/lit/ - Literature

>>17159747

>>17159747
>>17160000
Disregard this Uncle Tom.

>>17159747
Basic Economics
Facts and Fallacies
Vision of the Anointed (magnum opus)
A Conflict of Visions
Black Rednecks and White Liberals

>>17160006
>>17160006
>d-d-disregard this uncle tom...

>>17160121
Okay. Go ahead. Read up on liberal economics. Fall in line. Don’t forget to get a damn job and get off the NEETbucks

>>17160006
>We need more black voices!
>no! no! not those kinds of black voices!

>>17159747
I tried.

>>17159747
I tried.

>>17160343

>>17160362

>>17160320
Unironically. Uncle Toms speak for the ruling class, not Blacks.

You can read his stuff in whatever order, even his Econ stuff doesn't necessarily follow an order since it's mostly basic introductions with an emphasis on policy rather than the math of typical economics textbooks which has aptly been described by that one physicist in that one conference as "This can't be right! It's too perfect"
On classical economics and Say's Law would be best understood if one has already some classical political economy but it's not really needed per se

>>17160207
On this day you said something wise.

>>17160400
blacks*

whoops

>>17160423
>On the brink of a Great Depression

>>17160207
I know I’m not gonna change your mind, but here’s a history lesson for everyone else.

>modern economics started with Adam Smith
>referred to as classical economics
>classical was built upon by David Ricardo and other economists
>it peaked with Marx, starting Marxist economics which effectively went nowhere
>Alfred Marshall started neoclassical economics in the late 19th century
>remained dominant for many decades
>Keynes creates macroeconomics in WWII
>Keynesian economics becomes a thing, but effectively goes nowhere after the 70s
>Keynes’s macro gets combined with neoclassical, becoming the neoclassical synthesis
>Milton Friedman creates new classical which builds macro entirely on neoclassical grounds
>New-Keynesian is also created by adapting Keynes’s ideas to microeconomics
>Friedman’s new classical and new-Keynesian combine to form the new neoclassical synthesis, which is currently the mainstream form of economics

So it went from classical, to Marxist, to neoclassical, to Keynesian, to neoclassical synthesis, to new classical, to new-Keynesian, to new classical synthesis. There’s no such thing as “liberal” economics, unless you just mean neoliberalism which is a political ideology, not economics.

>>17160621
True, except Marx and followers were never part of the mainstream and their influence on economics is close to zero.

>>17160400
Every policy Sowell has ever fought for is anathema to the ruling class. You'd know that if you'd take a break from cum-guzzling the corporate press.

>>17160648
Sort of. While modern economics starts with Smith, “modern” modern economics really starts with Marshall’s neoclassical in the 1890s, because before that economics was essentially just political philosophy. That is, economics became its own scientific field of study - with graphs, math, etc - with neoclassical. Marx definitely had influence on political philosophy, for what it’s worth, but his influence on any kind of modern economics since Marshall is, like you said, zero.

>>17160621
The liberals have always sided with it. Sowell is a liberal.
>went nowhere
Ha!

>>17159747
>>17159747
You know that quote that says it's better to know no economics than it is to know a little bit of economics? That quote applies to every macroecon 101 student and anyone that reads Thomas Sowell.

Not saying you shouldn't read him, just try to be a little more humble than the average consumer of his content (which shouldn't be too hard).

>>17159747
Start with Conflict of Visions for sure, it's his most fundamental worldview book.

>>17159747
Uncle Tom's Cabin

>>17160860
Cool it with the slurs. Racism is a bannable offense outside of /b/

>>17160673
Yeah, the federal judge he actually tried to support into office would have been utter chaos for the elites.

>>17160621
The marginal revolution happened before Marshall, at the same time as marxism. That has been the dominant theory since then uninterrupted. All these other big, non-Marxist schools (Keynesianism, Neoclassical, Austrian, Modern Monetary) all work under marginalist assumptions.

Friedman's monetarism is already baked into neoclassical synthesis, together with Keynes with whom he overlaps more than most people realize - he is the helicopter money guy, after all.

>>17160000
Cool.

Thanks.

>>17161409
True, but the ideas of the marginal revolution only became mainstream with the likes of Marshall.

>>17160621
You people really need to become more creative with the names
Is coming up with beautiful albeit fictional equations drying up all the creative energy of economists?