/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.10301017]

Is this all I need?

[Anonymous No.10301064]

>>10301017
No. You need to read a basic introductory work from all of the economic schools, just like with any other discipline.

[Anonymous No.10301089]

>fourth edition
pleb

[Anonymous No.10301108]

>>10301064

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Yeah, I'm sure talking about surplus value with mathematically illiterate Hegelians is just as good as discussing the economy with high IQ Harvard Econ PhDs...

[Anonymous No.10301118]

>>10301108
Ok. Enjoy not having a well-rounded opinion on yet another field of study as you attempt to fellate yourself.

[Anonymous No.10301119]

>>10301108
>mathematically illiterate

The only mathemattically illiterate are the Austrian School faggots, who refuses maths and elaborate ufologist theories.

[Anonymous No.10301126]

It doesn't teach you much at all.
It mostly just dismantles modern city management.
"Economic Facts and Fallacies", and, "Applied Economics: Thinking Beyond Stage One" are better.
>Political Economy: An Introductory Text - Phelps, Edmund S.
>The Making of Modern Economics: The Lives and Ideas of the Great Thinkers
>Carl Menger
>The Matthew Effect: How Advantage Begets Further Advantage
>Modern Economics by Jack Harvey

Or you could just get '30-Second Economics' I hear it's great.

[Anonymous No.10301128]

>>10301017
>reading a book by a nigger

[Anonymous No.10301140]

>>10301017
If you want economic lectures from a self-hating Uncle Tom that adores the man who thought the Great Depression will go away by itself - go ahead

If you want an introduction into the thinker that guided the West into its Golden Age (1949-1979), read Keynes

[Anonymous No.10301144]

>>10301140
He's basically Uncle Ruckus if he had any intellectual aspirations.

[Anonymous No.10301150]

>>10301144


>>10301140
Jesus Christ. I thought I was on lit, not fucking pol.

[Anonymous No.10301155]

>>10301150
Your reading comprehension makes me think I'm on /pol/.

[Anonymous No.10301161]

>>10301155
>attack a man based on his race
>"hurr durr, I'm not a drumpf supporter"
>"lrn 2 red"

[Anonymous No.10301165]

>>10301161
You are so stupid it hurts. Are you sure you aren't an amnesiac /pol/tard?

[Anonymous No.10301175]

>>10301165
>sure seems like pol in here...
>"HURR DURR, NO U R"
Jesus. Also, not an argument, Neanderthal.

[Anonymous No.10301183]

>>10301161
I attacked Sowell for buying into the /pol/tard “niggas be poor cause theyre stoopid and lazy” narrative.

[Anonymous No.10301189]

>>10301183
First of all, that's not his argument. Thank you for proving that you've never read any of his books.

Second of all, Sowell is damn near 80, and has been making his argument for decades. He didn't fall for pol, you moron.

[Anonymous No.10301195]

>>10301017
To be an expert on any subject you need to read 40 books, 100 papers, and write 100 papers on the subject.
And not all the papers can be extensive.
Sometimes you'll need to limit yourself to 2-4 pages but they need to be pure substance.
If and only if you do that, by God you may be an expert my son.

[Anonymous No.10301198]

>>10301195
The goes without saying but publishing for an academic journal is what you might want to do.
Doing this doesn't mean you're an expert though, anyone can publish with an academic journal.
Doing so with a reputable one is impressive though.

[Anonymous No.10301203]

>>10301195
The papers have to be modern looks at the subject. Like up to date cutting edge shit.

[Anonymous No.10301237]

>>10301198
Academic journal publishing is just for street cred.
Though if you're really trying to be an expert recognized by society than you're gonna have to do stuff like that.

[Anonymous No.10301467]

>>10301119
Funny how this is the only refutation of Austrian economics I ever encounter on this board.

[Anonymous No.10301507]

Learning about economics is more wasteful than spending your days on 4chan.

[Anonymous No.10301524]

>>10301183
the “niggas be poor cause theyre stoopid and lazy” narrative is much more plausible than the "ebil slavery, a good kindergarten will pump their IQ up to 100" narrative

[Anonymous No.10301616]

>>10301524
The problem is that's not even Sowell's position. He believes the issue with blacks nowadays was governmental intervention and argues that blacks were actually on a path towards prosperity, comparable to asians.

[Anonymous No.10301621]

>>10301017
only if your a fucking fag

[Anonymous No.10301629]

>being a consequentialist
I don't care about the effects of my ideas on the economy. All I am concerned about is if my ideas are right. If my ideas are right than the consequences, whatever they are, will simply have to be borne.

Git gud you moral cowards.

[Anonymous No.10301635]

Pretty much. I'd use Mankiw's textbook though

[Anonymous No.10301638]

>>10301064
>Schools in economics
Brainlet detected. There are no relevant schools anymore. There is mainstream, and there is wrong

[Anonymous No.10301641]

>>10301629
>than
then*

How embarrassing. I should go to bed.

[Anonymous No.10301668]

>>10301017
if you're a recent convert to sowell i would check out "wishful thinking for dummies" as well

[Anonymous No.10301711]

>>10301616
I know, just wanted to throw that viewpoint out there

[Anonymous No.10303120]

[Anonymous No.10303143]

>>10301118
>Enjoy not having a well-rounded opinion on yet another field of study as you attempt to fellate yourself.
Interesting. Should I also study creationism and alchemy as alternatives to Darwinian natural selection and chemistry, in the interest of being well-rounded?

[Anonymous No.10303151]

>>10301017
Yes.
Unless you want to get into it.

[Anonymous No.10303156]

>>10303120
This, Hazlitt is the better intro economics text. Sowell is fine too if you already have it though.

[Anonymous No.10303169]

>>10303143
Yes. That way you can refute them, you philistine.
>>10301638
>Argumentum ad populum
So do you have an actual argument for your precious Neo-Liberalism?

[Anonymous No.10303173]

>>10301017
No, terrible. Find something steeped in practicality (AKA reality), not ideology.

[Anonymous No.10303191]

>>10303143

It seems like only socialists try to get others to read their books by appealing to this noble "you have to study both sides in order to be balanced" garbage. It comes off as very manipulative because you know damn well they haven't read anything by Sowell, Mises, or Hayek. It's like they're trying to trick people into becoming a socialist because they know once people are hooked and set in their ways they won't challenge themselves with diametrically opposed views. If they ever expose themselves to opposing views it would be through secondary literature from fellow socialists.

[Anonymous No.10303196]

>>10301467
That's bound to be the case when you spend all your time on 4chan

[Anonymous No.10303197]

>>10301017
If you want to be a confused ideologue, yes.

If you want to understand economics you will have to read more from other economists and unlearn a lot of what you just read to find out the truth.

[Anonymous No.10303201]

>>10303191
I have never before seen a post with so little self-awareness.

[Anonymous No.10303205]

I got you homie.

[Anonymous No.10303206]

>>10303201

What am I lacking awareness of?

[Anonymous No.10303212]

>>10303191
holy shit

[Anonymous No.10303232]

>>10303206
Well the biggest thing is you saying that your opposition never expose themselves to opposing views while talking about how you refuse to read opposing views.

Plus, You're complaining about others asking you to read their books while refusing to read their books because you're afraid that you are so weak-minded and intellectually malleable that you are just going to be tricked into becoming a Socialist. It is like you're a child.

[Anonymous No.10303234]

>>10303191
To be fair, I think part of the problem is that most socialists haven't taken economics classes past intro micro and macro (the same could be said for many anarchocapitalists)

[Anonymous No.10303245]

>>10303232

The point of my post is that socialists are hypocrites because they're the ones acting like they reading literature from all sides. The difference between me and them is that I'm not trying to appeal to this idea that everyone should expose themselves to every side of the debate. I don't read socialist literature and I don't encourage others to do so because I don't think people should waste their time on garbage. It has nothing to do with people being weak-minded and incapable to dealing with it, I just think it's a waste of time to read things that are wrong.

[Anonymous No.10303255]

>>10303191
Ricardo Retardo and the Kekistani KKKrew up in here with the objective truth. BTFO'd. Praise keke & pep.
Fuck reading books, that's for Communists AND I have a blind hatred of Communist.

[Anonymous No.10303259]

>>10303255

You can't oppose Scientology unless you've taken all their courses and read all their books.

[Anonymous No.10303270]

>>10303245
Maybe they did read your books and found them lacking.
>I just think it's a waste of time to read things that are wrong.
How can you know that they're wrong when you don't even know what they're saying?

[Anonymous No.10303272]

>>10301195
>write 100 papers on the subject.

Yeah nah, this depends heavily on the field of study because this would mean some of the most
brilliant mathematicians in the world are not "experts¨.

[Anonymous No.10303284]

>>10303169
>muh fallacies
Fuck off you dumb cunt, economics has had multiple synthesis, where we have taken the best of every school. Hence why 99.5% of economists are now in one school to the point where there is just "mainstream" and "wrong"

[Anonymous No.10303285]

>>10303270

I know socialists are wrong for the same reason I know Scientology is wrong, which is because I read secondary literature or commentaries on about them, just as everyone else does. The difference is I'm not pretending otherwise and I'm not trying to trick people into reading books by appealing to some higher virtue of fairness. Not all side deserve a fair shake because sometimes and readily apparent that they're not good. If you're honest you would agree because did you give the Nazi a fair shake, what about North Korea or Saudi Arabia?

[Anonymous No.10303287]

>>10303255
Fuck off commies, your ideology is utterly irrelevant in economics. Go shit up some sociology threads

[Anonymous No.10303288]

Of course OP, after all, the problem with liberals is they don't understand Basic Economics, amirite?

goofy libtards and their heterodox not listening to Koch sponsored professorship chairs and Hoover Institution talking heads fucking dumbass libtards not parroting talking points from Macro 101 at every chance they get stupid subjective libs sheee itttt im about to buy penny stocks on my trading app and become an entrepreneur top kek yall need to get a job like me I just got a 50k job starting at my dads company after being a NEET for 4 straight years top fucking lel

[Anonymous No.10303297]

>>10303288
In all honesty you don't actually need to study economics anywhere beyond 101 classes to get the general gist of how to apply it to world affairs

[Anonymous No.10303319]

>>10303120
>>10303156

I have the audio book but I kinda want to get the kindle version, because reading>audio.

What makes it superior to Sowell's work?

[Anonymous No.10303359]

>>10303285
> Not all side deserve a fair shake
Yes they do. If you're going to debate against an ideology, you owe it to your opponent to not waste their time by being an ignorant asswipe.
>because did you give the Nazi a fair shake, what about North Korea or Saudi Arabia?
Yes, I have read the introductory texts for all of those political movements & I read The Anatomy of the State too. I'm a Fascist, by the way.
Also, Everybody is not just pretending to have read books that they disagree with, unlike you they actually read them & that makes them better than you.

[Anonymous No.10303364]

>>10303359

>Yes, I have read the introductory texts

Be very honest with me. What do you think secondary literature means?

[Anonymous No.10303412]

>>10301089
Get your foot off the desk you fucking degenerate

[Anonymous No.10303468]

>>10303359
Post em.

Pics or it didn't happen

[Anonymous No.10304748]

>>10303284
>economics has had multiple synthesis, where we have taken the best of every school. Hence why 99.5% of economists are now in one school to the point where there is just "mainstream" and "wrong"

What the bloody fuck are you even on about?

[Anonymous No.10304753]

>economics
>not pickety

heh

[Anonymous No.10304758]

>>10303191
>It seems like only socialists try to get others to read their books by appealing to this noble "you have to study both sides in order to be balanced" garbage


Because socialists can see that people who go out of their way to read the opposing sides are more likely to become socialists. Funny about that.

[Anonymous No.10305142]

>>10303412
he prob has more foot hair than you have hair hair you soyboy

[Anonymous No.10305442]

>>10304753
>the central formula of the book is fallacious

[Anonymous No.10305475]

>>10304758
On what planet are you living? No other following of an ideology has employed such heavy-handed group strategies in the academia.

[Anonymous No.10306276]

>>10301140
Haha oh man, what a moron!

[Anonymous No.10306292]

>>10304758
Yes, because people are inherently lazy and stupid, but the best of us have evolved past that and aren't worthless parasites like socialists.

Go eat dog in Venezuela, you creep.

[Anonymous No.10306426]

>>10306292
Behold the Übermensch in his perfectly evolved state. He is two intelligent too read books by people he disagrees with.

[Anonymous No.10306509]

>>10303272
It's specific to none stem fields.

[Anonymous No.10306515]

>>10305475
What kind of strategies?

[Anonymous No.10306523]

>>10303191
Actually it's quite common for Marxists to read Sowell and Hayek. Nearly all Marxian economists have.

[Anonymous No.10306527]

>>10306509
i.e. specific to fields where bullshitting matters more than substance

[Anonymous No.10306533]

>>10306523
Hayek you have an argument but Sowell is a meme even among conservatives

[Anonymous No.10306534]

>>10301108

>thinking that a keynesian school which only accept keynesian students and then has keynesian teachers further teach them keynesian theory is objectively correct

Are you fucking retarded?

[Anonymous No.10306542]

>>10306527
More or less.
You're going to tell me that philosophy is objective?
That economics isn't just a bunch of case studies on what tends to work?
Soft sciences are heavily about brow beating with evidence.

[Anonymous No.10306552]

>>10306523
Wrong, academics don't really read Sowell

He's like the Bill Nye of economics

[Anonymous No.10306558]

>>10306534
>I don't understand it nor I have studied it so let's throw it all out of the window
Ironically this the same way many stemfags and the vast majority of normies think about philosophy

[Anonymous No.10306603]

>>10306515
Do I really need to make that elaborate a case to state that non-leftist (yes, not the same thing as "socialist") views are somewhat persecuted in the academia and that certain branches of science have become heavily politicized during the 20th century? Won't play that game where I have to start digging up a bunch of single instances and articles

[Anonymous No.10306641]

>>10301017
Is it the same guy doing all these threads?

This book has to be a fucking retard magnet

[Anonymous No.10306675]

>>10301017
No, it isn't all you need, but it is a good start. The book does a good job of breaking complex economic ideas down into terms the average person would deal with easily.

[Anonymous No.10306817]

>>10306603
No shit, but we're talking about Marxism here.

[Anonymous No.10306837]

>>10306603
Taken out of context it probably appears that way.

[Anonymous No.10307202]

>>10306603
>It's a "let's identify Marx with all the assorted SJW bullshit you don't like" post

[Anonymous No.10307223]

>>10307202
Listen, if you're trying to imply that I myself am an SJW you'd be far from right. In light of recent discoveries, I think one of the main reasons why I haven't fallen in the Jewish orchestrated line of radical leftist ideologues is because I'm actually allergic to soy, and legumes. As a result I have to cook all my meals, and also I definitely have more testosterone than any leftist 'soyboy' and probably most alt-right morons.

[Anonymous No.10307226]

The thing that really sets Basic Economics apart from other works on the same topic is that it applies economics to human behavior, even when it's irrational. Sowell focuses less on "should" and a lot more on "does" with regards to the effects of pieces of policy on markets.

[Anonymous No.10307236]

[rettu much the greatest thinker in america at modern times. Thomas Sowell is a national treasure.

[Anonymous No.10308268]

>>10306837
>Reverse google image search so that I can see the original tattoo
>Best guess for this image: An Armchair better world

[Anonymous No.10308533]

>>10307223
>if you're trying to imply that I myself am an SJW
how are you this fucking dumb

[Anonymous No.10308537]

>>10307236
>Thomas Sowell is a national treasure.
Yes, completely worthless except in the eye of the beholder.

[Anonymous No.10308594]

>>10301467
Maybe try looking for a refutation of Austrian economics somewhere other than a literature board

[Anonymous No.10308671]

>>10307223
leftypol falselfagging as me
>>10306817
>>10306837
>>10307202
I don't see how their goals differ that greatly, generally speaking.

[Anonymous No.10308709]

>>10306817
>>10307202
Further, you're using a rather narrow definition of Marxism if only stuff directly relating to dialectical materialism and original writings of Marx and Engels counts as "Marxism." Lots of this stuff stems from Marx still one way or another, and I don't think it's a vast leap to say that there's very broad overlap between the two crowds

[Anonymous No.10308743]

>>10303191
amazed how people fell for this

[Anonymous No.10309082]

>>10306426
Not American, not a Trump-supporter and not AnCap.

You're right about the Übermensch part though.

[Anonymous No.10309897]

>>10303196
>>10308594
delete these

[Anonymous No.10310055]

>>10301017
No. Basic Economics is a polemic against the failures of central planning and 'liberal' economic policy, not an economics textbook.

[Anonymous No.10310242]

>>10301017
There's no true science or theory to economics. Markets are run by humans and human are irrational and prone to all sorts of cognitive biases. You'll understand the economy better if you read psychology than you ever would gain from reading most economy books. Then again, reading something like Adam Smith can be useful because then you'll know what the common deception is that stupid people use to explain their poor decisions and their consequences. It's insane how many idiots talk about the invisible hand of the market as if it's some sort of fundamental principle when it's mentioned offhandedly like once.