Economics Literature and Economic Philosophy

>lack of predictive power
This point is valid. It comes down to which hypotheses we choose and how they each fail to fully understand (and hence fully predict) human nature.

>They're basically modern day astrologers who use overcomplicated mathematics to feign scientific integrity
This one is absolutely not and reeks of overt anti-intellectualism. There is no conspiracy (indeed, no way) to hide, using formalism accessible to professional mathematicians, that economists really do nothing after all right under our noses.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow's_impossibility_theorem
Just because you don't grasp the proof doesn't mean it is any more complicated than it needs to be. Conceptual clarity and elegance are at the top of the priorities list in writing any proof. It just means you have not yet picked up the necessary background. Again, these are to make precise and unambiguous such concepts as "choice" to build an absolutely correct argument for "if A then B" precluding fallacy, linguistic juggling and the like

Books on economics theory without math and rigor are at a steep disadvantage. The classics (Smith's Wealth of Nations, Keynes' General Theory, etc.) haven't aged well. Particularly avoid Austrian economics.
Marx was actually a particularly apt theoretician in his time, but his actual critique has fallen out of relevance as political economy is of a far different nature now than in the 19th century. Translating his ideas into the modern age can be illuminating, though it's best to give him a "brief introduction" and just read Hegel or their ideological descendants.
Generally for economic philosophy you're dealing with a fusion of political, social and economic institutions. You'll get the most initially out of tracing disagreements between all the bases, market libertarian, anarchist, fascist, and (authoritarian) socialist, as well as within these groups.

Here is a good list of classic economics books: listmuse.com/100-best-economics-books-time.php

I personally recommend 'The Great Transformation' by Karl Polanyi.

Not him, but I agree 100% with his post and I'm a leftist.

more of a Marxist thing to say in my experience
>Economics is flawed so let's just ruin it
seems to be the basic premise

>This one is absolutely not and reeks of overt anti-intellectualism.

Bullshit. Many of those making this critique are actually mathematicians or physicists themselves. Results like Arrow's impossibility theorem are all well and good when considered as abstract puzzles of political philosophy, but dangerous when applied sloppily by agenda-driven hacks to actual policy decisions (which is the world we actually live in, like it or not).

It's not just "flawed" - in the way, say, neuroscience is flawed because it doesn't have all the answers yet. It's flawed in the sense that the underlying assumptions (abstracting away space, time, firms, etc.) just so happen to support free-market fundamentalist policy regimes that lead to massive wealth inequality and environmental despoliation.

>dangerous when applied sloppily by agenda-driven hacks to actual policy decisions (which is the world we actually live in, like it or not)
Yeah, which is not a fault of economics itself but of overestimating its conclusions and ignoring its limitations. It's the same deal with pseudoscience and the journalists who spread it because they don't know better. Or kids who blow off their hands with pipe bombs.
>when considered as abstract puzzles of political philosophy
kek'd at this. There's no puzzle to it, you just haven't a clue what it's specifically claiming

Daily reminder:

C A L C U L U S (for undergrad Economics)

S E T T H E O R Y ,
M A T H E M A T I C A L A N A L Y S I S ,
P R O B A B I L I T Y T H E O R Y ,
M E A S U R E T H E O R Y (grad Economics)

don't settle for anything else. if you don't know these, you don't know Economics--no matter how many Economics books and Wiki articles you read. If you can't solve an equation pertaining Economics, you're not capable of structured thought and will be effectively dismissed by any serious Economist. No one wants to hear your "grand" non-mathematical ideas about Economics.

Ironic because most maths aficionados would think that economics is rigourless bullshit that uses maths as a means of presenting itself in a more "Scientific" light. The fact of the matter is economics isn't a science, and applications of maths to problems in economics appears more illuminating than it actually is. Thats not to say economics is a waste of time, but its actually less scientific than even fields like sociology and anthropology. The closest thing we have to a scientific economics is behavioral economics and game theory.

Statistics is not a science, faggot.
All that economy can do is gather statistics data and make probabilistic predictions.

Natural science has an empirical facts.

>behavioral economics
Oh wow. Thanks for admitting your utter non-competence in Economics. Might as well do replace chemistry with alchemy, too.

Are you drunk or just retarded?

>Statistics is not a science

>There's no puzzle to it, you just haven't a clue what it's specifically claiming

I know exactly what it is 'specifically claiming'. I took a course on the subject and met Arrow himself many years ago. It is of course a central result in political philosophy. I use "puzzle" in a slightly derogatory sense because while the theorem is philosophically interesting, its applicability to the real world is not straightforward. Economics should above all be about people's ACTUAL material circumstances, and about how institutions ACTUALLY behave, and about the connection between the two. A priori puzzles about so-called 'rational choice' are not really moving the ball forward in that regard.

I notice every so often that people on here have a very very narrow definition of statistics (something to the effect of making nice graphs, and maybe phrases like "1 in 5 people is a dog in disguise"). I can only assume they never finished highschool, never talk to anyone and occasionally (mis)read wikipedia in an attempt at being a pseud.

Is there any reason you used non-competence instead of incompetence?

>its applicability to the real world is not straightforward
Ross Perot's candidacy in 1992 secured a Clinton victory which otherwise would not have happened because he as an irrelevant alternative was not independent. "Throwing away your vote" is a quotidian issue in democratic societies and it bears understanding
>Economics should above all be about people's ACTUAL material circumstances, and about how institutions ACTUALLY behave, and about the connection between the two.
This just sounds like language policing what the phrase "economics" itself gets to refer to. There's no reason not to study both as both are useful

OP here, I should've provided a but more background on my education

Currently I'm a junior undergrad working towards a double major in mathematics and economics (Bs not Ba) and part of a program to fast-track into an economics Masters

So the language isn't as arcane to me as a lay-man (not to say I have a masterful understanding of it yet, but I'm working towards it) and I have a great grasp of higher level math (including econometrics)

I guess the question should have been "What are considered great works on differing schools of thought in economics so I can broaden my understanding of the field?"

If you're going to read Smith you should read Hume and Mandeville. Locke's also good to read but he tends to go into the 19th C Marx et al more imo.

That's like a fairly typical group for UK Red brick PPE type courses that you won't typically find elsewhere.

youtube.com/watch?v=IZGSB_xs1Fs
michael hudsons book killing the host is good. its in the "classical political economy was misunderstood/intentionally manipulated" strands of thought.

>junior undergrad working towards a double major in mathematics and economics (Bs not Ba) and part of a program to fast-track into an economics Masters
With that background, you probably have a more sophisticated sense for what is/isn't relevant/useful than Veeky Forums. Ask your professors.
I'd say emphasize courses on radical economic theories, get a concentration in them if offered. Pour over published research papers and journal articles. Be wary of less scholarly materials and choose those well-received or endorsed by economists (recall the controversy surrounding Piketty's Capital)

This. Check the syllabus, though. There will almost always be a suggested reading list or a bibliography. Check it before going to the professors for suggestions.

>Environmental despoliation
Orthodox Economics acknowledges that regulations in the form of taxation of harmful emissions are better overall. Free market fundamentalism is a political term to describe the views of American conservatives who took one general rule from the economists but didn't read the notes that it's not always the best. It's also a buzzword used by the left to discredit orthodox Economics (which does not state that free markets always work) for political gain.

>jewonomics
>education

No worries, as highly as Veeky Forums thinks of itself I'm not basing my education solely on its recommendations, thanks for the overly common sense warning I guess?

But yeah, once again, just wondering what some good pieces of literature are on the subject that anons have themslves read so I have another opinion to look at

Thanks

>choose those well-received or endorsed by economists

Is this a joke? Economists are some of the most spooked people on Earth.

So-called orthodox economics relegates all economic activity of any importance to the category of "externality". The vast majority of academic economists are simply apologists for the status-quo distribution of wealth and power. Very few even dare to question the underlying assumptions. Reasonable and moderate economists like Joseph Stiglitz, Robert Reich, Jeffrey Sachs, James K. Galbraith, Dean Baker, Gerald Epstein etc. are considered as marking some sort of extreme beyond which you cannot pass and still get tenure.

Essays on Positive Economics by Milton Friedman is an underrated book on how to think about economics, that affects the way economists think about economics.
>Robert Reich
>Economist
Also none of the real economists that you listed are really moderate, except for Jeffrey Sachs.

The distribution of wealth is a non-issue until people complain, which for most people is usually when there is an extremely unequal distribution. And if there were no concentrations of wealth, there would be no one to subsidize new innovations so that they could be passed on down the ladder, and investment would be a clusterfuck, if not impossible.

Go back to /pol/, moron.

>And if there were no concentrations of wealth, there would be no one to subsidize new innovations so that they could be passed on down the ladder, and investment would be a clusterfuck, if not impossible.

Is this a joke? All basic research is funded by the government, not the private sector. The internet wouldn't even exist if it were not financed by a government agency.

Taleb looks super interesting
I've ordered Black Swan and AntiFragile.
Its going to be my next reading

Economic philosophy is mostly garbage. Any real work worth your time will be related to how markets themselves function, regardless of level. Marx makes zero sense if you understand the basics of how economics work as a science and why the mechanics function the way they do.

Economic history books need to all be taken with a grain of salt because they generally tie closely into politics which means the author will often inject their own world viewpoint into the piece.

>people complain
People more care about game of thrones politics than their own.
That's the power of the bluepill

I do not mean research, I mean the creation of new products entirely within the private sector.

judging by this thread, economists really are cancer.
so much vitriol jesus fucking christ.

anyway, daily reminder that pic related triggered a bunch of top tier economists

You are too thoroughly brainwashed to even question the assumptions underlying your neoliberal worldview.

what is a neoliberal?

Commie wannabe college student detected

ok namoi calm down

>C-c-communists are evil!
>I saw it in my propaganda.

>Friedman
>/Pol/
Pick one /pol/ aren't liberals, some are ancaps which Milton definitely wasn't.

I didn't realise that the government made Google/Amazon/pornhub.
You need both the government and the private sector, what use is the internet if there is nothing to do on it?

>Neoliberal
>Bad
Pick one son. The real problem is politicians using rhetoric to sound neoliberal but not actually making neoliberal reforms. Scandinavia is a good example of neoliberalism - free markets and social insurance.

A lot of the status quo distribution of wealth is because politicians didn't listen to economists thanks. They hear "tax cuts can pay for themselves when marginal tax rates are extremely high" (I.e a cut from 90% to 70% for example) and then decide that all tax cuts pay for themselves to further their political aims.

>to do on it

>Google
>watch ad

>Amazon
>consume

>pornhub
>masturbate

yes, thanks to private sector. it made my life full of value

>I don't like consuming/masturbating
>Therefore no one does
Which bureaucratic council started Veeky Forums?
Most people are happy with the products of the private sector and the more people spend in the private sector, the more money the government has to spend without running a large deficit.

>Scandinavia is a good example of neoliberalism
Maybe twenty-five years ago before everything started to look like downtown Mogadishu

hapiness is a fulfillment of needs. you can make people happy if you construct the needs for them (via ad) and fulfill them (via consuming)

tons of resources and energy are wasted on useless shit. the only reason of that is the benefit for producers, not the consumers.

Economic history major. I wish I had time to read:

Marshal
Chandler
Sen
Keynes
Introductory books to the subfields I'm interested in (modern agrarian history, the history of secularisation, Church history, natural resoruces, and much more)
Economic sociology

Articles I recommend, even though they may have flaws:

Coase: The Nature of the Firm
Akerlof: The Market for Lemons
Granovetter: The Strength of Weak Ties
Burt: Structural Holes and Good Ideas
North: Institutions
White: Where Do Markets Come From?
McCloskey: How To Be A Good Graduate Student

Some of these are shit. Some are great. All are thought-provoking. I've been thinking about making a chart for Veeky Forums about books on economic history, but I'd need to read more and re-read more, as I haven't covered all of the classics yet.

Go nuts, it's a great subject.

"Useless stuff" makes people happy, benefits both consumers and producers, the beauty of the current system is that you dont have to buy everything, you get to choose. What makes your definition of "useless shit" one that we should all adhere to?

>"Useless stuff" makes people happy
Complete and utter horseshit.