Economics: The Dismal Science

I was looking and I figured I would start this as I see no other thread on economics. I have been reading The Privatization of Roads and Highways by Walter Block for about 5 years but I am 99 pages from finishing it.(https://cdn.mises.org/The%20Privatization%20of%20Roads%20and%20Highways_2.pdf) I have also been interested in reading The Spatial Economy: Cities, Regions, and International by Masahisa Fujita, Paul Krugman, Anthony J. Venables, but I have been kind of lazy and depressed, so I put it off until now.(https://libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=E36D3CD6596B783A015503693A00BB7B) Are there any Econ books you have been reading or wanting to read?

depends on why you want to learn economics. Want the basics? check out marginal revolution university on youtube want to use economics in your everyday life or business? Check out microecon and economic dynamics want to get into the vibe of economics? check out 60 second adventures in economics on YT, ha joon chang or economics in one lesson (with two fistfuls of salt, a lot in there is oversimplification to the point of error, it’s mostly just a lazy yet page turning libertarian ideological pamphlet) Want the cool stuff in economics? check out economic history Want a much needed critique of modern economics? look at steve keen’s and Anwar Shaikhs interviews and books and check out econophysics, you can also look at Nathan Tankus’s anti mainstream clique on twitter Want a deep mainstream guide to economics? look at the /sci/ reccomendations on econ start with 60 seconds adventures in economics and read anything by Mises and Austrians with two fistfuls of salt (I used to be an Ancap and loved their soykaf but it doesn’t line up empirically, maybe they can explain aspects of the great depression tho)

I've been working my way through the classic books of political economy, starting with Adam Smith and classical economists including Ricardo and Mill, Alfred Marshal as well as socialists like Proudhon, Henry George, Polyani, and of course Karl Marx,. Economics today is dominated by liberal technocrats who've abandoned the big philosophical questions about how we should live, ethics, theology etc. instead pandering an "objective" stat based psuedo-science to politicians, corporations and wealthy financiers. So I figured the only way to really learn it is read all the classic publications and form my own opinion. It's slow, but so far I've learned quite a few things. A lot of people who love to thump Smith really misrepresent his ideas, especially neolibs, neocons, and unhinged alt righties. But there's also some ground for dialogue between right wing libertarians and left wing ones, e.g. Proudhon doesn't want to do away with markets and get rid of small businesses. Marx also doesn't have any consistent ideas about what a post-capitalist future would look like and he isn't the "annihilate the bourgeois" type leftoids make him out to be. Marxists seriously misrepresent his work. Currently, I'm reading this book by Alec Nove, a historian of Soviet economics who lived through the Soviet Union. He imagines what a realistic feasible socialism could look like, goes into detailed criticism of Marxist economics and Soviet policy, pointing to some dangerous problems in Marx's writings. So far it's a pretty good read, he has some interesting recommendations that are grounded in actual logical arguments and empirical evidence, rather than the soykaf sophistry that political/economic debate devolves into these days.

>>9151 i honestly believe reading through the history of economic thought will give you a greater appreciation of how contemporary, mainstream economics is more than propaganda. there are ideologues in the field for sure, but the origins of the often weird methods/assumptions of mainstream economics are revealed in reading the history of economic thought. it doesn't necessarily correct the faults of contemporary economics but it does at least provide a better explanation than the idea that everyone is getting paid off by politicians and corporations to do academic research for them. also you might be interested in going deeper into welfare economics, social choice theory, and a lot of analytic political philosophy since those fields use the framework of economics while engaging with questions surrounding ethics and value. there's also i think a greater dialogue with heterodox economics from mainstream economics than either side acknowledges. there was a really interesting group of marxists who used rational choice theory in the 80's.

Massive economics reading list for anyone who's interested. I covered a bunch of different schools and periods to try and be fair. Ancient Japan, China, and Middle East >History of Ancient Chinese Economic Thought by Hu Ji Chuang >History of Japanese Economic Thought by Morris Suzuki >History of Ottoman Economic Thought by Fatih Ermis Classical Economics >Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith >Principles of Political Economy and Taxation by David Ricardo Socialist Economics >What is Property? >Economic Manuscripts of 1844 and Capital by Karl Marx >The Great Transformation by Karl Polyani British Imperial Economics >Political Economy by John Stuart Mill >Principals of Economics by Alfred Marshal Georgism and Keynesianism >Progress and Poverty by Henry George >General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money by Milton Keynes Austrian School >Principals of Economics by Carl Menger >The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich Hayek Cold War and Neoliberalism (America) >Economics: Introduction to Analysis by Paul Samuelson >Capitalism and Freedom by Milton Friedman Cold War (Soviets) >Political Economy by Institute of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR Maoist China >Maoist Economics and the Revolutionary Road to Socialism: Shanghai Textbook >Fundamentals of Political Economy by George C. Wang Market Socialism >Political Economy of Socialism by Branko Horvat >The Economics of Feasible Socialism by Alec Nove Islamism and the Iranian Revolution >Iran's Struggle for Economic Independence by Evaleila Pesaran >Iqtisaduna, Our Economics by Baqir al-Sadr Archaeology, Anthropology, Post-Colonial Theories, Gift Economy, Anti-Globalization >The Gift by Marcel Mauss >Post-Development Reader edited by Majid Rahnema >Encountering Development by Arturo Escobar Phew...

>>9151 >Marxists seriously misrepresent his work Because there are no marxists anymore. The left has been dead as a political entity for decades, this is rot that dates back to the failure of 1917. That is why. People just like to use Marx to back up whatever "left" thing they want these days when they do not need him at all to justify themselves. You can read Marx and Hegel, but to understand the state of the current "left", which is not really a left at all, you will need Adorno at minimum.

>>9212 >Karl Polanyi (misspelling on your end) >in "socialist economics" Karl Polanyi was definitely not a marxist. He was a progressive reformer. This should be noted in your reading list. Marx should not be read primarily as an economist, at all. This just leads to vulgar marxism. I would rename "socialist economics" to "progressive economics" and keep Polanyi but get rid of Marx.

>>9234 NTA Marx himself said "I'm not a Marxist" and was allergic to the term. Marxism was invented by his cultish followers who cherrypicked his work and projected their own views onto it. >>9235 Polyani was a Christian socialist. I don't see what's wrong with putting him under socialist economics. Marx wasn't primarily an economist but this thread is about economics not politics and Marx was the major figure in leftist economics which justifies his inclusion.

>>8834 I know nothing about economics. How to get started? Some old guard commie recommended me to read Capital volumes 1-3 but I'm not sure if Kapital is a good place to start?

>>9243 For economics, Marx is important insofar that he brought the Jewish view on economics to gentiles and helped define a lot of terms that didn't really exist at the time. You also only really "need" to read volume 1, volume 2 and 3 are optional. It may be important to note that volume 3 isn't even written by Marx and Engels, it's just a bunch of their notes, with an outsider's elaboration, put together to create the third volume. I can get you up to speed though on what Marx is saying about the economic system referred to as "capitalism", which is basically: The dollar is the most important component of an economic system and goods, which were previously the most important component, are now less important. Capitalism is, quite literally, the worship of the dollar. If you are weirded out by this statement, see: Mammon. The reason that Marx is so important was for his definitions, more than anything else. They influenced the entire modern world's perspective on money to the point of businesses changing their models. Now, if you want to know about economics from the more modern capitalist's perspective, check out Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics. Keep in mind, he accepts Marx's definitions, but ignores the social critique behind Marx. If you want to learn about alternative forms of economics, check wikipedia for systems to look into. I'll give you one name that is often ignored due to its association with fascism: Third position

>>9236 >Marx himself said "I'm not a Marxist" >cultish followers I think you are referring to stalinism, maoism etc, this comes much farther along in the death of leftist politics worldwide. Really if you'd like to know what it meant to be a marxist you need to look 1) at the literature from pre-1917 avowed marxists so Engels, Lenin and Luxembourg and 2) at Lukacs, Benjamin, and Adorno for post-1917 marxist dissections of the failure of marxism. Post-1917 is when you have these multitudes of people who lie, and maybe they don't know they are lying, but they erroneously call themselves "marxists". >Polyani was a Christian socialist Fair point. >Marx was the major figure in leftist economics Yes he is the major figure in the worst misinterpretation of his work, "leftist economics" which is 99% of the time the most vulgar marxism imaginable and is used to justify welfare state claptrap or even worse the cookshops of the future ala Paul Cockshott. If you are going to read Marx you need Enlightenment philosophy so Hegel, Smith, and Rousseau at the very least. >>9243 Don't read Capital. There are marxist book groups you can join, this is the best one, started out of the University of Chicago by a professor there and it has global chapters, so the course is rigorous: https://platypus1917.org/2023/07/08/platypus-primary-marxist-reading-group-summer-and-fall-2023-winter-2024/ https://platypus1917.org/chapters/ >>9245 >Jewish view on economics This is just not true, there is nothing specifically jewish about marxism. The reason you had many jews who were marxists in the 19th and 20th centuries is that many of the factory owners in Europe were jewish, because of the usury laws and their status as merchants before the bourgeois revolutions of Europe (bourgeois is NOT used negatively here and I never use it negatively, that is a New Left/wokeshit 1960s invention). And if your parents are factory owners, that means you have the time and resources to become a marxist intellectual. >I can get you up to speed though on what Marx is saying about the economic system referred to as "capitalism", which is basically: The dollar is the most important component of an economic system and goods, which were previously the most important component, are now less important. Capitalism is, quite literally, the worship of the dollar. No, that is not what he "is saying" about the "economics system" referred to as capitalism. Capitalism is not an economic system necessarily, it is bourgeois society (so the Enlightenment, science and technology, Jefferson's Declaration of Independence, "right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness") coming into contradiction with itself through the industrial revolution. It has nothing to do with worship of the dollar, it has everything to do with the limiting of the horizons of human freedom. Marxism is way more in line with the ideas of the American Revolution than most "marxists" today would have you believe.

>>9150 >Anwar Shaikh based Here is his lecture series and accompanying book https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLB1uqxcCESK6B1juh_wnKoxftZCcqA1go This is easily one of the best lecture series/books you can read to understand empirically validated economics.

>>9243 It really depends. If you want to learn about Marxist economic ideas then yeah, Capital is the obvious place to start (An aside, but I really don't think you need to read all the prior economists before jumping in. Capital really isn't a challenging read). If you want to be able to hold a conversation with someone about the modern economy and economic ideas, you're better off starting with an undergrad level textbook, some statistics, and econometrics. Obviously there's a benefit to learning both sides and being critical towards both. As someone else in this thread pointed out, the study of economics has changed since the 19th century. If you study economics at a university today, you're more likely to be learning R and running regressions than studying the philosophy of labour during coat production. IMO, there should still be a place for Marxist economics in modern academia, but it has to develop for modern conditions, beyond the trite soykaf you see on reddit and leftypol that treats Capital as the only book on economics you ever need to read.

>>9584 I'd say that one good thing that seems notable about Marx (maybe I'm wrong just because of how little economics I really know) is that he seems to be one of the few who puts a major focus on the importance of the business side of it all. From my meagre understanding what happens internally with a business between workers, bosses, etc tends to be a closed room in a lot of economics outside of what will attract workers, what will get them to quit and how they can be replaced, etc, at least pre-Marx. In the little economics I've done academically it wasn't much about the specifics of work outside of employment.

>>9150 >economics in one lesson I will put it on my reading list. I heard that it's the best book on economics for a beginner. >>9212 >Classical Economics >Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith It's a fun coincidence but around the same time as Adam Smith wrote his famous book, there was a Finn from Sweden who wrote about very similar ideas. He was called Anders Chydenius and he wrote a book called The National Gain You can read it for free at: >https://kootutteokset.chydenius.fi/en/kirjoituksia/den-nationella-vinsten/ The complete text is available in English, Swedish and Finnish.

The General Theory of Employment Interest and Money 1935 Keynes The Return of Depression Economics and the Crisis of 2008 Krugman >>9212 >Milton Keynes You mean John Maynard Keynes?

>>9246 >Post-1917 is when you have these multitudes of people who lie, and maybe they don't know they are lying, but they erroneously call themselves "marxists" That distortion was always the case. If you look at Engels, Bernstein, Plekhanov, Lenin etc. they all insert ideas into Marx that isn't there in his actual writings e.g. "dialectical materialism" doesn't appear in Marx's work. Today, every Marxist (including Western Marxists) will tell you that diamat is the cornerstone of Marx's philosophy but Marx never laid out a philosophy and this is all just stuff they made up.

>>10352 I think the problem here is the word "Marxist" if you gave it a different name more in line with how we label political and economic theories generally it'd be clearer that Marxist thought basically means they can draw back the lineage of thought to Marx - new concepts being added late happens quite a bit in politics and people don't complain about that because people aren't stupid enough to name a political/economic philosophy after a specific person

>>9151 Its pretty clear that a socialist mixed economy is the best approach

>>9157 The study of economics is inherently intertwined with the political climate the economists find themselves in, more so than any other social science (which are all quite political as well). I tend to agree that modern economics has slowly become more of an actual science, starting in the mid 20th century or so, much like how psychology has. But I think that the choice of which ideas escape academia and become widely "known" among non-experts, taught in 101 classes and so on, is certainly a question more of politics than merit. >Marxist economics Possibly the only people less informed of economics than the average internet Marxist is the average internet anti-Marxist. This thread is really remarkable for how it has managed to avoid being destroyed by those two warring bands of retards.

>>9584 I advise against learning any form of economical or political theory and to only learn the real life applications of those theories. If you want to learn about Marxism, you will have to look at the early work of Lenin, before he decided to from a completely different form of socialism. >>10359 How do you partially transition the economy, the population and the culture toward communism? Surely, you mean capitalism with reforms, also named social democratizes before the meaning of the word changed? >>10362 Science is what can predict a result. Economy is an opinion. Sometime an enlighten opinion, most of the time a convenient opinion.

>>10364 I'm not a communist. I'm not sure capitalism can just be replaced through top down state policy as Marxists seem to think. The Chinese model of a mix of private and state enterprises, workers and farmers cooperatives, and equitable land distribution and social welfare within a market economy is the most reasonable approach to managing the crisis. Its not flawless but its better than schizo neolib policies that have wrecked the world and equally delusional Leninist/anarchist command economies. Capitalism wasn't built in a day and it won't be replaced overnight. Enough space has to be given to test out and grow alternative methods of production before capitalism can ever be just replaced. A good example is the whole FOSS ecosystem and homebrewing as an alternative to corporate closed source development, but it never realizes its full potential because corporations and governments do their best to stifle or corrupt it.

>>10364 A "socialist mixed economy" generally refers to an government where you have a market economy, but with individual businesses being run in a socialist rather than capitalist fashion, I.e. worker-owned co-ops. Such governments frequently have state-owned enterprises making up a substantial amount of the economy as well. Yugoslavia is a classic example of a socialist mixed economy. Modern China is also sometimes described as such.

>>10362 >modern economics has slowly become more of an actual science, starting in the mid 20th century or so Only in certain marginalized "schools of thought" at the fringes. But that's exactly the problem with economics: any discipline that has a large number of trenchant schools of thought, none of which have agreed upon who has the most accurate predictive models of the world, cannot possibly be described as scientific. In real sciences, peers in different fields of study come up with theories, critique one anothers' theories, and then (sometimes with a generational replacement) they ''accept'' the theory which has the most evidence behind it and the best predictive power. Independent "schools of thought" that linger for generations without settling their differences and emerging at a theoretical convergence may try to describe themselves as devoted to good theories, but they are simply cults no different from religious schisms.

Statistical modelling has enabled economists to give their field an illusion of objectivity and air of science. Economists are now so arrogant they wade into other people's field with their supposedly objective ideas about human behavior. Incel relationship theories and chvd politics are a prime example of this problem of neoliberal pop economics colonizing our lives.

On the scale of hard sciences, economics falls just below English literature.