What is a good book on Economics?

[The Merchant Republics]

Well, I'm generally a rather open-minded person, but with severe ADD, I find it hard to push through reading something I genuinely don't enjoy.

I think however, that I am as competent on matters of communism and socialism if not more, then the typical person who claims to be a communist or socialist.

I think you vastly underestimate the degree to which communists and socialists understand their own ideology. Most of them have actually, you know, read the Manifesto, and usually quite a few other works, to boot. I mean, at least read some IWW literature, or some Eugene V Debs, or Luxembourg, or hell, read a socialist newsletter once in a while. If your 'understanding' of socialism is coming from polemics from the Austrians, you don't have an understanding at all.

I meant more of casual "communists", I'm speaking from experience here, with the majority of people that I've met (outside of NS) claiming to be communist or socialist, Micheal Moore's documentary being their most advanced education in economics.

NS, brings out people that legitimately read the literature. My understanding of socialism is mostly from talking with and debating real socialists and communists.

[The Soviet Technocracy]

Atlas Shrugged is literature- it's got its characters, its plot, its setting, all that. The CM is not literature. It's a work of political nonfiction drawn up as a Manifesto of the early Communist movement. And, if you've ever read it, you would know that yes, it is an economic work; not a classical or neoclassical economic work, but certainly an economic work.

It's economics in the sense that an angry eight year-old with a pair of crayons is abstract art. If you don't know what abstract art is in the first place, you could get the refrigerator-ready picture confused with real abstract art. Equally, if you don't know anything about economics you could get the Communist Manifesto confused with real economics. The OP needs to be able to distinguish between idiocy and legitimate economics; Communist Manifesto is out.

@OP, a readable Econ 101 book is Thomas Sowell's "Basic Economics."

Abstract art is not art.

[The Merchant Republics]

It's economics in the sense that an angry eight year-old with a pair of crayons is abstract art. If you don't know what abstract art is in the first place, you could get the refrigerator-ready picture confused with real abstract art. Equally, if you don't know anything about economics you could get the Communist Manifesto confused with real economics. The OP needs to be able to distinguish between idiocy and legitimate economics; Communist Manifesto is out.

@OP, a readable Econ 101 book is Thomas Sowell's "Basic Economics."

Abstract art is not art.

Couldn't disagree more.

I should start and A&F on that. What's with people hating on abstract...

[Bramborska]

It's economics in the sense that an angry eight year-old with a pair of crayons is abstract art. If you don't know what abstract art is in the first place, you could get the refrigerator-ready picture confused with real abstract art. Equally, if you don't know anything about economics you could get the Communist Manifesto confused with real economics. The OP needs to be able to distinguish between idiocy and legitimate economics; Communist Manifesto is out.

@OP, a readable Econ 101 book is Thomas Sowell's "Basic Economics."

Just because you disagree with socialism doesn't mean they didn't use 'real economics'. Economics is not an objective science, whatever the Chicago-schoolers and their string of ruined countries say. There are different perspectives. You can't understand economics without understanding the socialist perspective.

And yet Bernake seems to do an excellent job of just that.

Unless your reading different communications from the quarterly Federal Reserve meetings?

[Sagatagan]

Okay, explain dialectical materialism and how it relates to historical processes.

Gawd, throwing out a hard one first.

I concede, I concede I had to use Wiki, I'll just go and sulk in a corner now.

That's not a hard one. At all. In fact, it's the central basic tenet of Marxism; that class struggle between the controllers of the means of production and the workers of those means is the driving force of history, that each historical epoch has seen this struggle, and that each great change in history is accompanied by (and generally driven by) the change in class dominance; for example, the fall of feudalism and the feudal system and the rise of capitalism, the bourgeois, modern landlordism, etc. with the age of industrial capitalism, which, if left uninterrupted by reactionary forces of nationalism or pacifying reform, will most likely lead to the rise of a global marketplace characterized by huge inequalities in wealth, constituting a global ownership class and a global working class, with the majority of the small producers and middle class pushed into said working class, this all leading, most likely towards a revolutionary struggle in which the class system is once and for all abolished- unless, as happened in Stalinist Russia, the means of production are seized by a new ruling class, in which case the class struggle continues. In a nutshell, that's a very simplified version, but anyone who claims to know about socialism should know the living hell out of that.

[The Merchant Republics]

Gawd, throwing out a hard one first.

I concede, I concede I had to use Wiki, I'll just go and sulk in a corner now.

That's not a hard one. At all. In fact, it's the central basic tenet of Marxism; that class struggle between the controllers of the means of production and the workers of those means is the driving force of history, that each historical epoch has seen this struggle, and that each great change in history is accompanied by (and generally driven by) the change in class dominance; for example, the fall of feudalism and the feudal system and the rise of capitalism, the bourgeois, modern landlordism, etc. with the age of industrial capitalism, which, if left uninterrupted by reactionary forces of nationalism or pacifying reform, will most likely lead to the rise of a global marketplace characterized by huge inequalities in wealth, constituting a global ownership class and a global working class, with the majority of the small producers and middle class pushed into said working class, this all leading, most likely towards a revolutionary struggle in which the class system is once and for all abolished- unless, as happened in Stalinist Russia, the means of production are seized by a new ruling class, in which case the class struggle continues. In a nutshell, that's a very simplified version, but anyone who claims to know about socialism should know the living hell out of that.

Feel a little silly for not knowing it now, but the term was unfamiliar.

[Sagatagan]

I think you vastly underestimate the degree to which communists and socialists understand their own ideology. Most of them have actually, you know, read the Manifesto, and usually quite a few other works, to boot. I mean, at least read some IWW literature, or some Eugene V Debs, or Luxembourg, or hell, read a socialist newsletter once in a while. If your 'understanding' of socialism is coming from polemics from the Austrians, you don't have an understanding at all.

I meant more of casual "communists", I'm speaking from experience here, with the majority of people that I've met (outside of NS) claiming to be communist or socialist, Micheal Moore's documentary being their most advanced education in economics.

NS, brings out people that legitimately read the literature. My understanding of socialism is mostly from talking with and debating real socialists and communists.

If their only education in economics is a Michael Moore film, they probably aren't 'real' socialists or communists. Find real ones, and talk with them. Try the IWW, SPUSA, Democratic Socialists of America, CPUSA, or ISO for starts.

Edit: Or Socialist Alternative. Once you've done that, try the social anarchists; don't go into the post-left anarchists until you understand the social anarchists, or you'll be scarred forever.

[Germonica]

..................

[The Merchant Republics]

I meant more of casual "communists", I'm speaking from experience here, with the majority of people that I've met (outside of NS) claiming to be communist or socialist, Micheal Moore's documentary being their most advanced education in economics.

NS, brings out people that legitimately read the literature. My understanding of socialism is mostly from talking with and debating real socialists and communists.

If their only education in economics is a Michael Moore film, they probably aren't 'real' socialists or communists. Find real ones, and talk with them. Try the IWW, SPUSA, Democratic Socialists of America, CPUSA, or ISO for starts.

Edit: Or Socialist Alternative. Once you've done that, try the social anarchists; don't go into the post-left anarchists until you understand the social anarchists, or you'll be scarred forever.

That is a sizable list of chores to go through so that I can argue with you sorts, can't I just continue to mindlessly throw and deflect strawmen instead of learning and understanding?

I should probably finish reading my own literature first anyway, or at the very least read some centrist stuff.

[Bluth Corporation]

It's really not. Das Kapital certainly is, but not the Manifesto. It's a political document, a rhetorical document, a motivational document--but not an economic one.

Except for the entire part about class, the control of the means of production, the development of economic systems, the rationale for what exploitation is and is not, and the discussion of various economic programs and their effects on the situation.

All of which were described in historical terms, in political terms, in moral terms--but never in economic terms.

Writing about economic relationships is not the same as writing economics. Marx and Engels were not even 30 when the Manifesto was published. Marx did not even begin his study of economics qua economics until he went to London after the 1848 revolutions; Das Kapital was not published until nearly twenty years later.

[Germonica]

You guys just totally fucked over this thread...

[Staenwald]

Well, I am a Freshman in High School, but I want to Major in Economics when I (hopefully) get to college.

So what are some good books on economic theories and Economics in general?

i foyu look on university websites soemtimes they refer you to books to read beforehand. They do on the oxford and cambridge websites here in UK for philosophy anyway.

[Staenwald]

It's economics in the sense that an angry eight year-old with a pair of crayons is abstract art. If you don't know what abstract art is in the first place, you could get the refrigerator-ready picture confused with real abstract art. Equally, if you don't know anything about economics you could get the Communist Manifesto confused with real economics. The OP needs to be able to distinguish between idiocy and legitimate economics; Communist Manifesto is out.

@OP, a readable Econ 101 book is Thomas Sowell's "Basic Economics."

Abstract art is not art.

technically it still is since a work of art is simply defined by being 'of no use other than itself as an artwork'. Then again that terms pretty vague- and I wouldnt really call abstract art, art myself.

[Cerralvo Island]

Rothbard, Mises, Hayek, Bastiat

Stay away from Keynes, Krugman, Bernanke, and that ilk.

Err, no. Those latter three are legitimate contributors to the mainstream of economic thought, and present valid and worthwhile insights that need to be studied and understood, rather than dismissed out of hand.

Err, no. Those latter three have no idea what they are talking about and have ruined the US and world economy. Krugman is just a socialist hack who somehow got a Nobel. (Of course ever since Kissinger and Arafat...)

You exemplify the exact sort of economic fanboyism that I've warned the OP about. Far too many amateur economists fall into this trap.

You exemplify the exact sort of economic ignorance that plagues the world and continuously ensures economic stagnation with your Keynesian wet dream fantasies. I am no amateur thank you. I started out as a socialist years ago and resisted free market arguments for years, finding them absurd and illogical. Then it all clicked one day and now I realize how foolish Keynesian crap is. It was debunked even before it was conjured up out of the mists by Frederic Bastiat in the Broken Window Fallacy, and adaptions thereof.

For example, let us say I walked up to you and stole $100 from you at gunpoint. I then gave it to another guy down the road to plant some trees. Now he can go spend that $100 elsewhere...but you could have as well. How exactly did I boost or jumpstart the economy?

Friedman, as well.

Ah yes. Altho he had some faults.

To be a good economist, you must read every major Economics book.

That includes the Communist Manifesto.

I want to say fair enough, but that would be like saying you should read the Bible and Quran to understand science.

[Bavin]

Don't listen to the partisans in here, the best course is to read a bunch of differing viewpoints and then making your own opinion, rather than blindly following one economist or another. That said, The Wealth of Nations is probably a good place to start, since that's kinda the starting point of capitalism in general. I should get to reading that.

If you ask me though, economics is dreadfully boring.

[Germonica]

Well, are there any books I could read on Finance or do they not make books on that? Cause I thought about either Majoring in Economics or Finance and Minor in World History.

[Staenwald]

Err, no. Those latter three are legitimate contributors to the mainstream of economic thought, and present valid and worthwhile insights that need to be studied and understood, rather than dismissed out of hand.

Err, no. Those latter three have no idea what they are talking about and have ruined the US and world economy. Krugman is just a socialist hack who somehow got a Nobel. (Of course ever since Kissinger and Arafat...)

You exemplify the exact sort of economic fanboyism that I've warned the OP about. Far too many amateur economists fall into this trap.

You exemplify the exact sort of economic ignorance that plagues the world and continuously ensures economic stagnation with your Keynesian wet dream fantasies. I am no amateur thank you. I started out as a socialist years ago and resisted free market arguments for years, finding them absurd and illogical. Then it all clicked one day and now I realize how foolish Keynesian crap is. It was debunked even before it was conjured up out of the mists by Frederic Bastiat in the Broken Window Fallacy, and adaptions thereof.

For example, let us say I walked up to you and stole $100 from you at gunpoint. I then gave it to another guy down the road to plant some trees. Now he can go spend that $100 elsewhere...but you could have as well. How exactly did I boost or jumpstart the economy?

Friedman, as well.

Ah yes. Altho he had some faults.

To be a good economist, you must read every major Economics book.

That includes the Communist Manifesto.

I want to say fair enough, but that would be like saying you should read the Bible and Quran to understand science.

My friend. hwne you learn any profession it's important not to learn about one point of view and not be swayed too much by your ideology. My eocnomic knowledge is very limited but from what I understand, Keynes and Co do have some valid point and technically you could use keynesian economics, but some would argue against it from a moral point of view , some from an economic point of view and many simply for the fact that it works as long as economists run the policies- not politicians.

You need to learn all sides of the argument and not one and then make your mind up. I try to question my views at every turn.

I will be learning economics more in the future.

And for people who've said it. The communist manifesto and atlas shrugged are far from economic textbooks. I liked atlas shrugged- as a book and an thinking excercise about morality- i didnt like the communist manifesto but it still made me think.

[Staenwald]

Well, are there any books I could read on Finance or do they not make books on that? Cause I thought about either Majoring in Economics or Finance and Minor in World History.

i'd imagine you can buy textbooks simply by looking on amazon if people recommend them. If you want a starter, do they teach economics at your age where you live? Over here in the UK they do economics at A Level- 16-18 years old, and there are texts books which teach you the basics if you'd want to start there.

[Staenwald]

Don't listen to the partisans in here, the best course is to read a bunch of differing viewpoints and then making your own opinion, rather than blindly following one economist or another. That said, The Wealth of Nations is probably a good place to start, since that's kinda the starting point of capitalism in general. I should get to reading that.

If you ask me though, economics is dreadfully boring.

I thought the same thing, but I was told that although it's interest as a piece of historical though on economics, nowadays many people have either built upon Smith's theories and standardised them better, or they have been disproved.

[Staenwald]

I want to say fair enough, but that would be like saying you should read the Bible and Quran to understand science.

Yes but the communist manifesto takes 2 hours to read tops...the bible on the other hand... I mean the communist manifesto isnt even an economic text by marx- Das Kapital is.

[Mike the Progressive]

Well, I am a Freshman in High School, but I want to Major in Economics when I (hopefully) get to college.

So what are some good books on economic theories and Economics in general?

The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith
The Road to Serfdom by F.A. Hayek
Capitalism and Freedom by Milton Friedman

[Staenwald]

Well, I am a Freshman in High School, but I want to Major in Economics when I (hopefully) get to college.

So what are some good books on economic theories and Economics in general?

The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith
The Road to Serfdom by F.A. Hayek
Capitalism and Freedom by Milton Friedman

and the other side of the argument too ok.

[Marketalia]

To be a good economist, you must read every major Economics book.

That includes the Communist Manifesto.

I want to say fair enough, but that would be like saying you should read the Bible and Quran to understand science.

Don't read the Communist Manifesto unless you are going to read Das Kapital. You should, of course read Das Kapital. But in reading it, keep in mind that while Marx is very persuasive, his arguments are based on false premises such as the labor theory of value - which today is held virtually solely by Marxists themselves, it having been discarded everywhere else. Then follow it up by a good reading of Hayek's The Road to Serfdom. The Gulag Archipelago is another good read.

Communism, the communist manifesto, and various other socialist schemes led to the bloodiest wars in history, to genocide, famine, and poverty, and to the systematic degradation, dehumanization, and destruction of millions of people. Capitalism, in one form or another, has resulted in the greatest achievements of mankind - spaceflight, a greater standard of living, the computer you are using. I would say that economics, whether boring or not, is one of the most important fields of study.

I would recommend that you also read some of the works of Thomas Sowell, Milton Friedman, Hayek, Keynes, John Kenneth Galbraith (don't take Galbraith too seriously), Mises...and, of course, Adam Smith. If it seems that there are a lot of free-market economists on that list, well, most of the economists who have contributed much of the enduring work in the field were free market economists. Certainly, you can read them and choose not to be, but the evidence on the whole certainly seems to point more or less towards capitalism and away from any other system.

[Marketalia]

I thought the same thing, but I was told that although it's interest as a piece of historical though on economics, nowadays many people have either built upon Smith's theories and standardised them better, or they have been disproved.

Not really. Adam Smith's theory of labor value is pretty much dead, as it should be, but his arguments for free trade and free markets are now more or less accepted as correct by most economists. Some economists may posit more or less intervention by government, but that's a far cry from them being disproved. And protectionism is like a tobacco habit we can't break: we know it's bad, but we'll quit just as soon as we win that second term and don't need the steel workers/farmers/whoever as a voting block anymore.

[Mike the Progressive]

The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith
The Road to Serfdom by F.A. Hayek
Capitalism and Freedom by Milton Friedman

and the other side of the argument too ok.

Certainly, reading both sides presents fairness and balance. However people already have their preconceived notions before they begin anything and that bias stays with them, so I figured skip over the bullshit, he wants to be a wealthy economist, become a capitalist.