Interesting books on economics

[Anonymous No.13537862]

I'm just getting interested in the financial world, can anyone recommend some good books about economics?

is this good?

[Anonymous No.13537871]

Economics - Paul Samuelson and William Nordhaus (1948)

Principles of Economics - N. Gregory Mankiw (2002)

Economics - Mark P. Taylor and N. Gregory Mankiw (2006)

Macroeconomics - N. Gregory Mankiw

Principles of Macroeconomics - N. Gregory Mankiw (2000)

Principles of Microeconomics - Karl E. Case (1989)

Principles of Macroeconomics - Karl E. Case (1992)

The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money - John Maynard Keynes (1936)

Economics in One Lesson - Henry Hazlitt (1946)

Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy - Thomas Sowell (2000)

Wealth of Nations - Adam Smith (1776)

Capital Vol. 1 - Karl Marx (1867)

Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy - Joseph Schumpeter (1942)

On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation - David Ricardo (1817)

Principles of Economics - Alfred Marshall (1890)

Principles of Political Economy - John Stuart Mill (1848)

The Theory of Money and Credit - Ludwig von Mises (1912)

Principles of Economics - Carl Menger (1871)

Elements of Pure Economics: Or, The Theory of Social Wealth - Léon Walras (1874)

Mathematical Investigations in the Theory of Value and Prices - Irving Fisher (1895)

Theory of Games and Economic Behavior - John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern (1944)

Manual of Political Economy - Vilfredo Pareto (1906)

The Theory of Political Economy - William Stanley Jevons (1871)

An Essay on the Principle of Population - Thomas Robert Malthus (1798)

The Positive Theory of Capital - Eugen Böhm von Bawerk (1889)

Capital and Interest - Eugen Böhm von Bawerk (1884)

The Theory of Economic Development - Joseph Schumpeter (1911)

History of Economic Analysis - Joseph Schumpeter (1954)

The New Industrial State - John Kenneth Galbraith (1967)

The Affluent Society - John Kenneth Galbraith (1958)

Progress and Poverty - Henry George (1879)

A Treatise on Political Economy - Jean-Baptiste Say (1803)

The Worldly Philosophers - Robert Heilbroner (1953)

On Money - Ferdinando Galiani (1751)

The Distribution of Wealth - John Bates Clark (1899)

Intermediate Microeconomics with Calculus: A Modern Approach - Hal Varian (2014)

Microeconomic Analysis - Hal Varian (1978)

Advanced Macroeconomics - David Romer (1976)

International Economics: Theory and Policy - Paul Krugman (1998)

[Anonymous No.13537876]

>>13537871
The Economics of Money, Banking and Financial Markets - Frederic Mishkin (1986)
Money, Banking and Financial Markets - Laurence Ball (2008)

Basic Econometrics - Damodar N. Gujarati (1978)

Introductory Econometrics: A Modern Approach - Jeffrey Wooldridge (2000)

Introduction to Econometrics - James H. Stock and Mark Watson (2002)

Econometric Analysis - William H. Greene (1990)

A Course in Econometrics - Arthur Goldberger (1991)
Econometric Theory and Methods - Russell Davidson James MacKinnon (2004)

Options, Futures and Other Derivatives - John C. Hull (1989)

Mathematics for Finance: An Introduction to Financial Engineering - Marek Capiński and T.J. Zastawniak (2002)

Stochastic Calculus for Finance I: The Binomial Asset Pricing Model - Steven E. Shreve (2004)

Stochastic Calculus for Finance II: Continuous-Time Models - Steven E. Shreve (2004)

Game Theory - Eilon Solan, Michael Maschler, and Shmuel Zamir (2003)

Microeconomic Theory - Andreu Mas-Colell (1995)

(Teoria) Recursive Macroeconomic(a) Theory - Thomas J. Sargent (1979)

Econometrics - Fumio Hayashi (2000)

Estimation and Inference in Econometrics - Russell Davidson (1993)

Introductory Econometrics: A Modern Approach and Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data - Jeffrey Wooldridge (2001)

[Anonymous No.13537882]

>>13537871
>>13537876
The Theory of the Leisure Class - Thorstein Veblen (1899)

A Theory of Price Control - John Kenneth Galbraith (1952)

Financial Liberalization and the Asian Crisis - Ha-Joon Chang (2001)

Institutions and the Role of the State - Ha-Joon Chang (2000)

23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism - Ha-Joon Chang (2010)

The Price of Inequality: How Today's Divided Society Endangers Our Future - Joseph Stiglitz (2012)

Kicking Away the Ladder - Ha-Joon Chang (2002)

Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism - Ha-Joon Chang (2007)

Economics: The User's Guide - Ha-Joon Chang (2015)

American Capitalism - John Kenneth Galbraith (1952)

Individualism and Economic Order - Friedrich Hayek (1948)

The Road to Serfdom - Friedrich Hayek (1944)

The Modern Corporation and Private Property - Adolf Berle and Gardiner Means (1932)

Business Cycles - Joseph Schumpeter (1939)

[Anonymous No.13537890]

Is it true that Turkey has a deep state? I must know.

[Anonymous No.13537914]

>>13537871
>>13537876
>>13537882
Thank you kindly

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.13537923]

All that and no Richard Wolff or Paul Cockshott?
The two of which are with Vaoufakis being against “austerity” and the like.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.13537935]

>>13537890
An oligarchy pulling the strings? Edogonorrhea not as powerful as he appears?

[Anonymous No.13537952]

>>13537923
>All that and nobody recommended these two faggots who agree with my backwards ideology?
We're trying to talk about actual economic theory here not some mawkish Marxist maunder.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.13537976]

>>13537952
What’d you say about Varoufakis? Punk.

Throwing Marx in that makes it look like some kind of fair and balanced list, Krugman? Stiglitz? But no Keynes? Fake list. A distraction. An overload of bullshit to obscure the main issue with capitalism

[Anonymous No.13537984]

>>13537976
..... Keynes is included in that anon's list

[Anonymous No.13538003]

>>13537952
I've yet to see a good rebuttal of Cockshott; everything I've seen just restates Hayek. whose argument Cockshott systematically dismantles in TANS.

[Anonymous No.13538009]

>>13537976
>no Keynes
He's there.

[Anonymous No.13538010]

>>13537952
Economic theory has been blown open since 08 so no more of that posturing.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.13538028]

>>13537984
>>13538009
Oh, okay.

[Anonymous No.13538210]

[Anonymous No.13538254]

>>13537862
Astrology: A Survey
Willow Feldman (1967)

Aura Reading in Five Dimensions
Kevin Charpathakwarmi (1976)

Divining Numerology: a Modern Approach
Various

Making Shit Up With Regression
Various

[Anonymous No.13538264]

>>13537871
>>13537876
>>13537882
tl;dr

[Anonymous No.13538267]

>>13538210
That cover should be the ching chongs, the yellow empire will soon own most of Africa and Asia.

[Anonymous No.13538336]

>>13538267
nah, they started investing much more but it's still less than western countries

[Anonymous No.13538342]

>>13538336
the chart is foreign direct investment in billions of dollars btw

[Anonymous No.13538357]

>>13538336
>>13538342
fdi in africa*
fuck me

[Anonymous No.13538399]

>>13538336
Give it time.

UK is closing up economically, US is trashing it's own soft power.

Why did India shrink?

[Anonymous No.13538429]

>>13538336
>>13538342
The Chinese are not only putting in investments but a lot of people, Google the Ghana goldrush...

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.13538430]

>>13538267
I think the cover is just pointing out that socialism isn’t dead but actually rising up to to replace capitalism in its “final crisis”

>>13538336
The western nations affiliated with the US empire are going to hit the fan and crash so hard. China will be left standing and ready to change, as a socialist nation ought to. But who knows? Maybe a nuclear war will break out from a crazed and fractured nation

[FUCKER OF NIGGERS, IMPALER OF (...) No.13538451]

>>13538430
>Butterfly can't into current geopolitics or futurism
awww sweetie, maybe stick to dilation, it's what you're good at.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.13538463]

>>13538451
What would you like to know?

[Anonymous No.13539278]

i'd like some economics books that aren't "capitalist" or "socialist"
some forgotten, underrated, or out there schools of thought economics wise

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.13539411]

>>13539278
What would that look like?
Ultimately I want a shared economy, but you have to do not-capitalism, so *actual* socialism, for a while. And that doesn’t mean authoritarian governments, but actual direct democracy in a decentralized world where borders come up to your chin or front door depending on where you are standing

[Anonymous No.13539461]

[Anonymous No.13539490]

>>13538430
>China
>Socialist

Pick one.

[Anonymous No.13539629]

>>13539490
>he never shopped in a proletarian gucci store
you fucking disgusting bourgeois swine

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.13539660]

>>13539490
Didn’t mean to imply, but they have aspirations, and are nominally “socialist” in the same way Scandinavia is

[Anonymous No.13539672]

>>13539490
The political class has more power than the merchant class though. From Hu onwards Chinks were trying to prevent capital from gaining power and force their hands into every company possible. And that doesn´t account for the state companies which have monopoly over the most important aspects of economy like banking, resources, construction or electricity.

[Anonymous No.13539697]

>>13539461
meme

[Anonymous No.13539734]

>>13539660
Scandinavia isn't nominally socialist...
Infact sweden's GDP has steadily declined in relation to the rest of the west since the early 70s as a result of socialist policies. Before the 70s sweden had lower taxes than most other european nations. There were tries in the 70s to implement some very socialist policies but those were unmitigated disasters some of which the results are still felt today. The Scandinavian countries are successful in spite of socialism not the other way around.
Besides we are in for a very harsh reality check in a few years...

t. swede

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.13539750]

>>13539734
They beg to differ.
>Infact sweden's GDP has steadily declined in relation to the rest of the west since the early 70s
Everyone has. That’s capitalism hitting the fan. After China replaces the US the way the US replaced the UK, there won’t be another. There can’t be.

>The Scandinavian countries are successful in spite of socialism not the other way around.
Thy are a halfway experiment, but the other state centralized capitalism, China, is doing quite well.

[FUCKER OF NIGGERS, IMPALER OF (...) No.13539761]

>>13539750
>c-capitalism will collapse any day now says the increasingly nervous marxist

[Comrade buttpluck No.13539782]

>>13539734
>Social democrats nearly always in power
>Strong GDP growth for a western, first world country
>One of highest gdp per capita in the world
>Wealth inequality lower than in nations with higher GDP per capita. Statistics are more meaningful
What did he mean by this? You are certainly right that capitalism causes the dissapearance of public sector, but that isn't in any way a good thing.
>>13539761
It unironically will. I wonder whenever by a crash or ecological disaster.

[Anonymous No.13539785]

>>13539734
Oh and i should add that our socialized healthcare system is so good that many people are forced to go abroad for some treatments since the waiting times are sometimes measured in years.
I'm myself considering going abroad for wisdom teeth surgery since i need to wait for over a year for them to even look at it.
and I'm paying over 45% tax...

[Anonymous No.13539787]

>>13537923
>All that and no Richard Wolff or Paul Cockshott?
yes. hacks

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.13539791]

>>13539761
It collapses in cycles. And we strain under its inadequacy. Eventually it either eats everything in sight and we die, or we overthrow its high priests, also probably not in time, but maybe yes in time, for something. Just not more fucking capitalism.

[Anonymous No.13539797]

>>13539734
>taxing the working class so they can pay welfare
>socialist policies
cringe, that's more like class confusion polices

[FUCKER OF NIGGERS, IMPALER OF (...) No.13539806]

>>13539791
Your doomsday predictions haven't even come close to true in over 100 years. It's funny to watch you get excited every recession thinking it's the end of capitalism, but it's either the boom and bust cycle or caused by shitty policies.

[Comrade buttpluck No.13539822]

>>13539785
>treatments since the waiting times are sometimes measured in years.
Good thing public healthcare performances always better for the population. The US Healthcare system, arguably one of the most private ones, is one of the most expensive in the world.... at the same life expectancy as a third world nation of Cuba.

[Anonymous No.13539904]

>Everyone has. That’s capitalism hitting the fan. After China replaces the US the way the US replaced the UK, there won’t be another. There can’t be.
In relation to the west, learn to read retard.

also who are "they"? Are you refering to the danes?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RO7wgS5tdz4

>>13539782
>>Social democrats nearly always in power
Before the 70s the Swedish social democrats were relatively right wing and worked closely with the capital in order to ensure steady growth. As reflected by the comparatively low tax rates. (they still maintain relatively good relations with the capitalists compared to many other social democrat parties)
>>Strong GDP growth for a western, first world country
Nope, below average for OECD and has been on a relative decline since the 70s
>>One of highest gdp per capita in the world
Sweden was number 4 in the 70s now its number 15, that is a significant drop since the 70s. That's mediocre for a first world country.
>>Wealth inequality lower than in nations with higher GDP per capita. Statistics are more meaningful
Not necessarily related to socialist policies.
>What did he mean by this? You are certainly right that capitalism causes the dissapearance of public sector, but that isn't in any way a good thing.
The public sector was small until the early 60/70s which for some magical reason happens to coincide exactly with the time sweden went from being "best in class" to "okay" compared to other western democracies.

[Anonymous No.13539945]

>>13539822
>Good thing public healthcare performances always better for the population
Are you seriously trying to spin year long waiting times for cancer treatments as a good thing?

Atleast its going to be cheap for the state if no one has access to it i guess.

[Anonymous No.13539968]

Hudson Michael

[Comrade buttpluck No.13540039]

>>13539904
>Before the 70s the Swedish social democrats were relatively right wing
They were left wing in Sweden. I have no idea where the ruler is from where to measure the "relative-ness".
>Nope, below average for OECD and has been on a relative decline since the 70s
https://ycharts.com/indicators/sweden_gdp_growth
It's doing fine. The gdp growth rate didn't "fall" after social democrats took power since they have been winning elections before that.
>Sweden was number 4 in the 70s now its number 15, that is a significant drop since the 70s. That's mediocre for a first world country.
Seeing most of other countries above it are tax heavens, or US. A nation which which wealth is so unequally distributed that the comparison is meaningless.
>Not necessarily related to socialist policies.
It certainly is. Countries with strong social democratic governments have lower wealth inequality.
>"best in class" to "okay" compared to other western democracies.
Stop living in your asshole. Sweden is still the shining example of social democracy in the world.
>>13539945
>Are you seriously trying to spin year long waiting times for cancer treatments as a good thing?
Better than people spending millions on healthcare - if they can afford it that is - and paying their bills back for years, maybe decades.

[Anonymous No.13540290]

>>13540039
>They were left wing in Sweden. I have no idea where the ruler is from where to measure the "relative-ness".
The left wing in sweden was and is the former communist party. They were center left for a long time, the "folkhem" holy grail of swedish social democracy was stolen from the conservatives.
Swedish social democracy is based on a deal that was done between the oligarchs and the (social democrat associated) unions back in the 30s (which is still in effect, although migration is slowly crushing it), after that much of the activist tendencies were stamped out in the party and for the next 30 years it had a very pragmatical approach.

>https://ycharts.com/indicators/sweden_gdp_growth
>It's doing fine. The gdp growth rate didn't "fall" after social democrats took power since they have been winning elections before that.
Most of that GDP growth is from population growth, the GDP per capita growth in 2018 was 1.2%. https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=PDB_GR
I never said it had anything to do with the social democrats taking over i said it had to do with the policies they implemented, until the mid 60s the modern welfare state didn't exist and the taxes were low compared to the rest of europe.
>Seeing most of other countries above it are tax heavens, or US. A nation which which wealth is so unequally distributed that the comparison is meaningless.
And everything below 30 is basically 3rd world. The point remains that In comparison were doing worse than 40 years ago. Sweden used to be were Switzerland is.
>It certainly is. Countries with strong social democratic governments have lower wealth inequality.
The low wealth inequality existed before the welfare state was created though.
>Stop living in your asshole. Sweden is still the shining example of social democracy in the world.
Still is the keyword here, the welfare state is being crushed under it's own weight by way of irresponsible spending and migration.
>>>13539945 (You)
>>Are you seriously trying to spin year long waiting times for cancer treatments as a good thing?
>Better than people spending millions on healthcare - if they can afford it that is - and paying their bills back for years, maybe decades.
I'd rather have bills than be dead.
I've gone to the ER with a concussion and was told to go home since they didn't have any time for me. A friend went in with a broken arm and was told to return the next day. The public trust in the healthcare system is at a all time low and sinking.

[Anonymous No.13540295]

This is the only economics book you'll ever need.

[Anonymous No.13540499]

>>13537862
>Principles of Economics - N. Gregory Mankiw (2002)
This textbook is garbage. I learned a fuck-ton more about macro in sections and on the exams than I ever did from this textbook. Extremely superficial, never really felt like it got into "the meat of things". The snippets of media, newspaper articles, and other things were nice though, especially the ones that had to do with the 2008 crisis. Makes you realize just how retarded most of top academics, bankers, and politicians are and question why you're taking a course that follows their school of thought...

[Anonymous No.13540514]

>>13539629
base - superstructure