All schools welcome, post your favorites:
Jow Forums Recommended Reading
Lucas Jackson
Other urls found in this thread:
sacred-economics.com
twitter.com
Parker Jones
just got this yesterday, have only read 1 chapter. Any thoughts before I get further?
Liam Morris
Kevin Watson
this
Hunter Smith
that
Aaron Sanchez
>mises
Luis Torres
Mises is great but you don't want to go down the autistic Rothbardian-ancap road (unless you really want to). Follow it up with this or Hayek's "The Sensory Order"
Isaac Watson
that
Luke Gutierrez
The reason i am reading mises is because i started investigating the libertarian party a year ago and I have found the mises bunch to be the most interesting thinkers in the group. What in your opinion is bad about Rothbard and that group?
Jason Fisher
Graham
Krugman
Buffet
Kostolany
Rogoff
Basically all they ever said or wrote is literally gold. Should be enough for the next year.
Caleb Robinson
I don't think Rothbard is horrible, per se. I think we need a state to upkeep a tradition of economic liberty, rather than dispense with a state altogether (or render it completely moot). Hayek is much more reasonable on the role of the state in relation to the market. Most Rothbardians/ancaps I've met are the autistic ones that say nationwide driver's licenses are tyrannical.
Owen Rivera
theres plenty of really good light novels
kyoto teramachi sanjou no holmes
oregairu (first few volumes at least until the author let every fan fuck him up the ass)
and many others
but for me its pic related, oreimo, it deals with a whole lot of self-improvement and self-development that are very useful for succeeding with what you do
Ian Foster
I see. thanks for the thoughts
Zachary Foster
Another classic for those of a more fascist bend
Nolan Allen
Addition:
Mises / Rothbart are not recommendable, if you look for actual insight. What they produced is basically philosophical make-believe, nothing else.
Hayek is somewhat interesting, but also not so much productive. I learned more from Marx than from Hayek, but to have a wider overview over all the different schools, Hayek is needed.
Just stay away from the praxeology - bullshit. Every scientist cringes just by hearing the very word.
Luke Bailey
Owen Hughes
Grayson Price
i've also been reading eromanga-sensei for the last couple of weeks, almost done with volume 5 and while its not at all on the same level as oreimo, its still a good read
it deals with a lot of issues that entrepreneurs (novelists in this case) face with unreliable employment that is solely based on ones own performance and adjacent steps that can be taken to assure a steady income for what can be regarded as a single-income household
personal loss and the looming threat of financial loss while trying to come to terms with ones own situation are heavy topics this series of light novels deal with appropriately
Robert Lee
Hayek is indeed the most sensible one, and Rothbard ideas are unbearably impracticable and utopic, but you cant say he is wrong in his theory. I defend the state because of utilitarianism, but i honestly cant think its existence is good.
Also, Mises and Hayek conceded that Rothbard expanded on Mises praxiology. Its just his political theory that's too utopic
Jackson Butler
Found the Keynesian
Justin Reed
Meditations by Marcus Aurelius (general and emperor of the Roman Empire) written in 161 to 180 AD. The most important book any business person, entrepreneur and investor can read. Hell, Meditations by Marcus Aurelius is probably the most important book ANY human can read.
Levi Flores
I am more a fan of Samuelson.
Jeremiah Evans
Ive never heard praxeology successfully refuted, but I am pretty new to it, so would you care to elaborate?
Elijah Phillips
I think your problem is believing economic praxeology MUST lead to political anarchy. Reminder that Mises was senior economic advisor to Dollfuss, the Catholic Austrian corporatist. And Hayek famously said "I'd rather live in a political tyranny with economic liberty than liberal society with economic tyranny". Real Austrian economics can collaborate with the state, and all its progenitors understood this, even if Rothbard didn't.
Jackson Hall
>so would you care to elaborate?
Praxeology refutes itself by actively refusing to be quantifiable in a completely quantifiable field of science, where conclusions are drawn by mathematical models and empirical studies.
It is, as if I claim to be a chemist, but refuse to use the periodic table.
It is not my claim that all they wrote is usless or that Rothbart /Mises were stupid, if that is your impression.
However, Praxeology is not practical in our times, because science moved on.
Let me explain it this way - if you want to learn about economy and finance, praxeology brings you to this conclusion:
"Well, my opinion is Y. I can discuss with someone who disagrees and never come to an end, because his/her opinion is different."
With "regular" economic science, you end up with:
"Opinion Y stands, lets see if we can conduct a study, which objectivelly tells us, if this is true or not"
Science is not "lets talk and discuss". Numbers are essential and not just a nice addition.
Lincoln Torres
praxeology doesnt reject the notion that you can understand the past based on economic data, so no it does see economics as quantifiable. It refuses to accept that you can accurately model the outcomes of a market based on quantitative economic data. I have never seen any indication that economic models based on data have any more predictive power than a model based on praxeological principles.
Oliver Collins
unironical boomer tier
David Smith
Your explanation refutes nothing. You should research Mandelbroot. Praxeology is the results of acknowledging the limits to knowledge gathering and processing that leads to limits to quantification of social phenomena. ( And of course, the theory of subjective value of exchange).
Any type of data can fit the Gaussian axioms and allow for regressions to be made of it. All you need is to select the data. This generates a bias problem and also renders the predictive capacity of the model quickly useless. You should read Shumpeter and Hayek.