[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 13 KB, 256x220, 1268965411638.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
490837 No.490837 [Reply] [Original]

Hey /lit/,

I started a recommended economics reading thread over here
>>>/new/486103

but it looks like these boys have hit a plateau. Could you recommend me some essential economics books? Every school is welcome :D

>> No.490842

Have you ever studied any economics before? It would make a difference to what I recommend.

>> No.490849

>>490842
I was hoping I could get as many recommendations as possible so i could organize them into tiers or difficulty/depth and post it in guide form.

>> No.490853

Principles of Microeconomics by N. Gregory Mankiw

>> No.490854

>>490853
Oh and Principles of Macroeconomics, of course.

>> No.490860

bump :/

>> No.490862

...You went to /new/ to have a legit conversation about economics? What are you, stupid?

>> No.490873

>>490862

They have substantial economics threads from time to time, don't be so quick to judge :(

>> No.490874

As i said in the other thread, Principles of economics is like baby's first principles of... book, it goes over some of the main areas of micro/macro stuff, as well as some other areas of economics, while not getting too maths'y. But that's by frank/bernanke, I haven't read the mankiew books but they get good reviews.

>> No.490877
File: 70 KB, 661x953, news.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
490877

>>490873
Once in a LOOOONG while. Most threads on /new/ go like so:

>> No.490881

>>490877

lol yes, that is true.

>> No.490882

The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money by Keynes.
Hunger and Public Action by Dreze and Sen.
Theory of Games and Economic Behavior by von Neumann and Morgenstern.
Essays in Positive Economics by Milton Freidman

>> No.490883

What's up

This forum rocks.. I really liked it...

Byebye

[URL=http://www.vpnmaster.com - [IMG - http://openvpn.net/archive/openvpn-users/2005-05/pngd55nFojmJX.png[/IMG - [/URL -

>> No.490885

Honestly? Ayn Rand. I know people who were assigned 'The Fountainhead' in Ivy League economics summer camps. Like her or not, she is influential and 'Atlas Shrugged' is Greenspan's favorite book.

>> No.490894

>>490885
*sigh*

>> No.490898
File: 4 KB, 237x195, 1267315343590.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
490898

>>490894
problem, /lit/?

>> No.490904

>>490898
Yes, but trying to talk to Randians about economics is like trying to talk to Howard Roark about architecture, lolamirite?

>> No.490911

>>490904
here's an idea, how bout you quit your trollan and focus on what you would recommend instead. pretty immature to just criticize others without posting anything substantial.

>> No.490919

>>490904
>>490885

There is to be no discussion of Ayn Rand. Look in the damn rules.

I don't give a fuck if you think I'm playing hall monitor, you are the cancer of /lit/. Die in a fire, thank you.

>> No.490922

>>490911
I detect much butthurt in this sector.

Here's an idea:

A highschool Economics book. That'll teach you more than most of those fags on /new/, know. Probably more than most Randians know, too.

>> No.490923

if you're interested in politics, or just more "people" oriented economics, I can recommend "Public Choice III" by Dennis Mueller, it is very "referenced", as in pretty much everything refers to more in-depth articles, while the book sums it up and relates it to stuff. I really enjoyed studying it.

here's the table of contents to see if it's anything that might interest you.

1. Introduction; Part I. Origins of the State: 2. The reason for collective choice - allocative efficiency; 3. The reason for collective choice - redistribution; Part II. Public Choice in a Direct Democracy: 4. The choice of voting rule; 5. Majority rule - positive properties; 6. Majority rule - normative properties; 7. Simple alternatives to majority rule; 8. Complicated alternatives to majority rule; 9. Exit, voice and disloyalty; Part III. Public Choice in a Representative Democracy: 10. Federalism; 11. Two-party competition - deterministic voting; 12. Two-party competition - probabilistic voting; 13. Multiparty systems; 14. The paradox of voting; 15. Rent seeking; 16. Bureaucracy; 17. Legislatures and bureaucracies; 18. Dictatorship; Part IV. Applications and Testing: 19. Political competition and macroeconomic performance; 20. Interest groups, campaign contributions and lobbying; 21. The size of government; 22. Government size and economic performance; Part V. Normative public choice: 23. Social welfare functions; 24. The impossibility of a social ordering; 25. A just social contract; 26. The constitution as a utilitarian contract; 27. Liberal rights and social choices; Part VI. What Have We Learned?: 28. Has public choice contributed anything to the study of politics?; 29. Allocation, redistribution, and public choice.


But remember that it's all based on rational choice theory, at least until you start modifying it, so that's a big criticism right there, but the same goes for everything economics pretty much. Public Choice just takes it into a more political domain.

>> No.490925

>>490911
*facepalm*

>> No.490928

>>490919
Hmm. That's a new rule. Ok, all for the better :P

But just for the record:

Fuck your face.

>> No.490933

>>490922

lol u mad?

>> No.490935

>>490919
>implying /lit/ was dead before it was alive

>> No.490937

>>490933
here's an idea, how bout you quit your trollan and focus on what you would recommend instead. pretty immature to just criticize others without posting anything substantial.

>> No.490943

>>490937
see
>>490894
elitism is the cancer that will kill /lit/.

>> No.490944
File: 14 KB, 370x329, sniper.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
490944

>>490885
>>490898
>>490911

I've got a Randfag here in my sights, guys

>> No.490947

But OP, if you want to move into the more advanced textbooks, whether it be on micro or macroeconomics, you're going to have to pick up some maths/statistics textbooks too, so text-book wise, i'd say just go with the "principles of..." books by either mankiew or frank/bernanke, and other books like them that are designed to give an impression of a field of study. And then i suppose you can read whatever you want on of those "THIS IS WHY X SCHOOL OF ECONOMIC THOUGHT IS THE BEST" books, I personally don't care much for them.

>> No.490952
File: 12 KB, 436x435, durrhurr.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
490952

>>490943

>> No.490954

>>490944

I don't even know what she stands for retard, I'm trying to be the voice of reason in a supposedly mature intellectual board. i doubt i'll be coming back here anytime soon though.

>> No.490956

OP, it depends what you mean by economics book.

If you want a university text-book, why not check some online syllabuses and see what profs are recommending for Econ 101 (inb4 the butthurt Mises cult say it's all propaganda).

If you're a non-Econ student, read some of the great foundational texts of classical political economy: Smith, Ricardo, Marx. Then go for Menger, Keynes, Hayek, Sraffa, Robinson, Minsky ...

Read widely but read critically.

>> No.490960 [DELETED] 
File: 44 KB, 450x522, amy-winehouse-shock face.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
490960

>>490954
>recommends AR
>then claims he "doesn't even know what she stands for"
>calls me a retard
>my face

>> No.490959
File: 13 KB, 251x251, COOLSTORYBRO.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
490959

>>490954

>> No.490963

For finance stuff, check out Grinblatt/Titman - Financial Markets and Corporate Strategy

>> No.490964

Murray Rothbard - Man Economy & State

Fucking read it. Even if you hate libertarianism it is incredible.

>> No.490962
File: 35 KB, 371x450, 1268269082236.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
490962

>>490928

http://www.4chan.org/rules#lit

Fuck YOUR face.

>> No.490967

>>490956
you realize hayek was a founding member of the mises institute right?

>> No.490972

>>490960

>implying I'm the one who recommended Ayn Rand
>nothing but strawman and troll responses

>> No.490974

>>490967
I didn't know that.

I much prefer Hayek to Mises. It's my impression that Miseoids generally dislike Hayek over their Great Lord and Master.

>> No.490979

>>490962
I read the rule the first time you said it so fuck YOOOOOOOOUUUUUR face.

>> No.490980
File: 121 KB, 600x828, amy-winehouse1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
490980

>>490972
>nothing but troll responses

>> No.490981

>>490972
Didn't you mention something about leaving and never coming back?

>> No.490984
File: 86 KB, 475x330, curb your laughter.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
490984

>>490972
he expects civilised intellectual discussion on a chan board

>> No.490988

>>490974
Hayek, Rothbard, Mises, Hazlitt, Menger, etc

They were all very closely related ideologically and for the most part good friends. They all helped contribute to the Mises and Cato Institutes. You shouldn't be so quick to judge.

>> No.490998

>>490974
Not at all, most libertarians love them both for their own reasons. Many people here have horrible misconceptions on libertarianism in general.

>> No.491004

>>490984
I assumed from the way you people patted yourselves on the back for being so "free thinking" maybe this board had some trace of intellectual merit. I was sadly mistaken.

>> No.491009

>>490988
oh, I know, I;m just poking fun.

Actually, one pal of mine is a follower of the Austrian school and the best debates about economics I have with him, because of our opposing views.

I genuinely did not know about Hayek and the Mises Institute though ... I know he was involved in the creation of the Mount Pelerin Society (which Mises is reported to have stormed out of claiming they were all "socialists"!)

>> No.491013

Read some schumpeter.

>> No.491015

>mises
might have historic value or something

but

>rothbard
is crossing the line

>> No.491020

>>491013
i like Schumpeter. He is probably my favourite "Austrian" economist, though he's kind of on the outside of the school.

Conservative as fuck, he is said to have claimed that all his favourite students were Marxists ...

>> No.491022

>>491009
I don't know about that society you were talking about, but like I said, Hayek helped contribute to quite a few Institutes in his time. He was an avid supporter of individualism so I'm not really sure if that whole socialist thing was just a rumor. The main reason they started all those institutes was to educate people against collectivism.

>> No.491024

>>491015

>implying you haven't read either of them

>> No.491028

>>491022
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mont_Pelerin_Society

the "socialists" claim originates from Milton Friedman's recollections

>> No.491038

>>491028
Who knows, you know how people like them can get. Maybe he just had an episode or something, these guys do seem on the eccentric side.

like what this guy said

>>491020

>> No.491042

>>491020
the Austrian School and Marxism, even though they are sworn enemies, have more in common with each other than they think. Either side always straw-mans the other and would be horrified if they knew ...

>> No.491043

>>491020

what was it about him that distinguishes him from the other austrians in your opinion?

>> No.491045

>>491038
I think they were debating what their policy on taxation should be or something like that and the moderates and pragmatists were "winning", whereas Mises wanted a much more fundamentalist line from the Society.

I dunno, I can't exactly remember what I read

>> No.491046

>>491042
the difference is in the approach to problems though. it's like the struggle between left and right libertarians. libertarians actually fight with each other more violently than the rest.

>> No.491051

Economics=/=literature.

Go somewhere else.

>> No.491056

>>491046

I am thinking in terms of the analysis of the business cycle, there are a lot of similarites, particularly wrt to Hayek and Marx. For instance, Hayek's Pure Theory of Capital is quite close to some of the reproduction schema in Vol II of Capital.

Obviously politically they are worlds apart and the partisans of either school are keen to accentuate the differences ...

Anyway, gotta go, if this thread is still alive after I have eaten dinner and watched a movie, maybe I will comment more.

>> No.491062

>>491056


well bear in mind, they both opposed the type of capitalism that had been dominating the developed world. They both saw the same problem, they just had different ways of going about solving it.

>> No.491136

final bump /lit/, decent so far