Principles of Economics

Nitzan and Bichler - Capital as Power
Di Muzio - Debt as Power
Di Muzio - An Anthropology of Money
Blair Fix - Rethinking Economic Growth Theory From a Biophysical Perspective
this blog - economicsfromthetopdown.com

So free market?

And the difference between free market and totalitarianism is?..

Attached: de Benoist A. - Hayek. A Critique (1998) (7).jpg (527x781, 231.71K)

Also this.

Attached: de Benoist A. - Hayek. A Critique (1998) (6).jpg (1062x834, 503.07K)

Does it even work?

>Let's try socialism again user, it will work this time!
>Well it didn't work, so let's regulate companies because capitalist working are bad because some random poor economist that has never own shit in his life says so!

Attached: Cy5Ti1vWgAEcevZ.jpg (500x373, 19.26K)

Capitalism isn’t profitable
The rich don’t produce they redistribute the existing wealth to themselves
Amazon literally did not report growth until the pandemic, how can a company operate at a loss for 2 decades and still remain in business?
All growth since the 70s is fake, they cook the books and fudge the numbers to hide this

I'm a Listian, and sympathetic to Georgism, so economic nationalism and economic democracy are the only modes of production I can really tolerate. pure Marxism to me is cancerous and letting the market do whatever it wants is also suspect.

Attached: 7ab8f2ca19b5452697b005b4d37b2923_xl.jpg (1200x675, 180.49K)

>t. has kids forced to read trannyshit by their Private School
lol

Mankiw was George Bush's top economist.

Gregory Mankiw was Bush's economic advisor and look at how his administration ended.

Attached: 2008-financial-crisis-3305679-final-JS-03a006d464d7465aaf331145a1252beb.png (1500x1000, 47.83K)

Which Bush? Senior or Junior?

Thanks a lot user! Will check them out!

I enroll my children in another school... In socialism the school curriculum is directed by a ministry that makes them see tranny shit out of obligation, in capitalism I simply change the service.

>2008
It has nothing to do with Mankiw or Bush administration, lol. Are guys fucking retarded?

>Are guys fucking retarded?
That's the year everything went wrong.

>t. zoomer
What happened in 1913 and 1971?

Human Action

>totalitarianism is the desire to dissolve politics more that the desire to extend it everywhere
Really? Come on.

This. Someone would have to be living under a rock since before 08 to believe that.

That's just an introductory textbook, user. People read this shit and think they are an expert in economics, now go read macro to see where the government fits in.

Attached: PEPE.png (1024x936, 776.06K)

Economics are a simplistic abstraction of human psychology.
The study of psychology are simplistic abstractions of human biology.
Both gommunism and lolbertarianism are retarded over simplifications.

21st century economics - rhona c free

Thanks user, will check it out.

nothing against Mankiw; in fact that book was the text for our intro macroecon class in uni. It's the kind of textbook where even those with non-econ background can pick up and understand some basic micro/macro. Albeit frequently misinterpretation resulting in a lot of stupid posts and comments about "basic economics" but I digress, that is. another topic.

with rhona you get a much more complete picture of the field of economics as a whole, whereas Mankiw is focused on macroeconomics and some micro. Not a knock on Mankiw since these are arguably the most important topics in econ, and students who the book was designed for will eventually learn the other topics anyways. But you miss out on topics like behavioral econ and econometrics that any econ major should know.

Main reason I recommend rhona is one of the early chapters, "History of Economics" or something like that. It gives a timeline for how economics has grown and developed since Adam Smith. It really puts into context all the different schools of thought, who came after who and expanded their ideas, and where the field of economics is today.

That does sound very good and complete. I'll definitely check it out. Most research I've seen is done in behavioral so I wondered why

>Most research I've seen is done in behavioral so I wondered why
behavioral is the avant garde cutting edge stuff right now regarding markets. It used to be efficient markets (and before that, Keynesian) until behavioral blew them out the water (IMO). No one is going to do research on Marshallian demand functions when there is basically a hundred years of academia that either expands on it or shows why parts of it is flawed. It would be like doing astronomy research on a geocentric system.

>>socialism
>Alain de Benoist
You are retarded, right?

>Amazon literally did not report growth until the pandemic, how can a company operate at a loss for 2 decades and still remain in business?
what? it didn't operate at a loss. and even if it did, the answer is simple: promise of future profit, which would've been a realistic one given the rate Amazon's business was growing
>All growth since the 70s is fake
it's not fake. it's based on rapid growth in information technology and on exploitation of newly created millions of proletarians in the East

>profitable
>The rich don’t produce
>wealth
>growth
How would you produce mana?

economicsfromthetopdown.com/2020/09/04/stocks-are-up-wages-are-down-what-does-it-mean/
"If this ritual seems arbitrary, that’s because it is. There’s nothing objective about the capitalization formula. It doesn’t point to any fundamental truth about the world, either natural or social. The capitalization formula is simply a ritual — an article of faith.
This arbitrariness doesn’t lessen the importance of capitalization. Far from it. Rituals are always arbitrary. But their effects are always real. Just ask Bob, who’s about to be ritually sacrificed to appease the god of rain. The ritual is arbitrary — founded on a worldview that is false. Killing Bob won’t bring rain. But the rulers believe it will. And so Bob dies. The ritual is arbitrary. The effects are real.

Now here’s the uncomfortable truth. Capital is the same as mana — it’s a euphemism for power. Let’s run through the similarities. Hawaiian elites had power because they had mana. Capitalists have power because they have capital. Hawaiian elites proclaimed their power boldly. So do capitalists, who broadcast their power daily via stock tickers. Lastly, mana had mystical significance. So does capital. By controlling mana, Hawaiian elites became ‘vessels of spiritual energy’. By controlling capital, modern elites (we are told) become ‘vessels of productivity’.
The similarities between mana and capital are unsettling. But there is an important difference between the two ideologies. Hawaiian elites didn’t quantify their power. But modern elites do. Capitalists use the ritual of capitalization to give their power a number. This ritual, Nitzan and Bichler observe, does something unique. It makes capitalism the first social order that is quantitative."

>In socialism the school curriculum is directed by a ministry
If socialism is when you are controlled by a ministry, then any libertarianism/individualism by default leads to socialism. Because negative 'freedom from'.

Attached: de Benoist A. - View from the Right, vI (2017) (4).jpg (1716x856, 908.61K)

There are better Microeconomic books.

Also the publisher is "CENGAGE LEARNING". I read an insane amount of economic books and I never heard of them.

The question is what do you want to know? University Economics or just being successful?

If you are just in it for the university theoretical knowledge, then just look at books from
>Oxford
>Cambridge
>MIT
Those are basically the publishers where you can't go wrong if you just want to know the science behind economics.

But if you want to be successful, there are completely different books you should read and I would even advice to ignore scientific Economics books at all because Economics books are always build around an institution judging people (for example the politicians looking at the countries economy). But for an individual trying to become successful you have to think completely different. Your goal is not to look at the equilibrium of prices. Your goal is to find the best way to make money.

>libertarianism/individualism by default leads to socialism. Because negative 'freedom from'.
Does not follow in the slightest. Benoist is a socialist and doesn't seem to even understand the right-libertarian formulation of individual rights as not "ideologically Same". His opinions are not useful to those further right.

>Your goal is not to look at the equilibrium of prices. Your goal is to find the best way to make money.
I see, so a very different approach to money. Any good recommendations?

Are there any good materials on how to make money?

People say to read an introductory economics book. But if you take econ in university, you take ONE micro class that teaches from a book liek this, and then the rest of the work will be on interventions when you are not in that imaginary perfect competition situation. That's why economists are neoliberals not libertarians. They usually support interventions against monopolies and wealth redistribution. Overall microecon is really applied utilitarian ethics.

>doesn't seem to even understand the right-libertarian formulation of individual rights
He understands enough to claim it is retarded.

"A second paradox results from the difficulty that there is in claiming that human rights can predominate over positive right in such a way that every political power should begin by recognising them, even while admitting that the practical validity of these rights depends on the capacity of this same political power to apply them. Bentham had already stigmatised this contradiction of contractualism, which consists in basing the rights of the citizen on human rights when the latter can have an effective existence only from he former. ‘On the one hand’, observes Julien Freund, ‘one demands the respect of these rights for the same reason that one respects the dispositions of positive law, but, on the other, makes it known, with more or less perspicacity, that the validity of these rights should not depend on ordinary legislative examples since they aim at universality’. Still more generally, that poses the question of the relations between politics and the law. The ideology of human rights, we have seen, posits the anteriority of natural law in relation to society and draws the argument from that to limit the prerogatives of politics. Now the law, being impotent by itself, always supposes something outside of itself to exercise itself. As Marcel Gauchet writes, ‘the point of view of the law does not allow one to take account of the context in which the law may rule. It is here that one should pass to the political point of view. It is demanded by the extent of the limits to the ideas of a foundation in law’."

>economics
>religion
Would that the fires of Sodom and Gomorrah cleansed this board of such off-topic /his/ filth.

>doesn't seem to even understand the right-libertarian formulation
"The tension between human rights and those of the citizen, that is to say of man considered as a member of a particular political community, appears again in the discussions that have surrounded the arrival of ‘the rights of the second generation’, that is to say of collective or social rights.
These rights of the second generation (right to work, right to education, right to medical care, etc.) are of a completely different nature than individual rights. Sometimes qualified as ‘equality rights’ compared to ‘freedom rights’, as ‘rights to’ compared to ‘rights of’, or again of ‘rights of recipience’ compared to ‘rights of action’, they represent, above all, beliefs permitting members of a society to demand or obtain positive services from the state. These are not so much natural *attributes* as *attributions* that a particular society which has reached a certain moment in its history thinks to be able to and be obliged to give its members. Not only do they ‘presuppose an organised civil society which will be the guarantee of their efficacy’ but to the extent that they even support themselves on the notion of solidarity, they imply the social phenomenon and cannot be deduced from the pre-political nature of the individual. Finally, contrary to the rights of the first generation, which are unlimited in principle (one cannot restrain them without harming what they are based on), they are, on the contrary, limited, for every belief vis-à-vis others is limited by the executive capacities and the means of the others.

While the theory of individual rights tends to limit the power and the authority of the state, the institution of collective rights makes of the latter the privileged instrument of their implementation. The state is no longer expected to abstain, restrain itself or disengage itself, but, on the contrary, to implicate itself, to become engaged, indeed to establish itself as the exclusive provider of an ever-increasing number of services. ‘The recognition of social rights having the character of “beliefs”’, writes Jean-François Kervégan, ‘implies that sufficient power over the members of the city shall be conferred and recognised for it to be able to guarantee them the enjoyment of these rights, in spite of the possible opposition of particular interests among them and of some of these with regard to measures capable of harming them’."

If you can't apply the scientific method to these phenomena then its on you, fucking brainlet

>From what I gathered in this book, its all about leave the market do its own thing and don't intrude with policies
the business class has promoted this idea for centuries because it benefits them. politicians go along with it because it lets them be lazy fucks.

it's not actually good.

Narnia doesn't either we talk about books here tho

>doesn't seem to even understand
3/3

"Such indeed is the reason for the hostility of liberal milieus to collective rights, which they qualify in the best of cases as ‘fine ideals’, that is to say as pious wishes without real justification. If certain of these rights are reducible to individual cases, others, in fact, cannot be distributed: they have as debtors not individuals but collectivities. The right to speak one’s language, for example, is inseparable from the right to the existence of the group which uses this language, and this second right conditions the first. Now, liberal individualism rejects the very idea that a collectivity can imagine itself attributing individual traits, in the case of rights, and postulates that the value of a possession depends on its conformity with the principle of the respect that one owes to the individual alone. That is why Hayek violently denounces social rights, insofar as they derive from a distributive justice: ‘[A]ny policy aiming directly at a substantive ideal of distributive justice must lead to the destruction of the Rule of Law’.
It would therefore be useless to deny, as Claude Lefort does, the depth of the ‘generation gap’ separating individual rights from collective rights. Between the one and the other there is a difference of kind, not a difference of degree. This difference of kind goes well beyond the classical antinomy between equality, assimilated to justice, and freedom. On the one hand, individual rights can cause an obstruction to the realisation of collective rights, unless the reverse is true (that is why liberals and socialists mutually accuse each other of violating the former in the name of the latter, or the latter in the name of the former). On the other hand, a number of public or social goods are not divisible, which means that they have a significance only in a holistic understanding of social action. The institution of collective rights implies the recognition of the importance of the notion of belonging, and leads to the division of the subjects of right into groups, which is what the classical theory of human rights has always refused to do. The liberals draw an argument from these with which to criticise social rights.
One could rightly draw the opposite conclusion from it: social rights, from the sole fact that they are social, are more credible than those drawn from an abstract individual ‘nature’, especially when they allow one to restore the notion of distributive justice to honour.

>His opinions are not useful
1. If you want individualism, you'll get "socialism" => i.e. despotic Big Brother that will fuck disintegrate you and fuck you all over.
2. If you'll care for your society instead of individuals, you'll get communitarianism => i.e. Big Brother won't be able to do shit.

>economics
>scientific method

Attached: f414eea56706eb2ea86645d0202e482a198b9d84.jpg (2688x1920, 945.94K)

>providing no argument and only shitty meme pictures
No wonder you can't understand economics.

But this is, again, the literature board. The scientific method could not be less relevant.

>If this ritual seems arbitrary, that’s because it is. There’s nothing objective about the capitalization formula.

...

Which requires understanding the subject to get the book material. As expected, Yea Forums doesn't fucking read as always.

Economics is not literature. Books about economics are not, in any way, literature. You're not discussing the literary merit of economics, you are discussing the subject itself. Again; how is this relevant to this board? This is not /books/.

>You're not discussing the literary merit of economics, you are discussing the subject itself
Because that's what the book is about.

the most economics can do is *attempt* to use statistical methods to prove correlations between variables, but they always are proved wrong because they can't properly list or control for all of the potential variables.

you should read this article by keynes, absolutely obliterating tinbergen and the use of 'statistical reasoning' in economics.

also i can sense beneath the surface that you don't understand shit about science and are just appealing to authority

Attached: tinbergen.png (519x398, 64.78K)