Is this all I need?

Is this all I need?

No. You need to read a basic introductory work from all of the economic schools, just like with any other discipline.

>fourth edition
pleb

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Yeah, I'm sure talking about surplus value with mathematically illiterate Hegelians is just as good as discussing the economy with high IQ Harvard Econ PhDs...

Ok. Enjoy not having a well-rounded opinion on yet another field of study as you attempt to fellate yourself.

>mathematically illiterate

The only mathemattically illiterate are the Austrian School faggots, who refuses maths and elaborate ufologist theories.

It doesn't teach you much at all.
It mostly just dismantles modern city management.
"Economic Facts and Fallacies", and, "Applied Economics: Thinking Beyond Stage One" are better.
>Political Economy: An Introductory Text - Phelps, Edmund S.
>The Making of Modern Economics: The Lives and Ideas of the Great Thinkers
>Carl Menger
>The Matthew Effect: How Advantage Begets Further Advantage
>Modern Economics by Jack Harvey

Or you could just get '30-Second Economics' I hear it's great.

>reading a book by a nigger

If you want economic lectures from a self-hating Uncle Tom that adores the man who thought the Great Depression will go away by itself - go ahead

If you want an introduction into the thinker that guided the West into its Golden Age (1949-1979), read Keynes

He's basically Uncle Ruckus if he had any intellectual aspirations.

Jesus Christ. I thought I was on lit, not fucking pol.

Your reading comprehension makes me think I'm on /pol/.

>attack a man based on his race
>"hurr durr, I'm not a drumpf supporter"
>"lrn 2 red"

You are so stupid it hurts. Are you sure you aren't an amnesiac /pol/tard?

>sure seems like pol in here...
>"HURR DURR, NO U R"
Jesus. Also, not an argument, Neanderthal.

I attacked Sowell for buying into the /pol/tard “niggas be poor cause theyre stoopid and lazy” narrative.

First of all, that's not his argument. Thank you for proving that you've never read any of his books.

Second of all, Sowell is damn near 80, and has been making his argument for decades. He didn't fall for pol, you moron.

To be an expert on any subject you need to read 40 books, 100 papers, and write 100 papers on the subject.
And not all the papers can be extensive.
Sometimes you'll need to limit yourself to 2-4 pages but they need to be pure substance.
If and only if you do that, by God you may be an expert my son.

The goes without saying but publishing for an academic journal is what you might want to do.
Doing this doesn't mean you're an expert though, anyone can publish with an academic journal.
Doing so with a reputable one is impressive though.

The papers have to be modern looks at the subject. Like up to date cutting edge shit.

Academic journal publishing is just for street cred.
Though if you're really trying to be an expert recognized by society than you're gonna have to do stuff like that.

Funny how this is the only refutation of Austrian economics I ever encounter on this board.

Learning about economics is more wasteful than spending your days on Veeky Forums.

the “niggas be poor cause theyre stoopid and lazy” narrative is much more plausible than the "ebil slavery, a good kindergarten will pump their IQ up to 100" narrative

The problem is that's not even Sowell's position. He believes the issue with blacks nowadays was governmental intervention and argues that blacks were actually on a path towards prosperity, comparable to asians.

only if your a fucking fag

>being a consequentialist
I don't care about the effects of my ideas on the economy. All I am concerned about is if my ideas are right. If my ideas are right than the consequences, whatever they are, will simply have to be borne.

Git gud you moral cowards.

Pretty much. I'd use Mankiw's textbook though

>Schools in economics
Brainlet detected. There are no relevant schools anymore. There is mainstream, and there is wrong

>than
then*

How embarrassing. I should go to bed.

if you're a recent convert to sowell i would check out "wishful thinking for dummies" as well

I know, just wanted to throw that viewpoint out there

...

>Enjoy not having a well-rounded opinion on yet another field of study as you attempt to fellate yourself.
Interesting. Should I also study creationism and alchemy as alternatives to Darwinian natural selection and chemistry, in the interest of being well-rounded?

Yes.
Unless you want to get into it.

This, Hazlitt is the better intro economics text. Sowell is fine too if you already have it though.

Yes. That way you can refute them, you philistine.
>Argumentum ad populum
So do you have an actual argument for your precious Neo-Liberalism?

No, terrible. Find something steeped in practicality (AKA reality), not ideology.

It seems like only socialists try to get others to read their books by appealing to this noble "you have to study both sides in order to be balanced" garbage. It comes off as very manipulative because you know damn well they haven't read anything by Sowell, Mises, or Hayek. It's like they're trying to trick people into becoming a socialist because they know once people are hooked and set in their ways they won't challenge themselves with diametrically opposed views. If they ever expose themselves to opposing views it would be through secondary literature from fellow socialists.

That's bound to be the case when you spend all your time on Veeky Forums

If you want to be a confused ideologue, yes.

If you want to understand economics you will have to read more from other economists and unlearn a lot of what you just read to find out the truth.

I have never before seen a post with so little self-awareness.

I got you homie.

What am I lacking awareness of?

holy shit

Well the biggest thing is you saying that your opposition never expose themselves to opposing views while talking about how you refuse to read opposing views.

Plus, You're complaining about others asking you to read their books while refusing to read their books because you're afraid that you are so weak-minded and intellectually malleable that you are just going to be tricked into becoming a Socialist. It is like you're a child.

To be fair, I think part of the problem is that most socialists haven't taken economics classes past intro micro and macro (the same could be said for many anarchocapitalists)

The point of my post is that socialists are hypocrites because they're the ones acting like they reading literature from all sides. The difference between me and them is that I'm not trying to appeal to this idea that everyone should expose themselves to every side of the debate. I don't read socialist literature and I don't encourage others to do so because I don't think people should waste their time on garbage. It has nothing to do with people being weak-minded and incapable to dealing with it, I just think it's a waste of time to read things that are wrong.

Ricardo Retardo and the Kekistani KKKrew up in here with the objective truth. BTFO'd. Praise keke & pep.
Fuck reading books, that's for Communists AND I have a blind hatred of Communist.

You can't oppose Scientology unless you've taken all their courses and read all their books.

Maybe they did read your books and found them lacking.
>I just think it's a waste of time to read things that are wrong.
How can you know that they're wrong when you don't even know what they're saying?

>write 100 papers on the subject.

Yeah nah, this depends heavily on the field of study because this would mean some of the most
brilliant mathematicians in the world are not "experts¨.

>muh fallacies
Fuck off you dumb cunt, economics has had multiple synthesis, where we have taken the best of every school. Hence why 99.5% of economists are now in one school to the point where there is just "mainstream" and "wrong"

I know socialists are wrong for the same reason I know Scientology is wrong, which is because I read secondary literature or commentaries on about them, just as everyone else does. The difference is I'm not pretending otherwise and I'm not trying to trick people into reading books by appealing to some higher virtue of fairness. Not all side deserve a fair shake because sometimes and readily apparent that they're not good. If you're honest you would agree because did you give the Nazi a fair shake, what about North Korea or Saudi Arabia?

Fuck off commies, your ideology is utterly irrelevant in economics. Go shit up some sociology threads

Of course OP, after all, the problem with liberals is they don't understand Basic Economics, amirite?

goofy libtards and their heterodox not listening to Koch sponsored professorship chairs and Hoover Institution talking heads fucking dumbass libtards not parroting talking points from Macro 101 at every chance they get stupid subjective libs sheee itttt im about to buy penny stocks on my trading app and become an entrepreneur top kek yall need to get a job like me I just got a 50k job starting at my dads company after being a NEET for 4 straight years top fucking lel

In all honesty you don't actually need to study economics anywhere beyond 101 classes to get the general gist of how to apply it to world affairs

I have the audio book but I kinda want to get the kindle version, because reading>audio.

What makes it superior to Sowell's work?

> Not all side deserve a fair shake
Yes they do. If you're going to debate against an ideology, you owe it to your opponent to not waste their time by being an ignorant asswipe.
>because did you give the Nazi a fair shake, what about North Korea or Saudi Arabia?
Yes, I have read the introductory texts for all of those political movements & I read The Anatomy of the State too. I'm a Fascist, by the way.
Also, Everybody is not just pretending to have read books that they disagree with, unlike you they actually read them & that makes them better than you.

>Yes, I have read the introductory texts

Be very honest with me. What do you think secondary literature means?

Get your foot off the desk you fucking degenerate

Post em.

Pics or it didn't happen

>economics has had multiple synthesis, where we have taken the best of every school. Hence why 99.5% of economists are now in one school to the point where there is just "mainstream" and "wrong"

What the bloody fuck are you even on about?

>economics
>not pickety

heh

>It seems like only socialists try to get others to read their books by appealing to this noble "you have to study both sides in order to be balanced" garbage


Because socialists can see that people who go out of their way to read the opposing sides are more likely to become socialists. Funny about that.

he prob has more foot hair than you have hair hair you soyboy

>the central formula of the book is fallacious

On what planet are you living? No other following of an ideology has employed such heavy-handed group strategies in the academia.

Haha oh man, what a moron!

Yes, because people are inherently lazy and stupid, but the best of us have evolved past that and aren't worthless parasites like socialists.

Go eat dog in Venezuela, you creep.

Behold the Übermensch in his perfectly evolved state. He is two intelligent too read books by people he disagrees with.

It's specific to none stem fields.

What kind of strategies?

Actually it's quite common for Marxists to read Sowell and Hayek. Nearly all Marxian economists have.

i.e. specific to fields where bullshitting matters more than substance

Hayek you have an argument but Sowell is a meme even among conservatives

>thinking that a keynesian school which only accept keynesian students and then has keynesian teachers further teach them keynesian theory is objectively correct

Are you fucking retarded?

More or less.
You're going to tell me that philosophy is objective?
That economics isn't just a bunch of case studies on what tends to work?
Soft sciences are heavily about brow beating with evidence.

Wrong, academics don't really read Sowell

He's like the Bill Nye of economics

>I don't understand it nor I have studied it so let's throw it all out of the window
Ironically this the same way many stemfags and the vast majority of normies think about philosophy

Do I really need to make that elaborate a case to state that non-leftist (yes, not the same thing as "socialist") views are somewhat persecuted in the academia and that certain branches of science have become heavily politicized during the 20th century? Won't play that game where I have to start digging up a bunch of single instances and articles

Is it the same guy doing all these threads?

This book has to be a fucking retard magnet

No, it isn't all you need, but it is a good start. The book does a good job of breaking complex economic ideas down into terms the average person would deal with easily.

No shit, but we're talking about Marxism here.

Taken out of context it probably appears that way.

>It's a "let's identify Marx with all the assorted SJW bullshit you don't like" post

Listen, if you're trying to imply that I myself am an SJW you'd be far from right. In light of recent discoveries, I think one of the main reasons why I haven't fallen in the Jewish orchestrated line of radical leftist ideologues is because I'm actually allergic to soy, and legumes. As a result I have to cook all my meals, and also I definitely have more testosterone than any leftist 'soyboy' and probably most alt-right morons.

The thing that really sets Basic Economics apart from other works on the same topic is that it applies economics to human behavior, even when it's irrational. Sowell focuses less on "should" and a lot more on "does" with regards to the effects of pieces of policy on markets.

[rettu much the greatest thinker in america at modern times. Thomas Sowell is a national treasure.

>Reverse google image search so that I can see the original tattoo
>Best guess for this image: An Armchair better world

>if you're trying to imply that I myself am an SJW
how are you this fucking dumb

>Thomas Sowell is a national treasure.
Yes, completely worthless except in the eye of the beholder.

Maybe try looking for a refutation of Austrian economics somewhere other than a literature board

leftypol falselfagging as me
I don't see how their goals differ that greatly, generally speaking.

Further, you're using a rather narrow definition of Marxism if only stuff directly relating to dialectical materialism and original writings of Marx and Engels counts as "Marxism." Lots of this stuff stems from Marx still one way or another, and I don't think it's a vast leap to say that there's very broad overlap between the two crowds

amazed how people fell for this

Not American, not a Trump-supporter and not AnCap.

You're right about the Übermensch part though.

delete these

No. Basic Economics is a polemic against the failures of central planning and 'liberal' economic policy, not an economics textbook.

There's no true science or theory to economics. Markets are run by humans and human are irrational and prone to all sorts of cognitive biases. You'll understand the economy better if you read psychology than you ever would gain from reading most economy books. Then again, reading something like Adam Smith can be useful because then you'll know what the common deception is that stupid people use to explain their poor decisions and their consequences. It's insane how many idiots talk about the invisible hand of the market as if it's some sort of fundamental principle when it's mentioned offhandedly like once.