/lit/ - Literature

>>20224062
>its all about leave the market do its own thing and don't intrude with policies
Isn't Mankiw a keynesian?

>>20224062
Free markets don't exist

>>20224121
Socialism don't exist

>>20224121
That's what I'm wondering, it seems far too easy to monopolize the markets and efficiency won't solve that.

>>20224090
Yes, not that it matters at the level of that textbook.

>>20224157
What anon is getting at is a more advanced topic. In essence, all markets are centrally planned. All a "Free market" is is a market wherein the central planners let the players in the market figure things out for themselves in certain scenarios.

>>20224207
>What anon is getting at is a more advanced topic. In essence, all markets are centrally planned. All a "Free market" is is a market wherein the central planners let the players in the market figure things out for themselves in certain scenarios.
I see, as a textbook this makes sense

Are there any other better books that anon would recommend?

>>20224062
>leave the market do its own thing
ahahaha_faggot.jpg

>>20224157
>it seems far too easy
Of course it is.

>>20224428
Nitzan and Bichler - Capital as Power
Di Muzio - Debt as Power
Di Muzio - An Anthropology of Money
Blair Fix - Rethinking Economic Growth Theory From a Biophysical Perspective
this blog - https://economicsfromthetopdown.com

>>20224062
So free market?

>>20224548
And the difference between free market and totalitarianism is?..

>>20224552
Also this.

>>20224548
Does it even work?

>>20224121
>>20224157
>>20224207
>>20224493
>>20224500
>>20224548
>>20224552
>>20224589
>Let's try socialism again anon, it will work this time!
>Well it didn't work, so let's regulate companies because capitalist working are bad because some random poor economist that has never own shit in his life says so!

Capitalism isn’t profitable
The rich don’t produce they redistribute the existing wealth to themselves
Amazon literally did not report growth until the pandemic, how can a company operate at a loss for 2 decades and still remain in business?
All growth since the 70s is fake, they cook the books and fudge the numbers to hide this

>>20224062
I'm a Listian, and sympathetic to Georgism, so economic nationalism and economic democracy are the only modes of production I can really tolerate. pure Marxism to me is cancerous and letting the market do whatever it wants is also suspect.

>>20224708
>t. has kids forced to read trannyshit by their Private School
lol

>>20224708
Mankiw was George Bush's top economist.

>>20224062

Gregory Mankiw was Bush's economic advisor and look at how his administration ended.

>>20224798
Which Bush? Senior or Junior?

>>20224520
Thanks a lot anon! Will check them out!

>>20224789
I enroll my children in another school... In socialism the school curriculum is directed by a ministry that makes them see tranny shit out of obligation, in capitalism I simply change the service.

>>20224795
>>20224798
>2008
It has nothing to do with Mankiw or Bush administration, lol. Are guys fucking retarded?

>>20224892
>Are guys fucking retarded?
That's the year everything went wrong.

>>20225220
>t. zoomer
What happened in 1913 and 1971?

>>20224428
Human Action

>>20224552
>totalitarianism is the desire to dissolve politics more that the desire to extend it everywhere
Really? Come on.

>>20224121
This. Someone would have to be living under a rock since before 08 to believe that.

>>20224062
That's just an introductory textbook, anon. People read this shit and think they are an expert in economics, now go read macro to see where the government fits in.

>>20224062
Economics are a simplistic abstraction of human psychology.
The study of psychology are simplistic abstractions of human biology.
Both gommunism and lolbertarianism are retarded over simplifications.

>>20224428

21st century economics - rhona c free

>>20225800
Thanks anon, will check it out.

>>20225908

nothing against Mankiw; in fact that book was the text for our intro macroecon class in uni. It's the kind of textbook where even those with non-econ background can pick up and understand some basic micro/macro. Albeit frequently misinterpretation resulting in a lot of stupid posts and comments about "basic economics" but I digress, that is. another topic.

with rhona you get a much more complete picture of the field of economics as a whole, whereas Mankiw is focused on macroeconomics and some micro. Not a knock on Mankiw since these are arguably the most important topics in econ, and students who the book was designed for will eventually learn the other topics anyways. But you miss out on topics like behavioral econ and econometrics that any econ major should know.

Main reason I recommend rhona is one of the early chapters, "History of Economics" or something like that. It gives a timeline for how economics has grown and developed since Adam Smith. It really puts into context all the different schools of thought, who came after who and expanded their ideas, and where the field of economics is today.

>>20225976
That does sound very good and complete. I'll definitely check it out. Most research I've seen is done in behavioral so I wondered why

>>20226032


>Most research I've seen is done in behavioral so I wondered why
behavioral is the avant garde cutting edge stuff right now regarding markets. It used to be efficient markets (and before that, Keynesian) until behavioral blew them out the water (IMO). No one is going to do research on Marshallian demand functions when there is basically a hundred years of academia that either expands on it or shows why parts of it is flawed. It would be like doing astronomy research on a geocentric system.

>>20224708
>>socialism
>Alain de Benoist
You are retarded, right?

>>20224736
>Amazon literally did not report growth until the pandemic, how can a company operate at a loss for 2 decades and still remain in business?
what? it didn't operate at a loss. and even if it did, the answer is simple: promise of future profit, which would've been a realistic one given the rate Amazon's business was growing
>All growth since the 70s is fake
it's not fake. it's based on rapid growth in information technology and on exploitation of newly created millions of proletarians in the East

>>20224736
>profitable
>The rich don’t produce
>wealth
>growth
How would you produce mana?

https://economicsfromthetopdown.com/2020/09/04/stocks-are-up-wages-are-down-what-does-it-mean/
"If this ritual seems arbitrary, that’s because it is. There’s nothing objective about the capitalization formula. It doesn’t point to any fundamental truth about the world, either natural or social. The capitalization formula is simply a ritual — an article of faith.
This arbitrariness doesn’t lessen the importance of capitalization. Far from it. Rituals are always arbitrary. But their effects are always real. Just ask Bob, who’s about to be ritually sacrificed to appease the god of rain. The ritual is arbitrary — founded on a worldview that is false. Killing Bob won’t bring rain. But the rulers believe it will. And so Bob dies. The ritual is arbitrary. The effects are real.
<...>
Now here’s the uncomfortable truth. Capital is the same as mana — it’s a euphemism for power. Let’s run through the similarities. Hawaiian elites had power because they had mana. Capitalists have power because they have capital. Hawaiian elites proclaimed their power boldly. So do capitalists, who broadcast their power daily via stock tickers. Lastly, mana had mystical significance. So does capital. By controlling mana, Hawaiian elites became ‘vessels of spiritual energy’. By controlling capital, modern elites (we are told) become ‘vessels of productivity’.
The similarities between mana and capital are unsettling. But there is an important difference between the two ideologies. Hawaiian elites didn’t quantify their power. But modern elites do. Capitalists use the ritual of capitalization to give their power a number. This ritual, Nitzan and Bichler observe, does something unique. It makes capitalism the first social order that is quantitative."

>>20224892
>In socialism the school curriculum is directed by a ministry
If socialism is when you are controlled by a ministry, then any libertarianism/individualism by default leads to socialism. Because negative 'freedom from'.

>>20224062
There are better Microeconomic books.

Also the publisher is "CENGAGE LEARNING". I read an insane amount of economic books and I never heard of them.

The question is what do you want to know? University Economics or just being successful?

If you are just in it for the university theoretical knowledge, then just look at books from
>Oxford
>Cambridge
>MIT
Those are basically the publishers where you can't go wrong if you just want to know the science behind economics.

But if you want to be successful, there are completely different books you should read and I would even advice to ignore scientific Economics books at all because Economics books are always build around an institution judging people (for example the politicians looking at the countries economy). But for an individual trying to become successful you have to think completely different. Your goal is not to look at the equilibrium of prices. Your goal is to find the best way to make money.

>>20226886
>libertarianism/individualism by default leads to socialism. Because negative 'freedom from'.
Does not follow in the slightest. Benoist is a socialist and doesn't seem to even understand the right-libertarian formulation of individual rights as not "ideologically Same". His opinions are not useful to those further right.

>>20227416
>Your goal is not to look at the equilibrium of prices. Your goal is to find the best way to make money.
I see, so a very different approach to money. Any good recommendations?

Are there any good materials on how to make money?

People say to read an introductory economics book. But if you take econ in university, you take ONE micro class that teaches from a book liek this, and then the rest of the work will be on interventions when you are not in that imaginary perfect competition situation. That's why economists are neoliberals not libertarians. They usually support interventions against monopolies and wealth redistribution. Overall microecon is really applied utilitarian ethics.

>>20227426
>doesn't seem to even understand the right-libertarian formulation of individual rights
He understands enough to claim it is retarded.

"A second paradox results from the difficulty that there is in claiming that human rights can predominate over positive right in such a way that every political power should begin by recognising them, even while admitting that the practical validity of these rights depends on the capacity of this same political power to apply them. Bentham had already stigmatised this contradiction of contractualism, which consists in basing the rights of the citizen on human rights when the latter can have an effective existence only from he former. ‘On the one hand’, observes Julien Freund, ‘one demands the respect of these rights for the same reason that one respects the dispositions of positive law, but, on the other, makes it known, with more or less perspicacity, that the validity of these rights should not depend on ordinary legislative examples since they aim at universality’. Still more generally, that poses the question of the relations between politics and the law. The ideology of human rights, we have seen, posits the anteriority of natural law in relation to society and draws the argument from that to limit the prerogatives of politics. Now the law, being impotent by itself, always supposes something outside of itself to exercise itself. As Marcel Gauchet writes, ‘the point of view of the law does not allow one to take account of the context in which the law may rule. It is here that one should pass to the political point of view. It is demanded by the extent of the limits to the ideas of a foundation in law’."

>>20224062
>economics
>religion
Would that the fires of Sodom and Gomorrah cleansed this board of such off-topic /his/ filth.

>>20227426
>doesn't seem to even understand the right-libertarian formulation
"The tension between human rights and those of the citizen, that is to say of man considered as a member of a particular political community, appears again in the discussions that have surrounded the arrival of ‘the rights of the second generation’, that is to say of collective or social rights.
These rights of the second generation (right to work, right to education, right to medical care, etc.) are of a completely different nature than individual rights. Sometimes qualified as ‘equality rights’ compared to ‘freedom rights’, as ‘rights to’ compared to ‘rights of’, or again of ‘rights of recipience’ compared to ‘rights of action’, they represent, above all, beliefs permitting members of a society to demand or obtain positive services from the state. These are not so much natural *attributes* as *attributions* that a particular society which has reached a certain moment in its history thinks to be able to and be obliged to give its members. Not only do they ‘presuppose an organised civil society which will be the guarantee of their efficacy’ but to the extent that they even support themselves on the notion of solidarity, they imply the social phenomenon and cannot be deduced from the pre-political nature of the individual. Finally, contrary to the rights of the first generation, which are unlimited in principle (one cannot restrain them without harming what they are based on), they are, on the contrary, limited, for every belief vis-à-vis others is limited by the executive capacities and the means of the others.

While the theory of individual rights tends to limit the power and the authority of the state, the institution of collective rights makes of the latter the privileged instrument of their implementation. The state is no longer expected to abstain, restrain itself or disengage itself, but, on the contrary, to implicate itself, to become engaged, indeed to establish itself as the exclusive provider of an ever-increasing number of services. ‘The recognition of social rights having the character of “beliefs”’, writes Jean-François Kervégan, ‘implies that sufficient power over the members of the city shall be conferred and recognised for it to be able to guarantee them the enjoyment of these rights, in spite of the possible opposition of particular interests among them and of some of these with regard to measures capable of harming them’."

>>20227778
If you can't apply the scientific method to these phenomena then its on you, fucking brainlet

>>20224062
>From what I gathered in this book, its all about leave the market do its own thing and don't intrude with policies
the business class has promoted this idea for centuries because it benefits them. politicians go along with it because it lets them be lazy fucks.

it's not actually good.

>>20224121
>>20224136
Narnia doesn't either we talk about books here tho

>>20227426
>doesn't seem to even understand
3/3

"Such indeed is the reason for the hostility of liberal milieus to collective rights, which they qualify in the best of cases as ‘fine ideals’, that is to say as pious wishes without real justification. If certain of these rights are reducible to individual cases, others, in fact, cannot be distributed: they have as debtors not individuals but collectivities. The right to speak one’s language, for example, is inseparable from the right to the existence of the group which uses this language, and this second right conditions the first. Now, liberal individualism rejects the very idea that a collectivity can imagine itself attributing individual traits, in the case of rights, and postulates that the value of a possession depends on its conformity with the principle of the respect that one owes to the individual alone. That is why Hayek violently denounces social rights, insofar as they derive from a distributive justice: ‘[A]ny policy aiming directly at a substantive ideal of distributive justice must lead to the destruction of the Rule of Law’.
It would therefore be useless to deny, as Claude Lefort does, the depth of the ‘generation gap’ separating individual rights from collective rights. Between the one and the other there is a difference of kind, not a difference of degree. This difference of kind goes well beyond the classical antinomy between equality, assimilated to justice, and freedom. On the one hand, individual rights can cause an obstruction to the realisation of collective rights, unless the reverse is true (that is why liberals and socialists mutually accuse each other of violating the former in the name of the latter, or the latter in the name of the former). On the other hand, a number of public or social goods are not divisible, which means that they have a significance only in a holistic understanding of social action. The institution of collective rights implies the recognition of the importance of the notion of belonging, and leads to the division of the subjects of right into groups, which is what the classical theory of human rights has always refused to do. The liberals draw an argument from these with which to criticise social rights.
One could rightly draw the opposite conclusion from it: social rights, from the sole fact that they are social, are more credible than those drawn from an abstract individual ‘nature’, especially when they allow one to restore the notion of distributive justice to honour.

>His opinions are not useful
1. If you want individualism, you'll get "socialism" => i.e. despotic Big Brother that will fuck disintegrate you and fuck you all over.
2. If you'll care for your society instead of individuals, you'll get communitarianism => i.e. Big Brother won't be able to do shit.

>>20227794
>economics
>scientific method

>>20227825
>providing no argument and only shitty meme pictures
No wonder you can't understand economics.

>>20227794
But this is, again, the literature board. The scientific method could not be less relevant.

>>20227829
>If this ritual seems arbitrary, that’s because it is. There’s nothing objective about the capitalization formula.

>>20227835
>>20226870

>>20227833
Which requires understanding the subject to get the book material. As expected, /lit/ doesn't fucking read as always.

>>20227842
Economics is not literature. Books about economics are not, in any way, literature. You're not discussing the literary merit of economics, you are discussing the subject itself. Again; how is this relevant to this board? This is not /books/.

>>20227848
>You're not discussing the literary merit of economics, you are discussing the subject itself
Because that's what the book is about.

>>20227829
the most economics can do is *attempt* to use statistical methods to prove correlations between variables, but they always are proved wrong because they can't properly list or control for all of the potential variables.

you should read this article by keynes, absolutely obliterating tinbergen and the use of 'statistical reasoning' in economics.

also i can sense beneath the surface that you don't understand shit about science and are just appealing to authority

>>20227829
economics is pseudoscience. see https://libcom.org/article/critique-bourgeois-science-microeconomics-explanation-value-invention-marginal-utility

>>20227810
Finally relevant to the point in 3/3, thank you this is good material to argue with. While recognizing the argument, he makes it clear he doesn't understand Hayek or why collective rights are non-sensical.

>social rights, from the sole fact that they are social, are more credible than those drawn from an abstract individual ‘nature’
Retarded and unreasoned. A "social" "collective" group of individuals who don't want their property violently expropriated is the entirety of the population. Why prefer another social rights formulation over this one inherent in every individual in the society.

>>20228109
>A "social" "collective" group of individuals who don't want their property violently expropriated is the entirety of the population.
Yet if your population consists of isolated separated assburgers, they won't be able to do shit, regardless of whatever they want.

>Why prefer another social rights formulation
Because otherwise you are stuck with mythical universal "human rights", that are supposed to exist, but actually don't, unless the Big Brother would be so kind as to (lip service) acknowledge them.

>inherent in every individual
"inherent in every individual" => universality => if you don't conform to a criteria, you are not considered to be an individual

>inherent in every individual
i.e. "every human is a magical repository of God's mana, because I said so!"

>>20225220
Just because Bush was president at the time doesn't mean Mankiw or Bush did things that led to the housing bubble.

>>20224062
the best approach is nationalist, protectionist, mixed market economies flexibly based on the state's circumstances
read Friedrich List and other 19th century economists
ignore free market pseudoscience and Marxist pseudoscience

>>20228049
Why are Marxists always harping on about theories of value and shit from the 1880's. Always writing these huge word salads about utility and the labor theory of value.

>>20228620
B-but the libertarians told me I should cut off my balls and dilate as their books mention!

>>20228049
What I really don't understand is why Marxists are so preoccupied with modern economists concepts of utility and money. They are not the same as Marx's own, but do these different theories completely break down all of Marx's arguments if they were true?

>>20228497
>i.e. "every human is a magical repository of God's mana, because I said so!"
ahh now you are getting to the meat of the matter instead of fuzzy collectivist abstractions. Argumentation ethics answers this problem completely. There IS in fact a "magical" self-ownership that every person possesses which endows them with individual rights.

>>20228819
>There IS in fact a "magical" self-ownership
Being repository of magical mana, implies there ISN'T. You're claiming a sovereignty of God (i.e. everybody being his slave).
But the scheme works only if God is exists. And here we have a problem...

begin and end with Bastiat
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fr%C3%A9d%C3%A9ric_Bastiat

>>20228762
they aren't preoccupied with them at all. they talk about them very rarely. in fact, the group I linked only talks about them in some depth because it has a very strong academic leaning. it's basically an intellectual exercise and not anything that would be actually useful to communism.
but yes, the foundations of modern economics and Marxism are mutually contradictory.

>>20228955
Austrian school is shit for the same reason neo-classical and marxist schools are shit. Pure shamanism.

>>20228980
interesting reasoning

>>20224121
Free markets on a national or global level are impossible to exist, but markets between individuals exchanging goods or services certainly do exist and are completely free. I liked Thomas Coskran's definition of a free market the most though I'm paraphrasing a lot based off of my own memory: "A market is just an interaction between atleast two rational individuals, who have goods and services amongst themselves, who have the freedom to decide whether or not they want to participate in any exchange of goods, and who are willing to exchange their own things with eachother to get a mutual gain out of it". That definition settles the when and where a "market" comes into existence: It comes into and out of existence based on when and where two people can interact with eachother for the transaction of material items based on certain terms, and whether this transaction is possinle and the terms can be met and are guarded by some authority (that authority can be mutual trust between the individuals, or a third party, or something else I haven't thought of).
A market that isn't free isn't a market at all. The mere distribution of goods isn't a market, such as the distributing of goods that occurs between a pedestrian and the hoodlum robbing him. To say "free markets don't exist" is nonsensical, because it implies "unfree markets" exist (and that only that exists). A market that isn't free, isn't a market at all.

>>20228955
>begin and end with Bastiat
oh to be young and ignorant of virtually everything

>>20229167
We're never actually free then

>>20229246
"Free" in what way, and why are we not free?

>>20229167
>rational
>who have the freedom to decide whether or not they want to
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bounded_rationality
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudge_theory
And here we already have a huge fucking problem.

>willing to exchange their own things with eachother to get a mutual gain
Is your mom raising you, a market? She provides food, you provide happiness, no?

>distributing of goods that occurs between a pedestrian and the hoodlum robbing him
>Free markets on a national or global level are impossible
Open some Karl Polanyi, kid.
All local prices prior to relatively recent times were circling around some fixed standard.
Setting a price as high as you think you could get away with - was a feature of international trade in ports.

>>20229301
>Is your mom raising you, a market? She provides food, you provide happiness, no?
No, because it isn't a mutual exchange, that's just a distribution of goods and services. I know this is going to sound a little funny but it's true: when I was a little kid I had to do the chores, and in exchange my parents gave me icecream. I could choose to do or not to do my chores, and in turn choose to get or not get icecream. There is the mutual benefit of me getting icecream, and my parents having the chores done without them actually doing it. I hope this clears that up
>Defining what rationality is
I get that you're telling me that, to a degree, we are not in conscious control of our decision-making when making economic decisions, but my point was more that a market exists when people aren't COMPLETELY FORCED to participate. If they're bounded by their own psychology, or habits, and they're subliminally coerced to make certain economic decisions then so be it, just because ignorance exists and can be exploited doesn't mean free will and thus rationality doesn't exist entirely. Again, my point was more to emphasize that free markets only exist when people are participating out of their own individual interests and are not bounded by anything other than their own mind and their own decision making skills and their own criterion on what to value and what to not value. That's my definition of rational decision-making, though if there are problems with it let me know so I can adjust my personal biases
>All local prices prior to relatively recent times were circling around some fixed standard.
Setting a price as high as you think you could get away with - was a feature of international trade in ports.
How about you give me a shred of a source instead of telling me to open up entire books to read and to justify your own words myself (I'll read him if you can convince me he's worth reading).
I mean shit, look at your own line of reasoning
>Setting a price as high as you think you could get away with doesn't happen in the real world
>Historically people have set prices according to some fixed standard
That "setting prices to a fixed standard" sounds suspiciously like "setting prices as high as you can get away with". But I'm pretty sure I just have the incorrect understanding of your use of the word "fixed standard" so if you could then please define that a little more clearrly.

>>20228945
You don't get it. Individual rights exist a priori with or without God.

>>20227473
You will not find it in a book. The though pattern comes from regularly noticing opportunities.

>>20229362
>How about you give me a shred of a source
https://delong.typepad.com/polanyi-aristotle.pdf
p. 89

"The set price, beside its justness, also offered the advantage of setting natural trade apart from unnatural trade <...> the set price ensures this through its exclusion of gain. Equivalencies-as we will henceforth call the set rate-serve therefore to safeguard "natural" trade" The bargained price might yield a profit to one of the parties at the expense of the other, and thus undermine the coherence of the community instead of underpinning it."

>>20229379
>Individual rights exist
Unicorns too, sure

>>20229399
Damn so I'm fucked

>>20229400
>Trade and markets had not only different locations, status, and personnel, they differed also in purpose, ethos and organization
>The institution to link the two [would be] the supply-demand-price mechanism
After reading the section The Natural Trade and Just Price, I see its description of Greek local markets is parallel to my personal belief of what a market is, and that it's explanation of set prices coming from trade treaties (and generally, nepotism) allocating war spoils amongst the winners of war explains your use of the term "fixed standard", I believe. But after reading Exchange of Equivalencies I'm a little bit confused as to how exactly this explains my being incorrect, because as Polyani puts it after the paragraph you've quoted, "To the modern market-adjusted mind the chain of thought here is presented as paradoxes" and goes on to explain that modern thought tends to take "trade" and "markets" as synonymous when back then they were not so, and you put it yourself that historically this was the case. I myself explained the difference between trade and markets, I've recognize this myself, Polyani's use of "trade" is my use of "DISTRIBUTION of goods and services" When I said free markets are not possible on a global level, that wasn't to say that international trade done through free markets doesn't happen (as I believe my loose wording has led you to believe about my own beliefs), but that it is impossible for a single market of a product, good, or service, to encompass the entire human in such a fashion that everyone participating is A. Knowledgeable of its existence B. Able to choose whether they want to participate or not, and C. Have transactions done on terms that all participating parties agree in, and D. Have such terms be enforced by some authority. Ultimately our disagreement comes more from miscommunication on my part I believe. I will certainly read Polyani however, the pdf you shared with me was very interesting

>>20229608
>Encompass the entire human
Should say "human population".

>>20224062
I know free-market economies produced some of the most richest countries on the planet, even for all of the downsides it's caused to the populace, especially today when it hasn't been put into its place. But is there really any better economic mode of production that'll let a country stand on its own two feet in the huge global economy of ours?

>>20229642
>But is there really any better economic mode of production that'll let a country stand on its own two feet in the huge global economy of ours?
Yeah

>>20229649
What is it then?
>inb4 socialism

>>20229672
We don't know yet, just like how ancient egyptians didn't know about capitalism yet. Somebody somewhere will come up with something though. But I think, rather than an innovation in economics, any significant, major leap in the standard of living in society now can only come from a cultural/ideological innovation

Come back once you've read an actual economics textbook.

>>20224062
OP is a midwit chink.
if you dont have armen alchian's University Economics you are not ngmi

>>20229762
I will, thanks for the recommendation!

>>20224062

You will never be a free market economy

>>20224062

>leave the market do its own thing

Say yes to price fixing!

>>20230483
Does it work? Are there any books on it?

>>20227881
You do realize that experimental/near-experimental designs are commonplace today in economics? Hell, the Nobel prize was just won by Card, Imbens and Angrist for research in this area. Modern econometrics is much more than "statistical methods to prove correlations between variables".

This thread is pure cancer, by the way, with just a select few having any idea what they are talking about.. I am doing my PhD in macroeconometrics, feel free to ask me anything.

>>20230620

there's laws against it, you could look up those

>>20230656
economists knows about how to better the economy of a country as much as physisits know about dark matter

>>20230656
What are the main issues that modern economists tackle today? What is a market anyways? What's with the differences between different economic school of thought, and which ones would you say model reality the most accurately? What's the difference between economics and econometrics? Do you like tits or ass?

>>20224121
True. You just monopolise and create cartels. There is a happy medium between socialism aka few cunts in givernment own everything and free markets where few cunts in mega corporations own everything. Its called regulated markets but thats out the window as soon as business pays politicians in cash or kind. So we need to split economy and state in a way we split religion and state. Hardly possible.

>>20224708
Educate yourself. What are barriers to entry? What is pricing out? What are economies of scale? What are cartels and oligopolies? Are you retarded?

>>20231384
>Are you retarded?
You clearly are. Absolutely nothing at all of all the things you mentioned exists without gaberments "regulating" the markets.
The economists have identified one (that's ONE, like in 0,1,2) historical case among thousands of industries where the famous "natural" monopoly had a real impact on the price level - this was a De Beers diamond monopoly. Of no practical importance btw.

>>20231384
cont. Oligopolies and cartels do exists btw and are doing great. Because of fucking idiots like you constantly demanding MORE gaberment interventions.

>>20231210
>What are the main issues that modern economists tackle today?
There are lots and lots of different thhings, it's really hard to generalize. Take for instance the seminars I will be attending next week: "Public and Parental Investments and Children’s Skill", "Cost Sharing and Primary Care Use: An Age–based Regression Discontinuity Design", " Wage drifts and wage formation in Finland", "Effects of governmental response policies, vaccination, population mobility, and Twitter narratives on the spread of COVID-19: Evidence from the European Union countries", " Transport infrastructure improvements and spatial sorting: evidence from Buenos Aires", "Optimal minimum wages (with Duncan Roth and Tobias Seidel)" and "Do informational frictions affect enrollment in public-sponsored training? Results from an online experiment". Really specific and different topics. But in general, many economists study the labour market, the effects of different policies etc and use micro level data and causal-inclined econometric techniques such as regression discontinuity, difference in differences, post-double lasso, synthetic controls etc.
>What's with the differences between different economic school of thought, and which ones would you say model reality the most accurately?
There's very few "schools of thought" in the field. 99,9% of academic economists do not care about that kind of stuff. "Beliefs" about something are formed from empirical results. For instance, there isn't any "Keynesian vs non-Keynesian" divide in modern macroeconomics: The New-Keynesian synthesis has resulted in models which incorporate some Keynesian features (wage rigidity etc) into the neoclassical micro-based model paradigm (i.e. agents are rational and maximize their intertemporal utility). Furthermore, slightly different results have been obtained from empirical studies about, for instance, the government spending multiplier, but the question is still purely empirical and does not stem from "ideological differences". The only "schools of thought" are fringe groups totally outside of most of academic economics.
>What's the difference between economics and econometrics?
Econometrics is the use of and development of statistical models and tools that are used in empirical economics. For instance, I study time series models (nonlinear multiple time series) which can be used to answer questions such as "how big effects would a monetary policy shock have on other macroeconomic aggregates, and how much would this effect vary in different regimes?" (via so-called impulse response function analysis).
>Do you like tits or ass?
Both, but I prefer ass since I really like athletic women.

>>20231570
Also Big Tech, are there any good books on it btw?

>>20224090
No... but it depends what you mean by that. If you just mean some form of countercyclical spending should exist than basically everyone but the most extreme conservatives would be to some weaker or stronger degree so that's to weak of a definition. Mankiw is closer to someone like Milton Friedman than Keynes.

>>20231974
>For instance, there isn't any "Keynesian vs non-Keynesian" divide in modern macroeconomics
Define "modern macroeconomics" in a way that isn't cringe

>>20233141
Modern academic macroeconomic models that research centres, central banks and governments use. DSGE models, HANK models, search-theoretical models etc. The models are rooted in microfoundations, and are so complex that no closed-form solutions exist. Bayesian estimation is typical.

>>20231974
Thanks for answering. Are there any econ textbooks you would recommend?

>>20224157
But then once you got monopolies all the wealth is going to TRICKLE DOWN
Who'd a thunk the bored idle rich are into watersports

>>20233203
I think Mankiw is an okay basic textbook, as is, e.g., CORE economics, which is slightly more modern. I like Williamson as a nice undergrad macro book, while Varian and Stock-Watson are classics for micro and econometrics, respectively. For a great free course on modern economics, I'd recommend Raj Chetty's big data course here: https://rajchetty.com/online-lectures/ it really elaborates how incredibly varied topics can be studied and tackled in economics using common economic/econometric tools.

I read this book.

>>20233187
If the whole attempt at reducing macroeconomics to microeconomics wasn't contestable you'd be right and noting like Keynesianism would exist anymore but you're wrong and you can find criticism published in the most mainstream journals even.

>>20227718
"minds over Markets" if you want to make succeed in financial speculation

>>20224062
IMBECILE.

>>20233394
Rude.

eggonomigs

>>20233234
Is it a good book?

the best way to learn about a subject is to learn the history of it

A book on the history of economics

i wouldn't recommend non-history book on economics. they tend to be very boring and dry and forgettable

>>20233983
Why no math books?

What is the ultimate book on the subject?

>>20224428
Human Action - Mises
Man, Economy and State - Rothbard
Economics in One Lesson - Hazlitt

>>20227794
scientific method aka assumptions based on empirical evidence is just astrology with a higher degree of certainty. Best you can do in historical economics is to formulate assumptions.

Actual economics rejects empiricism and it's fully based on rationalism

>>20234738
Rationalism without empiricism is just insane ramblings with no use.

>>20234759
Rationalim: A priori knowledge
Empiricism: A posteriori knowledge

One is based on universal truths, the other is based on hypotheticals

Would you recommend Marx books, anon?

>>20224062
No. The free market has a problem where more and more citizens stack up at 0 wealth and can't get out of poverty. Even goddamn Milton Friedman recognized this as a major problem with free market economics and that's why he proposed a Negative Income Tax to make it easier for people to improve their economic standing when starting from 0. Unfortunately, it is in the interest of those who hold power (capital holders) to ensure there is a large pool of poor, desperate people willing to sell their labor for cheap, meaning the only path to a better economy is through a shift of the balance of power away from the ownership class and back to the working poor. Again, unfortunately the ownership class tends to hold all the power in this class war so unless there is some large scale conflict like a true world war, more and more middle class people will sink into poverty to meet those in absolute poverty who get to climb slightly higher into just regular poverty. The endpoint is that you will own nothing, you will have no power, and a boot will be pressed against your face forever.

>>20233977
If you have no knowledge of economics and want to get into it, sure.

>>20224207
>What anon is getting at is a more advanced topic. In essence, all markets are centrally planned. All a "Free market" is is a market wherein the central planners let the players in the market figure things out for themselves in certain scenarios.
>In essence, all people are invisible. All a "body" is is a collection of atoms which are invisible, so the whole body is invisible.
The point is that by being made up of a multitude of mini-planners, it is not centrally planned, because there is no central planner.

>>20236111
>being made up of a multitude of mini-planners, it is not centrally planned
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_economy#Decentralized_planning

>>20234738
>Actual economics rejects empiricism and it's fully based on rationalism
https://aeon.co/essays/how-economists-rode-maths-to-become-our-era-s-astrologers

>>20234814
>Rationalim: A priori knowledge
>One is based on universal truths
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Dogmas_of_Empiricism
"The paper is an attack on two central aspects of the logical positivists' philosophy: the first being the analytic–synthetic distinction between analytic truths and synthetic truths"

>>20236111
>being made up of a multitude of mini-planners
being made up of a few megacorps, you mean?

>>20233217
>But then once you got monopolies all the wealth is going to TRICKLE DOWN
You have your de-facto monopolies for a hundred years already.

>>20234738
>Actual economics rejects empiricism and it's fully based on rationalism
Actual economics is based on thermodynamics. GDP prices are arbitrary, electricity consumption isn't, amount of subordinates per manager isn't.

>>20224493
>it seems you are using circular logic there
economics should have ended right here

>>20224062
daily reminder that economics is unfalsifiable
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/economics/
>Given Popper’s falsificationism, there seems little hope of understanding how extreme simplifications can be legitimate or how current economic practice could be scientifically reputable. Economic theories and models are almost all unfalsifiable, and if they were, the widespread acceptance of Friedman’s methodological views would insure that they are not subjected to serious test. When models apparently fail tests, they are rarely repudiated. Economists conclude instead merely that they chose the wrong model for the task, or that there were disturbing causes. Economic models, which have not been well tested, are often taken to be well-established guides to policy, rather than merely conjectures.

What about DAOs? Any good books on them?