What do economically literate people here read and think in term of schools of thinking ?
Do you have some author to recommend, lefty related of course ?
I'm personally into Thomas Piketty, and a lot of stuff from Attac. Also, I've recently started to go through some random frenchie thing (pdf related, it's a translation) about social money, and it's totally awesome. there is here in frenchie world (well, France + south Belgium) a money called G1 that is totally social (see definition in the pdf). what do you think of it ?
Mostly Anwar Shaik (probably all people will agree he is based). Cotrell/Cockshott although you might not like TANS, they have some great works about plannning, the labour theory and refuting Austrian school of thought. Also as a critique of capitalism I find that Michael Roberts has some great contemporary works
*blocks your path*
Few good channels on youtube, i'm sure people can add to it Henry George School The New School New Economic Thinking
What are some good economic books for a mathfag?
Where do I begin for self education on economics? Are there any handy reading lists?
Start with some pop stuff like Freakonomics or The Undercover Economist. Khan Academy also has a basic economics course. That should keep you busy for a little while.
Varoufakis is genuinly good.
Debunking economics by Steve Keen.
Economics are bourgeoisie, imperialist, colonialist, white nationalist, counter-revolutionary, anti-dialectical, reactionary, intranational, patriarchal, oppressive, opioid pseudo-science, comrade.
the making of economic society and/or the worldly philosophers, both by Robert Heilbroner. Good for beginners, but keep in mind: he isn't a marxian economist.
Can someone explain why Anwar Shaikh is good? Not saying he isn't btw.
I'm gonna study economics but kinda dissapointed how there is already an oversaturation of heterodox economists.
ur mum is oversaturated already
This guy is still taken seriously?
No, he's not. He's been criticized by his own colleagues in Game Theory for not understanding it.
Marx was going to write 6 books on economics and Capital (all 3 volumes) was just the first. If you were to write an economics textbook on Marxian econ, Marx's actual analysis would only pertain to the first chapter or two -many Marxians have not gone much further
Capital explained why there is a monetary economy and how production is basically organized and motivated. There is a huge amount of stuff that marxian economists dont really write about or develop coherent, systematized, formalized theories of. Shaikh goes and writes about the theory of the interest rate, the theory of inflation, the theory of international trade, the (exact) theory of unemployment, and so forth. He also applies the stuff you might find in keynes or kalecki about expectations, etc. as well as doing the empircal and econometric work. He also works in a department that does work on applying chaos theory / probabilitizing to economics via econophysics.
Yeah why not?
he got BTFO multiple times by Andrew Kliman.
was he actually btfo'd or did kliman just do the typical marxist thing of working from the assumption that marx is god? because most of keen's shit that i've seen seems 100% watertight
I've read keens critique of Marx. Basically it seems to revolve around him inventing Keen's dialectic where he says, why can't capital also have the use-value of creating value?
+ muh transformation problem
Essentially, the critique keen gives in Debunking economics is ian steedman's critique from 'marx after sraffa' uncritically regurgitated from the 1970s.
what is not watertight is his argument against marx
Michael Hudson is good stuff.
tbh this seems unreasonable to care much about when keen spends 95% of his time getting angry at mainstream economists that people actually listen to (rather than other people sent to sit on the heterodox naughty step.) and saying the words "minsky model"
the bit about marx in debunking economics felt like a cursory "i'm not a commie btw :^)" token to such a point it really doesn't matter. Keen could say Marx was a mushroom and from a bourgeois economics standpoint it wouldn't really matter.
I'm more aligned with Post-Keynesian economics when talking about the current state of affairs, but I unironically think Hayek makes some valid criticism of the fed, only for the U.S that is, burgers have bastardized Keynesian policy so much it's not even funny anymore
Or rather his completion, updating and confrontation with real world facts of Marxian/Ricardian/Smith economics, all the while mounting an attack on neo-classical economics and highlighting where he solves its issues.