There are a few thousand other books you should read - going back to Plato. You should also understand linear algebra and multivariate calculus. You should understand the equations in economics - even for the economics you disapprove of. This means working through people like Von Mises and Fridman that are enemies of socialism. If you want a meaningful framework through which economics should be approached mathematically you should read Brian Arthur as he was the first economist (to my knowledge) to apply dif frac calc and path dependencies into models.

So if by educated you mean you've read a few thousand books dating back to Athens and have a highly developed understanding of mathematics, history and economics then cool. If you mean you read some "Marxist" books and you've somehow a great command of human knowledge then go crawl under a fucking rock please.

Breadtube thread.

All hail /u/Yeuph, master of a thousand other books you should read

  • acealeam [he/him]
    ·
    edit-2
    4 years ago

    You should understand the equations in economics - even for the economics you disapprove of. This means working through people like Von Mises and Fridman that are enemies of socialism

    i took a macro class. there's not that many equations, and half of them are like profit = revenue - expenses

    • keepcarrot [she/her]
      ·
      4 years ago

      A lot of them also don't refer to actual numbers, but just relationships (when this go up, that go up, but if true we don't know or care by how much).

    • save_vs_death [they/them]
      ·
      4 years ago

      economics has this physics envy where they want to have the equations and the graphs and all the trappings, but most of them are just a convoluted way to say some baby brained shit in mathematical notation

      even when it comes to microeconomics and behavioural economics, the maths aren't PhD worthy

      like, temporal discounting is technically hyperbolic, but you don't care, it's just non-linear

      • Homestar440 [he/him]
        ·
        4 years ago

        It’s not envy, though, it’s one of the strongest means of manufacturing consent, you make bourgeoise economics seem like a hard science, like physics, so that questioning it seems just as ludicrous as flat-earth or something. It’s a calculated propaganda move.

        • save_vs_death [they/them]
          ·
          4 years ago

          good point, it seems obvious now that you stated it, but i haven't even considered it

    • invalidusernamelol [he/him]
      ·
      edit-2
      4 years ago

      The most complex one is probably the compounding interest rate formula, but that isn't something that you need to know to understand why capitalism is fucking dumb.

      A = P (1 + r/n)^(nt)

      • MoreAmphibians [none/use name]
        ·
        4 years ago

        Here's a more intuitive way to learn that. At 1% compound interest it takes 72 cycles to double your original value. At 2% it's 72/2, at 8% it's 72/8, etc.

            • invalidusernamelol [he/him]
              ·
              4 years ago

              Marx wasn't joking when he said all that economy stuff and bookkeeping could be done by the workers with minimal extra education. Hell he was talking about workers who had maybe 2 years of schooling and barely knew how to read. The workers of today are almost entirely highschool educated and absolutely already do everything themselves.

      • GreenTeaRedFlag [any]
        ·
        4 years ago

        I had to do that in 5th grade. It's literally just a plug and chug equation.

        • acealeam [he/him]
          ·
          4 years ago

          Oh yeah I remember that one! Ironically i didn't learn it even in a traditional economics class, but in an engineering class

    • Mardoniush [she/her]
      ·
      4 years ago

      Yeah, they're like "Socialist Planning Calculation problem. Simultaneous equation too hard therfore communism wrong, no we will not explain. Socialism no bread"