Is there a /lit/ guide to Economics?

das kapital

>>9752344
There has to be a picture somewhere...

>>9752351
I tried searching but couldn't find it

>>9752355
How about you ask >>>/biz/

>>9752344
ECON 101

one subject that is truly better off not self-taught

>>9752378
They have nothing in their sticky. Should I make a thread? They don't usually respond to anything

>>9752399
Fuck off Lebowtiz

Marx, Schumpeter, Bohm-Bawerk, Keynes

>>9752408
Don't bother. /biz/ doesn't read econ books. It doesn't read books in general

Great movie btw.

econ in one lesson

>>9752344
Economics: A User's Guide by Ha-Joon Chang. It'll help you learn why guys like Hayek, Friedman, and Sowell got so much wrong.

Mein Kampf, Basic Economics, The Old Testament

>>9752378
>he thinks /biz/ knows anything other than shitposting about crypto

>>9752469
Was looking into this the other day. I'll pick it up, I guess.

What are you trying to learn out of Econ books?
>>9752445
This is a very good place to start.Alternatively, there's Sowell's Basic Economics, but I personally take Hazlitt.

>>9752348
fpbp

>>9752378
/biz/ is a bunch of children larping the wolf of wallstreet

>>9752578
they told me to buy BTC. Then BTC lost value and I lost the money.

We lost alot of money.

File: IMG_9901.png (888KB, 632x605px) Image search: [Google]

888KB, 632x605px

>>9752344
REEEEEEEEE STOP CONFLATING ECONOMICS AND FINANCE LEAVE LEAVE LEAVE

>>9752596
You're a dope if you lost money on bitcoin. Hodl

>>9752378
/biz/ is 99% consisting of threads where one person role play as thirty others in a thread to shill the shitcoin of the month

the other 1% of threads is some guy crying over losing his life savings after putting it all in the shitcoin of last month

Google Anton Kreil my dude.

>>9752348
this but unironically

get money and use that money to make more money

>>9752697
Anon I think he means economics grounded in reality not utopianism :^)

File: Exit,_Voice,_and_Loyalty_book_cover.jpg (24KB, 220x344px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 220x344px

There's a lot of bad shit out there. I liked Exit, Voice, and Loyalty

File: basic.jpg (18KB, 316x500px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 316x500px

>>9752344
This is good and explains things in clear prose.

I know /lit/ is going to say it's an ideological book, but actually, none of the material in here is controversial, at least to mainstream economists. You could also read Gregory Mankiw's textbook.

If you want heterodox, you just read Marx and the Austrians and whatnot.

>>9752724
You've never read any of the books in the economics section.

>>9752344
economics is a pseudo science; it's a bunch of horse shit

>t. studied economics

>>9753398
Economics doesn't have to be a science to not be horse shit you mongoloid

File: 1499490306942.png (110KB, 453x508px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 453x508px

>>9753406
Stick to your gender studies, cuckface.

>>9753411
>I can't understand economics so I must screech
It's ok anon, not everyone can.

>>9753411
nah, he's right.
Strathern's Dr Strangelove's Game: A Brief History of Economic Genius is pretty on point, but even if you just look at the case of Mansa Musa I of Mali, or the Domesday Book, you can see dicking around with economics to be the start of many disciplines and even the foundation or destruction of societies and/or economic instruments. Like you don't need John Law to be right for us to still have paper money, and the treasurer is never going to give you the note value in gold in exchange, it's the big lies that helps economics go by at all.

>>9753398
epic xDD

>>9752697
>against IP
>implying that Rand was a precursor to narcocapitalism
>smug Pinochet reference
>implying that he wasn't a statist
>Viking age Iceland - good thing that we still have Somalia
>Hans-Hermann Hoppe - can't tell the difference between Eigentum and Besitz
And this is why narcocapitalism is as bad as totalitarianism. It makes no difference between market and force.

>>9752408
99% of people just cannot grasp the absolute basics of neoclassical economics

>>9754545
>against IP
copyrights are literally useless
patents are mostly useless
trademarks are good

Try the "Origin of wealth" for complexity economics

>>9752763
How much of this book is explaining economics vs disproving government intervention?

I'm fine with the latter but I'd rather just a good rundown on economics, how it functions, basic principles.

That said, Basic Books is a solid publisher which hasn't let me down so far.

>>9753446
>the treasurer is never going to give you the note value in gold in exchange, it's the big lies that helps economics go by at all.
This isn't a "big lie" or even a lie at all, since literally nobody claims the government will give you gold for dollars. You're a moron if you think the economy depends on people believing the government will give them gold for cash since nobody believes it.

>>9754597
agreed

>>9754752
If you want to learn about the fundamentals rather than the arguments then don't read Economics in One Lesson yet. I only say this because it's the book that is recommended the most (by classical/libertarians at least) and it's basically one big response to interventionism. Great book, I recommend it, but it's mostly focused on disproving government intervention

>>9754776
uhh, so what you're saying is Hazlitt is what I don't want and Sowell's Basic Economics is what I want?

Not sure why nobody suggested this, but just buy a second-hand textbook:

-Mankiw
-Slomann
-Begg


If you have a background in maths and can grasp calculus quite well then try Hal R. Varian - Intermediate Micro with Calculus.

>>9752469
start with this, then check out Reinert's How Rich countries became rich and why poor countries stay poor.

Also, the Bad Samaritan too.

>>9754796
This

The only worthwhile books to teach you economics are textbooks.

>>9752399
You can certainly self-teach economics, the only barrier is wading through the politicized and pop-econ bullshit that floods the market. People are stupid and it's easy to say "Hey Shmuck! This book tells you how it REALLY is in the economy, unlike the FAKE NEWS!" People want to believe that econ is some mystical veil being pulled over their eyes to hide some hideous underbelly. In reality, econ is apolitical and only cares about efficient outcomes. Really, all econ problem no matter how large boils down to: are markets working efficiently. Left and right are irrelevant but people, especially people on the right and the Libertarian crowd, love to think that economics is inherently right wing when its not. Then you have all the pop books like Capital by Fagkety who sell even more poorly researched bullshit about complete non-issues. Then on top of all of that people consider finance books to be the same thing as econ books as if wall street and the stock market are the same as the federal reserve and the BLS.

ejmr is the best place for actual quality econ literature.

>>9752616
Underrated post.

>>9752596
You only lose if you sell

>>9752697
>ancap
>economics
lmaoing at your life desu senpai

>>9752723
finance != economics

>>9752763
Nothing is controversial because people don't give a shit about his books. It is ideological. Not the worst book you could read but no where near the best.

>>9752781
Which is why no one who seriously knows economics would buy books from the econ section at your local barnes you fucking plebeian.

>>9753398
>t. studied economics 101 and never further
ftfy

>>9753446
>muh gold
stop.

>>9754796
Seconding Varian

Start with the Greeks:
Xenophon's Economicus

>>9755026
>>muh gold
>stop.
Did you only recognise John Law's name, or are you agreeing Mansa Musa fucked up too? Because I wasn't advocating Law or Musa.

>>9754764
>but promissory notes were only a lie in the beginning
>that's why they're not lies now
uhhuh remember when libor had to shut down because of rates rigging, kid? it's all lies multiplied by lies, and without it, you're going primitive.

>>9755059
not him but you do have any books to recommend? i like your style

>>9755059
Framing it as a "lie" is misguided. It's about trusting the system. This is more appealing than stockpiling gold and building a bunker.

File: 1477541480875.jpg (92KB, 650x850px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 650x850px

>>9755116

wealth of nations
ay or nay

>>9755383
Yes but an abridged version

>>9755095
>I like your style
You like retarded conspiracy theorists explaining things they don't fully understand?
>>>/pol/

>>9755116
The great majority of these have literally nothing to do with economics you fucking retard.

>>9755484
take your pills, psycho

Man, Economy, & State by Rothbard

>>9755095
for style i'd say michael lewis (big short, liar's poker, moneyball) for a longer history strathern's book >>9753446
>>9755117
>trusting the system
have you met the people in the system? i'd trust a can of baked beans more.

>>9755717
I don't need to meet everyone in the system since it's bigger than any individual. I've paid for goods with money my entire life, I've not experienced hyperinflation, etc. I have no reason to doubt the financial system in a way that would alter how I go about my life. Speculating on the price of gold or a cryptocurrency? Sure. Altering how I go about my day because there isn't gold backing up the dollar? Nope.

what are some good intro books on finance and how finance is related to the economy?

>>9752344
Economics is just something you get or you don't

I haven't read a single 'academic' page on economics and I know more about it than the chucklefucks who claim to be 'economics professors' at universities

>>9755781
Are you really too young to remember the latest global crash? Have you even read Gibbons about Rome? What's so hard about saying "yes it's a lot of big lies that make it work"? You don't even need to worry about admitting the part about your pantywaist projections where you're just trying to grasp the last straws of "which of the three /pol/ stock characters do i argue with" just that you were wrong and need to not talk to people. If you don't like lies and the people who tell them to you, why are you in an economics thread on a literature board of some American's kids translation of 2chan? That's probably more lies than you can take for today before you try to bluff your way into convincing yourself the big lie isn't how it works, which isn't working out since I don't think even you believe you believe they're not just lies agreed upon.

>>9755702
Very much this. Every chapter is so dense but he's such a good writer you don't even notice.

>>9756372
/pol/ actually believes this.

>>9756563
>/pol/ actually believes whatever I say and think they believe.

File: biz.png (36KB, 854x345px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 854x345px

>>9755484
>finance has nothing to do with economics

t. undergrad "intellectual"

>>9756389
I will invest on fundamentals instead of getting my news off of zerohedge and going into cryptocurrency and precious metals. I worked through the last crash, and I will work through the next one. As Kyle Bass says, when the next crash comes, its not going to be an apocalypse. People will lose money. And then people will make money. Same as it has ever been. And those who shout hyperbole and claim the sky is falling will claim they are right, even though they lost any potential gains on long term shorts.

Just read (memorize and understand) all the material in some bachelors course from some repuatable university. It isnt that hard lol.<

>>9756372
This. Economics can only be understood intuitively, which is why so many economists, people who have spent their entire adult lives studying how economies function, fail over and over again to make accurate predictions. And some of them, such as Friedman, are in part responsible for the destruction of major economies. They may have studied economics but they were never able to grasp it intuitively.

I'm interested in developmental economics, or whatever field that studies how countries go from backwater shitholes to America or Singapore. i.e., what does it take to have a diversified, powerful, and resilient economy, what is the road to growth like, etc.

>>9757613
>i'll keep pretending the economy only happens to me
that's funnily enough why a lot of cities in the US are going broke gd/lk with that

File: MV5BOWNiMWE5YjctM2E4Ni00YjAzLTljZGQtZDcyNjNjOWE5NmQ0L2ltYWdlL2ltYWdlXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNjc4NTExMTk@._V1_.jpg (180KB, 1693x954px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 1693x954px

>>9752344
Undercover economist one and two.
Get he audiobook.

File: Capital in the Twenty-First Century ✆ Thomas Piketty © MultiSignos.jpg (45KB, 599x905px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 599x905px

>>9759273
This desu.
Also read pic related if you really want to learn something.

>>9752469
Good God, why would you recommend this garbage. Chang has been widely discredited for selectively abalysing countries that support his ideological neo-Keynesian bullshit.

His views represent the worst of the right and left rolled up into a ball of mediocrity

>>9759323
Listen to this guy op.

>>9759287
Don't read Piketty unless you can't understand the distinction between static and dynamic, and have no interest in learning

>>9759323
>Ha-Joon Chang
>neo-Keynesian
opinion discarded

>>9759329
What should I read instead? He seems to cover way more than others and actually uses real data to back his theories.

>>9759329
Do you have any proper argumets against this book? Not just ad personam bullshit?

>>9759344
>he doesn't know about Hollande's experiment
>millionaires and billionaires scrambling to leave the country by the thousands
>dropping tax revenues because somebody forgot about muh Laffer Curve
no goys we need MORE taxes, MORE redistribution, we didnt go FAR ENOUGH

>>9759333
>looks up Ha Joon Chang on wikipedia
>under "tradition" it doesn't say neo-Keynesianism
>haven't read any economics books so can only assume wikipedia is right
>REEEEEEEEE

>>9759349
So what book should I read instead? Even if he has flaws, it seems better than most of the stuff that is out there

>>9759352
Not an argument.

>>9759374
go ahead and read Piketty, I think it's a good attempt, it's just overrated and visibly wrong when it comes to recommending policy.

>>9755042
>Economicus
yep, read it if you want to read about how to teach your 15 year old wife how to take care of the household properly

>>9759347
Sorry lemme explain. Piketty focuses on static measures of inequality such as the Gini coefficient as the basis of his hypothesis. From that foundation, his work is okay I guess- he's been accused of misrepresenting data by many, but I don't really know either way.

The bigger issue is that this approach, though common among economists, is unsophisticated and wildly inaccurate. What matters with regard to inequality is the dynamic quantity. Are individuals equally able to change their wealth, or do only some have access to upward mobility. And inversely is the top too "sticky"- do rich folks have too much of a moat to keep them there.

When you miss this, you end up with incorrect conclusions about what works with equality. For example on a static basis, France looks far better than the US... but if you look at mobility, the reverse is true. Policies in France make it so that generally rich people stay rich while the poor stay poor. In the US, the top cycles out on a regular basis and poor people frequently move up. The majority of Americans will, at some point in their life, be in the top 10% with regard to wealth (though they probably won't stay there!).

To be sure, theres still big issues regarding this in America; in particular mobility is not evenly distributed across demographic/geographic groups, etc.

>>9759392
Thank you for this post. I will still read it, just because there doesn't seem to be anything better out there. But I will keep in mind what you told me.

How open is the educatio system in france? How easy is it to start a company/startup?

>>9752344
Well depends what you mean by "/lit/". If you want to seriously learn economics pick up a textbook like those written by Mankiw. If all you're interested in is flowery prose, but not actual economics, pick any of the garbage marxist books of your choice, like Naomi Klein's shock doctrine.

>>9759419
Piketty had erroneous results, because he is a retard who doesn't know how to use Excel probably. When confronted about it he refused to correct his mistakes. He is a fraud, and in addition is a despicable human being who regularly beats his wife.

>>9759443
You're talking about the Filippetti woman, right?
The most uncultured bint to ever grace the scenes of power in France - and trust me, there's been a long list of them - and she got named minister for Culture, the irony. Pity he didn't beat some sense and culture into her.

CF: Montherlant's analysis of medieval Romances - not the kind of courtly love your Auntie Mabel would approve of.

>>9759443
Ad hominem, bitch

Erik Reinert's work.

>>9759475
>Ad hominem, bitch
Is your brain dysfunctional? Did you not read the first part of my post?

>>9756372
Lmao
10/10 bait

>>9757587
>My list of unrelated PDFs will show him
My nigga I've got an MBA with a focus in public market financing. The only time anyone cares about actual economics is if something really fucks up like in 2007/2008. Everything else is small shit that no major cares about in day to day finance. Worst case some back office upstart or an intern finds a long term trend and notifies someone important.

>>9759127
Serious economists don't make predictions. Only pop-econ celebrities do. Real economists look at current or past events to better understand why or how they happened. At best they give a range of possible outcomes like you see with predicted GDP growth.

>>9759443
wtf I actually like Pricketti now

>>9759135
History of Economic Thought is pretty good but just Google boss about "stage economies." The reason the USA is so far ahead is because it was one of the earliest and best implemented Stage 3 economies.

>>9759287
Except this book is absolute garbage only published to push his own ideological viewpoints. It's the Guns, Germs, and Steel if economics.

Economics is basically meta-finance. There's no reason that somebody in finance needs to use principles of economics unless they're talking about either some oddly specific case studies in microeconomics or unless everything catastrophically fails in the country. Operating a business seems like economics, and it should be because it's about efficient management of resources, but it says nothing about how resources are distributed throughout a country, which is what economics is primarily concerned about.

>>9759533
I can't hear you through your tinfoil hat

>>9759530
Hmm, thank you for the recommendation. What about what "jobs", what "resources", what "industries", what "services", what "legal systems"/"infrastructure"/"regulations"/other support systems, what diplomatic relations, what political systems, etc.

>>9759475
>>>r/eddit
I fucking hate whoever pushed ad hominem into the spotlight of logical fallacies. People don't realize that it's total bullshit to criticize an argument for it like 99% of the time and the worst offenders of overuse are those retards on leledditxd

>>9759553
>Not giving credence to books that masquerade as academic study but are actually ideological pop garbage makes you a tin foil hatter
Wew lad...

>>9759555
The second part of this past is unreadable. Reformat and resubmit.

>>9759576
Sorry about that, I was trying to build upon the general themes here:
>I'm interested in developmental economics, or whatever field that studies how countries go from backwater shitholes to America or Singapore. i.e., what does it take to have a diversified, powerful, and resilient economy, what is the road to growth like, etc.

Is there anything investigating what are the necessary components of a growing economy? i.e., in a rough sense, what resources need to be there, what jobs need to be created (how many electricians, engineers, bureaucrats, etc.), what services need to be provided, what legal systems/infrastructure/regulations/and other support systems need to be in place, what political systems are best for economic interfacing between producers and consumers, etc.

>>9759598
Ah okay, so your biggest problem right now is that youre thinking like a planner. Ie economies are a math problem to be solved rather than an organism to be influenced. This is common from people with a literary linear-thinking background

You should read Hayek's brief and accessible "The Use of Knowledge in Society" to help you recognize the flaw in your thinking

I've already taken your basic microeconomic and macroeconomic courses, so I'm not interested in hearing a leftist tell me that incentives don't work or a right-winger telling me that market failures don't exist. It's not like the bedrock for effective capitalism had always existed in societies, right? So what is "flawed" about thinking how it came about in general and how to, socially, make capitalism function better in specific instances?

>>9759654
>>9759734
If anything thinking about systems is the complete opposite of linear thinking.

>>9759654
>>9759734
>>9759738
>Ie economies are a math problem to be solved rather than an organism to be influenced.
I'm still utterly confused by this comment. The latter is exactly the kind of thinking that led to my questions.

File: k8baD.jpg (137KB, 1001x388px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 1001x388px

>>9759564
It was /lit/tards who pushed it tho

>>9759598
You're thinking of economics or an economy as being something that needs to be built rather then a set of organic and abstract processes that we only classify as an 'economy' out of convenience. My original point will explain the things you're asking about not they do so from this more accuracy like abstract point of view. So like I said before Google "stage economy" or "stages of an economy." Typically these revolve around banking with stage three economies allowing people, investors, and organizations to trade risk via options. Generally there is no set amount of the things you're asking about before an economy becomes stage three except for the legality of it all.

>>9759800
>You're thinking of economics or an economy as being something that needs to be built rather then a set of organic and abstract processes that we only classify as an 'economy' out of convenience.
Some things do need to be built. Otherwise arise out of the circumstances of the the society that is trading resources. Do you think that market forces always dictated the efficient distribution of resources? Do you not believe in circumstantial roadblocks such as the "scissors crisis" during the late Russian Empire/early Soviet Union?

>spend your entire life working minimum wage while trying to write a novel that will make you rich over night.

There, /lit/s combined knowledge of economics.

>>9759734
If your basic into courses contained any type of ideology you have shitty professors. No flaw existed to make capitalism work, it's just the game given to market actions where a buyer and seller meet and exchange goods and services. Obviously market failures exist and there are ideological battles as to how to combat them but no serious economist would every say that no intervention is necessary much in the same way no serious economist would say the bailouts weren't necessary. As for making it function better it comes down to stopping market failures from taking place. Typically this comes in the form of preventing asymmetric information and missing market failures.

>>9759813
What you're saying and what I said are directly in line. I never said failures don't happen with these organic functions, in fact, it makes it highly likely which is why governments often have to step in to regulate certain markets. Not sure why you seem to think my original post implied differently.

>>9759832
>If your basic into courses contained any type of ideology you have shitty professors
My classes has been fine. I'm talking about that I know enough about the field to know that both sides are wrong or missing the point.

>If your basic into courses contained any type of ideology you have shitty professors
There was no recognizable capitalism before the early modern period. There were no systems to protect private property, no individualistic choices, no patent and other legal protections, relatively little in long-distance trade unless it was organized by a powerful institution, etc.

>>9759842
Because when I asked questions about learning the nuts and bolts that economies are built out of, you stated that it was flawed thinking, even though it should be a natural consequence of systems thinking that you praised earlier.

>>9759866
The post about flawed thinking was someone else interjecting. But you are still missing the point of what capitalism really is and how it relates to economics.

Just read Investopedia and Wikipedia articles. If you can't into logical thinking don't waste time.

>>9759900
I don't think so. You seem to think that it's one monolithic entity instead of just a method of distributing resources. Or maybe provide an argument that doesn't rely on attacking a straw man.

http://marginalrevolution.com/

>>9759598
>>9759654
>>9759734
>>9759800
>>9759813
I wrote a gigantic wall of text trying to clarify what I was trying to say in such a manner that it more obviously cohered with your line of thinking, so we could get somewhere without running in circles because I agree with what you're saying but don't see how it has anything to do with my concerns. Because it doesn't. Otherwise there would be no possible advice to give towards developing economies and no possible way to explain the gradual development of capitalism in the West.

Unfortunately, my browser crashed and all the work was deleted, and I've decided that I'll just have to wait for a better opportunity some other day. For fuck's sake, I fucking hate this shit. I wish economics weren't filled with cheap platitudes like "stages of an economy" that, despite being valid in a specific sense, obscure the various possibilities of efficient distribution of resources. There has to be some sort of framework developed or otherwise market forces aren't influential and don't dictate outcomes.

Do something like Hayek's the Road to Serfdom, Keynes' General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, Smith's Wealth of Nations for background, and Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions for a meta-perspective. Takes a lot of time but hey we're on 4chan clearly we have nothing better to do.

>>9760234
I've read Road to Serfdom, parts of Structure of Scientific Revolutions, and snippets of Wealth of Nations, at least enough to know that most people have no idea what they're talking about when it comes to Smith's opinions on trade.

I'll read the rest I guess. I have nothing better to do. But again, developmental economics seems like the bee's knees. I just wish I knew more about what it entails and what we can learn about general economics.

I've been studying chemistry at university, so I forgot how much I enjoyed the subject until I watched this short video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PWWtqfwacQ

>>9759323
>widely discredited

No shit. Every heterodox thinker is, until they aren't. Shame on you for trying to mislead someone who really wants to understand economics. In a field that is maddeningly dogmatic Ha-Joon Chang is a breath of fresh air.

>>9760371
Shut up, goyim. Neoliberalism is the best thing since sliced bread.

>>9752344

I dunno but I'm currently reading 'And The Weaker Suffer What They Must?' and am finding it very interesting.

>>9760185
I found out that developmental, institutional, and labor economics is probably where I should be looking into. Any book recommendations here for starters? I am familiar with basic micro and macro economics.

>>9752741
based Hirschman is a boss. I too enjoyed his book.

Economic history major here,

OP, the recommended reading depends on what you want to do with your knowledge. If you want to get into stock trading, it is more important to know the business you want to invest in rather than everything about finance. If you want to invest in steel, read books about the steel industry, get $1000 or more and try it. I don't know enough about any industry to invest in it, but a friend gets about half his income from stock trading and I trust his judgement.

If you want insight into policy making, you're probably going to want to familiarize yourself with models of different kinds. Start with an intro book to familiarize yourself with the terminology. I'm Swedish, so I have Vår Ekonomi by Klas Eklund. I don't know what English-language books there are out there, but you're going to want one written by a mainstream economist with plenty of government experience. Then you can go on to other stuff. Paul Krugman's blog is allegedly pretty easy to read if you know the terminology, and from there you can probably find others to read, both the people he admire and the ones he criticise. I have next to no knowledge about this part of economics and finance, so disregard this if it sounds whack, but this is how I would (will) go about learning more.

Lastly, you have economics as they are. This means letting go of the future and working with the past. To some extent you can speculate on the present, but this is more in the territory of category two. Economics aren't really something that exist in the present, which is the root of a lot of criticism. But if you want to know about "real" economics, study economic history. This means studying other parts of history and essentially a little bit of everything as well. I'm going to make a graphic for this one at some point, but start with Braudel's Civilization and Capitalism trilogy.

Gotta go to bed now, but I will make that infograph sometime soon.

>>9754796
>>9755034
This

>>9761620
just passing by this thread, but this poster deserves recognition. good luck with the infographic, sir.

>>9761620
>reading Paul Krugman's blog
Please, don't be spooked by this otherwise well-informed gentleman. Even if you are a Keynesian, his blog is literally nothing but him shilling for his brand of politics.

>>9756372
>magical thinking makes me a superior individual

no surprises here. this explains the market economy completely. its a religion. have faith or be cast out. humanity will always be doomed to be ruled by neurotypicals and their fabulist bullshit.

Anything pre 1950 is inrelevant, except some parts of Adam Smith

Lol someone actually suggested Krugman? Sad yet amusing.

>>9752719
What is this meme, where did it come from, and why do I only see communists say it?

>>9761652
>>9761679

Thank you, fellas.

>>9752344
Read Krugman-Obstfeld-Melitz, it's a dry textbook but contains the absolute basics for you to have any hope of understanding anything

>>9756372
0/10

From Political Economy to Economics, Milonakis & Fine

>>9752344
Try "The Literature of Economy" by A. Damaisse

>>9762975
>I know more about economics than a nobel prize winner

top pseud

>>9764996
>economist must know everything he is talking about and be right all the time because he has a magical nobel prize.
Nice argument from authority you have there.

>>9755003
I agree with much of your post, especially regarding "pop economics" and the perceived inscrutability of economics and finance, but...
>econ is apolitical and only cares about efficient outcomes
>people love to think that economics is inherently right wing when its not
I do not agree that economics as a social science is "apolitical". Yes, economics is primarily concerned with so-called efficient outcomes. However, the philosophical principles that determine what constitutes an efficient outcome are, in my opinion, politicized, although not in an obvious way. In the same way, some folks on /lit/ dislike "political" literary criticism (e.g. feminist, marxist) in favor of more traditional literary criticism which is apparently apolitical merely because its political agenda (status quo) is effaced rather than underscored. To say economics is apolitical is to make an ideological claim masking its political nature. You could practice a left wing economics founded on different assumptions but the assumptions made in mainstream economics are in fact right leaning. Simply put, modern economics often prioritizes the size of the pie over how big of a piece everyone gets. Yes, there are economic concepts to account for this like marginal utility, but I am speaking of the general ideological bias in mainstream economics.

t. degree in economics

>>9764996

I know more about literature than the nobel prize winner in literature.

>>9766595
Well depending on the specific prize winner this is very easy to believe.

File: Screen Shot 2017-07-11 at 2.31.06 pm.png (343KB, 627x422px) Image search: [Google]

343KB, 627x422px

A Brief History of Economic Thought by Vaggi Groenewegen and a few others.

Read this as part of my econs undergrad, gives a great overview of the relevant economists and how we got to where we are now from back in the day of stockpiling bullion. Read this then you can choose for yourself who you want to read after. Probably Wealth of Nations, Das Kapital and maybe some milton. Would recomend Marshal and Pareto personally.

If you were looking for general theory rather than history and shit then just get anything that has Basic Economics on the cover.

>>9768187
It's a Concise History of Economic thought not brief, my molesteak

>>9766591
>modern economics often prioritizes the size of the pie over how big of a piece everyone gets.

That's not true. In economics, efficient outcome of macroeconomic policies is usually measured not in GDP as such but in GDP per capita.

>>9752763
I second this recommendation
dr. sowell is a fucking beast

>>9752763
Would not recommend Sowell. In the light of the last few decades his work is becoming less and less credible. There's an ever widening gap between how Sowell thinks economies function and how they function in reality.