/lit/ - Literature

>>15040586
Based.

Soon you will ascend.

No, absolutely not.

I would recommend John Stuart Mill's Principles of Political Economy and then Leon Walras' Elements of Pure Economics and then Vilfredo Pareto's Manual of Political Economy after that.

Then you're set. :3

>>15040586

Start with Adam Smith & David Ricardo

Anything arguing against LVT is neoliberalist propaganda

>>15040586
That's a good book. As a general rule avoid the Austrian and Chicago school economists.

>>15040629
> LVT
Are you talking about the Labour Theory of Value?
Can I please get some recs that aren't from commie retards?

>>15040641
I thought he meant land value tax.

>>15040641

> Adam Smith
> Founder of Economical Liberalism
> Commie retard

Seethe harder, piece of shit. Not Marx's fault your ideologues accidentally stumbled upon capitalism's inherent contradictions.

>>15040586
You should read Hobsbawm's trilogy of books on the nineteenth century and Karl Polanyi's The Great Transformation to get a sense of the historical context out of which economics develops. I'm not saying economics isn't interesting or that it isn't a "real science", but it's important with social sciences especially to learn about their history and not to treat them as systems of mathematical truths.

After that idk you can just pick up a textbook and learn about the various schools. Just don't be a retarded dogmatist.

>>15040640
Why

>>15040641

Literally just read what he suggested. Start with Smith and move up. Marshall was just a riff off of Ricardo, expanding his theory of differential rents to be the source of value in economics. He expanded it because there was an intellectual revolt against Marxism, but also labour centered socialist economics in general (including the Ricardian socialists). Starting out by trying to identify “commies” and not read them is just a way to make yourself the most boring kind of idiot that reads Mankiw or something and thinks they’re a macro nerd now.

>>15040661
Too bad the socialists come up with solutions that make problems worse.

Get a textbook; Krugman is fine. Mankiw is too. Attempting to understand the histotical development of a mathematics based social science discipline like econ without understanding the basic principles is like trying to understand physics by working through Aristotle, Copernicus, and Einstein. Possible but frought with the potential for misunderstandings and likely to cripplingly date your beliefs.

>>15041778
Not all modern science is correct. Just remember this: it will be an important understanding before you die :3

>>15040823
Lmao fuck off no one needs to learn about pin manufacturing you dont need to learn the history of econ to get a basic understanding

>>15041801
Most modern scientific mathematics has its origins in the Lausanne school and Game Theory, both of which are late 19th century/early 20th century disciplines. Economics has its origins in political economy, which is heavily influenced by political philosophy, and both have existed for ages, yet many consider Adam Smith to be the progenitor of the discipline, whose Wealth of Nations was only written in the late 18th century. What's the trouble with reading a few centuries of literature? Any other academic discipline has far more literature to read.

>>15041841
*mathematical economics.

Sorry.

>>15040586
Subjectivist Economics:
1)Read Carl Menger's "Principles of Economis" first.
2)Walras book on Pure Economics. You need a solid understanding of geometry and linear algebra.
3)General Theory by Keynes.
4)J. Shumpeter's "Theory of economic development"
5)Hayek's "Pure theory of capital".

Optional: Books by Marshall regarding industrial economics.

These books are going to give you a solid understanding of economics from a foundational perspective. First a theory of subjective evaluation then a theory of general market equilibrium based around subjective evaluation. The paradigm of general equilibrium that sustained classical and neoclassical economics is then challenged by Keynes and by Shumpeter through different perspectives. Keynes attacks it through solid subjectivism while Shumpeter attacks it through logical reasoning related to techno-capital's evolution and its relation with long term development and capital acumulation. Hayek then complements Keynes Financial Theory with the best capital theory there is.
Dont get me wrong. I have a degree in economics and know that this would not allow you to understand a basic new-keynesian paper, but it should enough to understand the economics of daily life. Keep your mind open at all times. Economics involve a little bit of everything, so you are never going to actually understand completely. No one does.

>>15040823
The history of the development of economic ideas is usefull to identify power centers, their political strugles and their counterparts today. It isn't usefull to understand foundational economics. This is why i recomend learning first a little bit of linguistics, focusing on a theory of representation and then jump to foundational economists like Menger and Marx. If you cant build economic theory from the ground up you do not understand economics. The ground is a theory of value that has as its foundation a theory of representation.
You will learn more about economics from a Rene Girard than from a Mankin.

>>15041791

Not all modern science is correct but you arent in a good position to critique it if you don't have a high degree of formal training in it.

Again, im not saying its impossible, just not a good strategy.

>>15040640
Absolutely the opposite.

>>15040586
>reading old books to learn a social science
Don’t be retarded. Just pick up a freshman textbook like krugman or mankiw and you’re all set. All the people recommending Adam Smith or Marx or whatever are retards

>>15042055
Doesn't matter what your 'strategy' is. When you grow up, you'll realize that a lot of modern mathematics and science is needlessly formalized, and therefore a lot of unique realizations and ideas go unpublished because of the rigorous requirements.

The other thing, is that sometimes these rigorous requirements might water down otherwise potentially great mathematical results, which I see very often in mathematical economics.

>>15042143
What does that have to do with gaining a rudimentary understanding of a field?

>>15042128
>social """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""science"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Imagine being this utterly unreflective

>>15042170
I'm literally making the argument that reading some progenitors of a field instead of a mass summation of them in a college textbook would mean you'd gain a better understanding of the field.

It would take longer, but if the textbook author is really just trying to make money like many of them are, then you'd have a more correct understanding of the field as well.

Can't think of a more worthless major desu

>>15040674
>The Great Transformation
>read a book written 250 years after the period it examines

OP read the wealth of nations then branch out.

>>15040586
Wasn't this dude a disgusting homo

>>15042188
Yes everyone knows economics isn’t really a science but what do you want me to call it an art?
>>15042202
As someone who did their bachelors in economics and has read Keynes, some of Marx, some of Adam Smith and a couple books about the history of economic though. Let me just tell you it’s a waste of time. You are better off reading about what the field is today and building on that by reading current literature and economic and financial news to understand the field and how the economy itself actually functions in practice (hint: it follows theory a lot less than you might think and often differs across countries so reading what some, essentials, philosophers had to say about it decades or centuries ago is of some very dubious value unless you just want to see how the field has developed over the years.

>>15042288
Excuse all the typos and shit I’m kind of hungover

>>15040586
The General Theory is horribly written and definitely not a good introduction to anything. One of Keynes disciples, Joan Robinson wrote a very unique textbook in the early 1970s, that totally bombed and no one read, which Keynes would of probably approved of. I ripped it and uploaded it to libgen:
http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=E34633FF83E9FB411A3D4D505C25B2D2

>>15041941
>the best capital theory there is
No. Any such pretext was destroyed long ago

http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/CohenHarcourt03.pdf

>>15042284
Yes, so was Alan Turing and basically every other upper class twat

>>15040586
Wait, isn't that the Tool guy?

>>15042288
You read a politician, fucking Karl Marx, and a moral philosopher from the 18th century and you're making the claim that it's not worth it to read the fundamentals of economics.

Kid, we should really only be discussing Ricardo, Walras, Pareto, Von Neumann, Irving Fisher, etc.

I have no need for your politicians and communist leaders, thank you. :3

>>15042341
Yes but Turing wasn't so disgusting, or at least he didn't look it

>>15042358
sorry, meant for >>15042312

>>15042357
>kid
>thinks ricardo, pareto, Fisher, walras, etc aren’t obsolete
Lmao apart from each ones small surviving contribution to economics (which are by the way covered in textbooks) there is no real point reading them unless it is to, as I said, understand how the field has developed over the years. Not actually understand the field itself. Stick to your generally simplistic outdated theorists, might make for interesting reading, but “useful” reading it is not

>>15042423
Literally every single one of those economists had useful ideas that have survived until today in the field of economics. I am reading Werner Hildenbrand right now, an economist from 30 years ago (hope that's not too out of date for you, retard), and he utilizes Paretian utility and Walrasian equilibria.

Jfc...

>>15042423
the catface guy is an autistic retard who only reads books like that

>>15042460
See
>>15042445


Hurr durr. I'm reading modern economics. IM LITERALLY READING MODERN ECONOMICS..

You fucking virgin losers hate me so much that you're dancing around the fact that I'm literally reading modern economics which continually references Walras and Pareto.

TIME TO WAKE UP

>>15042445
are you reading Hildenbrand's "Introduction to Equilibrium Analysis" anon?

>>15042477
No, his book on 'Core and Equilibria of a Large Economy'.

Fascinating work. Very verbal, as far as mathematical economics goes. Very theoretical. Kind of watery, but not as many mistakes made like with Shapley/Aumann.

I like Hildenbrand much more than Shapley.

>>15042493
based, do I need to know topology to understand it?

>>15042445
Yes I acknowledged that and as I said whatever contributions they have made which are still useful are covered in textbooks and yet you still insist on sifting through all the other outdated, obsolete crap they wrote about more than a century ago. It’s like you enjoy wasting your time lmao

>>15042473
Do you actually use any of this or does it help you make up an autistic fantasy about tripfags?

>>15042501
Yes but he teaches you topology.

>>15042504
It's important to read what the original writers actually wrote. If this is true in philosophy, it is even moreso in economics or mathematics.

>>15042312
Can you expand on your assertion about Hayek's pure theory of capital? The paper you linked is too general to be a critique of it. The author seems to put a lot of emphasis on the neoclassical school and puts doubt on the existence of a coherent theory of capital. Oddly enough, i've never meet anyone in colege that treated the austrians as neoclassical economists. Not even the marxists believed that. To them, being a neoclassical economist is more than being a subjectivist and a marginalist.

>>15042312
I've just read your introduction to Robinson's book. Early economists called utilities objects that had the capacity to satisfy human needs or desires. Those objects are called goods insofar this conection is recognized and the good is achievable. This is pretty much considered a given, the point in which economic thought starts. Deeper investigations about the process of evaluation, production and consumption require a theory of language focused on representation (and mimetism) and a reconstruction of subjectivism based on it. This is not what economists are doing right now. Not even heterodox currents have this as their project. While her critiques of what she called neoclassical economics are sound, they barely fit the existing orthodoxy. Attacking the orthodoxy is too easy. Anyone can do it.

>>15042143
>needlessly
Modern math and science is formalized to keep the 50 billion retards with identical half-baked “””unique realizations””” from cluttering up the discourse

>>15042690
Which is exactly why modern math and science fails.

Regardless, I'm simply saying to de-formalize a lot of the processes to establish mathematical findings. You have to wade through like 50 different definitions just to define something, and there are like 20 different gradations between open and closed sets. Honestly.

>>15042312
>Piketty
Why do you discredit yourself by posting lying frauds?