/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17416259]

What are /lit/ approved economics books?

[Anonymous No.17416275]

>>17416259
The only one i can think of

[Anonymous No.17416369]

>>17416259
-on liberty
-hegemony or survival
-media control

[Anonymous No.17416937]

>>17416369
Chomsky isn’t an economist ffs

[Anonymous No.17416957]

anything by the chad

[Anonymous No.17416968]

>>17416259
What a garbage field. Can anyone name a field that has produced more pseuds, frauds and hacks than economics?

[Anonymous No.17416975]

>>17416968
Philosophy

[Anonymous No.17416997]

>>17416968
Literature

[Anonymous No.17417013]

>>17416975
>>17416997
>>17416968

Nope, economics is the king of dubious intellectuals. Other fields do not pretend to use mathematics while being akin to astrology

[Anonymous No.17417020]

the lorax, economics is a psuedoscience

[Anonymous No.17417027]

>>17417013
In philosophy they also use meaningless symbols and syntax in the form of words and sentences.

[Anonymous No.17417034]

>>17417027
at least in philosophy everyone agrees that logic is valid, while economists can't even agree on the extent to which math should be used in the field, or even at all

[Anonymous No.17417039]

>>17417034
>at least in philosophy everyone agrees that logic is valid

[Anonymous No.17417052]

>>17416968
Psychology
Sociology
Nutrition
String theory

[Anonymous No.17417070]

>>17417052
Damn, turns out modern academia is just endless garbage.

[Anonymous No.17417092]

>>17416259

[Anonymous No.17417108]

>>17417092
>>17416275
>>17416957
>>17417020
>/lit/ approved
>never heard of them

[Anonymous No.17417116]

>>17417070
My dad invented academia, so please delete your post before he sees it.

[Anonymous No.17417130]

>Moni is gay

[Anonymous No.17417140]

>>17417108
Sounds like a you problem

[Anonymous No.17417393]

>>17416259
Read Feder.

[Anonymous No.17417444]

The Austrians

[Anonymous No.17417682]

Start with the Greeks
>Hesiod - Works and Days
>Plato - Republic and Laws
>Xenophon - Oeconomicus
>Aristotle - Politics and Oeconomica
Continue with the Christians
>St. Augustine - City of God
>St. Thomas Aquinas - Political Writings
>Nicolas of Oresme - De Moneta
>Selected Writings of the Salamanca School authors
Resume with the Anglos
>John Locke - Economic Writings
>David Hume - Economic Essays
>Dugald Stewart - Lectures on Political Economy
>Jeremy Bentham - Economic Writings
>Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations
>Thomas Malthus - An Essay on the Principle of Population
>David Ricardo - Principles of Political Economy and Taxation
>James Mill - Economic Writings
>J.S. Mill - Principles of Political Economy
>William Stanley Jevons - Theory of Political Economy
>Alfred Marshall - Principles of Economics
End with the Frogs and Austrians
>Selected Writings of the Physiocrats
>Turgot - Complete Works
>Destutt de Tracy - A Treatise on Political Economy
>J.B. Say - Complete Works
>Bastiat - Complete Works
>Walras - Elements of Pure Economics
>Menger - Principles of Economics
>Bohm-Bawerk - Capital and Interest, Positive Theory of Capital, Karl Marx and the Close of his System
>von Wieser - Law of Power, Social Economics, Natural Value
>von Mises - Theory of Money and Credit, Economic Calculation in a Socialist Commonwealth, Socialism, Bureaucracy, Theory and History, Human Action
>Hayek - Money and Business Cycles, Pure Theory of Capital, Road to Serfdom, Constitution of Liberty, Law, Legislation and Liberty, Fatal Conceit
>Lachmann - Capital and its Structure

[Anonymous No.17417821]

>>17417682
Incredibly based. You should make it into a chart anon. How did you decide on them?

[Anonymous No.17417828]

>>17417682
Was good until I saw von Mises

[Anonymous No.17417831]

>>17417682
>no keynes

[Anonymous No.17418049]

>>17417034
>at least in philosophy everyone agrees that logic is valid
based retard

[Anonymous No.17418070]

>>17417682
You need to read Othmar Spann and Sombart to see how cringe this list is

[Anonymous No.17418113]

>>17416259
>economics

you fucking IMBECILE

[Anonymous No.17418134]

>>17417682
>>17417821

[Anonymous No.17418136]

>>17417821
more or less what I read when studying economics
>>17417828
why?
>>17417831
wonder why...
>>17418070
back to /pol/ ->

[Anonymous No.17418144]

>>17417682
>>Plato - Republic and Laws
You didn't read it

[Anonymous No.17418156]

>>17417682
I will your Greek and Christian recommendations.
I also hope that you will grow out of your Austrian phase, they are the only ones who managed to produce worse economic theories than the communists.

[Anonymous No.17418200]

>>17418136
>back to /pol/ ->
/pol/ is austrian mostly
ironic

[Anonymous No.17418205]

>>17418156
I'm not an economist and I don't care about real life implications of economic theories. If the entire world burns and collapses because of implementation of Austrian economic policies then so be it. I only care about endless speculation, armchair theorizing and insulting people who are worse read than I am in the economic canon and Austrian economics is perfect for that

[Anonymous No.17418228]

>>17418156
Also if you're going to read Hesiod get the version with commentary for students of social sciences

[Anonymous No.17418289]

>>17418205
I have to admit this is a chad mentality.
>>17418228
thank you, I will be sure to get that

[Anonymous No.17418313]

>>17418134
kek economicsfags btfo.

[Anonymous No.17418357]

>>17416975
>>17416997
>>17417052
Based and correct. Anon got wrekt

[Anonymous No.17418658]

[Anonymous No.17418664]

[Anonymous No.17418730]

[Anonymous No.17418898]

>>17416259
nitzan and bichler's capital as power

[Anonymous No.17419392]

>>17417444
Check'd

[Anonymous No.17419826]

[Anonymous No.17420302]

[Anonymous No.17421536]

>>17419826
>2021
>Still believes in deficit spending, monetary "stimulus", and planned economics.

[Anonymous No.17422449]

>>17416369
Chomsky's a linguist, not an economist

[Anonymous No.17423399]

>>17421536
Everyone in the world does if you haven't noticed

[Anonymous No.17423478]

>>17418113
kek

[Anonymous No.17423631]

Redpill me on Milton.

[Anonymous No.17423804]

>>17423631
He triggers this type of subhumans so he must be based.

[Anonymous No.17423805]

>>17417013
This.

[Anonymous No.17423835]

>>17417682
you can skip Keynes' books and read his disciples, but skipping Marx is just wrong. also, reading more than one (1) Austrian will destroy your brain completely. rampant praxeology and game theory bullshit is in part why economics is so trash as a field.

[Anonymous No.17423876]

>>17423835
My brain is literally indestructible, normieboy.

[Anonymous No.17423903]

>>17416259

39 leçons d'économie contemporaine. Despite the stupid name, it is written in dialogue forms and can probably be somewhat called literature.

[Anonymous No.17423930]

>>17423804
>triggering central planner fags

Based

[Anonymous No.17424533]

>>17417682
Basado

[Anonymous No.17424787]

>>17417682
very hiv positive

[Anonymous No.17425115]

>Kicking away the ladder (Ha-Joon Chang)
>How Rich Countries Got Rich....... and Why Poor Countries Stay Poor (Reinert)
>Report on Manufactures (Alexander Hamilton)
>The National System of Political Economy (Friedrich List)
>The Entrepreneurial State (Mariana Mazzucato)

[Anonymous No.17425277]

>>17425115
Shitty titles wouldn't even pollute my search history with them

[Anonymous No.17425293]

>>17416259
The misbehaviour of markets by Benoît Mandlebrot

[Anonymous No.17425306]

>>17417034
Wish i could have your confidence while spewing majestic bullshit, retard

[Anonymous No.17425311]

>>17425277
Yeah, just keep on solidifying your confirmation bias. It's probably more solid than Hitler's bunker now.

[Anonymous No.17425491]

austrian economics, that's it.

[Anonymous No.17425511]

>>17417682
>City of god
Ah yes, the 1000 page book on Catholic theology and doesn't mention money. Very essential. For those who can't tell this is just:
>A bunch of irrelevant ancient writers
>Meme libertarians
Don't read any books that actual professional economists read, that's no way to learn economics. Just read angry polemics about how literally any government intervention turns a country into Nazi germany

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.17425515]

>>17425491
>Marx threads everyday
Apparently not

[Anonymous No.17425537]

>>17425511
City of God and political fragments of Summa Theologiae are necessary to understand the Salamanca School

[Anonymous No.17425608]

>>17425511
>actual professional economists
>>>/biz/ monkey boy

[Anonymous No.17425668]

Economic is inferior to accounting. While economists talk about their nonsense astrology economics theory that hides under the veil of mathematics, accounting actually solves problems based on the real world’s empirical data, not some unsound theories made by failed mathematicians.

[Anonymous No.17425830]

>>17425668
How do you feel about a monetary system anon?

[Anonymous No.17426231]

>>17425668
>solves problems based on the real world’s empirical data
I cannot fathom why you describe statistics as accounting. Probably because you don't have no understanding about economics or how wide the field actually is.

[Anonymous No.17426263]

Lit threads on economics are always a joy.

OP asks about books, but I think you should get a feel for what modern day economists actually do, then branch off to other schools. Read a pop intro (Undercover economist trilogy is pretty good). Read an intro microeconomics textbook (if you're not afraid of stats add in an intro econometrics textbook - you can try intro macro as well, but basic macro is very different from high level macro), then read the Journal of Economic Perspectives articles which sound interesting to you. These are free articles written by leaders of subfields on a basic level. You can try to start with these, some of them are really accessible. Then you can read history of economic thought (e.g. Worldly philosophers) to see the progress and remaining issues. These also provide reccs to some further reading. Then you can read intros to the heterodox schools (neoricardian, postkeynesian, austrian etc). Now you will understand what they're critizing.

Don't read pop antieconomics, it's usually stale ("economists are bad, but behavioural/new institutional/new keynesian (completely different from postkeynesian) are good. Let's have a revolution!" In reality each of those are incorporated into the field).

Currently economics is an overwhelmingly empirical field, the only social science that takes stats and causality seriously. It has the highest reproducibility rate amongst the social sciences (which is not a high bar, but still).

[Anonymous No.17426284]

>>17423631
king of the pseods. tried to confusingly mangle positivism with rationalism, and yet managed to bamboozle most in the field

[Anonymous No.17426290]

>>17426263
In your opinion of modern economist (20th century plus) who is the most competent?

[Anonymous No.17426304]

>>17426284
I feel like he just didnt realize how shitty and greedy humans are after his shareholders ideal.

[Anonymous No.17426308]

>>17421536
>still holds the neoclassical synthesis view on Keynes

[Anonymous No.17426315]

>>17426308
Keynes is dogshit and just rubberbands us to recession after recession.

[Anonymous No.17426354]

The only book you need.

[Anonymous No.17426366]

>>17426354
To have a good laugh?

[Anonymous No.17426400]

>>17426315
Astoundingly ignorant; 180 degrees wrong. Why do you think Keynes came to be in the first place? Because free markets will cyclically bring us recessions.

[Anonymous No.17426406]

>>17426400
Explain

[Anonymous No.17426443]

>>17426400
Well it doesn't seem like that ever stopped

[Anonymous No.17426449]

>>17426443
Exactly im already up to like 3 recession and im not even 30.

[Anonymous No.17426461]

>>17426290
If you look at the last 10-20 ys of Nobel winners, you will see that they made contributions to an arcane area or subfield.

I think there are 2 relatively modern economics who made multiple important contributions: Paul Samuelson and Kenneth Arrow (look up Arrows impossibility theorem, it got large coverage outside economics). Do note that they can also be cringe, eg. Samuelson predicted that by now the Soviet Union will have a higher GDP than the US. And neither of them are beginner friendly.

[Anonymous No.17426886]

>>17426461
Nobody is always 100% right.

My favorite is all the fags who waited till Milton was dead to talk shit about him. I can't wait for all the Sowell shittalk when he finally passes. Cowards.

[Anonymous No.17426987]

>>17426263
thanks for the good post anon

[Anonymous No.17427029]

>>17426263
>OP asks about books, but I think you should get a feel for what modern day economists actually do
No you dumb faggot. /lit/ threads on economy are not about the boring useless shit you do. It's about reading and discussing canon writers, not your supervisor's lateset shitty article on how to suck cocks.

[Anonymous No.17427045]

>>17416369
>on liberty
This isn't an econ text. If anything it's a defence of free speech.

[Anonymous No.17427102]

>>17422449
>>17416937
This, I like Chomsky he has a lot of good takes but his groupies will bring him up any chance they get and treat his writing as scripture. Ironically if they’d actually read him they’d know not to do specifically that lol

[Anonymous No.17427108]

>>17427045
Nah, he talks about the free market in there too.

[Anonymous No.17427151]

>>17416259
Road to serfdom isn't even an economics book. Hayek just rants about how bad Nazis are. I was so disappointed when I actually read it. Avoid it unless you want a sermon on morality

[Anonymous No.17427181]

>>17416968
Psychology
Sociology
History
Philosophy

[Anonymous No.17427199]

>>17427151
It's about the perceived issues of (economic) central planning. Sure Hayek was a retard but he does talk a lot economy even if not in a rigorous way

[Anonymous No.17427592]

>>17416275
That book sucked

[Anonymous No.17427614]

>>17427199
This, say what you want about free market fags but socialism and central planning WILL ALWAYS FAIL

[Anonymous No.17427890]

>>17416968
tech

[Anonymous No.17427906]

>>17427614
China has central planning

[Anonymous No.17427979]

>>17416968
Sociology
Gender studies
Anthropology

[Anonymous No.17428106]

>>17425115
Based and protection pilled

[Anonymous No.17428130]

>>17426400
>>17426308
> they think Keynes was right
I've got $700 I made overnight on GME that says you're fuckin wrong. Lmfao and Jpow said Wednesday low rates have nothing to do with irresponsible speculation.

>>17427906
All their success came when they dialed it back. Now Xi is fucking with it again. Only reason they're doing better than the west is the west votes only for comfort. Unfortunately we need 15-20 years of austerity to get our debt down and our 10 year back up.