/lit/ - Literature

>>6573640
Its a meme science type book

wouldnt recommend

I won't start a new thread for this.

How do I learn about the economic system of the world today?

>>6573661
>Its a meme science type book
Does this even mean anything?

>>6573668
No. He's a fool.

>>6573664
Not sure what the best book(s) are. (InB4 Kapital/Wealth of Nations) It's probably best to get a standard text book, but don't neglect the critics of the system
I'm personally thinking of getting this one

>>6573664
>>6573640

Read this.

>Pic Related

Probably one of the best books I have read that goes into the history and development of neoclassical into neoliberal economics and current globalization capitalism. As well as critique.

>>6573640
I've only read the shorter version in swedish. However, I believe he works hard to make his book available to a large audience. That is, definitions and concepts are thoroughly described without any economical jargong. If you have read anything academic you will be more then fine.

Read it, it's an important piece of work.

>>6573640
I'm about 100 pages into it. I know nothing about economics and I'm finding it very interesting. I'm able to understand it, but because of my inexperience in the field I can't say that my opinion about its content actually matters beyond 'will you be able to understand this?' Most economists seem to at least respect the approach Piketty takes through his analysis, even if they might disagree with his conclusions. Hope you like data-based methodologies.

>>6573678
As in Piketty is a fool? He will win a nobel prize at some point. Do you have any real critique of his theories?

>>6573640
What >>6573661 here tried to say is that it's a divulgation, not academic, book. Knowing a bit about economic theory will make it easier, but it's fairly understandable, since it's aimed at the general public. My Econ 1 professor called it "airport economics". It's not, however, written without base. There's 10 years worth of academic essays in the Journal of Economic Literature and the American Economic Review (some of the most prestigious in the world). I think it's great, but you should read it along with it's critics. Larry Summers and Branko Milanovic come to mind.

>>6573772
No no. That poster.

I hear okay things about Piketty's book.

Pic kind of related. I've read a chapter or so of it.

>>6573640
well some other economists have critized his work

Does housing capital contribute to inequality? A comment on Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the 21st Century

Odran Bonnet
Pierre-Henri Bono
Guillaume Chapelle
Etienne Wasmer
http://spire.sciencespo.fr/hdl:/2441/30nstiku669glbr66l6n7mc2oq/resources/2014-07.pdf

http://www.mit.edu/~mrognlie/piketty_diminishing_returns.pdf


On the book, whose cover is the picture

http://www.contrepoints.org/2015/04/18/204991-piketty-au-piquet-de-frederic-georges-tudo

>>6573795
Oh okay, sorry for being so butthurt.

>>6573640
>mah equality through world domination.
It's very interesting because it dives through lots of history for solid data and is made for people who don't have a grasp of economics and who probably never will. It's really hard to up and have an understanding of economics with one book unless you dedicate yourself to understanding every little intricacy in the system, of which there is no consensus on it's real operation and no collective will to abruptly change it.

>>6573664
economics is a pretty bunk discipline thats going through a lot of self-searching as to why it has a dismal track record when it comes to assessing the economy. Its weird in the fact that economists deny themselves as being falliable social scientists, whom treat themselves as 'scientifically rigouress, non-political and above the fray when the truth is anything but. that said what is recommended is the absolute bare basics of economics (that is to say non neoclassical to say the least)

Start with Ha Joon Chang - Kicking Away the Ladder to get an understanding about the history of economic development and the policy tools used to get where we are. David Harvey - A Brief History of Neoliberalism to understand the processes that lead up to the neoliberal economic concensus. This leads into the works of Michael Hudsons work on Intl Development and debt which is criminally underobserved which goes into detail about the linkages between government debt, military spending and economic growth. In that vein it pays to read Seymour Melman's work on the war economy which is essentially a complementary book. Once you are comfortable with that then I would suggest reading Steve Keen debunking economics to give you an idea of what the discipline is and what

other interesting reading for non-economists Hyman Minsky (esp for finance which is the main driver of economy today), Joseph Schumpter, Amartya Sen, Douglas North, Richard Wolff. A lot of decent economists are coming out of the University of Amherst, Bard College and most notably the Uni. of Missouri at Kansas City

It's pretty good and you don't need knowledge beyond introductory macro (if that) to understand it. It is certainly interesting, and very readable.

Of the millions of responses to it, here's the best I've read: http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/kapital-for-the-twenty-first-century

>>6573664
Boring answer, but intro micro and macro textbook, then read some econ blogs, then move onto primary sources if you really want to (Smith, Marx, Keynes/Minsky, etc.). You will probably quit before that point, though, and people who recommend Smith/Marx outright, or even something like this >>6573678 which is just a Marx interpretation text, are getting ahead of themselves.

>>6575339
>getting ahead
>when they came first

Here's some criticism from Yanis Varoufakis:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNLPO2j9RQ0

>>6573664
Start with Ha Joon Changs 'Economics The User's Guide', it's a pretty good neutral overview of all major branches of economics.

>>6575347
Different for sciences than it is for literature, though economics is nowhere near to hard sciences it has aspirations in that direction. Nobody demands you have an understanding of geocentric pre-Copernican astronomy before you start learning about how the solar system actually works.

>>6573640

It balances the subject between academic and journalistic as could reasonably be expected.

It's certainly not Freakanomics easy, but little to no prior knowledge is required.

>>6573678
>Marx
>Klein

it's like you want to read trash

You'd be able to read and understand it, but don't take it as canon or the perfect guide to economics if you've never read another book on the topic in your life

Don't be "that guy" who reads one popular book on a subject and then thinks they know everything about it because they absorbed and memorized the authors' biases and supporting statements

>>6573640
It's a good book. It's mostly empirics. You would not enjoy it.

>>6573664
read New Ideas from Dead Economists. This will give you a very basic working grasp of economic concepts and theories. As for learning about the "economic system of the world today," I'm not sure what you mean. It is so stupidly varied that no one response will really help you.

People in this thread are telling you to read Ha Joon Chang. You can, but know that he is mostly a joke, the Slavoj Zizek of the economics world. high on style and appeal, very low on substance.

>>6574041
You really ought to read "neoliberal" economics before taking issue with it. Do you really think Schumpter is more relevant today than say, Akerlof or Stiglitz? or even Tversky?

why don't you guys just read some economics textbooks?

it will give you a lot more confidence to forward your own ideas instead of listening to other people once you realize just how impoverished most of models they use are

whenever you read someone explaining something in layman's terms, you get this idea in your head that the actual model is way more precise and technical -- say, like, when black science man explains something in physics -- but in economics, that's actually an illusion, because the actual models are already like toys and there's nothing even remotely complicated about any of them

(really, when you read a physics textbook, something similar happens, but the reality of physics is that it's actually really precise regarding reality)

>>6577909
They're uncomplicated by design, but many of them are very complex, assuming you're talking about actual computational models.
if by "models" you mean simple input-output production functions, Harrod-Domar growth models, or simple DSGE'S, then no they're really not complex but do rely in some sense on mathematics familiarity that a layman wouldn't find intuitive.

>>6577840

>As for learning about the "economic system of the world today,"

World Systems Analysis by Wallerstein

I can't say I agree with it but it seems to provide what OP is looking for

>>6577999
But that thing is like, 4 massive tomes long. And very, very bold in it's claims. I doubt OP is actually going to read anything with that length or level of depth.

The only thing I know about this book is that Grover Norquist recommended it in his write-up of Thomas Piketty in TIME's 100 Most Influential People special.

Whether it was a humble moment of resignation or a shameless attempt to latch onto popular culture - I will let you decide.

>>6576504
>Quote on a book
>Carrying this much weight

And what a helpful post this was.

Piketty's book has been heavily criticized from all sides for relying too much on classical economic theory, or something like that.

>>6575339
This. Smith and Marx are so outdated in economics it's not even funny. So is Keynes, in some regards. University level, or even high school level, economics texts books are the best places to start if you actually want to learn economics for the sake of economics, and not to support your ideology like Marxists and Austrians do.

>>6579069

Ultimately, you need to read and have a good understanding of it all. Even university econ text books (at least at undergrad) rely heavily on neoclassical models and will neglect various other schools and newer sub-disciplines (behavioural economics or political economy like new institutional economics).

>>6573664
Intro to macro/micro textbooks and supplement with reading WSJ and Bloomberg.

My courses used Introduction to Macro/Microeconomics by Mankiw.

That will give you the basic principles and a few examples of how they play out. Go for higher level textbooks if you want more.

You can also pick up some economic history books, but I find those rather dull.

What about Hazlitt? Specifically "Economics in One Lesson?"

Bump.

Would like to know about >>6581996

>>6579069
>Marx
>Irrelevant

Unless capitalism went away without me realizing, I don't think so.

>>6582164
>implying anything he said is relevant to 21st century mixed market political economies
This thread isn't for ideologues.

>>6573640
You will get better answers if you search for some reviews from economists and political philosophers. I don't know what the fuck were you thinking asking these idiots.

>>6582164
>implying "capitalism" is one eternal self-identical system that never changes
this kind of thinking is very un-Marx-like

>>6581996
>>6582118
Stay away from that, it's not a good introduction to economic theory. Hazlitt is a staunch neoliberal who cares more about promoting his ideology (e.g.: taxes are bad, market is good) than teaching people about economics.

>>6583535
And that's a very good reason that Marx is still relevant.

>>6573640

Hey I read it (in French #swag).

Yes you can understand most of it. There are a lot of parts where he goes into the history on inequality, and endorse a "social science" approach of the subject.

You can skip the mathy parts and still make sense of what he's trying to say.

>>6579069
There is no economics without ideology. Claiming that your particular flavour of economics exists outside of ideology does not make it so.

>>6583598
Yes, but more in the sense of his approach rather than his ideas of what capitalism is (was).

>>6583611
And to get a sense of his approach you have to read lots of Marx. Then you can read interpretations of Marx' work and methods.

>>6582164
Schumpeter has a better understanding of the downfall of capitalism and its transition into socialism, imo.

Capitalism has become corporatism, just like Schumpeter said, and we're seeing a rise of anti-capitalist values among people, particularly intellectuals whose academic skills don't transition well into the actual skills rewarded by the market. He said we'd see the rise of a welfare state, regulations, and the emergence of social democracy from within the system as people voted for parties with leftist ideals.

This has been happening in both the United States and Canada since the end of the second world war.

There won't be some violent proletariat revolution.

>>6584097
no, no, no, no, no
>Capitalism has become corporatism
no, it has become entrepreneurship
>we're seeing a rise of anti-capitalist values among people
no, we're seeing the rise of productivity, innovation, individualism, personal liberty, flexibility, mobility as principles of organizing one's life
>intellectuals whose academic skills don't transition well into the actual skills rewarded by the market
no, the academic sphere has begun to function as a market, people try to produce as much as possible and pick those themes that have value on the academic market
>the rise of a welfare state, regulations, and the emergence of social democracy from within the system as people voted for parties with leftist ideals
no, the state is functioning as an enterprise on the competitive international market and has been voluntarily implementing neoliberal policies, just think of austerity programs or EU constitution
>This has been happening in both the United States and Canada since the end of the second world war.
no, the end of the second war marks the beginning of neoliberal economics, especially after the Walter Lippman colloquium in 1948. this is the birth of German Oldoliberalims on the one hand, and Austrian economics (Hayek) together with its influence on Chicago school (Friedman) on the other hand. their thought at that time tried to equate wellfare state with the threat of nazism and fascism. it was very explicitly against the wellfare state. the United States is especially a good climate for neoliberalism because people have a very personal (rather than more broadly political) relationship with their government that is based on personal freedoms.

>>6583549
I feel Hazlitt is more classical liberal than neoliberal.

The corporatocracy that is neoliberalism arises from corruption of classical liberalism, yet, but that doesn't mean its proponents are themselves neoliberals.

>>6584143
Is this supposed to be satirical?

>>6583602
Some have an ideology that values empiricism and rigorous thinking. The others are marxists, austrians, etc.

>>6583602
>>6584616
You both are still thinking according to that clumsy opposition between ideology/reality or ideology/science.
Whatever your rationality is it is also a production of reality. Think about it like this... When you articulate reality according to some chosen order this changes everything about how you act and speak from then on; in other words, it becomes reality.
There are no ideologies, nor any absolute truths. What we have are different rationalities, of which some are way more dominant that others at certain time and place, based on how "embedded" they are in our thoughts, practices, institutions...

>>6573664
>Google economics
>click and read every single related link
>???
>success
There's a reason the phrase "Google it" exists: the majority of useful information on anything is at you fingertips, numbnuts.

>>6573664
coursera or lectures online from whatever university you want. If you want marxism or austrian stuff you're just going to have to google that.

Mises.org for Austrian they also have a shitload of free e books.

>>6584097
Schumpeter was empirically wrong about everything, especially his theory on business cycles. How many people do you know today who harbour serious "anti-capitalist" values? Probably next to none. The only "Socialism" we are moving towards is Pension Fund "Socialism". The market continues to grow and Kids these days are pleased with their iPhones.

>>6584616
>Some have an ideology that values empiricism and rigorous thinking.
I think you are confusing ideology with epistemology.

>>6584616
>>6584741
You are both confusing ideology with epistemology.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1sRPYk4raA

worth a listen. Seems their primary criticism is that Piketty does not take Human Capital into account.

>>6585326
1. they are right in implying that Piketty's theory is outdated
2. don't know the rest, but the one on the right is a very aggressive neoliberal.
so of course muh human capital. so of course Piketty is wrong in criticizing inequality when neoliberals explicitly say relative poverty isn't a problem at all and shouldn't be reduced.

>>6585300
The point is marxists and austrians suck. Mainstream economics kicks ass, everyone just assumes it doesn't because politicians are stupid.

>>6585385
>Constant inflation and devaluation of currency kicks ass!

keynesians everyone

>>6585385
What do you mean by 'mainstream economics'? And why does it kick ass?

>>6585411
> he thinks inflation hasn't been historically low for years now
> he thinks inflation is bad
> he thinks the Great Depression wasn't caused by deflation
> he thinks increased exports are bad for the economy
> he thinks the dollar hasn't been gaining strength lately

You're an idiot dude

>>6585420
the shit you learn in econ 101 at school. AKA Keynesianism aka bunch of bullshit.

>>6585438
What does politicians have to do with that?

>>6585447
Not the poster you quoted, but low inflation high unemployment is the perfect time to increase spending (how are businesses gonna hire more people if they aren't expanding? ) Politicians disagree/won't spend enough.

>>6585475
Although unemployment is getting lower and lower. Still room to improve though.

An NGDP target achieved by just cutting a check to every citizen would be awesome.

>>6574041
it's the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, not University of Amherst

>>6585475
>>6585485
But there's other side effects to such interventions. For instance, Minsky seems to claim that such intervention invariably leads to an even greater crash in the future (Please note that I haven't finished 'Stabilizing an Unstable Economy' yet, so I may be misrepresenting Minsky).

Presenting simple 'solutions', like you do, does not sit well with my perception of macro-economics as an insanely complex system. This is why I think ideas presented (by others) in >>6584741 >>6583535 are important today and deriding Marx as outdated is wrong. Realizing that there are no easy answers in economics and that we can never be sure of the effects of our actions are great lessons, in my opinion. (The same lessons can kind of be gleamed in Austrian economics as well but their belief in the market as homoeostatic is misguided in my opinion.)

>>6585548
Well of course there will be side effects, but there are tons of people sitting at home not working, not contributing when they want to be.

What side effects are worse than wasting the potential production of millions of people because of side effects whose mechanism or historical example you can't describe.

What intervention woukd lead to a greater crash? 2008 was caused (roughly) by an explosion in sub prime loans, the price of homes dropping, systemic risk knocking down dominoes and a resulting credit crunch.

I'm suggesting we return to the good old days of growth, low unemployment and higher inflation by just doing that directly. They aren't really that related.

Also, deciding not to increase spending is a choice in its own with outcomes and side effects. If there's an oil spill do you tell people to stop cleaning it up bcuz the environment is complicates?

Also, have you heard of the paradox of thrift?

Why even post on /lit/ when a thread like this is going to have little to no real discussion and people just shouting into the void?

The perceived value of my post is nil.

>>6585548
Marxism is flat out wrong from an economic point of view. It's important in the sense that it effects history, but is not relevant for modern economics.

Like Copernicus is important bcuz he was the first to advocate heliocentrism, but his model of the universe was wrong as shit. If you want to learn astronomy he's more of a footnote as a guy who gave an idea to kepler.

Austrian economics is actively not empirical. It's pure ideology.

>>6585587
I completely agree. Any other time you will see me make the exact same arguments as you do. I am merely attempting to act as a devil's advocate here. Not to support the side of austerity, but to support the side of Marx.

I will, however, say that the 2008 crash is said to be linked more or less directly to the dot com crash. One response to the dot com crash was to expand housing markets, which crashed in 2008 as you point out. So whatever we choose to expand now, in response to the 2008 crash, is likely to crash in the future, no? Is this a viable system? I think not, and since I support Marxist ideas, you can probably imagine that I am looking for more thorough changes.

>>6585639
I'm suggesting we expand everyone's spending by just giving everyone (a little) money.

>>6585600
So who is the Kepler to Marx? Who got it 'right'?

>>6585600
You see, this is why Marx should be read, in your dismissal of Copernicus you do what Marx criticized: you presuppose the result as the cause, that history is teleologically attracted toward the current state. Copernicus is important to be studied in order to see how such a reversal was possible, what actually produced it in that impossible context, and what are therefore the forgotten implications behind it. This approach is even more important in economics.

>>6585665
Keynes. Although not all the way right obvs. But he had the best foundational contribution.

>>6585693
All they say about Copernicus is he thought the sun was at the center. They don't go on and on about all the horseshit he thought.

Marx should get the same treatment in econ. In a history or philosophy department he would obviously figure much more prominently.

Adam Smith should get more or less the same treatment.

>>6585663
I work in social security disability.

No one can live off of 711/mo. Its fucking insane.

"a little money" isn't going to do shit.

>>6585898
It's to raise aggregate demand, dummy

>>6585906
Raise income incrementally.

Reinstate unions state by state.

Create vast infrastructure maintenance projects that create jobs for the proletariat.


Not much else can be done when working within the system we currently live in.

a terrible terrible book. -500/10 don't recommend.


>"No thinking atheist would consider themselves fully atheistic, as atheism arises from a lack of evidence and evidence can always change a thinking person's mind."

>█▀▀▀▀█▄▄▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█▀▀█
>█░░█▒▒░▄▄▄▀▀▀▄░▒░▄▄▄▄▄░▀▀▄ ░█░░
>█░█▒░▄▀░▒▒▒▒▒░▀▄▀░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒█ █░░░░
>██▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒██▀▒▒▒▒▒▒██▀▄▒█▀░░
>▄▀▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒▒▀▀▀▒▒▒█░░
>█▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒██▒░░░░░░░█░░
>█░▒▒▀▄▄▒░░░░░░▒▄▀▄▄░░░░░░▒█░
>░█░▒▒▒▒▀▄▄▄▄▄███████▄▄▄▄▄▀
>░░█░▒▒▒▒▒▒▀▄▀▀████▀▀▄▀▒▒█
>░░░▀▀▀▄▄▄▄▄▄█▄▄▄▄▄▄█▄▄▄▀

>>6573640

LOWBROW
O
W
B
R
O
W

>>6573640

'Stiglitz - the Price of Inequality' covers similar ground, but is a bit less data heavy and a bit more accessible.

>>6574041
This is a good response to his question.