[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / arepa / cafechan / hkon9 / leftpol / tacos / tttt / vg / vichan ]

/freedu/ - Free Education

Learning resources, free, for everyone
Winner of the 77nd Attention-Hungry Games
/x/ - Paranormal Phenomena and The RCP Authority

April 2019 - 8chan Transparency Report
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Options
dicesidesmodifier

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


Free Education For Everyone!

File: 652d4e0ba3b5ce3⋯.jpg (238.66 KB, 1400x656, 175:82, economics.jpg)

 No.1843

So anybody got anything on introductory Econ and the math needed to understand it? Also links to fREE courses for such subjects?

 No.1848

Honestly I wouldn't bother even studying standard bourgeois economics, especially not to begin with, unless you need to for a course or something.

If you want to understand economics, I'd read some Marxist texts on it. "Value, Price and Profit", and "Wage Labour & Capital" by Karl Marx are great short starters. You can find introductions to Marxist economics all over the internet, including here.

Then, once you actually understand economics, you should go and learn some bourgeois economics - it will a) provide you with some useful tools and insights that you didn't learn from Marxist economics and b) help you to understand how economists today fuck things up so bad. But learning it first, alone, just confuses everything.


 No.1849

I know two books summarizing and debunking mainstream economics: Economic Philosophy by Joan Robinson (short, no math whatsoever, Marshall, Pigou, Keynes (whom she knew personally), Marx and some other stuff) and a book named… Debunking Economics by Steve Keen (bigger book, diagrams, some simple math). Both are extremely pessimistic about the state of economics as a science and don't really go into how to get to better economics. The knowledge about Marx in both books is iffy (though it's not as bad as PragerU tier).


 No.1850

>>1848

>>1849

I need to learn right and left wing economics if I'm going to be truly educated


 No.1851

>>1850

That's like saying I need to learn the biology behind evolution, and study the book of Genesis, if I am to truly understand how life develops.

Not all ideas are equally good.


 No.1856

>>1851

Dude if you take that tone then you'll be as dumb as /pol/tards, even Chomsky understand Ayn Rand in full among other things like Friedmans theories. To simply disregard them is disingenuous and seems like a sinister thing authoritarian liberals do.


 No.1859

>>1851

A great deal of Marxism is based on classical economics. A lot of it is also a refutation of that. Marx writes a great deal about what classical economics gets wrong, and (understandably so), does not about write what it gets right (he spends enough time writing about what it gets wrong), - but what it gets right is important. If you won't read Friedman or Hayek, which honestly I can understand, you should still read Smith, the father of economics.


 No.1881

>>1859

I would argue that reading Smith and Ricardo are almost necessary reading if you want to seriously consider studying Capital at some point.


 No.1884

CORE is a solid free intro econ textbook. Used by UCL's econ BSc iirc.

http://core-econ.org




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / arepa / cafechan / hkon9 / leftpol / tacos / tttt / vg / vichan ]