Economics is the only social science that makes any sense to me.
After reading The Wealth of Nations, what are the "must read" books in economic theory?
Economics is the only social science that makes any sense to me
Isaac Gomez
Other urls found in this thread:
marxists.org
youtube.com
legalform.files.wordpress.com
listmuse.com
archive.org
belliresearchinstitute.com
twitter.com
Connor Jones
go for marx, here's a good introduction
>In capitalist society, creative activity takes the form of commodity production, namely production of marketable goods, and the results of human activity take the form of commodities. Marketability or saleability is the universal characteristic of all practical activity and all products. The products of human activity which are necessary for survival have the form of saleable goods: they are only available in exchange for money. And money is only available in exchange for commodities. If a large number of men accept the legitimacy of these conventions, if they accept the convention that commodities are a prerequisite for money, and that money is a prerequisite for survival, then they find themselves locked into a vicious circle. Since they have no commodities, their only exit from this circle is to regard themselves, or parts of themselves, as commodities. And this is, in fact, the peculiar "solution" which men impose on themselves in the face of specific material and historical conditions. They do not exchange their bodies or parts of their bodies for money. They exchange the creative content of their lives, their practical daily activity, for money.
As soon as men accept money as an equivalent for life, the sale of living activity becomes a condition for their physical and social survival. Life is exchanged for survival. Creation and production come to mean sold activity. A man's activity is "productive," useful to society, only when it is sold activity. And the man himself is a productive member of society only if the activities of his daily life are sold activities. As soon as people accept the terms of this exchange, daily activity takes the form of universal prostitution.
marxists.org
Juan Anderson
I'd say Smiths other works. Specifically The Theory of Moral Sentiments
Just don't fall victim to Communism. Make sure to read Mein Kampth at the same time to negate the effects.
Justin Thompson
and by the way this guy is full of shit the Nature and Causes of The Wealth Of Nation is Plunder
>At this point Vattel adds a Lockean comment regarding waste, and there then follows what Vattel calls the “celebrated question”:
>"It is asked whether a nation may lawfully take possession of some part of a vast country, in which there are none but erratic nations whose scanty population is incapable of occupying the whole? We have already observed, in establishing the obligation to cultivate the earth, that those nations cannot exclusively appropriate to themselves more land than they have occasion for, or more than they are able to settle and cultivate. Their unsettled habitation in those immense regions cannot be accounted a true and legal possession; and the people of Europe, too closely pent up at home, finding land of which the savages stood in no particular need, and of which they made no actual and constant use, were lawfully entitled to take possession of it, and settle it with colonies."
>Since the earth “belongs to mankind in general, and was designed to furnish them with subsistence . . . we do not, therefore, deviate from the views of nature, in confining the Indians within narrower limits” (Vattel, 1853, 98–100). This concerns not just colonization, but the act of war: nations which choose not to cultivate their lands, despite those lands being fertile, are “injurious to all their neighbors” and, as such, “deserve to be extirpated as savage and pernicious beasts” (Vattel, 1853, 36)
Jordan Hall
>So when James Kent says that the Indians are “inconsistent” with civilization he is perhaps being a little coy. Read through the lens of Vattel or Locke, “inconsistent” is but half of it; it is extirpation that is at stake. It is, under the influence and in the language of Locke and Vattel, the violence of original accumulation written once more into the law of nations. It is what Derek Gregory (2004) calls the “colonial present” of international order. As the colonial present, it is found wherever one looks. In 1936 Winston Churchill commented to the Palestine Royal Commission on a possible Jewish state in Palestine that there was no injustice in removing the Arabs from their land: “Why is there harsh injustice done if people come and make a livelihood for more, and make the desert into palm groves and orange groves?,” he asked. “The injustice is when those who live in the country leave it to be a desert for thousands of years.” The land needed to be improved, not wasted. When one Commission member spoke up for the Arabs as the indigenous population, Churchill reiterated: “You have seen the terraces on the hills which used to be cultivated which under Arab rule have remained a desert.” “It was good for the world,” he told the Chair of the Commission a few moments later, “that the place should be cultivated, and it will never be cultivated by the Arabs” (cited in Gilbert, 1978, 176–7). Chaim Weizmann, president of the World Zionist Organization, told the same Commission that the Palestinian “revolt” was merely “the old war of the desert against civilization” (cited in Gregory, 2004, 81–2).
>Much hangs on “the desert” here — a wasteland if ever there was one. By way of ending, and ending speculatively, we might say that we find ourselves now confronted by yet another war of “civilization” against the “desert”: the global war on terror
Connor Gutierrez
Kevin Myers
Ricardo and Marx, then stop.
Brody Fisher
Daily reminder that when Adam Smith wrote about economics, economy was a branch of moral philosophy.
Thomas Peterson
After Smith move onto Ricardo although arguably you can skip straight to Marx. After Marx's Capital read Schumpter's Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, Keynes' General Theory and any selection from the Austrians (there's probably someone who could give you a better rundown of them than me). If you're interested then you can look more into the development of ideas with writers such as Alfred Marshall and John Stuart Mill.
Now you can begin to move onto more modern schools of thought, moneterism, post-Keynsians and the grand neoclassical synthesis. If you're interested in more then read textbooks and take a course.
Jace Diaz
Literally just the coursebooks from a Microeconomics 101 and a Macroeconomics 101 course
Michael Scott
>take a course.
>the coursebooks from a Microeconomics 101 and a Macroeconomics 101
These are the most important. Do not become a pseud who's read the first few pages of Smith and Marx and thinks he's a qualified economist. We have enough of those on Yea Forums
Aaron Young
meant to give you a (you) as well
John Kelly
Vico
An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought
Jean-Baptiste Say
Bastiat
Herbert Spencer
Pareto
Menger
The Theory of the Leisure Class
Carl Schmitt
R.H. Tawney
Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy
The Machiavellians: Defenders of Freedom
Bertrand De Jouvenel - Power; Sovereignty; Redistribution; The Pure.
The Quest for Community: A Study in the Ethics of Order and Freedom
The Affluent Society
The Failure of the New Economics
Political Man: The Social Bases of Politics
Reading Capital: Complete Edition (don't actually read it yourself)
The Collapse of Complex Societies
The Economics Of Control; Principles Of Welfare Economics
Medieval Political Philosophy: A Sourcebook
The Ancient Economy (Finley)
Anarchy, State, and Utopia
The Fall of Public Man
Civilization and Capitalism 15th-18th Century
The Modern World-System
Choice and Consequence
Intellectuals and Society
The Quest for Cosmic Justice
The Sources of Social Power
Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action
Choice, Contract, Consent
Paved with Good Intentions: The Failure of Race Relations in Contemporary America
The Passing of an Illusion: The Idea of Communism in the Twentieth Century
Trust: The Social Virtue and the Creation of Prosperity
Advanced Macroeconomics
The Wealth and Poverty of Nations: Why Some Are So Rich and Some So Poor
Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed
Understanding the Process of Economic Change
>every book by Charles Tilly
Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory
How Rich Countries Got Rich And Why Poor Countries Stay Poor
A Farewell to Alms
Democratic Faith
Why Liberalism Failed
Social Acceleration: A New Theory of Modernity
Evil Paradises: Dreamworlds of Neoliberalism
Contours of the World Economy, 1-2030 AD: Essays in Macro-Economic History
The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies
The Broken Compass: How Left and Right Lost Their Meaning
Taleb's Incerto
Matthew Effect: How Advantage Begets Further Advantage
Money, Sound and Unsound
Defending the Undefendable
The Case for Discrimination
The Faith of the Faithless: Experiments in Political Theology
The Problem of Political Authority: An Examination of the Right to Coerce and the Duty to Obey
The New Economics of Inequality and Redistribution
Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty (take #103 on this)
Predisposed: Liberals, Conservatives, and the Biology of Political Differences
Our Political Nature: The Evolutionary Origins of What Divides Us
Contemporary Marxist Theory: A Reader
Capital in the Twenty-First Century
After Piketty
#Accelerate: The Accelerationist Reader
World Order: Reflections on the Character of Nations and the Course of History
Equality: The Impossible Quest
The Upside of Inequality: How Good Intentions Undermine the Middle Class
The Great Leveler
Wyatt Taylor
>Just don't fall victim to Communism. Make sure to read Mein Kampth at the same time to negate the effects.
Nice
Adam Roberts
OP here.
I've taken micro and macroeconomics.
I really enjoyed the classes and I wanted to study further, but I can't because my school would double my tuition if I did.
Since I'm paying out of pocket for my degree, double tuition just isn't possible. That's why I'm self-studying.
Alexander Wright
Economics is not a science.
Carson Rodriguez
this
Lucas Moore
Economics is a moral philosophy.
If you disagree then you will be trying to be powerfull.
Sebastian Carter
Eli Rogers
Did the classes you studied include Ricardo's theory of land rent and its implications? That's a very important part of economics that often gets ignored.
But I'll leave it for others to recommend a book on that.
Afterwards I suggest you read The End Of Poverty (by Jeffrey Sachs), to see how economists have helped solve real world problems.
Then read some of the MMT stuff to understand why a lot of that help has actually caused unnecessary harm.
Daniel Smith
THis. Marx is a good economist regardless of what illiterates say, but dont forget to this to balance your humors afterwards and not become a cringe psuedomarxie.
Carson Morris
you must be fucking trolling comparing marx to an idiot like hitler. the fact is that you cant "balance" marx with anyone. that's like balancing vodca with milk as to not "get too tipsy"
this whole "balance" bullshit is nothing but a stupid american liberal ideology. marx is not reducible, marx is singular.
Hunter Hall
There is no “clash of civilizations.” There is a clinically dead civilization kept alive by all sorts of life-support machines that spread a peculiar plague into the planet’s atmosphere. At this point it can no longer believe in a single one of its own “values”, and any affirmation of them is considered an impudent act, a provocation that should and must be taken apart, deconstructed, and returned to a state of doubt. Today Western imperialism is the imperialism of relativism, of the “it all depends on your point of view”; it’s the eye-rolling or the wounded indignation at anyone who’s stupid, primitive, or presumptuous enough to still believe in something, to affirm anything at all. You can see the dogmatism of constant questioning give its complicit wink of the eye everywhere in the universities and among the literary intelligentsias. No critique is too radical among postmodernist thinkers, as long as it maintains this total absence of certitude. A century ago, scandal was identified with any particularly unruly and raucous negation, while today it’s found in any affirmation that fails to tremble.
No social order can securely found itself on the principle that nothing is true. Yet it must be made secure. Applying the concept of “security” to everything these days is the expression of a project to securely fasten onto places, behaviors, and even people themselves, an ideal order to which they are no longer ready to submit. Saying “nothing is true” says nothing about the world but everything about the Western concept of truth. For the West, truth is not an attribute of beings or things, but of their representation. A representation that conforms to experience is held to be true. Science is, in the last analysis, this empire of universal verification. Since all human behavior, from the most ordinary to the most learned, is based on a foundation of unevenly formulated presuppositions, and since all practices start from a point where things and their representations can no longer be distinguished, a dose of truth that the Western concept knows nothing about enters into every life. We talk in the West about “real people,” but only in order to mock these simpletons. This is why Westerners have always been thought of as liars and hypocrites by the people they’ve colonized. This is why they’re envied for what they have, for their technological development, but never for what they are, for which they are rightly held in contempt. Sade, Nietzsche and Artaud wouldn’t be taught in schools if the kind of truth mentioned above was not discredited in advance. Containing all affirmations and deactivating all certainties as they irresistibly come to light — such is the long labor of the Western intellect.
Colton Brown
>marx is not reducible, marx is singular.
Nice trick. Hegel on his head is still Hegel.
Grayson Johnson
my point is that its really cowardly and dumb to try to have a "round table" inside your head in an attempt to reconcile what cant and shouldn't be reconciled, Marx was a partisan in a global civil war, he wasn't no guest on Doctor Phill trying to work things out with his Family. Marx is explosive. saying "red Marx, but then read Ricardo (or other such fool) for the balance" is symptomatic of refusing the Truth that marx pointed out. namely, that we are not free. that freedom requires a struggle, it requires TAKING A SIDE in a war that is always going on.
William Cox
>he wasn't no guest
He wasn't A guest.
I understand your point to some degree, and I empathize with it and disagree with it on others, but I do want to point out that IGNORANCE IS RAMPANT in modern society.
Having appropriate grammar when discussing issues is very important. :3
If that completely invalidated your point for someone that person is indeed shallow and not willing to empathize. However, if you continue using poor grammar, eventually no one will respect you. Just a word of warning for you, in your professional life as well. :3
Jackson Cruz
as long as were talking about marx and capitalism i should add that this "balance" thing is a really all about management.
you know economy derives from oikos (house) and nomos (law/norm). when we talk about the economy we really talk about the art or "science" of managing the slaves. that's what "economy" originally meant in ancient greece. the proper management of the house hold (its items and its slaves, much like the plantation system in colonial america)
so my point is that this whole "balancing" thing is an attempt to refuse the truth of marx by means of relativism and manage him.
like, "dont abandon yourself to the truth of marxism, but manage it, put yourself at a distance with it."
becouse is a person to embrace a truth he will not be a "good" (i.e manageable) slave
belliresearchinstitute.com