Hey /his/ I want to learn more about the economy, can we make a list of ~5-10 books for those starting out?
>Neo-classical economics destroys the economy
Whoa whoa whoa, hold the fuck up. Those books are about economic theory, not applied economics.
It's important to understand both modern economic/finance knowledge and older economic knowledge to judge an economic decision of an age. There has been large amounts of new analytics and economic info even since 2016.
So you'd have to read books/articles both on modern finance/economics and finance/economics from slightly before, durting and after your age too understand somebodies decision.
Read Book III of The Wealth of Nations, the last chapter of the last book as well to discover the origination of debt.
Read Malthus' theories concerning population.
Read Ricardo's principles of Political Economy and then if you WANT, read Mill's. Ricardo's is a lot shorter. Mill is a nice snippet of economic thought in the 19th century but apart from the theory of productivity in the prices of goods, he adds nothing substantially new to economic thought. He is heavily influenced by Ricardo and Malthus, in addition to being a bit contrarian towards Smith, which is expected.
I think he's talking about things like the invisable hand, however it still exists, just in a cucked form, it's funner to deal in absolutes.
The free market capitalism we are doing right now is reformed capitalism, pre reformation , true capitalism/libcap did things such as hands off policies which created controversial working conditions under people like Rockefeller.
Greg Mankiw's Principle of Economics.
Charles Jones' Introduction to Economic Growth
And that's it.
Adam Smith and Karl Marx are relics of the past. You want to learn basic Economics, not "History of Economic Thought".
Milton Friedman was one of the greatest economists of the last century. He is a Nobel laureate.
He's an economist the same way Alfred Tarski is a philosopher. A damn good one.
Galbraith was not a top economist. He was to Economics what Neil DeGrasse Tyson is to Physics.
I should add, Blanchard is the basis for the upper div macro series at ucsd and investments is the basis for the financial markets class.
Obviously there's a lot more to economics but I assumed you mean macro generally. A strong backing is statistics is really helpful to be able to accurately evaluate data/claims. Once/if you read those two you'll have a solid base for jumping into a more specific field: international trade, developing economies, tax policy etc.
If you want stuff like about specific industries start with a general micro econ book and then branch to whatever (oil, healthcare, etc.)
Read German economists, Friedrich List, Werner Sombart, Joseph Schumpeter, etc
They are the only ones who study economy as it actually exist, instead of base off their work on abstractions.
Milton Friedman was a crypto-communist shill.
>sock you in your goddamn face and you will stay plastered
I see what you did here. Bill Buckley was a CIA agent sent to destroy American conservatism by purging the Birchers.
Robert Welch was right about everything.
Advanced Macroeconomics by Romer was my favourite undergraduate textbook.
Here's what is considered one of the preeminent graduate level textbooks on macroeconomics; http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~dbackus/Identification/LS%20RMT2ed%2004.pdf
Any school book which covers Micro and Macroeconomics gives you good overview. After that you can take few of the classics (like Smith or Keynes). And then what you are most interested in, supply? read a book about supply. How taxation affects economic efficiency? Read about that.
But most Econ 101 books give you the jists of what economics is about, it is not hard science afterall.
Mankiw and Jones are enough to get you started
Some of the basics of economics are actually pretty complicated and take a while to wrap your head around so if you're not mathematically inclined.
>Basic levels of Economics
Adam Smith: Wealth of Nations
Calvin Blackwell: Principles of Microeconomics
Gregory N Mankiw: Principles of Macroeconomics
This will get you in the door of baseline Orthodox Theory of accepted thought.
Karl Marx: Das Kapital
Pendakis Andrew: Contemporary Marxist Theory
Sebastian Erckel :Marxist and Neo-Marxist Theories of Class
Christian Scheinpflug: A Critical Evaluation of Marxist IR Theories
These are for a solid understanding of Marxism and they also reference other Marxist thinkers as well.
David Recardo: Principles of Political Economy and Taxation
Henry George: Progress and Poverty
Alfred Marshall: Principles of Economics
These will give you grand incite into how Economics was viewed in the Classical Era. This is before Keynesian and NeoClassical as well as leading into Austrian/AnarchoCapitalism
Carl Menger: Principles of Economics
Eugen Böhm von Bawerk: The Positive Theory of Capital
Ludwig von Mises: Human Action
Frederic Bastiat:The Law (Not officially an Austrian Theorist but his writting hugely influenced many Austrian and NeoClassical Economists)
Joseph Schumpeter: The Theory of Economic Development
Fritz Machlup: Economic Semantics
Robert Nozick: Anarchy, State, and Utopia
These will give you the bread and butter of Austrian and even Anarcho Capitalism. Austrian Theory blends highly with Minarchism.
F A Hayek: Prices and Production
Milton Friedmon: Capitalism and Freedom
Thomas Sowell: Basic Economics
Walter E Williams: Doing the Right Thing: The People's Economist Speaks
Thorstein Veblen: Preconceptions of Economic Science
There are a lot more that I am glossing over but these are the big voices of NeoClassicalism. Feel free to add more too it if anyone likes but in my eyes these are the bread and butter theorists.
>Will post Keyensianism Economists and New Classical next
John Maynard Keynes: The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money
Michał Kalecki: Developing Economies
Nicholas Kaldor: 50 Years a Keynesian and Other Essays
Paul Davidson: Post Keynesian Macroeconomic Theory
Joan Robinson: The Accumulation of Capital
Piero Sraffa: Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities
Paul Krugman: The Spatial Economy
These are the general big heads of Keynesian Economics/Post Keynesian Economics.
>New Classical Economics
Robert Emerson Lucas Jr: Models of Business Cycle
Edward Christian Prescott & Finn Erling Kydland: Rules Rather than Discretion
There are more theories out there that I have missed (Monetarism, Socialism, Mixed Market etc.) but with this list and books as well as names. It will be easy to navigate through and pick up all of their readings as well as anyone of interest. Enjoy the adventure /his/torians.
Fucking crushed it man. SOme of these things are textbooks, others non-fiction books and others papers. Keep that in mind before you try and jump into some journals.
I love discussing economics but unfortunately A) I suck at expressing my ideas and B) no body is ever interested. Keep up the good work.
Acemoglu & Robinson: Why Nations Fail
Tullock & Buchanan: Calculus of Consent
John Maynard Smith: Evolution and a Theory of Games
Then maybe you should've said Ernest Mandel in your original post instead of recommending a book the size of a cinderblock that's filled with terms and concepts whose meanings get reinterpreted by fad economists every few decades to fit modern circumstances.
Well if we keep this up someone can photocap this and create a spread pic of the books listed in their proper categories. To which people can spread to other anons and for easy access trips outside the cave for enlightenment.
actually Austrians are still active in updating their theories.
Joseph T. Salerno
Dr. Mark Thornton
It's not a completely active theory of acceptance but some of its criticisms are valid. I am not as sure about Marxism whether it has a general hub of being updated and being brought into the modern age.
>All posters who disagree with me are the same poster.
Well done. I can see you didn't do a reading degree. If your degree didn't involve reading as its primary methodology then you don't belong on humanities.
I tried to be as non-bias as possible. I will admit I am bias for NeoClassical/New Classical and Austrian Theory. Austrian Theory shouldn't be regarded as complete shit but instead as a learning spring board into other forms of capitalism since it is the Freest and Least restricting form. After that it becomes more regulated and restricted depending on your cup of tea.
I gave Marxism its general reference points as well as Keynesianism as well as others because what I believe is right does not mean someone should be denied access to other sources of Economic Information.
Don't bother with either of these, seriously. Disproven, opaque and badly written, even if they were intellectually infleuntual.
Mankiw's Macroeconomics textbook is pretty damn good to be honest. Like other anons have already said
just like he did with stirner
and literally anyone else
Romer even says the book isn't for begginners to econ, even if their math skills are strong. I'd suggest Krugman's Intermediate Macro book if your calculus is strong in lieu of Mankiw's Macro book. Econ makes a lot more sense, especially optimality conditions, if you understand and can use a derivative.
Romer is a great book tho. I'm loving it so far. Varian is great for Intermediate/Advanced Micro too. (Mas-Colel et all is if you want to kill yourself with hyperlanes.)
Add An Introduction to Game Theory by Martin Osbourne. Brilliant book
Obsfeldt and Rogoff Foundations of International Economics. Plus anything by Obsfedlt.
(HARD) Campell, Lo, and McInley. It's called the Bible in the field.
Animal Spirits- Akerloff and Shiller. Written for a general audience, but explores and applies behavioral oddities.
>echoing David Ricardo, should capital accumulate and population increase at the same rate, yet technology stay stable, there would be no change in real wages because supply and demand for labour would be the same. However growing populations would require more land use, increasing food production costs and therefore decreasing profits
From Mill's book's wiki page. Does anyone else see an error in the interpretation here? If anyone is good with classical economics, they should concur that profits would not be affected at all, because the expansion of crops would cause the rent to rise for every other crop, and because of the increased expenses cause the price of the good to increase as well.
Have you guys done any econ at uni or have you just worked through stuff on your own?
I'm asking since I'm finishing up uni now and never managed to take an econ course. Should I be doing lots of problems from the textbooks that have them, or can I just cruise through the texts?
Law and some econ on the side.
If you are not going to be a full blown economist its probably better to get familiar with the general concepts and reasoning, and specific with questions about public policy.
Just finished an econ undergrad.
Depends how into it you want to get. Problems are good for solidifying what you have learnt but if you just want the principles, there is really no need to do the problems.
What I find helps (and really what you are learning it for) is to come up with your own simple questions and awnser them. For example, if the price of oil has gone down, why not the price of petrol? Do more people play instruments now that everyone has access to free music on the radio? What are the economics of 'hook-up culture'? of 4chan? It's the application of the things you learn that is important, not the things you learn itself.
As with anything, it's important that you are interested in the topic. We are on a history board so you should know that the most interesting history to you is the history of the stuff you like. A person who likes cars will probs like the history of cars more than Peter the Great. The same with economics. I like video games so I understand how technological advancement can effect industries entirely through Steam.
If you have any question, just ask.
The same way the right ignores sociology; selection bias.
We should not talk in terms of 'economic left' and 'economic right'. We should talk in 'economics'. Sure, economics can lead to conclusions that are both left and right but it does no good to dismiss an argument because we don't like the conclusion; instead we should attack their arguments.
Chomsky is the biggest meme scholar in history. I understand that professors of African-American basket weaving are probably worse but at least they aren't being quoted on everything that ever happens.
During recessions, you need to cut your labor inputs, which either means reducing the cost of labor via cutting pay or reducing employment. Employment retention is held to be a losing strategy because labor is generally considered flexible in the short run, and cutting pay is considered bad for morale. Better to fire a few and let the rest pick up the slack, or fire a bunch and hire new guys at lower pay.
Karl Polanyi The Great Transformation
It hasn't been mentioned but it's good for breadth and a taste of sociology's take on economics.
Soskice and Hall's Varieties of Capitalism is also good if you're interested in the international aspects of political economy - the dichotomy for classifications they provide is not very useful but the groundwork and some conclusions also provide breadth.
As someone who had to go through Mankiw in undergrad for babby and slightly advanced babby Econ, he's a really good way to start. As another anon said though, you really don't need to know Marx or Smith because the ideas from the elders which survived has become assimilated into relevant thought. Learning economics through Marx and Smith is like learning math by reading math-history. Sure, it will give you foundation for how's and maybe some deeper insight, but it's not necessary for fluency.