What books will help me understand economics? Also, are these charts good?

Investing ≠ Economics
If you want to understand mainstream economics, just pick an intro textbook by Mankiw, Samuelson, etc. and go through it.
If you want to actually understand the mechanics behind production, consumption, etc. then you'd do best to start with pic related. Hazlitt includes recommended reading in the appendix, so follow that if you're still interested.

Attached: economics.jpg (660x1000, 387K)

Read real economics, not distortions of John Stuart Mill or truism-laden self-help books

Attached: 1555774206291.jpg (1350x4400, 950K)

Economics in one lesson by Hazlitt
Principles of economics by Menger
Human Action by Ludwig von Mises
The Austrian School is the way to go

You have to differentiate between economics and business. Get a new edition of Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell to familiarize yourself with the thought process involved in economics. Business idk, just read a bunch of best sellers. The stock market isn't really for individual investors since you will be competing with institutional investors which employ thousands of professionals in making their assessments.

Attached: 1555781348554.jpg (1975x2229, 1.06M)

Did a four year degree in Economics. It's all smoke and mirrors mate.

Elaborate mate

Uhhh John Stuart Mill is pretty good buddy. I like a lot of John Stuart Mill's stuff, and his writings on economics are just as good as his writings on utilitarianism. His idea of 'productive' or 'non-productive' capital is such an innovative concept that I don't see applied at all in modern economics.

And here we go this is ACTUALLY the stuff you should avoid. The Austrian school literally sucks ass.

However, that being said, the idea of 'marginal economics' as espoused by Carl Menger here is very important in economics.

So important in fact, I find myself reading about 'marginal pairs' at the end of John Von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern's sprawling economic treatise "Theory of Games and Economic Behavior". The whole idea espoused in Carl Menger's book, without any mathematics at all, is essentially the same as espoused in, say, Bohm Bawerk's 'marginal pairs' equation, expressed through Game Theory in 63 of the aforementioned book or various other books, or Leon Walras' Elements of Pure Economics (which is why is a good post). The whole idea of mathematics in economics is NOT statistics, it is the attempt to explain utility in a meaningful way.

The difference between the Lausanne school and Game theorists is that as opposed to expressing the saddlepoints of the system in Mins and Maxs of the OTHER SUBJECTIVE utilities of the goods expressed in terms of OTHER GOODS, the Mins and Maxs of the OTHER OBJECTIVE utilities of the goods are expressed in terms of a finite amount.

This is basically the Lausanne School vs. the Game Theory school a la Von Neumann (yes the man that worked on Atomic Bombs extended his genius to this science).

Point being, while the plebs wage war on 'Keynes vs Hayek' (which most mature, intelligent individuals recognize as partially right and partially wrong in many ways [typically wrong in those which points they took sides on, instead of being impartial]), the real debate here is whether or not you can linearize utility.

:3

Not that guy, but "economics" in the way modern people view the term is a combination of Psychology for the illiterate and Finance for the mathematically deficient.

Oh my god no. Holy fuck how can you be so wrong.

Viewed in terms of set theory though, Game Theory, which is a subset of the study of economics, can help you understand Psychology.

So basically the other way around. Economics is more relatable to particle physics, or engineering. As there is a stable system in a vacuum, and then you introduce the variables.

:3

>leaving out the literary genius of Brezhnev
yikes

>The Austrian school literally sucks ass.
>Signaturefagging
Opinion discarded

Very good chart user

That was a good post I made man.

The issue with the Austrian school is that they misunderstand how indifference curves work, and just fundamentally balk at any attempt to mathematize economics.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Chicago school is not as anti-mathematical as they are.

I have the same criticisms for Keynes, who dislikes using mathematics at all. Both sides are also far too political. Way too much bias in their writings and you can tell.

Probability theory, Game Theory, Set Theory, Numerical analysis (in terms of approximations of PDEs of Stochastic functions) etc can be used in economics, and when you get into actuarial science make up a very larger portion of what is done.

This is generally speaking not the case for economics majors (where they rarely get beyond basic calculus and maybe an introductory probability theory class if they go to good school), and very few people who are strictly economists invoke serious mathematical reasoning in their arguments beyond the creation of graphs which demonstrate trends following their assumed conditions.

For example Thomas Piketty's work Capital in the 21st century uses some basic stochastic models to make predictions and to justify his assumptions, but the mathematical rigor has very little to do with the conclusions drawn in the book, and are in fact primarily used as a demonstration of his perspective rather than some sort of reinforcement of any economic truths he presents. I don't exactly recall any real mathematics involved in the three volumes of Das Kapital I read in college (though that was 7 years ago) and mathematics used in economics by Marxist economists tend to rely on social assumptions for their models that have very little to do with mathematical reasoning (not that neoliberal capitalists don't do very much so the same thing). Basically I'm not saying that math doesn't ever get used in economics (though it does significantly less than you'd like to admit) but the math that does occur generally speaking is not actually rigorous like you would see in actuarial work, but is rather used to produce misleading graphics to rhetorically reinforce their point.

Also, Game Theory is not a subset of economics and it is incredibly misleading to say it is. Game Theory has economic implications just as Stochastic calculus does, but to call Stochastic Calculus a subset of economics would be dismissed as patently ridiculous. The zero-sum model may have began "mathematical economics" (which very strongly implies that most economics is not profoundly mathematical) but game theory as a whole has significantly more biological/computer science/physics implications than it does economics, so declaring it as a sub-field of economics in it's entirety is completely dishonest.

Is change real?

Uhm, pardon me, are you actually making the argument that if you don't use this high level of math for your job, then you aren't actually being an economist?

Excuse me, but at the moment I work in retail. And I use this level of mathematics to study economics. Simply stating one cannot eventually use what he has learned, even whilst he does not need it for his occupation, is just myopic and cruel for your everyday democratic capitalist. We don't live in a fucking aristocracy, after all. Anyone could become a millionaire the next day, it's all about how you utilize what you've learned.

I know for me personally, I am happy where I am, and if I move up, or move on to graduate school, then I know that what I've studied will come in handy. You though? You are so caught up in being 'proud' of your occupation that I can guarantee no one around you even really likes you.

Just my two cents buddy, you don't need to be using economics in your work to study it. Same with anything else, particle physics, what have you.

Finance is a worthless discipline, and seeks to only increase greed. Psychology is a bit more respectable, and even more greatly so if done from outside the skull. Game Theory can help you do that. You could even look at conversations as a form of 'exchange'.

Don't read these irrelevants:
Read Menger and Walras.

These are also decent suggestions:
I would strongly urge for you to read the critical response to Keynes from both neoclassical economists and post-Keynesian economists.

>Are you making the argument that if you don't use this high level of math for your job then you aren't actually being an economist

No, I'm arguing precisely the opposite of that. I'm saying most economists don't use high level math, and that the invocation of rare cases of such as a justification of the rigorousness of economics is being dishonest.

>I work in retail etc.
Sure, keep convincing yourself you're going to become a star millionaire by reading enough Paul Krugman articles. Have fun with that.

>Proud of your occupation
I'm an electrical engineer not an economist. I'm not overwhelmingly proud of my position, I'm just not interested in pretending the Economics majors I interacted in were particularly interested in using mathematics to form their conclusions rather than using it to justify them.

Just from reading your posts, it seems that you'd probably be better off actually studying mathematics (whether it be self study or a formal university education) than pretending that mathematical reasoning is how you came to your economic conclusions. You can certainly use mathematics to model particular economic problems, but the key economic assumptions most make in determining the parameters of these mathematical models have very little to do with math in and of itself and you're kidding yourself if you think the horse is following the cart here.

Interacted with* sorry.

While we're at it, what do you think about lean management authors like Jeffrey Liker or Mike Rother? And has anyone read "From Good to Great" by Jim Collins? Thoughts?

You are a moron. You simply exist to spout nonsense.

Lets unpack this post.
>Game Theory has economic implications just as Stochastic calculus does, but to call Stochastic Calculus a subset of economics would be dismissed as patently ridiculous
Stochastic calculus is just using probability theory.

Game Theory is a more pure economics-based discipline. As you can see, in section 63 of The Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, the entire point of the experiment was to improve upon the findings of the ECONOMISTS Leon Walras and Vilfredo Von Pareto, and linearize utility to accurately describe what happens during a monopolistic, or monopsonistic, exchange, and a bilateral exchange, as well as variations upon those concepts as well.

The idea here is to ECONOMICALLY apply these concepts. The entire field of economics should be changing its definition for you. The corrupt, and frankly, idiotic capitalists would like the definition of economics to be subsumed under 'money' with finance.

But economics has nothing to do with money. Economics is concerned with sociological behavior en masse. Hence why Thomas Malthus' book on positivist checks on 'population' is categorized in Economics.

I always complain about academia but I do believe Academia is to blame. We have a unique situation with this board, where we can actually discover more about these sorts of subjects without being in a college. And a college can restrict you in various ways, like apply you to EITHER a literary, word-based economics approach or a mathematical one. This division that you're feeling in your soul is partly from this.

The truth is that they should be combined. The book on Game Theory was entirely a mathematical designed explanation of the ideas expressed in Carl Menger's Principles of Economics, something expressed completely verbally. And that is something you will HAVE to understand to progress in this field. That certain verbal concepts can be expressed mathematically and certain mathematical concepts can be expressed verbally. It's why Von Neumann and Morgenstern switch back and forth from mathematical proof to verbal explanation to mathematical proofs.

CONTINUED
>Game Theory has economic implications just as Stochastic calculus does, but to call Stochastic Calculus a subset of economics would be dismissed as patently ridiculous
Again, Game Theory was developed as an explanation to economic behavior, and also economic theories developed by prominent economists.

This is not the case with Stochastic Calculus. Not the same.

>The zero-sum model may have began "mathematical economics" (which very strongly implies that most economics is not profoundly mathematical)
How so? In order to define a 'zero-sum' game, you need mathematics in order to explain how the strategies and potential coalitions gravitate towards zero-sum. There is a specific section, I believe 25, in the book in which a zero-sum three-person game is explained for the first time. The only way to really explain how a zero-sum three-person game works is through first applying the principles of symmetry of a zero-sum two person game to three people. The mathematical concept of symmetry can only be explored through a risk-reward graph which is expressed mathematically.
>but game theory as a whole has significantly more biological/computer science/physics implications than it does economics
Leaders have, and should, use game theory when they decide how to make laws and economic tariffs. That being said, Game Theory helps out most companies, and it could help out, for instance, great drug lords more than it could national leaders. It just helps people who are in very competitive states decide what to do.

:3

Holy shit that would be such a good combo for someone starting out in economics. Holy fucking shit.

They get to see what verbal vs. mathematical explanation is like and learn how marginal economics works. That is fucking awesome man. Good combo.

In my opinion, after that, read Pareto's Manual of Political Economy. That is just a good book overall.

Also read Böhm-Bawerk.
Read Marx, Weber, and Schumpeter if you want to get into sociology from economics. Marx was outmoded and made irrelevant in both econ and sociology, but he's at least important enough in sociology that a significant portion of Weber's work was made as a critical response to his corpus, and is therefore probably necessary to understand in a general sense before reading Weber.

One more thing:

And then right after that, reading Theory of Games and Economic Behavior

Just skip Keynes and Hayek. I mean you can if you want to, just realize that Keynes is obfuscatory and misuses terms and that Hayek meaninglessly conflates them at times. :3

>Pareto
Yes, read him as well. Jevons might be helpful, too.

Do you want economic theory or helpful contemporary finance tips?

Economic theory, go to /biz/ for that other thing.

Yeah it's just that Pareto and Walras are in the Lausanne school, and Game Theory is largely a response to that school.
:3

Thomas Malthus
Adam Smith
David Ricardo
James Mill
Pareto as earlier listed though I frankly only know him in the context of pareto efficient markets since I’m a brainlet

Pareto was extremely mathematical actually, like Walras or Von Neumann.

The 80/20 rule is mentioned as a passing note in the mathematical appendix to that specific manual, actually. It is solely concerned with landowners and rent.

Therefore it is frequently misapplied. :3

Attached: serveimage.jpg (1300x954, 146K)

Your reading comprehension is very poor. I talked about the "zero sum game" as an exception to the rule (ie. An instance of economists actually using mathematics to make decisions when they usually don't).

I'm not saying Pareto and Von Neumann don't use math in their economic models, in fact I'm saying the opposite. I'm saying they stand out PRECISELY because they are so MATH ORIENTED where Economics as a general field TENDS NOT TO BE. (I'm hoping the capitalization will help you actually read through the sentence and more easily parse it's meaning).

As far as your implication that I'm making the assumption that Economics == Money, you're completely wrong. In fact the bulk of Economics deals with concepts that do not directly have quantitative analogues which is why I am saying not as much math is involved as you are implying, where as things like money, and in Malthus' case population size do have direct quantitative analogues and thus can be mathematically modeled. These portions of economics that do have direct quantitative metrics (like money, and population growth) are a very small portion of the field (albeit the one that generally is popular due to so much of the US economy being based around finance capitalism), and are as a whole not representative of the general problem solving strategy present in economics.

Also, as far as your first post. Yes Game Theory was originally developed to interact with certain economics problems, but this has not been the central use of Game Theory since the 1950s. Game Theory at this point is used all over the fucking place from CDMA signal allocation in wireless networks, to determining steady state expectation of continuously iterating algorithmic processes in Computer Science, to mapping the spread of infectious diseases in immunology. Claiming Game Theory as a subset of economics specifically would be as silly as claiming Laplace transformations as a subset of Probability theory (for which Simon Laplace developed it originally denoting it as a Z-transform) when its contemporary usage is primarily in Electrical engineering and Mechanical Dynamics.

Indeed it seems we are saying the same things basically with an exception:

I don't think economics is a mainly non-mathematical field. I think that economics has BECOME largely non-mathematical. I think that we are due for a revival in that area.

Everything could be a mathematical field but we don't use equations to interpret history for example, which in essence observes the same process; we don't have adequate insight to mathematize human interactions and in reality this approach in economics seems to be used in large part to rationalize/obfuscate the infusion of political power into the economic system.

Eh, I think you're making a mistake to think that economic systems are independent entities from political power. Economic systems have always relied on political power for enforcement of social norms which allowed for enough stability for trading and movement of resources to occur.

I don't think you're thinking about it right.

Economics can help people make political decisions. Game theory is, basically, politics taken to its natural conclusion. I think if you look at it like that, it becomes necessary to mathematize it, just as a thought experiment.

No, not everything can be 'mathematized'. The only reason economics can is because of marginal utility. :3

I have seen claims that statists and politicians utilize game theory when making laws or interpreting laws' impacts.

I have no doubt they do. You have yet to convince me otherwise.

:3

People who publish in economics usually have knowledge in analysis and statistics at the level of a first or second year graduate student in the respective field at least. Your sociology professor, autistic Internet libertarians, and so on do not really count any more, if they aren't able to keep up with the literature of the field.

the foundation for exploration

And so it will be. But the less these mathematicians utilize verbal explanations, and the less the verbal explanations utilize mathematics, the worse off Economics will be.

It takes a happy medium in the field, which is best expressed as a combination. :3

You are a very confused individual. Me saying that game theory as a mathematical discipline doesn't belong exclusively (or even primarily at this point) to economics does not preclude it from being used in economics/politics.

Very interesting. Personally I think von neumann is one of the most coolest intellectuals of all time, his description of computer architecture is still extremely applicable today with i/o devices, busses, etc

You just need to rationalize that Game Theory has applications to Computer Science and Engineering. Which makes sense, because it's heavily set theory involved.

I'm not confused, just trying to make sense of how you think, that's all. Yeah I think that Game Theory belongs within the field of Economics. It was DEVELOPED, as a response to the Lausanne school of economics.

It could be considered a school of economics in its own right. There's no problem with saying 'this school of economics impacted computer science' is there?

Reading his books are kind of a trip. You could tell he treated mathematics and economics like I do though, by reading the different 'literature' that exists, instead of reading different textbooks.

The way I see it, is that if you can prove something mathematically, put it in a book, and have others learn mathematics while they learn the concept you taught. That's how I learned the different applications of functional calculus and set theory: through mathematical economics.

There is no problem with abstractly saying that a field of economics influenced computer science, but Game Theory did not influence computer science or immunology as a set of economic models, but as a set of mathematical models. These mathematical models may have originally been developed to solve economic problems, but in the many fields that Game Theory is used today, it is not used as an economic framework, but as a mathematical framework.

I didn't say that economic systems exist independent of power. The point was that when mathematized, concentrated interests can influence the course of the discipline in a self-serving manner. In simple terms it's just the king appointing advisers writing apologia for his mercantilism. In a rationalized society that isn't so easy anymore but we have clear indications of a corrupted science.

I think if you subscribe to a determinist view then indeed everything could be mathematized. +I'm not saying that math has no place in economics.

I don't think that's correct.

Lets debate the point under question here. Finally we can start debating things after years of understanding this field.

>Economics is only able to be mathematized because of the concept of marginal utility.

Do you agree or disagree with this statement?

I think, personally, it shows you an example of executable optimized behavior. That's all, really. Nothing more nothing less.

The applications to artificial intelligence is basically the most important contribution it had to computer science. :3

Maybe another comparison would help you (though the few attempts at explaining this concept before didn't seem to). Differential equations were developed to deal with Newtonian Mechanics. Newtonian Mechanics is a sub-field of Physics. This does not imply that differential equations belong to the discipline of physics in any meaningful sense, or that when economists use differential equations to solve economic problems it is in some real sense an instance of physics influencing economics.

Read an economics textbook, one for undergraduates.

Ignore the pseuds saying you should read Smith/Ricardo whoever, that's like reading Newton to get into physics.

I think I get what you're saying. Still, how isn't artificial intelligence just applied Game Theory?

In a way, artificial intelligence is applied optimized economics. I would have no issue if someone said this. :3

What? No it isn't. Both of those authors are really, really easy. Adam Smith is a bit of a moral philosopher as well.

Ricardo is just a great read overall. If you are going to read one of those, go with Ricardo.

:3

As opposed to the significant influence that concentrated interests have over the field now, where most schools teach economics as primarily a verbal discipline rather than a mathematical one? Certainly mathematics is inadequate to describe economic paradigms in their full richness, but are you actually of the opinion that mathematics makes these paradigms more vulnerable than when they are primarily rhetorical in nature and subject to significantly more political pressure?

>There are probably large introductions to the subject like Piketty or whatever
Piketty's work isn't an introductory text you larping retard. It's a treatise on inequality. If you have nothing to contribute, don't post.

>roulette
Sort of like claiming you've figured out the dialectic but then history goes the exact opposite from how you said it would.

Everything they said that was right is in a textbook, and the wrong stuff has been discarded so shouldn't be read at all. There's no value to it for learning economics, at most it's philosophy/history of thought

Also Game Theory contains determinism AND free will within it (i.e. these are mathematically expressable concepts), so don't try to say mathematics is only expressed in discrete, finite systems. There are concepts like free will and infinite choices within the 'effective triangles' of Game Theory. :3

I'd say "Artificial Intelligence" (which is neither artificial nor intelligent) is more applied mathematics as a whole than applied economics in any real sense. Game Theory certainly makes up a portion of it, but automation relies on significant amounts of control theory (primarily ODE and PDE), number theory, information theory etc that game theory on its own does not directly address.

Yea Forums-science.fandom.com/wiki/Economics_Textbook_Recommendations

Absolutely not. People misunderstand Adam Smith constantly. He took a huge stance against money within legislation and various sorts of things not enough people understand.

Ricardo, on the other hand, has something very important to say about persistent productive efficiencies over time in the last chapter of his book that isn't in any textbooks.

Probably because it's not profitable for the companies to release that sort of information. And I'm not even joking. Those are the most important things to read in economics.

This is why you don't read textbooks. :3 This isn't such a dry field after all, there is a lot of moral philosophy to be had.

As I stated, I think it is unfortunate that individuals take a purely verbal stance to this heavily mathematical field, but I do think that economics is optimized mathematically.

Political pressure is the name of the game, man. All this stuff can be analyzed profitably under Game Theory. :3

Yeah, I hate uni textbooks so fucking much. It further encourages memorizing things without doing any reasoning and furthers this bullet point learning culture that dominates undergrad

Why does it matter if people misunderstand Smith? God didn't appear to him in a vision and give him the Truth of all Economics that we need to decipher. He never could have even dreamed of the structure of the modern economy.

I'm curious, what is your actual mathematical background? You seem to have this idea that mathematical sub-fields like Game Theory are these magical frameworks that can fundamentally fix the major problems of the world if we would only listen to them. This mindset strikes me less like someone with actual college exposure to higher mathematics, and more like someone who did a liberal arts degree, maybe got through a sophomore multivariable calculus class (if you went to a school that even required that for a BA) and now you're looking to accept math as your new God.

He probably could have imagined it would get to this state unchecked, yes. This infrastructure is not as god-like as you think.

I have a Business Admin Bachelors.

I learned largely what I know of mathematics through economics. Which is still quite impressive, that’s like learning how to drive stick while driving cars with stick shift (which I’ve done as well). I’m a smart guy. Which is why

>You seem to have this idea that mathematical sub-fields like Game Theory are these magical frameworks that can fundamentally fix the major problems of the world if we would only listen to them.

Strikes me as a childish statement. Game Theory has applications, but I don’t know if it fixes anything. Rather, my conclusions of Game Theory lead me to believe that a changing of the rules of the game itself (ie creating a dummy participant for negative utility, or making the game of exchange similar to turn based poker) could benefit exchanges more than just simply blindly applying Game Theory to any business exchange. :3

I do like mathematics a lot though. I study all areas of it. I’m reading three different mathematical texts right now, The Almagest, Liber Abaci, And Theory of Games.

Hence why I think mathematics can help accurately describe things in a meaningful way. For instance, Menelaus’ theorems helped Ptolemy AND Fibonacci compose new numbers/relations out of two ratios which had to each other a certain ratio. I was glad to have read The Almagest, an astronomical document, to understand Liber Abaci, an algebraic/Diophantine document, where he directly references Ptolemy’s Almagest.

Similarly, Game Theory has influenced another field and mathematics works like that: you simply fool around with mathematics during mathematical experiments and prove different ideas and concepts and they can have applications elsewhere.

Von Neumann and Morgenstern knew this. That’s why he took pleasure in writing the book.

Why not try an actual textbook?

Because I’ve been talking with someone ITT and I don’t even think he’d want you to read a textbook. Any sort of meaningful conversation comes from someone who has read something an ECONOMIST has wrote.
See

Best economics thread we’ve had in a while boys. Impressive

Wait, why is Schumpeter on this meme list?

I don’t know I would ask the same thing.

I’m about to read his ‘Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy’ book after I finish Theory of Games. I’ve heard good things about it. Is what they say true? :3

Yes, but it's a pretty radical departure from game theory. Schumpeter took a page from the earlier German historical school of economics and (pardon the cliche) turned it on its head with neoclassical underpinnings.

I can't tell how much of this I'm supposed to take seriously. Do you want a medal for learning math while learning economics (ie something that on some level requires math)? Do you think engineers learn math before or after physics/engineering courses rather than during them or something?

What I'm getting from you is you like the word math, and have read a few older works on it, but haven't actually got a clue how formal mathematics works, and to be honest probably don't even really understand the mathematics in your favorite GAME THEORY^TM.

Be honest with me, do you have any knowledge or background working with anything beyond or including Calculus? Have you actually had any real experience with formalized probabilty theory and could you actually apply it in a level reasonable for a college graduate. What I'm seeing here is a lot of masturbation, but nothing indicative of actually having any deeper knowledge.

P.s it's not impressive that you taught yourself how to drive a stick shift while driving a stick shift. It's actually the primary way most people (including myself) learned to drive stick.

90% of modern finance is zero-sum speculation. Ordinary fundamentals no longer apply. The chart thus needs to focus on the topic of jewing, market manipulation and group psychology.

You should read The Creature From Jekyll Island. It won't help you with investing but will wake you up to some pretty heavy shit.

He's right though. Why do you assume he's a parasite? Lmao you have to be 18 to post here

you might want to start with this: core-econ.org/project/core-the-economy/
it's free, it's good

Ignore the Marxists, OP. They always claim to have an understanding of the economy and yet are always poor.

>Menger
arxiv.org/pdf/1110.1578.pdf

I can guarantee you, that you had someone teach you stick shift. Also I’ve demonstrated my knowledge of mathematics and game theory sufficiently while you haven’t. I have no indication you even understood what I mentioned earlier.

For instance, earlier in this thread I mentioned a ‘saddle point’, do you know what that is? Could you tell me the difference between the two saddle points I mentioned? Thanks in advance for the prompt answer :3

Ah yes, but Neoclassical economics can be very mathematical at times.

His book seems mostly verbal. So I guess neoclassical in spirit, eh? :3

Do you want to understand economics or finance/investing because there is a big difference

Security analysis and the babylon one should be read. The rest can be skipped. Intelligent investor is getting pretty dated, it's good nonetheless.
Definitely read a micro textbook.
Random walk should be part of the curriculum.
>no Smith in there
Add The Wealth of Nations
Add in some Keynes
Throw in some behavioral econ
The idea here is to familiarize yourself with the various schools of thought rather than business books. Ironically they tell you how to get rich but the tacit implication in them is that the get rich method is to sell get rich books

Add this too

Attached: 5CDF043D-6216-4081-B614-83DAFA042688.jpg (331x499, 34K)

>Karl
That's his mathemetician son, brainlet.