/lit/ - Literature

>>11202647
I don't know. I haven't gotten that far yet.

>>10989127
Nah, breh. I'm talking about Euclid's Elements.

Diophantes' Arithmetica.

Zermelo's Investigations in the foundations of set theory I

READ THE ORIGINAL SOURCES FROM THE BRAINS THEY CAME FROM.

It's harder, much harder than being fed it, but it challenges you more, and you learn to understand. Give Mathematical Investigations into the Theory of Value and Price a try and tell me that Economics isn't hyperspace analysis at its core.

>>10983020

>>10850912
Although it is not GREAT advice, it is much better than the following

>>10849241
>>10849236

Do NOT read libertarians for economics. And certainly do not read textbooks unless you want a bastardization of the original ideas.

Go read Progress and Poverty by Henry George or something.

I am currently reading bottom right. It is absolutely fascinating.

>>10766056
This is correct.

The study of pure economics is in line with the highest logical reasoning. It requires large amount of comprehension, study, focus, attention, and understanding. Mathematics may or may not be used to express concepts, especially to prove certain relations.

This is actually a good chart. It will push you in the right direction. Just be aware that while Smith and Mill DO sum up the entire of English classical economics, English classical economics is rather shortsighted. Leon Walras there will tell you that it suffers from a fundamental petito principii, in that the wages determine the rate of profit and vice versa i.e. there are two unknowns in the equation to determine the rate of profit.

The economics conceived of by Carl Menger is infinitely better and actually fundamentally utilized and improved upon by Keynes.

But it's all necessary to understand economics, which is a broad study.

Georgism is a sort of 'correct system'. Mathematically validated by Walras during his examinations of the rates of profit, and confirmed by many other thinkers throughout the years. Geoism seems to be that oddball economic philosophy which is compatible with pretty much any economic system, because it stipulates an uncomfortable truth that is unparalleled in truth: landholders absorb too much of the percentage of a good's cost without an equal relative loss of disutility on their part. Unlike any other good or service which realizes itself in terms of a good. George finished the job that Ricardo started, and even without using any equations at all, stated something that can be mathematically validated, proven, and shown to be fundamentally true.

Where my Georgists at

>>10733264
I've fixed this picture to put the header of Georgism under both Henry George's book, and Elements of Pure Economics, which mathematically vindicates Geoism.