The Wealth of Nations

>>9538273
Probably not worth your time OP. Whilst there is no doubt he is the heavyweight of free market economics, a lot of what he wrote had since been said a lot better by others. You'll probably find yourself thinking that you already know most of what hes written in the book simply because todays modern thought is completely based on him.

It focuses a lot on the society at the time to, which is which is what Smith is commenting on - a lot more descriptive and historical than purely theoretical.

eh, every economist after smith read him, so probably

>>9538344
Not OP but what should I read instead?

>>9538352
The Communist Manifesto

>>9538273
Yes but read an abridged version.

>>9538352
Capital in the 21st century

Any introductory economics textbook

>>9538392
>Capital in the 21st century

Is that book free market or keynesian or marxist?

>>9538403
After a quick google
>The Economist hailed Professor Piketty (the author) as "the modern Marx"

>>9538273

isn't it crazy how english alone was good enough to summarize all of basic economics in a paragraph or few.

>>9538344
>Whilst there is no doubt he is the heavyweight of free market economics
He neither supported Free market capitalism nor wrote about it. He just analysed the economic trends of his era.

>>9538432

http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN1.html#B.I, Introduction and Plan of the Work

opening paragraph, masterful writing

>>9538428
He's Keynesian (sort of) and admitted to having never read Marx's Capital

>>9538273
Some of the ideas are important to understand but that's no excuse to force yourself to read this piece of shit. Just focus on some secondary texts.

Funny how the "muh market" extremists who hate academics consider this eccentric fop their god.

>>9538436

post-keynesian
removal of force from capital and basic income is a friedman/libertarian concept too

>>9538428

>marx

dropped

>>9538392
>start with capital in the 21st century
This is equivalent to "start with infinite jest"

>>9538448

eh most high school grads are qualified enough to read infinite jest, most high school grads have also encountered basic economics and government

Chydenius wrote about the same shit as Smith a decade earlier but I guess it doesn't count as a "serious book on economics" because it was in Swedish.

>>9538453
Being qualified to read vs. comprehending the intellectual weight behind a work are different. Knowledge of "basic economics and government" isn't enough unless you want to skim it and be able to impress your less informed peers.

File: Den_Nationnale_Winsten.jpg (25KB, 390x500px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 390x500px

>>9538273
Rather read The National Gain by Anders Chydenius, published 11 years before the Wealth of Nations but includes literally everything from comprehensive classic liberalism to the invisible hand

File: 22f442732c8205e25968536be717843beaceb05ffd45d2b96775f5a01d109485-leftypol.jpg (57KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 850x400px

>>9538434
This, it's incredible how neoliberals rewrite Smith to bring him to their side.