ECoNOMICS
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /lit/ - Literature
You are currently reading a thread in /lit/ - Literature
I'm pretty uneducated about economics.
I'd like to understand more about why certain economic plans do/don't/won't/will work. Something that lays out basics, and concepts. I'm not even familiar with the correct nomenclature. Please help.
Do you have any recs?
![BookCoverImage[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/DVQuJTE.jpg "BookCoverImage[1].jpg")
>>7482607
>>7482607
'Economics in one lesson' Henry Hazlitt
It's very simple but a bit biased towards the Austrian school of economics. Nevertheless is a helpful guide to general microeconomics and serves to premptively warn you about the various weaknesses of the Keynesian school.
After reading you can go off into Marxism or stay with more liberal economics.
If you do that then I suggest Milton Friedman's 'Capitalism and Freedom'. This will provide an intro into the Chicago School and so called 'neo-liberal' economics' of today. Further on, you can read up 'Human Action' by Ludwig Von Mises, but this is a heavy piece and I suggest reading Hayek's 'Road to Serfdom' first, (though this is by no means required, rather it serves to get you used to reading economics texts and to teach you the lingo).
>>7482639
i wonder if this worked for him. it certainly would if he lost 20lb, and even at his current weight it seems like he'd have an okay shot
Literally, there are so many schools of thought in economics that you'd have to pick one to even begin somewhere. If anyone here recommends a textbook, the. You're already being limited to a school of thought. Just think about how you society should be runner: if you say everyone should work hard and make fat stacks, then you're a capitalist; if you say everyone should make equal income, then you're a commie. Mind you, though, that no school of thought is objectively right-- it's not like math in that sense. Furthermore, it'll probably be best to learn more about economics, as our entire fucking world is under the control of capitalism now.
Lastly, it's probably best to learn about the theory of any school of thought before approaching the textbook-side of it.
Ps: there's more to life than making the fat stacks, mein Freund
>>7482650
Thank you for your response.
I would like to speak with more confidence regarding economic concepts. And as of now, I do believe capitalism is best.
Have you ever read any books which detail historical examples of economic plans? I believe this form of education through story-telling might be illuminating.
>>7482654
That's the nature of the cookie, but don't despair; no matter what side you bite it from, you're still getting to taste a piece of the cookie.
There is no such thing as an 'unbiased' economic text.
>>7482607
For the basics, just go with khan academy.
https://www.khanacademy.org/economics-finance-domain
For more advanced, just get some books on Amazon.
Or read the entire wiki page on it.
>>7482607
A Random Walk Down Wallstreet
Devil Take the Hindmost
>>7482682
Completely forgot about Khan Academy, it's been so long. Good call.
>>7482627
I'm pro-capitalist but that book is just plain silly. OP, don't read that shit.
Once you get past the basics you could read Socialism by von Mises, which demonstrates the failure of socialism. Or just research the crushing blow argument to socialism: the economic calculation problem.
>>7482607
Economics is "the dismal science" for a reason. Go through intros and wikis tbhl. Marx's Capital is the only economic text worth reading but it's a dense book and generally struggle to work with at first. The quality of writing goes bottom-up from the opening 20th century on - here there be dragons, to be sure.
>>7482784
>I'm angry because the LTV got BTFO to hell and back
>>7482788
Case in point, OP.
>>7482788
Shut the fuck of Mises, you're dead.
>>7482788
http://myweb.lmu.edu/jdevine/notes/Law-of-Value.html
read bill mitchell's blog
>>7482742
its an ok book. gets a bit sloppy and personal when it concerns the individuals but you can take it with a pinch of salt and focus on the pure economic stuff
>>7482810
Just stop. No economists use that shit.
>>7482650
Have you read anything?
>>7482824
>I can't respond to this!! Better just respond with passive-aggressive non-comments and a fallacious argument from authority, even though it was written by a professor of the subject that knows far more than I do!
>they'll never know!
>>7482883
>this economics professor doesn't know anything about my favorite 150 year old orthodox economic law
>it's not false even though its use has been discontinued by a scientific field!
