Hi Veeky Forums,
besides reading fiction books, I would like to start reading some non-fiction books. I have started with philosophy and altough I enjoyed it, it never really kept me interested enough.
So I decided to get deeper into economics. I wanted to start of with Wealth Of Nations and then Das Kapital. But I have no idea on how to proceed from there.
Any literature you guys can recommend? Multiple recommendations would be very helpful.
Thanks in advance.
Other urls found in this thread:
bnarchives.yorku.ca
twitter.com
>Das Kapital
Fuck off, cuck shill
Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell, but it may have a right-wing bias
Those are the only 2 economy books I read about here.
What would you recommend?
No leftist nonsense
Stick to right-wing stuff if you want to be redpilled
Just read wikipedia articles, books are for kikes
Why do laymen always want to read economics?
Well, I study economics, but I want to refresh my knowledge and learn new things outside from my courses.
The only literature they recommend us are reference books.
/thread
Eat shit supply sider, you can't handle deflation.
Do you want to learn about economics or the history of economic?
Neither of those works a reasonable starting point for a person with no background, unless you want to read all sorts secondary lit to put both in context and actually understand what's going on. Both are products of their own times and require a bit of effort to understand the history and environment of the places that produced them. Not to mention the important economic works of Mill, Malthus and Ricardo that came before Marx.
If you want to learn economics, get a microeconomics text book and read it. When you are done, get a macroeconomics text book and read that.
If you want something easier, get a book like 'Naked Economics: Undressing the Dismal Science' or 'Economics: A Very Short Introduction'.
Even easier, you could go on pirate bay and download TTC economics, as an audio course and listen to 30 something lectures that cover an overview of both micro and macro economics.
Or go to the Khan academy and watch their videos on economics.
That will get you enough of a start that you can go from there. Maybe after a history book or two then you can go back and read the classics:
-Wealth of Nations
-Principals of Poltical Economy and Taxation by Ricardo
-Das Kapital
-Poverty and Progress by George
-General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money by Keynes
-Value and Capital by Hicks
-Theory of Games and Economic Behaviour by Von Neumann
-Road to Serfdom by Hayek
-Capitalism and Freedom by Friedman
-Small is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered by Schumacher
-The Price of Inequality by Stiglitz
-Capital in the 21st Century by Piketty
-Shock Doctrine by Klein
Capital as Power. A Study of Order and Creorder is the real redpill
bnarchives.yorku.ca
>Conventional theories of capitalism are mired in a deep crisis: after centuries of debate, they are still unable to tell us what capital is. Liberals and Marxists both think of capital as an 'economic' entity that they count in universal units of ‘utils’ or 'abstract labour', respectively. But these units are totally fictitious. Nobody has ever been able to observe or measure them, and for a good reason: they don’t exist. Since liberalism and Marxism depend on these non-existing units, their theories hang in suspension. They cannot explain the process that matters most – the accumulation of capital.
>This book offers a radical alternative. According to the authors, capital is not a narrow economic entity, but a symbolic quantification of power. It has little to do with utility or abstract labour, and it extends far beyond machines and production lines. Capital, the authors claim, represents the organized power of dominant capital groups to reshape – or creorder – their society.
>Written in simple language, accessible to lay readers and experts alike, the book develops a novel political economy. It takes the reader through the history, assumptions and limitations of mainstream economics and its associated theories of politics. It examines the evolution of Marxist thinking on accumulation and the state. And it articulates an innovative theory of 'capital as power' and a new history of the 'capitalist mode of power'.
Wealth of Nations and Capital will most likely not keep you interested, even more so if you just jump into them. I like mentioning 'From Political Economy to Economics' for people who wanna read up on the development of political economy to the economics discipline.
deleuze&guattari
>Nobody has ever been able to observe or measure them, and for a good reason: they don’t exist.
>nobody is able to measure labor-hours
that's weird
Thank you for the recommendations. I have basic knowledge about economics because it is my major.
Some good micro-/macroeconomic books?
Alright now I'll start taking you seriously.
Read The Theory of the Leisure Class by Thorstein Veblen.
Just pick up some modern textbooks. Yale also has some free economics courses.
If you really want to push yourself, get into financial analysis.
For anything past the basics of economics you need Calculus and Statistics. Read Spivak's Calculus and Feller's Introduction to Probability part 1 and 2
All you need is Hoppe desu.
Found this to be a good starting point
Should we not? It can lead us to better career choices and thus an improved life.
Lol it takes at least 6-9 months to get through spivak if you're doing the exercises. Nice memetry
I'll second the Sewell, it's a good starting point, outside of textbooks, but I'd add in a Gibson-Graham so you're more well rounded. That being said, actual textbooks are the most important way of getting unbiased information in economics.
It looks like he considers the working class a myth. Like when you were a kid and your parents would say something like "oh wow the washing up fairies did all the washing up!", this guy has interpreted it to mean that work really does get done magically and the whole idea of a labourer is pure fantasy.
>actual textbooks are the most important way of getting unbiased information in economics.
They're really not but they are useful if you want to pursue a career.
>may have a right wing bias
No, it does have a right-wing bias. I don't mind that, but if you want to learn about economics, don't read it yet.
marxist economics in specific, try
- introduction to marxist economic theory
- the formation of economic thought of karl marx
- unraveling capitalism
omg
It's not that he thinks labor is a myth, the issue is that capital can't be defined in terms of labor.
>Conventional theories of capitalism are mired in a deep crisis: after centuries of debate, they are still unable to tell us what capital is. Liberals and Marxists both think of capital as an 'economic' entity that they count in universal units of ‘utils’ or 'abstract labour', respectively. But these units are totally fictitious. Nobody has ever been able to observe or measure them, and for a good reason: they don’t exist. Since liberalism and Marxism depend on these non-existing units, their theories hang in suspension. They cannot explain the process that matters most – the accumulation of capital.
Labor can't be defined in consistent units. The worker who cuts a board with a jigsaw and the worker who uses a powered machine to do the same job aren't paid based on how hard they work. They're paid based on what they produce in terms of numbers of finished products. And that number varies based on factors as diverse as the cost of materials to the individual health of the workers.
Furthermore, the product must then be sold. The revenue of the sale is then used to pay off expenses with the remainder as profit, which is added to the owner's capital.
Capital is defined in Accounting as equal to Assets minus Liabilities. All the tangible supplies, machinery, buildings and land are Assets. All the debts and expenses, the utilities, the rent, the advertising, the wages and salaries of the workers, the taxes, those are Liabilities.
In Accounting, Capital is defined as the money the owner invests in the business. Because profits are added to Capital, it could also be defined as being the value of the business.
Marxists want to define Capital solely in terms of the hard work of the laborer. The reality is that there are many other variables that make that thought exercise impossible in the real world.
Ok, what is?
>inb4 critical thinking
Marxists define capital as a social relation in which historically specific forms of the terms of production are organized according to the logic of commodities (in which exchange for money gives one full property rights) by agents of capital deemed capitalists. These capitalists are driven to turn in monetary terms the original capital input into a larger sum of money. Without this movement capital is not capital. Capital is purely a social movement that takes on and determines who things relate to each other and how they functionally operate. Money is capital when it transforms into more money. Machinery is capital when it takes part in the production/valorization process. Labour is capital when it operates under the dictates of wage-labour.
Marx didn't posit labor units as the regulating mechanism of capital. Marx's theory of value is a monetary theory of value. Under capital, specific labours done in private are socialized by money mediated commodity-exchange. Money itself is the real appearance of abstract labor.
I would recommend Marx always but this recent book place Marx within contemporary vulgar economics and dispels common economic theoretical failures within a classical framework. Shaikh also has a series of lectures available on YouTube.
Red pill suppository faggots again .Fuck off to your redneck board cunt.
Can you guys elaborate on what makes it right or left wing in your opinion? I've been meaning to read Sowell lately, what with all my (otherwise demonstrably intelligent) black friends making constant posts like pic related.
We've got problems with the distribution of wealth in the US, no doubt, but imo
A. Capitalism is not fundamentally nor practically whites saying "lol how can we literally not work at all and exploit various brown people"
B. Capitalism isn't what caused inequality, the problems of graft and corruption inherent to humans in power are.
C. Socialism isn't the easy fix anyone thinks it is
But I have very little understanding of primary sources to back any of these beliefs up, so i wanna edumacate myself so I can hopefully use dialectic to bring others or myself around to the truth or something acceptably close to it.
I don't see it's all that useful to deny the bias, just accept it's always going to be there. If anything a bit of bias makes it more useful: in a job you'll be expected to get the shorthand as it were of economics, and everyone else is going to have their own biases and ideologies so it's best to work with that.
>Capital is defined in Accounting as equal to Assets minus Liabilities.
Capital in terms of asset management is a very different beast. Thay's also equity you've defined.