[ 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.

/biz/ - Business & Finance

View post   
File: 22 KB, 299x372, tropico.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
236233 No.236233 [Reply] [Original]

can someone recommend me
some good books about state interventionism in market economy?

just pleas no Rone Poul level libertarian shit and no lenin ect. on the other hand

keynesianism neoliberalism im fine with reading both and anything in between

>> No.236265

Defending the Undefendable, Walter Block.

>> No.236280

>>236265

>Defending the Undefendable is a book by Walter Block originally published in 1976.[1] Marcus Epstein describes the book as defending "pimps, drug dealers, blackmailers, corrupt policemen, and loan sharks as 'economic heroes'."[2] It has been translated into ten foreign languages.[3]

>Cable news pundit John Stossel said of it, "Defending the Undefendable... opened my eyes to the beauties of libertarianism. It explains that so much of what is assumed to be evil – is not."[4] In 2011, writing that economics "illuminates what common sense overlooks", Stossel called the book "eye-opening" and detailed its contents


sounds fun
but something less edgy may be?

>> No.236288

>>236233
So basically you're an uneducated twat who has already made prior assumptions about the very thing they want to learn about. Cool!

You're not going to have any useful suggestions now, as, you have rejected the very people who know what's up, and insist on only being recommend the people who'll whisper sweet nothings into your ear and make you feel better about being a troglodyte.

So what's the fucking point?

>> No.236318

>>236288
nice rant mate
> who know what's up
not really
i could make this tread in to bash the libertarians thread but i dont want to
i want sane economic authors and books
and what you provided (if wikipedia description is correct) is one big shit with i mentioned in op that i do not want

>> No.236323

>>236318
>i could make this tread in to bash the libertarians thread but i dont want to
Oh no, he's threatening to display his ignorance! How terrible!

>> No.236331

>>236323
look if you aren’t about to recommend some books then pleas take your butt hurt somewhere else
you may be bumping my thread but at the same time you scare of people who actually could recommend something

>> No.236336

>>236323
>>236288

>M-muh precious infallible dogma
Jesus christ, you people are like religious nuts. Fuck off already.

>> No.236337

>>236331
I recomend Raun Paul

>> No.236350

>>236331
>Hey guys, please recommend me books on x topic as I want to learn about it, but don't recommend the dudes who know the most about x topic because I more want to feel better about my idiocy than critically challenge my positions, thanks!

You want Robert Nozick, Murray Rothbard, Frederic Bastiat, Henry Hazlitt, Ludwig von Mises, Frederich Hayek, Milton Friedman, Walter Block, David Friedman, and so on, but these are individuals you've already categorically rejected.

>>236336
God damn you're dumb.

>> No.236363

>>236350
>God damn you're dumb.
Yeah, I've realised anyone who doesn't mindlessly buy in into your communism-tier dogma is apparently stupid.

>> No.236378

>>236233
So you basically want books that say state intervention is good?

>> No.236392

>>236378
You can have books that reasonably discusses pros and cons of state intervention. You don't have to go full ideological retard to the left or right.

>> No.236410

>>236378
yes because it is
how much of it is healthy and when it become poison is usually point of disagreement

there is no point in reading book that could be summarised in one sentence "state should do nothing"

>> No.236429

>>236392
I don't know of any modern economics books that discuss specifically state intervention, but Keynesian theory is based on the existence of market failure and thus general books on Keynesian theory will have a fair amount about state intervention. Neoliberal economics generally builds upon this. Just pick up any academic economics textbook.

But the problem is, if you've drawn your own conclusions that there is no theoretical merit in what is proposed by any of the Austrian economic or Marxist economic schools, then you've basically already made your mind up about the whole affair. You're no longer thinking from an academic and logical standpoint, you've just systematically rejected the theories based on your own feelings. I can almost without a doubt say you've never even picked up a book on Austrian or Marxist economics and that your only exposure to either political/economic standpoint is through 4chan, which will always leave a black taste in your mouth.

>> No.236433

>>236410
Why do you even want to read books if you don't want your ideological viewpoint to be challenged? Just go.

>> No.236450

>>236429
there reason why i dont want marxist economic is because i need books about interventions in market economies
marxist economy is not market economy

i dont want austrian/libertarian approach because for most part what they say close in to "state should do nothing market will fix it"

>> No.236459

>>236429
I am not OP, so his views and mine might well differ. My own conclusions have been made based on the fairly extensive readings I've done so far.

I am generally uninterested in ideological theory, and prefer to read about the real world and real outcomes. So no, I have not read any Marxist or Austrian books, because I more or less know what their theoretical arguments are, at least in short. There is nothing really to be gained by reading it in-depth, at least not for me, since it doesn't really give me anything. For me, theory is an appendage to reality, not the other way around.

Of course, that means I'm not as much of an academic as you.

>> No.236490

>>236459
I'm not an academic. I'm just interested in the theory. That said, if you're looking for a practical application of economics, then there's little point in picking up any economics textbook. They are all highly theoretical.

The best you'll get is econometric modelling, and with modelling it is very easy for economists to construct a model which fits their own conclusions due to the chaotic nature of an economy. Modern economists are basically modelers and mathematicians - and I can't fault them on that. Anyway, if you start looking up books which describe the correlation of intervention to the success/failure rate of an economy, you will no doubt find opinions and results which lie all over the spectrum - much for the same reason I described above. It's very easy to build a model that fits your own conformation bias..

Economics, unfortunately, isn't like the natural sciences. You can never isolate a cause an effect in something so huge. This is why Austrian economists focus on axiomatic theory rather than trying to fit theory to data.

>> No.236515

>>236433
You read books for knowledge you retard.
That doesn't mean everyone should go read scientologist literature and read about homeopathy because they want their beliefs to be "challenged"

>> No.236522

>>236490
Couldn't this be prevented by applying Karl Popper's falsification principle?

>> No.236554

>>236515
If you were concerned about religion and the philosophy of religion, then it would be acceptable to look into Scientology because that is considered a religion that people follow, and understanding why people follow it is an important step to building knowledgeable base about it. Books stand up on their own merits. If you read something by a loon and it clearly reads like a loon wrote it, then take nothing away from it and be better off for it.

You're talking about economics and the theory of economics, but you're also pretending to understand theory that you clearly do not, and have rejected these theories based on a very limited exposure and your own feelings about the matter.

>> No.236557
File: 603 KB, 712x840, mises.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
236557

>>236490
its magic baby

>> No.236556

>>236515
You should be made aware that Statism is the economic equivalent of Creationism.

>> No.236561

this >>236459
he got what i was trying say

>> No.236574

>>236554
If you want to learn about reality, you would not read about scientology.

Similarly, if you want to learn about economics in reality, you would not read libertarian bullshit. If in the future there is an affluent country based on libertarian policy, that would change. At the moment, you just want to spread your immature beliefs and are asspained that someone (surprise) doesn't want to listen to you.

>> No.236584

>>236490
I prefer economic history to econometrics, but that's just me.

>> No.236603

>>236323
>>236288
Holy shit. Are you autistic?