How much of this book is a rundown on economics and how much

>>9805717
>>9805717

the discipline of economics is structured as a defense of capitalist interests/a critique of socialism

it is both.

>>9805780
well, it's like 700 pages, i want to know if im better off getting an economics textbook

>>9805787
>Basic

>>9805780
So, what you are admitting that an economist cannot be a socialist?

>>9805795
what

>>9805780
Economics grad student here.

That's retarded, look up John roemer and the analytic Marxists.

Also, economists don't critique socialism, they try to find theories which work in the world, and the world is more or less free market. So at best most economic THEORIES critique more / less forms of government spending or regulation or the like, and there are economists who would support more government spending.

Criticising socialism is quite another beast entirely, some economists sometimes do that in articles/books to the lay public but there isn't much that can be said about that in the academic sense (that is, in journals), and therefore nothing that be said that can establish an economist's reputation academically.

Arguments against socialism are usually confined to more informal arguments that can't rigorously be considered true.

This is unlike Marxian socialism in particular, the entire Marxian system was generally considered null because of the contradictions inherent in Marx's LTV, basically the transformation problem, (see the beginning of Ronald Meeks "Studies in the Labour Theory of Value").
So THAT economists don't even read up about now, except the Temporal Single System interpretation guys who have a peculiar interpretation of the transformation problem or some Marxists who decide to scrap the LTV entirely and focus on other things Mark said.

I don't even know why I bother replying to econ threads...

>>9805797
I am the same poster as above, that guy is retarded.

>>9805816
>they try to find theories which work in the world, and the world is more or less free market.
>there isn't much that can be said about that in the academic sense (that is, in journals), and therefore nothing that be said that can establish an economist's reputation academically.


it's almost like you're saying economics as a discipline is structured as a defense of capitalist interests/a critique of socialism

>>9805787
Same guy as above, no shit you are.

Tell me would you expect to learn physics or chemist's or mathematics or statistics from a book that you could real on the plane or as nighttime reading?

Economics books are mainly meant for people without an economic background, and that too never aim to teach them economists, the same way you can TRY and give someone an insight into so and so scientific finding via a book but can never teach them science.

Pick up a random economics paper from say Econometrica (leading journal) and see how much you understand.

Truly understanding economics to the point where you can have an intelligible discussion with an economist can only happen by understanding a vast conceptual background, which would also require rather sophisticated methodological tools (mathematical and statistical).

These can only be learnt via formal study or something close to that (textbooks would be an introductory step even, actual economists would look to journals and research papers to expand knowledge, this is what you have to build up to).

I haven't met a single person who has done this without studying economics formally, those interesting enough usually change streams and do higher studies in economics if their bachelors was in something else and they were interested enough to familiarise themselves with economics on the side.

>>9805824
No, putting out a theory that describes how a table is standing on four legs is not "defending" the optimality of a table standing on four legs, neither is it saying or critiquing the validity of a three legged table being able to stand.

Economic theories are positive, not normative, when getting into normative spheres economists who teach usually are very keen to put their hands up and say "so these are the issues".

Are you trolling me?

>>9805717
Why don't you read it and find out OP :^)

>>9805848
>Economic theories are positive, not normative

you're a grad student in economics and you still think this?

comparatively, you think that an economy is as complex as a table?

the answer to both questions should honestly be no. if you cannot see how teaching, for instance, that wages are always and everywhere determined (naturally? such is the language of positivist theory) by market forces, is a normative claim, then you really do not have the philosophical rigor to consider the distinction between those terms.

let's take a typical economist's argument: a govt. mandated rise in the minimum wage will be compensated by a fall in the demand for money which will eventually bring its value to equilibrium levels—ie, goods will get more expense. this is bandied about as a positive claim. and it is true that it will happen. but insofar as economists refuse to ask the question of whether or not that is "right" or even "correct," and as long as they couple this with (what you have already pointed out many times amounts to) imposing a regime of silence on such questions, they tacitly make the normative claim that studying the movement of money in society "should not" deal with issues of who ought to get what. if i can hazard an analogy: economists are satisfied to watch a man burn and conclude that his environment is hot. they won't make a normative claim about what to do for him, but WILL make a normative claim that they "should" "put up their hands" and do nothing.

>are always and everywhere determined

No self respecting economist makes such a claim.

Also, cut the jabs bud, I'm studying at a pretty prestigious school so I've gotten barked at by people much more qualified than you, you're not going to phase me.

>>9805848
Nigger he's advocating the LTV, does it really matter if he's trolling or just has an IQ of 6?

>>9805926
>a govt. mandated rise in the minimum wage will be compensated by a fall in the demand for money

I don't believe you know which exact theory your trying to make a point with?

There is no one economics, I've seen many professors be thoroughly confused when a student (usually always a freshman) accuses him of being a part of some large camp of neoliberal economists as if they all have the same beliefs.

File: 1500226547673.jpg (24KB, 277x296px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 277x296px

>>9805717
>thomas sowell

>>9805963

how to dodge questions of disciplinary ideology

1. Appeal to abstract authorities, like the canon of economic theories, to avoid answering an argument.

>which exact theory

Does it matter? We're supposing it for argument's sake, a common practice in all inquiry. In economics they call it cetaris paribus.

2. After appealing to an abstract authority, ensure that there is no such thing.

>There is no one economics.

But there is one body of "theories" from of which I must "know exactly" and with which I must "make a point" in order to communicate you. Again, this contradiction is illustrative of the same one I'm trying to draw out of economics by means of this (imaginary, irrelevant) example: that economists both will and will not make normative claims about their "science." You will claim norms are not allowed in economics. But you will not claim that the previous claim is itself normative. Or at least you will dodge doing that by...

3. Import random, non-sequiturial, positional value judgements.

>(usually always a freshman)
>large camp of neoliberal economists

You have no idea what my academic standing is, nor have I made any claims about your particular economic camp or theory. Although you clearly do not think this is the case (you think, for instance, that the theoretical groundwork for my hypothetical statement about wages matters), I am making claims about your discipline, however, which you are refusing to answer. They are that your discipline openly avows normative claims but secretly abides them, secretly because ideologically.

>>9805833
I cannot image a specific reason Economics would be some special discipline one could not adequately self-teach. Could you elaborate further?

Economics is a fucking useless subject, and the only people that "study" it are seudo intellectuals who think they know everything about the world. You're better off not reading it.

Economics is a pseudoscience. There's nothing to be gained from reading any economics book.

>>9807862
>>9809236

I found that this book in particular (Basic economics) was helpful in terms of describing how the consequences of economic policy (which is practiced today in very real market economies) are felt at a level that's comprehensible for the layperson. That's my defense of this one book about economics at least.

>>9805717
The problems of economics are ultimately political problems.
It's a social science through and through, just because there's math involved to calculate some things doesn't make it less so.

It's frustrating seeing people argue how this or that economic model is objectively superior. As if you can just apply them universally, without taking into account the specific cultural and political circumstances.

>>9809278
OP here, this sounds pretty good. Really, I want to know is if he repeats himself a lot. It's a pretty long book and relatively expensive. If I'm gonna buy it it better be worth it.

>>9809318
there is no thing such as 'the market' or 'capitalism' only the sum of voluntary transactions carried out by individuals. That is the beauty of the free market, order out of chaos. Any coercive attempts to impose a single order from above are doomed to fail due to the problem inherent in calculation. The market allows individuals to make their own choices.

most of /lit/'s criticisms of capitalism are based off debunked/unfalsifiable 19th century social theory and continental philosophy rather than on any actual understanding of economics

>>9809473
Bait