/lit/ - Literature

Recent Econ grad here. Adam Smith was a genius when he wrote the Wealth of Nations for his time period. However, a significant percentage of his ideas are blatantly not factual in the modern economic climate. "The invisible hand" is a clear example (Joseph Stiglitz writes about this). However, I have a more critical critique on the laissez-faire as a whole.

Free-Market Economics is a glorified religion. There is absolutely no such thing as an "economy." It's a made up concept based on money and most of the money doesn't actually exist; it is just debt and equity. The entire system is just based on faith and economists are priests. CEOs are considered to be gods and foreign socialist countries are made out to be demons. I could go into further detail on these ideas if there is interest.

> t- Economic Analyst who reads political theory all day

>>13547748
>I could go into further detail on these ideas if there is interest.
Please do.
t. Marxist

From the books i recognise on that chart it looks like an economic nationalist/neomercantalist position advocating for state guided banking over independent central banking. If you want to learn modern economic theory, pick up an introduction to marco and micro economics, then follow it with more advanced textbooks. If you want to learn classical political economy, then read people like Smith, Ricardo, Malthus, Walrus, Marx, Keynes, and probably a bunch of other people too. Ask :3 poster for some recommendations.

>>13547760
Im interested in economics in general, like state affairs, trading (like free trade and protectionism) e.t.c. The thing is I know almost nothing of economics, and would like some recommendation, for an absolute starter basics book, gradually expanding to more complex books. Im also quite a nationalist, and most likely those books would quite fit my political views.

>>13547753
Fair enough, Marxism/Syndicalism is actually a topic I spent a lot of time researching.

To the Free-Market, recessions and depressions are seen as "divine intervention" because we lack "personal responsibility." They are somehow "unexplained." Except, they are. Recessions are completely predictable because they're endemic to the idea of capitalism. Any time that a recession is brought up, capitalists constantly repeat "this is just a part of the business cycle, it has to happen every 10 years or so; it is expected." Like what!? No , it is definitely not expected. It's a massive economic upheaval that could be easily rectified if necessary. The USSR had IMMENSE economic growth and they didn't have a serious recession until they moved to a Free-Market system in the early 90s. Only then did they have horrendous economic growth periods. As far as the USSR famines go, they definitely happened, but they occurred FAR less often than in Tsarist Russia. Tsarists had a famine once a year. The USSR had one every decade and that was during INSANE military focus.

The harsh reality is that Economists are paid to lie to the masses that a small group of people controlling all of the means of production. Economists sit in their Ivory Tower and preach literal rhetoric. Like I said; glorified priests.

>>13547778
A lot of typos in my post; my last point was that Economists only become famous by either encouraging the control of the Federal Reserve (who are tyrannical in every sense of the word) or by making some "breakthrough" calculus equation that justifies inter generational poverty.

Please do not read this and think "THE CHAPOS ARE RIGHT." There is a healthy level of mental gymnastics in every ideology. I am just trying to showcase why that list the OP has is not the most informative.

>>13547778
>>13547790
based and redpilled

>>13547790
What book would you recommend for a starter? What would you recommend after reading the basics? Really have no idea what to read.

>>13547725
>some books that I could read after I finish the basics
pic rel. two-semester course based on the book: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShIg-3NRQj4&list=PLB1uqxcCESK6B1juh_wnKoxftZCcqA1go

>>13547725
>>13547836
also http://digamo.free.fr/nicholas11.pdf

>>13547790
Not chinese economists, those guys are legit

>that much BS stuff
>anglo-centered yet no Kitson
>no corporatist (real third position) stuff
>no key thomist texts

>>13547748
>I could go into further detail on these ideas if there is interest.
Please don’t.

t. not a marxist

>>13547778
How the fuck did you study econ and not learn about the optimism cycle. Also your wojak image is godtier cancer

>>13547836
Thanks

>>13547846
What would you recommend (nationalist or fascist economics)

>>13547748
probably the most relatable of these [X]oomer wojaks

>>13547873
i only know non-anglo stuff

>>13547895
You relate to changing the look of the meme to suit your vanity and virtue signaling

>>13547902
what does any of that even mean, and how does it relate to my post?

what virtue am I trying to signal lol

>>13547899
Yea, not an anglo myself, so sure.

>>13547920
Then read Aquinas' parts of the Summa Theologiae (2a 2ae, qq. 32, 36, 57-59, 61-63, 77-80, 84, 87, 117-120, 134-135), parts of his Commentary on the Nicomachean Ethics (Books 4 and 5).
Also this summa on usury https://zippycatholic.wordpress.com/2014/11/10/usury-faq-or-money-on-the-pill/
Try finding something on Italian corporatism, on Péron's justicialism (primary texts are foundable on here https://www.marxists.org/history/argentina/index.htm)) and on Salazar's system, as you already have Feder. Schacht can be interesting too. "Social policy in the Third Reich" by Schulz exists in French and Italian. A scholarly work can be read on that topic : "
Nazism across Borders, The Social Policies of the Third Reich and their Global Appeal"

If you read Spanish, Meinvielle worked on economics.
If you read French, Bardèche's Socialisme fasciste, Delaisi's La Révolution européenne, pre-WW2 Jouvenelle, Henri de Man.
If you read German, Backe's Das Ende des Liberalismus in der Wirtschaft.

>>13548023
Thanks!

>>13547748

>econ Grad
>shitting on Smith when your top neoclassical economists (being a grad in Econ is basically being a grad in neoclassical propaganda) completely failed in predicting the 2008 crash in comparison to other schools of economics
>Your degree is literally a smoke and mirrors front for capitalism's failures.

Just like stop posting

>>13548788
you need to work on your reading comprehension anon

>>13547725
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)

>>13547725
>>13548824
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)

>>13547725
>>13548824
>>13548827
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)

>>13547725
>>13548824
>>13548827
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)

>>13547748
Did you read Hoppe? I did it, a lot, and since then I can't look at economics from any other perspective. What should I read to rid myself of Austrian apriorism and praxeology? It makes too much sensefor it not to be true, geez...

I've try to read Kevin A. Carson as an 'heterodox transition' to different approaches, but so far I'm not really convinced.

are there any modern economists who discuss economies from a bataillian perspective—as processes/mechanism for distributing/organizing/expending energy (in its most abstract conception)?

>>13548983
>What should I read to rid myself of Austrian apriorism and praxeology?
This blog does a good job of critiquing Austrian economics
http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/p/blog-page.html?m=1
>>13547778
>The USSR had IMMENSE economic growth
Not compared to any western countries. And the growth can probably be explained due to the post war boom that every nation experienced.
>they didn't have a serious recession until they moved to a Free-Market system in the early 90s.
No different than the transition to communism which was very rough with many famines. Russia is currently experiencing phenomenal growth.
>The harsh reality is that Economists are paid to lie to the masses that a small group of people controlling all of the means of production. Economists sit in their Ivory Tower and preach literal rhetoric.
There certainly are economists who work for special interests and some that get their research funded by companies like Microsoft. But they're not all working for a single interest like you seem to think.

I'm very interested in economics, and I thought about reading Case Fair Oster principles of microeconomics and macroeconomics. Do you think it is the best resource to learn as a self-learner or there are better books? What would you recommend to me?

>>13547760
>Walrus

>>13547915
Literally everything on that wojak image is a normie virtue signal, the normie couldn’t even handle how strange wojak looked and had to make him attractive. Very disgusting, you are very disgusting.

>>13549052
>Russia is currently experiencing phenomenal growth
By what measure?

>>13549184
GDP per capita. The forecast looks very promising too.

>>13549200
I have no idea from where you got that graph, but a quick search shows something very different (https://tradingeconomics.com/russia/gdp-growth-annual).). Then comes the part that Russia's GDP grows little (maybe) faster than USSR. Also worth of note is that inequality was low in the USSR, while Russia's inequality isn't that far off from US.

>>13549231
>Also worth of note is that inequality was low in the USSR
It only took millions of dead

microeconomics is fine. pick any textbook with rigorous exercises. you'll do great.

macroeconomics is a meme, an exercise in masturbatory abstraction that never accurately details how markets work since it rarely, if ever, focuses on the logistics of the economy. i.e., "the means of production", the supply-chain, the importance of energy, etc. you'll be taught what inflation rates are, what is the role of banking, centrals banks, and monetary policy, and you'll be taught boilerplate propaganda about "good trade policy", but you will be never be shown why inflation occurs (and isn't just a flat, universal change in price), why banking is essential to the economy (and what alternatives are there), why free trade is "preferable" (when nearly every country until the 20th century believed it was tantamount to national destruction), etc.

you can use microeconomics to make good business decisions. you can't use macroeconomics to build an economy from scratch if you were in the hypothetical position of, let's say, Stalin in 1923, because it doesn't deal with the meat and bones of what drives production, consumption, and the market where those two forces meet.

anybody who actually has a good macro textbook that does what I'd like macroeconomics to do, please let me know. Mankiw's principles of economics certainly doesn't do it, and I doubt most other textbooks will be much better.

>>13549238
When people respond like that I know they have nothing meaningful to say.

>>13549247
microeconomics is fine. pick any textbook with rigorous exercises. you'll do great.

macroeconomics is a meme, an exercise in masturbatory abstraction that never accurately details how markets work since it rarely, if ever, focuses on the logistics of the economy. i.e., "the means of production", the supply-chain, the importance of energy, etc. you'll be taught what inflation rates are, what is the role of banking, centrals banks, and monetary policy, and you'll be taught boilerplate propaganda about "good trade policy", but you will be never be shown why inflation occurs (and isn't just a flat, universal change in price), why banking is essential to the economy (and what alternatives are there), why free trade is "preferable" (when nearly every country until the 20th century believed it was tantamount to national destruction), etc.

you can use microeconomics to make good business decisions. you can't use macroeconomics to build an economy from scratch if you were in the hypothetical position of, let's say, Stalin in 1923, because it doesn't deal with the meat and bones of what drives production, consumption, and the market where those two forces meet. all of the economists that actually cared about macroeconomics from the perspective of nation-building, i.e., Alexander Hamilton, Friedrich List, most modern Asian tigers in the aftermath of WW2, etc. all took policies that would have been anathema to the academia, but the results don't lie.

anybody who actually has a good macro textbook that does what I'd like macroeconomics to do, please let me know. Mankiw's principles of economics certainly doesn't do it, and I doubt most other textbooks will be much better.

>>13549231
>I have no idea from where you got that graph
It's from the IMF.
>Then comes the part that Russia's GDP grows little (maybe) faster than USSR
The USSR's growth rates would have likely stagnated.
>Also worth of note is that inequality was low in the USSR
There were still inequalities between Republics and urban and rural areas. The total level of equality is also comparable to that of the Nordic countries.

>>13549257
>ovr. wages increased above the avg. inflation

Huh, that's nice I guess

>>13549257
recs for textbooks ?

>>13549281
>Huh, that's nice I guess
it doesn't really translate to more spending power when you're being crushed by living expenses. it's never been easier for the the upper middle-class and above to buy tons of useless shit, and yet it's never been harder (at least in a century) for the working-class person to make ends meet.

>>13549294
lol I asked for recs in my post. I'm pretty clueless, but I'm also pretty curious as well, and I know when my questions aren't being answered thoroughly enough.

>>13549278
>It's from the IMF.
Oh... well if you know IMF's shenanigans during the 90s in Russia, you should know that reals > feels.
>The USSR's growth rates would have likely stagnated.
I could see a reform of the economy happening. Cuba managed to do one, and so did China. What really killed the USSR economy was actually market reform. It's just that it was a very incompetent one.
>There were still inequalities between Republics and urban and rural areas. The total level of equality is also comparable to that of the Nordic countries.
Yeah, indeed there were very huge inequalities. The thing is that only parts that as of today are better of are the Baltic states of the former USSR. They were already the richest ones during the time of USSR, so......

>>13549294
>>13549315

I listed quite a lot here >>13548824, >>13548827, >>13548835
If you can't figure out which ones are the textbooks, I took a lot of the recs from here https://4chan-science.fandom.com/wiki/Economics_Textbook_Recommendations

>>13549327
I guarantee you that you've probably read 10% of those books or less.

>>13549200
Thank you. From the IMF WEO report:
>Russia: Projections for 2018–21 are the IMF staff’s
estimates, based on the authorities’ budget. Projections
for 2022–24 are based on the new oil price rule, with
adjustments by the IMF staff.

Do you know how these projections are made? I couldn't find a reference for the "new oil price rule" elsewhere in the report.

>>13548824
>>13548827
>>13548835
pseud booklist reposter alert

>>13547829
When I was a freshman, I read Guns, Germs and Steel and also Why Nations Fail. I think that you may not enjoy the calculus that a normal economics book may go into detail about. The two I mentioned rarely get quantitative at all.

>>13548827
Had to read many of these during my Econ undergrad and master.

If you care about the math behind it all, all you need to know is in:

Further mathematics for economic analysis - Sydsaeter, Knut

>>13547748
>>13547778
How to understand the system?
Can you exploit it to become rich?

>>13547778
>>13547753

capitalism bad marxism good

>>13550463
>I read Guns, Germs and Steel
Ah that explains why you’re insufferable

>>13547895
I think they just correspond to mental illnesses (or combinations thereof) at this point.
>>13549052
>Russia is currently experiencing phenomenal growth.
No it isn't, lol.

>>13547778
the priest analogy grows increasingly relevant in stagnant modernity, as capital makes all the money and labour is worthless.
but your example of the USSR is retarded. At least capitalism has some component of meritocracy, USSR/feudalism is completely arbitrary fate-in-the-hands-of-the-state trash.
How is a famine every 10 or so years preferable to the occasional recession?
You'll notice no one starved to death during the great depression in the US

>economic model based on infinite growth on a planet with finite resources and a finite carrying capacity

I want to learn more about ECONOMICS too but since it's 1. not my area and 2. not my main field of interest I'm not sure I want to invest a looot of time into it, and those huge reading lists and textbooks I tend to find are a bit discouraging.

I'm thinking about, instead, making a list of all important thinkers, books and papers in economic history and then just reading about them online, in encyclopedias or any secondary source I can find on google books or JSTOR that will give me a brief idea of its content. Concomitantly I'd get an introductory textbook of wide use to learn the current basics. Is this a good methodology or will I end up with too many gaps on my understanding and full of misinformation?

>>13547748
>There is absolutely no such thing as an "economy." It's a made up concept based on money and most of the money doesn't actually exist; it is just debt and equity. The entire system is just based on faith and economists are priests. CEOs are considered to be gods and foreign socialist countries are made out to be demons. I could go into further detail on these ideas if there is interest.
Have you read Lazzarato?

economics is not something you just "read," you have to go to actual school for this shit, otherwise you'll just be reading theory which is fun but no where near applicable; applicability is one of the biggest concepts of econ

>>13551493
yes. i read the books when i was young and then actually studied economics, its just math & statistics and full of fucking pricks with parents money. i had a fucking blast :(

Econ PhD student here at an Ivy

90% of those books are trash and outdated, economics is not a field you understand by reading qualitative opinionated works, Ha-Joon Chang and most other modern authors you have there are frauds, you are deliberately exposing yourself to heterodox economics that has been thoroughly debunked and whose books exist primarily for publishing revenues and to push non-economically based political ideals

Please don't concern yourself with economics. I wouldn't concern myself with geology or physics, so why does everyone feel the need to concern themselves with economics? You cunts make me so fucking mad, it's disgusting how much economics is abused by midwits. Stay back and let us handle it you fucking retarded apes, you are not capable of understanding what we do and it's best for you if you don't get involved and leave it to the technocrats. We saved your asses from another Great Depression in '08 so leave us the fuck alone

>>13547748

You are a fucking disgrace and idiot, it's clear that you are just a left-of-center heterodox douchenozzle who probably failed advanced Macro and doesn't even have a IDEAS/RePEc page. Nobody wants to hear about why mainstream economics is wrong because you got a D and blamed it on your Chinese professor's accent you perfidious little shit. I'm a leftist too but I'm sure as shit not going to peddle the same retarded Chapo talking points and make a complete fool out of myself in any informed discussion

>>13551493

>economics is not something you just "read," you have to go to actual school for this shit

FUCKING THANK YOU. You are my fucking hero, thank you so much, thank you thank you thank you. Why don't people understand this? You can't just have a fucking lay opinion on the economy based on a few books you've read, it doesn't work like that.

>>13551533
Good parody of an Econ major, anon.

>>13551570

Go fuck yourself.

>>13551533
You sound like you probably deep down realize there's a lot wrong with the methodology and the study of Economics today, but instead of owning up to the fact that you're wasting your life studying Theology 2.0 you internalized this ivory tower narrative as a coping mechanism. Economics is not Geology or Physics, you're never going to get anywhere near their level of certainty and nobody thinks money and political influence can be a corrupting factor in the study of rocks or soil formation.

>>13551493
True.
One thing is economic theory, with all the "fun" books, and connected to politics and even ethics.

But you can find those books written by all sort of ideologies. All of them having truths mixed with biases at varying degrees. It's barely better than watching Economic debates on TV. You won't see pure economics until you learn to analyse data by yourself, with Math, Statistics and Econometrics.
The technical stuff takes time and dedication, but it's necessary to escape other people's bias (so then you can be fooled by your own.)

>>13551533
>We saved your asses from another Great Depression in '08 so leave us the fuck alone
lol no you didn't

>>13551586
fucking based

>>13551449
Our soil wasn’t deteriorated yet during the Great Depression to be fair

>>13548800
this. how did you get that out of those posts

>>13551586
>you're never going to get anywhere near their level of certainty
Yet it is more urgent, more demanded and more captivating. No one has ever claimed that Economics is a certain science. No one. Ever. But it is a fucking miracle the amount of things we can get to know about something as abstract as the aggregate result of collective human behavior. We all care about Economics at both a personal and societal level, we live Economics by necessity. Anything we discover through Economics is tremendously valuable. Even discovering relations at low levels of certainty generates more attention than knowing if some rock is made of this or that material with full certainty.

>>13551533
>I'm a leftist too
Are you sure? Everything I'd consider "leftist" is outside of the mainstream consensus, except MAYBE some forms of market socialism.
Saying this as a leftist btw. Philosophy major, but this is my impression of the field of economics.

>>13551586

No, actually, I haven't recognized that there's a lot wrong at all. You're peddling a criticism that's not only unfalsifiable (since you're disregarding all empirical evidence, theory and discourse as being subject to some overarching conspiracy) but is ludicrous on the face of it given the almost universally interventionist viewpoint of most economists. The fact that you think economists are all free-market worshipers and laissez-faire extremists only shows how limited your education in economics is. Did you take Econ 101 and see that minimum wages are theoretically inefficient and base your opinions on the entire field of economics on that? Have you read about monopsonies and the vast amounts of contemporary literature on every last one of the topics that you encountered in that course? I suggest you go research market failure and the literature surrounding it in modern economics. Or even just look at the political views of most IGM-polled economists. There is no more Friedman, he was a reaction to overarching and insufficient Keynesianism and has since been incorporated (dialectically!) into the synthesis that is New Keynesianism.

>>13551603

Yes, we did. By the way, the banks paid back every dime that was used to bail them out with interest - interest that went into the national treasury and reduced the debt burden on Americans. And you have no idea what modern regulation is like on banks - they might be 'too big to fail', but that comes with a lot of caveats for what they're able to do. And the overall result is economies of scale and scope that greatly improve the efficiency of the financial system and how it serves the average person.

>>13551644

Maybe left-liberal is a better term. I'm definitely left-leaning on social issues and I do think there are legitimate critiques of capitalism possible - albeit from sociological perspectives, not sheer heterodox economic ignorance. What do you define leftism as? Unless anti-capitalism is inherent to your definition, you can be a leftist and a capitalist. I support challenging existing power structures and hierarchies and deconstructing them to understand how they impact society. I'm just sick of people shitting all over mainstream economics with these half-baked criticisms

>>13551639

This

>>13551711
>Unless anti-capitalism is inherent to your definition
Yes, it is.
>Maybe left-liberal is a better term.
Most likely.
I am at least glad that you take sociology seriously and incorporate it into your worldview; the better economists tend to.

>>13551934

>Yes, it is.

Nice dogmatism, bro. Do you even postmodernism?

>>13547748
>Recent Econ grad here.
you're a disgrace for whatever shithole you graduated from

>>13551711
>IGM-polled economists
this has to be a fucking joke lmao

>>13552080

Most of them agree in the poll that it's a social matter. Economists do indeed tend to be socially left-leaning. The comments generally acknowledge opportunity cost but they are making a normative value judgement. More proof of economists not being pure libertarian calculators

>>13551533
>doesn't even have a IDEAS/RePEc page.
The goalpost moving you economists perform when an expert from your field disagrees with your dogma is hilarious. Not just this kid; Wolff, Chang, etc. all the leftist "heterodox cranks" have PhDs from prestigious institutions. Wolff has a PhD from Harvard for Christ's sake. And these guys are professors of economics at pretigious universities. But the response to this is always "oh, they haven't published in any reputable journals". Or simply the fact that they're heterodox.
Look at any other field and it's extremely rare for people with PhDs to be treated like this. It's practically unheard of. And it just so happens that those are the fields that will survive capitalism's collapse.
Pure ideology.

>>13552080
>my daughter feels very strongly
>seriously WTF
>This is not a question about economics.
>should require no additional explanation!
what a clown show

>The issues are more complicated than the question's wording assumes. One cannot answer a question that conditions on false premises.
the only good answer

>>13552137

Except they're not hated for ideological purposes, they're hated because they suck. They're methodologically flawed and their work is the academic equivalent of clickbait. There are actually non-mainstream economists that are widely respected and that engage with the current literature. Guys like Dani Rodrik, for instance. Or Piketty, who clashes frequently with many economists but whose work has nevertheless been recognized as important and has spurred much more discussion regarding income and wealth inequality.

>>13551554
What an elitist. What exactly would keep a person from obtaining the textbooks that would be used in your run-off-the-mill college class and working through it?

>>13551711
>has since been incorporated (dialectically!) into the synthesis
Yikes!

>>13547775
https://vocaroo.com/i/s14RXRpYJBLH

:3

>>13552285
god go away

>>13552241

Nothing, go ahead. I really do hope you give it a shot. It is a lot of reading but if you are legitimately interested then try. There's a lot of pure math on the microeconomics and microfoundations side and a lot of statistics in general as well. Here is a random working paper I pulled up:

https://www.economics.utoronto.ca/public/workingPapers/tecipa-638.pdf

That one is quite technical because it's developing mathematical methods for use in economics. Here's a less technical older one that I again pulled up randomly by searching for working papers:

https://www.nber.org/papers/w12091.pdf

It doesn't take that much to unlock most of it. If you want a good macroeconomics textbook try Bernanke and Abel's macro textbook.

>>13552177
>they're hated because they suck.
Then maybe think about why your field is so shitty that cranks are constantly getting Ivy PhDs in it.

>>13552301

All the humanities have the same problem. But over time, the heterodox go into the dustbin of history unless they can provide valuable contributions to the mainstream.

>>13552295
That other guy mentioned me in his post. I thought I'd weigh in on the subject.

>>13552321
>All the humanities have the same problem.
No they don't. I never hear about it in philosophy. The closest we have is Stephen Hicks, who is intentionally misleading (rather than being wrong from incompetence), got his PhD from the middle of nowhere, and also works in some nowhere school I've never heard of with only one other professor.
Fact of the matter is the other fields are more open to pluralism. Especially philosophy. Though I'll grant you Picketty; he is a very rare example of an anticapitalist accepted by the mainstream consensus. And I also like what behavioral economics is doing to the field.
Also, humanities =/= social sciences.

>>13551533
>We saved your asses from another Great Depression in '08
What exactly are you referring to that you did?

>>13552375

Yes, I should have said social sciences. Though I also do mean disciplines that are typically considered humanities like history, anthropology, linguistics, etc. Philosophy is different because it lends itself to radical reinterpretation. There's no 'mainstream' per se - at least, the scope of commonly held beliefs is far more diverse. But that's expressly because philosophy isn't (entirely) concerned with the replicable explanation of worldly phenomena. But even then, you have many instances of people like Nick Land getting PhDs from prestigious institutions and peddling deluded bullshit

And it IS quite common in other fields. Heterodox historians, for example, are quite often shouted down for being ideologically motivated and methodologically inept. Even well-known ones. Or linguistics? Look at someone like Paul Wexler or anyone who still believes in Altaicism. Their beliefs have been torn apart and they've been mercilessly criticized for their refusal to engage with mainstream thought. And they should be!

And FYI, Piketty is not an anti-capitalist

>>13552385

Just find a summary of 'The Courage to Act' by Ben Bernanke. By 'we' I mean mainstream academic economists

Political economy is a must for a balanced understanding of the field, from the classics like Richard Cantillon and Adam Smith to the Das Kapital Marx.

BTW, the Austrian school is a meme.

>>13552375

Also yes, behavioral economics is dope. And so do most economists, despite its implicit critiques of microeconomics.

>>13552526

*And so believe most economists

>>13552483
>like Nick Land
Land was taken seriously before his amphetamine episode; he's been pretty influential on contemporary continental political philosophy. I also hear not all of his Dark Enlightenment stuff is without merit, and this is from professional philosophers mind you.
>And FYI, Piketty is not an anti-capitalist
He seems more radical than a social democrat to me, and I think anything left of social democracy would count as anti-capitalist. Admittedly, his suggestion is to tax the shit out of the rich so I might be wrong.

>>13551533
Fuck you, Ha-Joon Chang is legit