/biz/ - Business & Finance

go to school

>>4392132
Milton Friedman on monetary policy

>>4392136
Thanks for wasting my time.

>>4392166
Thanks for not wasting my time.

>>4392132
There's a shitton you need to learn, it will take you years. You may as well just go to Uni

Look up an undergrad program and the textbooks they prescribe

Capital in the Twenty-First Century by Thomas Piketty

Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith

Anything by Keynes

should be enough to get you started

>>4392132
Watch Mike Maloney's hidden secrets of money series on youtube.

Basic Economics by Sowell for a good overview that's still understandable for a layman.
The Intelligent Investor by Graham for the basics of the stock market. Be sure to get the updated fourth edition.

>>4392132
Road to Serfdom by Hayek
There is a 20 page condensed version, where the fundamental principle of economics is outlined.

>>4392257
>Piketty
>Keynes
OP asked a legit question, and you are mocking him for it..

>> 4392359

Das Kapital is pretty much a perfect explanation of why most people have to be wagecucks, stop being such a salty brainlet

>>4392359
what kind of bullshit is this.

They are both world renownd economists.
Just because you don't agree with their assessments, doesn't make them shitty economists.

Pikkety gathered more data for his economic models than any other econ theory out there.

>>4392184
I'm in high school, and I take economics classes. I'm just wondering if there's any way for me to get even more information about the subject than the one I'm taught at school.

I am actually considering taking economics or business at college, but I don't want to get ahead of myself. I still need to think it through, even if I don't have much time left.

Human Action by Ludwig von Mises is the single greatest economic book I've read

>>4392845
In all honesty, i would recommend watching crash course economics, on youtube.
It's not bad, if you are in highschool. You get to learn some basic principles, and are introduced to different school of thoughts.

I think it was Milton Friedman, that said that what you learn in the first year in a university studying economics, is the fundamental - the rest is speculations.

'Economics' by Krugman and Wells is also a very good starter IMO because it's easy to read and not too technical

>>4392132
economics is mostly just philosphy, but there is a lot of material both ideologically and historically.
keep in mind that the subject you are studying - the theory of value - is entirely psychological in nature

>>4393067
>Krugman

Kys

>>4393032
I've watched crash course history and philosophy. They were fucking garbage, so I doubt economics would to the trick. I think watching Spice and Wolf would probably get me a better understanding of economics than John fucking Green.

>>4393127
It's not the Green brothers that are the host of the economic show.
There is a fairly large difference between the quality of their content, and the humor is often directly sad to watch..

If you have an inaccurate/wrong methodology for determining truth, anything that you say that is correct is the result of pure happenstance and lends no support to your general theories. e.g. the witchdoctor who stares at chicken bones and predicts rain should not be considered an accurate weatherman if it indeed does happen to rain the next day. Even if he does it a few days in a row does not validate the methodology, nor does an insistence that "well we need to 'fine tune' it in a few places" upon being shown wrong carry any weight for the chicken bone theory of weather prediction.

The point I'm making is that methodology is everything, and the only people who actually "get" economics and have a systematic method of determining how economies actually function are Austrian economists.

Stay away from Keynes, Paul Samuelson, Krugman, and even Chicago school people like Friedman.

The single greatest beginner's intro to economics is Frederic Bastiat's "That Which Is Seen, And That Which Is Not Seen".
http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html

After that I would look at the lectures of Murray Rothbard on youtube or Mises.org and choose topics that interest you. Once you get a solid footing in the basics the single greatest work on economics is "Man, Economy, and State" by Murray ROthbard which systematically goes through the entirety of economic theory starting with axiomatic truths.

>>4393186
Oh whew that's a relief. I guess I'll check it out then. Thanks man.

>>4392845
Have you taken much mathematics? You'll have no trouble with econ if you have a good grasp of multivariate calc and diffy qs, and stats ofc.

>>4393108
Philosophy happens to be an area of expertise of mine, although I'm no professional yet. I guess that's why I have an easier time understanding it than other subjects with the word "science" or "sciences" attributed to them.

>>4393201
Austrians are the only ones worth their salt, and this post is patrician.

Why would anyone capitulate to something just because it's easier to digest? If you truly want to understand economics, this post is a real way of fostering actual thought. You need to compare the methods the writers are taking and ask yourself if they are fundamentally legitimate.

For an opposing view read "Property is Theft" by Proudhon

>>4393201
To add, Rothbard is not the only Austrian economist I like but the guy had an IQ probably around 150 and was a true master of multiple fields. What's incredibly valuable about him for learning about economics is that he was a historian as well as an economist so he could take you through real world examples of economic history and give you insight of how things unfolded like they did while being funny and engaging with his sharp, witty writing style, instead of the dry, tearfully boring, enormous tomes most econ writers churn out.

For a more /biz/-tier Austrian schooler, Peter Schiff is a good resource for practicable applications of Austrian economics for investors. He's pretty engaging overall and as a millionaire who actually uses Austrian business cycle theory and gives lectures on it, it's a unique insight.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgMclXX5msc

>>4392166

also mises book on money

>>4392257

keynes is unreadable. if you want a coherent keynesaboo read krugman

>>4393110

if you want to understand the inflationist mindset and how things currently work you must read krugman.

Although it is satire the theory of the leisure class is kino

>>4392136
t. someone who clearly never went to school

I majored in economics was a huge fucking waste of time. you can read everything relevant in a few months. Hume an smith were both interesting ludwig is the man and there are a million others to check out.

Nassim Taleb --- The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable.

>>4392132
priniciples of economics
mankiw and taylor
must read

>Economics, meant to have an air of science
>ITT So much saltiness over ideological pissing contests

This really redistributes my capital. This really raises my inflation rate. This really activates my almonds.

>>4393301
>government "solved" the healthcare crisis
according to that article it was a play of collective bargaining that the government took a side in.
from an economic standpoint government is also another form of collectivr bargaining

>>4393243
what is the most business related subject I can do in university if I suck at math?

>>4394531
Accounting, tbqh

>>4394668
>Accounting
might as well just buy some knee-pads at that point. Isn't that a really depressing job? Or can you apply accounting skills to other things?

>>4392166
Please don't spread inflationists as sound economists, thank you.

>Since the U.S. went completely off gold in August 1971 and established the Friedmanite fluctuating fiat system in March 1973, the United States and the world have suffered the most intense and most sustained bout of peacetime inflation in the history of the world. It should be clear by now that this is scarcely a coincidence. Before the dollar was cut loose from gold, keynesians and Friedmanites, each in their own way devoted to fiat paper money, confidently predicted that when fiat money was established, the market price of gold would fall promptly to its non-monetary level, then estimated at about $8 an ounce. In their scorn of gold, both groups maintained that it was the mighty dollar that was propping up the price of gold, and not vice versa. Since 1971, the market price of gold has never been below the old fixed price of $35 an ounce, and has almost always been enormously higher. When, during the 1950s and 1960s, economists such as Jacques Rueff were calling for a gold standard at a price of $70 an ounce, the price was considered absurdly high. It is now even more absurdly low. The far higher gold price is an indication of the calamitous deterioration of the dollar since "modern" economists had their way and all gold backing was removed.

>>4394716
>It is now all too clear that the world has become fed up with the unprecedented inflation, in the U.S. and throughout the world, that has been sparked by the fluctuating fiat currency era inaugurated in 1973. We are also weary of the extreme volatility and unpredictability of currency exchange rates. This volatility is the consequence of the national fiat money system, which fragmented the world's money and added artificial political instability to the natural uncertainty in the free market price system. The Friedmanite dream of fluctuating fiat money lies in ashes, and there is an understandable yearning to return to an international money with fixed exchange rates.

https://mises.org/library/what-has-government-done-our-money

>>4392132
Read The Economist for news. Great publication that understands and explains the fundamentals of free market economics.

Any good podcasts?

>>4392132
But OP, you have to start with Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson. It is a classic, a highly praised work, an amazing introduction to the economic thinking. There is nothing better to start with, and it is written in such an eloquent prose that it is truly a joy to read. (Hazlitt was a distinguished journalist, after all.)

https://mises.org/library/economics-one-lesson

>>4394701
Don't do accounting. Advanced programming algorithms and big data are eliminating the vast majority of accounting jobs.

Supply chain management is hot as fuck right now. I see internships posted on my university site for Tesla, Intel, Amazon, Ford, Lockheed, etc. for supply chain.

Or maybe you can just buckle down and learn the math. Anyone with an IQ >= 100 can handle undergraduate math in my opinion. People just don't put in enough effort. Shit is baby math.

>>4393243
is this a joke? theres no way you'll meet multivariate calc or de in undergrad econ lmao. at most its some basic calculus, which doesnt really go beyond taking derivatives at 0

>>4392132
Read in this order OP.

>Adam Smith: Wealth of Nations
>David Ricardo: Principles of Political Economy and Taxation
>Marx: Manifesto of the Communist Party
>Marx: Das Kapital
>Alfred Marshall: Principles of Economics
Then read as much Hayek, Friedman, and Keynes as possible.

>>4395121
Last but not least:

>Mein Kampf
>from the Führer

>>4395143
That too.

>>4393201
The problem is that power structures are often better served by a lie than the autistic "truth".
Don't expect any governement to ever implement a fully coherent economic system.
See also orgy of the will 385.

>>4395019
I had to take Linear Algebra, Diff Eq, and Calc 3 to get into some 400 level econ classes. Only had to take Calculus 2 to graduate technically.

>>4394752
is this a fucking joke, m8?

What is /biz/ opinion on Thomas Sowell?

>>4395211
econometrics? even then im doubtful

>>4394777
http://www.econtalk.org/archives.html#date

It's very good. The host interviews a guest on a particular topic. Vast majority of it deals with economics.

Freakonomics and NPR's Planet Money are also good.

>>4395367
I should add that a lot of the materials pertaining on econtalk goes over my head as economics is not my background. The interviewer questions the guest about a recent book or article he/she published and therefore some of the concepts will not be readily understood.

Freakonomics is far more structured and easier to understand but the back and forth discussion is often absent.

>>4395273
>What is /biz/ opinion on Thomas Sowell?
Friedmanite so he's not strong on a lot of crucial economi underpinnings, although his social commentaries are wonderful.

>>4395273
He's very thorough in his economic research and I've been reading his column for a few years now. The social commentary is interesting too but nothing I care about too much. But any discussion with him participating is usually worth following.

>>4392257
lol bro you must be a newfag, Keynesian policy had cucked the Us into submission. Austrian school is the new cool.

>>4395353
2 Econometrics classes, 1 on Portfolio Theory, 1 on Derivative Pricing Models, and 1 on Computational Methods and Applications(General Equilibrium Modeling)

>>4392132
Murray N. Rothbard - Man, economy and state

OP if you're just starting check out Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell. I read it last year and it's a pretty fascinating book.

>>4392176
kek

>>4393243
I'm pretty good at maths, yes. Although my Econ classes focus more on the "humanitarian" side than the mathematical side.

>>4392132
road to serfdom - f.a.hayek

>>4392132
The creature of jekyll island

Filter out the conspiracy crazy parts. It's a good read and acutally pretty insightfull

>>4393110

You can hate Krugman all you want but his models are the soundest out there, you just have to change the premises you disagree with and the models still work like charm, just look at the AADD model it still works even if you support the opposite ideas.