We needed a recommend reading list edition
>>100119
The Wealth of Nations- Adam Smith
The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money- John Maynard Keynes
Economics 19th Edition- Samuelson and Nordhaus
Capitalism and Freedom- Milton Friedman
Capital in the 21st Century- Thomas Piketty
>>1001545
Seems a little biased.
>>1001559
How so?
>>1001578
Maybe he's mad I didn't include filthy heterodoxy like austrians and marxians?
>>1001545
Economics in One Lesson is quite a good read aswell.
>>1001559
> Keynes and Friedman in the same list
> seems a little biased
Are you serious? Biased in favour of what? Capitalism?
can any actual econfags teach us a lil something about economics?
>>1001614
what would you like to know?
>>1001639
i don't know shit senpai, spin me something important that everyone should know
>>1001614
How good is your calc?
>>1001545
Piketty is too long for what it is, and its use of data and theory are questionable at best. There are better books about inequality, such as the inequality section in Animal Spirits by Akerlof and Shiller.
More reading:
Mostly Harmless Econometrics: an easy way to get introduced to how economists estimate model ewuations and relationships from data.
Kruhman's Macroeconomics is an excellent introduction to basic Macro models. Follow it up with either Jordi Gali's New Keynes text or Romer's Advanced Macro text.
Lords of Strategy is a fun book to complement interest in industrial organization.
>>1001545
>Picketty
lol
At least you didn't say Marx
Das kapital is all you need
>>1001667
Here's your (you)
>>1001655
i failed quadratics and everything after that in the hs course senpai
>>1001667
We're talking about books not toilet paper
>>1001545
>piketty
Yeah, nah.
>>1001670
That makes things tough.
I guess the easiest thing to explain would be the basis of an economist's "intuition."
Most of our models, across all sub disciplines, are based on the idea of making decisions incrementally. Instead of asking "How many beers will I have tonight" at the outset, we instead decide after each drink. This is known as making decisions at the margin, or a marginal. A rational person will do things until the benefits of one more action, the marginal benefit, outweight the costs.
The marginal benefit make a schedule of demand for a single person. You can draw this on a 2-D graph with number demanded on one axis and price/cost on the other. This is the individual's demand curve.
>>1001688
>benefit outweight the costs
Got that one backwards, my bad.
>>1001646
>something important everyone should know
Well. Economists are the modern day equivalent of oracles/shamans. Their answers of whats the right thing to do, depends on their belief. The only reason people listen to them, is because they sound like they know what they are talking about. Economics is filled with pseudo-science and unecessary math. It's gets so complicated that people no longer understand it, so much that those who study it often starts to believe that it is a real science.
The main assumption in mainstream economics is that everyone acts rationally. This way it is possible to somewhat predict what happens in economic models. That assumption however doesn't hold up in reality. Economics is in that sense flawed at the roots. It is however still interesting, and most of the stuff thats out there describes the economic situation at the time it was made, pretty good. I.e The Taylor Rule. It is an equation that shows the correlation between the right interest rate, based on inflation and output. It fits pretty much perfectly with historical data, up until the point it was made in 1993. However after that it is pretty much useless at predicting anything. The main idea that a change in the interest rate has an effect on inflation and production output still holds up though - but that correlation is possible to deduce without the math.
>2016
>not educating yourself to become a modern day oracle, spewing out random shit and hoping it holds up
i wish the character had more realistic personalities
>>1001733
fuck wrong board and wrong thread
>>1001729
>Economists are the modern day equivalent of oracles/shamans.
>>1001736
How on earth could you fuck up this badly?
>>1001729
t. Marxist
>>1001743
cmon man it's 9am i didn't sleep yesterday or last night, all this shit look the same to me with no images todiscern otherwise i have like 30+ tabs open cut me some slack mr. eastwood
>>1001742
demand for wares and services can not be predicted, path of transfer wares and services too, therefore economists can not build a mathematical correct model of economic therefore economists are shamans of economy.
>>1001729
Hi Maddox!
I'm shit at math but want to get a job in econ
What do
>>1001770
khan academy until you gud at maths
>>1001545
>Capital in the 21st Century- Thomas Piketty
Really?
>>1001742
>>1001744
>>1001745
Take the interestrate parity for example.
R = R* +((Ee-E)/E)
- I can show you this and say "This is how private capital flows between countries"
- A natural question to this would be "Well, what does it mean?"
- "Capital moves to the country where it earns the highest return = country with highest interest rate. However it also depends on how the exchange rate is between your country and the country you move capital to. If it is too expensive to exchange currency the return from the higher interest rate may vanish in exchange costs = the capital will not move because it isnt worth it"
Why is the math necessary in this explanation? Sure it helps formalise the idea, but it also confuses those who doesnt understand it - even though the intuitive explanation is pretty straight forward.
The parity condition can also be expandend to:
R = R* + ((Ee-E)/E)) + p
The p is a risk premium that differs from country to country. It implies political factors that make the country unstable, the economics situation of the country etc. (Modern dreece is a nice example of a country that has a high risk premium). The premium simply states that the interestrate in the foreign country has to be higher in the foreign country for capitalholders to take the chance of loosing money.
However the risk premium is a subjective assessment for each individual, that also correlates with the individuals risk aversion = The interest parity equation is unfit for use on a mass scale, because people are different.
>>1001770
git gud
>>1001770
Khan Academy all day erry day
>>1001821
Try the "Economics and Finance" section.
>>1001841
Oh shit, I thought it was just for math
>>1001821
I used:
Multivariable Calculus
Differential Equations
If that is too hard, start with:
Differential Calculus
Integral Calculus
That's the basic math I was taught in lectures at uni.The it moved to more economics related topics:
Probability and statistics
Where the Regression part is mostly used in Econometrics
>>1001785
>Capital moves to the country where it earns the highest return
Wrong. You forget about lazy capital owners, patriotic capital owners, and international relationships. For example North and South Korea hate each other and therefore do not invest in near neighbour and size of profits do not have matter.
>>1001854
That is exactly my point! The general economic assumption that everyone acts rationally is flawed.
Still no decent reading list lads
>>1001955
Forget about the original documents when start ing out. It's boring and confusing most of the time, and most of it has aged pretty badly.
Start off with neoclassical models: Easy to understand the main ideas, but not really that realistic.
Principles of Economics - Moore McDowell
Macroeconomics: Theories and Policies - Richard Froyen
Intermediate Microeconomics - Hal Varian
International Economics - Krugman
Then move on to the original texts by Keynes, Adam Smith, Ricardo etc. They are however mainly peices about how other thinkers are wrong, but provides the deeper explanations about the unrealistic assumptions in the neoclassical framework. It gives depth to the stuff you learn in textbooks
>>1001853
Is econometrics legit? Sounds like cliometrics to me that is hilariously amusing in historical studies.
>>1002051
Yes and no. The discipline is legit, and is probably the most important skill for an economist to have. Everyone believes that it is useful, therfore everyone uses it. Cliometrics is a term for the use of econometrics to explain history. It builds on the neoclassic assumption that everyone maximizes their utility based on rational behaviour. It tries to calculate the effect of one variable on another variable, with the goal of predicting the future. Every economic study/analysis/forecast ect. is build upon some sort of econometric foundation.
The assumption of rational behaviour in the neoclassic framework is unrealistic, but the argument is that when a large enough sample size is used, the few irrational observations are irrelevant. The main trend is still valid.
It is somewhat a case of self fulfillment and "Tell the same lie enough, and it becomes reality" - in this sense it becomes legit. It is somewhat able to predict the main trends and is therefore useful, simply because people belive the predictions they make.
what do if you failed quadratics and everything after in hs?
>>1001729
Pretty much this. I have an economics degree your average person believes I'm sort of savant with God powers.
>>1004611
spin us some econ wisdom senpai
>>1001646
If something's going wrong, make sure that it really is the market and not a consequence of bad regulations. Always drives me up a wall when someone points to the problems in the american patent system and says that capitalism is the cause.
>>1001729
>humans are completely irrational
If that were true then randomness would be the best way to model everything, but it isn't. Their information is flawed, but the way they act on it follows a sort of logic.
What kind of retard would exercise a call option when it's heavily out of the money? Go on, find someone who would do it, if everyone is so irrational.
>>1001190
>MITI and the Japanese Miracle - Chalmers Johnson
>A Theory of Justice - John Rawls
>What Money Can't Buy - Michael Sandel
>The Passing of Traditional Society - Daniel Lerner
>The Change to Change - Samuel Huntington
>Capital as Power - Jonathan Nitzan and Shimshon Bichler
>>1005339
lolbercuck tears are delicious
>>1005339
I automatically ignore animeposters and never reply to them. If they're tripfags I just filter them. You wouldn't believe how much time and energy you'd save by doing the same.
>>1001606
This book is legitimately terrible book, written not by an economist, but by a journalist.
OP, seriously read introductory textbooks. I don't like Mankiw because he is legitimately dishonest (read about him changing certain things in his textbook when he became an advisor for Bush), but his principles books cover a decent amount of information.
Then read an intermediate macro and micro textbook, and if you're decent with math, read Woolridge's Introductory Econometrics.
At this point, you should be able to start reading academic papers, and that's when things open up and you'll actually be informed enough to discuss economic matters. Reading shit like Hazlitt or Sowell or other pop econ books won't make you actually knowledgeable about the subject, it will simply arm you with cherry-picked agenda-driven rhetoric to argue with. It's shitty economics.
Why don't you just move to Somalia already, you can fund your own roads there and everything
>mfw an American says they understand capitalism
>>1005428
What a worthless, asinine post.
What do you guys think of Richard Wolff?
>>1001190
screw all these kids and go study praxeology with mises, rothbard, hoppe, and block.
>>1005390
Somalia acktually saw an increase in their standard of living after they went anarcho
>>1001190
Progress and Poverty by Henry George
It gets overlooked today but it was incredibly popular a century ago. Hell, in 1906 a study found it was more popular than Shakespeare. Leo Tolstoy was practically a zealot for the book.
>>1005461
>advocating praxeology
pls go
>>1005470
In fact Somalia is not really anarchic, it is simply a land of warlords. The "central government" of Somalia was never legitimate, as there has never been a "state of Somalia", rather that land has been divided among several clans of people who have always lived apart and governed themselves independently. As with any scheme of anarchism, but especially anarcho-capitalism, you will find yourself in a feudal environment before long.
>>1005504
you're not a philosopher if you settle for anything less than apodictic synthetic apriori claims
>>1005512
Yep
https://www.reddit.com/r/badeconomics/comments/3wyay8/private_defense_agencies_ancaps_deny_monopolies/
>inb4 herp derp reddit opinion discarded
This post actually does a fairly good job tearing up ancap ideology. Eventually monopolies will form and they will behave no differently than governments.
>>1005538
>eventually monopolies will form
Now you're looking at human beings like rocks bouncing down a hill, i.e. like physical objects, which *necessarily* act in a particular way.
Once you start doing that, you discard your ability to make "ought" claims, and therefore forfeit your ability to claim we ought not to adopt anarchism.
QED
>>1005534
>apodictic synthetic apriori
data says no but my b̶e̶l̶i̶e̶f̶s axioms prove otherwise
>>1005547
Making claims about what will happen is a necessary exercise when considering the merits and pitfalls of adopting a particular course of action.
At least, that's what a utilitaricuck would tell you. Personally I believe in gassing far more than a "reasonable" portion of the planet for fundamentally arbitrary purposes.
>>1005547
So basically, you don't believe natural monopolies can form?
>ancap is a legitimate form of anarchism
Actual anarchists claim otherwise
>>1005568
>Actual anarchists claim otherwise
Looks like I offended the anarcha-transfeminist, bernie sanders supporter
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3u4EFTwprM
The only video you need
>>1005578
>anarcha-transfeminist
kek
>bernie sanders supporter
nope
Yeah anarchism is stupid but ancaps are, let's says extra special.
Also you never really answered my question. Do you believe natural monopolies can form?
>>1005560
The world says no, but God says YES YES YES
>>1005598
>God advocates praexology
Anime is gay
>>1005595
>Do you believe natural monopolies can form?
Depends on how you define "monopoly." The concept of "monopoly" can be scaled upwards and downward at will. For instance, I have a natural monopoly on the particular plot of land occupied by my house, but I don't have a monopoly on land. Another example, Apple has a monopoly on iPhones (because of IP law), but not a monopoly on phones.
Historically, there is little evidence that harmful natural monopolies will form in an environment that respects property rights.
>>1005626
>that respects property rights
Why would a PDA in an ancap society respect property rights? They have the most weapons. What prevents them from operating like governments?
"The world is run by a bunch of states in which law enforcement is monopolised by governments. If the PDA's can't form a cartel, then why were early feudalist societies, and latter nation states, able to form?"
Why is this statement false?
>>1005602
Intuition is an act of the intellect, and perfected reason belongs to God. Therefore my intuition of praxeological axioms literally brings me closer to God.
>>1005656
*Sorry it's a question at the bottom not a statement lol.
What I mean to write is: What is your response to this question?
>>1005659
DELET THIS
>>1005656
>Why would a PDA in an ancap society respect property rights?
Hopefully, because they all become anarcho capitalists :^)
>They have the most weapons. What prevents them from operating like governments?
Other conflict resolution organizations. My argument is not that "conflict resolution organizations" are perfect, or even that they will necessarily exist, but simply that they are preferable to state controlled police departments.
>The world is run by a bunch of states in which law enforcement is monopolised by governments. If the PDA's can't form a cartel, then why were early feudalist societies, and latter nation states, able to form?
Feudalist societies were statist, and people didn't know about the virtues of libertarianism back then. Our task is to educate people of these virtues.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNc-xhH8kkk
Recommended watching
>>1005703
>Hopefully, because they all become anarcho capitalists :^)
This might be the most idealistic, ridiculous thing I've ever heard tbqh. What everything is groovy and suddenly a couple of PDAs realize they can obtain way more resources and wimminz by oppressing people under their "protection"?
>Other conflict resolution organizations.
What prevents them from just allying?
>they are preferable to state controlled police departments.
Why though?
>>1005512
>In fact Somalia is not really anarchic, it is simply a land of warlords.
Yes, this is the end-state of Anarchsim. Warlords that eventually become states.
>>1004533
Kill yourself
There is no reason you should fail quadratics if you actually took the time to practice it
What kind of jobs can an economist get?
>>1008301
A lot. A management consultant, researcher for the Federal Reserve, financial analyst for a company, investment banking, professor. Those are just off the top of my head but I'm sure there's more
>>1004533
take khan academy. quadratics are pretty easy, you could learn the material in a weekend
>>1005568
>Actual anarchists claim otherwise
Those aren't anarchists though, they're Marxists.
Without a state, who will prevent people making trades they mutually agree upon?
>>1009185
>who will prevent people making trades they mutually agree upon?
Whoever has the most guns in any given location.
>>1009191
Right, which is a given in every form of anarchy.
This doesn't change the fact that anarcho capitalism is the only true form of anarchism.
>>1009207
>anarcho capitalism is the only true form of anarchism.
What a silly claim.
The most efficient economy is one that I want, so as close to free market as possible without monopolies, or causing environmental harm which affects supply of certain natural resources and the health of the workforce. Or other forms that affect the valuable resources we can use negatively.
Also, bailouts are for losers, and tariffs are only justifiable if another country does it to you.
>>1010242
>most efficient
In what sense? Delivering goods and services to those that can afford them? Incentivizing mindless consumerism? Converting the maximum amount of Earth's natural resources into utility-increasing objects?
Capitalism is insanity. Bestial, self-destructive, nihilistic insanity.
The ideal economy is one that is built on the principles of sustainability and human progress, not ensuring that everyone can buy Heelys and iphones and where there's over two hundred brands of wacky pencils and oven mitts.
People like you are a cancer that is killing our species, and the vehicle for it is the market.
mein kampf
>>1010750
As price efficient as we can get, of course.
>The ideal economy is one that is built on the principles of sustainability and human progress
Sustainability is already in the list, you must have not read into it enough. Human progress is a buzzword for "the world should be the way I want it to be, come on it's 2016" and not an argument on what things should be.
I've already accounted for your kind, stay poor and upset while the consumerists you hate continue to innovate things little by little.
>>1010750
Actually, I'm curious. What do you define as human progress? Please try not to do any handwaving or buzzwords.
>>1010750
>The ideal economy is one that is built on the principles of sustainability and human progress, not ensuring that everyone can buy Heelys and iphones and where there's over two hundred brands of wacky pencils and oven mitts.
Very interesting rhetoric, but what does that really entail? And why is the free market supposedly incapable of bringing those things & supposedly doomed to consumerism? The burden of proof is on you.
>>1010777
You rodents will breed and consume and breed and consume until it's no longer sustainable, you operate with animal instincts and give no thought to the weight of your insufferable, self-absorbed impulses.
Your idea of "sustainability" just means avoiding the most severe pitfalls of the 19th century, while still harvesting and extracting all the myriad ingredients for your consumerist slop.
Left to their own devices, firms exploit and extract as much as they possibly can while avoiding legal and financial punishment. They are, as capitalism dictates, interested only in maximizing profits, oftentimes even at the expense of future profits, to the detriment of everything else.
We as humans have one planet with very finite resources, but the capitalist paradigm is one of infinite and constant growth, not targeted in any rational sense, but rather a bulging, bloated form of tumorous expansion. Rare earth elements that are necessary to fuel the technologies of the future, which by their very nature are extremely precious and difficult to harvest in large quantities, are squandered in the creation of consumer electronics, so that Chastity can Tweet on the go.
You have a laissez-faire attitude towards not just economic activity but human activity, treating "material satisfaction" as if it is the natural and just end of civilization. When people like you hear that there are going to be over 10 billion humans on this planet in under 50 years, you think, "Hmm, interesting," and perhaps if you're some pathetic altruist, "It will be difficult to find a way for them to live as I do." What is the merit in that kind of pestilent behavior? Why should humanity murder itself over "satisfaction"?
It's madness, absolute madness, and it is not directed by any evil specter or tyrant but by little wormthings like yourself who wriggle and bore through the foundations of civilization so they can eat and be merry.
>all the retard marxists itt
How do we get rid of the pest that is marxism?
>>1010882
Gulags
how 2 make phat stacks, /econ/?
How accurate is this assessment on the economy of Nazi Germany?
>>1010827
>>1010831
Human progress means ending material scarcity, expanding human knowledge, and improving upon the species.
To that end, it is desirable to immediately sterilize the vast majority of human beings. The notion of a "right to procreate" needs to die, permanently, and the state should be the only agent capable of growing the human population. In this way, sustainability becomes possible. Obviously any reproductive activity should be directed with eugenics as a chief priority. There is no room for defective people in a world where the value of even the most fit of men is next to nothing.
The market must die as well, as its productive focus is entirely at odds with the goal of sustainability and progress. For one generation we might gently euthanize the old, fetid order by fully enabling their most dramatic, bestial consumer impulses, until they have withered away and work on the project of civilization can resume in earnest.
No resources will be wasted on the frivolity of human desire. Human labor, as worthless as it becomes in an environment where automation can truly do the majority of all work, becomes an act of social and moral prestige instead of toilsome, fruitless drudgery.
>>1010971
>something that will never happen, something that happens anyway, and something that can't be done with central planning or meme ideologies
>posits things as useless without any basis
>continues to use buzzwords and empty rhetoric without explaining sustainable
>repeating yourself
Well, I don't think I can convince you that you're wrapped up in literally nothing, so I'll just take solace in the fact that no one will ever have to live according to your standards, not even you.
Also, stop giving anime posters a bad name.
>>1010971
Yeah, that's the problem with people like you. You think you know the true value of things. People valuing things you don't always gets you, doesn't it? None of the things you mentioned actually accomplish those goals.
If your argument is that less people means less consumption of resources, consider that we're not going to run out of helium or oil within our lifetimes and that eventually you'll run out anyway, and that having less people doesn't change that.
Eugenics reduces genetic diversity, and reducing the number of people reduces the amount of brains you can rack up for new data.
Also, you're shit at figuring out the value of things.
>>1010920
You're not going to beat the market without either actively managing your holdings or taking high risks.
If you aren't willing to do one or both, index funds, and bonds as a shock absorber.
>>1011033
Dismiss your destruction offhandedly and continue pursuing your next meal, wretch. You prosperity-mad animals will be the death of the human race.
None among you has even a moment to spare for measures that would actually forestall our collective demise - no, you're perfectly /content/ to wallow in your own filth and excess, putting off the issue until you've expired.
Wastrels like yourself are the byproducts of the proletarian and bourgeois cultures, simply interested in acquiring a picket fence and a wife and three kids and a nice car, the consequences be damned. Your obtuse selfishness spells only the doom of your species. That inborn want drives every damn thing you do, and even when you're conscious of that insidious manipulation you just smile and lay back, letting it all wash over.
Well, I agree, at least, that there will be no revolution, no push to fix this chaotic spiral into total oblivion. If humanity is to be saved, it will not be saved by the masses. Only a cabal of true aristocrats would have the capacity to stem the tide of the coming apocalypse, and they have always been the rarest and most fragile men. Instead I think we'll face the end together, and not long now - but at least in my case it will come bitterly and with no surprise.
>>1011129
>use a lot of empty revolutionary rhetoric
>say that markets are bad and don't explain why
>attempt to wish away scarcity
>when people tell you you're wrong, call them bourgeoisie scum sucking on the tit of consumerism
>>1010925
I'm not an expert on the Nazi economy, but it seems to make sense as another econ student. The anon is right that the Nazi economy made absolutely no sense from a Classical, Keynesian, or Marxist view.
>>1011157
http://vocaroo.com/i/s1zt48dwUcuE
>>1011377
>an 18 minute 26 second spoken reply to a greentext post on a Nepalese woodworking forum
Why are lazy pseudo-intellectuals always so convinced of their revolutionary and therefore higher status among their fellow men, fampai?
>>1011398
It really doesn't take much to possess higher status in relation to your "fellow man" who is probably a curry mudbutt, chink, or nignog.
>>1011409
Edgy racism m8, I'm stunned and shocked into agreement, as per your intentions. Also, you're really cool, can I be you when I grow up?
>>1011129
Don't sully Yukari with your dumb faggot shit.
>>1005656
>Why would a PDA in an ancap society respect property rights? They have the most weapons. What prevents them from operating like governments?
Because of competition and because PDAs would have the goal of making money, and becoming a government is the worst way to do that.
>>1005382
Hey! I'm a different anon, I'm actually reading mankiw's book at the moment, almost starting (chapter 6, supply demand and goverment policies), would the stuff that he changed really affect my understanding of economics? could you recommend me a different textbook? Thanks!
>>1014309
This makes no sense. People care about more than money. Power and the desire to dominate are both powerful motivations. The idea that all PDAs will operate like good little money making robots is hilarious. Not to mention the Dutch East Indian Company was the wealthiest corporation in the world for years and they had a taxes, declared war, and jailed people like a government would.
Ancaps like to attack other anarchists for being naive because their socities require people to behave good but in reality ancap is no different.
>>1015984
Not the same anon but I've read Mankiw's textbooks as well - just ignore the case studies and you'll be fine. The actual material is the same material you'd get elsewhere, but written for a novice.
Don't neglect Macro, it's not all smoke & mirrors like some will claim. Krugman is a bit of a meme but he writes a good (text)book as well.
>>1016727
Thanks anon
>>1005390
The whole Somalia meme is very dumb.
>>1017921
I can see why you would use it for anarchy but people make the large leap from libretarianism to Somalia which is just stupid....
>>1010905
helicopters
>>1016727
I feel very strange because macro is like 100x as interesting and intuitive to me as micro
I always thought I hated econ because it was always a dull slog through micro BS but then I got exposed to some macro stuff and it was really hugely, hugely intellectually compelling and interesting
>>1017942
same way mate
>>1001729
Spot on however let's not throw out the baby with the bath water, the discipline of Economics is not entirely bullshit and it does give an insight into the workings of the market. It's one of those social sciences that badly need reform and refining to be truly effective, just like Psychology
>>1018189
>Spot on
Not even close.
>>1018206
Have you even read an intro economics book or taken a class? It's mired in political garbage, with authors and economists simply trying to rationalize their worldviews with many retaining their stances even if the data defies their expectations and hypothesis.
>>1001190
Punished Mosley: A Man denied his Keynesian state
My local library ran out of decent books in the economics section so I think I have to order something.
Is The Armchair Economist any good?
Smith - Wealth of Nations
Malthus - An Essay on the Principle of Population
Engels - Outlines of a Critique of Political Economy
Marx - Kapital, German Ideology
Veblen - Theory of the Leisure Class
Lenin - Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism
Marshall - Principles of Economics
Galbraith - The New Industrial State
Chandler - The Visible Hand
Polanyi - The Great Transformation
Heilbroner - The Worldly Philosophers
meme tier "fuck capitalism" readings
>>1019633
>christfags
>shilling their beliefs in a thread discussing economics
You christcucks really have no shame, do you?
>>1019719
Stay buttblasted, fedorafag.
>>1019053
>intro economics book
>trying to legitimize "not muh rational" as an attack against economics
nah
you don't know shit about econ
>>1020622
>economics intro book
>takes out of context historical developments to try and support a stance despite all the facts proving otherwise
You're nothing but a posturing faggot. Your discipline is largely bullshit built upon imaginary metrics, a weak social science that tries desperately to be a hard science. What economics does other social sciences do better.
>>1020715
>symbolic logic and reading is hard
You really just don't get it, do you?
Your lines of argument are shallow and weak. You ought to stop while you're behind.
>>1020724
Posturing and shit-posting are extremely weak stances. You haven't proven me wrong.
>>1020739
>You haven't proven me wrong.
I'm holding myself to the same burden of proof you are.
But, I'll entertain your trolling for a bit.
>intro book
Using dumbed-down theory presented through stories is done because that's the only way most of its readers (retards like you that will never venture deeper into the field) could possibly understand it.
>muh rationality
Everyone that uses this line of argument doesn't know what "rational" means, and then they proceed to project their own heuristics and values onto homo economicus. Bringing up "not muh rationality" is advertising your own ignorance.
Your turn.
>>1020764
>Using dumbed-down theory presented through stories is done because that's the only way most of its readers (retards like you that will never venture deeper into the field) could possibly understand it.
The fact that they use stories taken out of context to push an agenda speaks volumes on the field; lies and misinformation presented to new students discredits any discipline.
>Everyone that uses this line of argument doesn't know what "rational" means, and then they proceed to project their own heuristics and values onto homo economicus
Economics is the definition of projection. Look at the different schools from Keynesians, Austrians, Neoclassicals, Marxians, etc. They all have different views regarding human behavior and how people make choices. We can go into word games to try and define what "rationality" is or should be but let's not, I'll say instead that human behavior is far too random to accurately predict and this is shown throughout the history of economics especially on a macro level where there are too many variables at play that any model would be inadequate.
