/lit/ - Literature

I'd actually be pretty cool if someone did one of those /lit/ charts.

"Human action" von Mises and "The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money" Keynes

As a layman, it seems to me the whole "keynesians vs. austrians" antiphon is a bit outdated, I wouldn't mind an economist telling us about the more modern central authors.

Kinda hijacking and sorry for that, but has anyone read Weblen? I read about him in Dos Passos' USA Trilogy and was intrigued by the idea of a non-Marxist critique of capitalism, but I haven't found Theory of the Leisure Class in bookstores and it seems like he's kind of outdated. Anyone familiar with him?

>>4232390
Isn't modern just neoclassics vs keynes?

I figured an overview from left to right be it from Rothbard to Marx and everything inbetween would be the best. The names that I can think of are Rothbard, Hayek, Mises, Smith, Friedman, Keynes, and Marx. But maybe somebody could add to it or modify it.

>>4232399
Maybe, but when I read The Wealth and Poverty of Nation by David Landes, I couldn't help but think "where is all that school vs. school thing people always go on about". I suppose people would classify him as a neoclassic by default maybe? But really it's just a scholar doing a good work of analyzing things, sticking the [*** school] lebl on him doesn't really seem to be pertinent.

By the way it's a great book, but it's economic history so I'm not sure if it fits the "political economy" theme of this thread.

Adam Smith -- The Wealth of Nations

>>4232412
*label

>>4232413

I've really only read Mises, Rothbard, Marx, Smith and Keynes. Not very well equipped to offer advice, but I'd be delighted to hear some.

>>4232390


check out 7 frauds of economic policy by mosler, economics without illusions by heath, debunking economics by keen, and 23 things about capitalism by chang.

It really seems to me that the classical economists were the ones who really advanced the field and had the right ideas, while Keynes sort of rehashed pre-classical ideas and fitted them to a new time obsessed with socialism. I like that classical is making somewhat of a resurgence, even if it's mostly been associated with the dubious libertarian movement. It beats the hell out of neo-Keynesianism in my opinion.

That said, check out:
Adam Smith
Ludwig von Mises
F.A. Hayek (personal favorite)
Murray Rothbard (with a grain of salt)
Henry Hazlitt (for an extremely quick and concise introduction to classical ideas)
Milton Friedman

Go ahead and check out Marx and Keynes, too. I think in light of the others I've listed, though, their ideas will fall short. I know they did for me. It's still good to be acquainted with them because of the influence they have on modern economic policy (Keynes much more so than Marx).

Perry Mehrling provides a self proclaimed synthesis of monists and keynesians in his book New Lombard Street- it's more historical/empirical on the off chance you're not looking for a theoretically heavy work.

Macroeconomics is dull. Plus you'll read all about some dead guys theory and be about 30 years behind the latest economic thinking.

Saying that my favourite economist is Becker. The great economic imperialist. Expanding the reach of economics into all areas of human behaviour.

>>4232470
Wow
Such neoliberalism
Such disregard for state regulation of economy

>>4232983
Fuck off, commie. Go back to reddit.

>>4232983
why don't you put forth some suggestions? that was the purpose of the thread anyways

>>4232338
Are you familiar with macroeconomic theory from before?

>>4233061
yeah basics

>>4232996
Debunking Economics by Steve Keen

>>4232991
Go back to /pol/ if you want an echo chamber.

Nassim Taleb, anyone read him?

>>4233173
>only critical of other theories instead of coming up with a new one

>unsupported by empirical data because none exists because we can't try it because unsupported by empirical data

>believing objective value

bumping one time for final suggestions.

>>4232393
Yeah. You can get that in the dover [ugly-as-fuck] edition for like $2.95, the price of a large potato wedges.

Read some Proudhon and become a mutualist, or read some Bakunin and become a collectivist anarchist.

Hayek is a must for an /lit/ user.

Karl Marx
Adam Smith
Freidrich List (Nationalism)
John Maynard Keynes

Don't turn away from other economists, but these are the seminal works.

>>4232470
Do you masturbate with the fedora on or off?

>>4234139


>mfw someone else knows list near me.

>>4234138


the fatal conceit is probably his best work, id also recommend 'anti-fragile' by taleb, along with my earlier recs here >>4232426

Economics is in a weird state right now I think. The "big debate" right now is whether austerity economics works or doesn't and it's still very much a neoliberal vs neokeynesian conversation. As far as Marx, communist or anarchist views are concerned much of their critiques on capitalism are fair, but they don't offer any sort of workable system of economics on a national scale.

For what to read you could definitely read some of the suggestions already given but you'll end up being convinced or subscribing to outdated modes of thought or theories that have 30 years of research that prove them wrong. If you're looking for general knowledge of economics it would be better to read the Economist, the Financial Times, and (ducks) the Wallstreet Journal. You'll have to understand that a lot of the editorials are far right and are written for a bourgeoisie crowd, but the business section will let you in on the nitty gritty of business deals, policy decisions etc. That will give you a better idea of how things are run and be more educational.

>>4234655


>neo-liberals
>far right

libertarianism was historically a left-wing proposition, up until a sect of bow-tie wearing khazars decided it was right wing all of a sudden.

>>4234670
libertarianism is supposedly left socially and right economically. I'm sure there's at least a few people who will claim it's not possible to be socially left while being economically right (as it implies a willingness to exploit etc), but that's their position. So they don't care about gay marriage but want low or near zero taxes.

BUT libertarianism was not what I was talking about. Neoliberalism is generally the accepted term of art for laisse faire freemarket ideology. It's used that way in the literature. So don't blame me for the confusion, I'm just a tourist here myself.

>>4234670
even if you think that narrative is correct (I think it's a little more complicated than that), you have to allow for the possibility that libertarianism was a left-wing ideology that was then taken over by the far right

>>4234699


this appropriation of terminology is how we can end up with sophistic statements like 'left socially but right economically'.

>>4234703


the narrative was always simple, the right side of the french legislature supported the monarchy, the left side opposed it.

of course theres been alot of ideological schizophrenia since mises and co made their splash, some took their left-wing equalitarian ideals seriously and morphed into the curious liberaltarian (par example, bryan caplan), others belatedly realised that liberty and democracy are mutually exclusive (of course i would say that noone can have equal freedom either in any case, and social dynamics reflect this), and basically accelerated libertarianism past itself (for instance, hans-herman hoppe, von kuehnelt-leddihn).

>>4234744

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

In the United States, where the meaning of liberalism has parted significantly from classical liberalism, classical liberalism has largely been renamed libertarianism and is associated with "economically conservative" and "socially liberal" political views (going by the common meanings of "conservative" and "liberal" in the United States),[32][33] along with a foreign policy of non-interventionism.[34][35]

Maybe you should learn to shut your whore mouth when you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Also in case you don't know what sophistry is (cause you sure as fuck didn't use it right)


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sophistry

soph·ist·ry noun \ˈsä-fə-strē\
: the use of reasoning or arguments that sound correct but are actually false

: a reason or argument that sounds correct but is actually false


You stupid fuckstick.

>>4234749


>not realising that modern (read, american) 'conservatism' is also based on essentially revolutionary left wing ideals.

step up sempai.

>>4234763
you said something wrong you need to own that shit. i dont need to realize a goddamn thing.

>>4234768


i said that calling neo-liberals or liberatians 'far right' is a misnomer. surely now you can see why, yes?

>>4234770
Jesus christ on a pogo stick. GO BACK AND READ THE THREAD YOU STUPID SHIT.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

Libertarianism is a derail. I never mentioned libertarianism.

>>4234699
READ THIS

Fuck me people are thick

>>4234775


if libertarianism is off the table then the claim of such things as 'far right' is even more specious.

>>4234778
Here fucktwat I will literally wipe your ass for you and read you the wikipedia link that you're too much of a blithering feces eater to actually click you waste of carbon.


In the sixties, usage of the term "neoliberal" heavily declined. When the term was reintroduced in the 1980s in connection with Pinochet’s regime the usage of the term Neoliberalism had shifted. It had not only become a term with negative connotations employed principally by critics of market reform, but it also had shifted in meaning from a moderate form of liberalism to a more radical and laissez-faire capitalist set of ideas. Scholars now tended to associate it with the theories of Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman.[2] Once the new meaning of neoliberalism was established as a common usage among Spanish-speaking scholars, it diffused directly into the English-language study of political economy.[3] The term neoliberal is now used mainly by those who are critical of legislative initiatives that push for free trade, deregulation, enhanced privatization, and an overall reduction in government control of the economy.[4]

No claim is off the table. There was no claim to make. You LITERALLY do not know what definitions mean, or the history of political economy. And you're too much of a fuckwit to read a link when someone hands it to you.

I seriously hope you get face cancer.

>>4234782


you seem to be misapprehended, i know what the history is (how else could i have referred to those outlets as neo-liberal?), im disagreeing with your (ie, the orthodox) characterization of it. you called rags like the economist 'far right', i say, this is a misnomer.

>ps, conservatism is not an ideology, its an epistemology, you can be 'conservative' about most anything.

>>4234789
yes because when i talk about conservatism im talking about conserving sugar or conserving my gas by driving slower.

jesus do you suck your dads cock with that mouth ? For fuck's sake. It's like arguing with a garden hose or dog in a tutu or something.

>>4234796


thanks for playing.

>>4233311
>only critical of other theories instead of coming up with a new one
not
>having enough common sense to realize the field of economics is woo from the fundamentals to the theories
enjoy your snake oil
yours truly,
economics and finance major

>>4232338


Could someone recommend me some economists that discussed Mixed Capitalist/Socialist economies, and Interventionist economies?

It's so hard to find good analysis of economies that don't really show much similarity with western capitalism. And all of the ones at my uni library are basically an analysis from the perspective of free market assholes saying "They're developing right now, eventually they will stop experimenting and doing interesting things and fall in line with us because we are best"

So analysis is really hard to find.

>>4235019


ha-joon chang
dambisa moyo
erik reinert

'Progress and Poverty' by Henry George

Don't be plebs.

>>4235019
keynes, krugman, stiglitz if you want some of the most known

authors of contemporary macroeconomics/economic policy/international economics textbooks are nine out of ten times adherents of mixed-economics outlook

most of modern(XX century+) thought in political economy/economic policy are distinctly mixed economics

classical liberals (but not neoliberals), laissez-fairians, market fundamentalists, austrians, lolbertarians, monetarists, etc are mostly considered marginal cranks throughout the field which will be obvious to anyone born outside of US (those are only popular in the states because of enormously generous backing of marginal market fundamentalist think-tanks and foundations by billionaire interests)

>>4234782
>Here fucktwat I will literally wipe your ass for you and read you the wikipedia link that you're too much of a blithering feces eater to actually click you waste of carbon.

I'm gonna use this whenever some retard can't wiki things themselves

>>4235196
US is what sets the field not the rest of the world

>>4236244
you are incoherent, son

>>4232338

Adam Smith - The Wealth of Nations
David Ricardo - On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation
Karl Marx - Das Kapital (Capital: Critique of Political Economy)
John Maynard Keynes - The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money

In that order.

The above is the shortest possible list that could be called a 'detailed' exposition on the evolution of political economy. Try to avoid getting bogged down in the inane discourse over who was 'right' if you have a genuine (scientific) interest; understanding of any science can only be got from constant attack and rebuttal, critique and anti-critique, in the course of economic development.

>>4236957
>person with a genuine scientific interest
>reading Marx for economic insights

That one book that got me interested in political economy was The Commanding Heights: The Battle for the World Economy by Daniel Yergin.

It's post-9/11 but pre-GFC.

From there I started reading economists;
The Road to Serfdom - Hayek
The Constitution of Liberty - Hayek
Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy - Schumpeter
The Affluent Society - Galbraith

Good entry level I reckon.

>>4236958
marx was right about everything when it comes to economics

also let me remind you that not only you have never read a single marx work, you also average 500 pages a year

stay ignorant, internet tryhard

I should warn you about learning economics though.

For the first initial year or so, you're going to go around acting like you can predict the downfall of the West.

It will result in a lot of embarrassing status updates on your Facebook.

>>4236971
Now I'm not a Marx hater although I'm not a communist but to say that he was right on everything is a bit off. Such as the state being able to predict price levels and shit

>>4236971
Luckily for me you're about as well-versed in works that weren't written by Marx as you think I am in works that were, or you'd be well aware of the fact that Marx is more relevant in just about every other science (particularly the "sciences") than he is economics. Sadly, Marxists are too dumb to understand even the most simple of econometric models, so Marxian economics are still considered a topic worth discussing by some