/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.5146480]

Dad picked up this for me as a birthday present. It's gained traction in economics as a seminal piece of literature but I was wondering, how does it read for someone who has a basic understanding of this stuff? And is it any good?

[Anonymous No.5146492]

Maybe read it and find out.

>rate of return is greater than rate of growth
>inequality is structural--kuznet's curve was the result of a misreading or ignoring the trends of heavy government intervention in the economy
>wat do

Seth Ackerman over at Jacobin had an interesting review of the book awhile back,

>https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/05/pikettys-fair-weather-friends/

[Anonymous No.5146495]

Considering how well it's sold, I reckon you don't need to know much about economics to understand the book. I've seen soccer moms buy it.

[Anonymous No.5146504]

>how does it read for someone who has a basic understanding of this stuff?

Pretty well, you might stumble upon a few concepts you don't know but a basic wiki understanding of them will be enough to help you through it

> And is it any good?

It's great, well written and important work. Since economics as we know today is not a real science because it can only be taken out of paper if it finds common ground with the elites, its influence in the academia or among intellectuals will be inversally proportional to its influence on actual policy making

The "new marx" thing conservative bloggers are running with is incredibly exaggerated

[Anonymous No.5146513]

>>5146480
i read it with just a bachelors in economics and it was a breeze (to understand, obviously it's a long book and it's not always the most interesting subject, i just mean there's never any difficult concepts)

i think you could also get through without a background in economics, but you probably would find yourself a little miffed when he makes categorical statements without backing them up, that are true, but probably don't seem that way to someone who hasn't had an education in econ

[Anonymous No.5146524]

>>5146504
>its influence in the academia or among intellectuals will be inversally proportional to its influence on actual policy making
it is actually surprisingly influential in both spheres. it's accessible and relevant for politicians and has been mentioned a lot for what is essentially an academic work (not that i imagine most of them will get anything out of it), and it has inspired a HUGE SHIT FUCKING TON of shitposting on a particular forum for academic economists (phds and grad students) to the point where i am fucking sick of seeing it mentioned over there.

>The "new marx" thing conservative bloggers are running with is incredibly exaggerated
yeah i agree, they're fucking retarded

>>5146495
this is a bad statement. they probably misunderstand it.

>>5146480
it's ok, it has its flaws but is a solid piece of work nevertheless. stay away from the political polemics who say it's the best/worst thing ever. it should be fairly understandable but also be sure to read some of the academic follow-ups (preferably from people who don't have some obvious agenda).

[Anonymous No.5146531]

It's not hard to understand but it's not a great book - the Financial Times found that some numbers in the book were entirely cooked up, which made me (and many others, I'd imagine) reconsider the entire validity of the work.

Also, Piketty defends Carlos Slim which for anyone who knows how Slim made his money, is laughable at best.

http://takimag.com/article/better_a_crook_than_a_wasp_the_left_ditches_progressivism_steve_sailer/

[Anonymous No.5146555]

>>5146531
the financial times isn't qualified to judge academic work, lol

the numbers aren't "cooked". firstly, even if you accept the FT's explanations as completely true, the overall message doesn't actually change very much if you take into account their questionable "corrections". secondly, part of doing academic work in economics is that data collection is often hard and messy, and you may have to make "adjustments" to the numbers in an attempt to remedy what you see as inaccuracies or inconsistencies in the raw data--because, like i said, the data is unclean and messy. this sort of practice is commonplace in academic economics and is completely justified--everyone publishes their datasets so it's not like people are trying to fool each other, no, it's more that data just needs to be cleaned and it's not always 100.000000000% clear how this should be done.

[Anonymous No.5146601]

>>5146555

http://blogs.ft.com/money-supply/2014/05/23/data-problems-with-capital-in-the-21st-century/

http://blogs.ft.com/money-supply/2014/05/23/piketty-response-to-ft-data-concerns/?

[Anonymous No.5146638]

>>5146531
>>5146601
Here's Piketty's response when he isn't given barely anytime to respond while the FT sent it to print.

http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/capital21c/en/Piketty2014TechnicalAppendixResponsetoFT.pdf

[Anonymous No.5146684]

>>5146480
>It's gained traction in economics as a seminal piece of literature but I was wondering, how does it read for someone who has a basic understanding of this stuff?

Considered scholarly reviews from political economists have been hostile on every point except the validity of conducting such a study.

[Anonymous No.5146713]

>>5146684
>political economists
there is no such thing

when an economist starts becoming "political" he no longer counts as a true academic economist--just a washed-out hack

see: krugman

[Anonymous No.5146728]

>>5146601
>>5146638
What makes me mad is how the FT is just obviously trying to pull a little "gotcha!" here so they can have a nice clickbait headline.

Look, when you discover what you think are "errors" in the academic work of an economist who was HIRED by MIT in a tenure-track position when he was 22, and you're a fucking Financial Times journalist, you don't go, "oh, obviously this fool is just making shit up, I've clearly seen through his devious scheme!" No, you sit back and you think about whether or not these are actual errors, and then you contact the author privately to inquire about the nature of these discrepancies--and then perhaps you publish a nice article that talks about these minor irregularities based on what Piketty said.

It's just disgusting to see that (1) the FT people who wrote those articles have no sense of humility whatsoever and (2) these articles are just sensationalist bullshit that reduce the level of discourse and confuse people about the truth.

[Anonymous No.5146812]

>>5146713

"political economy" is the study of the intersection of politics and economics. "political economists" are not politically-motivated economists (though they might be)--they are people who study said intersection of politics and economics.

[Anonymous No.5146824]

>>5146728

Giles noticed what appeared to be discrepancies between the sources that Piketty cited, and the numbers Piketty actually presented in his book.

Giles did contact Piketty before he wrote his piece. He was not satisfied with Piketty's answer. Piketty then produced his own response.

This is exactly what you would expect from a debate of this nature. Giles' isn't a "take-down" piece, and everyone involved is entirely civil throughout. I don't see why you're so upset about this.

[Anonymous No.5146829]

>>5146728
You know, of course, why they do it. "Capital in the 21st Century" is an assault on the very validity of capitalism, even if Piketty is too timid to truly frame it as such. The mouthpieces of capital cannot allow such a critique to stand.

EVERY criticism of Piketty's book should be looked at with skepticism, if not outright suspicion. Its conclusions are dangerous, and if they are also true, those who benefit most from capitalism will spare no expense and recognize no limit in their attempts to tear down and discredit the work.

There's certainly room for sober, scholarly debate on Piketty's findings, but under the circumstances, any criticism of his work must be looked at, again, with suspicion.

[Anonymous No.5146920]

>>5146728
>muh authority
>muh MIT

lol

Too funny. Summer cannot be over soon enough.

[Anonymous No.5146935]

>>5146829
PIDF in full force today

>Wants a euro/global superstate to tax
>Ignores wage differences between economies that are due to immigration control
>Despite this encourages more immigration
>Says Bill Gates' success was made from "profit from a virtual monopoly on operating systems"
>Calls Carlos Slim a "victim of Western Ethno-centrism" despite Slim being well-known as a corrupt oligarch even among Mexican schoolchildren.

Anyone who denies that Slim isn't a briber and an exploiter of Mexico's tenuous political situation is a shill, no questions asked. I don't think Piketty is, but if he isn't, then he is embarrassingly incompetent about the real goings-on of a major economy. Neither are good - and he certainly isn't the savior you seem to be writing about in your post

This isn't even delving into the logistical impossibilites of even putting into place what Piketty would like to see.

[Anonymous No.5146939]

>>5146920

>talking about summerfags

>in defense of cherry-picking "gotcha" journalists with no intention of dealing with the material at hand

[Anonymous No.5146949]

>>5146920
wow good one

[Anonymous No.5146960]

>>5146939
>>5146949
>Muh MIT is not 100% an appeal to authority
>not summer

ok bros

[Anonymous No.5146962]

>>5146920
i will try to illustrate my point with an analogy that is perhaps easier to understand for your undeveloped mind

suppose i, who know little mathematics past undergraduate material, am reading andrew wiles' proof of fermat's last theorem, and i see what i believe to be an error.

what to do: ask around for an explanation, because i'm probably wrong (i could be right but it's unlikely)

what not to do: privately accuse wiles of mathematical deception, ignore/misunderstand his reply, then publish an online article about how andrew wiles is a hack

[Anonymous No.5146965]

>>5146935
Ever wonder why the Jew York Times, now financed by Slim, is so pro-immigration and pro-illegal alien?

Well, it turns out that Slim reaps huge profits from the tens of millions of Mexicans making long-distance calls back to their relatives in Mexico. Slim, of course, owns the Mexican telecoms monopoly.

Of course, it seems leftists will do or say absolutely anything in favour of weaker borders and more immigration. It's about the only thing they seem to care about anymore. Mainstream leftism is no longer about the working class (who are indisputably negatively affected by mass immigration), it's about race- and gender-based "social justice."

Thus, Piketty's position. It's not that he's incompetent and it's not that he's a corporate shill--it's that he's an SJW shill or has at least internalized the SJW shill attitudes of academia.

[Anonymous No.5146968]

>>5146965
how do Slim's profits hurt the Mexicans who are making calls back home?

[Anonymous No.5146976]

>>5146968
"The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, an association of wealthy countries based in Paris, reports that Mexicans pay some of the highest phone rates in the world, with calls costing 50 percent more than the group’s average. Forbes reported that the average monthly phone bill for a small business in Mexico is $132, compared with $60 in the United States."

[Anonymous No.5146977]

>>5146935
I'm >>5146829 , and to a certain extent I agree with you.

Piketty is naive, and as I previously mentioned, timid. He has this data staring him in the face about the horrible inequalities capitalism creates, the vicious pressures capitalism places on the lower classes, and all he can offer is a global wealth tax? It's pathetic.

But it's not Piketty's conclusions that are dangerous, it's his data itself. His thesis that capitalism is directly responsible for massive income inequality is horrifically dangerous to those who hold the majority of capital. Because, while Piketty's notions of a solution to the problem are timid and milquetoast, his identification of the problem is not. He zeroes in with searing focus on the structural problems of capitalism.

And if he's NOT discredited, his data will find its way into the hands of other folk, folk who are not nearly as timid- folk who will come up with their own, considerably more bloodthirsty solutions to capitalism's imbalances.

[Anonymous No.5146981]

>>5146968
They don't, necessarily, I'm just explaining how and why Slim is major force for mass immigration into the West and how that has influenced/caused Piketty's shilling on his behalf.

[Anonymous No.5146989]

>>5146977
>He has this data staring him in the face about the horrible inequalities capitalism creates,

Please explain to me objectively why inequality is bad.

[Anonymous No.5146999]

>>5146989
In a capitalist system SOME inequality is needed, but not at the current ratio. It's up to levels not seen since the peak of the Roaring Twenties.

Come on man. Think.

Do you even history?

[Anonymous No.5147000]

>>5146989

>objectively
>bad

not possible

but inequality leads to economic instability, according to economists, and it undermines meritocracy

these are just propositions, not judgments, maybe you WANT economic instability and the undermining of meritocracy, in which case they wouldnt be bad things to you and nor would inequality

also you might deny that inequality causes instability and that it undermines meritocracy

[Anonymous No.5147008]

>>5146999
> but not at the current ratio

Why not?

> It's up to levels not seen since the peak of the Roaring Twenties.

Why is that bad?

>Come on man. Think.

>Do you even history?

This is hand-waving.

>>5147000
good answer

[Anonymous No.5147011]

>>5147008
>Why is that bad?

This shows that you don't know your history.
Did you ever hear of the Roaring Thirties?

[Anonymous No.5147026]

>>5146480
I dont think you understand what seminal means OP

[Anonymous No.5147032]

>>5147011
Yes, you are an enlightened one and no-one else is likely to possess even the most basic knowledge of 20th century American history.

Look, Friedman argued quite convincingly that the Great Depression was caused and exacerbated by the bumbling capers of the Federal Reserve, not "horrible inequality." In any case, the benefits of the right kind of horrible inequality far outweigh its drawbacks. The caste system is natural to Indo-European societies and promotes flourishing. It's no coincidence to my mind that the march of democracy and egalitarianism continue to correlate strongly with decadence, baseness, and civilizational decline.

[Anonymous No.5147053]

>>5147032
>caste system is natural to Indo-European societies and promotes flourishing.

Can you expand on this, because it seems hard to believe that such an anti-meritocratic system would promote a flourishing society. If anything it seems to be only suited to societies where wealth is primarily derived via land ownership.

>It's no coincidence to my mind that the march of democracy and egalitarianism continue to correlate strongly with decadence, baseness, and civilizational decline.

How come decadence, baseness and civilization decline in the West is far higher in countries were economic inequality is greater?

[Anonymous No.5147062]

>>5147032
A strong middle-class makes for a strong economy.

Even Henry Ford knew this. If the wealth gets concentrated into the hands of a few, there is less money being spent; it exits the economy.

If a 10,000,000 people earning $500 per week get a raise of $10 each, they are not likely to save that money. They will, instead, largely, spend it straight away on a luxury, like the cinema, food, or a book. That's $1,000,000,000 potentially injected into the economy. Now, give that to one or two people, and what do you think will happen? They'll reinvest SOME, but most will sit in a back account as collateral for decades.

Have you ever studied even economics 101?

[Anonymous No.5147068]

>>5147032
>The caste system is natural to Indo-European societies and promotes flourishing. It's no coincidence to my mind that the march of democracy and egalitarianism continue to correlate strongly with decadence, baseness, and civilizational decline.

this is to economics as PUA "bro science" is to biology

[Anonymous No.5147084]

>>5146524
>and it has inspired a HUGE SHIT FUCKING TON of shitposting on a particular forum for academic economists
Shit, universities are now a chan? W-will I get told to lurk moar if I go in?

[Anonymous No.5147091]

>>5147068

Welcome to /lit/, enjoy your stay.

[Anonymous No.5147092]

>>5147084
http://econjobrumors.com/
you will be told to "gtfo undergread", if i recall correctly.

[Anonymous No.5147147]

>>5147053
I meant flourishing in a non-materialist sense, spiritually, morally, etc. I would also observe that while a certain margin of wealth is certainly conducive to civilizational greatness, obscene riches tend to be civilizationally debilitating. Moreover, meritocracy is perhaps over-rated, as, for example, George Orwell and Evelyn Waugh independently noted and as any ancient Chinese peasant enduring the administration of an official who had memorized all the commentaries on the Classics but didn't know the first thing about crop harvests could tell you.

>If anything it seems to be only suited to societies where wealth is primarily derived via land ownership.

Which societies are hardly alien to even modern American man, see Southern Agrarianism.

>How come decadence, baseness and civilization decline in the West is far higher in countries were economic inequality is greater?

I don't particularly see this trend, if only because Europe and America are equally doomed at this point. But if anything it's been the most unequal country, America, that has held out the longest. Let it not be forgotten that Entarte kunst, Bolshevism, and Vatican II all came from Europe. America more or less slowed to a snail's pace in its decline after it reached its Enlightenment phase and revolted.

[Anonymous No.5147148]

>>5146968
Why are you even replying?

[Anonymous No.5147152]

>>5147148
because that was the implication of his post and I wanted it to be explained in greater detail?

[Anonymous No.5147164]

>>5147062
>A strong middle-class makes for a strong economy.

Perhaps, but materialism is an idol. Material wealth and the size of the GDP are not and should not be the guiding light by which we steer.

Frankly this post is only tangentially related to the benefits of inequality. Does it occur to you that inequality's effect on the economy, or in fact anything's effect on the economy, is not and should not be the most important consideration?

[Anonymous No.5147166]

>>5146531
>the Financial Times

[Anonymous No.5147168]

>>5147068
It's not really to do with economics but the specific discussion of inequality.

[Anonymous No.5147184]

>>5146829
What evidence would you need to disregard Piketty? You sound like a creationist.

[Anonymous No.5147188]

>>5147147
>I would also observe that while a certain margin of wealth is certainly conducive to civilizational greatness, obscene riches tend to be civilizationally debilitating

How do you draw the line when it comes to this kind of issue though? At what point does it become detrimental to civilization?

>ancient Chinese peasant enduring the administration of an official who had memorized all the commentaries on the Classics but didn't know the first thing about crop harvests could tell you.

Isnt that a situation that called for greater meritocracy though? Wasn't that kind of testing designed in a way to promote and integrate the ambitious and keep them from challenging the ruling structure, thus kind of acting as a societal pressure valve in a way similar to the practice of selling military commissions?

Regardless can you give me an argument other than it "wasnt perfect in the past" as an argument against having a more meritocratic society?

[Anonymous No.5147227]

>>5147188
He didn't even advance any arguments. He just copypasta historical evidences.

[Anonymous No.5147259]

>>5147188
>How do you draw the line when it comes to this kind of issue though? At what point does it become detrimental to civilization?

I can't imagine any hard means of quantifying it. I guess the easy answer is that wealth is beneficial until it's not.

>Isnt that a situation that called for greater meritocracy though?

But what exactly would "greater meritocracy" entail? Seems rather like the beginning of an iatrogenic course of "medicine."

>Regardless can you give me an argument other than it "wasnt perfect in the past" as an argument against having a more meritocratic society?

Well, historical example should give ample evidence that, perhaps counter-intuitively, meritocracy often does not give the best or the desired result (Waugh wrote about this in his novel Black Mischief). Consider the title of David Halberstam's book about America's disastrous early Vietnam policy: Our Best and Brightest. Or consider the endless blundering of America's dealing with the Soviet Union when divvying up the globe during and after WWII--the meritocratic "best and brightest," Ivy League brats all, effectively gave away Yugoslavia, Eastern Europe, and China.

From a more theoretical standpoint, meritocracy implies a high degree of mobility, both within the relevant polity and up and down the social ladder. This mobility tends to sever connections with the land and people and replace them connection to political systems, ideals, or institutions. Thus a meritocratic bureaucracy (or technocracy) goes down the path of investing itself in the success and flourishing of a system, or ideal, or institution (the abstract) rather than the people or the land, and if the interests of the two become divorced they will continue to pursue the flourishing of the abstract to the detriment of the people and land. One might say this is exactly what has happened in the extremely meritocratic America of today.

Of course, this is just barely dipping into the topic.

[Anonymous No.5147263]

>>5147147
>as any ancient Chinese peasant enduring the administration of an official who had memorized all the commentaries on the Classics but didn't know the first thing about crop harvests could tell you
i'm not reading this discussion but i just want to point out that they could very well have people advise them, and the idea is that understanding the teachings of Confucius and the commentaries on his teachings etc. will help you be a better ruler in more 'general' ways

[Anonymous No.5147326]

>>5147259

>I can't imagine any hard means of quantifying it. I guess the easy answer is that wealth is beneficial until it's not.

Do you think that point has been reached in contemporary america? How does one tackle the problems caused by wealth induced decadence?

>But what exactly would "greater meritocracy" entail? Seems rather like the beginning of an iatrogenic course of "medicine."

Of course the specific form will depend on the context so its not vauge at all is is limited only by ones understand of the context.

The abolishing of property/capital requirements to vote/hold political or military office, opening up fields and careers to all people regardless of caste yet another could be greater emphasis on scholarship programs.

All these are examples of steps towards a greater meritocracy with absolutely nothing being iatrogenic.

>Well, historical example should give ample evidence that, perhaps counter-intuitively, meritocracy often does not give the best or the desired result (Waugh wrote about this in his novel Black Mischief).

But does that automatically mean a less meritocratic result would work? The lack of meritocracy has traditionally been a big economic and military barrier to countries and dealing with that issue was a big part of the liberal and capitalist revolutions.


>Consider the title of David Halberstam's book about America's disastrous early Vietnam policy: Our Best and Brightest. Or consider the endless blundering of America's dealing with the Soviet Union when divvying up the globe during and after WWII--the meritocratic "best and brightest," Ivy League brats all, effectively gave away Yugoslavia, Eastern Europe, and China.

Have you considered that the Ivy league schools ceased to be progressive decades before and had become anti-meritocratic institutions? They trade on their name, connections and exclusiveness more so than the skills of their graduates, simply having a high standards (which can be subverted through wealth and family connections) does not make it a meritocratic institution.

Would a less meritocratic set up caused a third world war or ensured wiser leaders or would it have lead to the kind of disastrous statesmanship we saw in imperial Germany?

1/2

[Anonymous No.5147363]

>>5147326
>From a more theoretical standpoint, meritocracy implies a high degree of mobility, both within the relevant polity and up and down the social ladder.

I agree

>This mobility tends to sever connections with the land and people and replace them connection to political systems, ideals, or institutions.

This doesn't follow, the kind of relationships (as vague as those terms are) you are talking about have far more to do with the technology and the nature of production and distribution of resources (not discounting cultural impacts of course). Likewise can this not be a progressive feature? Have you considered that being bound (irrationally) to land is detrimental to people and that through ideals, political systems and institutions they can gain a greater connection to “the people”.

>Thus a meritocratic bureaucracy (or technocracy) goes down the path of investing itself in the success and flourishing of a system, or ideal, or institution (the abstract) rather than the people or the land, and if the interests of the two become divorced they will continue to pursue the flourishing of the abstract to the detriment of the people and land. One might say this is exactly what has happened in the extremely meritocratic America of today..

Why does a meritocracy automatically entail a bureaucracy? How are the terms “the people” or “the land” any less abstract and different and exclusive from systems and institutions?

> and if the interests of the two become divorced they will continue to pursue the flourishing of the abstract to the detriment of the people and land.

Can you expand or better explain this point? This seems to be the crux of your argument but I understand it or how you came to it as a conclusion

>One might say this is exactly what has happened in the extremely meritocratic America of today

But America isn’t extremely meritocratic, if anything it is becoming less so if economic inequality is a measurement.

Why do you think it is meritocracy that caused this abstract divorce and subsequent decline? How can you say that the effects of capitalist consumerism and corporatism or conversely socialism did not?

[Anonymous No.5147475]

http://online.wsj.com/articles/the-summers-most-unread-book-is-1404417569

lel

[Anonymous No.5147506]

Omg hai ^___^ I’m Lenin-san and I absolutely luuuv _____ socialism and my fav is october revolution!!! Okies so anyways, im going to tell you about the BEST day of my life when I met my hot comrade trotsky!! <333333333 OMFGZ HE WAS SOOOOO FREAKIN REVOLUTIONARY IN PERSON!!! Supa communism desu!!!!!!!! ^______________________________________^ When I walked onto Red Square =^____^=I looked up and saw…TROTSKY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! <3333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333 3333333333333!!!! “доброе утро OMGZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ SUPA SUPA SUPA SOCIALIST TROTSKY-SAMA!!!!!” I yelled `____´ then he turned menshevik then un-menshevik!! he looked at me [O.O;;;;;;;;;;;] and then he saw how marxist I am *___* he grabbed my working class and rallied them ~_^ then pulled me behind a soviet o_o and started to propagandize me!!!!!! [OMG!!! HIS PROPAGANDA TASTED LIKE PROLETARIAT!!! RLY!! >.> <.< *(^O^)* *(^O^)* *(^O^)*] then I saw some baka fat bureaucrat watching us and I could tell he was reforming him with his eyes!!!!!!! [ -_____________-;;;;; OMG I COULDN’T BELIEVE IT EITHER!!! (o_o) (o_o) (o_o)] so I yelled “UH UH BAKA STALIN THAT’S MY COMRADE WHY DON’T YOU GO HOOK UP WITH MAO CAUSE TROTSKY-SAMA STRUGGLES WITH ME!!! (o_o)” then trotsky held me close =^____^= and said he would only ever fight for the working class and propagandized me again!!!!!!! ** (O)/ then we got censored out by government officials all night long and inspired 42 theorists and they all became revolutionaries!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YPAAAAA!!!*^)* *(^O^)* *(^O^)*(^o^)(^o^)(^o^)

[Anonymous No.5147833]

/biz/ might be a better bet for this kind of topic, as can be seen from the quality of most of the posts in this thread.

[Anonymous No.5147842]

>>5147833
>/biz/

i am surprised this even needs to be said, but i am pretty sure that /lit/ is better than /biz/ for discussing everything, and i literally do mean _literally_ everything.

[Anonymous No.5147865]

>>5147842

There are some twats over there, sure, but a lot of them actually know what they're talking about when it comes to econ and finance, unlike here. /lit/'s better than, say, /pol/, at least, but that really isn't saying much.

[Anonymous No.5147900]

>>5147865
>a lot of them actually know what they're talking about when it comes to econ and finance
ok, look, this is going to sound really pretentious--

but listen--

no,

no, they don't know what they're talking about.

yes, you don't have enough knowledge to discern this fact.

yes, you should stop going on /biz/.

for economics and finance, really, 4chan is not a good place to discuss them. there are too many people who act like experts who really know nothing at all. respectively, EJMR and WSO are much better. try lurking those for a while, and /biz/ will seem laughable when you return.

/pol/ is literally trash and everyone knows it.

[Anonymous No.5147922]

>>5147475

lmao, people are fucking plebs

[Anonymous No.5147933]

>>5147900

I have a couple years of econ under my belt, so I'm not exactly a slouch. It's not my focus, but it's an area of interest.

I actually don't browse /biz/ often. Maybe I got lucky the few times I've been there. I just hopped over and the first three threads about, in order, crypto-currency. "what can I do with $5000 dollars," and "what suit should I wear?" Hm.

I agree, 4chan is shit for this kind of thing--though one of the first threads on EJMR is a question about using Tinder. Really, I don't think the internet forum is the best format for learning about and engaging with these topics.

[Anonymous No.5147944]

>>5147933
well, yeah, or you could just go to http://www.econjobrumors.com/forum/economics-discussion which excludes the offtopic topics

you probably did get lucky, yes. i've posted actual thoughtful replies pertaining to economics there and they essentially get ignored or shitposted.

[Anonymous No.5147958]

>>5147944

Any blogs you like to read?

I like The Economist's View, it's a great aggregator site. Naked Capitalism's pretty decent, too, but I'm always looking for more to read.

[Anonymous No.5148082]

>>5147958
Marginal Revolution
A Fine Theorem
The Leisure of the Theory Class

Honorable mention: Noahpinion
Sort of honorable mention: Conscience of a Liberal