I'm interested in learning more about economics, but my knowledge on it rivals that of a newborn's. What books about the subject would you suggest to a normie? I've already got books about both the Chicago and Austrian school of economic thought added to my list, and I'm also interested in learning more on why fiat currencies fail, and why gold is a better option (and why Rome had such a bad inflation problem despite using this system).
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
The problem is choosing a scope and what you actually want to know. Normies love shit like Sowell or Hazlitt because it’s simpleton “balance the check book” type logic that appeals to the boomer griller mindset. Economics might as well be dark magic to these people and maybe you too so why even bother? It’s good enough for household tasks so why would you attempt to understand more?
If you actually want to know more you’re now in two camps of books. One is the polemic works of Mises or Keynes, Hayek and Smith. These are big on theories and light on specifics. If you actually want to see the sausage made you need textbooks on macro and microeconomics and a graphing calculator.
You need to know calculus well to understand anything at all.
The real kicker is that no matter what these are all idealized systems like a physicist would approximate a cow to be a 1m radius sphere. All the real world details that make the actual cow or economy is what makes the real difference.
If economics could actually be solved in an algorithm, economists would be the richest men on the planet.
>If you actually want to know more you’re now in two camps of books. One is the polemic works of Mises or Keynes, Hayek and Smith.
I've heard of Keynes before, and from what I've seen he has some interesting short-term ideas for a nation's economy, so I'll definitely be reading up on his stuff. Should I add Hoppe's books to the Mises section? I've noticed that a lot of guys are obsessed with his ideas for whatever reason.
> I've noticed that a lot of guys are obsessed with his ideas for whatever reason.
Because he was right
Try Othmar Spann's History of Economics for a basic overview of the early schools of political economy
Economics is the astrology of modern man, it's not a science.
The Austrians are political economists. You ought to read the Keynsians, Keynes in particular, for your equilibrium studies. Coase (1937) Nature of the Firm. For your Marxism just read a Mandel book, its an adequate summary of Marx in more contemporary language. Remember that Marxism is a critique of political economy, not an equilibrium model, its a disequilibrium model.
After that you should be ready to read the Cambridge debate so you can be certain that you're the Austrian you think you are.
>recommending academic Keynesian texts to a self-admitted normie
guess it's true, keynesians are autistic
I'm recommending a canon course in economics mixed with a canon course in political economy (given he's interested in Austrians).
Note how I end with the Cambridge debate which ought to reaffirm him if he's found his reading credibly explains his current beliefs.
At some point you're gonna have to bite the bullet and realize that learning an academic field you're gonna have to read academic texts. If someone wanted to start learning physics would you recommend them a textbook on classical mechanics or a pop-sci book?
That being said Keynes is way too hard for someone uneducated in economics, starting with it would be like skipping several semesters in an economics major, the student will simply not be able to come out of it with any reasonable understanding of the subject.
Part of my problem is that as I have an excellent disciplinary practice already, I presume that anyone else is capable of jumping in cross discipline to the extent that I am of reading major seminal texts.
This is pretty chill for an introductory text
talks on gold
i also recommend taleb
Might as well ask since this is kind of an economics thread. Is there any reason beyond politics why nobody cares about figures like Müller, List, Dühring, or Spann anymore? Or the historical school of economics?
I honestly don't know. As far as economic history goes, the advance of time and method in historiography and source organisation is obvious, but I don't know why I only know Dühring from Engel's worst work.
Why did Engels and Marx dislike Dühring? I guess an obvious answer would be that he was an antisemite but surely there's more to Anti-Dühring. Wikipedia says very little.
Engels provides a summary critique in the first section of Anti-Duhring, and then procedes to repeat every failure he criticises Duhring of doing.
Also Duhring was an ethical materialist, and M&E are praxis historical materialists.
But the big stuff is basically Engels acting Bakunin at Duhring, and just like Bakunin at Marx, Engels repeats all of the flaws of centralisation and bourgeois substitutionalism that he accuses Marx of.
>praxis historical
nothing but Hegelian garbage
The critique of political economy for M&E is intended as an immanent political critique by the working class.
>Hegelian garbage
Nah mate, totally different garbage.
First of all, don't fall for the Austrian meme too hard, it took me years to get out of that rabbit hole. It's an interesting econ school, groundbreaking when Menger first turned up, but most Austrians fail to account for - or more commonly, straight up deny the possibility - of market failures, which in themselves are very interesting filed of study which we need for tackling some of the challenges of today.
To answer your question - depends on how much you are willing to learn/read. I first learned about economics from Friedman's books and I would not recommend that - good books, bad starter books.
When I started college I read Mankiw's Principles of Economics textbook, which I think is the general go-to for most econ 101 courses in the US. It's very well written, easy to grasp, but very long - it might be daunting as a first step.
A noob friendly alternative is The Armchair Economist by Landsburg. It is very informative and entertaining, even funny at times, comprehensible for basically everyone besides absolute smoothbrains. The downside is that it's not very well structured and it uses sometimes uses non-standard terms for sake of simplicity, which might or might not give you some trouble when you move on to more advanced reading.
Both of these books are intros to economics with almost imperceptible ideological biases (despite Mankiw being involved in the Bush admin iirc), unlike Sowell's Basic Economics. Pick one of them, read it and make notes so that you can actually make sure you understand it (some editions of Mankiws book even have tests for this purpose), then move on to whatever you deem interesting and you should be able to make sense of it.
Now I'll proceed to post a leddit link because it's the best list online https://www.reddit.com/r/Economics/wiki/reading/
Progress and Poverty
Do read some politicized bullshit from the 20th century, moron. Read Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations. It's easy to read.
*Don't, frick you
>What books about the subject would you suggest to a normie?
Chang Ha-Joon - Economics. The User's Guide (2014)
Keen S. - Debunking Economics. The Naked Emperor Dethroned (2011)
Hill R., Myatt A. - The Economics Anti-Textbook. A Critical Thinker's Guide to Microeconomics (2010)
Veblen Th. - The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
Fix B. - Rethinking economic growth theory from a biophysical perspective (2015)
Nitzan J., Bichler Sh. - Capital as Power. A Study of Order and Creorder (2009)
Robbins R.H., Di Muzio T. - Debt as Power (2016)
Hunt E.K., Lautzenheiser M. - History of Economic Thought. A Critical Perspective (2011)
Caporaso J.A., Levine D.P. - Theories of Political Economy (1992)
Di Muzio T., Robbins R.H. - An Anthropology of Money. A Critical Introduction (2017)
Ingham G. - The Nature of Money (2004)
Polanyi K. - Trade And Market In The Early Empires (1957)
Finley M. - The Ancient Economy (1974)
Graeber D. - Debt. The First 5,000 Years (2014)
Cheers brah.
I noticed this thread, so I just want to ask a question that has been bothering me. Do people who are really into economics, not passive interest, but either academia or people really want to delve deep into the subject. Do they find people who believe in neo-liberalism/free market as idiots? I dont know much about economics, but wanting a free market seems completely unethical and nonsensical?
Economics is an academic discipline based on the assumption of closing free markets through marginal preference.
*based on the assumption*.
Marxist economists engage in work broadly compatible with this.
Economics is an attempt to explain actual markets within the assumption. It is an academic discipline and doesn't advocate for a political outcome. A lot of its practioncers are freetards since the team B shit. Watch "All watched over by machines of love and grace" on this point.
Political economists are occasionally allowed to work from within economics departments. They don't have the field specifying assumptions of economists. Some political economists like the Austrians are moralists. Others like the Marxist praxis types are engaged in an anti-politics they hope will destroy the market. Others are disengaged historical materialists or wildcat marginalists.
ethics is normally not part of disciplinary practice.
That the market is incoherent is normally stipulated. Its part of the marginalist assumption, and its part of the Marxist assumption—crises are inherent in capitalist societies.
Thank you for replying. I learned a lot
>wanting a free market seems completely unethical and nonsensical?
The idea of a free market stems out of the conception of the Divine Providence, and the original proponents of the separation between economics/politics did not want to be ass-raped by a king.
So they went, "Oh, let's pretend that humans are like atoms!.."
Gold standard is a moronic idea. Makes lending and borrowing way more difficult for your country, which sounds good in theory until you realize that another country will just float their shit, eat up more risk and shit you out on the global stage in the process.
>eat up more risk and shit you out on the global stage in the process.
depends on the time horizon of risk. If you consider that pension plans fail before first year of job first year of fund entrants benefit…well. Disvesting risk means stable states which mean well bought off working classes and high skill high composition of capital industries.
So only idiots who want a yacht and to die young invest globally without dealing with the risk factors in the local community they live in.
Then there's risk factors like international wars, or rising tides.
>Makes lending and borrowing way more difficult for your country, which sounds good in theory until you realize that another country will
>Gold standard is a moronic idea. Makes lending and borrowing way more difficult for your country, which sounds good in theory until you realize that another country will just float their shit, eat up more risk and shit you out on the global stage in the process.
Which is why it had successfully operated for the vast majority of the time in which some sort of market-based economy existed. Up until the end of the 19th century you had zero (actually very slightly negative) average inflation in Europe, when international trade was already rampant. With inflation this low and steady, clearly no major deviations from the gold standard were happening, with no 'float operations' happening.
Sometimes the model is simply a model.
Remind me of the composition of capital up until the end of the 19th century?
Since early 1800s, increasingly less so land, increasingly more so industry and urban housing right up till the world war 1 when the housing and industry got hit (and when the gold standard starting coming to its end). Obviously I don't know the numbers.
What does it have to do with my point though? And if you were maybe instead of composition of capital referring to the composition of goods being traded, than I don't get it either - modern economies already are being flooded with cheap imported goods, for reasons far more 'earthly' (and unchangeable) than monetary policy consisting of yeah let's target at 2 % yearly.
>Gold standard is a moronic idea. Makes lending and borrowing way more difficult for your country, which sounds good in theory until you realize that another country will just float their shit, eat up more risk and shit you out on the global stage in the process.
This, causes deflationary recessions and constricts economic growth with liquidity shortages. Absolutely pants on head moronic.
Read history of economic thought. If you are serious pick an academic book like "An Outline of the History of Economic Thought", otherwise choose a more divulgative one. I would recommend to read it along with a high school/college manual.
Reading history of economic thought allows you to understand ideas in their context and how they emerged, competed, and succeded or lost; how we often go backwards instead of forward, and the narrative elements plus comparing ideas to choose which one seems better to you will make it easier to remember stuff. Also you will look like an expert just because you can relate things to authors, concepts...
Since you seem a libertarian based on your picks I would encourage you to read what you like even if its more hererodox like the Austrians, but don't ignore the mainstream/basic economics.
What are your favourite books about economic history? Bonus points if they are about pre-19th century times.
M Postan,
E Power,
Past & Present (Journal)
Adam Smiths Wealth of Nations
Oxford History of Banking
The Road to Serfdom
by Friedrich, A. Hayek
Liberty and Property by Ludwig von Mises
Liberty and Property Ludwig von Mises
The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money keynes
Irrational Exuberance Robert J. Shiller
Economics David Begg Gianluigi Vernasca , Rudiger Dornbusch
Economics John Sloman , Dean Garratt , Jon Guest
https://cdn.mises.org/Omnipotent%20Government%20The%20Rise%20of%20the%20Total%20State%20and%20Total%20War_3.pdf
Economics in One Lesson: The Shortest and Surest Way to Understand Basic Economics by Henry Hazlitt
Trading data. Test by trading.