/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14509975]

Y-you did start with the economists anon, r-right?

[Anonymous No.14509978]

I can’t name a single book from Israel

[Anonymous No.14509994]

>>14509975
I've read The Communist Manifesto and fucked the whole genre off

[Anonymous No.14510005]

nah i don't care about anything like that

[Anonymous No.14510018]

Of course.

[Anonymous No.14510039]

>linear modeling of complex systems
>science
No thanks, anon, I have enough ideological propaganda in my life already.

[Anonymous No.14510047]

I liked the Origin of Wealth by Eric Beinhocker

[Anonymous No.14510062]

>>14509994
Idiot and probably underage
>>14510005
Cringe
>>14510018
Based
>>14510039
>what is linear programming

[Anonymous No.14510108]

>>14509975
what the fuck is that mix
why studying the austrian school and mathematical modeling at the same time?

[Anonymous No.14510131]

>>14510062
I'm 29, I'm just into history and some pop science as far as non fiction is concerned desu mate

[Anonymous No.14510139]

>>14510131
>pop science

[Anonymous No.14510162]

Where does one even start with economics? I dont really have to read marx and JS Mill right?

I'm pretty decent at maths since I did a math undergrad before going to med school

[Anonymous No.14510172]

>>14510108
Because I'm not a midwit who chooses to enclose himself in his safe space and won't listen to the other side, I'm actually more mathematically inclined and if you haven't noticed there's not just Austrians there, you have classics (Ricardo, Mill) and moderns like Stiglitz too

[Anonymous No.14510179]

>>14510139
I just want to read about humanity's ancestors bro lay off

[Anonymous No.14510184]

>>14509975
Practical men who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist.
It's a quote i love, but it feels weird quoting a defunct economist about that.

[Anonymous No.14510215]

>>14510172
fair enough, but it still feels too mixed. I mean, it's good to read as many things as you can, but you should try to dive deep at least into one school. I think you have a good enough amount of important works of austrians and classicals (excepting perhaps Marx and Smith).
However, if you're mathematically inclined, you must definitely study Macroeconomics. For that, you could grab the boring textbooks but I see that you seem interested in history of economic thought, and textbooks will give you zero insight about the differences between the different schools and that.
So I recommend you "Modern Macroeconomics" by Snowdon & Vane. It's perhaps the best book available to have a comprehensive grasp of macroeconomic models while at the same time learning the different schools. Pic related is 3/4 of the index (the rest being a brief summary on growth, Solow and the AK model).

>>14510162
Honestly, economics is such a big and diverse field that you should stick to whatever you're interested in, except you're trying to be a professional economist.

[Anonymous No.14510220]

>>14510162
That really depends. My way of learning stuff is what's called the genetic approach which consists in consuming all the most important ideas up until contemporary times so e.g. if I were to learn physics, I'd start with the Greek natural philosophers, Aristotle, Archimedes, Ptolemy, Roger Bacon, Copernicus, finally Galileo, Descartes, Leibniz, Newton, Lagrange, d'Alembert, Laplace, Kelvin, Rayleigh, Hamilton, Boltzmann, Maxwell, Gibbs, Poincare, Curie and lastly Einstein, Schrodinger, Heisenberg etc. That way I can get the big picture. But I'd recommend starting with some elementary textbook like Samuelson, then proceed into some harder stuff like Varian, Krugman and Romer supplemented with textbooks on mathematical modeling and finally proceed to the interesting stuff like Ricardo, Walras, Marx, Mises

[Anonymous No.14510233]

All btfo by him

[Anonymous No.14510259]

>>14510233
totally midwit-tier response of a "marxist" pseud who probably wouldn't even understand one tenth of Shaikh's. Bet you heard about him in /leftypol and thought it was cool

[Anonymous No.14510270]

just skip all the last century stuff, unless you are interest in economic history, and even then start with some second hand compilation (I read Schumpeter). AND if you really want to learn economics, you need to read papers, not books.

>>14510215
>Honestly, economics is such a big and diverse field that you should stick to whatever you're interested in, except you're trying to be a professional economist.
even so. almost every single economist stays in their own corner. I have barely time to focus on one school.

[Anonymous No.14510271]

>>14510215
Thanks anon I intended to read Snowdon and Vane later. And it's not really about history of economic thought, because some of the ideas contained therein did age quite well and the economists that originated them were far more literate and sophisticated than modern brainlet "economists" which basically means physicists who are too stupid to do physics. I own quite a lot of textbooks so I know the mainstream well enough but all the titles are in Polish and I didn't really want to show them initially. But here they are nevertheless, also missing from the stack is Walras, Keynes and Marshall

[Anonymous No.14510289]

>>14510270
Yeah I want to read Schumpeter's "History..." too. And you're right, I do read papers from time to time but most of them are on mathematical modelling of the stuff that I read so dynamic aspects of Ricardo's comparative advantage and shit like that. Overall they don't excite me too much, I feel like they're too focused on a very narrow set of problems that don't really have any real significance

[Anonymous No.14510300]

>>14510271
>modern brainlet "economists" which basically means physicists who are too stupid to do physics
good take, it really feels that way very often. I'm an econ student, math is not my strong part but I often feel that for some economists mathematics is the end-goal instead of the auxiliary tool that you use to better understand some concepts or quantify and do empirical tests.
With that stack you have you are trained just as well as an econ. student honestly.
Also, do you have any interest in Sraffa and the Cambridge controversy?

[Anonymous No.14510304]

>>14510162
First, there's no such thing as "economics". I would suggest you to focus first on Microeconomics and Macroeconomics.

Microeconomics:
- Hal Varian, Intermediate Microeconomics: A Modern Approach, 8th ed., Norton, 2010
- Martin Osborne, An Introduction to Game Theory, OUP, 2004
- Avinash Dixit and Susan Skeath, Games of Strategy, 2nd ed., Norton, 2004
- Avinash Dixit and Barry Nalebuff, Thinking Strategically: The Competitive Edge in Business, Politics, and Everyday Life, Norton, 1991.

Macroeconomics:
- Jones, C. Macroeconomics, International edition (3rd edition, 2014)
- Mankiw, N.G. and M.P. Taylor, Macroeconomics, European Edition, (2nd edition, 2014)
- Wendy Carlin and David Soskice (2006), Macroeconomics: Imperfections, Institutions and Policies, Oxford University Press
- Paul R. Krugman, Maurice Obstfeld and Marc Melitz (2014), International Economics: Theory and Policy
- Frederic S. Mishkin, Kent Matthews and Massimo Giuliodori (2013), The Economics of Money, Banking, and Financial Markets, European Edition

Studying those books will give you a deep and extensive knowledge in quantitative economics.

Do not read old books, for economics is a recent field of study and Aristotle doesn't know shit about consumer theory or game theory. Also, focus on a particular subject (micro & macro for instance). Reading books about general economics is useless because you won't learn anything in particular.

[Anonymous No.14510319]

>>14510289
I share your disposition, since most of the modelling math basically there for its own sake. Hardly anything interesting there, but that's what economics has become. Papers still explain the reasoning and conclusion considerably well.

[Anonymous No.14510322]

>>14509975

Halfway through pleasure-reading Wealth of Nations atm, paused it for about a month to do other projects. The chapter on money (as a particular species of stock) is a slog but I'm back into it.

It's a bit like reading Shakespeare or the Bible in the sense that it lets you know where phrases came from. He treats use value vs exchange value (later taken up by Marx) but one that really impressed me is that he literally uses the phrase "a run on the banks" when describing a panic.

[Anonymous No.14510337]

>>14510300
I don't want to shit on economists too much but you have to understand my predicament. Maybe it's different in the US but here in Poland 1989 changed everything not excluding economics. It really feels like the main difference between pre-1989 econ and modern econ is that modern textbooks present you with some prepositions as if they were super rigid theorems not demanding of any further scrutiny. This is clear even when you look at the design of textbook covers which almost intentionally mimic textbooks by Feynman, Resnick etc. Pre-1989 Polish economists were a vastly different specie and you really feel like they knew their stuff better than the co contemporary economists who are monkeys that take anything shat by the Western academia for granted. As to your 2nd question, I want to become more proficient in linear modelling precisely so I can read Sraffa and I'm planning to read Robinson's book on capital accumulation where she originated the whole controversy.

[Anonymous No.14510364]

>>14510337
>I don't want to shit on economists too much
lol it's ok, i don't have a really high esteem for my degree
may I ask what's your background? you studied economics or a STEM degree?
I don't study econ. in the US, but economics is the same everywhere: here they also throw us the usual textbooks and that's it. Fortunately there are some heterodox proffesors who teach the cambridge controversy, the classics and other economic topics which are usually ignored by the mainstream.
do you think a STEM background would be better for studying econ. that the actual degree? It often feels like that

[Anonymous No.14510384]

>>14510364
I study undergrad math and econ. Yeah I sometimes feel like it'd be better if I were to do a math degree 1st and econ degree later but I can't postpone wageslaving in the private sector too much. But given the current state of econ I guess being at least an undergrad in mathematics is indispensable to achieving something in academia

[Anonymous No.14510416]

>>14510259
Neoclassicists and Heterodoxists seething!

[Anonymous No.14510888]

>>14509975
Economics are utter midwittery. Study useful things like philosophy, theology, mathematics or physics.

[Anonymous No.14511288]

>>14509975
no Misses?

[Anonymous No.14511723]

>>14511288
"Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth" in included in Hayek's "Collectivist Economic Planning" so technically there is Mises, but I don't like him that much

[Anonymous No.14512729]

>>14510416
so everyone is seething, since you managed to used definitions in a way that includes both orthodoxy and it's antonym.

[Anonymous No.14512754]

>>14509975
Economics is bunk.

[Anonymous No.14512771]

[Anonymous No.14512871]

>>14512754
This isn't even a joke. When model fails to predict some (sic) explain it saying things like: agent must have had faulty expectations, when such thing is contradictory to axioms that said model is build on.