

>>9038501
>>9040109
>"Well, guess I don't need to bother reading any modern philosophy books then"

Why DOES anybody have to read this junk? I can understand it if your'e reading it for college but outside of college most of those books in your shelf are a waste of time.

Even polisci students just BARELY read them enough to write their papers and once they're out of college they forget everything.

>>9040013
I think I have Clash of Civilisations somewhere. I just need to get around to reading it while I'm not busy with academics. That, or I need to justify my reading the texts by writing a review or a few papers out of what I've read.

>>9040117
Well, I started reading those kind of books because I wanted to be a more wholesome adult. Understand the world and so on.

I got into economics because of my ex-girlfriend at the time. She was an anarcho-capitalist and we'd often fiercely argue about economics and politics. Since she was an econ major, I often caught myself thinking "Maybe she is right about the things we disagree on but I am too uneducated in economics to see it". So, I picked up econ.

And once I read economics, I also picked up politics. You can hardly get economics without some politics, because as Robert J. Shiller puts it:

>"[E]conomics [is] necessarily focused on policy, rather than discovery of fundamentals. Nobody really cares much about economic data except as a guide to policy: economic phenomena do not have the same intrinsic fascination for us as the internal resonances of the atom or the functioning of the vesicles and other organelles of a living cell. [...] The problem is that once we focus on economic policy, much that is not science comes into play. Politics becomes involved, and political posturing is amply rewarded by public attention."

>>9038501
>actually reading economics of multiple schools instead of reading only socialist/keynesian/libertarian to affirm your worldview
100% patrician

>>9040117
If you can't figure that out yourself you're an idiot and should go back to whatever shitty board you came from.

File: 1470689305842.jpg (36KB, 350x464px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 350x464px

>>9038558
>>9038561
>>9038564
Three fpbp in a row.

>>9038501
>no Hazlitt
>no Bastiat

>"I have a hate-love relationship with the U.S."

You are almost beneath contempt. Almost. Fortunately for me, only inconsequential ramblings drop from your half-wit mouth. Carry on, slime.

>>9040216
That was actually pretty important to me! I went into economics without having an ideology. I definitely slightly lean a certain way but am absolutely open for new ideas often finding myself trying to combine principles of various schools of thought. In fact, I think ideologies are detrimental in economics, much like in the hard sciences.

>>9040247
>Hazlitt
>Bastiat
>dae evul gubbermint taxing my cheetos

Might as well read Rand and complete the three musketeers of retarded trio of economic misunderstanding

>>9040271
>I think ideologies are detrimental in economics, much like in the hard sciences.

Someone understood Plato. Patrician confirmed. Apologies for going so hard on you just now. Hazlitt and Bastiat, and John Stuart Mill to accompany your Paine, would be the more foundational works someone mentioned earlier.

>>9040283
>three musketeers of retarded trio

wat

>>9040247
Those seem very Libertarian-leaning. I don't mind it too much. I think Libertarianism is very interesting, even though I cannot fully identify myself with it.

Will check them out, thank you.

>>9038501
ok, first of all I don't trust people who have huge tomes like das kapital and wealth of nations but no supplementary material. it looks like they bought it just to seem smart, and they sit there largely unread.

you also have stuff like the art of war and the art of happiness which both seem like niche bullshit to me.

Huntington absolutely blows, especially clash of civs, unless you're one of those deus vult faggots. bringing up huntington is an easy way to get laughed out of any serious conversations

The propoganda stuff is good and you have some solid philosophy in there, but I'd focus more on whatever more specific interests you have instead of trying to cover every base at once.

>>9041669
>Huntington blows

>>9041669
>Huntington absolutely blows, especially clash of civs

you'll never be able to keep up with the rat race that is polite society, no matter how hard you try

Econ:
Mark Fisher - Capitalist realism
Paul Mason - Postcapitlism

Philosophy:
Machiavelli- Discources on Levy

>>9042622
>Paul Mason - Postcapitlism
Are you a retard?

>""""economics""""

>>9038501
No free to choose and Capitalism and freedom? Friedman is the greatest economics communicator to lay people in history

>>9042626
Did the long wave theory trigger you.

>>9040216
The only viable worldview is new keynesian though. It takes all the good bits of economic schools and combines them together

Some from the Austrians, some from the neoclassical, some from the keynesian, some from the monetarists, and, most importantly, nothing from the marxists

>>9042634
>Paul Mason - Postcapitlism


"He graduated from the University of Sheffield with a degree in music and politics in 1981 and trained to be a music teacher at London University Institute of Education, after which he undertook postgraduate research into the music of the Second Viennese School at the University of Sheffield until 1984"

Oh he's totally qualified

Economics:
Bad Smaritans - Ha-Joon Chang

Politics/World Affairs:
Killing Hope - William Blum
The Politics of Heroin, 2nd or 3rd ed - Alfred W. McCoy
Dirty Wars - Jeremy Scahill
Kill Chain - Andrew Cockburn

Greeks:
The Histories - Herodotus
The History of the Peloponnesian War - Thucydides

>>9042641
> Ha-Joon Chang
Ha-Joon Chang is a fucking joke

>>9038584
>Definitely no formal training in political science or philosophy.
as a physicist you should at least be able to see that they are not sciences, and if you exercise some critical thinking you should be able to detect that the prevailing accepted economic frameworks - neoliberal economic reforms - are designed to concentrate wealth and power at the top at the expense of everyone else

>>9042647
Your mom is a fucking joke

>>9042651
At least give him recommendations of someone who isn't a whackjob i,e ""heterodox"

>>9042660
how is he a whackjob or """heterodox"""

>>9042638
You, a NEET 4chan shitposter, who reads plato in his moms basement.

Oh you're totally qualified to dismiss political reporters.

>>9042663
He's pretty much the only supporter of protectionism left in the field

Anon thinks anyone who points out the blatently apparent failings of neo-liberalism is a "wacko"

Seriously, if you're reading of economics isn't underpinned with a critism of the neo-liberal order it's worthless.

>>9042666
Why does it matter who I am? It's obvious that you shouldn't recommend someone an "economics" book with someone not even remotely qualified to even discuss it in the public sphere. You're just trying to push an agenda.

>>9042671
>if you criticise neoliberal economic reforms you're a hermit

>>9042673
Bu then its pseudoscientific bullshit anon, you don't read pseudoscientific bullshit, do you?

File: boss chomsky.jpg (31KB, 396x594px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 396x594px

>>9042673
muh nigga

>>9042678
>If you ignore the overwhelming evidence and consensus that free trade is a good thing you are a hermit
Wow yes I agree with that anon. At least now it's clear you're pushing an agenda

File: drill.jpg (34KB, 500x363px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 500x363px

>>9042683
>if you disagree with me you're pushing an agenda

>>9042687
>if you choose to propagate someone who disagrees with overwhelming evidence and consensus you are pushing an agenda
I don't see the issue here

What is it about economics that makes it flypaper for pretentious pseuds? It's still a murky social science.

>>9042687
If I chose to cite books to OP which deny the holocaust, in spite of its overwhelming evidence, would I be pushing an agenda?

>>9042692
>unless you agree to an economic system that concentrates wealth and power at the top and deprives the rest of society of political influence not to mention workplace health and safety regulation, union membership, environmental protection, healthcare, and education - then you are pushing an agenda

File: 1466018158058.jpg (40KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 400x400px

>>9041669

>Huntington absolutely blows. . .bringing up huntington is an easy way to get laughed out of any serious conversations

Tell me about all the serious conversations you've had.

>>9042696
powerful people want a particular model that benefits them
there is a lot of money and prestige rationalizing and disguising this

>>9042699
Anon, I'm starting to think you are a retard. Please stop strawmanning like that. There are plenty of economists who you would consider as "neoliberal" against deregulations and income inequality. The fact is however, that free trade has an overwhelming consensus backed up by overwhelming evidence. You have chosen to cite someone who disagrees with that consensus and evidence, evidently because it suits your worldview.

File: get out.gif (991KB, 241x170px) Image search: [Google]

991KB, 241x170px

>>9042697
Goodwins Law
We can all go home folks, this thread is OVER

>>9042701
Wow anon you are starting to sound like a climate change denier. I hope you realise that most economists work at universities and not in the private sector

>>9042710
except we dont engage in free trade

the so-called free trade agreements are complex agreements between powerful multinationals to protect some sectors and exploit others
good example of NAFTA is American government subsidised corn flooding into Mexico, driving the campesinos off the land into factories in the cities to be exploited by American manufacturers - or staying and growing weed.

>>9042712
You are clearly losing the argument anon, would you like me to liken you to a climate change denier instead? You are certainly taking all the point that climate change deniers use

>>9042718
many of those same interests and think tanks pushing neoliberal economics and deluding people about its supposed freedoms are the same people and corporations pushing climate change denial

Anon, don't bother with these neo-liberal cucks, just laugh at the fact that they take economics so seriously despite having such specious knowledge.

>>9042722
think tanks pushing neoliberal economics also push climate change denial

>>9042696

B-but it's about money and not feelings so it can't be wrong!

File: income inequality decreasing.png (300KB, 3001x2146px) Image search: [Google]

300KB, 3001x2146px

>>9042720
And they get punished by the WTO for doing. Rich countries often protect their workers because it cools potential political stirrings. I'm glad that you brought up that, because in spite of all these clauses and regulations which clearly suit western and US interests, poorer countries are the ones most adamant in pursuing free trade, even with these losses.

Why do you think this is? Have you done any research into the effects liberalising trade on poorer nations? I'll show you a grow now that might make you reconsider your worldview

>>9042727
>>9042727
And since you've somehow come to the conclusion that universities are shill think tanks, I guess that must just mean that neoliberal think tanks are propagating climate science? Anon my point was that you are using the exact same rhetoric that climate change deniers use. Seriously, you've just called practically every university in the world a shill think tank. Let's grow up a little now

>>9042730
show you a graph*

>>9038501
U need aristotle in ur life

>>9042680
All economics is pseudoscience

>>9038501
You can't just pick up shit like CPR and Kapital without a strong background in phil. You need to start with something more foundational. All that philosophy and no Plato...

>>9042886
Thankyou for your uninformed opinion anon, I really appreciated it (not)

Nothing

>>9042938
Not OP but Plato can be read online for free

>>9042700
Hello Huntington poster. I am your biggest fan!

>>9042941

Not that guy, but it clearly is. It's not worthless, but it's most definitely not science, having literally zero predictive power.

>>9044262
>having literally zero predictive power.
kek, its very predictive just cant predict psuedo random events like short term fluctuations in business cycle

>>9044262

Despite mapping the human genome completely, we can only predict someone's height with an accuracy of 15℅. According to your criterion, genetic s is not a science.

>economy shelf
>not reading Angus Maddison

File: AlbrechtAltdorferBattleOfAlexanderAtIssus.jpg (4MB, 1500x1978px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 1500x1978px

>>9040291
how did he confirm plato with this?

>>9044262
I guess meteorology is a bullshit science because they didn't get the weather correct today, most climate models haven't tracked global warming perfectly either. Predicting recessions is only a small subset of economics. The science is still young and by no means perfect, but if you are siding with the one person who is going against the consensus AND the evidence, or someone who hasn't even studied economics (ffs), then all you are doing is pushing an agenda

>>9041669
>The propoganda stuff is good and you have some solid philosophy in there, but I'd focus more on whatever more specific interests you have instead of trying to cover every base at once.

Hello pseud. The media and propaganda books are some of the most pseud garbage on that shelf.

>>9042723
Anon, protectionism is inefficient almost all the time. You can make some exceptions for developing infant industries but you're pushing a heterodox position.

>>9042712
invoking goodwins law hasnt been relevant in 4chan for ages. everyone here is a nazi sociopath to some degree, and its unspokenly acknowledged, if not embraced outright.

>>9044262
This is the stupidest fucking argument in the world.

The current investment and long-term investment decisions are derived from whether or not the interest rate is growing at a rate faster than the marginal efficiency of capital curve (then you would save, not invest) or whether the interest rate is growing at a rate faster than itself compounded (then you would sacrifice your long-term investments for liquidity)

Fuck the retards who don't take economics seriously, if you don't read Keynes and understand at least a little of what I've just said then what is the point?

Trust me OP, Keynes goes off on Classical economics but Ricardo specifically in the index of the fourteenth chapter. I would recommend Ricardo's Principles on more of the basis so you understand his view of rent and the inverse relation of labor/profit which differed from Smith drastically. Especially seeing his view on Countries' specializing in goods' being immutable for long periods of time heavily influencing J.S. Mill in his views in his Principles.

Irving Fisher is extremely important for understanding a lot of what Keynes agrees with in Neoclassicism.

And although he disagrees with the Austrian school at times, Carl Menger's theory of marginality is KEY. Fucking KEY to his economic ideas. Plus he criticizes multiple elements of Austrian economic theory including the idea of subsistence funds and production cycles, so reading some Austrian economics would be good.

Welcome to one of the most intelligent, well developed theoretical fields to study.

>>9046495
Answers must be arrived at by experience and consideration. Ideologies, hand-me-down answers, that are referred to but not understood are dangerous in general but especially in matters of the public. Socrates didn't want us to deify him, he wanted us to think for ourselves.

>>9038501
That looks like a crappy version of capital

File: mises-bitches.jpg (12KB, 300x263px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 300x263px

People actually taking Austrian school of econ seriously are retarded. And then the same fucks go on about how economics is a science.

Meanwhile the champions Mises and Hayek go on and on about how their retarded theories are not based on reality and thus cannot be proven to be wrong.

>[My theory's] statements and propositions are not derived from experience. They are, like those of logic and mathematics, a priori. They are not subject to verification or falsification on the ground of experience and facts.

-- Mises

>literally saying facts don't matter

If idiots like these can become important "thinkers" in your field, your field is retarded.

Economics is as much as a science as psychology. Case-study after case-study, barely any controlled repeatable experiments and theories that can't predict shit. Funnily enough, those two retarded fields managed to converge their bullshittery and formed "behavioural economics".

>>9049091
>not understanding a priori knowledge
>thinking Popper was right because his ideas have been institutionalized

I've never even heard of Mises, but I might read him now. Thanks for the rec, buddy.

>>9049104
>>not understanding a priori knowledge

A priori assumptions and the following deductions are not scientific. That's the point of the post, you imbecile.

If inbreds like you had any idea of logic, you'd realise that the biggest issue with a priori assumptions is that if the initial assumptions are wrong, you can logically deduce anything.

>The story goes that Bertrand Russell, in a lecture on logic, mentioned that in the sense of material implication, a false proposition implies any proposition.

>A student raised his hand and said "In that case, given that 1 = 0, prove that you are the Pope."

>Russell immediately replied, "Add 1 to both sides of the equation: then we have 2 = 1. The set containing just me and the Pope has 2 members. But 2 = 1, so it has only 1 member; therefore, I am the Pope."

This is quite literally the entire thought process of the Austrian school of thought. And it is ironic that Mises would compare this to mathematics, because Austrians think that mathematics is voodoo that doesn't belong in econ.

Maximum retardation.

>b-b-but econ is a science

kys

>>9049113
>Austrians think that mathematics is voodoo that doesn't belong in econ.

This can't be true. Wtf?

File: Old-books-library-knowledge-high-resolution.jpg (709KB, 3000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

709KB, 3000x2000px

>>9042718
>it's just a coincidence that these rich fucks want to get rid of taxes, welfare, worker's rights, regulations
>they totally want it, because they think it will benefit everybody

How do free market advocators claim that everybody acts in their own best interest and then tell people with a straight face that all those rich fucks want all that shit for the common good?

>>9049113
Science makes tons of a priori metaphysical assumptions, such as causation. Read Kuhn you pseud fuck. In fact, read Hume and Kant first, since you apparently haven't. That should be required to even post on /lit/.

>>9049133
>causation is a metaphysical assumption

Causation, as a subset of determinism, is based on observation. In fact, the entire idea of it is in theory falsifiable (e.g. by observing a truly random event). It needs to be, if it is to be part of the scientific discourse. Everything else goes into philosophy and there you can deduce and rationalise whatever you want but nobody cares.

There's virtually no truisms and certainly no ""metaphysical a priori assumptions"" in the sciences. As Feynman put it

>The truth might be like an onion. Layer after layer and we might never find a core on which everything else builds on.

File: kek.jpg (57KB, 558x720px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 558x720px

>>9049129
>How do free market advocators claim that everybody acts in their own best interest and then tell people with a straight face that all those rich fucks want all that shit for the common good?

It depends on what you mean by "free market advocators". If you're talking about fringe groups like Libertarians (in the economic sense) or AnCaps, then the answer is simple: They're idiots that think that if it weren't for the evil government, they'd be living grand lives. Basically adults that never grew past the rebellious teenager stage.

>>9049159
The notion of causation as a possible mechanism for the interaction of objects is known a priori. You can't learn it through observation, you can only identify relationships as causal or non-causal in nature. If a truly random event occurred, as you say, scientists would not see it as violating causality any more than they see an inaccurate horoscope as doing so. They would simply integrate it as being uncaused, if they even acknowledged that aspect of it, and proceed to investigate what sort of things it itself causes.

If you're not just trolling, I'd suggest you stop reading meme authors. Feynman was very funny and a good scientist, but if you try to extract any meaningful philosophy of science from him, you'll never get anywhere. Apocryphal stories about Bertrand Russell are just... I'm not even going to go there.

Peter Kropotkin - The Conquest of Bread

pretty easy read, definitely recommend if you're interested in fringe politics

>>9049186
>The notion of causation as a possible mechanism for the interaction of objects is known a priori. You can't learn it through observation, you can only identify relationships as causal or non-causal in nature. If a truly random event occurred, as you say, scientists would not see it as violating causality any more than they see an inaccurate horoscope as doing so.

Holy shit, this is such inane drivel. Of course you "learn it" (whatever that means), through observation. Observation is the main principle of empiricism, which is what the scientific method builds on. Causation, much like any scientific theory, is only that - a falsifiable theory. It is not an a priori assumption, nor axiom, nor truism. If you go more abstract than that, you're in the realm of philosophy, which is by definition not scientific and at that point you might as well go debating shit like "Are things things?" and arguing that logical paradoxes are only unsolvable because of "a priori assumptions of logic". But again, that's not scientific and any field that employs that kind of thinking to then come to real world applicable deductions is simply retarded.

Also scientists do very much question determinism, and by extension causation, whenever seemingly probabilistic of outright random events occur. The fucking uncertainty principle is like the poster child of the whole determinism vs free will debate.

I don't know what you read but you certainly need to read more. The fact that you can't understand that the Russel story is about the propositional logic and there to embellish my point of a priori assumptions having no place in science is outright embarrassing.