I just graduated with a finance degree...

Oh, fuck you. If you want an actual understanding of the material, you should start with textbooks. If you want to impress your friends with your reading chops, then yeah, go read Ricardo and Marx.

>I'm planning on reading The Wealth Of Nations

Please, for the love of all that's holy and good in this world, also read this one, preferably immediately after you've read The Wealth of Nations.

You do not want to just read The Wealth of Nation and turn into a cliché libertarian who endlessly goes HURR THE FREE MARKET WILL SOLVE IT DURR. Trust me

That's not true, and you can just look in your daily life for evidence. The fact that you have a water bill encourages you not to waste water, IE to conserve it and consume it sparingly.

I'm not op.
How is memorizing a text book preferable to thinking critically about the nature of the subject? You fucking no nothing.

>Le invisible hand makes everything work out for the best :^)
Adam Smith was a meme economist

You might be missing something from marx if you're not familiar with hegel. You can go through the history of philosophy including a lot of german idealism and then read hegel, but a secondary source would probably be a lot easier.
Fuck the people who tell you to just read the textbook. Reading extra and reading primary sources is what puts you ahead of all the people who just got good grades. Read from all the schools: there are enough economists who simply latch onto austrian or chicago or keynesian. Thoroughly knowing the arguments of all is far more ideal.

Really? Look at the California drought, they are out of water, what do they want to do? Build canals and destroy the little remaining riparian ecosystems that recycle water back into the terristeral world. They want to continue the practice that fucked them in the first place? Why? because they need 18 gallons of water to grow an almond and need to make money. So they are willing to irreversibly fuck them selfs in order to make money in the short term, because capitalism demands it, the market gets what it wants.
How Is scarcity incentivized consumption helping bluefin tuna? Or any industrial exploited species and the people that depend on them for that matter?
How is scarcity driven consumption helping the dirt poor se Asians that are willing to blow up and poison the reefs that feed them, because there is a demand for fish and they need money to live in the consumerist society that has been forced upon the world?
Or China building islands on top of a key population source for an ecosystem that provides 10% of the global food supply, for an economic advantage?
This is everywhere, it's all I see, capitalism is destorying the world.

I didn't recommend you MEMORIZE a textbook, only that you read one. You can think critically about things you read out of textbooks, user.

Probably trolling, but he uses the term like once in the whole book.

Put the textbooks you are recommending are just terminology and examples. There is no philosophic inquiry.

finance courses should include solid economic basis imho

This. There's a very simple reason capitalists are so hysterically opposed to environmentalism and vice versa.

Thank fuck! Another sane person.

Well, I would probably say that the California drought is more related to the state subsidizing water prices. See, prices communicate information about goods and services. Since the state is keeping water prices artificially cheap, there is not nearly as much incentive to conserve as there would be at the market price for water in this region.

Well, the answer there is simple -- those groups of people and the institutions in which they exist don't really value ecological diversity or stability. It may be to their own detriment in the long run but I really don't see how commercial market society is responsible. I mean, the non-market-driven soviets and pre-deng xioping chinese have a way worse environmental track record than market societies do. And even if you go back prior to the advent of industrial capitalism in the early 1800's, humans have been destroying the environment irresponsibly for a really long time. Desertification is nothing new.

The only thing that's new is our ability to destroy, and the huge amount of people willing to destroy. I don't blame any economic system for that, because it transcends economic systems.

This.
Adam Smith was nowhere near as libertarian as people make out.

But the state is keeping the prices artificially cheap because capitalist lobby's demand it, to sponsor economic growth.
You agree with me, if there was no capitalism and our value system was resource based, there would be incentive to conserve, but that's nothing close to capitalism where an abstract social contract is the bottom line.

Consumerist society hasn't been forced on the world. The majority of those SE Asians migrated away from subsistence farming voluntarily because they -want- to be integrated into market society. Living standards, at least materially speaking, have been on the rise in SE Asia.

Also, I don't think you can blame commercial and market society for something that the Chinese state does.

Look, we all know environmental degradation and destruction is a problem. It's probably the biggest problem we face. But dismantling commercial society will not help it. Well, unless you're a zerzan-style anarcho primitivist. Good public policy is the most important thing

We don't have a value system, we have a price system.

That is not why the state keeps water artificially cheap - it is out of humanitarian concern for the affected populations.

>The got along fine working as part of the natural world for thousands of years
>then consumerist markets happend and they destroyed everything they ultimately depend on
>that has nothing to do with capitalism
>they were just innately shitbags.
Victim blaming in its most vile form, you should be ashamed.

Oh come off it. Read some god damned history, you are on a board for it after all.

Things did NOT "get along fine for thousands of years." The scale may have been lower, but species were hunted to extinction before, farmlands were desertified before, rivers were polluted and Eutrophication happened before. Civil Societies have been polluting and internally colonizing for literal fucking centuries.

>destroyed everything they ultimately depend on
Ok so carbon pollution is a big deal, but the idea that industrial society destroyed EVERYTHING is fucking wrong and you surely know it

>the California drought is more related to the state subsidizing water prices. See, prices communicate information about goods and services. Since the state is keeping water prices artificially cheap, there is not nearly as much incentive to conserve as there would be at the market price for water in this region.
That's the biggest crock of shit I've heard.

washingtonpost.com/national/rich-californians-youll-have-to-pry-the-hoses-from-our-cold-dead-hands/2015/06/13/fac6f998-0e39-11e5-9726-49d6fa26a8c6_story.html

>Drought or no drought, Steve Yuhas resents the idea that it is somehow shameful to be a water hog. If you can pay for it, he argues, you should get your water.

>Yuhas lives in the ultra-wealthy enclave of Rancho Santa Fe, a bucolic Southern California hamlet of ranches, gated communities and country clubs that guzzles five times more water per capita than the statewide average. In April, after Gov. Jerry Brown (D) called for a 25 percent reduction in water use, consumption in Rancho Santa Fe went up by 9 percent. [...] In a place where the median income is $189,000, the fine, at $100, was less than intimidating.

>[...] All that is about to change, however. Under the new rules, each household will be assigned an essential allotment for basic indoor needs. Any additional usage — sprinklers, fountains, swimming pools — must be slashed by nearly half for the district to meet state-mandated targets.

>Residents who exceed their allotment could see their already sky-high water bills triple. And for ultra-wealthy customers undeterred by financial penalties, the district reserves the right to install flow restrictors — quarter-size disks that make it difficult to, say, shower and do a load of laundry at the same time. In extreme cases, the district could shut off the tap altogether.

Tell me again how it's the fault of the state for giving too much incentives to consume water.

Pic related is what I was referring to when I said they destoryed everything they depend on, this wouldn't be incentivized without capitalism.
I never said the world was perfect before, I said they got along fine.

uhh, ok. I will. These people ought to be facing really really extremely high prices for water and they're not.

See? easy. Besides, I didn't say state subsidizing water was the ONLY problem, I just said it's related to the problem. And it's related to the problem in a chronic sense, meaning the water subsidies that have been happening over the course of decades, not the water subsidies during the drought itself. The price distortion is an element of what got us to the point of drought.

>These people ought to be facing really really extremely high prices for water and they're not.
They're paying hundreds or thousands of dollars per month, and since that wasn't enough the state introduced laws to restrict usage and "triple" their water bills. It also subsidized people to switch to "drought-friendly" gardens that require a fraction as much water.

>capitalism incentivizes the destruction of coral reefs
No it doesn't.

>That is not why the state keeps water artificially cheap - it is out of humanitarian concern for the affected populations
BULLSHIT
I that were true you would see agriculture being held responsible and forced to adopt sustianible practices like residents are. But they aren't because the state is protecting corperate profits.
Las Vegas ran out of water already and they are now building a 300 mile aqueduct to water this ridiculous long list of golf courses in the middle of the Mojave dessert.
lasvegasgolf.com/courses/
If you think capitalism protects scarce resources you are delusional.

>no it doesn't
Bullshit dogma
they would have no reason to destroy the reefs that have feed them for generations if they didn't need to sell aquatic life to China in order to buy things in a consumerist society.

Look at the USSR and China, commies are ten times worse with environment.

I can't speak for the USSR, but

>china
>communist

China has embraced filling the west's unfillable need for cheap trash.

That's why I'm saying market society is unsustainable.
>can't blame markets for China's action
The hell I can't, China is market communist and sponsors state capitalism. The only real reason they destoryed the stratlys is the 5 trillion dollar trade route, and the miltary industrial complex, brought to you by capitalism.

I want to move to a resource based society were we can function as a utopia within the confines of the natural world. Where consumption is abundance driven.

>communism and capitalism are the only two options
Wew

Well what's the third, feudalism? Wouldn't mind.

It's like how the native Americans lived in a modified ecosystem, but with science.
A sustianible utopia, where resources are allocated by abundance.

>native Americans

I'd rather kill myself than to live like a prairie nigger, they're basically animals.

It would be a higher standard of living than most 1st worlders have today, and there is still room to succeed to a higher standard. It's just Native American in the sense that it functions ecologically.
Don't let that stop you from killing yourself though.

>It would be a higher standard of living than most 1st worlders have today

Prove it.

No, their standard of living was fucking shit user.

>le native Americans lived synched with nature

I want retards to leave

Prove an unproven and half baked idea?
Sure, let me just set up a global society and test this hypothesis.
However, I can prove what doesn't work and use that to figure out what we need to do differently.

Never said that, I said they modified natural processes to meet their needs, and did it in an intrinsically sustainable manner, kinda like beavers. Many Native American cultures did so, but not all.

>native Americans
>sustainable

Right, that's why they destroyed entire species.

And?
I never said we should be native Americans I said we should devolp a society that considers the cause and effect relationship we have world around us. To work as part of the system we depend on instead of exploiting it.
We would still have modern technology.

Then convince the Chinks not to go around poaching wildlife. Or, better yet, THINK OF A WAY TO MONETIZE IT.

China is single handedly responsible for the near extinction of Rhinos as a whole because of some ancient Chinese garbage about rhino horn making your dick get bigger (PROTIP: It doesn't). So what did South Africa, with their 50 rhinos the Afrikaner and Boer value very much (The Bantu don't give a fuck about nature) do? They setup a lottery based big game hunting system. Wealthy billionaires pay millions of dollars to buy a ticket that gets put in a raffle. Every few years, they draw a ticket. The winner gets to kill one rhino. This not only benefits the rhinos (All of that money goes right back into conservation) but the South African economy as a whole (Gotta pay for transportation, food, lodging, oh of course souvenirs and sight seeing, etc). The Rhino population of South Africa has been growing steadily since the creation of this system.

The fact that the Chinese are subhumans isn't a black mark on capitalism, they were worse for the environment under Communism. In fact, destruction of the environment happens under ANY economic and government system, even under hippie dippie communes.

>species went extinct
That happens all the time, and always will. A sad fact of life, nonetheless we should try to avoid it for the sake of resilience and natural heritage.
Sustianible as their way of life couldn't overshoot caring capacity and there society wouldn't inevitably crash and burn.

>Prove an unproven and half baked idea?

Well then maybe you shouldn't throw out unsubstantiated claims that your utopia would be a higher standard of living if you have no proof of concept.

How do you create a higher standard of living based on sustainability than one based on excess? Unless you're going to throw in "well the premise requires a replicator where we can 3D print literally everything we need" it is very hard to argue that austerity would IMPROVE standard of living in the first world. The entire problem (and benefit) of global capitalism is that its artificially raised the west's standard of living on the back of wasteful / exploitative short-term practices.

It's a lot easier to point out flaws than provide solutions, but even if you're going to point out flaws you should be a little more careful not to put your foot in your mouth and say shit when you have no way of knowing it's true.

Now this is just a racist rant blaming individuals for a systemic issue.
The western world is no better, it's scarcity driven consumption causing this, If people weren't buying the horns it wouldn't happen.

Did you miss the part where the rhino horn market is mostly Chinese?

You're both right. Non-Europeans simply can't understand the value of the environment. It would be best to get rid of them all, that way we can properly setup a sustainable system.

I admit I have no way of knowing if the standard of living thing is true.
I do know that it would be equalitarian, and the unsustainable exploitation of cultural and ecological systems that you just mentioned would no longer be an issue.

The only individuals to blame for the systemic issue are the Chinese. Don't like it? Either eradicate them or come up with a solution such that they get their horns and the South Africans get their rhinos.

I understand that you're used to doing nothing but complaining, but I'm gonna let you in on a little secret: If you think up solutions, the problem goes away entirely!

No, exploitive markets of all kinds exist all around the world. It's not like China is the root of all evil here. It's obviously the capitalist system that makes it possible to do such a thing.

Here is a solution
Get rid of the system that incentivizes scarcity driven consumption, capitalism.
Then there is no reason to trade rhino horns for paper.

And the Chinese did the exact same thing (Rhino poaching) under Communism, among other such brilliant measures as "Let's kill all of the Mosquitoes, Rats, Sparrows, and flies!". Clearly, "the capitalist system" isn't to blame here.

But as has been demonstrated that won't do anything for the environment. And given that there is a limited amount of matter and energy on this planet, your solution is flawed both from the point of view of humans getting what they want and from the point of view of protecting the environment.

Again, please, try to think up solutions to your problems, don't just mindlessly whine.

But it's not communism that is driving the poaching.
It is capitalist markets that allow for rhino horns to be bought and sold.
China is capitalism on the state level.
Communism is doesn't work for different reasons.
you are blaming communism for something capitalism has done

Do you think as soon as you get rid of capitalism you're going to get rid of
A) Superstition?
B) A desire to make your dick bigger?

Because those two things are driving chinks to murder rhinos for millions of dollars, and both those things existed before and will exist long after capitalism.

Basically this. I would also suggest Keynes' The General Theory. Smith is good, but some microeconomic concepts don't apply to macroeconomics, and regardless of what Pinochet memesters say, Keynes was the biggest pioneer of macroeconomic theory.

My point of view is humans getting what they want from protecting the environment.
This could be done by devolping a hueristic that can assign a numerical value to scarcity or intrinsic value to society(???). Trade is then based on a credit system. We divide resources, and services in to separate categories, as we humans love to do. And each person gets a set quota of credits for each category, over a certian time span, all determined by science. Basic needs and commodities are provided in a collectivist fashion independent of credit(???). Credits can be earned by working (???)and are awarded by a hueristic that can assign a numerical value that is somehow proportionate to the first while representing intrinsic value to society. Credits can only be used once.
I have plenty of ideas that are half baked that I am trying to determine if they are feasible.
I apperciate your criticism but there is no need to be so abrasive.

I have read the wealth of nations about a dozen times OP, it is an absolutely fantastic summery of 17-18th century trade and production across the world.

It contains no opinion or absolute theory as to modern economic policy but will give you plenty of examples and ideas that will broaden your economic knowledge.

No but they wouldnt have any money to buy the rhino horns and the Africans would have no incentive to kill rhinos without capitalism.

If basic needs and comedities where provided in a collectivist fashion, I don't think we would need baseline credits.
Either that or we have baseline credits that represent the basic needs and comdieties of individuals.

oh and to all the capitalist and socialist fags in this thread

Anarchy is the only solution, the state is the problem, fucks up free market economies and socialist societies with its feudal hierarchies.

And a scarcity credit would work like this
scarce= high number of credits
abundant= low number number of credits

What about this, it's a libertarian collectivist society with the option of higher success, the only role of the state would be to assign value and that would be independent of corruption as there is nothing to corrupt with, and the only regulation necessary is to keep people from using capital to trade.

It's interesting, but it definitely feels like one of those ideological ideas that require the whole world to adopt in order for it to work.

>Anarchy
>we can do the same shit a government does but it's okay as long as we don't call it a government: the ideology

So you think we should just get rid of exchanging goods and services for other goods and services?

I think it could be propagated from a small town, say that we used capital to buy the initial resources and functioned within that paradigm on our own, while selling our abundant resources to the outside world in order to obtain more resources. This would co exist with capitalism as it works in the capitalist system on an external level, that is until we have all the resources and capitalism goes extinct.
I just got out of the shower and had some ideas about how producer/consumers produce resources and are given the representative credits in exchange, credits they can give service/consumers to complete a job.
This avoids the ridiculous idea of trying to assign numerical value to intrinsic value but is still resource based
Producer/consumer>produces>given credit
That credit can be used for two thing
1. To obtain products, then the credit is destoryed
2. Given in exchange for a service, where the credit can be used again by the service/consumer who has the same two options.

We aren't exchanging goods and services, we are exchanging money for goods and services.
I am suggesting use a paradigm that is representative of the value of said goods and services, based on resources, or in the case of the service/consumer inherent value of a service. And mass quantities of wealth can't be accumulated unless you have done something to deserve it.
And you see, there will never be unsustainable consumption because abundance drives consumption.

No the point is not regulate or tax anything and allow private enterprise, insurance companies and the free market to make scarcity very uncommon.

The only speedbump with propagation will be states trying to hold on to their power by claiming sovereignty over our resources.

ohhhhh you're that kind of anarchist
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
>free market
>make scarcity uncommon
The free market is what's driving scarcity based consumption, read the thread.

read Keynes's The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money and Hayek's The Road to Serfdom to get a sense of the modern debate between economic interventionists and neo-liberals.

Not him but that's nonsense. Any text book written atleast within the last 10 years provides case studies and critical thinking sections that deal directly with the chapters. You're either too young or too old to not know this. I'm assuming the former. lurk moar, newfag

You could add Hayek to your list. He's a 20th century economist, and argues rhetorically why capitalism is just and the best system (as opposed to collectivism)

How does that argument go?

>spent 3-4 years studying finance
>"I understand economics"
>hasn't even red Smith and Marx
>finance, everyone
(desu I study economics and know next to nothing about currency/stock-markets or how to make sweet cash)

What you are (rightly) worried about is that Mankiw, Varian, etc were leading you to conclusions that were based on false premises. The deductive logic of constructionist macroeconomics from microeconomics is valid logically, though empirically false.

Firstly read this: robotics.cs.tamu.edu/dshell/cs689/papers/anderson72more_is_different.pdf

Anderson puts down the idea that reductionism implies constructionism. Even if we can, from society, reduce man into economic man (microeconomics) a la Bentham, it does not imply that we can then aggregate these individuals and understand society (macroeconomics). Macroeconomics is today, applied microeconomics.

How Smith and Marx will help you, is that they are Classicals. Marx was the last classical economist. They are classical because they formulate their macro theories from groups of individuals or classes. The abolition of class in macroeconomics is due to the hard reaction against Marx.

Pretty much everyone knows that it is wrong to assume rationality, but the train keeps on a' rollin. Friedman's epistemological memes are too stronk to challenge

if I were you I would READ:
>Quesnay
>Turgot
>Smith
>Malthus
>Bastiat (he was actually hilarious)
>Ricardo
>Marx
>Veblen
>Mises - pinch the salt
>KEYNES
>Fisher
>Hayek (not strictly an economist though)
>Schumpeter
>Sraffa
>Kalecki

You will have to read these to know the literature, but you could just avoid them and read Varian's textbook instead:
>George
>Walras
>Marshall
>Jevons
>Mill
>Bentham
>Pigou
>Hicks
>Friedman
>Krugman
>The Economist(tm)
>Stephan Molyneux
Just gas yourself tier:
>Rothbard
>modern ""Austrian"" economics

I hope I have helped in some way.

A final word, be sure to read ALL of Marx and Keynes for YOURSELF.

invisible hand is about international tariffs and not actually about the a domestic free-market. I suppose you think all of Marx's work can be reduced to: "hurr durr give me free stuff".

Moron. Either you have read Smith and you retained nothing; in which case you are a moron; or you haven't read Smith and yet promulgate your views on him and his work, in which case you are also a moron.

It's simple really. There are two main problems I see with contemporary economics in relation to the environment.

1 the environment is assumed as exogenous
1.1 businesses do not internalize the costs incurred on the environment, and so continue to pollute
1.11 Solution: governments can force businesses to internalize costs
1.2 "the environment" is assumed to be external to economic actors despite all economic actors existing within it
1.21 the economic system is assumed to exist independently of the natural system, despite the economic system rising out of the natural system. This is a violation of logic.
2. free energy is assumed
2.1 energy cannot be created or destroyed however, energy used in production is assumed to be created out of nothing. This is a direct violation of natural law.

Once again the problems reside in false assumptions.

OP Here,

>literally no need to go read whatever Aristotle said

Sure, there's no *need*, I'd just like to. I enjoy reading stuff and deciding if I agree. As far as *need* goes, I can go originate mortgages for 40k/yr for the rest of my life and never read a word if I really want to.

That looks good, thanks bud.

also taken into consideration.

need to sell aquatic life to China in order to buy things in a consumerist society

To anyone in the thread: what is the difference between capitalism and consumerism? Is there a difference?

I've been wondering about this a lot lately. To illustrate: There's tons of Americans whose existence is sucking down frappalappachinos, watching movies, and working (for lack of a better term) "tertiary" jobs that don't provide for a real need. Surely this lifestyle is a drain on our resources in every way. However, there are capitalists who eat what they need, work jobs that help to feed/shelter people, and enjoy the price discovery of capitalism. Am I getting at something here?

Thanks for the infomation.

Btw what kind of employment could you get with a business degree?

Damn I meant "economic degree" not business degree

OP again, catching up with the thread, I didn't think it would go anywhere

Were the native americans out-of-sync with nature? I've always been under the impression that their culture was all "we luv teh spiritz, one with earth (except when we go to war with each other)". Am I mistaken?

sounds kinda like a slog, but maybe it'll help me think about the current situations.

there is only, ever, anarchy.

>use a paradigm that is representative of the value of said goods and services, based on resources, or in the case of the service/consumer inherent value of a service

I'm pretty sure you're describing money, bud.

>And mass quantities of wealth can't be accumulated unless you have done something to deserve it.

Okay that's a little different, but who gets to decide/enforce the rule? Seems natural that the strongest would, so, basically you're talking about money.

awesome, thanks!

I went to a not-great school because highschool me fucked me over. Our books were mostly specifically made for our school, and the critical thinking sections were reductionist to the point of absurdity.

This seems really helpful, fuck yes. Except googling Stephan Molyneux made him seem like a /pol/ memetician. You rusin' me? Also,
>next to nothing about...how to make sweet cash
short vertical spreads, manage your risk so you won't blow up more than 50% of your account in a worst-case scenario. Patience is the game.

>To anyone in the thread: what is the difference between capitalism and consumerism? Is there a difference?
Consumerism is a symptom of post-industrial capitalism. When we didn't have machinery or steam power, worker productivity was so low that the scarce resource was humans. Now that machines have made productivity ridiculously high, we are approaching a point where the workforce will produce far more per person than a consumer by themselves will demand.

Labour is no longer the scarce resource but instead demand (consumers) are the scarce resource. At this point firms have to encourage consumers to buy more to keep the economy afloat. So now the incentive isn't to produce more to increase welfare but to increase peoples life expectations so we can justify producing more. If most people took to a Buddhist way of living, companies would go under and an economic crisis would ensue. So, economics incentivises buying more than we need.

With an undergraduate economics degree you could work in industry, """finance""" (though you would really need maths, physics, or finance for that), journalism, high school teaching, etc. With a technical PhD. you can work for a central bank or company. With a research PhD you will be a research economist, working at a university or a think tank.

With an econ PhD you are pretty much set for life insofar as employment is concerned. You may not actually earn any money though. If you want money, post-bachelors study MSc. EME at the LSE and work in finance, or get onto a top 20 MBA programme.

Only study higher economics if you are excellent at mathematics.

To quote the great J.M...

"The master-economist must possess a rare combination of gifts .... He must be mathematician, historian, statesman, philosopher—in some degree. He must understand symbols and speak in words. He must contemplate the particular, in terms of the general, and touch abstract and concrete in the same flight of thought. He must study the present in the light of the past for the purposes of the future. No part of man's nature or his institutions must be entirely outside his regard. He must be purposeful and disinterested in a simultaneous mood, as aloof and incorruptible as an artist, yet sometimes as near to earth as a politician."

>Except googling Stephan Molyneux made him seem like a /pol/ memetician.
yeah that was thrown in because of the /pol/ """economists""" with no formal training that base their entire view of economics on Molly's libertarian cult videos

>post-industrial capitalism
A solecism.

Labour productivity rises while wages stagnate. Low wages create low demand. Low demand is boosted by credit. Aggregate demand also includes credit/debt spending, which is rising and unsustainable. "Post-industrial Capitalism" means nothing more than "Credit Capitalism". It is not a new epoch, it is simply a period where debt is keeping the economy treading water as manufacturing declines. There will be a great crash, debt-deflationary, and it will cast aside all false notions of a sustainable "service economy", or "post-industrial economy".

I meant post-industrialisation capitalism

Based Keynes