/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6826893]

Is pic related the best place to start learning about capitalism? And if so, where do I go from there?

[Anonymous No.6826902]

>>6826893

Start with Adam Smith you nigger.

[Anonymous No.6826930]

>>6826902
i really don't want to study economics that seriously.

i just want a working understanding of economics so i can have a serious conversation about it without just talking out of my ass.

I just want to know how capitalism works, in what ways it's better than other systems, what it's limitations are etc

[Anonymous No.6827039]

Smith then Keynes, or just Sowell's Basic Economics should be enough. Smith is hella outdated though, Keynes is still relevant.

[Anonymous No.6827052]

Das Kapital tbh

[Anonymous No.6827053]

>>6826930

Adam Smith is the Freud of economics.
Friedman is highly polarizing he comes from a certain school of economists known as monetarists which only represent a small piece of the pie. If you want to understand Capitalism, Smith is still highly relevant. Keynes or Smith would be your best bet. All modern economics and capitalist discourses have roots in Smith. If you want to impress fedora tipping libtards and expose yourself to a segment of econ, or understand monetary economics then read Friedman. He makes very good points although your understanding will be very biased if your sole reference is Friedman.

[Anonymous No.6827060]

>>6827039

>Sowell

Do you even econ bro? Or did you just see an edgy meme on /pol/

[Anonymous No.6827067]

>>6827060
Not that guy, but what's wrong with him?

[Anonymous No.6827068]

>>6826893

Honestly, just buy a macro textbook

[Anonymous No.6827073]

>>6826930
Then you don't want to understand Capitalism, since its modern history can draw its roots all the way back to Smith and his writings on the invisible hand.

Start with Adam Fucking Smith. Ratchet up to Keynes and Hayek and their whole debacle. Throw in some Das Kapital if you want to understand some of the history of critique of capitalism, but if you don't then don't bother.

>i just want a working understanding of economics so i can have a serious conversation about it without just talking out of my ass.

Then don't talk out of your fucking ass. Start with Adam Smith

[Anonymous No.6827075]

>>6826930
>i just want a working understanding of economics
You won't get a working understanding of economics with capitalism and freedom. It's more of an ode to classic liberalism than anything else.

[Anonymous No.6827088]

>>6826893
are you the faggot who purchased that book which was on ebay for 4 bucks?

if so fuck you as i was planning on buying it.

[Anonymous No.6827089]

>>6826930
Since you want to understand it in a casual sense just get Basic Economics by Sowell. It's up to date and easy to understand. This isn't like philosophy where you "start with the Greeks". Read Smith, Keynes, Hayek, Friedman, Mises, etc. if you want to get more into it.

[Anonymous No.6827128]

>>6826893
This book is very bias from a neo liberal viewpoint.
Please do not take it as gospel truth.
Many of the policys advocated in this book are not good economics.
It is still an important book though, as it Weath of nations and Das Kapital.

[Anonymous No.6827133]

Sowell is a good writer that tries very hard to be articulate and precise in his use of language so as to be accessible to new readers. I highly recommend him.

[Anonymous No.6827147]

>>6826893
It's good, but I suggest you read The Wealth of Nations as well, since it's important. It will give a nice grasp in economics. If you want read Das Kapital next but it's fucking huge and it's not recommended if you just read 2 books of economics you are going to go full retard.
>>6827133
Lel

[Anonymous No.6827154]

>>6827147
>/lit/ doesn't like Sowell

[Anonymous No.6827157]

I think pic related was a good book. Especially considering it covers a wide range of economic schools, while most people itt are recommending austrians, which are but a small heterodox school.

[Anonymous No.6827170]

>>6827067

He's partisan and a right wing edgelord, not to mention btfo by the Keynesian mainstream. I agree with many of his points but I still see that much of his work is highly agendad and doen't stand well under scurtiny. I rated him to one of my film studies libtard leaning friend who latched on but seeing how zealous he got made me re asess Sowell's theories and despite making some good points he can also be a myopic uncle tom. I doubt he's seriously studied as part of any regarded econ coursework

[Anonymous No.6827172]

>>6826893
muh chicago boys ...
>>6826902
muh invisible hand ...
>>6826930
hey OP just start with Bastiat's essay as an appetizer "what is seen and what is not seen" -never mentioned here befor- im sure you will like it and don't worry it isn't a marxist thing ;) but keep in mind marxism is inevitable/unbeatable

[Anonymous No.6827180]

>>6827170
>btfo by Keynes

explain

[Anonymous No.6827185]

>>6827172

>Muh labour theory of value

[Anonymous No.6827193]

>>6827154
It should hardly be surprising, since most of them have never held down an adult job if they've worked at all, and certainly never actually tried to start or run a business or known anyone in the managerial class.

[Anonymous No.6827199]

>>6827170
His work is not agendad. Yes of course he's right-wing but he doesn't have some sort of "agenda". A Conflict of Visions is completely neutral as well. And calling him an Uncle Tom is pretty cheap.

[Anonymous No.6827217]

>>6827180

Keynes was pre Sowell. Keynes was pro market although had some socialistic tendencies and held the assumption that market failure is a possible and probable eventuality and that the state should intervene to prevent economic depression. Sowell is all about 'muh pure market' along with the other Chiraq boyz and doesn't believe in government intervention or prescriptive measures and is highly anti-socialist (where he does make some good points). Keynes theories regarding this hold more validity and historical accuracy, not to mention being the mainstream standard (see Krugman, Stiglitz etc)

[Anonymous No.6827221]

>>6827170
>partisan
no
>btfo
no, keynesianism is shitting all over the world economy. a system that leads literally 80% of developed countries into debt is shitting itself.
>doesn't stand well under scrutiny
provide examples
>myopic uncle tom
great race-bait mate
>doubt he's seriously studied
well since academia is highly insular with marxist leanings and almost no working knowledge of economics, why would they study contradictory ideas that require some knowledge of the world outside the ivory tower?

[Anonymous No.6827238]

>>6827217
>implying neokeynesians are keynesians

[Anonymous No.6827245]

>>6827221
>no, keynesianism is shitting all over the world economy. a system that leads literally 80% of developed countries into debt is shitting itself.

So why exactly did that happen?

[Anonymous No.6827246]

>>6826893
Nobody here knows what they're talking about. I wonder how man Econ majors have actually read Wealth of Nations.
When it comes to Friedman, his ideas are very much outdated, read this paper - it's pretty short; and I benefited from it immensely. Any recommendable piece of academic writing is a good introduction to capitalism but if you want to actually delve in a big work then I'd recommend Max Weber and his writing on Protestant Ethic and the spirit of capitalism. There's a lot more to capitalism then calculations and standard economics theory.

http://web.stanford.edu/group/sjeaa/journal102/10-2_12%20SeA-Elgin.pdf

[Anonymous No.6827247]

>>6827221
If you read Wealth of Nations, wrote in 1776 you will see that sovereign debt was an issue even then. Keynesian economics cannot be blamed for centuries of governments being in the red.

[Anonymous No.6827254]

>>6826893
This is a short enjoyable read if you want something less heavy
http://www.zero-books.net/books/capitalist-realism
the heavy stuff needs to be read though..

[Anonymous No.6827257]

>>6827245
Keynesianism subsidizes bad business decisions instead of letting them fail. This makes bigger bubbles which means bigger bursts. Which means the government has to step up its intervention. Which means it needs to spend more money. Which means it needs more money. But the only way for the government to get more money is to print it or raise taxes. But you can't do this indefinitely.

China is hemorrhaging money. Entire countries are going bankrupt or getting close to it.

[Anonymous No.6827274]

>>6827247
Central banking, which is essential to contemporary keynesianism, makes the accruing of debt on national scales greater than it was literally ever possible to do so before.

[Anonymous No.6827279]

>>6827221
>keynesianism is shitting all over the world economy. a system that leads literally 80% of developed countries into debt
First, keynesianism prescribes balanced anti-ciclical spending, which doesn't lead to debt. Second, the economic crisis was provoked by private debt, not public debt, which is almost impossible to explain from a neoclassical (or libertarian) perspective. And third, sovereign debt crisis never happen when the money issuer supports the placement of debt. Europe's debt crisis self inflicted.

[Anonymous No.6827302]

>>6827274
That's a pretty retarded argument considering every single serious economic school supports a central bank. Even right wind orthodoxy.

[Anonymous No.6827324]

Start with the collected works of Marx and Engels then move on to Lenin and Bordiga.

[Anonymous No.6827330]

>>6827324
lol

[Anonymous No.6827333]

>>6827324
>Lenin and Bordiga
This is where you fucked up

[Anonymous No.6827335]

>>6827217
Krugman is hardly socialist.*
If -10 is socialist and 10 is Murray Rothbard
Krugman is still a 2 or 3, probably a 4.


*but you probably never implied that and I'm just posting for the sake of

[Anonymous No.6827346]

>>6827324
>Start with the MECW
are you retarded?

[Anonymous No.6827497]

>>6827279
>keynesianism prescribes balanced anti-ciclical spending
Which never happens in reality.

The problem is democracy, according to keynes governments should reduce spending and save money in times of prosperity.
Nobody votes for a government that doesn't spend money in times of prosperity (and possibly increase taxes too)
Maybe a few would (I would as pure keynesianism as a concept is still interesting)

high(er) taxes, low government spending in times of prosperity
low(er) taxes, more government spending when the economy is going down

It's just extremely difficult (maybe impossible) to get voters to support an economic policy like that.

[Anonymous No.6827531]

>>6826930
Read Das Kapital.
Read an intro macro textbook.
Read an intro micro textbook.

Congratulations.

[Anonymous No.6827546]

>>6826930
get an econ 101 textbook or listen to a free intro course online. Yale puts videos of a lot of their intro courses online so everyone can learn.

[Anonymous No.6827600]

>>6827254
He wants to understand economics, not read a cultural polemic by a layman who writes for The New Statesman.

[Anonymous No.6827680]

Read a text book, only idiots who never studied economics would recommend you read The Wealth of Nations, Das Kapital, or pop-economics like Capitalism and Freedom. Economics is the hardest of the soft sciences, so learn the material before you learn about schools of thought.

[Anonymous No.6827723]

>>6827221
1945-late 1970s
Keynes
Prosperity for all, egalitarian growth across all sectors, productivity
Stable market

Late-1970s to today
Neo-Liberal free market laize-fairre structural adjustment economic reform
Stagnation and even decline for most people, vast concentration of wealth into the hands of a fraction of a percent, industry collapse
Cyclical market instability that becomes more extreme with each new cycle and eventual bust

[Anonymous No.6827746]

>>6827723
>today
>Laisezz-Faire

[Anonymous No.6827758]

>>6827746
Take it up with the iPads spell check not me

[Anonymous No.6827763]

>>6827758
I don't care about your spelling or the fact that you support mass consumerism with your Apple tablet.

[Anonymous No.6827765]

>>6827723

Look at an other country in the world and you'll see that was not how the 1945-late 70s period went for any of them. America lucked out, was growing at an incredible rate with little competition. Correlation is not causation.

[Anonymous No.6827786]

>>6827765
?
I'm not him but all of western europe grew extremely fast (les trentes glorieuses, wirtschaftswunder, etc.), asia started its miracle, and latin america started to industrialized (which eventually failed in the 80s).

[Anonymous No.6827787]

>>6827765
It is how the western world went

In that same period of time we applied out free market fantasies to south and Central America, the Philippines, Indonesia, etc

[Anonymous No.6827792]

>>6827765
>Correlation is not causation
But when deregulation and tax cuts for the wealth creators don't work, the solution is to do it again!

[Anonymous No.6827794]

>>6827792
>don't work
How so? Profits are up and new jobs are being created daily.

[Anonymous No.6827796]

>>6827786
The Asian tigers are the result of rejecting the neoliberal consensus

Compare Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, to Indonesia and Philippines
Why the difference?

[Anonymous No.6827801]

>>6827794
Profits for the rich, nope to jobs

[Anonymous No.6827802]

>>6827786

Britain in the 1970s was a nightmare, and it enacted a tonne of 'progressive' and more socialist policies. With the result that there were weekly powercuts etc.

It took free market policies in the 80s for Britain to actually become a leading economy again and not a shithole.

[Anonymous No.6827805]

>>6827723
>vast concentration of wealth into the hands of a fraction of a percent

I sure do love socialist myths about how wealth works.

[Anonymous No.6827823]

>>6827723

Why would you base your criticism on wealth inequality? It's not a zero-sum game. Living standards is one of the few useful indicators and they have steadily risen for everyone.

Absolute world poverty has been halved in the last 20 years.

[Anonymous No.6827846]

>>6827802
The only difference between britain in the 70's and britain in the 80's is lower inflation, less welfare state, and the loss of certain industries. And inflation was ubiquitous in the 70's due to the oil crisis.

[Anonymous No.6827850]

>>6827794
wow a new mcdonalds opened up paying immigrants 8.50 an hour, thanks reagan.

[Anonymous No.6827859]

>>6827801
Yes, there are greater profits for the rich, how is that a bad thing? There are more jobs being created now than ever before in IT, engineering, medicine, scientific research, transport, agriculture and produce etc.

[Anonymous No.6827865]

>>6827846

And the creation of a huge financial centre.

[Anonymous No.6827866]

>>6827850
Not what I'm talking about, you butthurt ideologue.

[Anonymous No.6827877]

>>6826930
Most of those responses you got are garbage, save for one or two. Go read an introductory economics textbook you would see in an economics course offered by the business and economics department, not something offered by the philosophy, history, or engineering department

Once you've gone though some of that stuff, you might have a slight clue on what's going on with the federal reserve right now, or why every country on this planet is off gold money

[Anonymous No.6827880]

>>6827723
the facts are so glowingly obvious it's unbelievable how anyone could support neoliberalism

[Anonymous No.6827888]

>>6827866
anyone who thinks decently paying jobs are plentiful is completely disconnected with all reality

[Anonymous No.6827890]

>>6827880
Why? Profits are higher than they've ever been and more jobs are being created than ever before. That sounds pretty good to me, as a business owner.

[Anonymous No.6827896]

>>6827888
They are plentiful, though, we just don't have enough people meeting the requirements for those jobs, which is why immigrants take them. Doctors and engineers are a good example of this, especially in places like Tasmania.

[Anonymous No.6827897]

>>6827193
>literally ad hominem

Working stiff here.

Go rape yourself with a broken beer bottle.

[Anonymous No.6827900]

>>6827890
well-paying jobs are extremely difficult to find
wealth inequalities within developed countries is increasing
poverty within developed countries is increasing
social stratification in developed countries is increasing
gains in income are going exclusively to the rich
housing is unaffordable
real unemployment is extremely high
the finance industry is openly criminal with impunity

[Anonymous No.6827906]

>>6827794
>>6827859
Job creation hasn't increased thanks to tax cuts, and deregulation of the financial sector lead to a shit ton of crises. "Jobs are being created daily" is an inane sentence that means nothing, you should look at acceleration or deceleration instead, and even then you would need to control a lot of variables.

[Anonymous No.6827912]

>>6827900
Not the anon you were replying to, but poverty in developing countries is NOT increasing, it's been dramatically falling (save for a few countries engaged in civil war) for the last 20 years at a much higher rate than the 30 years before that.

wealth inequality doesnt matter, it's not a zero-sum game.

[Anonymous No.6827919]

>>6827896
>muh skills shortage

complete fantasy

[Anonymous No.6827924]

>>6827900
>well-paying jobs are extremely difficult to find
Not at all, there are not enough doctors, engineers or farmers today. They are crying out for people to take those jobs.

>wealth inequalities within developed countries is increasing
No, that's not true. The middle class has never been more populated than now.

>poverty within developed countries is increasing
Also not true, maybe in America but not in Australia.

>social stratification in developed countries is increasing
Source?

>gains in income are going exclusively to the rich
Also not true.

>housing is unaffordable
That is dependent on the central bank.

>real unemployment is extremely high
Which is fixed with the Centrelink safety net.

>the finance industry is openly criminal with impunity
What laws are they breaking?

[Anonymous No.6827931]

>>6827919
No it isn't. Just because you're not qualified for the jobs available doesn't mean they aren't there.
>>6827906
Yes it has, actually. With increased profit margins for businesses they have been able to expand and create more jobs.

[Anonymous No.6827940]

>>6826930
Never ask lit about economics. There's about one of these threads every week and it's always a shit show. Like >>6827877
said don't read any of these cock sucking books just poke around on youtube for an intro and maybe take a real class like>>6827546
said but for the love of God do not read fucking textbooks or 100 year old books for your purposes. /lit/ has a bias for books, not for learning and understanding.

[Anonymous No.6827957]

>>6827931
>Yes it has, actually.
What a compelling argument. I took the time to make you a graph with data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. % job creation has decreased since reagan, and the trendline is negative.

>With increased profit margins for businesses they have been able to expand and create more jobs.
It's very convenient to rationalize supporting what is most beneficial for us as individuals.

[Anonymous No.6827963]

>>6827957
Forgot pic.

[Anonymous No.6827967]

>>6827957
>since Reagan
I'm not American, you idiot.
>It's very convenient to rationalize supporting what is most beneficial for us as individuals.
What if us individuals own businesses?

[Anonymous No.6827978]

>>6827963
Also, the average % job creation under democrats is three times higher (!) than under republicans.

[Anonymous No.6827983]

>>6827967
>I'm not American, you idiot.
I don't know where you are from, but unemployment is higher pretty much everywhere.

>What if us individuals own businesses?
That was my point.

[Anonymous No.6827990]

>>6827983
>I don't know where you are from, but unemployment is higher pretty much everywhere.
Just because people are unemployed doesn't mean there are no jobs.
>That was my point.
Then it is beneficial and good.

[Anonymous No.6827997]

>>6827978
That means nothing to me, I just know I don't like republicans, I am loyal to Her Majesty.

[Anonymous No.6827999]

>>6827990
You are not a very bright person, friend.

[Anonymous No.6828004]

>>6827999
I'll take that as your forfeiture of this debate.

[Anonymous No.6828012]

>>6827999
Are you just pretending to be retarded?

[Anonymous No.6828018]

>>6828012
Are you?

[Anonymous No.6828021]

>>6827999
Fucking idiot.

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2015/1/16/australian-news/australias-record-jobs-growth-game-changer

[Anonymous No.6828026]

>>6828018
No, I'm not the one babbling on about American statistics.

[Anonymous No.6828033]

[MOOT STATUS: IN TEARS] [MOOT STATUS: IN TEARS]

WE NEED YOUR HELP 4CHAN!
GET ON THIS THREAD: https://master[remove]chan.org/b/thread/91410

Major 4chan boards are congregating in this legendary thread to discuss the future of the internet

[Anonymous No.6828038]

>>6828021
Nobody with half a brain would analize job creation nominally. And the article compared job now with last decade, it's completely irrelevant to the discussion.
Nice try though,

[Anonymous No.6828041]

>>6828026
>deregulation and less taxes favours job creation
>here's a chart proving the opposite
>stop babbling about statistics :^)

[Anonymous No.6828047]

>>6828038
How would you 'analize' (analyse) job growth rather than by how many jobs have been created? Why is it irrelevant when compared to a decade ago?

[Anonymous No.6828053]

>>6828041
It has shown the exact opposite in Australia, with our liberal government, obviously America is just a failing cuck nation.

[Anonymous No.6828062]

>>6828047
>'analize' (analyse)
Gimme a break, it's not my first language.

>How would you 'analize' (analyse) job growth rather than by how many jobs have been created?
Creating, for example, 10000 jobs in an economy with a million jobs and in an economy with ten million jobs are completely different things. You should be looking at percentages. And you should be looking at changes in percentages if you want to see the effects of policies.

>Why is it irrelevant when compared to a decade ago?
Because the discussion was about the effects of neoliberal policies. There hasn't been a big change from the last decade.

[Anonymous No.6828066]

>>6828053

What do you expect when we have a central bank and the liberals are advocating a balanced budget?

[Anonymous No.6828079]

>>6828062
Considering that, on average, 80,000 jobs are created in Australia annually, and 2014/15 saw the creation of 180,000 jobs there was very strong growth. Especially considering that fir the majority of the last decade the Labor party has been in power.
>Because the discussion was about the effects of neoliberal policies. There hasn't been a big change from the last decade.
I think neoliberal, in America, means liberal. So, as I mentioned above, most of the last decade we did not have a liberal government. If English isn't your first language then why are you only using American examples and using American terms?

[Anonymous No.6828082]

>>6828066
Liberal success, which is what we have.

[Anonymous No.6828091]

>>6828079
>Considering that, on average, 80,000 jobs are created in Australia annually, and 2014/15 saw the creation of 180,000 jobs there was very strong growth. Especially considering that fir the majority of the last decade the Labor party has been in power.
I have absolutely no interest in discussing australian internal politics since, as i've already said, i don't think there's been any change in economic policy.

>I think neoliberal, in America, means liberal.
What??

>If English isn't your first language then why are you only using American examples and using American terms?
This is getting funny. What are you implying? That i'm ashamed to admit i'm american?

[Anonymous No.6828106]

>>6828091
>I have absolutely no interest in discussing australian internal politics since, as i've already said, i don't think there's been any change in economic policy.
There most certainly has been a change in policy. We are much more liberal than we were from 2006- 2013, when Labor was in power.
>What??
What Americans call neo-liberalism, I think, is just liberalism.
>This is getting funny. What are you implying? That i'm ashamed to admit i'm american?
No, that you're not actually American. An American should have grasped the English language a long time ago.

[Anonymous No.6828125]

>>6827940
wait, what's wrong with textbooks?

[Anonymous No.6828127]

>>6828106
M8, you chipped in a discussion that was about a giant shift in economic policies through the world after the 70s with your petty internal politics. I don't care and they are the same to me. If you are eager to discuss australian politics look for somebody else. But congrats on figuring out i'm not american after i said english is not my first language. Farewell.

[Anonymous No.6828128]

>>6828127
Funny that you say that after posting only about America and not, say, monetarist Estonia.

[Anonymous No.6828170]

>>6826902
He's a bit outdated, not much point to read his work other than out of interest and desire to understand history a bit better

>>6827052
>>6827531
>Reading pseudo economics because it makes arts majors feel speshul inside

[Anonymous No.6828918]

>>6826893
Keep in mind this book influenced Thatcher.
Its bad economics.

[Anonymous No.6829020]

>>6826930

Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations
F. Hayek - Road to serfdom
L.V. Mises - Human Action

trust me, faggot

[Anonymous No.6829069]

>>6826893

Oh, how this has spiralled out of control. OP, when you're saying "economics", you're evidently not clear enough. Is your idea of "economics" more cognate with "business" or with "political economy"?
In case of "business", take online lectures and read business textbooks as the business owners in the thread have suggested. However, be aware that you'll end up knowing only how to make money, not how economies actually work.
If, on the other hand, you meant "political economy", read the doorstoppers the top quarter of replies (up to the time this is posted) suggests. Additionally, studying economics in isolation is insufficient - you will need to delve into other social sciences such as (materialist) sociology and politology in order to get a vaguely accurate idea of how things work.

[Anonymous No.6829142]

>>6829069

This tbh. An economy is the collection of actions of all people and I cannot predict my own actions, let alone those of a whole country. Economics is a laughable "science" that draws its theories from the political divides of the day. That's why studying it is pointless. Ultimately an economy is more related to the culture and habits of the people that live within the economic system than any invisible (classic) or visible hand (Keynes). Economics nowadays has more to do with politics than anything science related as the current discussions shows.

[Anonymous No.6829185]

>>6827221
>no, keynesianism is shitting all over the world economy. a system that leads literally 80% of developed countries into debt is shitting itself
nah, that happens due to the internal contradictions of capitalism. Keynes at least accepted that those contradictions exist.

[Anonymous No.6829193]

>>6827221
>>6829185
and keynesianism is dead, neoliberalism is the ruling ideology now.

[Anonymous No.6829208]

>>6827324
uh well Lenin's and Bordiga's contributions to marxist econ aren't really interesting. After Marx/Engels you should move to II Rubin and then to the various modern value-formers and value critics.

>>6827346
You mean MEGA is better?

[Anonymous No.6829218]

>>6829208
What I'm saying is that actually recommending to read a set of over 50 books that costs an exorbitant amount of money to a complete beginner on a thread in which the subject is only remotely related is fucking retarded.

[Anonymous No.6829222]

>>6829218
kek yeah you right.

[Anonymous No.6831051]

>>6829142
I've always thought this, but whenever I explain it to friends that study economics, they always disregard it as nonsense :(

[Anonymous No.6833025]

>ctrl-f

>Das Kapital

>only 6 results found

>Muh smith

Jesus, since when is /lit/ so fucking uneducated in economics? Marx was the one who created the term capital itself. So the guy needs a historical perspective of capitalism, not some wacky 18th century bullshit wrote by a whigger.

[Anonymous No.6833121]

>>6826893
These thread really annoy me. I have always found that there is not need for a definites starting point. My best advice is to start anywhere, so long as you:

A) recognize where there are holes in your knowledge and fill those gaps.

B) connect the various concepts of a theory into a unified and consistent understanding.

C) Accurately determine which details are necessary and which are irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.6834080]

>>6826902

Saying Adam Smith is the "Freud" of economics is patently false; Freud was a fucking nutter. Freud was the Freud of psychology and it remains that way.

As far as Adam smith goes -- there's really no purpose in reading him unless you're into the historical and philosophical side of economics, and even then there's better options.

Start with some Thomas Sowell, OP. Very terse and easy to understand. He's a red-blooded capitalist, too.

[Anonymous No.6834460]

>Ctrl F
>Worldly Philosophers
>0 hits

You don't surprise me, /lit/, but you do disappoint me.

[Anonymous No.6834465]

>>6833025
go back to leftypol retardchan

[Anonymous No.6834481]

>>6833025

Marx was heavily influenced by Ricardo and Smith.

I'm not an expert on economics but I think Marx's analysis of capital is still spot on, even though from a philosophical point of view surpluss labour has been completely ignored or refuted at this point.

[Anonymous No.6834483]

>>6834080

Why would someone need to read GOP propaganda?

[Anonymous No.6834493]

>>6834483

>as opposed to the krugman, Marxist, "muh wage gap" recommendations littered throughout the thread.

/lit/ may have decent discussions about philosophy, but it's pure conjecture like "start with smith" that leads me to believe no one here actually studied it.

[Anonymous No.6834511]

>>6827765

1945-to late 70's was the most propserous time for Europe as well, with the creation of the largest and most effective welfare state's ever to exist.

>>6827823

>Absolute world poverty has been halved in the last 20 years.

pattently false, the way neo-liberal institutions measure poverty and inequality is ideologically biased. Put down your Economist.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.131.1901&rep=rep1&type=pdf

http://www.waterfund.go.ke/safisan/Downloads/Are%20We%20Reducing%20Global%20Poverty.pdf

[Anonymous No.6834529]

>>6834493

No really why would I need to read propaganda to understand a wide scientiffic feild as economics?

The highly agressive way in which neo-liberals spread their ideas, through think tanks, hedge funds and otehr political platforms leads me to believe that they are not worth reading.

In terms of economic theory Krugman has a Nobel prize yet he is not a Marxist but a Keynesian, so you can spare your /pol/-tier "lefty conspiracy" bullshit.

[Anonymous No.6834653]

>>6834529

>propaganda

If you read the book you'd understand it is nothing more than an introduction to the most rudimentary economics concepts with light, dabbling inquisitions into Austrian thought.

As opposed to what? The highly credible mainstream networks and academic institutions in which Keynesian thought faces no critique and is highly dogmatized?

Also, the fact that you choose to shun any literature that may challenge your views is grossly intellectually dishonest.

>In terms of economic theory Krugman has a Nobel prize yet he is not a Marxist but a Keynesian, so you can spare your /pol/-tier "lefty conspiracy" bullshit.

Krugman is one, not a Nobel laureate (he won some Swedish prize having to do with geographic distributions of wealth), and two, a proponent of Keynesian fallacies dealing with wealth distribution and other crazy ideas like the "gender wage gap". Krugman is the "DeGrasse Tyson" of the field and nothing more.

You're being too uncritical as well as regurgitating mainstream arguments solely because they come from "perceivedly respected" and prevailing liberal schools of thought as well as respected figures like Krugman while ignoring the rest of the field because they're "not worth reading".

[Anonymous No.6836410]

>recommending Kapital
>OP wants an easy intro

Das Kapital is a book in three volumes of around 800 pages each for the English paperback. Hardly a beginners guide.

If all you want is a kernel of knowledge, go to your local library or university bookshop and grab Fulcher's Capitalism: A Very Short Introduction and Holme's Communism: A Very Short Introduction for the critique.

[Anonymous No.6836413]

>>6834493
>>6834511
>>6834529
>>6834653
>>6836410
Interesting as fuck

[Anonymous No.6836531]

>>6834653
How does Keynesianism dominate academia? Neoclassical synthesis is by far the most prevalent economic school right now.

[Anonymous No.6836717]

>>6826893
According to MIT (their first introductionary courses)
Microeconoimics:
Perloff, Jeffrey M. Microeconomics (7th ed.) Pearson Education ISBN: 9780133456912

Macroeconomics:
Blanchard, Olivier; Johnson, David R. Macroeconomics (6th ed.) Prentice Hall PTR ISBN: 9780133061635

[Anonymous No.6836736]

>>6836717
Samefag, you may thank me by posing a decent pepe or a picture gloryfing Hitler

[Anonymous No.6836922]

>>6836531
not sure if bait or you are a fucking stupid

[Anonymous No.6837871]

>>6836736

[Anonymous No.6837903]

>>6836922
he's objectively right