/lit/ - Literature

>>16036598
The title is more promising than that article title of his last book

>>16036598
Has marx on the cover, not promising. Marx is completely irrelevant to modern economics

Yeah. No doubt better than that Sowell neoliberal apologist crap.

>>16036969
>Pay no attention to the most influential economist in history! Never research it! Fear the gulags!!
Bumpkin

>>16036598
>Reading some second hand dumbed down bullshit
*Ahem*

>>16036598
it's fine

>>16036598
I'd recommend to start with history of economics. Historical context is always important to understand the theories because every theory had to come from something

>>16037544
There's nothing wrong in starting with dumb down shit, it's good to build the foundation in order to understand the deeper layers of a subject.

This book is a laughing stock among serious economists and his rebuttals of free trade are hilariously bad, avoid at all cost unless you want a good comedy book

>>16037685
Market fundies are cringy toads

>>16037685
Makes me want to read it, economists are retards.

>>16037726
T. 21 yo "promising" and "talented" kid who just didn't care about education enough shitting on people more successful and smarter than him

>>16037777
Lol no, economists just shill for whatever makes their masters the most money. I never listen to them for that reason.

>>16037777
t. Doesn’t matter how old market fundie

>>16037808
That's not a refutation but okay

When I was a freshman the best introductory book I read was Paschoal Rossetti's. I don't know if it's translated into English tough.

>>16036598
I read it, it's pretty grounded and good and contains a lot of recommendations for further reading. I'd say look up one of the standard textbooks (that you can get cheap) if you want to start learning economics and read this if you want a primer on economic debates and schools.

For the textbooks:
>Principles of Economics by N. Mankiw
>Macroeconomics by R. Pindyck and D. Rubinfeld

>>16037544
You need to read Schumpeter or Ekelund first if you want to understand him.

>>16037726
>t. doesn't know anything about economics.

>>16036969
Schumpeter, Amartya Sen and Stiglitz are irrelevant?

>>16037544
I'm op, I know very well its dumbed down, but I dont think I've read anything concerning economics (except for a few essays by Marx that deal with LTV).
>>16037626
>I'd recommend to start with history of economics. Historical context is always important to understand the theories because every theory had to come from something
any history of economics books worth checking out?
>>16037685
>This book is a laughing stock among serious economists
why? Can you give a tl;dr of why this book is stupid? I'll read it anyway, but I'll keep in mind the rebutal of his arguments if you can present them
>>16037837
Yeah, I'm more interested in the theory and the resulting debates around the applications of those theories, textbooks sound scary atm

>>16037023
OP, read the book marxists fear (and lie about). One good reason is that you will have a couple of various economic theories thoroughly refuted with hardly even trying.

>>16036969
i know this is bait but whether or not you think he's right you can't deny is influence on economic thought

>>16038121
>economic thought
Don't know if serious, the one social discipline where Marx is currently completely non-existent is economics.

>>16038051
>why? Can you give a tl;dr of why this book is stupid?
Tl;dr - basic misunderstanding of economic methodology specifically the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, his rebuttal of the case against free trade is not based on a refutation of Ricardo but rather a historical account of economies that became prosperous despite their rejection of free trade (including his native country South Korea), for lengthier discussion of this issue I encourage you to look up an exchange of essays between Chang and Hernando de Soto

>>16038171
I'll definitely check out the exchange, thanks

>>16036598

>>16038286

>>16038142
>Marx is currently completely non-existent is economics.
This has to be bait.

>>16038286
>>16038292

>>16038302
The only places in college where you will see anyone talk about Marx is literature or maybe political science. Marx is a trashy economist full of old fallacies. If he hadn't been the state religion of a 20th century empire, they wouldn't be reading him anywhere at all.

>>16038312
>when your personal opinions have been responsible for well over 100,000,000 deaths when put into policy
>but retards in capitalistic countries still like to preach your cult because they don't know anything about the world, much less economics

Unironically, kill yourself.

>>16038314
If you are an Econ Undergraduate you have to read Marx for Political Economy and History of Economic Tough. Maybe even for Epistemology

>>16038302
How can you even imagine to think this is bait? Marx is a mere footnote in any education of economics and how could he not be, having been retroactively refuted by the Marginalists? He has his place in the history of economic thought, mainly because of his immense political relevance, and nothing more. He's contributed literally nothing to the modern study of economics.

>>16038358
>>when your personal opinions have been responsible for well over 100,000,000 deaths when put into policy
where did marx talk about brining up a revolution in a country that isnt a fully developed capitalist one?

>>16038370
Lmao you've obviously never studied economics, history of econ is an elective so chances you'll hear about Marx are pretty slim, also epistemology is not a part of economics degree

>>16038358
>The ol’ “communism” killed some folks (but capitalism never could!) routine
You are running on Reagan era fumes. You know that, don’t you?
Leninism and Stalin are NOT what socialists are after and not what Marx was aiming at, though he was pigheaded enough to break ties with Bakunin’s camp.

Unironically LEARN SOMETHING

>>16038358
Blame Marxist-Leninist's, not Marx .

>>16038358
I'm not a Marxist (quite the opposite) but if you want to understand economic thought you have to read him. Even more, if you want to criticize him, you need to understand him.

>>16038408
Well, at least in my country you have to take those courses. But I live in a shithole so I give you that.

>>16038439
academia is a joke anyway, if no one studies Marx there, its only a point for Marx

>>16038407
He talked about bringing "justice" to the bourgeoisie as a universal. And he outlined how to do it.

>>16038411
>>16038429
Marx laid out what should be done and what it should accomplish. Each dictator that tried it realized how fucking retarded it was so they pit their own spin on it. They still believe in the ideas and goals marx put forth.

>>16038439
I have. But nice attempt at an ad hominem.

>>16038489
Oh, plenty of academics study Marx and Marxist thought in university. Just not in economics where he had been thoroughly refuted before Capital was even published.

>>16038489
He is thoroughly studied but mostly by political theorists, sociologists and philosophers. Capital has the highest number of citations out of all works in the field of social science but economists generally don't bother with him and not without good reasons

>>16038502
>its another expert on marxism that has only read communist manifesto.
At least don't embarasse yourself publicly
>He talked about bringing "justice" to the bourgeoisie as a universal. And he outlined how to do it
and bourgeoisie are the class of what system?

>>16038574
>only
Assuming makes an ass out of you.

>>16038574
>and bourgeoisie are the class of what system?
None of them. Class is a total spook.

>>16038592
so the difference between Benzo baldie guy and some random worker is also a spook?

>>16038502
>My works inspired other people and lead to the creation of their political systems that I might disagree with but I'm at fault for the deaths those ideologies created.

>>16038610
>socialists and communists don't believe in marxist ideas
Except that's wrong. The tertiary issues are not agreed upon. Marx's ideas are.

>>16038142
all left leaning economists are influenced by marx and all right leaning economists challenge him. wtf are you on about

>16038630
>>socialists and communists don't believe in marxist ideas
Never claimed this, I was claiming Marx isn't at fault for the deaths' caused by Marxist-Leninism. Inspiring an ideology doesn't mean the fault of the deaths is on you.

>>16038650
>>16038630
linked it incorrectly.

>>16038630
So what were Marx's main ideas? For example let's take dialectical materialism. He thinks the antagonism of classes reaches its apex and gives way to a new form of society. He thought capitalism will revolutionize and then socialism will appear. Very simple. You can read that on wiki, you will get that if you watch undergraduate videos on marxism. Now, and I'm really curious, maybe I'm wrong, but which revolutionaries that followed marxism, actually strived for socialism according to Marx's idea that socialism can only appear AFTER the capitalism has reached its antagonism?

>>16038650
>>16038654
The natural result and conclusion of marx's ideas being put into practice is mass killings.

>>16038657
Lenin? Mao? Most revolutionary parties have an analysis that the capitalist stage has reached its nadir.

>>16038721
Oh, how come?

>>16038439
Economics courses in universities are actually very standardized between different paets of world, which is quite bizarre.

Literally look up economics textbooks and see if you can find a good one for cheap. You'll get a better understanding, as well, with doing exercises in those books.

>>16038721
Marx is the natural result and conclusion of Hegel's ideas, Hegel should also be blamed for mass killings.

>>16038408
Nice way to out yourself as being from a country where economics is basically applied calculus for IB and CB.

>inb4 back in the day, Jack used to barter his eggs for Bruce's nails, but then on a magical afternoon, Simon invented money

>>16038736
what I'm asking is, did Mao and Lenin or any other revolutionary, behaved according to basic marxism principles and waited for capitalism to appear, or did they just went ayy lmao and made revolution happen in shitty feudalistic conditions? Were Russia or China fully developed capitalist countries?

Anything related to financial market etc.? I want to read something about stocks and shit, that would actually make me some money.

As far as economy goes, you're better off reading whatever textbooks are out there, I don't recommend following >>16037544 advice, or reading anything old because so much changes in economy that anything that's 50+ is nearly irrelevant to modern world.

>>16039785
Start with Vaaler's Mathematical Interest Theory or Kellison's Theory of interest. Once you understand the basic you can start to read about FOREX, annuity markets and bond markets.

Read Mankiw's basic economics followed by basic micro, macro and econometrics books (Varian, Williamson and Sock&Watson are good). After that, it is nice to read introductory books about various fields of economics like labour, public economics, industrial organization, international trade, monetary economics, time series analysis etc. Of course, you require a least a basic understanding of calculus and linear algebra for most of these.
I'm a PhD student in applied macro / macroeconometrics, ask me anything if you want to

>>16036598
For an intro, yes.

>>16037685
Your "serious economists" are provably full of shit.

>>16036969
lol rent-free

>>16038314
Imagine being this much of an autistic bugman.

>>16042101
>asks for books on economics
>dismisses economists as bugmen

ok

>>16038358
>Muh 3 trillion dead from communism every second
You're delusional. Also, capitalism has killed over 1 billion so even if your death count is right I'd still take it over capitalism.

>>16042110
Economics is inseparable from Political Economy. Western economics departments have built an autistic fantasy land with zero applicability to the real world economy.

>>16042130
Well, why don't you do an econ phd and show them all how it's done.

>>16037685
>serious economists
You know a field is fucked when it needs to specify which of its Ivy-league-degree-holding scholars are "serious" as opposed to "laughing stocks".
>>16038142
>>16038314
>>16038387
>>16038408
>>16038505
>>16038537
How odd that Marx is relevant everywhere other than the discipline that is the mosy influential on policy.

>>16038502
Marx personally killed 10 trillion Ukrainians by talking about linen and wheat

>>16038736
Good to see you're fucking retarded.

>>16042142
not them but time, effort, etc all wasted on top of being ostracized and maligned by insularity. richard wolff regrets studying economics for a reason

>>16037544
>makes you read 20 pages of corn prices
Nothing personnel attentionlets

>>16042142
"If Scientology is so bad, why don't you become a member and devote your life to making it better?" Cult thinking.

>>16042178
>>makes you read 20 pages of corn prices
No fucking way, does Adam smith really do this? I need to pick up Wealth of Nations, it sounds fucking hilarious.

>>16042164
He regrets it because being a marxist "economist" is a waste of your life

>>16042180
Marxism is the ultimate cult thinking. Anything that shows Marx to be stupid is dismissed by this or that excuse.

>>16042201
yes, as i said

>>16042188
I'm being slightly hyperbolic, but that's the basic idea. It was set up with Smith saying that using nominal money values for different years wasn't an accurate way of measuring it's true buying power since it changed so much, so instead it should be judged by how much basic commodity it could purchase as the ability to keep someone alive, combined with the fact that everyone bought corn, made it a "real" value.

Funny thing is, smith's entire study of economics was for the purpose of ETHICS not pure economics, dude invented an entire social science and did years of research just so he could say "okay here's what we have, NOWwe can figure out how to order it." Unironically a top tier philosopher.

reminder that marx was not an economist, he was a political philosopher whose 3 volumes of Kapital are just hundreds and hundreds of pages of mental masturbation of pure academic non-sense which he labels as "historical materialism". And he inevitably realizes in the 3rd tome that LTV is fundamentally broken but proceeds to ignore it and he ends the trilogy there because he was an unemployed brainlet drunk with anger issues who couldn't accept the fact that he is useless to society and wrong about literally everything. Böhm-Bawerk literally wiped the floor with Marx's bullshit

https://cdn.mises.org/Karl%20Marx%20and%20the%20Close%20of%20His%20System.pdf

>>16042276
shut up dumbass

>16042281
you dont even deserve a (((you))), communist faggot

>>16042276
Imagine being this retarded.

>>16042276
Lmao that nigga got filtered by page fucking 2 of Das K where Marx mentions use & exchange value

>16042312
>16042315

@16042297
@16042397
Poor coping skills, liberal

Literally just read Hal R. Varian

>>16036598
Read both that and sowell. Got nothing out of that, a bit more out of sowell. You really ought to pick up a textbook to really learn this stuff. Idk how interested you are.

>>16037023
Facts don't care about your feelings.

>>16042595
Econ textbooks are all capitalcucked.

>>16042598
It’s a fact Marx is the most influential economist in history
Sorry if that hurts your fee fees

>>16042142
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-autistic_economics It's time to move on.

>>16042645
How would you characterize the basic premises of Marx's economic theory?

>>16042734
Soggy

>>16038411
As someone from a former socialist country where Marx and Engels was the basics of economics on every level, I really would like to know what are Marx and Engels aiming and why did my country and all other ex-socialist in the region collapsed immediately after artificially low prices couldn't be handled by western loans?

>>16043310
That was Leninism.

>>16043313
Then why did they teach MARX in EVERY economics faculty?

>>16043342
I'm sure they taught Euclid too. That doesn't make Euclid a totalitarian thinker.

>>16043373
You don't know much about the education during socialism, do you?
We even had this monster called Marxist-Leninist University. Marx was the etalon in economics. Lenin was the ideology.

>>16042645
>the most influential
None is more influential than Adam Smith, Miss Vagina. Have you heard of him?

>>16043406
>Marx was the etalon
a Fabry–Pérot interferometer?

>>16043586
Login back to your account, Butterfly.
Your tactic to divert the debate is not working.

>>16042281
This is the best answer you'll ever get from marxists and commies, written this way or another, as soon as you challenge the nonsense Marx made them think they know.

>>16043623
I'm not butterfly, you paranoid freak. Define "etalon" or get the fuck out.

>>16043649
Just because it's the only answer you can understand doesn't mean it's the best answer.

>>16043310
Communism is psycho, i can tell you that as a fellow East Europe poorfag.

It was based on the completely retarded notion that society is not made from individuals, but by whatever schizo mental gymnastic invention Marx said.

This allowed unintelligent leaders that siezed power either by luck or were placed as puppets to decide for everyone's good. This suppression of individuality and meritocracy caused people with any sort of power, even doctors, to become super corrupt (you can remove a doctor's salary but he will still be taking care of you so he has the position of asking compensation in other manners).

Every single person with any sense of self, intelligence and originality will do anything it does during its life to be different from everyone else. That's what idiot commies will never understand, as they are too dumb to think for themselves.

>>16037023
B A S E D
A
S
E
D

>>16038358
>muh gorillion number
shut the fuck up

>>16043678
>i can tell you that as a fellow East Europe poorfag
Nobody gives a shit where you're from, faggot. Simply being a vague semi-participant doesn't make you more knowledgeable on a topic.

>>16043702
t. white suburban college tranny
kill yourself now

>>16036598
Brother, unironically, drop it and read Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell. It is the best introductory econ book, hands down. You will good understanding on how market works and while reading other econ books, will realize full of shit are they.

>>16043655
Nice try, Butterfly.
Stop being a disillusional communist or kill yourself, so we finally get rid of your propaganda.

>>16043678
Read Marx, moron.

>>16043912
Do it or die, bitch boy.

>>16042060
Econometrics won't stop being pseudoscientific dogshit no matter how much you spam it

>>16043702
>The fucking useful idiot.

>>16043969
Go back.

>>16043955
>linear regressions are pseudoscience
look mom, I posted it again!

>>16044027
>let's assume the consumer is rational

>>16038171
>his rebuttal of free trade uses evidence instead of metaphysical speculation
WTF is wrong with that??? I thought economics was supposed to be a science!

econ is a fucking meme desu
anybody who majored in that is a literal retard

>>16042126
>>16042152
>>16043699
marxists are literal genocide deniers many times over but expect to be taken seriously on economic policy.
I can't wait til the day we deal with you people.

>>16043678
>It was based on the completely retarded notion that society is not made from individuals,
but marx explicitly says the basis of society is an individual in his german ideology, first pages too

>>16044392
no one is denying genocides, but its a brainlet move to link marxism directly to them. Just because they appealed to it, doesnt mean it is directly accountable for it. Just like christianity as a whole isnt discountable, because people did stupid shit in the name of jesus and said deus vult.

>>16044419
I don't believe you are being sincere. This is the exact bullshit the neo nazis try to pull when they say dumb shit like "the Germans were running out of food to feed the jews, it's not really a direct result of policy, so they aren't responsible for millions of deaths."
marx wrote a book where he listed specific things governments should do. Among them, take away people property, take away peoples land, take away peoples money, etc.
Governments then put these ideas into practice.
And over a hundred million people were killed.

>>16044465
>marx wrote a book where he listed specific things governments should do. Among them, take away people property, take away peoples land, take away peoples money, etc
where did he write about taking away people's property and money? maybe you mean the land and money of capitalists? He was writing about capitalist system. He didnt write anywhere about killing farmers, kulaks and those who are dissidents of the status quo. Russia and China werent even capitalist countries, so everything Mao and Lenin did is just a very stretched out interpretation of marx. I suggest you read about Marx's idea of how history progresses and then compare it to those revolutionary movements that killed gazillions of people.

>>16037685
>This book is a laughing stock among serious economists
No it isn't. Ha-Joon Chang is a highly respected and hugely influential economist.

>>16044643
“the theory of Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.”
― Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto

Fuck your mother, Communist pig.

>>16044692
The thing that probably confuses a lot of people like you is that when Marxists talk about the abolition of private property, they're not talking about the abolition of personal property, as the fervent anti-communists always seem to assume.

>>16044692
You're probably double digit iq mouthbreather, who hasnt read wiki on Marx and doesnt even know what kind of property Marx is talking about. It is easy to shit on Marx in the current year, there is absolutely no risk, and this atmosphere breeds idiots like you.
>“the theory of Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.”
Russian barely had private property,
>"On June 2, i853, Marx, commenting on remarks of Engels on Oriental cities and religion, called the absence of landed property "the real key even to the Oriental heaven."" In his answer on June 6, Engels
stated approvingly that "the Orientals did not arrive at landed property, not even in its feudal form"
>"At the close of i848 Marx viewed the "West" as representing "civilization" and the "East" (mainly Russia) as representing "barbarism"
read more you stupid rat fuck

>>16044727
>>16044775
“the theory of Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.”
Let me repeat this sentence.
“the theory of Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.”

I was born in a former socialist country.
There were only state owned companies.
Apartments were owned by the state and distributed to the people.
Cars were so expensive and rare costumers literally had to wait 10 years to buy one.
In the summer everybody spend his 2 weeks holiday quota in a state owned resort, in a shitty room, eating shitty food.

And in my country they taught Marx on economics faculty, because it was called marxist economy. Literally that was the name of the system of socialist economy.

So shut the fuck up and wake up. You are nothing more than a bunch of dillusional students, who learnt these things in your crappy university. You should be shot, before doing more harm than existing.

>>16044865
I was also born in a former socialist country, Lithuania. Now please, before you continue, try to explain in your own words what Marx means when he says "private property"?

>>16043678

>In 1877 in a letter to the editors of the magazine Otechestvennye Zapiski, Marx admonished his Russian readers to remember that the socio-historical development described in Das Kapital pertained only to Western Europe. He warned them against attempting "to transform my historical sketch of the genesis of capitalism in Western Europe into a historicophilosophic theory of the marche generate imposed by fate upon every people, whatever the historic circumstances in which it finds itself."47 In 1881 Marx repeated this warning in a letter to Vera Zasulich