Econ grads

[Anonymous No.16417605]

>Hasn't read Marx
>Hasn't read Engels
>Hasn't read Bakunin
>Hasn't read Goldman
>Hasn't read Kropotkin
>Hasn't read Malatesta
>Hasn't read Lenin
>Hasn't read Trotsky
>Hasn't read Lukacs
>Hasn't read Bloch
>Hasn't read Luxemburg
>Hasn't read Kautsky
>Hasn't read Bernstein
>Hasn't read Adorno
>Hasn't read Horkheimer
>Hasn't read Benjamin
>Hasn't read Marcuse
>Hasn't read Fromm
>Hasn't read Althusser
>Hasn't read Sartre
>Hasn't read Beauvoir
>Hasn't read Davis
>Hasn't read Federici
>Hasn't read Hochschild
>Hasn't read Wallerstein
>Hasn't read Hobsbawm
>Hasn't read Habermas
>Hasn't read Negri
>Hasn't read Hardt
>Hasn't read Graeber
>Hasn't read Robert Paul Wolff
>Hasn't read Wood
>Hasn't read Cohen
>Hasn't read Wright
>Hasn't read Jonathan Wolff
>Hasn't read Roemer
>Hasn't read Kliman
>Hasn't read Harvey
>Hasn't read Sweezy
>Hasn't read Chomsky
>Hasn't read Foucault
>Hasn't read Deleuze
>Hasn't read Guattari
>Hasn't read Badiou
>Hasn't read Zizek
>Hasn't read Brassier
>Hasn't read Debord
>Hasn't read Baudrillard
>Hasn't read Jameson
>Hasn't read Bookchin
>Bro you're an economic illiterate, read pic related/Samuelson's textbook/Hayek
Why the fuck should we take you seriously?

[Anonymous No.16417618]

>>16417605
>he thinks any of these faggots are worth reading
Why the fuck should we take YOU seriously?

[Anonymous No.16417628]

Why do economics majors think so highly of themselves? Economics is not a science and is also not an art; it's nothing really.

[Anonymous No.16417641]

>>16417628

>not science

Why not with specific examples.

[Anonymous No.16417675]

>>16417605
Agreed. Actual economists would be a terrible start to truly understanding the field of economics. Otherwise you risk falling into the dogmas of """validity""" and """empiricism,""" which are complete pseud concepts.

[Anonymous No.16417684]

>>16417675
>validity
>empiricism
>mainstream ec*nomics
One of these things doesn't go well with the others, can you spot which one? ;)

[Anonymous No.16417686]

>>16417684
yes, the non-greentexted part

[Anonymous No.16417687]

>>16417641
It doesn't concern itself with the natural world at all. Economists can also be consistently wrong about every major event in the economy and still keep their jobs. Imagine if a chemist was always wrong about what would happen if he mixed certain chemicals.

[Anonymous No.16417714]

>>16417675
experience and facts btfo

[Anonymous No.16417730]

>>16417714
T. has no idea what synthetic a priori is

[Anonymous No.16417749]

>>16417628
>>16417641
Economics is just the intersection between psychology, law and accounting

[Anonymous No.16417751]

>>16417687

Chemists make inaccurate predictions all the time. Chemists just don't speculate about what experiments will work or not work in public.

The predictions that are made that "economics" has the most control over are what operations the Fed can take to control inflation and keep unemployment low. If you look historically the US has in fact gotten better at stabilizing these numbers.

[Anonymous No.16417771]

Economics, and capitalism, were invented in the U.S.A. Why would I read all these foreigners?

[Anonymous No.16417779]

>>16417628
>Economics is not a science and is also not an art; it's nothing really.

said, without a hint of irony, by a polisci or pysch major.

[Anonymous No.16417801]

>>16417618
fpbp

[Anonymous No.16417817]

>>16417605
My friend is getting his masters in Econometrics or some shit from the 3rd school in Boston and the only thing he's read there is the Communist Manifesto. He did read the Wealth of Nations.

[Anonymous No.16418049]

Economy is the king of all studies
>includes economy
>includes law
>includes math
>includes philosophy
>includes statistics
>the highest concentration of chads by a long shot
>best payed
Anyone not studying economy is wasting his life

[Anonymous No.16418107]

>>16417605
Econ grad

>read Bastiat
>read Mises
>read Smith
>read Rothbard
>read Hoppe
>read Thoreau
>read Hayek
>read Keynes

boom, done, next

[Anonymous No.16418110]

>>16417605
this is fucking bait.

[Anonymous No.16418116]

>>16417817
Econometrics is bullshit that ass-kissers use to magically come up with numbers that tell the Estate what the GDP is this year and why the politicians did such a great job. GDP doesn't mean shit, only buying power, human development and quality of life are indicative of how well the government or the people did economically.

[Anonymous No.16418124]

>>16418110
it's fucking true midwit

[Anonymous No.16418126]

>>16417605
sound like turkeys who cant appreciate mama's squid ink gabagool

[Anonymous No.16418139]

I see a bunch of irrelevant names and salt from someone who makes less money than me

[Anonymous No.16418145]

>read Sartre, Foucault, Chomsky, Beauvoir for economics

Huh?

[Anonymous No.16418154]

>>16418116
As a econ major myself, I 100% agree with you.

[Anonymous No.16418162]

>>16418049
The problem is that it waters down every single discipline. We have approximate knowledge of many things, which is good, but unless you dig deeper, it would be dangerous to listen to you

[Anonymous No.16418168]

>>16417605
A good chunk of people on this list are not economists. Even leftists wouldn't take you seriously.

[Anonymous No.16418188]

>>16418154
a man of wisdom

[Anonymous No.16418229]

>>16417605
t.

[Anonymous No.16418241]

>>16418145
Don't bother, this is just someone seething

[Anonymous No.16418248]

econ majors are a bigger meme than philisophy majors desu

[Anonymous No.16418261]

>>16417605
And that's a good thing.

[Anonymous No.16418264]

>>16417605
You're correct I've read none of these during my Economics BA. I won't waste time reading things I know are wrong

[Anonymous No.16418265]

>>16418145
if economics is truly the crossroads of several other disciplines then yes Sartre, Beauvoir, Foucault and especially Chomsky would be incredibly relevant

[Anonymous No.16418271]

>>16417605
I don't have a problem with econ grads, just people who think economics is economic philosophy. You don't need to read any of thise people to realize that economics is something you judge, not accept.

[Anonymous No.16418276]

>>16418229
>t.

[Anonymous No.16418285]

>>16418265
>if economics is trly the crossroads of several other disciplines, then yes, mental retard who stole his philosophy from Heidegger, pedophile nazi sympathizer and original feminist zealot, ass fisted sex obsessed fag and poor man's Wittgenstein are incredibly relevant.

[Anonymous No.16418288]

>>16418049
>payed
those retards make fuck all
they have nothing to offer job wise

[Anonymous No.16418312]

>>16418288
Only if you study at some bumfuck community college. If you study at a somewhat prestigious uni you will make more than any other major easily (average salary for graduates in my uni is 120k one year later, though it is in switzerland)

[Anonymous No.16418325]

>Hasn't read Harris
>Hasn't read Klebold
>Hasn't read Breivik
>Hasn't read Lanza
>Hasn't read Bundy
>Hasn't read Wayne Gacy
>Hasn't read Dahmer
>Hasn't read Eagan Holmes
>Hasn't read Roger
>Hasn't read Kaczynski
>Bro you're a chemistry illiterate, read a chemistry textbook
Why the fuck should we take you seriously?

[Anonymous No.16418341]

>>16418312
>what are high hopes
lmao
what does an econ major even have to offer?
If you aim for many targets you'll still only hit if any. You'll never be a renaissance man. AI has and will any remaining things that econ majors are tasked with so it's a dead end

[Anonymous No.16418344]

>>16418341
>only hit one
>has and will automate
how sloppy of me

[Anonymous No.16418458]

>>16417605
>Hasn't read Mackinnon & Davidson
>Hasn't read Romer
>Hasn't read MWG
>Bro read Marx, he's, like, super duper cool. TIL who Meternicht or whoever is
Why the fuck should we take you seriously

[Anonymous No.16418487]

>>16417605
economics is supposed to be a science based on empirical data, not a "who has read the most old/obscure philosophers pulling shit out of their asses" pseud-off.

[Anonymous No.16418495]

>>16417618
this

[Anonymous No.16418497]

>>16418124
yes, it certainly is bait

[Anonymous No.16418499]

>>16417605
I could list more writers about islam and that wouldn't make it any less retarded.

>>16417714
>skips all epistemology ever written
What did anon mean by this?

[Anonymous No.16418506]

>>16417730
>synthetic a priori
doesn't exist.

[Anonymous No.16418535]

>>16418264
Hello, Based Department?

[Anonymous No.16418621]

>>16417751
Yes but...

When a chemist mixes the same two ingredients in the same way, he will get the same result.

When an economist does that same thing to an economy, the result is wildly different.

The issue is their predictions are predicated on the idea that their models are not inherently flawed and thus are likely to fail miserably because of this faith they placed in things they can't actually understand.

Ultimately the economy is a chaotic hellbeast that overnight could change so drastically on the whims of consumers who could collectively decide something is the thing they all need to buy or sell.

[Anonymous No.16418669]

>hasn't read Wieser
>hasn't read Menger
>hasn't read Bohm Bawerk
>hasn't read Schumpeter
>hasn't read Machlup
>hasn't read Haberler
>hasn't read Mises
>hasn't read Rothbard
>hasn't read Hayek
>hasn't read Kirzner
>hasn't read Keynes
>hasn't read Friedman
>hasn't read Knight
>hasn't read Schultz
>hasn't read Stigler
>hasn't read Coase
>hasn't read Becker
>hasn't read Fama
>hasn't read Gertler
Why do subhuman communist niggers like think they deserve any attention from us? Shut the fuck up and get in the helicopter breadfag

[Anonymous No.16418678]

>>16418265
if economics is truly the crossroads of several other disciplines, then an economics graduate should have read every author that's even remotely relevant in philosophy

[Anonymous No.16418729]

>>16418669
Based.

[Anonymous No.16418793]

>>16418288
PAYED

[Anonymous No.16419193]

Richard Wolff would destroy Thomas Sowell in a debate.

[Anonymous No.16419228]

Am I wrong that payed is superior to paid?

[Anonymous No.16419258]

>>16417605
>hobsbawm
>zizek
>sartre
Lul wut

[Anonymous No.16419280]

>>16419228
Difference between "paid" and "payed" is like the difference between "aid" and "ayed"

[Anonymous No.16419285]

>>16417605
>satan-spawn retarded marxists
Reading those corrupts your mind forever

[Anonymous No.16419375]

>>16418264
this. leftists can be ignored in the field of economics since they have never once been able to create a successful economy (don't say China because chinks were starving to death by the millions until the CPC introduced free markets). also Marxism as a method of analysis is complete bullshit that presupposes an inordinate amount of things that are not true and cannot be proved.

[Anonymous No.16420020]

>>16417605
> that whole list
> 'Econ'
> no Smith

[Anonymous No.16420341]

>>16418669
Based
Based
Based
Based-cringe
Based
Based
Extremely based
Beyond based
Pretty based
Quite based
Extremely cringe
Cringe
Based-cringe
Based
Cringe
Very cringe
God has forsaken us levels of cringe
Cringe
Don't know who this is

[Anonymous No.16420408]

>>16420341
The keynesians are cringe but at least they are actually trying to participate in economics unlike the degenerate moralizing rambling faggots from the OP

[Anonymous No.16420477]

>>16418621
Because economies are all different and way more complex than the combination of two chemicals

[Anonymous No.16420511]

If I read enough economics and business books will I be able to make enough money to escape wage slavery? I’m willing to give up all my ideological presuppositions of leftism if it just means I can stay home and read books after looking at some graphs.

[Anonymous No.16420523]

>>16420511
No.

[Anonymous No.16420527]

>>16420511
People don't study economy to learn how to make money, but to learn how societies and civilizations are best logistically organized and how to measure the results and processes of production and consumption in these civilizations.

[Anonymous No.16420541]

>>16420511
buy chainlink

[Anonymous No.16421215]

>>16417686
based

[Anonymous No.16422199]

>>16417605
>goldman
>bakunin
>malatesta
love em but not necessary to read for economics

[Anonymous No.16422224]

>>16419193
Any undergrad econ/business student could destroy Wolff in a debate.

[Anonymous No.16422254]

>>16422224
debates are for children, after 18 your supposed to graduate to reading two angry old men writing polemics at each other

[Anonymous No.16422271]

>>16417628
it has some science of course, but the core is pure politics.

[Anonymous No.16422293]

>>16417628
This. ''''Economics'''' is ruling class apologetics disguised as an academic discipline.

[Anonymous No.16422312]

>>16417605
Bro that's like saying that we shouldnt take History grads seriously because they dont read enough fantasy novels

[Anonymous No.16422343]

>>16422312
Is this a joke? All they do is read fantasy novels.

[Anonymous No.16422609]

>>16418487
>>16420020
>>16422312
>Scientific fields don't have philosophical assumptions built into them

[Anonymous No.16422616]

>>16417675
>>16422609

[Anonymous No.16422653]

Can everyone stop trashing on my major. Thanks.

[Anonymous No.16422675]

>>16418288
Statistically, Econ majors are only surpassed in pay out of college by engineering and physics majors. They are the highest payed major 10 years out of college. I can fucking tell you why, but they are. Also, this is median pay, not average pay.

[Anonymous No.16422784]

>>16418288
I'm making $85,000 out of college but ahead make up some story about making $600,000 a year with a Chinese basketweaving degree on an anime forum

[Anonymous No.16422804]

>>16422784
Where did you go to university?

[Anonymous No.16422810]

If you are going to read books from the 1800s then I suggest this one above any other.

[Anonymous No.16422926]

>>16417618
>t. has never read any of them

[Anonymous No.16422939]

>>16417628
Marxism is a school of political economy. So are you saying that Marxism is worthless? Agreed bro.

[Anonymous No.16422950]

>>16422224
>Wolff earned a BA magna cum laude in history from Harvard in 1963 and moved on to Stanford—he attained an MA in economics in 1964—to study with Paul A. Baran. Baran died prematurely from a heart attack in 1964 and Wolff transferred to Yale University, where he received an MA in economics in 1966, MA in history in 1967, and a PhD in economics in 1969. As a graduate student at Yale, Wolff worked as an instructor. His dissertation, "Economic Aspects of British Colonialism in Kenya, 1895–1930", was eventually published in book form in 1974.
I don't know, he's not dumb

[Anonymous No.16422952]

>>16420511
If you’re really interested in making money learn technical analysis and start trading spy options for fast money

[Anonymous No.16422953]

>>16417675
>actual economists don't understand economics

[Anonymous No.16423042]

>>16422224
Where does this confidence come from? I've genuinely, unironically never witnessed a well-read marxist lose a debate, especially not to a business/econ student.

[Anonymous No.16423059]

>>16418107
All of these authors got BTFO by Marxian/ist economics kek

[Anonymous No.16423063]

>>16422609
And?

[Anonymous No.16423071]

>>16418487
Economics is intimately connected to philosophy you dipshit. Marx is one of, if not the single most influential economist of all time for this reason.

[Anonymous No.16423075]

>>16423059
>All these economists who crafted an economic theory proved scientifically and mathematically to be perfect have been BTFO by retards who believe communism and anarchy to be compatible, just check out these semantics games here

[Anonymous No.16423088]

Are you incredibly butthurt that physics grads don't read a laundry list of impetus theory writers too?

[Anonymous No.16423092]

MARX IS NOT A FUCKING ECONOMIST!!!!!! HE JUST SHOWED WHAT IS CAPITALISM AND HOW IT WORKS, WHERE IT'S GOING AND HOW IT'S GOING TO DIE, NOTHING ABOUT FUCKING ECONOMICS

[Anonymous No.16423133]

Is there anything to Marxist economics beyond "Marxists should be in charge of the economy"?

[Anonymous No.16423324]

>>16418621
I just want to chime in and say that economics is becoming more and more accurate given advances in computation. There was no way for an economist decades ago to analyze large sums of data but now it's easy with computers. Everything precomputer era was too heavily focused on theory.
You are also referring to macroeconomics which is very counter intuitive and iffy. Micro focused economics is pretty solid. Also what measures are you using to determine that econ is inaccurate? If an economist is only a few percentage points off in their prediction then it's kinda dumb to criticize given how complex the economy is...economist really dont have the luxury of being able to run experiments outside of behavioural game theory.

[Anonymous No.16423349]

>>16423071
I have a BA in economics and we never mentioned Marx in any of my courses. So I don't know where you get your valuation of him.
His writings don't make any economic sense to me either. Like does he even mention supply and demand or price systems in his work?

[Anonymous No.16423369]

>>16423071
>t. retard blowing shit out of his ass
Marx is a fucking joke in economics and was never once mentioned in my undergrad beyond a few slides in an economic history class. All his derivatives are as irrelevant as he is

[Anonymous No.16423409]

>>16417605

Question for the fellow econ grads, how do you get job in econ? Got an MS and still having trouble.

[Anonymous No.16423423]

>>16419375
Marxists are an embarrassment in all aspects of science, history, economics, etc because their entire system hinges on an unrealistic assumption of where value comes from, but also because their dogma is very much defined by Marx and his retardations, including historical dialectics, which is the most hilarious thing they could be so wrong about. An obscure but funny example comes from Anthropology
>Be Soviet Anthropologist Vladislav Radovnikas in 1939
>Discover an island full of graves off the northern coast of Russia
>Obviously very old, but hard to date as carbon dating not yet invented.
>Graves filled with animal bone jewelry, carved religious figurines of animals, bone knives and flint instruments
>Wealth of the graves and the amount of bodies (roughly 500) meant they must have been farmers according to Marxist historical Dialectics
>0 evidence of domesticated animals or pottery, a necessary step towards being a farming society
>"It must have been ritual to not include those in their graves!"
>Dates it 2000 BC, when early farming was believed to have arisen in the north
>Horribly wrong and laughed at decades later by Anthropologists, actual grave site was hunter gatherers from 6700 to 6000 BC
Funny he tried to fit evidence into a marxist world view of history instead of realizing these people had complex posessions and customs before the invention of farming had come. Putting dogma before reality, as all communists do
http://www.umich.edu/~anth282/Olenii.pdf

[Anonymous No.16423438]

>>16417618
FPBP

[Anonymous No.16423444]

I agree

[Anonymous No.16423466]

>>16423349
>His writings don't make any economic sense to me either. Like does he even mention supply and demand or price systems in his work?
Yes, but Marx's work could be considered an extension of Ricardo and Smith's work on the source of value and how that plays into economics. He isn't as concerned with specific economic movement as he is with how new value is introduced and how the relationship through which it is introduced affects the development of history.
>>16423369
Why the fuck would an economist like Marx be mentioned in an undergrad economics degree? If you think that whether or not a contributor to a field is relevant to said field is based in whether or not you'll hear about them in your undergraduate classes you're the undergrad graduate students and beyond make fun of.
Marx's calculations have little to do with number crunching for predicting specific movements of capitalism, they have to do with the philosophical and theoretical bases of capitalism. This is like saying a mathematician is irrelevant simply because you don't necessarily delve into their most fundamental mathematical/philosophical proofs which build the basis the rest of math sits upon in undergrad.

[Anonymous No.16423471]

>>16422804
University of Virginia

[Anonymous No.16423482]

>>16423423
Yes this is just like how bad implantation of Bacon's scientific method disproves his scientific method haha FUCK YOU MATERIALISTS haha so fucking based!

[Anonymous No.16423488]

>>16417605
Not an economist but 90% of fags in that list are garbage. Try again.

[Anonymous No.16423490]

>>16417605
Yes

[Anonymous No.16423505]

>>16417605
How can someone read that many leftist authors without realizing that it's shit

[Anonymous No.16423517]

>>16417605
>>Hasn't read Insert_Name_1
>>Hasn't read Insert_Name_2
>>Hasn't read Insert_Name_3
>>Hasn't read Insert_Name_4
>>Hasn't read Insert_Name_5
>>Hasn't read Insert_Name_6
>>Hasn't read Insert_Name_7
>>Hasn't read Insert_Name_8
>>Hasn't read Insert_Name_9
>>Hasn't read Insert_Name_10
>>Hasn't read Insert_Name_11
>>Hasn't read Insert_Name_12
>>Hasn't read Insert_Name_13
>>Hasn't read Insert_Name_14
>>Hasn't read Insert_Name_15
>>Hasn't read Insert_Name_16
>>Hasn't read Insert_Name_17
>>Hasn't read Insert_Name_18
>>Hasn't read Insert_Name_19
>>Hasn't read Insert_Name_20
>>Hasn't read Insert_Name_21
>>Hasn't read Insert_Name_22
>>Hasn't read Insert_Name_23
>>Hasn't read Insert_Name_24
>>Hasn't read Insert_Name_25
>>Hasn't read Insert_Name_26
>>Hasn't read Insert_Name_27
>>Hasn't read Insert_Name_28
>>Hasn't read Insert_Name_29
>>Hasn't read Insert_Name_30
>>Hasn't read Insert_Name_31
>>Hasn't read Insert_Name_32
>>Hasn't read Insert_Name_33
>>Hasn't read Insert_Name_34
>>Hasn't read Insert_Name_35
>>Hasn't read Insert_Name_36
>>Hasn't read Insert_Name_37
>>Hasn't read Insert_Name_38
>>Hasn't read Insert_Name_39
>>Hasn't read Insert_Name_40
>>Hasn't read Insert_Name_41
>>Hasn't read Insert_Name_42
>>Hasn't read Insert_Name_43
>>Hasn't read Insert_Name_44
>>Hasn't read Insert_Name_45
>>Hasn't read Insert_Name_46
>>Hasn't read Insert_Name_47
>>Hasn't read Insert_Name_48
>>Hasn't read Insert_Name_49
>>Hasn't read Insert_Name_50
>Why the fuck should we take you seriously?

[Anonymous No.16423532]

Economic students aren't treating it like a philosophy, they are literally taught how to be practical in todays market. Learning about Bakunin isn't going to do you any good when trying to get a job

[Anonymous No.16423535]

>>16423505
What credible economists have refuted them?

[Anonymous No.16423551]

>>16423088
Yes, since they make themselves look like fools to philosophers too. Reminder that physicists are only now realizing Einstein was wrong and Kant was right but this has bern obvious to philosophers for decades.

[Anonymous No.16423554]

>>16418669
based

[Anonymous No.16423575]

>>16423551
>bern
*been

[Anonymous No.16423581]

>>16417749
I appreciate your shitposting, even though nobody else seems to.

[Anonymous No.16423584]

>>16423088
>Thinks neoclassical economics has the same scientific authority as physics
Surprised you didn't use a Lamarck comparison, but still gave me a laugh.

[Anonymous No.16423607]

>>16418049
>includes philosophy
lol

[Anonymous No.16423615]

>>16423042
Because Marxists don't actually make points, the obfuscate and confuse by referring to tendencies of capitalism espoused in a section of Marx's 3000 pages of Das Kapital volumes. Like, they'll say "but capitalism obviously fails due to the tendency of the rate of profit to fall" or some other BS about marginal utility of capital or some shit. There's no debate to be had, because the Marxist is just spouting irrelevant analyses of a 19th century wingnut, basically treating Marx as an appeal to authority.

[Anonymous No.16423619]

>>16423615
someone hasn't read theory

[Anonymous No.16423675]

>>16423619
I took suggestions from reddit leftists and read some of Kropotkin, Luxembourg, Lenin, and Marx. Finally, as I searched for some semblance of meaning to these utter trash heaps of ideology, I quit while I was halfway through Kapital volume 1. Ultimately, saying "read theory" is just a grand gish gallop to go through vast volumes of specious analysis by philosophers drunk on the belief of an equitable society.

[Anonymous No.16423922]

>>16423675
lol

[Anonymous No.16423990]

>Econ grads
and thats where the problem starts
Graeber is good but Read Niztan and Bichler or Geoffrey Hodgson - the economic is just an extension of the political.
Its absurd to make economics its own distinct and compartmentalised discipline.

[Anonymous No.16424017]

>>16417628
Yeah but financial math is cool

[Anonymous No.16424028]

>>16423675
Cringe

[Anonymous No.16424135]

>>16417605
I have read:

>Marx
Outdated. And a Hegelian, therefore an idiot.

>Sartre
Pseudo-intellectual, despite being a novelist of slightly above average talent (nowadays irrelevant for the French reader - there's so much better stuff).

>Chomsky
Misinterprets his sources. Ignores important facts. Also uses strawmen all the time. Example: https://www.mekong.net/cambodia/chomsky.htm..

>Foucault
Biased selection of sources, pseudo-history. Also unoriginal in many of his ideas.
It's been many years since I read him, though, so I can't comment in any detail.


I have also read *about* some of the authors mentioned, and have always being left with an unfavorable opinion. For instance, after reading about Adorno's thoughts on music I was left with the conclusion that he knew nothing about music whatsoever, and so I did not read him - I'd rather read Wagner, Berlioz, Aaron Copland, or Imogen Holst than him. I am not alone either:

>Adorno's reputation as a musicologist has been in steady decline since his death. His sweeping criticisms of jazz and championing of the Second Viennese School in opposition to Stravinsky have caused him to fall out of favour. The distinguished American scholar Richard Taruskin[71] declared Adorno to be "preposterously over-rated." The eminent pianist and critic Charles Rosen saw Adorno's book The Philosophy of New Music as "largely a fraudulent presentation, a work of polemic that pretends to be an objective study."[72] Even a fellow Marxist such as the historian and jazz critic Eric Hobsbawm saw Adorno's writings as containing "some of the stupidest pages ever written about jazz".[73] The British philosopher Roger Scruton saw Adorno as producing "reams of turgid nonsense devoted to showing that the American people are just as alienated as Marxism requires them to be, and that their cheerful life-affirming music is a 'fetishized' commodity, expressive of their deep spiritual enslavement to the capitalist machine."[67] Irritation with Adorno's tunnel vision started even while he was alive. He may have championed Schoenberg, but the composer notably failed to return the compliment: "I have never been able to bear the fellow [...] It is disgusting, by the way, how he treats Stravinsky."[74]

The same applies for Zizek: I watched perhaps some 10 hours or so of Zizek videos, including one of his movies, and was left with the conclusion that he's not worth-reading. All he did was take this or that cultural object, then apply some very predictable left-wing analysis to it, usually only one of many possible other analyses, but offering no argument whatsoever to suggest his was better than others'. For instance, he took Groucho, Chico and Harp Marx as symbolizing the superego, the ego, and id - which is Freudian analysis of the most superficial kind, and movie analysis of an even worse kind, because those characters do not at all fit in the Freudian scheme.

[Anonymous No.16424143]

>>16424135
I hope this is pasta. If not, you are an embarrassment.

[Anonymous No.16424146]

>>16424143
It isn't.
What is your problem with what I said?

[Anonymous No.16424151]

>>16424146
>And a Hegelian, therefore an idiot.
Which of Hegel’s works have you read? I bet zero

[Anonymous No.16424170]

>>16424151
I started reading his work on the philosophy of history, but stopped because I wasn't profiting from it.
I have also many pages about Hegel, written by respected historians like Giovanni Reale, Anthony Kenny, and others.

Schopenhauer had similar opinions about Hegel. Was he an embarrassment too? Was Schopenhauer an embarrassment? If so, then I am proud to be in the same category as him.

If you know any important ideas from Hegel which are worth reading, you can expose them here and prove them to be true, and then I might read his works.

[Anonymous No.16424175]

>>16424170
Sup retard. Gratz on owning up to you dropping Hegel because he was too hard for you. Also Marx and Hegel are very different.

[Anonymous No.16424213]

>>16424175
I have read books in eight languages, and written metrically perfect sonnets in four, despite never going to a language school in my life, but am a retard. And, indeed, so was Schopenhauer.
Nice argument, my dear non-retarded friend.

>Also Marx and Hegel are very different

I know. But Marx was strongly influenced by Hegel. You know that.
Good night.

[Anonymous No.16424220]

>>16424213
You can’t even read a single of Hegels works for all good your 8 languages did you. You are a bitch.

[Anonymous No.16424236]

>>16418049
>implying philosophy has anything to do with economy
>implying economy """""math""""" is actual math

[Anonymous No.16424256]

>Hegel, installed from above, by the powers that be, as the certified Great Philosopher, was a flat-headed, insipid, nauseating, illiterate charlatan, who reached the pinnacle of audacity in scribbling together and dishing up the craziest mystifying nonsense. This nonsense has been noisily proclaimed as immortal wisdom by mercenary followers and readily accepted as such by all fools, who thus joined into as perfect a chorus of admiration as had ever been heard before. The extensive field of spiritual influence with which Hegel was furnished by those in power has enabled him to achieve the intellectual corruption of a whole generation.

>>16424220
Not finishing a book doesn't mean you "can't" read it. I do not finish the books I am not profiting from, and I felt Hegel to be a weak thinker. My ideas were corroborated by Schopenhauer, whom I greatly respect. Therefore, I stopped reading Hegel.
When you can read books in many languages, you start paying attention to how large the canon is in comparison to the time you have available, and therefore you stop reading bad books.
If you keep reading books which you feel you are not profiting from, you are doing it out of a duty to prove yourself in some pestilent circle, such as academia or a book club. If you equate abandoning a book with not being able to understand it, this means you are a very poor reader, with very little experience among books.

>Hence, in regard to reading, it is a very important thing to be able to refrain. Skill in doing so consists in not taking into one’s hands any book merely because at the time it happens to be extensively read; such as political or religious pamphlets, novels, poetry, and the like, which make a noise, and may even attain to several editions in the first and last year of their existence. Consider, rather, that the man who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience; be careful to limit your time for reading, and devote it exclusively to the works of those great minds of all times and countries, who o’ertop the rest of humanity, those whom the voice of fame points to as such. These alone really educate and instruct. You can never read bad literature too little, nor good literature too much. Bad books are intellectual poison; they destroy the mind. Because people always read what is new instead of the best of all ages, writers remain in the narrow circle of the ideas which happen to prevail in their time; and so the period sinks deeper and deeper into its own mire

[Anonymous No.16424303]

>>16423675
>i quit when i got to actual theory
oh i can tell

[Anonymous No.16425404]

>>16423409
I don’t fucking know dude, you can always be a financial advi—i mean sell insurance like me

[Anonymous No.16425411]

>>16422675
Perfect amount of being technical and not being a sperg

[Anonymous No.16425415]

>>16417641
their basic premises are modeled in the form of linear equations (i.e. prices)

[Anonymous No.16425421]

what a horrible, horrible thread

[Anonymous No.16425485]

>>16417605
Literally none of this has anything to do with economy as a contemporary subject. Reading literally any introductory textbook would be more valuable.

[Anonymous No.16425540]

>>16418669
>no Buchanan
Better luck next time.

[Anonymous No.16425561]

>>16424135
On Foucault, I would add that anything vaguely interesting in him is derivative of his master. He really is the stylistically obtuse, moronic, sexually degenerate version of Canguillem.

[Anonymous No.16425563]

>>16417605
Why the fuck Proudhon and Henry George aren't on this list?

[Anonymous No.16425570]

>>16422271
nope. it's the science of markets. it predicated on capitalist models but applies to all economic transactions, even those in a non-capitalist system.

[Anonymous No.16425593]

>>16425563
In the case of George, because no one takes him seriously and he is a scholarly curiosity.
For Proudhon, he doesn't fit well in OP's list.

[Anonymous No.16425604]

>>16425593
t. seething Marxistoid

[Anonymous No.16425614]

>>16425563
sounds like a great way to have a famine, anon.

[Anonymous No.16425727]

>>16424303
>>16424028
>>16423922
>no just read another 1000 pages, it gets better, trust me!

[Anonymous No.16425746]

>>16425563
>End the protection of abandoned, unoccupied, and absentee property
fuck off, vacation homes are based

[Anonymous No.16425859]

>>16417605
I graduated Econ not Political Mysticism.

[Anonymous No.16425923]

>>16423423
>Marxist historical Dialectics
this is one of the more painfully retarded things marxists promote

[Anonymous No.16426209]

>>16423615
I don't think you've ever met a good marxist then, or they presumed you knew more than you do. Marxism really isn't esoteric and you certainly don't need to read Das Kapital to understand Marxist economics.
It sounds like you just haven't read enough.
>>16423675
>Ultimately, saying "read theory" is just a grand gish gallop to go through vast volumes of specious analysis by philosophers drunk on the belief of an equitable society.
You didn't finish a single book and you certainly didn't read capital, or at the very least somehow you managed to understand none of it.
>>16424135
>>Marx
>a Hegelian
Stopped reading there. Good bait though.
>>16425923
Let's hear a breakdown of why this is anon

[Anonymous No.16426243]

>>16417618
fpbp

[Anonymous No.16426272]

>>16426209
You're not even worth engaging with, Marxist thought is just pure sophistry to subvert actual intellectuals.

[Anonymous No.16427699]

>>16426272
I swear you libs just have not read him, I hear people say this but I've yet to hear someone even attempt to substantiate the sweeping dismissals

[Anonymous No.16427749]

>>16417605
Did you read them? Because there’s a few listed who are not and we’re never economist

Anyways, Make a similar list except have it full of capitalist and post it on 2ch

Be told by communist that they aren’t allowed to read intellectual weapons

[Anonymous No.16427758]

>>16427699
Central economic planning has repeatedly failed every time it's been tried, and the labour theory of value doesn't make any sense at all.

[Anonymous No.16427852]

>>16427699
The labour theory of value is just a joke, outright. I know Marx tries to massage it into functionality by saying that it is actually based on socially necessary labour time etc. but the use of it depends on this massive house of cards of specious solutions to its faults.

Of the bits of Marx and Kropotkin I've read, they tend to make general analyses of the current systems "inefficient" (quotes because they have assumptions about the efficient uses) use of resources and then make a leap to saying "we need communism/anarchism!!". Kropotkin, for example, makes tedious calculations about the productive ability of land in The Conquest of Bread, and then questions why it is not being used sufficiently for the people. You see the same tendency in modern day leftists, where they look at broad outcomes of blacks, or women, and say "look, that's racism/sexism". Generally, it is a misguided top-down approach that doesn't approach real issues but instead serves to whine about why things aren't turning out correctly.

For all of the people that cry about various examples of communism "not being real communism", it is basically impossible to actually get an answer of what real communism is. And before you answer, I know you will have some pet description (but it is the true description, of course!) like worker ownership of the means of production, or the process of going through the dictatorship of the proletariat, the abolition of the money-form, or something else, but no matter what there is never actually a vision of when ideal communist society will be achieved and what this constitutes. It is part of the inherent sophistry of Marxist thought that the ideal of socialism/communism is an everchanging illusion. Whenever someone critiques you, you change what it is, you point to some other Marxist theory, you say the real cases of communism were not real, you switch to what-aboutism about "capitalism".

To even begin to go into leftist theory, to entertain the thought that there is something substantial there, is to submit oneself to the eternal torture of endless rhetorical weaseling and self-referential assertions of truth. Every leftist references Marx as if his assertion that communism will be necessary is obviously true, but no where in his books that I have read has he given a conception of what communism actually looks like (again, I know you will tell me to read something to learn what "true" communism will be, but from experience I know this is a fruitless effort, hence my rant).