/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.10764637]

Is there a chart for Economics/Finance/Investment?

[Anonymous No.10764643]

Yes.

[Anonymous No.10764666]

>>10764643
Any that makes sense?

[Anonymous No.10764673]

Buy my crypto bags: BIS, MSP, INXT, BWK

[Anonymous No.10764676]

>>10764666
No, but that's because it's economics

[Anonymous No.10764686]

>>10764643

>Arrows pointing out overlapping/non-overlapping explicitly

[Anonymous No.10764887]

>>10764643
Ugh.

>>10764666
The mention of Popper isn't too out of place, Soros actually based his approach on Popper's teachings. Most other names are way out of place in regards to finnance.

[Anonymous No.10764945]

>>10764637
The right board would probably be sci or biz(garbage). The sci wiki is very good you can take a look at it.
I personally recommend for economics:
History of the Economic Thought - Robert Heilbroner (Or something like that, I'm translating)
Economics - Samuelson;

Investment:
Security Analysis - Graham & Dodd
(I didn't find reading the intelligent investor before it very useful).

For there you will be able to find your way.

[Anonymous No.10764950]

>>10764945
From there*

[Anonymous No.10764955]

Buy VTSAX
Then keep buying more VTSAX
Then retire and life off of all your VTSAX

[Anonymous No.10764995]

>>10764637
I know cryptomemes can be very appealing and it's indeed possible to make some money from them. I did and still do. But let me give you a word of advice that I suggest you take for life, don't do anything you don't understand and/or is not certain about.

[Anonymous No.10765681]

no but there is >>>/biz/

never been there, have no idea if it's any good

[Anonymous No.10765707]

I have asked lit and sci multiple times to be useful and actually give information but they refuse. useless absolutely useless I even asked /diy.

[Anonymous No.10765714]

>>10764637
start with niggercoin

[Anonymous No.10765730]

>>10765707
>https://www.amazon.com/Investments-Zvi-Bodie-Professor/dp/1259277178/

[Anonymous No.10765734]

>>10764955
This is literally what I'm doing, though I also have Vanguard's total bond fund.

[Anonymous No.10765742]

>>10764637
>Supply=/=demand nigga
Nigga yeah

[Anonymous No.10765751]

>>10765734
check out mdy, you get the growth of midcaps and bit of dividends but without the stagnate growth of bluechips or the volatility of the nasdaq, looks like it just barely squeeks past vtsax, vtsax p dank tho ima cop some

[Anonymous No.10765796]

[Anonymous No.10765811]

>>10765796
>MFW the origins of economy are completely wrong and inconsequential to modern Econ.

[Anonymous No.10765813]

>>10765811

[Anonymous No.10765819]

>>10765813
"Money" is an illusion

[Anonymous No.10765822]

>>10765819

[Anonymous No.10765824]

>>10765822
Take as much "money" as you want, I will still be here

[Anonymous No.10765832]

>>10765824
based

[Anonymous No.10765966]

>>10764945
The sci wiki has 2 recommended books under Economics

[Anonymous No.10766018]

>>10765734
>bond funds

lol wtf.

pretty retarded move in a rate raising environment.

[Anonymous No.10766019]

>>10764945
These two are good choices.
>>10765796
Avoid this.

[Anonymous No.10766056]

>>10764637
economics is cool but business is bullshit self help garbage

[Anonymous No.10766063]

Start with based Taleb.

[Anonymous No.10766068]

just watch the khan academy videos on econ and finance. thatll give you a solid understanding for free. then listen to various podcasts like marketplace, financial sense, and macro musings to stay up to date.

[Anonymous No.10766099]

>>10766056
This is correct.

The study of pure economics is in line with the highest logical reasoning. It requires large amount of comprehension, study, focus, attention, and understanding. Mathematics may or may not be used to express concepts, especially to prove certain relations.

This is actually a good chart. It will push you in the right direction. Just be aware that while Smith and Mill DO sum up the entire of English classical economics, English classical economics is rather shortsighted. Leon Walras there will tell you that it suffers from a fundamental petito principii, in that the wages determine the rate of profit and vice versa i.e. there are two unknowns in the equation to determine the rate of profit.

The economics conceived of by Carl Menger is infinitely better and actually fundamentally utilized and improved upon by Keynes.

But it's all necessary to understand economics, which is a broad study.

Georgism is a sort of 'correct system'. Mathematically validated by Walras during his examinations of the rates of profit, and confirmed by many other thinkers throughout the years. Geoism seems to be that oddball economic philosophy which is compatible with pretty much any economic system, because it stipulates an uncomfortable truth that is unparalleled in truth: landholders absorb too much of the percentage of a good's cost without an equal relative loss of disutility on their part. Unlike any other good or service which realizes itself in terms of a good. George finished the job that Ricardo started, and even without using any equations at all, stated something that can be mathematically validated, proven, and shown to be fundamentally true.

[Anonymous No.10766107]

>>10766099
I think there's a lot you could say about this chart, but all I'll really note that is that it's obviously incomplete without some amount of behavioral economics. You need something that addresses all the ways in which humans consistently act irrationally, because it throws a huge wrench into all standard models.

[Anonymous No.10766115]

>>10766107
Wow what the fuck is this?

I cannot think of any book there that does not do this.

It could be argued that marginal economics i.e. Carl Menger or Leon Walras in the graph, are fundamentally behavioral based. I mean, their entire theories are based on the psychological properties of individuals participating in the economy.

[Anonymous No.10766130]

>>10766068
>khan academy
I'm so sick of hearing the retards recommend khan academy for every single thing related to economics or mathematics. Just suck modern academias big money dick.

What if you would like to learn more about fundamental mathematical philosophy? What about the foundations of set theory?

Just read primary sources. Read Zermelo, the founder of set theory. Read Ibn Al-Haytham, read Newton. I mean c'mon, we're not all brainlets here.

Some works are tougher than others, this must be admitted, but that's why I like economics. The primary sources range from extremely complex to just insane amounts of focus, concentration, and mathematical rigor.

[Anonymous No.10766132]

>>10766130
diminishing returns is why.

[Anonymous No.10766134]

>>10765681
garbage board full of subhuman avaricious demons, one of the most appalling things ive ever seen in my life, watched it daily during the cryptomeme hype and it was just fucking debased

[Anonymous No.10766154]

>>10766130
Rather I should say the primary sources range from extremely complex to "insane...rigor" to relatively easy breeze.

I thought Progress and Poverty was a relatively easy read. But just because it's an easy read doesn't mean it isn't fundamentally an amazing idea on Henry George's part.

And plus, now that I remember it, Progress and Poverty had some very logically difficult parts anyway.

Principles of Economics by Carl Menger was a very easy read though. It explained the same thing that Leon Walras explained in his Elements, lol. The same damn thing. With no numbers.

It's just funny how differently people approach economics sometimes.

We can all agree pop-econ books like Freakonomics are just silly and dumb.

>>10766134
/biz/ is terrible. There is one aspect about /biz/ that I like though, their ability to have the posters retain IDs throughout the thread. I wish they would have that on other boards.

[Anonymous No.10766189]

>>10766099
Economics makes too many assumptions to be the highest logical reasoning. Try physics or math.

[Anonymous No.10766198]

>>10766056
There are probably some works by academics on the subject that are good. Michael Porter is a pretty good read.

[Anonymous No.10766210]

>>10766189
Incorrect.

Also, economics has practicability. Despite the obvious flaws of the communist system, one good sign was we saw the development of practical applications to findings in economics. Perhaps we are not too far from some bigger findings in economics which can help better the human race, overall. It's why I study political philosophy with this sort of thing.

But please define the assumptions economics makes.

And define 'math'. Some math is less pure than others.

I find the purest math the most ancient. Contemplating mathematics up to the Islamic golden age is by far the purest form of reasoning extant. It's euphoric. Modern mathematics relies on axioms which are far different.

[Anonymous No.10766217]

>>10766198
No, he's right. I mean business/finance is more of the practical, commercial occupational side of pecuniary labor. Something very close to the leisure class, as Thorstein Veblen would put it.

You don't want to read that. If you are interested in actually thinking, and enjoy social philosophy, history, and mathematics, then economics is for you.

[Anonymous No.10766224]

REMINDER: ECONOMICS IS NOT SCIENCE IT IS NOT BASED ON EXPERIMENTAL DATA IT HAS NEVER PROVEN THE AXIOMS THAT ITS PREDICATED UPON AND IS USED AS PROPAGANDA TO SUPPORT THE WAR OF THE BUSINESS CLASSES AGAINST THE WORKERS OF THE WORLD ECONOMICS IS NOT A SCIENCE ECONOMICS IS NOT A SCIENCE NO MATTER HOW HARD YOU LARP AS MATHEMATICIANS IT WILL NEVER BE SCIENCE STAGNATION IS IMMINENT WARFARE AND STAGNATION ARE IMMINENT ECONOMICS IS NOT A SCIENCE ECONOMICS IS NOT A SCIENCE ECONOMICS IS NOT A SCIENCE ECONOMICS IS NOT A SCIENCE ECONOMICS IS NOT A SCIENCE ECONOMICS IS NOT A SCIENCE

[Anonymous No.10766227]

>>10766224
It is now clear that this idea is false and is actually some butthurt samefag samefagging this idea throughout various threads.

I've seen this before. How many times have you posted this idea? This isn't copypasta, it's worse:

it's ideapasta.

[Anonymous No.10766228]

>>10766217
>No, he's right. I mean business/finance is more of the practical, commercial occupational side of pecuniary labor.
I at least think there's more to this than self-help garbage.

[Anonymous No.10766238]

>>10766228
I'm saying that if there is anything of substance, with finance it's all practical, because it relates to banking.

With economics, it's more of an attempt to describe a system. Huge difference. Some economists don't actually prescribe ANYTHING, they just describe. Those are usually the mathematical ones.

[Anonymous No.10766242]

>>10766227
>it's ideapasta.
then your posts are ideaselffucking, as in sticking your own cock inside your own asshole and cumming inside yourself with all the PUUUUURE EEEEECOOOONNNN masturbating you do in this thread

[Anonymous No.10766250]

>>10764637
Business econ graduate here

Economics: use some form of “introduction to economics” textbook. FYI econ is often divided along the lines of macro/micro. Macro being more governmental and the economics of aggregate society, while micro is about individual moving parts like labour economics or market competition types.
Another good book that’s fairly interesting is “economics of social problems” by Sheila Smith, title is self evident.

Finance: no idea

Investment: rich dad poor dad, Money master the game, Investing in cryptocurrency: cryptocurrency for beginners, the intelligent investor

[Anonymous No.10766253]

>>10766228
>rise and grind
>#girlboss
>BUZZWORD! 5 ways to x y!
>first, break all the rules
>burn the blueprints!

definitely not circlejerking bougie horseshit and definitely written by qualified people who definitely didn't put all their SPECIAL into luck and charisma

[Anonymous No.10766255]

>>10766250
Big deal I'm a Finance graduate.

I'm the one that made the graph. I don't go around recommending the Finance books I read in college to everyone.

Lol... ffs. Have you even read Henry George?

[Anonymous No.10766260]

>>10766224
Wanna know how I know your never studied college level economics?

[Anonymous No.10766265]

>>10766255
>I’m the one who made that graph
Makes sense

[Anonymous No.10766266]

>>10766224
Economics is more than Austrian silliness.

[Anonymous No.10766275]

>>10766255
I literally said I don’t know any finance books lol why are you triggered

[Anonymous No.10766277]

>>10766227
you're pretty fucking stupid for a big math nerd who doesn't understand that you'll never get to sit with the Maths and Physics geeks and that people are gonna fucking eat you some day for being so evil and stupid. Btw have you ever thought it was strange that Econ tries to distance itself from the other social sciences but inevitably has to resort to the same faggotry as Sociology and Psyche because you can't do real experiments with controls? Have you ever thought about how fucking evil billionaires are? How money isn't predicated on anything but the manipulation of the very people who own all the resources its used to exchange with? Have you ever considered that the same people owning all the money, speculating on currencies, speculating on stocks, controlling employment, collaborating with central banks and owning all the property is somehow not a scientific system but a giant ravaging of the Earth? You do realize the Earth is dying, there are literally endless research studies posted in Nature all year long about how bad things are getting from technology. But, that doesn't matter does it? None of it matters because you'll posture making an outrageous claim and then expecting me to debunk it. How about this nigger, prove economics is grounded in physical reality, empiricism, is falsifiable, is a real unified theory of reality, can make accurate predictions and most importantly is not based on insane axioms. Go ahead, I'll wait nerd

[Anonymous No.10766279]

>>10766265
Look I understand its shortcomings. It focuses on late 19th century/early 20th century economists.

But the point to be illustrated here is real. You should NOT be recommending textbooks. Or not ONLY textbooks, anyway. Try recommending some unique economics texts.

I suppose the answer to whether or not you have read the foundation of the theory of Geoism is a 'no'. Great econ graduate student you are, if they don't require it in your curriculum why bother right?

[Anonymous No.10766283]

>>10766277
The point of economics is exactly that we try to diminish this sort of thing in the first place. I 'sit' with math nerds sometimes, yes. This is how the real world works, you associate with everyone. We're not in your cliquey little community college anymore there, kid.

I do realize the Earth is dying. Economics can help solve that. I am interested in various sorts of things for this very reason. There is no use to saying 'economics is the reason for the world dying' because it is just the study of something going on. It would be like saying physics is the reason global warming is melting the ice caps. Physics just describes how and why it happens, it doesn't make it occur.

[Anonymous No.10766294]

>>10766283
>I do realize the Earth is dying. Economics can help solve that.

>hey buddy yeah I burned your house down and killed your wife and kids but I'm a new man and I'm gonna help you find a new family pronto

[Anonymous No.10766300]

>>10766283
completely exposed
>>10766294
its over no need to reply, completely exposed in one reply. dickless little bug priests lapping up the droppings of the .001% who rule the world and literally rape and eat children

[Anonymous No.10766307]

>>10766279
OP asked about econ, finance, and investing books. running under the assumption it’s because OP wants to get into investment and understanding basic economics, why would he care about people’s old, oversimplified ideas on what society should tax?
More to the point, how can you justify saying something like “don’t recommend textbooks”? OP wants to learn, textbooks are written by professors in the field, with the purpose of teaching people about the topic.
Smh you’re so retarded

[Anonymous No.10766321]

Usura rusteth the chisel
It rusteth the craft and the craftsman
It gnaweth the thread in the loom
None learneth to weave gold in her pattern;
Azure hath a canker by usura; cramoisi is unbroidered
Emerald findeth no Memling
Usura slayeth the child in the womb
It stayeth the young man’s courting
It hath brought palsey to bed, lyeth
between the young bride and her bridegroom

[Anonymous No.10766366]

Buy bitcoin. Thats pretty much it.

[Anonymous No.10766374]

>>10766307
Because literature isn't about textbooks. Once /lit/ starts reccing textbooks it's dead.

Fuck off please and do everyone a favor and go read Henry George. Note: it's not outdated.

[Anonymous No.10766377]

study marx to up your investing game

[Anonymous No.10766426]

>>10766134
Agreed, it's an absolutely shit board, I went there daily during the cryptocrash earlier this year just to collect the angry wojacks and have a bit of schadenfraude

[Anonymous No.10766475]

Does anyone here have some obscure (or underrated) books on investing to recommend?

[Anonymous No.10766518]

>>10766210
>Perhaps we are not too far from some bigger findings in economics which can help better the human race, overall.

this is unironically why i study economics, as pathetic as it may sound.

[Anonymous No.10766643]

>>10766426

[Anonymous No.10766665]

>>10766189
Economics is a social science; you have to make those assumptions

[Anonymous No.10766666]

>>10764637
Communism will win

[Anonymous No.10767391]

>>10766210
>But please define the assumptions economics makes.
pretty much every assumption made about humans being purely rational buyers is far from the truth. then theres stuff like 'the invisble hand of the market' which works in many cases, but at the same time fails to explain many phenomena.

>Modern mathematics relies on axioms which are far different.
axioms aren't assumptions in math, they are more like starting definitions. for example, in group theory one does not 'assume' a group is associative, closed, and has negative and identity elements, those are properties you give to a group and then you look at what properties these 'groups' have.


>>10766665
right, i understand that, and i actually like economics. i'm just being a faggot about this because i don't like economists thinking that what they're doing is pure logic. they need to be aware that a lot of their work is based on questionable assumptions.

[Anonymous No.10767397]

>>10766666
quints confirm

[Anonymous No.10767430]

>>10766277
>Economics is false!!!!!
>Makes a bunch of economical claims
so this is the power of commies...

[Anonymous No.10767971]

>>10765734
You are on the path to enlightenment
Consider adding total international fund for more diversity

[Anonymous No.10768002]

I want to major in economics anons, what should I expect?

[Anonymous No.10768006]

>>10768002
Get at least a math minor with it

[Anonymous No.10768025]

>>10768006
how about taking up a BS track?

[Anonymous No.10768137]

>>10765966
http://4chan-science.wikia.com/wiki/Economics_Textbook_Recommendations

[Anonymous No.10768141]

>>10768002
Economics I guess.

[Anonymous No.10768144]

>>10768137
This must be a new one because that's not in the sticky

[Anonymous No.10768158]

>>10768144
On the main page on the sticky url there is a "/sci/ wiki" link that leads to that.

[Anonymous No.10769708]

The /biz/ list is pretty memey. But the more you read the better. I recommend the reading list on r/securityanalysis.