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.
All hail /u/Yeuph, master of a thousand other books you should read
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
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.
good point, it seems obvious now that you stated it, but i haven't even considered it