/lit/ - Literature

>>5454312
Capital in the 21st Century if you want to get caught up on the most influential work in modern economic discourse.

>>5454312
freakonmics by shephen j dubner

>>5454312
I'm an econ major and was just wondering if there were any economic works or writers that were also somehow lit-related... guess that's just weird and futile huh

>>5454410
Most of the major monographs are literary. Smith, Ricardo, Marx, Veblen, Webber, the 20th century Marxists and Heterodoxes.

>>5454348
Capital in the 21 century isn't good for noobs to economics. I get the feeling OP is new and looking for an introduction.

>>5454406
Freakonomics is shit and has nothing to say.

>>5454425
This guy is right. Read the classical economists if you want a little philosophy. Wealth of Nations. Capital. Etc. If you just want to learn positive, orthodox, modern economic theory just torrent a textbook.

>>5454348
>>5454406
Lel. These people are idiots. Read Marx, Ricardo, Rothbard, and Friedman if you want actually good works by respected academics.
Source: I am an econ major

Hyman Minsky, John Maynard Keynes, Joseph Stiglitz, Joseph Schumpeter and pic

>>5454452
Rothbard's non-historical books are loony, but I like your list. I'd add Hayek and potentially Mises's Money and Credit.

How are you liking the econ major? I was originally planning to major in econ but it seemed like the job selection it gives you is regrettably sparse so I study it on my own; is it as biased as it's made out to be and do you have any good jobs lined up?

If you understand the basics (and since you posted a pic of Polyani I'm guessing you do), pic related is the best book on macroeconomics ever written in my opinion.

>>5454489 already beat me to suggesting Minsky though

A little heavy, but Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations is essential if you want to read economics.

>>5456359
Given that you're posting an invisible hand you've not actually read Wealth of the Nations have you?

>>5454452
you are retarded
marx is not a respected academic, rothbard is an austrian retard
source: i am an econ phd
(not as though claims like that are even believable on the internet)

>>5454489
stiglitz is an insane shitlib and keynes's general theory is impenetrable (because he was a shitty writer); minsky is ok; schumpeter is ok

>>5454495
nobody takes mises seriously
hayek is just as loony (see solow's article on his popular writing)
>>>/reddit/

>>5456359
it's cute when people recommend smith
reading smith is like reading newton; you do it purely for historical interest, not to learn economics

>>5454406
it's shit

>>5454425
marxists and heterodoxes are simply retarded and the rest are not worth your time

>>5454348
it's good but not particularly exciting

==

actual recommendations:
- mankiw's textbook
- papers from the journal of economic perspectives
- samuelson's inside the economist's mind
- athreya's big ideas in macroeconomics
- sandmo's economics evolving
- maybe a game theory text
- mian's house of debt (good except for the last bit where they talk about policy)

avoid:
- heterodox austrian retards and marx trolls
- people who think that reading smith and keynes, for some inexplicable reason, will actually teach you economics in an understandable and coherent fashion (in all likelihood because they have some peculiar fetish about "reading X" (where X is some well-known academic) like the philosophers do)
- people who are econ majors and not econ phds, because an econ major is basically not worth the paper it's printed on

>>5454406
LOL this is like recommending malcolm gladwell if you want to learn about psychology

finally, modern economics is very mathematical and quantitative; reading the tedious monographs that led up to samuelson's formalizations is for people who are:
- interested in purely the history of economics and not the current state of knowledge of economics
- interested in name-dropping to their non-economics-studying /lit/ buddies so they can look cool
- or interested in selectively reading either mark or various retarded austrian tracts (depending on which direction they want to be politically extreme to the point of absurdity) so they can regurgitate the same tired arguments over and over again while confirming their own beliefs

if you actually want to learn economics, here are my two recommendations:
- rudin's principles of mathematical analysis
- mwg

:^)

oh, forgot to mention, krugman's pop internationalism is good too

Let's say I want to understand the effect of repurchase agreements by the European Central Bank on the money supply (in Euros). What should I be looking into?

I do not study economics. I have been trying to understand why austerity might or might not be a good idea for Europe in my spare time and this is where I am stranded at the moment.

>>5454312
David Harvey - The New Imperialism.
Goes into globalisation and capital shifts. Very interesting read.

>>5459355
look up krugman's blog posts about austerity in the eurozone; they are fairly well-written and informative and do not really require prior knowledge afaik

>>5459355
oh, also, a blog called 'mainly macro' (which i can't link otherwise 4chan thinks my post is spam) has some fairly interesting posts re: the general situation in the eurozone (maybe filter for the 'ECB' tag or something like that)

>>5459366
>>5459375
As far as I know Paul Krugman does not take into account the effect ECB has on the money supply in his models. I will look into it some more, thanks.

The Accursed Share by Georges Bataille.

The Worldly Philosophers, by Robert Heilbroner
Grand Pursuit, by Sylvia Nasar

some good secondary literature, for a view of the history and differing viewpoints of the paragon economists.

Amartya Sen and John Kenneth Galbraith

>>5461047

This is a good recommendation. I picked it up thinking it was about philosophy but still got a very informative and well written book.

Economist here (I have my PhD). Here are two good textbooks covering micro and macro:
Principles of Microeconomics by Mankiw (Micro)
Modern Macroeconomics: Its Origins, Development And Current State by Snowdon (Macro)

The Modern Macroeconomics book is, by far, the most superb introduction to macroeconomics out there. It is fantastic.

>>5454348
>>5454406
Awful choices.

>>5454410
Early classicals were very much involved in philosophy.

>>5454489
This guy has an actual idea, but Keynes is a poor choice. His General Theory book is very confusing and often misleading. I forgot who said this, but someone made the point to clarify that Keynes' works are only a good read if you understand exactly what he's talking about. Otherwise, it's worthless.

>>5456359
NO JUST FUCKING NO. Very outdated and only good as a historical reference.

>>5459346
>an austrian retard
It is true that nobody talks about him. He was at least very involved in the mainstream discussion though... or tried to be.

>nobody takes mises seriously
Not anymore at least. He was a very serious academic in his day though.

>hayek is just as loony
Okay now this is going overboard. You'll see Hayek apparent in almost any literature review that discusses command versus free economies and a few other fields of economics.

>athreya's big ideas in macroeconomics
Lel, I remember reading that. It's fairly decent, but I remember there being long chapters of bullshit.

>maybe a game theory text
I have a great on game theory and rational choice theory on my Kindle.

>mian's house of debt (good except for the last bit where they talk about policy)
Finance that overlaps into economics is fantastic. Read up whatever you can on debt deflation theory and the infamous "Minsky moment."

>heterodox austrian retards and marx trolls
Austrians are great (real Austrians, not just retards on the internet), but they can err on some issues.

>people who think that reading smith and keynes,
Definitely agree. These are not timeless works.

>people who are econ majors and not econ phds, because an econ major is basically not worth the paper it's printed on
I'm going to have to agree unless they're the next Henry Hazlitt.

>>5461047
>Malthus
>Keynes
>Marx
>great economic thinkers

They're what Peter Boetkee would call, "non mainline economists." Might as well throw Pigou in there.

>>5463158

Yeah Keynes and Marx never influenced any country ever and Malthus was just a disgruntled doom sayer.

>>5463178
If you mean great in influence, then sure you're right. They are "great" or "grand." However, Malthus was just a big butthurt doom slayer. Basic economic theory and empirical research proves him wrong. I like to read, "The Skeptical Environmentalist" as a big fuck you to Malthus.

>>5463150
>You'll see Hayek apparent in almost any literature review that discusses command versus free economies and a few other fields of economics.
his popular work at least

>Austrians are great (real Austrians, not just retards on the internet), but they can err on some issues.
>>>/GMU/
but i suppose, yes

>Lel, I remember reading that. It's fairly decent, but I remember there being long chapters of bullshit.
lel i haven't actually read it, i just read noah's review of it

>It is true that nobody talks about him. He was at least very involved in the mainstream discussion though... or tried to be.
true, true

Can any econ majors confirm that Marx is the Sartre of economics?

>>5463150
>I have a great on game theory and rational choice theory on my Kindle.
What is it? I'm really interested in learning more about game theory

>>5463689

No. Sartre's fiction is minor and his philosophy is derivative.

Marx was a giant thinker. As an economist, he was beyond brilliant, but he was so much more than that. You have to at least read Vol. 1 of Capital to be an educated person.

Anything Hayek wrote
Hayek was the best economic philosopher since the start of the 20th century

>>5463728
>As an economist, he was beyond brilliant

>>5463728
Communism is the creation science of economics

>>5464132
>>5463745
> le American education
You really do not know the first thing about Marx, do you?

>>5454312
"Sex and Reason" by Posner

ask the friendly folks at http://www.econjobrumors.com/

>>5463182
Malthus was probably more right than given credit for, he just got the date wrong.

>>5464268

Marxist economics is an obsolete hypothesis at best.

>>5459346
>>5463150
Keynes was probably the most important economist in history but his writing is almost impenetrable. Especially because he often seems to underestimate the gravity of some of his insights and vastly overstate the importance of some others. Like, Jesus Christ dude, shut up about "user cost," it has almost nothing to do with the point you're trying to make.

The best excuse for it is that he was stumbling towards some insights about the nature of money and was having a fuck-ton of trouble doing it with the meager base laid by other economic writers. Basically: Keynes understood before anyone else that the "real" economy exists only in economists' heads and the nominal economy is the one worthy of study. This is especially important because what happens in the nominal economy (i.e. in reality) is often completely divorced from what the "real economy" writers claim should happen--because they basically ignore the role of money and banks, treating money like just another commodity (or a "veil").

Anyway that's why I recommend Minsky, specifically >>5454960, for explaining Keynes's major discoveries. If you read the General Theory first you'll only come away with the conclusion that Keynes was a raving madman. And he kind of was! But he was a smart as hell raving madman who saw stuff nobody else had seen yet.