How many on pol understands basic economics?
It's literally the cure for believing in political propaganda.
This shit has redpilled me more than any of the /x/ illoominati shit I follow on youtube.
You seriously need to read this or other similar book, then you'll be smarter than 99% of humans and politicians.
>>80390630
where to get this book in mobi for free
I got a D+ in econ 101, but it was at an ivy league university, so I probably know more than you about economic things.
>>80390784
I don't remember, it's very easy to find on torrent.
I've found a tablet and some right wing books is like having intelectual sex.
>>80391078
It's not about e-dick contest, it's about it should be mandatory on school.
most people have no clue and basic economics demolish left shit better than nothing.
Here's a free pdf
http://www.altfeldinc.com/pdfs/BASICECONOMICS.pdf
>>80391292
cuts off partway through
>>80390630
basic economics is just that
microfoundations tell you nothing about the macro economy
emergent properties are real
>>80390630
Donated a copy of that to a local school.
Also have the audio book, good stuff.
![tom_4b[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/H6wqaqa.jpg "tom_4b[1].jpg")
>author pic related
/pol/ won't like this book desu
>>80391666
>implying sowell isn't based
kys clowntent
>>80391540
I think basic economics in school will make political propaganda impossible.
just like biology made creationism everywhere (except in retarded nations like usa).
>>80391666
how new.
pol loves him because he tells niggers they're garbage.
>>80391203
They made us take an economics class back in high school, but the whole thing was just "THE FED IS GOOD"
>>80390630
Lmao that book doesn't even mention elasticity what the fuck hahahahahaha it's a good start but if you consider yourself informed, you're only lying to yourself.
>>80391800
Don't underestimate the power of the average retard.
>>80391800
Wut economics is the biggest propaganda.
Just look at libs and dems argue endlessly over the economy
Economics isnt a real science cos you cannot prove anything
>>80390630
Economics is based off a lot of assumptions that all things are equal.
In fact they're not because niggers are too stupid as a group to into economics.
>>80392152
polticians don't know much about economics and are retarded.
>>80392049
better to know the basics than believe and fall into propaganda.
>>80390630
Any rational person believes in the benefits of Free Market Capitalism. Even if you agree with government intervention in the economy to a certain degree, it's impossible to deny how fantastic the private sector is.
>>80390784
There's a rar of the books from this chart on mega, search the /biz/ archive you'll find it
economist here
something that u dont learn is that money doesnt have to be scarce at all. its just an instrument to make the rich richer (interest)
>>80390630
What's /pol/'s opinion on Keynesian Economics?
>>80391800
>I think basic economics in school will make political propaganda impossible
I had this subject in the 9th grade. The problem is that I barely gave a fuck about that. Only remember that supply n' demand graph. Damn, there were many things taught that now seem interesting to me, such as ethics or basics of political science.
>>80392594
It's not that bad honestly. Probably better than monetarist scum.
>>80392126
(((Jared)))
>>80392471
Nobody really understands economics, its just guessing and theory
>>80391666
/pol/ loves Uncle Tom though.
>>80393122
it's based on human psychology.
I'm sure the fundamentals are well undestood.
things like more money implies inflation are well understood.
things like price controls make shortages also also understood.
if you mean someone can predit the markets and become rich, then no.
>>80390784
I only found a torrent for the fourth edition.
The copy I bought for like 12$ was the fifth edition with new chapters on economic discrepancies between nations.
>>80392533
Can you remember what the thread was about, mate?
>>80390630
Here is the ultimate redpill
economics are not economics
economics don't exist
they are and always been sociopolitics
>>80393375
>human psychology is well.understood
Nope. Extrapolating it to the economy is even less understood.
>>80392533
spoon feed me, can't find
>>80393116
>>80393609
just search mega.nz it'll be one of them
>>80390630
I read the fifth edition earlier this year and had already listened to every Sowell interview on YT. He is thoroughly based and I do think it would serve as a red pill to the average man. I read Hayek's Road To Serfdom shortly after BE and would recommend that too. I wonder if Bernie has ever read these.
>>80390630
Too many schools of thought. It's a sperg """""science""""" that means very little.
That's cute. Now proceed onto the next stage.
Demand goes down, business owner:
>Oy vey! I must raise prices so I can stay in business.
Demand goes up, business owner:
>Oy vey! I must raise prices so I can capitalize off this new business.
Why does this keep happening?
>>80393705
>>80393684
https://mega.nz/#F!1R0QATqZ!Eb1_M5KC9gkxK6w32R2ETw
>>80391938
But this is a lie
>>80393759
>literally basing your work off of Freud
>if we all just think happy thoughts unlimited growth
wew
>>80392539
interest is a really good thing
dont fall for the national socialist meme
>>80392594
retard who couldn't predict the crash like the austrians could
>>80393875
We know that now. They still teach it.
>put money in a bank for intrest! (nevermind inflation)
>CDs are great!(except you have no access to it.)
>How to get a good credit score(and go 30k in debt)
Its built to keep the system alive.
>>80393122
>Supply and demand
>not understandable
sounds like you are projecting your ignorance
>>80393833
thank you kind anon
>2016
>not becoming the Jew
>>80390630
That book is literally the laymen's simplified version of what is taught in microeconomics based courses to undergraduate students. Although it's nice to begin with, no actual economist is going to take it seriously. Try to think a little outside the box using the models this book is based on and you'll see how bad they are.
>>80391078
If this is true, you must have felt like an idiot in your university, as the median grade is B+ to A-.
>>80391078
>ivy league university
Nice meme, literally the same education as some random state university but you're surrounded by rich people with connections, some "lesser" universities are even more rigorous than an ivy league due to an inferiority complex
>>80393759
This book is a fucking mess. It's even worse than Marx's. Just the fact that there are a bazillion schools based on interpretations of it should tell you something.
It doesn't mean there aren't good ideas there, though. It just means Keynes was a terrible writer.
>>80393732
Not all economics is macro. Stop falling for memes.
This depends. Macro or micro?
Macro economics is basically religion.
Micro is fine.
>>80394074
There's no concrete quantifiable laws of economics. It's an art masquerading as a science.
>>80393122
But it has Maths backing it up, anon. Mathematical proof is hardly just speculation.
>>80394029
I'm no Keynesian, but there is a difference between Classical Keynesian Economics and Neo-Keynesian Economics.
>>80394509
Yes. I only have a minor in econ but this is clear.
Econ is not a science. Even the big names in econ agree with this.
Anyone who says Econ is some kind of verifiable science is full of shit.
>>80390630
Sowell old man my hero. Studied his work in macro in econ degree.
>>80394029
The Austrians predict a crash every year. You are not looking at the false positives.
>>80391078
I got an A, so no, you probably don't
>>80394509
>literally empirically observer supply and demand on a daily basis, derived from human psychology
>no concrete quantifiable laws of economics
>art
Seems like you don't understand factual economics. If you read into leftist economics which our public schools are indoctrinating us with, then everything is filled with wishful thinking and "empiricism".
Pick the nearest good university close to where you live and find out which macro/micro book they tell their undergrads to buy and go buy it and read it.
That should be your starting point. Yeah, yeah, give it the whole 'JEW BRAINWASHING' shit but you're not going to be able to pick holes in any sort of economic theory unless you know the basics.
I started with this:
>https://www.amazon.co.uk/Economics-Richard-Lipsey/dp/0199286418
And then this:
>https://www.amazon.co.uk/Economics-Money-Banking-Financial-Markets/dp/1292094184/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1468091311&sr=1-1&keywords=economics+of+money+banking
Like I said, find out what your uni uses and get that. Undergrad econ texts are all pretty much the same.
>>80394621
But it has Mathematics to back it up. It is not as if it is Sociology-tier.
Further, there are Economic systems that are measurably better than others. For example, a Free Market is better than a Centrally Planned economy.
>>80394575
>I'm no Keynesian, but there is a difference between Classical Keynesian Economics and Neo-Keynesian Economics.
They are fundamentally the same strain of virus
>>80394742
that's because when the bubble is about to pop, they inflate it even more
>>80394575
>But it has Maths backing it up, anon. Mathematical proof is hardly just speculation.
It doesn't. It uses math but it's not mathematical proof. The models are simplified (they need to be) but that introduces unjustified assumptions that can and often do lead to incorrect predictions.
>>80395087
>insert ad-hoc explanation for false positive
Still failed your prediction. But keep crying wolf. Nobody takes you seriously so you can say whatever you want.
>>80395364
The math is there so that your thinking is completely transparent and easy to bash. As for the assumptions, it really depends. Many times, people criticize the assumptions and have no clue what they are talking about.
>>80395587
Obviously you don't understand. A crash would happen if the government let the free market run its course, but they spontaneously prop it up. This isn't the fault of the Austrians who are based and are objectively right about everything.
Meanwhile in Greece, Venezuela, and 2016 US...
Maybe if you were actually logical you would agree with me.
>>80395920
>This isn't the fault of the Austrians who are based and are objectively right about everything
>if you were actually logical you would agree with me
kek
are you a troll trying to make Austrians look bad?
>>80396194
Predicted response, next.
i have, thats how i know 99% of what /pol/ says about economics is total bullshit even though they cite "econ 101" damn near every time
>>80395746
>The math is there so that your thinking is completely transparent and easy to bash.
It's certainly an improvement over not using math, but it is not difficult to make the thinking process obscure, even using math, and it's certainly way below the standard of rigor used by mathematicians. Further, it's probably the nature of the beast, economics is really complicated.
>>80392594
its correct
>reminder that Keynes was a massive homo
>>80396421
/pol/ is pretty free market, though. Either that or somewhat mixed economy.
I've never seen a central planner on /pol/, for example.
>>80395059
Science isn't a spectrum.
Either it is science, or it isn't.
It isn't a science.
>>80396259
What do you want me to say? You follow a theory that adds nothing new and ignores the behavior of the largest agent in the economy, the state, when making predictions. Do you expect me to take it seriously?
>>80396479
All math done by non-mathematicians is below the standard of rigor used by actual mathematicians. I had physics professors tell me once "Never tell a mathematician I showed you this, or he would kill me. Still, it works."
>>80396699
nice ad hominem
>>80396755
given the ridiculous amount of national socialists here, I doubt this
>>80396791
what's your definition of science?
>>80397151
>Thinking people are actually nazi
kek
>>80397151
Have you ever read anything on the Austrian school? That was rhetorical, now try to refute its concepts.
>>80393134
fuck off muhammed
>>80396791
I agree it's not a hard science, but it's not like it has no evidence to back it up.
>>80397569
This is why (macro) economics is not a science.
This shit right here.
It's religion.
>>80397704
That's not how science works. You don't make shit up then find evidence to support it.
That is not science.
It's not science in any respect. hard, soft, erect, it is not a science.
>>80397723
Not an argument
>>80397151
> I had physics professors tell me
Yah, just look at string theory for how badly that can go. Physics can get away with it because it's backed by pretty good experimental evidence. Economics is in less firm footing.
I would never employ anyone who even dares to discuss a neo-classical school of economics.
Fucking degenerates the whole lot of you.
>>80397569
I did. That's why I know it adds nothing new. Have you actually read modern research on macroeconomics?
>>80397833
I agree most people talking about macro are being dogmatic faggots but I assure you there's a minority of people actually trying to find out stuff about the economy and not merely justifying their preconceived beliefs.
>>80396755
Well, here I am.
I am in favor of a country completely controlled by the state. With private initiative for selling and buying products or services forbidden.
>>80397833
You're a retard almost all facts known in hard science were theories before evidence was found to prove or disprove it. A lot of theories are taught religiously in education every day as facts.
>>80398079
It's mostly a matter of how confident you should be in results and how well you can control for confounding variables. The only way to solve the first problem is to have more data. As for the second one, there are methods to get causal inference from non-experimental data but you usually have to sacrifice statistical power, worry about biases and constantly check the robustness of your results.
>inb4 meme Austrian tells me econometrics is bollocks because you can't do experiments in economics
>>80390630
Ecology is better for understanding how the economy works than economics imo.
Literally anyone who can think in basic systems doesn't need to study the economics to get the economy.
Economics is mostly a priori reasoning with a little history and jargon.
>>80398331
>all facts known in hard science were theories before evidence
>were theories before evidence
>theories before evidence
This guy has no idea what a theory is.
It would be a waste of time to try to correct your ignorance personally, so here's wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
>A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.
You act exactly like a religious fundie. Throwing around terms without having any actual knowledge and relying on your dogmatic beliefs as the standard of truth.
Don't reproduce.
>>80398755
>Economics is mostly a >priori reasoning with a little history and jargon.
Finally someone who gets it. A++
>>80393833
Thank you, I hope I can get my act straight and read through them all.
>>80390630
>implying original (not academic meme-tier) Keynesianism + gold standard isn't correct
Shiggy diggy
>>80398989
>Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.
>A prior means it cannot be empirically observed
You are observing supply and demand every day, it is a proven law of economics which is rooted in human psychology. Therefore it is a science.
Would you consider neuroscience a science? That was rhetorical, now economics is just a manifestation of this science in the form of human behavior.
>>80390630
Thomas Sowell bread?
Thomas Sowell bread.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y021WAdUlW8
>>80391800
This retarded nation put a man on the moon and created the technology you use to post on a mongolian weaving board, as well as the technology to monitor and systematically decimate the FARC's leadership. You are welcome.
>>80400085
economic theory is not testable You can only observe "patterns". That's why I said history. Most economic outcomes can be predicted with logic, much more accurately than any a posteriori knowledge of previous similar situationsz
>>80390630
Basic economics doesn't represent reality.
The unfortunate truth is that people are irrational and easily manipulable.
"Supply and demand" doesn't take into account abusable human psychology.
For example, idiots will sit in front a slot machine for years and lose money every day to see flashing lights. Traditional economics doesn't explain that and there are thousands of more subtle examples.
It serves the interests of the bourgeoisie to pretend that people are rational and then sell them caffeinated sugar water at a 10,000% markup because they imprinted Coca Cola = Santa Claus and Good Fun! on impressionable children while they were watching their cartoons.
>>80400633
how is supply and demand not testable and observable?
also your obssession with a priori and a posteriori is unhealthy, they are just tools to gain wisdom
>>80392693
>The problem is that I barely gave a fuck about that. Only remember that supply n' demand graph. Damn, there were many things taught that now seem interesting to me, such as ethics or basics of political science.
I feel the same way but I think it's okay. At least now you can seek out information for yourself instead of having an agenda shoved down your throat.
>>80391540
The principles of economics provide some intuitions that hold up pretty well, even under the most advanced theoretical modeling being done by economists today.
Those who dismiss them are invariably BTFO'd by the sheer simplicity of markets.
>>80400982
>Basic economics doesn't represent reality.
Certainly does, we can observe supply and demand in reality, we can observe time preference of money in interest rates, we can observe the subjective theory of value when people sell hard white shiny rocks
>For example, idiots will sit in front a slot machine for years and lose money every day to see flashing lights. Traditional economics doesn't explain that and there are thousands of more subtle examples.
Price they pay for monotonous entertainment.
>sell them caffeinated sugar water at a 10,000% markup
Subjective theory of value, why do you enjoy eating carbohydrates they are just molecules
>they imprinted Coca Cola = Santa Claus and Good Fun
Branding is not exploitative, it attaches a context to the product you are purchasing of aesthetics, ethics, and quality.
((((((free trade))))) and ((((((outsourcing))))))
>>80400633
>I le don't need facts or evidence
>>80401532
Whatever, amigo. There's an entire modern subdiscipline called behavioral economics that catalogs all the ways traditional economics mispredicts due to human psychology.
Try this book.
>>80400982
People who get hung up on the "irrationality" thing are the ones who took a college-level economics class but unfortunately got nothing out of it.
Here's a clue: just because they are acting irrationally from your perspective does not mean they are acting irrationally from a market perspective. Incentives work, and the reason "idiots" sit in front of slot machines losing money is because they are receiving more utility out of the slot machine than they'd be getting somewhere else... FROM THEIR PERSPECTIVE.
You can baww about opportunity costs all you want -- they're real, after all. But the fact remains that traditional economics easily explains this "irrational" behavior. You just failed to understand why.
>>80401733
Behavioral economists provide valuable insights, but any of them who actually claim to be overturning some grand principle of "traditional economics" are probably just using a bit of their own medicine on pop-econ retards like you.
Some of them may be dumb enough to believe it, but I suspect most understand exactly where behavioral sciences fit into the greater picture of market interactions.
>>80402096
the modern neoclassical synthesis is shit anyway
there's no point in pretending it's of any use with how shit the economy is.
>>80401635
Well, this is to avoid empirical and statistical manipulation to promote some narrative. His systematic ideas are founded on basic facts and sound logic that are really irrefutable from that standpoint. By the way what he says is empirically demonstrated in the free market.
>>80401635
When did I say that I don't need facts and evidence? Not all facts and evidence are dependent on empirical data.
Do you seriously not into logic?
>>80402376
I don't see why anyone would think economics is incapable of providing a useful explanation of "how shit the economy is".
It can explain everything from why Venezuela is collapsing to why England is fine after Brexit to why people in America think the economy is "shit". You just have to understand some hm... how did Sowell put it... "Basic Economics"
The advanced/complex modeling and analysis has very little to do with the topics of which we speak. Big governments and overly-regulated markets tell the tale just fine.
nice thread so far.
10/10
I was looking at the biz books.
Do you think by reading about investment I can start saving money so I can invest it?
>>80390630
Read it years ago and enjoyed it. I don't think making econ mandatory means people will not fall for bullshit propaganda. You're forgetting who runs the schools and what kind of curriculum standards they could set.
The best thing about is just showing how to approach or think about questions on economic matters which I guess in some ways is simple deduction and reasoning. Something as simple as two rivers not being the same like the Nile and the Mississippi yet people will still try to talk about them (or actually the areas they're in and how they trade) as if they are and all the wrong conclusions that can be drawn from such an error.
>>80390630
i'm trying to, got about half a dozen books to read through. i'll add that one to the list if it's worth reading.
>>80403401
Economics explains what happens in the real world. All facts and evidence are, thus, reliant on empirical data. It's not mathematics nor philosophy. You cannot show anything in Economics deductively.
>>80402548
"I am too dumb to understand economics": the post
Austrians are frauds, though
Do you guys take notes and study while you read academic material outside of an academic setting? Do you just take into account the big points? Do you have a good memory?
I do but my memory is horse piss. All other faculties are above average though ;)
>>80390630
You should start from this book(it's old but I found it pretty easy to follow) and after that
>>80393759
avoid everything related to this guy. He lost all of his monies with his own set of rules. Shame that he changed plans and went on buffet way of investing.
>>80403927
you'll remember key points when it crops up in conversation etc. just like when you skim a news article and it comes to mind when you're chatting a few weeks later
>>80403745
what are you talking about? Economics involves tons of deduction induction, and if the economy is to be truly understood as it is, thinking outside of the reductionist paradigm.
>>80403527
Offtopic, but is safe in Colombia? Won't marxists or paramilitary take your savings?
>>80393760
Well in the first example he should technically supply less quantity and hence have less costs and be able to lower prices. It does happen to an extent, consider the 08 crash where most businesses cut jobs to keep alive, whether prices actually fell I dunno but i can imagine they couldnt rise much as noone could afford more.
Although again as credit costs soared maybe those cost increases still out balance the savings through labour demand falling and the overall effect is still prices rising.
I dunno i havent looked at any data, and guess this post gives light to how economics is just hypotheses until supported by data, then they are theories until blown the fuck out by another event that gives arise to new theories.
>>80404664
guerrilla is only a problem if you live in the jungle in some town without even physical access beyond donkey shit that lack police or military.
the cities have no guerrilla problem and I would feel more danger by some common crimminal than by the guerrillas.
>>80390630
>>80391540
Micro and Macro economics are not as disparate as your econ courses would have you believe.
>>80390630
>>80391800
Agreed.
Pic related. Rothbard was red pilled on monetary theory and the cancer of central banks (and those behind them) long before it was cool to talk about it.
Free PDF here:
https://mises.org/library/mystery-banking
>>80404895
>economics is just hypotheses
So are all fields of study if you're going to overly reduce them with a statement like that.
Your analyses of the leaf's cases demonstrates that economics is more than just some faggoty guesswork. Markets are not that mysterious.
>>80403886
I think you'll find it's quite accurate you stinking Jew
>>80393760
Well competition is supposed to enter the market place at that point--but it's generally snuffed out by the reigning cartel, prohibited because all the means of production are already owned, or crushed by high taxes.
>>80392594
Flawed. See Rothbard and the Austrian take on it:
>>80405200
>>80394029
This.
>>80396791
Science is somewhat a spectrum, very rarely are things black and white, someone coming out with statements like you are either arrogant or ignorant to an extent that damages their thinking.
Is geography a science? Is biology a science? Some aspects of each can be argued to be scientific, other aspects would be close to economics. Stop being obtuse over stupid things.
Any economistbrahs in this thread laughing at how fucking stupid the average "red-pilled" /pol/ user is with regards to economics?
>>80392697
Fag who literally didn't bother to think of the long term implications of his harebrained schemes because he didn't have Children.
The only flaw with Monetarist economics is that it fails to take into account that everywhere it is tried, Keynesian economics has come before.
>>80405594
What school of economic theory do you believe has it as correct as possible?
What reading would you recommend to the idiots in this thread?
>>80405594
>/pol/ is one person
>the people itt are the ones who get into debates with you elsewhere
don't do this
>>80405471
This translation is a bit shoddy.
>>80405800
Chicago
Start reading stuff on EconLog or TheMoneyIllusion
how do I into investing?
>>80406181
If you like milton try his son.
you prrobably don't even have any bitcoin
>>80405591
Science is a method and is not a spectrum.
Biology and geology are both hard sciences.
>>80405217
I agree, I'm currently sitting on a first in economics with a year to go, I think it is valuable and really enjoy studying it but at the same time people who study it and then start saying broad statements with certainty rile me to no end. End of the day many 'great economists' have been disproven by reality and when we analyse something we have to admit a degree of uncertainty, as what should happen might not happen.
>>80390630
Understanding basic economics does not make you smarter than 99% of people. Economics is a complex subject and you need to read a lot more than 1 book to understand it correctly and form your own opinion about it and not just repeat what the book says.
It also doesn't make you immune to political propaganda because economics are not an exact science and very different solutions can solve the same problem.
>>80394029
>retard who couldn't predict the crash like the austrians could
zero austrian economists predicted the great recession.
>>80406731
wrong. if you know the basics of how markets work, the basics of international trade and some of the underlying psychology that makes people act as they do, you will immediately know more than the vast majority of the population. remember the average person is almost completely financially and scientifically illiterate.
>>80406896
I meant great depression
>>80392697
Monetarism is mostly correct thought. Money supply is an extremely important tool in controlling the economy, probably even the most important one but fiscal policy is also necessary for smaller scale problems and in general to allocate resources.
Btw, what does /pol/ think on social democracy?
>>80392594
>>80394575
>>80406731
This desu. As someone who picked up econ along the way with a math degree, the first sip from the glass of economics will make you a conservative, because the principles are inherently so. By the end of your drink, you'll find confusion and apathy of political parties.
>>80390630
macroeconomics is pseudoscience and microeconomics is stating the obvious
>>80392594
>>80406937
I suppose its a subjective thing but in my experience after taking my first/2nd economics class I thought I was so great and understood so much more than all those other people, but the more I learned/read/etc I started realizing that it wasn't that simple and there is just so much more to it than just supply/demand, opportunity cost, TVM, etc. I would say maybe 5-10% of people in 1st world countries understand at least the basics of those and are as a result much more informed on political/economic issues.
>>80391540 pic related is correct I suppose even if it is mostly a meme.
>>80392476
Capitalism isn't even a system. It's a term made up by whiny proto SJW. It's on the same level as "cis gender", which I hope doesn't make its way into our dictionaries.
Seriously, how can owning your own shit and doing whatever you want with it be even a system?
