[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/biz/ - Business & Finance

View post   
File: 71 KB, 761x761, sowell.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
172501 No.172501[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Hey /biz/ I've decided to teach myself basic economics. What Books or other reading material would you suggest?

>> No.172544

From my library/wishlists:

>The Five Rules for Successful Stock Investing: Morningstar's Guide to Building Wealth and Winning in the Market by Pat Dorsey

>Economic Facts and Fallacies by (pic related)

>The Road to Serfdom by Friedirch Hayek

>Man, Economy and State by Murray Rothbard

Some links:

http://www.libertyclassroom.com/learn-austrian-economics/

>Milton Friedman: Capitalism and Freedom (pdf)

http://www.pdf-archive.com/2011/12/28/friedman-milton-capitalism-and-freedom/

Also, feel free to read up on contrasting viewpoints. Don't make yourself ignorant to perspectives just because they're not your own.

Good luck.

>> No.172561

Thomas Sowell himself has a good book of introduction to economics.

In my understanding, basic economics = introduction to economics, aka economics 101

So if basic is all you want to learn, any introduction book will suffice.

>> No.172610

What you need to know is that the mainstream of economic thought nowadays is the so-called "New Keynesianism" or just neo-keynesian, and the Chicago School of Econ, aka Monetarism

Gregory Mankiw is the New Keynesyan author that wrote the most used introduction to economics book today.

Another New Keynesian famous authors include Paul Samuelson and Paul Krugman, although i don't recomend Krugman's book because he's a disonest man.

The difference between monetarism and new keynesianism at introductory level is close to non existant, but you can also check out chicago school of economics economists

>> No.172629

>>172561
>>172544

Someone got me 'Economics in one lesson' by henry hazlitt, is it any good?

>> No.172635

>>172544

The Road to Serfdom is NOT a book about economics. It's a book about political phenomena that explains what happens in societies that have a generalized anti-capitalistic mindset and lean towards Socialism.

It's a great book, explains perfectly what you see today in Venezuela

>> No.172638

Mankiw's introductory level micro and macro books are fine for the basics. You can easily find the pdfs for free.

>> No.172648

>>172501
Read Keynes and Marx.

>> No.172643

>>172544
>>172544

The Road to Serfdom is NOT a book about economics. It's a book about political phenomena that explains what happens in societies that have a generalized anti-capitalistic mindset and lean towards Socialism.

>> No.172645

>>172638
And by introductory I mean the books titled "Principles of micro/macro economics"

>> No.172667

This might be sort of different from what your asking, but if you want to get a history of economic thought and get a good idea of its evolution then I really recommend this book:

http://www.amazon.com/The-History-Economic-Thought-Edition/dp/0415568684/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1393889331&sr=8-1&keywords=The+History+of+Economic+Thought

Great reader, it gives a great amount of of first hand documents through the ages. Get to read a lot of people you don't see mentioned nowadays, even if they are extremely influential.

After reading Thomas Mun in this book I started to see his influence everywhere. Very interesting.

>> No.172674

>>172629

Yes, it is. He's an austrian though, and Austrian Economics is not ortodox economics. And anything that isn't ortodox in any social science is depicted as "nonsensical bullshit" by ortodox fucks.

If you say publicly that you're an austrian, keynesians will probably not respect and take you seriously, but monetarists will

>> No.172685

>>172667

And if you actually want to buy the book, you could probably find a used copy of the first edition, which is what I have, for really cheap. I don't know the differences between the first and second, but the first is really very solid.

>> No.172686

>>172501

I'd reccommend 'How an economy grows and why it doesn't' by Irwin Schiff for a no BS and easy to understand introduction.

>> No.172694

>>172648

OP, don't listen to him, Marx is bullshit.

Marx's surplus value theory is based on labor theory of value, and modern econ doesn't take labor theory of value seriously, they work with utily and marginalism

>> No.172698

>>172694
>Marx is bullshit.

Note: there is a 99% possibility that this person has never seriously read Marx

>> No.172719

>>172635
>>172643

I recommend it to anyone who is studying economics in any form, including political economics, to understand the human psyche in places like Latin America and Asia that are vital to any businessman's interests.

It's not an Xs and Os style textbook, but it's good for a beginner nonetheless.

>> No.172731

>>172698
Note: you don't even need to read his stuff to know he's a retard, just like if you hear a mathematician say "2+2=5" then you dont need to read his work to know he's not worth anybody's time.

>> No.172742

>>172698

Then believe me, i'm the 1%.

I've studied Marx deeply enough while i was majoring in economics, and in my country most econ teachers are marxists.

Seriously, Marx and his bourgeois factory-owner buddy Engels falsified human history, came up with a bullshit analysis of the State, were pretensious enough to "destroy" western philosophy. Please, take it from me, Das Kapital has really nothing useful to understand the economy and how it works. Serious econ didn't take any concept from marxists.

>> No.172753

>>172742

I would say its worth reading if only because he has been so influential, and you even admit it saying that he was taught and respected by your own teachers.

I'm no Marxist myself, but I consider it worthwhile to do some reading on it.

Once again, this all depends on how deep the OP actually wants to read.

>> No.172783

>>172753

I wanna get along with the basics first, I know marx isn't that good, but he was a philosopher, not an economist.

>> No.172787

>>172731
>Note: you don't even need to read his stuff to know he's a retard
This is the logic of a well propagandized sheep. "I don't really know, and can't know, what the concepts of this ideology are for sure, but I know I hate it"

It's like discussing the merits of Buddhist philosophy with a Spanish inquisitor.

>>172742
I don't believe you. I have literally never encountered a Marx critic that actually displayed a deep familiarity and understanding of his works. Not one. And I'm not even well read on them myself, it's just that others are SO BAD at understanding Marx that I can see they are miles behind even me.

>> No.172791

>>172719

That's true. I'm from Brazil and everyone here is butthurt at Capitalism and want it to end, doesn't matter how much Socialism has failed over time.

The ruling party here, Worker's Party, has oficially defended Venezuela's political scenario.

>> No.172792

>>172783

That's entirely reasonable, what you should read all depends on what you want to do. If you ever want a good primer on the philosophical history of it all, I really do recommend that reader I linked to early.

Otherwise, I don't know really know what to recommend. I'm more a philosophy guy.

>> No.172871

>>172787

Okay.

Marx was critical of Hegel and his idealistic dialetics, and he proposed that the relationship between the base and the superstructure was actually the opposite of what Hegel believed. Out of that came materialistic dialetics.

Marx believed that the mode of production is the most relevant and determinant thing in any society, in any period of human history. The mode of production determined the superstructure, aka mankind's political system, ideologies, etc.

Human history changes at the point in which revolution is done by society and a mode of production becomes a new one.

So one mode of production gives birth to a new one on a long enough timeline. It usually takes 1000 years for one mode of production to get born and die, and said modes of production die because they can't or won't be sustained anymore, mostly by social pressure.

tribal mode -> old mode -> feudal mode -> bourgeois mode -> socialism -> communism.

When communism is achieved, it will be the "end of human history".

>> No.172891

>>172787

I hope i convinced you that i understand marxism, because i'm not writing pages and pages of what i know about Marxism just to prove my point.

Just accept that Marxism, in the end, brought to humankind nothing more than totalitarian governments and failed economies

>> No.172899

>>172674

Isn't Keynesian basically; the broken window fallacy taken to the nth degree?