The Wealth of Nations

>>9120382
>is this book still relevant today, and is it worth the read?

Yes, no.

File: 9781479210213_p0_v1_s192x300.jpg (12KB, 192x248px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 192x248px

Books I, IV, and V imho f@m

After that you will read Ricardo or J.S. Mill's Principles (pick one), Carl Menger's Principles of Economics, Henry George's Progress and Poverty, something by Irving Fisher, and then finally read fucking Keynes' General Theory (do this you fucking asshole you probably won't understand it even or maybe you will holy shit)

ignore >>9120410

>>9120450
>Keynes' general theory or Irving Fisher's mathematical statistical analysis of economics is too complex for my puny brain
It's one of those two, guaranteed.

IGNORE >>9120454 AS WELL

>>9120501
I am 4chan you stupid bitch.

Now you either read and try to comprehend Keynes or gtfo.

ignore >>9120508

>>9120522
>being a libertarian

>>9120382
Its worth reading.
But ignore>>9120450 >>9120501 >>9120522

>>9120382
Get a real fucking economics book, that teaches modern economics, using math. Books like The Wealth of Nations are nice for historical reasons but you're going to have very incomplete knowledge.

>>9120647
Agreed. I liked the book because of the history.

On a coincidental note, I also read Charles Mackay's Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds for an economic reason, and it was interesting because of that, that's for sure, however it was also interesting for historical reasons as well. Same with J.S. Mill's Principles.

All of the realllly old economics/sociological books are history books also, which was fucking awesome. But you're right, the new mathematical analyses of economics is fascinating. Huge improvements in the livelihoods of the inhabitants of nations is simply due in some cases to following directions as stipulated in the extremely complex theories of Keynesian or Modern economists.

The part that is worrying to me about Austrian economics is that there is little to no application, and if there is a suggestion for an application, it is almost always linked to past systems, like a completely recursive, conservative approach to economics. Seems counter-intuitive.

>>9120679
>The part that is worrying to me about Austrian economics is that there is little to no application, and if there is a suggestion for an application, it is almost always linked to past systems, like a completely recursive, conservative approach to economics. Seems counter-intuitive.
The vast majority of economists at top institutions don't take Austrians too seriously. They are basically localized to GMU and the Internet, where they are hugely overrepresented due to low barriers to entry - Austrian thought it basically just words, no math.

>>9120689
>Austrian thought it basically just words, no math.
And I typically have no problem with this, but the issue I have is that they typically have a political message to send.

Communism was part of Carl Menger's original philosophy, many Austrians do not mention this, or even quote this when they reference him. By far the best ''''''''Austrian''''''''' economist is Menger (if you don't include Schumpeter in the list). His concepts of Marginality were integral in Fisher's Mathematical Investigations and Keynes' General Theory.

>>9120713
Best Austrian was Mozart by far.

>>9120647

>economics

>using math

Kill yourself.

I hate Adam Smith so much. For eleven years now, any time any classmates have had an economics class:
>Hey Adam, we read about you in class today
>Hey Adam, I didn't know you wrote books
>Hey Adam, nice invisible hands

ENOUGH

>>9121048
This bur unironically