/lit/ - Literature

Can't find any*

>>15390222
>I'm a zoomer and intending on majoring in Economics at university.
Don't.

>>15390222

Whichever textbooks your first macroeconomics and microeconomics courses have.

>>15390240
Why?

Ha joon chang's books

Bump, I'm also interested

>>15390222
Grundrisse

Bump

Michael Hudson's work
Fernand Braudel's Wheels of Commerce series (old and out of print but a really fun read)
Arrighi's The Long Twentieth Century

>>15390222
economics is for those who
> can't into science
> can't into humanities
> can't into physical labour
that is, the archetypical untermenschen's profession

>>15390564

Economics is both science and humanities. It is for those ubermensch that would not choose between them, but instead apply themselves to both.

>>15390564
back to reddork

If you're interested in Econ theory, do it if you have passion only. Mankiw will help.
If you are interested in Political Science, do it too. They hire Economists for Polsci jobs because at least they can do math and give concrete answers.
If you're interested in Analytics and actually making decent money, learn a lot of Math, Programming and Statistics instead of reading Econ books.

>>15390564
>>15390564
>> can't into science
>> can't into humanities
except you have to be good at both. You should look into some of the mathematics in economics.

>>15390592
>If you're interested in Analytics and actually making decent money, learn a lot of Math, Programming and Statistics instead of reading Econ books.

I know some econ grads who make a lot of money. That said, math + econ double major is solid.

>>15390600
Yes. Econ can complement well with Business Intelligence and Computer Science in general. If you know what you're doing with the advanced math and know how to apply analytical solutions you can get a nice paying job.
Not all Economists reach that level though. Many get stuck in academia as the cult it is, pretending they are advancing theory somewhere.

>>15390580
>>15390595
1. economics is not an evidence based discipline THEREFORE it is not science.
2. mathematics actually employed in economocs is either high school tier or run by some programs. that is no mathematics at all. there have been some mathematicians (not economicists) who discovered mathematical (not economical) theorems that can be abstractly applied to economics among other things.
3. economics is aesthetically worthless, THEREFORE is not art/literature.
4. economics could be classified as a philosophical sub-discipline, of an extremely dry and dull kind.

>>15390580
>Economics is a science
It's shitty sociology hopped up on math. It is as much a hard science as is quantitative literary analysis, it has zero, absolutely zero predictive capability.

>>15390630
> philosophical sub-discipline
can i correct myself? no, it is not even philosophy. it is an over-intellectualized form of journalism.

>>15390630
>1. economics is not an evidence based discipline
It is. It is just almost never experimental, which makes the evidence system much less useful than laboratory dependant sciences. It depends on historical data gathering for most analysis.
>economics could be classified as a philosophical sub-discipline, of an extremely dry and dull kind.
Pure Economics I agree.
Also, it being dull does not prevent it from being discussed by everyone all the time. It's always relevant for every day life and there is always demand for it. Not because it is aesthetically elegant or deals with hopes and dreams or makes good predictions, but because it deals with the decisions we must take right now by necessity. Astronomy has the same scientific problems as Economics: it lacks lab experiment, depends almost entirely on observation gathering, makes gigantic mistakes all the fucking time, steals the Math from Physics, makes up shit to justify what they can't explain, etc. But no one criticizes it because getting the mass of Alpha Centauri wrong by several orders of magnitudes has no consequences on our daily lives, while even the most retard citizen likes to lecture about their opinion on Economics and how he is right and you/the government/the WB/the IMF is wrong. We need Economics, and we demand Economics, even with all its flaws and the shit we give it.

>>15390703
This man knows.

>>15390630
>2. mathematics actually employed in economocs is either high school tier or run by some programs. that is no mathematics at all. there have been some mathematicians (not economicists) who discovered mathematical (not economical) theorems that can be abstractly applied to economics among other things.

straight up wrong

>>15390703
based
>>15390630
cringe

>>15390656
it is still useful, and withouth it we are even more fucked. Making economic policies without understanding of economics and economic analysis can create disasters such as what has happened in Venezuela.

>>15390699
>it is an over-intellectualized form of journalism.
This is beautiful.

>>15390630
>1. economics is not an evidence based discipline THEREFORE it is not science.

This is a ridiculous claim. Economics uses tons of data to build its claims.

>2. mathematics actually employed in economocs is either high school tier or run by some programs.

I'd love to see a high school student make sense of this random page in my textbook.

>>15390703
Cringe.
>>15390630
Based.

>>15390703
when i say "evidence based" i don't mean just "lab dependant". i meant falsifiable. disciplines as different as math and biology are inside the "citadel" of science, because they are both falsifiable.
economics isn't, PERIOD.
math applied to economy is just a bunch of inferential models. economics would be a science if , given a certain state of the economy in a certain time, were be able to forecast economical events with an accetable degree of precision, as sciences do.
which is not the case.
you arent a scientist , retard, you are a journalist.

>>15390751
lmao that is literally a set of sums and multiplications. no proper functions, not even calculus. nothing.
fucking retards.

>>15390755
>bunch of inferential models
* bunch of ARBITRARY inferential models

>>15390240
this, seriously don't

>>15390264
unless you are incredibly smart you are not getting into the top buy-side company with huge salaries, and pretty much every other career (expect academics) has horrendous work-life balance (well so does working in a PE-fund or BB-bank, but at least there you are paid a lot), average wage and limited exit opportunities

>>15390764

All you are doing is displaying that you are unable to understand what is written on those pages

>>15390764
all math boils down to sums and multiplications, retard. What makes these things difficult isn't simply calculting the answear, anyone can do that, but to understand why and what you really are doing. How the functions work. This is far from the worst I've seen in an economics textbook btw.

>>15390755
Economics is tremendously falsifiable, what the fuck are you on about? You find researchers proving each other wrong all the time.

>>15390777
>has horrendous work-life balance

what's so bad about it? they work long hours and have take home work?

>>15390793
investment bankers commonly work 80-100 hour weeks. They typically burn out after 2 years.
PE-funds seem more fun in the long run, although they probably work just as much

>>15390755
Lmao what a retard. If anything biology is the worst example you could have given. It is almost entirely just description and (may I add usually arbitrary) classification and doesn't even try to predict anything.

>>15390793
>what's so bad about it?
you are expected to live for your work, the client can call you at any time they please and you have to answer, your manager can call you at any time he pleases and you have to answer, there is no such thing as time completely free from work
>they work long hours
extremely long, and in most jobs (again buy-side and IB are the exception, but they hire select few) the pay doesn't reflect the horrendous conditions one bit, if you convert your monthly wage into an hourly one, you'll discover that you are barely paid more than a fucking burger-flipper, for ten times the hours put in, especially the first few years
>have take home work?
there is no real separation of home-office, you work all the time

>>15390789
bickering on academic journals is not being falsifiable.
btw this is how britannica defines economics :
> Economics, social science that seeks to analyze and describe the production, distribution, and consumption of wealth
and this is how it defines "social science":
> Social science, any discipline or branch of science that deals with human behaviour in its social and cultural aspects. The social sciences include cultural (or social) anthropology, sociology, social psychology, political science, and economics. Also frequently included are social and economic geography and those areas of education that deal with the social contexts of learning and the relation of the school to the social order (see also educational psychology).
THIS is your league: "anthropology, sociology, psychology, political science". not "math, physics, medicine, etc"

>>15390800
medicine (or biology in non-humans, as far as i know) predicts that, say, beta-blockers will reduce your blood pressure and it will explain exactely the physiopathological mechanism. it is science, unlike psychology or economy.

>>15390829
economics (or or crypto in non-humans, as far as i know) predicts that, say, taxes will reduce your wealth and it will explain exactely the supply-demand mechanism. it is science, unlike shitposting or smugposting.

>>15390812
>>15390798
ah, of course...I don't know many econ grads but the ones I do know ended up working for the government and they seem to have pretty good work-life balances.

>>15390817
Absolutely no Economist ever claims to be closer to Math, Physics and Medicine. Economics is its own thing. It is a Social Science on analytical steroids, it uses tools from Math and science, like Psychology, Sociology and Pol Science do, although to a greater degree than those. It doesn't claim itself to be a hard science. No economist does, they all know the p-values never reach 0.9 in this field and depend on technological progress like Big Data to ever increase prediction ability.
But Economics is its own monster, alive for necessity more than for accuracy. Inevitably relevant and demanded.
It does not need to be like medicine, although it would surely come in handy, to occupy so much attention from everyone.

>>15390845
> taxes will reduce your wealth
OMG S-SO IS THIS THE POWER OF THE ECONOMICAL SCIENCE OMG OMG IM SO SORRY FORGIVE ME I DIDN'T KNOW I PROMISE I DIDN'T KNOW

>>15390817

>Econometrics, the statistical and mathematical analysis of economic relationships, often serving as a basis for economic forecasting

Sounds like our league is math and statistics.

>>15390853
i agree, this is why in the first post i said economics is not a science, not a humanistic discipline and not a kind of physical labour. i can't see where the fuck is was mistaken.

>>15390859
Econometrics is the most "hard science" part of Economics.

>>15390859
> statistical and mathematical analysis
this is what math does.
> of economic relationships
this is what economics does.
saying that your league is that of math, only because you use some math, is like saying stylometry is mathematics, or thar molecular cuisine is chemistry.

>>15390853
>It is a Social Science on analytical steroids
Excellent analogy, in the sense that economics is completely scientifically impotent but thinks it is the most virile science in existence, much in the same way that steroids shrink your balls while simultaneously giving you a God complex.

>>15390854
what about a nation's wealth? Is it that obvious?

>>15390879
You should know disciplines can give birth to new disciplines that are eventually considered their own thing. Like botanics is no longer Philosophy.

>>15390889
no, it is not proven. some sects of your religion believe it increases a nation's wealth some other sects believe it will reduce it. it's just a matter of faith.

>>15390879

At this point you've just made this a question of definitions. You define, a priori, all the hard science elements of economics as "not economics", and then use that to argue that economics is not a science.

>>15390901
Oh shit I wish the effects of taxation were as cristal clear as quantum mechanics explaining electron position, biology distinguishing the boundaries across species or astrophysics describing dark matter. If only Economics wasn't a matter of belief...

Read: Debt: The First 5000 Years and ME/MMT: The Currency as a Public Monopoly

>>15390911
you are confusing two things. inference/statistics and falsifiablity. the first is not a problem in science (of course it is not our ideal) , the second is.
>>15390897
as i said, econometrics is not math, it uses math as well as stylometry. there are no theorems in econometrics

>>15390973
> theorems
by theorems is do NOT mean mathematical formualtions of collected data. i mean theorems, that is non-arbitrary.

Worthless by Aaron Clarey

t. Economics grad

>>15390564
Many people go into economics precisely because they want to into all of those things and feel economics is the most safe way to do. Of course, they are wrong.

I’m a grad student. It’s worth stating that if you have a genuine interest in economics beyond the undergraduate level, you’d be far better off with studying mathematics, statistics, computer science, or similar in undergraduate.

>>15390751
>tfw 2nd year econ student and still haven't mastered highschool algebra
>mfw this is what's to come

>>15390222
Well the typical academic stuff is just the idea of utility-maximizing barter of some fixed goods resulting in everyone being as satisfied as possible. There's a handful of concepts you can get familiar with like the idea of marginal utility. Also "productivity" is an important concept. The neoclassical idea is productivity determines income distribution whereas the older classical idea was that distribution of income determines productivity.
Then there's the idea of nominal/real income (e.g. $100 won't always exchange for the same sum of real goods). People always want more nominal income but there's no consensus if they're equally motivated about the real value, some say everyone involved is dumber than you probably want to believe (Keynes) or everyone is intelligent and will catch on quickly (Friedman).

>>15390973
>there are no theorems in econometrics

That's just not true. Only in your world where you automatically define every theorem as mathematics and therefor not econometrics, but that's just circular reasoning.

>>15390222
I work in finance and enjoyed "the little book" series, especially the Economics ones written by Ip. The books are short but be careful of its density.

If anyone hasn't already, you really need to watch this video.It will raise your IQ 2 points.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHe0bXAIuk0

>>15391030
Are you American? My university only admits students who pass a high school algebra exam and the first semester is extremely maths-focused to filter out the plebs

>>15390240
What about Econometrics?

>>15391215
Don't listen to him anyway. Econometrics has the highest avg wage among regular (not med school) graduates in my country and highest employment rate period. Economics itself doesn't trail that far behind.

>>15390564
Anyone who doesn't have a basic understanding of economics is a subhuman

>>15390742
Or the global financial crisis. Good thing we had so many economists, to keep something like that from happening here.

>>15391047
You'll learn all of this in the first economics course. No reason to read it before IMO.
The economist can be difficult to read without knowledge of economics, but you'll learn a lot from it that isn't covered in classes. Remember that the economist is pretty leftist and globalist tho. If you are interested in finance, Michael Lewis is fun.

>>15391189
Not the guy you replied to but I’m seriously not sure how he’s in an Econ grad program without understanding mathematics. Most of the grad students in Econ I know are actually math undergrads or Econ undergrads that at least got to Calc 3 or Linear Algebra

>>15391534
Wait shit he’s an undergrad. Nevermind this post I just woke up.

>>15390222
I found this one in the charts library, idk how relevant it is though since I only too intro to macro economics and intro to micro economics when I was in school

>>15390222

Just read an introductory microeconomic textbook, but pay special attention to game theory. Game theory has corrupted many branches of economics and it's a big obstacle for a lot of people. Personally I thought I was going to do a PhD in economics, but had to change plans in my third year because game theory made me hate economics.

>>15391787
lmao absolute shit

>tfw bs in econ
>tfw making 60k a year to make pricing reports in excel all day
I don't know what I expected but I hate everything about this. All of my coworkers thing working with pricing data in excel is the coolest thing ever and I literally don't give a single shit. How do I start doing something cool. Do I have to like join the coast guard or something? I feel stuck in a comfortable job that I don't find fulfilling at all

>>15391787
lost

>>15391787
No Agrarianism?

>>15392266
bruh stop posting your screenshots, nobody reads them

>>15392276
Why do you care?

>>15392294
because it's cringe and I feel bad for you

>>15392276

>>15392297
Are you an economist?

Bump

>>15391723
I literally made that chart :3

I still recommend people read all the books on that list.

>>15391787
Lmao Gulag Archipelago lvl7, yeah the anon who said the field is over-intelectualized journalism is right

>>15390222
Wealth of Nations, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, and Das Kapital

>>15391787
>no Keynes
Dropped

>>15390222
OP, please god don't listen to >>15391787

>>15390564
Economic majors are nice and smarter. Way smarter than my major. Their degree is underrated but unfortunately they lack social skills. BA (especially MBA)has way more job opportunities though BA is a joke compared to economics.

Also, everyone in business administration is arrogant as fuck including myself. I wanna kys when dealing with people on my field tho. It was ranked like top 3 most arrogant major in or something

>>15390222

>>15394097
>is that...MARXIST ECONOMICS OMG ITS MARXIST ECONOMICS THAT'S SO WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOKE

>>15394153
>English
>88k salary

lol where do they get these numbers? and business degrees dont involve thinking, just heavy socio-economic weeding to bring in the rich kids who will donate to the university afterwards and in exchange they network them a good job

business degrees involve less thinking than the easiest humanities degree

Just use Mankiw. Your book in intro econ will either be Mankiw or sooner rip off of Mankiw anyways.

>>15390751
Basic bitch shit desu

If you want to make fuck all in a useless/hobby meme field then go for it. Corporations will rely on you for your "forecasting abilities". No, it's not fortune cookie bullshit, you are a weather man and to make shit in excel

>>15395192
t. doesn't know what he's talking about

Economics/statistics PhD student here, doing research on structural VAR models. I always find these threads hilarious. If some of you actually studied economics beyond 101 or worked in an economic research institution, you'd find the idea of economics not being empirical or falsifiable absolutely bogus.

>>15390222
Das Kapital

Read Samuel Francis, Leviathan and its Enemies. It's full of citations of historical and sociological economists who are relatively mainstream. For histories of capitalism you will have to go back and read the younger school of German historical economists.

Read Robert Brenner's Economics of Global Turbulence

>>15394709
Not him but I find networking harder than thinking. Do other people find networking easy? Because my social awkwardness and low social intelligence makes it difficult as fuck. I have no idea how to properly talked to people in a formal setting. Going into something like business parties and meeting would be my worst nightmare.

t. Lonely computer scientist

>>15390751
>posts his econometrics ii textbook
>he's learning asymptotic variance
>he's learning SUR
>he just finished learning about ANOVA/OLS
>he comes on /lit/ to impress the anons
>he's tidying up his Stata code right now
are you really doing this? anon, econometrics is social science statistical computation…i'm glad you're excited about your field even if it sucks megaballs but this is not pure math by a long shot—it is…run by some programs. i will grant you that econ makes some use of like, lagrangian multipliers and some multivar calc shit but it isn't math and it isn't necessarily rigorous because you have to import a fuck ton of assumptions wrt human behavior and best-outcomes. love it for what it is (retarded) and accept it for what it's not (math).

>>15390222
Misbehaving - Richard Thaler
Challenges economics with psychology

>>15390222
If you want to know economics, read Mises. If you want to major in economics, absolutely do not read Mises

>>15391993
This is really interesting stuff anon, thanks for posting. What's this guy's background?

>>15396479
this. nobody but economists believe economics to be an actual science

>>15390222
Thomas Sowell - Basic economics

If you want to "test the waters" of the major, watch the Kahn Academy videos for introductory economics instead of reading old theorists.

>>15396479
Why are you so absolutely ass rapingly upset? :3

Economics utilizes topology and set theory to explain theoretical concepts, although I am referring to the purely theoretical portion of mathematics, the one that intersects the Lausanne school and Game Theory, not the portion of economics involved with 'econometrics' (or economics with real world skills).

>>15396479
they still earn more than math majors

>>15390222
Capital.

Politicians work with economics every day so maybe look at their bookshelves

https://youtu.be/QmdXN2FR2eY

>>15396349
True, but you can definitely understand where the skepticism comes from can you not? I was a grad student and I can’t really conclude anything other than the fact that the economic community at large not only desperately wants to be something it’s not but is basically ideologically driven to a degree they would never admit. I really do think the physics envy thing is real.

>>15395392
How is he wrong? This has been exactly my experience coming out of an economics program.

Seriously retards. Actually recommend something instead of getting into pointless debates about whether econ is science or not. Who cares? I just hate the retarded textbooks that aren't even meant to be read in full. For some reason the high paying degrees are full of this catalogue format with little colorful boxes of text with digressions and bullet points and pictures and retarded shit. Can anyone recommend actual books written by erudite people, not these stupid fucking catalogues of facts which relegate philosophical and historical concerns to colorful 20 line colorful textboxes. Fuck

>>15390222
Columbia is a school for faggots and coke addicts who got second homes in aspen as their Bar Mitzvah gift. If that’s where you’re planning on going and majoring in Econ, you’ll have a cozy finance job sucking the life out of the American working class set up after grad where you’ll make more than any of those wagecucks will in their lifetimes during your shit after lunch and child sacrifice at Wells Fargo

>>15397990
/lit/ doesn’t read economics. It was a stupid idea to make an economics thread on this board in the first place.

>>15396479

I'm not sure why you got so triggered?

> this is not pure math

You're just again stretching the definition. Its a no true scotsman fallacy. No matter what math we'd use or even develop in the field, you'd just retort with "That's not TRUE math". In fact I'm sure you are one of those types that would claim that anything in undergrad math courses is "not true math", and half of the graduate course isn't "pure" either.

>>15397990
http://digamo.free.fr/ecophilo.pdf

Have fun

>>15397990

Clearly econ is not a degree for you. We are not concerned with philosophical or historical concerns. Go study literature or history or something.

>>15397934
I think the skepticism is rooted in the past, mostly. I agree that economics has a history of being ideologically driven. However, I'd argue it's never been as empirically rigorous as it is today, with the explosion of data-driven public policy, health economics, labour econ etc. research popping up in the 2000's. I don't know why that aspect of economics isn't talked about that much in media; most of modern economics isn't just predicting inflation or building macro models, but instead policy-relevant empirical research on topics such as segregation, effect of schooling on income, effects of specific tax programs on the job market and government funding etc. – topics that are not ideologically driven. I guess the public perception will change for the better in time, though.

>>15397990
> pointless debates about whether econ is science or not
it's not a debate. economics is not a science, PERIOD. some economists just can't cope with this simple and well aknowledged fact.
psychologists can, politicians can, sociologists can, philosophers can, self-help writers can, jounalists can, priests can, wiccas can, but economists somehow can't.

>>15398488

I disagree with your claims, and hence this is a debate.

>>15398553
as much as debates on the flat earth are debates. economists who believe that they are scientists are no better than flat-earthers

>>15398598

I disagree

>>15398459
economics do shitty infographs since always.

>>15398488
>psychologists can
i assure you psychologists are like economists in this debate. you dont see a psychologist saying psychology is not a science without an uncomfortable body language follow up by all kinds of euphemisms saying that psychology is a building up science and, in fact, a science. .

>>15398488
I really hope it isn't the God believers saying economics isn't a science.

>>15398364
not at all. pure mathematics is a field of study whereas true scotsmanship is not—you can take many pure math undergraduate and graduate courses. nothing fallacious here to speak of. also yes any math used expressly to apply to conceptual analyses of other things is definitionally not pure math
anyways
>fallacy fallacy lmao

reminder that there literally are no jobs for pure math majors, only applied math

>>15390240
this.

t. econ major

>>15400648
why not

>>15390222
Read Malthus.

>>15391224
This, anytime anybody mentions any major on this hellhole that isn't strictly high stem, the retards who don't even have a degree come rushing in to tell you that your life will be over if you do this. Economics is one of the highest paid majors in America.

t. Economics major with a minor in finance.

>>15400835
it's soul crushing drudgery, bordering on orthodoxy depending on your uni. you're a calculator at best.

>>15391787
9/10 shitpost

>>15390222
All these take are shit OP. If you want some good intro econ books read:
1) The cartoon guide to economics Vol 1&2 -Yoram Bauman

2) Free to Choose a Personal Statement - Milton and Rose Friedman

3) Basic Economics - Thomas Sowell

4) Principals of Economics - Carl Menger

Those are the easiest and most interesting to read, and give a good basis. Hayek, Keynes, and Smith are all important, but don't need to be read first.

>>15390222
It is a mistake to think that economics is not statecraft. So all mathematical econ is bullshit.

Ezra Pound - Selected Writings

>>15401061
I'm friends with a couple tenured math profs and they say to specifically study econ if you want money.

>>15394097
based, one of these days ill actually read it, and then ill be able to be extra smug

>>15394633
shut up liberal
imagine inventing the entirety of western economics just for propaganda during the cold war to keep people confused about marxism and then buying your own memes so hard you continue using them even after youve won and driving the economy into the dirt

>>15402900
Warning, once you actually read marxist economics you will either stop being a marxist or if you are braindead retarded will join the nu-left

>>15402931
What if im careful and listen to lots of uplifting soviet songs about the triumph of man and the conquest of the stars?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaHwzXJEcUQ

>>15402961
Cool did they make it to the moon yet?

>>15390222
Haven't read the thread yet, so forgive me for any repeats. I'm an econ boy myself.

Read The Communist Manifesto and Hayek's The Fatal Conceit back to back. It gives a good overview of both author's and their positions which broadly encompass socialist and capitalist theory respectively.

The Intelligent Investor is great when paired with A Random Walk down Wall Street for to get a handle on the debate between value investing and passive investing.

The Wealth of Nations is a but outdated, but it is the foundation of all modern economics, so I'd still recommend reading it.

Wisdom of the Crowd is an interesting book for getting a handle on market theory even though it doesn't directly relate to it. Combine this one with your textbooks and things will click real quick.

Your textbooks are still where you're going to get most of your information from, though. There isn't an economist alive or dead who wasn't influenced by politics when crafting their theories.

>>15402976
They are literally the only people to have ever been to space. Everything claimed by NASA is studio shot falsifications.

>>15402998
Soviet delusion is top tier comedy honestly. Literally "Stalin haters won't believe any source" tier

>>15390595
> Quoting the quack Keynes

Kek

>>15403015
anon the soviets were far more proficient overall with space
the US specialized towards a specific goal and met it

>>15403028
also if not for the sputnik the US would never have panicked and got in gear for such a pointless propaganda goal. If the US had the first satellite they would have never felt threatened and simply done robots and probes and stuff like the soviets correctly realized was the most sensible scientific approach. So in a way, the soviets triggered the US moon ambitions

>>15400462
Reminder that pure math majors earn more than applied math majors and can easily land a job in cs, finance, statistics etc

>>15390595
It would be nice if economists were smart enough to learn math, but the vast majority of American undergrad econ programs don't even require calculus.
I went to one of the best STEM-focused schools in the country and our entire college of economics and business consisted of people who couldn't cut it in other majors and took that instead of dropping out. They release statistics on the graduating class every year and something like 90% of graduating econ majors came in as something else. They don't require anything more advanced than precalc because they all go into that major after they fail calc.

>>15402931
This. The transformation problem is the direct refutation of the LTV. Period. You can come up with a hundred "solutions" but at the end of the day, in none of them can you explain relative prices by labour time. It just didn't worked. Ricardo knew it. Marx knew it and tried to find a solution. Move on

>>15402900
So you admit you haven't read Capital yet you still defend LTV and marxian economics. Lmao the absolute state of leftists

Hmm yeah thank your local economist for fixing the economy ur heros totally not meme majors or anything

>>15390222
OP, not a ton of book recommendations here. Econ is a great major. I do agree with other posters that your intro level classes will provide an excellent base. Otherwise, try Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt. It might even be too basic for you, but it's a good place to start. Once you enroll at university you should check pricing on a student subscription to The Economist and The Wall Street Journal. Your university library should have a subscription as well. Your library should also give access to JSTOR. Look for publications and books by Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek. Marx and Adam Smith will have their place as you develop expertise, but start with the basics and it will carry you well.

>>15390222

>>15403323
>imagine thinking marxian economics is even the bulk of marxism
I can defend it on historical or philosophical grounds just as easily. As im not in the business of managing a state i have no real use for the direct formulas.
The economics are derived from the greater body, not a component of it, and even if it contains flaws this doesn't matter since the entirety of marxs economic work was him simply trying to analyze capitalism using the tools he previously developed. One could for example point out how marx misused one of his own principals and correct him, and not be going 'against marx', for it is the principals and not the conclusion which is the inner core of marxism.

>>15390222
Just read The Foundation for Exploration

>>15403557
False. That would would strip marxism from its main difference with other socialist or communist political schools of socialism: its claim of being a science that aims to understand how the world works in order to change it. Marxism is not a set of abstract principles such as social equality or human rights, it is above everything a science that aims to understand capitalism in order to actually realize those values.
>One could for example point out how marx misused one of his own principals and correct him
I don't see how this would still be marxism. Marx was a pretty coherent and consistent thinker, so if you adhere to ideas like capitalist exploitation, surplus value, class struggle, etc. you necessarily must agree with labour theory of value, for example, which is the basis that Marx found to formulate all those other concepts. His critique of political economy is the chore of marxism. It doesn't seem like you have read too much Marx desu.

>>15403772
The general concepts of those things sure, but the specific applications of them more questionably.

Bet lets say we assume all these things are wrong. It still does not touch on dialectical and historical materialism, which is what marx formed his views from. You could argue dialectical materialism does not belong to marx as it was independently created on multiple occasions, but historical materialism as a working theory of history certainly does, and any specific historical materialist analysis of any point in time is dependent on known information about that period of time, and so conclusions can be false by using bad information, for example.

Likewise, the very nature of the assumptions behind historical materialism, that society is shaped by its conditions, will necessarily change as those conditions change. The stance of some modern historical materialists for example are that marxs economic ideas described things and were valid interpretations in his time but no longer describe things in our time. (notably the dprk, who presupposes historical materialism as valid, but no longer considers itself marxist despite marx in his capacity of dialectical and historical materialism still being foundational to their worldview- so i suppose they agree with your definition of what marxism is)

This becomes a problem of semantics ultimately however, as marx and engels contributed three main and distinct thing to the left: dialectical materialism (or at least its most refined form), historical materialism which is a dialectical materialist theory of history, and marxs study of capitalism which is a historical materialist analysis of capitalism.

Thus if one were to argue against dialectical materialism, they would be arguing against all three. If they were arguing against historical materialism, they would be arguing against two of the three, and if they were to be arguing against marxian economics they would be arguing against only one of the three.

There are moreover people who consider themselves marxian economists who have added entirely new ideas to it or disagree with marx in some ways. What do we call these people? Is marxism to be taken as an economic school? a lineage? some combination of the previous three things?
If we call it a dogmatic adherence to the specific and exact economics marx described the first person to argue against it would be marx himself!

>>15404186
I should also point out, that there is at least one person out there who is particularly adamant that dialectical materialism is complete garbage, and will spend countless hours arguing this point, but who holds that historical materialism is right and true, and it was simply accidentally discovered by marx through the employment of his incorrect philosophy. So im not sure arguing against dialectical materialism would really constitute an argument against the other two either, which is properly materialist when you think about it because a theory of history can be scrutinized against history directly.