How accurate is this small reading chart?

...yes?

I mean his whole book screams of the fact that he understood Walras, Pareto, and Fisher. Three economists who relied on calculus heavily.

Just read Basic Economics then go from there.

Would you consider Smith, Keynes, Hayek to be more of the "philosophy of economics" than actual modern economics?

keynes' ideas continue to fuck up the developing world by fueling populism and corruption

the term is Political Economy

Keynes is still important in modern economics. The recent economic crises used Keynes constantly for a justification of the subsequent quantitative easings.

Just read The General Theory, it's not that math intensive. Not like Fisher or Walras.

>Almost? I probably understand The General Theory more than the professors themselves

ahahahahahahahahahahaha

post your published papers bro

>thinks you need to publish papers to understand primary texts
Why don't people do this when someone claims to have understood Phenomenology of Spirit or something?

The General Theory is dense, and tough. But it isn't fucking GOD, okay? You can understand it just fine if you apply yourself. Everyone can.

Many of its incorrect assumptions have been debunked but obviously not everything he said was wrong, dumbass. Same thing that happened with the austrians, some parts got discarded some parts got integrated, happens all the time in science.

OK, you understand an outdated text that is only slightly relevant to actual modern economics, well done

So you're justifying you not reading the very cornerstone of modern economics because some of its theories have been spuriously ''''''''debunked'''''''''?

Cool.

>Fundamentally you are being worse than the mathematical theorists who don't read Euclid because it's not Set Theory or something. Ridiculous.
Well, I really don't think reading Euclid will help you much as a modern mathematician considering the mathematical language evolved A SHIT TON in the 20th century thanks to people like the Bourbaki group. So yeah, shitty comparison.

>actual modern economics
You mean Keynesianism?

Nice try, please explain to me how the idea of elasticity somehow disappeared from modern economics. Or how the ideas of functional unemployment went away. Or maybe how the very foundation of the investment multiplier incentivised recent government investment in the financial crisis to increase employment.

You are a shitter, you know why? You haven't read the fucking book. All of these concepts are still in modern economics.

Yeah. There's really no point other than historical value (or maybe some philosophy of science) in reading scientifically incorrect documents.

Not really, I mean there is a reason The Elements was taught for 2000 years. Not really too much you can do with a philosophy of math which tries to be the least axiomatic as possible.

Many mathematical systems developed rest their entire foundation on how Euclid proved his system of geometry/arithmetic.

see

>Physicists still use a theory of gravity
>That means they're all Newtonians

kek.

Did you fail an actual econ class and that's why you refuse to try and learn something more modern than WW2?

Non-shit Political Economy:
James Steuart
Smith
Ricardo
Mill
Marx
Marshall
Kalecki

We're getting into broken record territory here. You haven't given any sources or anything for these claims that Keynes theories are debunked.

I know back when I was in college and took an actual econ course, Keynes was definitely cited.

this book
good

Yes, Keynes was not 100% wrong, that's why you should read a textbook to find out which bits are still relevant.

Of all the ideas there are, find me one without flaw or reason.

Oh so I should read someone else's interpretations of how some of his ideas are valid and some aren't?

You are everything wrong with the modern day ''''intellectual'''''. Kill yourself please.

Oh God. I did say the parts of it got integrated. And I didn't say that everything he said was wrong. Can you even fucking read

This is a good post, and you're correct. Most likely certain aspects of The General Theory are incorrect.

However, he was extremely intelligent, knew what he was doing, and wrote something incredible. It really is an amazing experience reading his work. I've already read it once, and I plan on reading it over again in the near future.

Oh okay cool. So which aspects have been debunked? You keep on going on and on about this, just tell me what has been proven wrong. You seem to know a lot about this.

i'm goc

Kys. Read Some economics textbooks then read Piketty's Capital in the Twenty First Century - you don't have to agree with all he says but its relevant and he's right about a lot of things. Most economics theories are outdated as fuck and only worth reading for their historical significance. Textbooks are much more important; you need to learn some basic economics models at least. Reading random treatises will just turn you into another political ideologue cuck.

No. That is wrong.

But I will agree Thomas Piketty's Capital is a good, beneficial read.

Euclid is still great for a beginner student of mathematics but it doesn't have much to offer beyond the historical interest to those who have actually put in the work to get a degree in math

armstrongeconomics.com/models/the-end-of-time/
Do what you want with it, essentialy boils down to a guy with access to enormous amounts of historical price data and a huge computer with advanced pattern recognition software. An interesting fellow who has been involved in a lot of pivotal moments of modern history.

Everything in that image is nonsense. Read Das Kapital.

This

>everything in image is nonsense
>suggests Das Kapital

I have proven people wrong just simply using words on Veeky Forums before. They have their 'mathematical notation', but the funny part is, it all falls apart when someone actually uses logic. You will never be able to replace that, no matter what the 'academic consensus' is.

I agree you should branch out and study what modern mathematics entails, but a thorough reading of The Elements is necessary for anyone, honestly.

>no Capital
Shit

That it purports to be a general introduction but has a specific section on Georgism should be an indication as to the chart's quality.

I second the reccomendation to start with modern introductory macro/micro textbooks and then work through a history of economics reading list, starting again with a modern textbook and then working through primary sources.

>implying everyone shouldn't read Progress and Poverty

full estate tax when

Keynes is garbage dude

Not at all. Many graduate programs still require you to have an understanding of Keynes' theories.

None of them require you to have an understanding of Mises, for comparison.

fuck your face bitch

>Anonymous 02/11/18(Sun)18:27:36 No.106
watch commanding heights

>Keynes
>no Sowell
>no Peter Schiff
>no Hayek
>no Mises
>no Friedman

>watch this meme movie

You understand that Keynes grasps and utilizes the free market, and that his theory the interest rate just naturally goes up or down at times (and can even sink into a perpetual fall) is in consonance with many other thinkers like Fisher and Walras?

We are talking about highly developed theories here. I don't like Mises simply because he spends far too much time on the politics behind economics for it to even be economics anymore.

>no Mises
See
The rest of the post is laughable as well. The only good Austrian economist was Carl Menger, but please do not mention Sowell, the person who believes whole-heartedly that all drugs should be legalized.

>Fundamentally you are being worse than the mathematical theorists who don't read Euclid because it's not Set Theory or something. Ridiculous.
Mathematicians don't read Euclid because they have better alternatives

>They have their 'mathematical notation', but the funny part is, it all falls apart when someone actually uses logic.
What do you mean?

what's up with the math books I've never heard of? I'm inclined to think they're shit

Form a strictly pragmatic sense, there are much better text to learn geometry, and general mathematics from, than Euclid. There's a reason top universities and schools around the globe don't teach from The Elements or Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, among many more in a long, long list of historically significant text.

The only things these may offer, pragmatically, is a more thorough understanding by seeing how the first person first came to see these concepts by piecing together his own thoughts along with existing bodies of work at the time. Other than that, it's an extraordinarily inefficient path to take.

As someone who's read the elements for that exact reason, I have to agree.

>I have proven people wrong just simply using words on Veeky Forums before.

these reeks of proud brainlet. Additionally, any real mathematician is also a skilled logician, so I don't know what you're on about academia undermining logic, this only amplifies the stench I'm gathering from you.

>Reading the originals is the peak pseud.
Can you expand on this? Mortimer Adler tricked me into thinking it was the ultimate patrician move, but I've come to disagree with it's efficiency and usefulness.

consumption is not a proper metric for determining the health of an economy at all, its fucking asinine to tell people to stimulate the economy by buying goods and services, totally ignores the demand side's incentives and pressures

>what's up with the math books I've never heard of?
You haven't heard of them because Veeky Forums doesn't read actual economics. They read meme economics. If they read actual economics, or if the people in Veeky Forums read actual economics, you would have actual discussions about Keynesian theories or anything to do with anything. But as it stands, if any sort of derivative enters the whole idea of economics, it scares away people for some retarded reason.

>Euclid
I'm sorry, it's just true. I have literally provided a proof with better justifications than any other proof notated in scientific/mathematic form. The problem isn't me, it's them. They seem to think because they are notating it mathematically it is more correct, however this is just not the case. Mathematics is not inherently supposed to be that way. As you've said, this rests on logic.

Mortimer J. Adler was right, despite him being a terrible editor in chief of the Great Books, he was a very intelligent individual, and his idea to get you to read primary texts, like On the Origin of Species, and The Holy Bible, and Euclid's Elements was a great idea. The reason is, because you can participate in a wide range of discussion, as you can see we are now doing.

>man shouldn't be free to do with himself as he pleases, including drugs
get out commie

Also, I must add that the politics behind economics is probably equally as important as the economic theories. After all, theories do not change anything, they merely provide and outlook, politics is what changes things, to change something economically you have to through it politically.

And yet many people still use GDP to measure economic well-being.

I'm not certain if it's the best way to measure the economy, but it does exist and is used popularly in economics.

Measuring things by consumption is NOT a Keynesian idea however, considering many economists, like Walras, already accounted for depreciation on fixed assets, and various other methods of specifically measuring consumption, in his system. Products (i.e. food) is the entire reason why we're discussing economics in the first place. It's why Adam Smith liked to measure value in Corn.

>Also, I must add that the politics behind economics is probably equally as important as the economic theories.
No? When understanding a science like this, it is important to be as objective as possible.

Understanding a theory is one thing, putting it into reality is another.

Understanding a theory is obivously needed if your going to try and attempt to change things in reality based on a theory, however equally important is the knowledge of politics if you ever want something done. To claim that there's no need to know the politics behind economics is ridiculous, political economy is very much a thing.

Understanding the political theory behind economics is one thing.

At the end of The Theory of Money and Credit, Ludwig Von Mises goes on what can only be described as a political rampage against the political left. I don't understand why he would have even included that last section of the book.

But, as I have stated elsewhere, I do appreciate his thought on how currency is devalued through a capital injection. It's pretty much how the Quantity theory of value operates, if you increase the supply, the interest rate will lower itself and then rise as the effects on the price lowering are felt throughout the market, gradually, as the fiduciary unit is distributed.

Mises' theories work great as long as you believe the Quantity Theory isn't flawed or incorrect. But it is.

>I have literally provided a proof with better justifications than any other proof notated in scientific/mathematic form.

This, being all I know of this specific instance, comes off as extraordinarily pretentious and/or ignorant. Pretentious, because if you're claiming that you've come up with the best proof, ever, for something, well.. That should be a bit self explanatory (I'd hope). And ignorant, because if not, then you're just making a big ruckus out of outsmarting some brainlet on Veeky Forums, and you shouldn't waste anyone's time trying to meaningfully brag about that.

You've likely dealt with people who weren't mathematicians to their marrow, and instead only enrolled to pass exams and get a degree. But at any rate, I'm interested in this proof or instance of it, can you expand on it?

>terrible editor in chief of the Great Books
I posted a few times on here asking about opinions on his choosing, but mostly met with anti-Semitic remarks, which I'm fine with as long as a real argument follows, but it did not. I'd be interested to know where your criticisms lie in his choosing.

>read primary texts
I was fascinated with the idea when I was first exposed to it, and I still am - it's just that when it comes to gathering knowledge and skills there are more efficient routes (this demonstrates a divide between learning for career goals and learning for the sake of it more than anything though). You can't ignore that it does come off as a bit esoteric and odd (however unfortunate that may be) when someone ask for a math text recommendation and one replies with something as archaic as The Elements. I think that the general presumption is that people aren't learning for the sake of it, or to further the "discussion of man" as Adler would say, but instead to reach an end goal of a state certified education. And that's too bad, and I suppose that's really where the division between my recommendations and yours lie. Though I agree with yours more, I feel the asker is likely to be more immediately satisfied with a more modern response. I think I've answered my own questions here, mostly.

>The reason is, because you can participate in a wide range of discussion, as you can see we are now doing.
/comfy/

samefag here, just to say that I kind of diverged and met a middle ground, where I've been working through the modern day iconic texts (for efficiency sake), but keeping an active backburner of the historic texts. I don't know that it's the best approach, but I feel more comfortable in this happy medium than I did closer to either extreme. It's a question I've asked myself a lot,, but there's not many people to discuss this with, and most of the time they have dismissive answers like mine were above.

you do know that keynes was a fucking mathematician???
>got scholarship to Kings fucking Cambridge for mathematics and got a first class degree in maths
he's also a bnoc in foundational probability theory you absolute mong

you absolute spaz

youtube.com/watch?v=mFdnA5UNmVw
>economists

>Henry George

Might as well recommend Karl Marx instead, all George has is issues with people more talented than him.

He's probably some brainlet austrian cultist who has never read Keynes

Or not, considering Henry George is a capitalist.

I think you understand the justification behind reading older works entirely. Just understand Euclid and Keynes are not outdated by any means.

Yeah that thread on Veeky Forums is dead, but it sure was funny. I simply posted a simple proof, and they couldn't comprehend it because I explained a concept of infinity starting from finite values, then expanding. But this process is exactly the same thing that Apollonius does when determining how far away lines are from a certain point chosen below the axis of a hyperbola, for instance.

You don't begin with the concept of infinity, you prove something works at a finite level, then you expand it to infinity.

I guess that's why he wanted socialization of transit, utilities, pensions, income, and land. Becuase he's a capitalist. The only thing I think he advocated for that could be considered capitalist is free trade, and even then it's probably because it helps secure a working poor to perpetually care for with all his other 'capitalist' measures.

I'm going to need a source on the socialization of income, that's a pretty big deal. Income in general?

Geoism is primarily concerned with just Progress and Poverty, the stipulation that land be public property, which I have yet to hear any argument against. True, this sort of thing has existed since the inception of agriculture, but it fundamentally doesn't have to exist anymore, now that we have progressed far enough in society to see it does not need to.

What would you change about Adler's list?

You've stated the book that I've heard used before as an argument for universal basic income. I'ld have to reread the book to find the exact term that George uses but I believe it's referred to as Citizen's Dividend.

On Geoism itself, I've always felt that Geroge is nothing but a Communist who doesn't want the system to change. He wants to keep the proletariat and bourgeoisie balance, but give enough comfort to the proletariat that they don't want to revolt while making the tax system regulate the bourgeoisie into being productive with the land instead of sitting on it. In this status quo you could say there is peace, the Scandinavian states basically work this way, but it's not inherently a capitalist state, it's a mixed state of the best of both worlds.

>You've stated the book that I've heard used before as an argument for universal basic income
You've heard incorrectly. If he talked about a dividend at all, it would have been from the Estate taxes, but there are many different possibilities for all of that extra money. He isn't proposing anything but simply getting rid of the existence of private property in land. This is an important distinction, as you can clearly see that the idea of communism is inherently against property, which Henry George was never a fan of.

Communism is a puerile ideology in my opinion. And the Labor theory of Value was outdated, but some economists did good things with it, for instance, Henry George adapted the LTV theory of value. But just because you don't agree with the LTV doesn't mean you can't be a Geoist. Hence, Leon Walras is a Geoist. He literally doesn't want anything but the abolition of private property in land. That's all.

Adler's list is fine. You could probably add some more books to it.

I've read Elements, all the works of Archimedes, and am reading On Conics as we type. I'm on Book VI. I plan to read all of the books, including the reconstructed book from Ibn Al-Haytham.

On what needs to be added? Various things from various disciplines, obviously. Maybe those first slots should be occupied by important non-fiction works, rather than plays. Obviously I am a bit biased for economics, I think that marginal utility should be understood so Carl Menger is a must-read. But so would Progress and Poverty, and he has a lot of works by J.S. Mill there but for some reason he doesn't have his book on Political Economy, and I enjoyed that work about as much as his thoughts on utilitarianism.

That's why I said: best of both worlds. You can't exactly call a system of economics that takes away private property and distributes it among the people a capitalist system, but you can't exactly call it a communist system either because it allows for the previous owner to develop the land to the best of their ability. It's fraudulently to say then that Geoism is a capitalist theory, which is the only claim of yours I take issue with.

Not at all. Many economists were Geoists. It's not even close to being wrong to assert that capitalism is Geoism friendly or that Geoism is a capitalist mentality. Hence why he supports private property, machinery, equipment, capital, and all of that. I don't understand. He still fundamentally supports the basis for capitalism.

You saying Geoism isn't capitalistic would be like if you said a lamp with three lightbulbs doesn't produce any light if I removed a bulb.

I'm fine with a slant towards economics, would be preferred if anything. I just asked your opinion about his list because you called him a terrible officer in chief of the great books (or something to that extent) so I wrongly assumed you were criticising his choosings.

I'm on mobile now and preparing for a comfy slumber, but if you'd be willing to post a recommended reading list for economics I'd appreciate it coming from someone as seemingly versed as yourself (and of the same philosophy of learning from primary sources). The bigger the list and more details the better! If you'd be so kind.

Is this a joke? Friedman & his Chicago school is MASSIVELY influencial to mainstream, neoclassical thought (e.g., the body of economic ideas most modern papers are written in). Sowell has written expansions on price theory that are notable. Mises & Hayek are interesting footnotes who are good reads, and whose politics are intelligent- Hayek genuinely thought the development of a system of individual liberties could lead to common benefit for all- and agreeable. Obviously keynes' theories are incredibly important & a must-read, in some form or another. You sound like one of those spergy e-warriors who polices the internet, looking for anything remotely austrian/libertarian sounding to have an autistic fit about. Neck yourself.

want to know how i can tell you aren't a mathematician?

Yes he's a terrible editor in chief. I only possess one of the great books, but if you're going to have books on mathematics in your list, I would hope you can oversee editing correctly.

So. I have in my possession the Great Books with Elements, Archimedes, first three books of On Conics, and Introduction to Arithmetic by Nicomachus. I'm reading the last now, just about to wrap up the entire thing.

But if you'll please direct your attention to pic related. This is the reason why I'm not too fond of it. It is absolutely LITTERED with errors, to such an extent I am still currently waiting for a response back from someone to tell me what is on his copy because I literally couldn't understand one of the propositions because of an error in how it's worded (I believe). I mean it is seriously terrible. Taliaferro is a much better translator than T.L. Heath, who absolutely butchered On Conics, but the editing absolutely ruined this copy for me. Rest of the book is fine, there are a couple errors at the end of Book II and Book III is just fucking ridiculous.

Anyway, you wanted a reading list for economics? I am still noting a somewhat sarcastic tone in your posts (?) but I will take you seriously. I am OP. Do you know calculus at all? I actually extensively read economic texts which deal with calculus concepts, because it is honestly the best way to analyze the entire system. But lets begin at the beginning before it was mathematized.

(2/2)

First there was Smith, you have to read that, then comes Malthus, to understand how positive checks were thought to operate. After that is Ricardo. Then after Ricardo, maybe you might want to read J. S. Mill's Principles. This is why J. S. Mill's Principles is in the image. It's actually very carefully made. After you've read The Wealth of Nations, if you just want to skip everything and read J. S. Mill's Principles that is (almost) entirely acceptable. I mean, you will basically get the gist of the ideas of Ricardo and Malthus from J. S. Mill. If you want to get more in depth then you should go further. J. S. Mill's work is very enjoyable if you're a fan of his writing in the first place. It is extremely verbose, but so were those other works, so it ends up being a great replacement for all three books in the end, because it is a great recap of all thought up till that time.

Now is where economics really gets tough. First up, having read these, you are ready to read Marx (if you've already read some philosophy beforehand), and you are certainly ready to read Henry George, and also you are definitely ready to read Carl Menger's Principles of Economics. Carl Menger is the only good Austrian economist, in my opinion. Mises does make some good points in his work, Theory of Money and Credit, towards limiting capital injections, but that's about all he does.

Now you're going to need calculus for the following: Leon Walras' Elements of Pure Economics, Irving Fisher's Mathematical Investigations in the Theory of Value and Price and The Theory of Interest as Determined by Impatience to Spend Income and Opportunity to Invest It, and Vilfried Pareto's Manual of Political Economy. ALL of these would help you understand and comprehend John Maynard Keynes. And Keynes has read everyone I just mentioned. Yeah. Everyone. He's read it all. And more. He's read Marshall too, which you might want to study but you don't need to, and Jevons, which you don't need to read if you read Carl Menger or Leon Walras.

It gets complicated at the turn of the 20th century for economics. It's like a free-for-all with the philosophy. Recently it has become lukewarm, but with the discussion of different sorts of cryptocurrencies hopefully the discussion can be energized again.

Anyway, there you go. The full version of the list I posted. Your understanding of economics, up to Keynes, in order to understand Keynes, who was indisputably an economic genius.

Because I'm not dogmatically worshiping set theory? Interesting.

Hey man, I don't disagree that Mises was well-read, it would just have been better if he logically thought his economic system out a little better, that's all. Keynes has a problem with the Austrian school not defining their terms properly, and is completely at ends with their definitions of what Mises calls the 'national subsistence fund', they view the interest rate to move in opposite directions when the production cycle becomes longer. It's the main reason their philosophies are irreconcilable.

The most interesting developments in economics aren't coming from any traditional "school" or dogma, or a development of a cohesive observational descriptive theory (both on the macro and micro level), but from behavioral psychology. Turns out we aren't really self interested rational actors. The massive conglomerate egregore self-aware AI of automated neoliberal global finance markets & capital flow has made our economic reality opaque, like a baudrillardian hyperreality. Nothing is knowable besides individual heuristics, patterns in stock market mechanisms controlled by robots, and the inexorable hyperstitious expansion of modernity's technocapitalist thermo-landscape. Econ is dead.

lmao mad

anyway the OP is just stealth Georgist shit imo. Literally read Marx and good luck

No Georgist actually likes Marx. Are you the same retard from before? Stop.

I am always, and generally correctly, skeptical of any ahistorical tendency in any area of human endeavor. This is generally an idiot brainlet tendency which just wants to be left alone, in the sciences, to crunch numbers in the present without applying the imagination to past circumstances, or in the arts, "to do my own thing". In both cases, being ahistorical amounts to being a stupid vapid normie. There's no need for a more complicated way of putting it.

Interestingly, I was listening to someone on the radio for a few minutes, a few days ago. He said such-and-such about studying economics at such-and-such (Yale), exactly because whatever place it was was one of the few places left which required Economics Ph.D students to complete coursework (as opposed to research) on the history of economics, which he held to be a good thing. I wasn't listening for long but I am inclined to agree.

How accurate is this?

>Step one: nationalize all market-priced financial assets at the present market price, exchanging them for new dollars. USG buys all publicly-traded American securities, and foreign securities held by Americans. It thus becomes the sole owner and operator of all public companies, and in doing so it also acquires all the banks (for the price of their common stock, which is not much these days). By acquiring all the banks, it acquires all their dodgy mortgages and other "bad" securities. Obviously, after this process, all debts USG owes to itself are cancelled.

>Hedge funds, private equity, and other exotic assets held by individuals may require some appraisal. But these are held by rich people, who are patriotic and don't mind taking a bit of a haircut. Also requiring appraisal are homes; if you are a homeowner, USG calculates your home equity (perhaps using an automated appraisal, such as Zillow's), and buys it from you. You are now a renter; USG is your landlord. Your new rent is calculated as a percentage of your home appraisal.

>The result of step one is that USG owns all financial assets, major corporations, and real estate. In return, each USG citizen has one number: how many dollars they have. Perhaps the most straightforward way to implement this is to give every American a direct account at the Federal Reserve (a privilege now held only by banks). Thus, all your portfolios are automatically sold at the current market price, and your statement is mailed from the Eccles Building. The little number at the bottom, however, is the number you care about. This number has not changed. If your portfolio was worth $250,000, you now have $250,000.

>Step two: triple each of these dollars. If your portfolio was worth $250,000, you now have $750,000. (I told you the plan would be popular.)

>It is not practical to actually unwind all the financial transactions of 2008. Our goal is simply to (a) preserve some vestige of fairness, and (b) return the equilibrium of production and consumption to roughly where it was in 2007. In particular, we are tripling dollars, but not tripling debt. (Otherwise, this step would be meaningless.)

>We triple the dollars rather than doubling them, because doubling them would roughly restore everyone's net worth, and the old balance of production and consumption existed not in a world of stable asset prices but a world of rising asset prices. (Thus, for instance, the systemic mortgage equity withdrawal.) In the new financial system, prices will be stable and magic money will not be created out of nowhere. So, to roughly match the spending level, while preferring an overshoot ("inflation") to an undershoot ("deflation"), we triple.

This may also annoy poor people, who have no assets to triple. Instead, poor people have debts. Thanks to our cleanup, these debts are now held by USG itself (which acquired them from the old financial institutions). There is no reason for USG, which can print dollars, to be squeezing them out of the hides of the poor. Forgive them all. Call it a Jubilee.

>Step three: calculate the expected shortfall in future entitlements (Medicare and Social Security), and print new dollars to fill the gap. (About 50 trillion of them, to be exact.) For extra credit, print unripe dollars (bonds) and issue them directly to the actual entitlement recipients, as per the actuarial value of their policies. Otherwise, just hold the dollars until they are needed.

>Why all this printing? Basically, the problem is that (as, presumably, on Urf) our money supply has become inextricably confused with our financial-asset market. We could have $100T financial assets and $2T dollars only because a significant percentage of the value of all these assets was a consequence of Professor Bernanke's printing press. The same can be said even for entitlement payments - USG will never default on your Social Security, because it can always print money and mail it to you.

>We are going to break this printing press. But before we break it, we have to use it - or we may well end up with $2T dollars, and $2T in financial assets. If you haven't been skimming, you know what effect that would have on GDP. Basically, we are finding all the fuzzy, virtual, implicit, green-lint dollars in the world, and replacing them with actual dollars.

>Step four: auction all the financial assets previously nationalized - corporations, real estate, etc. There is certainly plenty of cash around to buy them with. Destroy the dollars received in the auction.

>Why are we selling the assets we just bought? We bought them to close out a broken financial system, in which the relationship between asset prices and dollars was unstable and unhealthy. We are selling them to establish their free-market price in a stable, healthy financial system. We do not know what the right relationship between the number of dollars in the world and the net price of its financial assets should be. So we ask the market, and the market tells us.

>If you were a homeowner before step one, you sold your house to the government and now rent. We don't want to evict anyone unnecessarily, so we'll offer you the opportunity to buy back your house for 10% less than the winning bidder - presumably some faceless conglomerate. If you reject this opportunity, your rent to the conglomerate is a function of the price it paid.

>Step five: renumber the currency. Every dollar in the world (perhaps about 200T) has a new serial number - from 0 to 200T. This limit will never change. Write it into the Constitution. As long as we can hold the line on this number, our new financial system is built on a fiat currency that will be harder than gold (since new gold can be mined).

>Or, for extra credit, redenominate the currency (including debts and contracts, this time) so that rather than a random decimal number of dollars, there is a round binary number - such as 2^64. This has two advantages: (1) micropayments, and (2) a round binary limit will rapidly get baked into all sorts of financial software, and become almost impossible to change.

not even close. its because you aren't moving past super fundamental 2d planar geometry and arithmetic which is euclid (elements even has famous errors!!!). its archaic, historic, obsolete. and while there are still interesting open problems in geometry, none of it has been informed by euclid (or even thinking about things the way euclid did) for at least 400 years.

you can't hide behind superiority on this one, you literally do not have the background to understand what you are talking about, and it shows, nakedly.

But just reading Das Capital and Marxist "economics" (which is really poor economics, but respectable sociology and perhaps political philosophy as well, although contemporary analytic philosophers are better in that area). Also, ignoring more contemporary work will leave you complete ignorant or important modern developments, some of them objectively and demonstrably true - at least in the case of more rigorous mathematical areas of economics like social choice theory, decision theory, game theory, rational choices theory, etc. Of course, you might object to reading contemporary economics on the basis of it's ideological commitment to capitalist liberalism, but this shouldn't keep you from studying the math, because that doesn't have any ideological bias one way or the other (that being said, you SHOULD read orthodox economic theory if you're not a complete pseud).

To be honest though, I'm not even that knowledgeable on economics, but I certainly know more that some humanitiesfag that thinks Marxism is literally the pinnacle of economic theory.

Am I retarded if my idea of understanding economics is having read Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell and Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt

I am a mathfag, so the more mathematical the better. And if you were detecting sarcasm it wasn't intended to come off that way.

Thank you for the list!

>WIN_20180105
kek, windows phones are the worst

>How to not shitpost on economics
Is Economics a objective science?