/lit/ - Literature

>>11911784
>Whenever there is a discussion about economics

its a slow board. its probably the same neckbeard who recommends it in every economics thread

i've read it thought I wasn't fortunate to have daddy Mankiw as a prof

its meant to be a very basic intro to econ, my prof realized the disconnect and forced us to apply everything to real world problems. any econ books with calc/stat emphasis will help with modeling

reading the economics of money, banking, and financial markets by Mishkin rn, not calc based but I recommend for applied econ

Macroeconomics (not principles of macroeconomics or principles of economics) by Mankiw is a great book to learn macroeconomics.

>>11912301
>i've read it thought I wasn't fortunate to have daddy Mankiw as a prof
Eh, I can't say that you're missing out on much compared to your regular economics professor in terms of lectures. He's just not a great lecturer. Besides, he only teaches a few lectures before you're assigned TAs from HLS, econ grad students, etc.

The real benefits are attending office hours with him, his guest lecturers and lunch opportunities, and asking him deep conceptual questions for him to answer in lecture at the end of the semester. But few people take advantage of them, unfortunately.

>its meant to be a very basic intro to econ, my prof realized the disconnect and forced us to apply everything to real world problems. any econ books with calc/stat emphasis will help with modeling
It's so basic it makes me wonder if it even aims to impart knowledge with any reasoning behind it whatsoever. This seems to be a common problem with most social science textbooks. But maybe I'm the only one with a compulsive need to rewrite and rearrange social science textbooks whenever I have to read them for a class.

>>11911784
Samuelson's Economics

New Classical trash.

Into the bin it goes.

Begin with the classicals if you want, then hit Marx and Keynes. Macroeconomics begins with Keynes and anything of any value relating to the subject must adhere to his principles beyond name only (e.g. New Keynesians trying to reconcile their misinterpretation of Keynes with neoclassical micro).

It is possible to be well educated in economics without falling into the neoclassical trap but it's exceedingly difficult, especially without help from advanced faculty.

Perhaps the greatest economist who carried on Keynes truthfully is Hyman Minsky. Very readable too, find a PDF of Stabilizing an Unstable Economy and you won't be disappointed (start with Chap 5)

Scientific economists:
- Walras
- Fisher
- Pareto
- Von Neumann/Morgenstern

Economics viewed through the lens of government intervention:
-George
-Hayek
-Keynes

Foundational texts:
- Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations
- David Ricardo - Principles of Political Economy
- J S Mill - Principles of Political Economy
- Carl Menger - Principles of Economics

>>11912549
>Economics viewed through the lens of government intervention:
>Keynes

No, this was just an implication of Keynes' investment theory of the business cycle in the capitalist context

>Foundational texts
Omitting Marx always belies ignorance

>>11912570
Marx isn’t a foundational text, that’s why. Study some contemporary theories underlying how actual exchanges work and get back to me.

>Keynes didn’t view economics through a lens of government intervention
This is a man who suggested we lower and raise everyone’s ‘wage-unit’ as an economic remedy in his General Theory

>>11912725
>Marx isn’t a foundational text, that’s why
According to whom?

And I see you haven't read TGT either. Mind citing a passage or two?

>>11911784
Econ grad from a very rigorous program here. Don't even try to understand macro - no one really does, it's all nonsense. I don't care if you're talking about keynes or the new mathematical trickery - it's just not something I think we have a real serious grasp on.

As for micro: Mankiw's principles of microeconomics (or better yet, a micro book which actually uses multivariable calculus, constrained optimization, etc) is definitely serviceable, though.

>>11913210
Marx really isn't, man. The labor theory of value is just wrong. The idea that "surplus labor value" is "skimmed off" of the top is just stupid. Labor markets are just markets. I don't skim surplus value off of a candy bar when I buy one.

>>11913282
>Marx's sole theoretical contribution was the LTV
>Labor markets are just markets

keep going, this is great

>>11913210
according to anybody who isnt retarded like you.

>>11913305
First off, LTV wasn't even a "contribution" of Marx's. That idea had been floating around for a while. It's not that he contributed it - it's that a) it's retarded and b) his whole idea of how capitalists exploit workers is based on it.

And also, he's not foundational to modern economics at all. Of course he was an important figure, but if OP wants to understand economics as it is understood today, reading Marx is not important.

I'd actually like to hear what you think some of his contributions are that don't depend on LTV, though.

>>11913336
dont argue with marxists, they are braindead.

Read Friedman, Hayek, Sowell.

Econ PhD student from a top program here.
Marx is good to know the OG critique to classical economics but it’s more foundational to sociology than to Econ as a field.

If i learned anything about business from /biz/ is that people telling you to buy things are actually sellers, anyone who tells you to sell is trying to buy. Always buy low and sell high until you realized that you actually did the opposite.

>>11913537
OP, I've sat in econ sections dealing with the bonds market where future ibank vice presidents had to learn how to manipulate fractions and that it's best to buy low and sell high.

>>11913256
>Econ grad from a very rigorous program here. Don't even try to understand macro - no one really does, it's all nonsense. I don't care if you're talking about keynes or the new mathematical trickery - it's just not something I think we have a real serious grasp on

Hmmm I hope you’re not talking about indifference curve analysis or game theory

>>11913537
>>11913846
if i learned anything from watching the SEC constanstly sue and file federal legal complaints against business and finance people its that coercion and fraud are the basis of most large market exchanges as is collusion and conspiracy. But none of this is addressed in economics of course.

>>11913210
In The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money (which I’ve read twice now, and I don’t plan on reading it again), Keynes is given the task of trying to show that government induced.... well anything really can do... anything. Upon a first thorough read through I assumed (erroneously, I would later find out) the subject matter was a bit too complicated for my understanding. As such, I endeavored to improve my understanding. I went and got a better grasp of marginal economics from Carl Menger, who understands marginality more than Keynes (which for Keynes is an airy word that means absolutely nothing, like how philosophers love using the word ‘ontologically’), I read Fisher and understood interest rates better than Keynes ever did as well. After all this and more as well, I care back to Keynes with the task of understanding his somewhat turgid text. I found the following flaws with his text which renders it A) partially incorrect and B) only slightly correct. I will first reference he reasons why A applies, and then I will tackle B.

I) for Keynes, price = value for some reason. Not sure where he got that idea from

II) the wage-unit doesn’t make sense. You fundamentally can’t measure a collective’s wages like that. I did come to the conclusion that you could measure sector’s wage-unit (I.e. sectors of the economy), but when you’re trying to analyze he macroeconomy like he is, it fundamentally fails. Hard.

III) his system is philosophically unstable because a) it requires consumption to continually increase (instead of eventually healthily stagnating) because an increase in investment means an increase in consumption, and this is unstable in the long run AND b)it doesn’t consider the sociological impacts of monetary injections

As far as III goes, it is admittedly minor. It doesn’t invalidate the work. I and II fundamentally render parts of his seminal work completely invalid.

It makes sense though, The General Theory is the ‘pop music’ of Economics. Everyone likes to listen to it and pretend they understand. Keynes is latching on to the success of his ancestors in the field of economics and lauding his pretended excellence around like it is a trophy. His words and phrases he uses are never the same, he completely lacks consistency with his terms, or rigor in his mathematics (which he actually makes fun of at some point in the work— what the FUCK), and he fundamentally misunderstands the point of economics. But it’s okay, I’d like to think the only reason he is popular is because he sucked some stateman’s dick, literally and/or figuratively, and basically wormed his way into high class status with his embracing arms for capital injections.

As for reason B, well I think it’s safe to say he had some good ideas. You can ask me about those if you want. Pic related is a page of his book, edited by me.

>>11913872
if you're able to commit acts of coercion and fraud, it's because the rational actions of the market have endowed you with that power

>>11913344
>dont argue with whom I disagree with, they are all stupid
I remember when /lit/ wasnt filled with /pol/smokers who exclusively read GLR

>>11913999
marxists being stupid is an undeniable fact.

>>11914184
>it is an undeniable fact that u r dum lol

I actually just finished a microeconomics course that used Mankiw’s Principles of Microeconomics textbook.

I thought the book was great, honestly. :v)

>>11913999
GLR?

>>11911784
This is some high quality bait.

>>11914568
Idk.

>>11911784
THOMAS SOWELL BASIC ECONOMICS

>>11914568
George Lincoln Rockwell

>>11918142
MAN AMONG MY MENTORS

>>11912474
>Marx

>>11911784
read Keynes, including the oft ignored A Treatise on Probability.

Beyond that, there's not much to say. You have to know a pretty hefty amount of calculus and set theory to do modern micro and macro with any depth, otherwise its just hand wavey analogies and stupid shit like that.

But keep in mind that economics is basically just trying to find easily calculable equations underpinning human behavior. Economies are infinitely complex aggregations of highly complex and often irrational behavior, so none of any of this is literally scientific. Economics is simply an attempt to find some decent guesses on whats happening, but those guesses have no intrinsic truth or falsity to them.

>>11912356
why would you larp as a Harvard student

>>11920394
Some people are actually successful anon

>>11920233
> Economics is simply an attempt to find some decent guesses on whats happening, but those guesses have no intrinsic truth or falsity to them.
Daily reminder that Game Theory is a text developed by a mathematician and an economist that helped create chess playing computer programs.

Don’t act like there aren’t truths to human behavior you can find out scientifically. It’s not like we’re robots, but there ARE behavioral efficiencies you can discover

>>11920233
To be fair it takes a STEM background and a very high IQ to understand economics.

>>11920233
Are there any "intro" economics books that involve some mathematical rigor? I'm thinking along the lines of an intro college physics book, but not limited to high school algebra. Maybe something that an "honors" course would use.

>>11920394
I'm not LARPing.

>>11920435
I think you're overstating my case.

>>11912356
Has mankiw always a Jew about his textbook shit and buying a key? Heard a lot about that last year

>>11923166
Yes, from what I've heard. He promises to donate all of the proceeds from Harvard students to charity though. The rest of you plebs? The shekels go straight into his pockets.

I wouldn't mind paying $200 for a textbook and Cengage access if the textbook was actually worthwhile. But there's not a lot of treasures of passion like that out there, unfortunately.

>>11920469
>It’s not like we’re robots, but there ARE behavioral efficiencies you can discover
Sure, but this isn't actually based on the econometric models that are testing an economic theory. Those theories are simple reasonable simplified guesses on how we can understand behavior. Their ability to predict future results of any action have much much higher variance and ambiguity than the models would suggest.

The fact is that there aren't "truths" to human behavior in the sense that there are "truths" in physics. This isn't to say there are better explanations than others or that we're robots, it just means there isnt some solitary factor with precise mathematical representation that will always describe our behavior. We aren't robots, but we also aren't physics lab experiments.

>Daily reminder that Game Theory is a text developed by a mathematician
Economics is a subfield of game theory. Biology pretty much is as well. Not sure what your point is.

>>11923052
>Are there any "intro" economics books that involve some mathematical rigor?
Intermediate Microeconomics by Varian

>>11913256
I'm applying to some top econ grad programs, any advice? Also to stay on topic, I read Krugman's texts and thought they were a better intro than Mankiw's.

>>11923587
assuming this is for phd or master of science, lots of math. graduate econ is basically just doing math and statistics in a certain way. probability theory, analysis, set theory, etc will be way more helpful than these poppy undergrad books.

Reading anything but Ludwig von Mises for economics is doing it fucking wrong.
No man holds a candle to this Titan.

And this thread is the proof that Economics is basically a meme field which is 90% ideology and 10% actually trying to understand the world.

>>11925273
You have it precisely backwards.
And stop using "ideology" as a boogeyman word. The merit or error of a given ideology is CONTEXTUAL you blithering simptons.

>>11925273
>which is 90% ideology and 10% actually trying to understand the world
You fucking moron. The word "ideology" literally means systems of ideas to explain or understand our world.

>>11925176
Ludwig von Mises is for innumerate teenagers.

>>11925176
YOU CAN'T KNOW NOTHING
YOU CAN'T KNOW NOTHING
YOU CANNOT EVEN KNOW THAT YOU CAN'T KNOW NOTHING

>>11925176
This.
>>11925273
>Ludwig von Mises is for innumerate teenagers.
Wat. Literally how? Is this some attempt to smear him by some subversive commie threatened by him? It's Misses >Hazlit>>POWERGAP>everyone else

I actually want a general knowledge of economics. No memes, what are the top 3 books for this?

>>11927927
>No memes.
Good luck bucko.

>>11927927
Human Action - Ludwig von Mises
Economics in One Lesson - Henry Hazlitt
Objective Economics - M. Northrup Buechner

>>11927927
Again it's difficult to say because economics uses more math. I'd definitely recommend starting off with How Economics Became a Mathematical Science by Weintraub, which gives a good sense of where economics as a field comes from.

Some of the other authors recommended in this thread (keynes, hazlitt, buechner, sowell) are fine to read, but will vastly oversimplify even more than the math-based econ books do.

>>11930435
>Keynes
If only for understanding the mistakes he made and caused to happen.
Hazlitt's "The Failure of New Economics: An Analysis of the Keynesian Fallacies" comes to mind. He eviscerated the man.

>>11927927
avoid hazlitt and sowell, they're pure free market shills
it would be like reading the catholic catechism to get a general knowledge of the world's religions

>>11930490
Laissez faire is the unadulterated truth

>>11930490
Interventionist detected

>>11930465
I don't say "you shouldn't read Aristotle because aether is not a real".

Every single book mentioned here is flawed because economics is not a prose field. It devolves into which economic thought lies closest to my political identity if you don't have the mathematical and philosophical background to understand what's happening (which is 98% of the posts in this thread).

>>11930535
With Aristotle the crucial point is that his central 'essence' is true while he has auxiliary inaccuracies worthy of being identified.
The comparison does not follow with Keynes. Keynes central points are actually fallacies at base.
Aristotle is the father of reason, Keynes is a mixed economy hack.

>>11930572
For his time, Keynes was quite insightful. You free market retards are unbelievable pseuds. All of economics is based on a fallacy.

There are *no* universal structural equations that determine how human behavior and economies work. There are no laws of economics. Every single idea, every single school of economic thought is fundamentally based on fallacies and inconsistencies, because the underlying premise of the entire field is wrong. This does not mean some ideas are more appropriate than others at given moments, but that there is no universally correct, simple explanation for any economic issue.

>>11930589
Please read Buechner and Reisman anon. Know what the fuck you are talking about. The subjectivist theory of economics was long ago btfo by the Austrians and Objectivists.
Economics as a science is not subjective but *contextual*. Philosophically, I can not recommend to you hard enough to grasp the importance of the contextuality of concepts. What do you know about the Objectivist Theory of Concepts?

>>11930640
>btfo by the Austrians and Objectivists
How can the Austrian memers and randbots still be a thing?

>>11923498
>The fact is that there aren't "truths" to human behavior in the sense that there are "truths" in physics
There are true ways to analyze economic behavior though
See
>>11913973

There is a reason these sorts of things are studied in the first place, pleb.

>Economics is a subfield of game theory. Biology pretty much is as well. Not sure what your point is.
Lmao: listen real close. No ignoring allowed:

There is mentions of communism, free market economics, and utility in Von Neumann’s Book. Von Neumann wrote a book on economics. Deal with it.

>>11923498
Also
>recommending textbooks

>>11931067
They aren’t. Mises and Rothbard fundamentally don’t understand how indifference curves work

>>11930589
>There are *no* universal structural equations that determine how human behavior and economies work
Read Game Theory, there most certainly are. Just depends on the amount of parties, and the utility sums. Where the Lausanne school and Von Neumann differ is that Neumann has axiomatized numerical utility. So if you don’t think that we can assign a numerical value to utility (as a lot of the retarded and gay philosophy readers do) then you’re in luck.

>>11913973
Good post, saving this for future reference for when I read it. To your knowledge have these concerns been aired in an academic manner?

>>11931119
I’m positive they have, but who cares. Academia is not God. Academia gets things wrong constantly.

Just take everything you hear with a grain of salt, man. We’re trying to get to the truth

>>11931134
>>11931119
Here’s another pic

>>11918142
>muh capitalist shill book
This is literally shit. Will not teach you a thing about economics.