Economics

[Anonymous No.15994897]

can someone recommend some essential books on economics? does anyone have a chart?

[Anonymous No.15994926]

>>15994897

Part 2 of Schumpeter's unfinished 'History of Economic Analysis' goes from the Greeks up to 1790. I think you want something like this-a magisterial historical overview.

[Anonymous No.15994929]

I feel like a good starting point would be The Wealth of Nations and The Capital.

[Anonymous No.15994942]

madam smith

[Anonymous No.15994949]

>In the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, clerics gave lectures at the University of Salamanca on such topics as the varying purchasing power of money, the morality of money, and how price is determined. While she was teaching at the London School of Economics, Marjorie Grice-Hutchinson was urged to investigate early records of these lectures. Her study of the manuscript notes of these then-obscure lectures led to her interest in the development of economic ideas in early Spain and their subsequent influence on the rest of Western Europe. The ideas of the Spanish scholastics influenced the work of Pufendorf, Locke, and Hutcheson, and the economic thinking of Condillac, Turgot, and Say.

How does this make you feel?

[Anonymous No.15994952]

>>15994929
This is the worst starting point.

Read this:
>calculus textbook
>micro-economics textbook
>macro-economics textbook
>statistics and probability textbook
>econometrics textbook
And go on /sci/ not /lit/ for specific recommendations

[Anonymous No.15994998]

>>15994949
this looks cool, thanks

[Anonymous No.15995021]

>>15994952
this. facts don't care about your feelings. /lit/cels who read marx and deleuze, and can't even do simple calculus can't into economics, or any other serious subjects.

[Anonymous No.15995026]

>>15994952
>>15995021
He asked for essential books on economics.

[Anonymous No.15995121]

>>15995026
OK

introductory:
Principles of Economics by Mankiw

required:
>calculus textbook
Calculus Vol I & II by Apostol or Calculus by Spivak
>micro-economics textbook
Microeconomic Analysis by Varian
Intermediate Microeconomics with Calculus: A Modern Approach by Varian
>macro-economics textbook
Macroeconomics by Mankiw
International Economics: Theory and Policy by Krugman, Obstfeld, and Melitz
>statistics and probability textbook
Probability and Statistics by DeGroot and Schervish
Mathematical Statistics with Applications by Wackerly, Mendenhall, and Scheaffer
Statistical Inference by Casella and Berger
>econometrics textbook
Introductory Econometrics by Stock and Watson

supplementary:
Game Theory by Maschler, Solan, and Zamir

for fun:
Thinking, Fast and Slow by Kahneman
anything by Taleb

[Anonymous No.15995194]

>>15995021
>facts don't care about your feelings
>suggests books based on liberal economics that say value is subjective and purely based on feelings rather than objective like in marxism

[Anonymous No.15995369]

>>15995194
Boring dude, go study some of the calculus and the statistics & probability in the post above you and then get back to us

[Anonymous No.15995392]

Mankiw's textbook.

[Anonymous No.15995403]

>>15994952
>Econometrics textbook
He wants to understand economics though

[Anonymous No.15995428]

>>15994897
Start with Brumaire, then read Critique of the Gotha Program, then read 1844 Manuscripts, then read Grundrisse, then finish off with the 3 volumes of Capital

[Anonymous No.15995438]

>>15995021
economics is made up masturbational fantastical formulas that don't mean anything to justify why everyone gets fucked over it is not a serious subject

[Anonymous No.15995450]

>>15995438
this is the part that applies to you
>can't even do simple calculus

[Anonymous No.15995498]

>>15995369
I mean, Marx independently derived the operational definition of the derivative, to say he didn't "understand calculus" is bollocks, he understood it well enough to derive that. If anything, mathematics just bolsters Marxism, since the only answer Mathematicians can give you as to why Mathematics is the way it is is metaphysical platonic nonsense, rather than a dialectical system of human knowledge that grows and evolves.

[Anonymous No.15996123]

>>15995450
Microeconomics works that's falsifiable and testable but macro and metrics are nonsense gibberish
The math they claim to use is often unapplied or plainly doesn't work even if the math makes sense because it ignores a quintillion different factors

[Anonymous No.15996160]

>>15996123
First chapter of Stock & Watson Econometrics is linear regression, it's if anything more falsifiable than micro. But I agree that macro is gibberish and often useless

[Anonymous No.15996174]

>>15994897
Karl Marx - Das Kapital
Karl Polanyi - The Great Transformation
Joseph A. Schumpeter - Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy
Thorstein Veblen - The Theory of the Leisure Class
Thomas Piketty - Capital in the Twenty-First Century
William Mitchell, L. Randall Wray - Macroeconomics
Steve Keen - Debunking Economics
David Graeber - Debt: The First 5,000 Years
Ernest Mandel - Late Capitalism
Ha-Joon Chang - Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism
Yanis Varoufakis - The Global Minotaur
Paul Cockshott - Towards a New Socialism
Andrew Kliman - The Failure of Capitalist Production

[Anonymous No.15996216]

>>15996174
Global minotaur by the "bankrupt and dump" man is pretty based but the rest is gibberish

[Anonymous No.15996240]

>>15994952
>And go on /sci/ not /lit/ for specific recommendations
Lmao. Economics as taught in American universities is a pseudo-science. It's just a more autistic version of astrology.

[Anonymous No.15996284]

>>15995121
>krugman
uh oh pseud detected

[Anonymous No.15996317]

>>15996240
this is the part that applies to you
>can't even do simple calculus

>>15996284
yes, macro is shit. notice how it's only one book out of a dozen, retard?

[Anonymous No.15996345]

>>15996240
econ is pseudo-science in general desu

[Anonymous No.15996361]

>>15996317
>this is the part that applies to you
>can't even do simple calculus
I'm a mathematician, idiot. Economists have no idea what they're doing.

[Anonymous No.15996385]

Sowell, Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, Böhm-Bawerk, Schmitt etc

[Anonymous No.15996401]

>>15996345
The problem started late in the 19th century when they tried to gather all the autistic bits from Political Economy into a separate discipline. Now students do some simplistic homework assignment from Mankiw or whatever and think they know jack shit about how the world works. Economics cannot be divorced from Political Economy.

[Anonymous No.15996433]

>>15996401
the entirety of the field is pseudo-science. Every econ major (this is where you probably fit in) needs to wear a dunce camp and have shit thrown at them while they stare at a corner

[Anonymous No.15996466]

>>15996433
>Every econ major (this is where you probably fit in)
Fuck no. Economics is pure pseudoscience, as I said. My graduate degree is in mathematics.

[Anonymous No.15996579]

>>15995021
It’s funny because /lit/cels who haven’t studied multivariate analysis, abstract algebra, network topology, distributed systems theory etc. have absolutely no intuition around differentials, multiplicities, rhizomatic architectures, and all the other concepts deleuze develops

[Anonymous No.15996938]

>>15996579
this. mathematics should be a very /lit/ subject if properly taught. it's a shame that so many on this board are turned away from the beauty inherent in mathematical structures because of
>muh soulless STEMboy

[Anonymous No.15996952]

>>15996938
STEMbot*

[Anonymous No.15996972]

>>15995369
>Virgin liberal economist calculus
>Chad Marxist economist linear algebra and control systems

kek it's hilarious how these economist fags try to frame their CALCULUSERINO shit like if it was hard. Meanwhile us STEM chads laugh at you because you barely know how to differentiate. Get fucked. Calculus is baby tier math.

[Anonymous No.15996975]

>>15994897

[Anonymous No.15997128]

>>15995121
>I, too, have read the /sci/ wiki
I bet you haven't read a hundred pages from those books.

[Anonymous No.15997236]

>>15996972
based

[Anonymous No.15997825]

>>15995121
Spivak is a little much for economy, don't you think? Otherwise good list

[Anonymous No.15997845]

>>15994952
Contemporary economics textbooks fucking suck. Pointless equations that barely formulate common sense. I just made a reading list for myself, in case anyone else is interested.

Principles of Political Economy - J. S. Mill
Karl Marx: A Reader - Elster
Principles of Economics - Menger
General Economic History - Max Weber
Principles of Economics - Alfred Marshall
The General Theory of Employment ... - Keynes
The New Industrial State - Galbraith
How Finance Re-Shaped America - Davis

[Anonymous No.15997918]

>>15994897
Smith, Ricardo and Marx. Some retard said that you need math to understand economics but you don't, you need math to build a bridge, not to understand. Infact, you think in English, not in numbers. Math is useful to build a bridge or maximize someone's profit. Karl Marx's "Das Kapital" is analytical and you can deduce hypothesis susceptible of empirical corroboration and it's almost entirely in natural language, as is expected from a philosopher, that is, from someone who actually understand what it talks about and not just apply a mathematical operation stored in it's memory. Thanks to Karl Marx theory I was able to predict digital products pricing.

[Anonymous No.15997961]

>>15997918
>deduce hypothesis susceptible of empirical corroboration
Cringe

[Anonymous No.15997981]

>>15997961
Valuable and sensible comment

[Anonymous No.15998012]

>>15997961
See, math people can't speak. Therefore, they are not good at thinking. Like that Stephen Hawking mongoloid who talked about the "origin" of the universe. They use words indiscriminately, therefore, they think indiscriminately. And origin of the universe is an absurd notion considering the principle of casualty.

[Anonymous No.15998085]

>>15997918
this is peak pseud

[Anonymous No.15998093]

>>15997961
>the economy only takes place in my mind
Take your meds.

[Anonymous No.15998347]

>>15996972
Indeed. Calculus isn't even considered advanced math in the context of undergrad mathematics.

[Anonymous No.15998369]

>>15994897
Read Anwar Shaikh

[Anonymous No.15998658]

>>15997918
No retard, you can’t calculate deadweight losses as a result of tax increases without math

[Anonymous No.15998678]

To understand economics you need a lot of math:
>calc 1-3
>multivariable calc
>linear algebra
>probability (both theory and applied)
>stats
>mathematical stats
>real analysis
>differential equations
>some computer programming in this day and age

[Anonymous No.15998689]

>REED MARX
There's literally no point.
Even reading him to refute him idiocy is a waste of time, because that's been done hundreds of times already as well.

[Anonymous No.15998821]

>>15998678
What is all this knowledge for? Making money for companies is not economics. Classical economy helps you understand they way it work regardless of the political system. That is not a science, is more like state level accounting.

[Anonymous No.15998863]

>>15998689
There is no serious refutation of Marx. First, because is theoretically perfect. Second, because in social sciences, you do not predict a specific fact but a general pattern, that are observable over long periods of time.

[Anonymous No.15998895]

>>15994897
Read Marx dude, his scientific economical works are not directly related to his philosophical thought and will make you understand the way scientific theories are made once and for all

[Anonymous No.15998983]

All the posters in this thread droning on about the ability to construct equations for material supply and demand and mistaking that for an actual understanding of where demand and supply come from and the actual mechanics of their interaction. Cringe.

[Anonymous No.15998993]

>>15998863
>>15998895
gr8 b8

[Anonymous No.15999046]

>>15998983
Haven't you seethed enough already?

[Anonymous No.15999347]

Empirical Marxism chart

[Anonymous No.15999407]

>>15999347
Marxism isn't empirical.

[Anonymous No.15999474]

We Wanted Workers by George Borjas

[Anonymous No.15999477]

>>15997128
A bitter cope. I've either read them or their equivalents (such as textbooks about calc and stats specialized for econ) or I've learned through lectures and assignments. You obviously need to read more of this than I have if you're an autodidact.

>>15996466
>>15996972
>>15998347
Good for you, studying something more difficult. But use your brain. The point is not that calculus is "hard". It's simply the bare minimum required to get into economics. You don't need to study complex analysis or topology to develop an understanding of something like micro-economics (in econ) or population dynamics (in bio). That being said, the firm understanding of statistics and probability required for a degree in econometrics is genuinely prohibitive if you're a lazy pseud like most of this board.

[Anonymous No.16000419]

>>15995428
>>15995403
Ignore these faggots, its obvious they're just retarded fags who can't into economics as all Marxist.

/dab

[Anonymous No.16000423]

>>15995498
>If anything, mathematics just bolsters Marxism,
lolno you severe retard, mathematics already debunks LTV.

[Anonymous No.16000428]

>>15996361
>I'm a mathematician, idiot.
Then its obvious that you didn't even graduate.

[Anonymous No.16000429]

>>16000423
LTV has been empirically verified, dumbass.

[Anonymous No.16000432]

>>16000428
>t. took freshman calculus and thinks he's special

[Anonymous No.16000439]

>>16000432
Read >>15999477

[Anonymous No.16000486]

>>15996972
>>15997236
>>15998347
>>15997845
>>15998689
>>15998863
>>15999347
Why are Marxist the most retarded human being to ever exist bros? Notice that every lit they recommended have 0 empirical evidence and are highly pseud as fuck. Is this the result of being highly retarded when it comes to math?

[Anonymous No.16000494]

>>16000486
>line go up = more gooder
Fuck off, libfag.

[Anonymous No.16000527]

>>16000429
lmao best ironic shitposting I've ever seen on this website.
Nice one anon 10/10

[Anonymous No.16000970]

>>16000527
http://paulcockshott.co.uk/publication-archive/Talks/politicaleconomy/Brazillecture2.pdf
Where's your refutation?

[Anonymous No.16000977]

>>16000970
>Cockshott
nice

[Anonymous No.16000983]

>>16000494
>HURRRR HOW REED GRAFF?
Marxists, everybody.

[Anonymous No.16001029]

>>16000970
There's no refutation bro... This clearly means Marx was right about communism being an inevitability

[Anonymous No.16001092]

>>16000419
Econometrics is gibberish that's been wrong every time, it's a worthless waste of time no matter how many fancy equations you pull out of your ass
There's real economics, there's the macro-metro alliance of hacks and there's the Marxists who it's better to pretend just don't exist

[Anonymous No.16001112]

>>15998347
>>15996972
“People who pride themselves on their "complexity" and deride others for being "simplistic" should realize that the truth is often not very complicated. What gets complex is evading the truth.”
― Thomas Sowell

[Anonymous No.16001118]

How much of economics do I need to understand to build an investment bot?

[Anonymous No.16001120]

>>16001092
Marxism is the only economic approach that makes any sense. US academic economics is just autistic pseudoscience.

[Anonymous No.16001140]

>>16001092
>Linear regressions are pseudoscience
The absolute state of /lit/

[Anonymous No.16001250]

>>16001140
If and when it starts working
Please notify me, that would be most curious to see
>>16001120
Give me one good reason

[Anonymous No.16001384]

>>15996972
nigger linear algebra is a prerequisite to calculus.

[Anonymous No.16001441]

>>15996284
Krug wasn’t total shit back in the 90s and early 2000s, and you could easily swap that out with something else. Guy you replied to had a good list

[Anonymous No.16001493]

>>16001384
you only need the machinery of linear algebra when you're dealing with multivar, and then only the notion that the general derivative is a linear map (which isn't too hard a notion to get your head around? most shitty multivar courses get away with telling students that tangents are just good linear approximations of functions). of course you need linalg when dealing with stuff like exterior forms/ana on manifolds but i doubt that's the type of calc we're talking about here. no need to throw around niggers over minutiae.

[Anonymous No.16001533]

What do y'all think about Anwar Shaikh?

[Anonymous No.16001539]

>>15994897
As an intro to the American and Historical Schools, Free Trade Doesn't Work by Ian Fletcher is a pretty good primer. But you should probably read the Classical School first, and maybe some second hand books about Mercantalist economic policies in Europe before Smith.

[Anonymous No.16001565]

>>16001493
you also need it for differential equations fag

[Anonymous No.16001654]

>>15995121
>Kahneman

This is just pop science anon

[Anonymous No.16002002]

>>16001565
calculus is a prereq to differential equations

[Anonymous No.16002031]

>>16002002
differential equations is calculus

[Anonymous No.16002563]

>>15994897
I recommend this book which tackles everything you need to know about the financial world. It's specially useful if you want to become a retail investor:
http://cw.routledge.com/textbooks/9780415428620/

[Anonymous No.16002609]

>>16001118
When you realise that an "investment" bot doesn't work for the retail investor (at least long-term) then that's when you know that you know enough about economics.
The reason is that financial markets constantly change and one strategy doesn't work forever because it didn't adapt to that change. Let's say you come up with a good strategy and you program your bot to employ it on the market. After a few days to a few weeks, your bot starts losing money. Why? The strategy which you programmed the bot to do has become outdated. It's just better if you manual trade.
With that said, bots can work to an extent but only if you work for an institution. Institutions have a lot of money and influence the market so bots work better for them but they still lose sometimes.

[Anonymous No.16002635]

>>16002609
I want to create a bot that just goes on Trump's twitter and see which company will profit from one of his tweets

[Anonymous No.16002646]

1. Stock & Watson's intro 2 econometrics

2. Fundamental Methods of Mathematical Economics

3. A primer in game theory + macro textbook

4. EMPIRICAL PAPERS IN THE LITERATURE, any theory look up in textbook.

[Anonymous No.16002667]

>>15996972
>DSGE is heckin retardord!!1
>no i don't have any alternative model with explanatory power, b-but read my blog and Marxist computer science!!

Heterodox... Everytime.

[Anonymous No.16002689]

>>16001092
>attempting to support ideas with empirical evidence is a waste of time
The absolute state of economics.

[Anonymous No.16002694]

For the love of god, don't waste your time with classics. Read Sowell, Marx (btw, Marx himself said that you MUST read all volumes of Capital to make any sense of it) and some modern textbook, and then figure out which of them are lying to you like pure bastard greedy motherfuckers.

[Anonymous No.16002698]

Basically everything you do now should be getting gud at stats & matrices so you can actually read the papers.

[Anonymous No.16002722]

>>15994897
Econ is a pretty broad topic with a lot of interpretations. The science itself only really took off in the 60's because it's based mostly on modeling.

There are some basic facts about Economics that are important to know but no one ever listens to them (lmao)

Piketty's book is pretty good for understanding what eurocuck economists are pimping.

US thought is in books like Nudge, Poor Economics and Thinking: Fast and Slow.

Foundational texts are books like Wealth of Nations and aw fuck it here's an article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_important_publications_in_economics

I wouldn't bother with Marx though because it's just masturbatory fantasy for envious poor people.

[Anonymous No.16003502]

>>15994897
Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell is a good starting point.

[Anonymous No.16003645]

>>15997845
you have a very loud opinion on economics for someone who presumably doesn't know any economics as evidenced by the fact that your list contains a classical economist, a neoclassical economist (which despite its label has little to do with classical economics), Austrian economist, some Keynesian/institutionalist economists and Marxist economists

[Anonymous No.16003977]

>>16002689
You've got it backwards. An attempt to explain the world without even explaining it (and presenting any *scientific theory*) but just fudging some equations into the computer might be called practical engineering, but *science* it is not.

[Anonymous No.16004862]

>>16003645
I've taken micro- and macroecon in college anon, and I was very dissappointed. I chose texts from different schools on purpose, because I'm not convinced dogmatically memorizing formulas will lead to any sort of real understanding. I'd rather get down to the issues myself and see what they were talking about rather than memorizing formulas that barely communicate what everyone knows already.

[Anonymous No.16004902]

>>16002722
>the science itself

it's not a science

[Anonymous No.16005030]

>>16001441
Krugman was much, much worse in the 90s.

[Anonymous No.16005152]

>>16002689
>Econometrics uses empirical evidence
The absolute delusion of metroschizos

[Anonymous No.16006990]

bump