/lit/ - Literature

Basic Economics: A Common Sense Guide to the Economy

>>4254883
Are you trying to learn more about how the economy works or you just want a book on the history of economics?

>>4254891
Economics in general, I'll read really anything.

>>4254883
>Where should I start?
Adam Smith: The Wealth of Nations

Das Kapital, Karl Marx

>>4254909
This book will probably bore the fuck out of you. Pages upon pages upon pages of wheat.

>>4254893
Read Niall Ferguson's "The Ascent of Money", there's also a 6 part documentary that covers some of the book. It's an interesting read.

>>4254909
>The Wealth of Nations
Heh.

Economics in one lesson
The road to serfdom
Human Action: A Treatise on Economics

econfag

this is the standard introductory text

the other ones in this thread are stupid

>>4254949
> Niall Ferguson
After reading every one of his books, I think its necessary to read criticism on him.

He might be a good rhetorician, but his methods are a bit off.

>>4254972
Yeah good job posting your 1st year Introduction to Economy text book which will bore him out of his skull. I guess he'll be able to know how to calculate inflation but I'd wager that's not really what he's looking for.

>>4254982
>I think its necessary to read criticism on him
A lot of his other books, I'll agree considering his political leanings. The Ascent of Money deals primarily with the history of finance, not with ideology.

>>4254972
Do you guys cover the history of economics at all?

I was really disappointed, on asking a bunch of econ majors, to find that most of you guys don't even know a rudimentary history of Western finance. You'd think that'd be good info to have.

Debunking Economics by Steven Keen.

>>4255008
>Do you guys cover the history of economics at all?
They don't which is criminal. Economists' ignorance of history, their willingness to adhere to theory and ideology with a religious fervor is one of the reasons the same mistakes keep being made.

>>4255008


thats because knowing the history of finance could lead to crime-think.

http://www.xat.org/xat/moneyhistory.html

What kind of economics, op?

Micro? Marco?
Mathematical? Political?

I'd reckon you should go with some history first, then go into micro and the mathematical, then do macro, leave international and stuff like game theory for last. I'd steer away with more leftist economics like hard Marxism or environmental, etc, for now. Not because I particularly disagree with their theory or anything of that matter but because without any formal knowledge of economics it will: a) confuse you/mislead you, and b) they venture more into the political and social aspect and more away from the economic. I'd recommend not reading any of the 'classics' like Wealth of Nations or the General Theory, mostly because they're (by now) dated, period pieces (e.g. Wealth of Nations was to mercantilism, like Das Kapital was to industrial revolution or General Theory to the Great Depression, etc) is a and convoluted. I would read, if I were you, Essential Microeconomics by John G. Riley, and Intermediate Microeconomics by Hal R Varian.

>>4254961
>this is what libertards actually believe

a mainstream macroeconomics textbook of your choosing
then
a mainstream microeconomics textbook of your choosing
then
an economic policy textbook of your choosing
then
(international) finance textbook of your choosing

there is no other way around it
those are just basic 4 introductory titles, get over it, brace yourself and just fucking read them

don't listen to those retards recommending you pop-sci and ideological propaganda

i majored in economics and finance

>>4255085
I wasn't. I recommended two Cambridge text books for Microeconomics.

>>4255085
why would you learn macro before micro.

>>4255027

Marco-economics, is that like Italian economics?

In that case, don't read about it; the Italians are clearly not who you go to for that kind of advice.

>>4255112
why do you post when it's obvious you yourself know you don't know what you're talking about.

would anyone recommend The Wealth of Nations: The Economics Classic - A selected edition for the contemporary reader

it's a abridged version (about half as short) with commentaries and links to contemporary economics.

http://www.amazon.com/Wealth-Nations-Economics-selected-contemporary/dp/0857080776/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1384022989&sr=1-1&keywords=wealth+of+nations+contemporary

>>4255117

I'm not quite sure what you're referring to the comment about Italy's economy:

It actually is shit:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2013/08/italian-government-debt?zid=295&ah=0bca374e65f2354d553956ea65f756e0

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/world-report/2013/10/08/silvio-berlusconis-antics-will-hurt-italys-economy

If you're referring to my previous comment, note that it was a joke. See, I cleverly used your typo of "Macro", connecting it to a popular Italian name, facetiously supposing you were alluding to a previous president's economic policies.

Humor is fantastic and good and fun.

>>4255129

>>4255027
here, the previous post was not me. I knew it was a joke, the both of you calm down.

>>4255133

Okay, but that doesn't change the fact that that guy is delusional and probably Italian.

Historian here.

I specialize in intellectual history particularly in political economic thought.

I'd recommend any historically conscious economist or economically conscious historian like Karl Polanyi, Joseph Schumpeter, Thorstein Veblen, Fernand Braudel, or Giovanni Arighi.

The classical economics you get in a standard textbook exist in a vacuum. Economics must be grounded in history.

>>4255024
What is this website?

>>4255204
Don't you mean History must be grounded in economics

>>4255217

No, I'm not a materialist.

Economics must be grounded in historical forces/structures/mentalities/milieus...etc...

>>4255204
Can you recommend anything in particular?

I'm taking a class on the Hanseatic League and my adorable Estonian professor is constantly harping on the sad state of economic history study. He's mentioned Braudel a few times in class and after some research I've realised how ignorant I am of the classic works in the field.

>>4255229

If you have PLENTY of time, read Braudel's three volume "Civilization and Capitalism."

If not, he has several single volume "summations" of his history...they're not nearly as satisfying though.

Read Karl Polanyi's "Great Transformation" and Giovanni Arrighi's "The Long Twentieth Century."

>>4255221
the only thing economics has to be grounded in is mathematics

>>4255242

Why?


>>4255229
Also, check out David Harvey's "The Limits to Capital"!

>>4255235
>>4255258
Thanks, bro.

>>4254883

Haven't read the rest of the thread but the best intro might as well be:

History of Economic Thought: A Critical Perspective
by E. K. Hunt (Author) & Mark Lautzenheiser

Very good book. Considerable Marxist/Heterodox slant. But always critical.

Don't read "the classics" (Wealth of Nations, Capital, ...) from the start. That's just making it hard on yourself.

>>4254972

This is pure shit. Mankiw and the likes are books for people that need a job in business or finance. Not for understanding economics.

>>4255024

If you're interested in this stuff, please get David Graeber's "Debt the First 5000 years".

Anthropologist's view on the economy of the past and present. It's delicious.

>>4255099

Because the idea that macroeconomics can be deduced from micro economic theories is a neoclassical fallacy.

>>4255204
none of those titles make sense as an introduction

>>4255384

If the OP has an intellect, which it seems as though he does, he'll be able to use those works to pry his way into the world of economics.

Why the hell would he want to waste his time on a Mankiw textbook or any other textbook marketed to the vast hordes of mouth-breathing business management majors.

>>4255242
>the only thing economics has to be grounded in is mathematics
>this is what laymen thinking "economics" is hard science actually believe

>>4255388
it's not even soft science. it's not science period. it's as bullshit as sociology.

>>4255389
learning economics and learning about economics is two different things

if he wants to pursue a career in the field he doesn't need to understand shit about shit, just learn the current pseudo-scientific dogma of the week; for this going, balls deep into history of economic thought and researching all the meta-narratives will be counter-productive

>>4255392

Not so long as the economist understands that economics must be understood historically. It must bring in all the intellectual, cultural, social, political "mushiness"...

>>4255392
>this is what retards thinking "economics" is a discipline actually believe
there is no such thing, lurk moar

>>4255393

He wanted to learn about economics.

I helped him by recommending works that have helped me understand economics.

Suck my cock.

>>4255400
>helped me understand economics.
but you don't know shit about economics, why the act

>Suck my cock.
no thanks, im not a faggot like you

>>4255404

>but you don't know shit about economics, why the act

YOU AIN'T EVEN KNOW ME

>>4255008
>Do you guys cover the history of economics at all?
of course

you pick it up anyway because you learn different competing schools of thought

>>4255270
>This is pure shit. Mankiw and the likes are books for people that need a job in business or finance. Not for understanding economics.
i don't know what you think economics is but you sound like a typical litfag: turning an actual discipline into just another watered down critical school that you can use to analyze stories with

this is how fucking retarded /lit/ is:
>>4254883 "i want to into economics"
>>4254972 "hey i study ECONOMICS read this"
>>4255204 "hurrr i HISTORIAN so i konw econamics moar than anyone durrr that book is for faggets lel"

Thread on economy and Accursed Share by Bataille, Living Currency by Klossowski and Libidinal Economy by Lyotard is not mentioned.

>figure out schools with good economics programs
>look up econ program
>look up textbooks used by each course
>download pdf or see if local university libraries have them
>???
>free education

>>4255392
>it's as bullshit as sociology
>h-h-here i g-go

This funnie book condensates the history of economics as a granola bar condesates all you need for the day.

>>4254885
Fuck yeah this.

>>4256322
Shit forgot pic.

>>4254926
Don't read Marx's works on economics, they are the equivalent of reading Freud's works on psychology.

>>4256716
>remembering the pic nearly two hours later
My sides!

>>4256726
But that's wrong. Neoclassical and Austrian economists make just as many silly assumptions as Marx does. They just happen to make different assumptions.

>>4256743
Yeah, and that's why no one of intelligence respects classical or "Austrian" (Austrian isn't even real, it's just classical) economics.

Economics in One Lesson

>>4256750
So are there any economists that get respect?

>>4256764
Not really, but the ideas of economics that stem from Keynes work are preferred, if you think a functional system that benefits everyone should be a moral goal of society.

>>4256764
If they get any it's more than they should.

They should be tarred and feathered and thrown out of any group of decent people.

>>4256779
Not necessarily. The problem with economists is that economics is always solved towards a particular goal of society, meaning the vastly incorrect and psychopathic leaders formulate deceptive models that don't work intentionally.

>>4256790
They should be beaten, and whipped with whips.

>>4256794
That's an interesting thought.

>>4256726
Please elaborate on how Marx has been discredited, then

>>4256837
>inb4 mud pies and ditch-digging
It's supposed to be SOCIALLY NECESSARY labor-time. Also, value =/= price.

>>4255099
Because Macro does not need micro to be understood except for basic stuff that is usually covered in introductory textbooks.
The two subdisciplines evolved separately and they're both useful analizing stuff at their level.
Recently people have been trying to create macroeconomic models with microeconomic theoretical foundations but they've been total failures at any kind of useful analisis or prediction, or conceptual clarity.

>>4256336
Go back and shitpost on /pol/ with your shit tier economics

What's the problem with Economics in One Lesson? I understand academics hate libertarians, but I was always under the impression that this was a basic text for economics.

>>4256837
economic calculation problem in centrally planned economies.

>>4257151
nothings wrong with it.

>>4257158
>centrally planned economies
Cool, now explain what this has to do with Marx.

Okay, that was a little snarky. I've got two objections here: 1) Communism and socialism aren't the same thing as central planning. You can have other sorts of socialism. 2) Marx wrote extensively on capitalism and comparatively little (next to nothing) on communism, let alone central planning. So this really gives me the impression that you haven't read him but have instead read what others have said about him or have conflated Marx with (ha ha!) Stalin. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but still.

>>4254972
econfag here

Only reasonable answer ITT

>>4254926
Christ almight /pol/ was right

>>4257151
it smuggles market fundamentalist propaganda and doesn't disclose it

in textbooks you at least know what is what

>>4255561
>an actual discipline

This is indeed what economics on universities and colleges has degenerated into. This definition of "discipline" from wikipedia couldn't be more poignant:

A systematic instruction intended to train a person in a craft, trade or other activity, or to follow a particular code of conduct or "order".

Especially the second part of the definition is what Mankiw entails. A code of conduct to be obeyed, not an attempt to obtain truth or insight.

If you don't like what people write about your discipline then read what they say and prove them wrong. But keep the stupid ad hominems for yourself.