/lit/ - Literature

Don't buy any pop economics books (e.g. The Undercover Economist, Freakonomics). They're all very superficial. If you want a general introduction to some of the key concepts of economics without going too much into the theory, read Krugman's The Accidential Theorist.

If you want to get into macroeconomics more rigorously, any revision guide aimed at people studying economics in the final years of secondary school (high school) should be functionable. For example, I used the CGP A-Level Economics revision guide. (In the UK, A-Levels are studied by 16-18 year olds). Instead, you may wish to read Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell. (However, I have not read this, so cannot recommend it.)

Only once you're familar with the basic theory can you progress to university-level economics.(Do not try to read university-level economics straightaway if you have no prior understanding of the discipline.) This will also require an adequate level of mathematics.

If you really want to read canonical economic texts, Smith's Wealth of Nations is actually quite readable and can be understood without much prior knowledge of economics. Be aware that some of the ideas expressed in the work are no longer considered veritable by many economists.

Alternatively, if you do not wish to learn the whole of economics, you may wish to focus on a particular section (e.g. monetary theory). A general understanding of economics is still recommended, but obiviously what books are relevant will depend on the particular topic in question.

>>15771736
Thank you! All very helpful.
I’ve heard a lot of people say that once you study economics, it just disproves Keynesian ways of running an economy - is this true? Or is it still very debated?

rich dad poor dad

>>15771905
im very funny

>>15771912
shut the fuck up im not

>>15771914
fuck you i am

>>15771736
Sowell's book is not primarily a economic's book despite its title. I have read the first hundred pages and so far, he has spent the entire book just repeating that the government should not intervene in the economy. There has not been much economic principles explained nor has there been a groundwork for economic study. It is not a academic book by any means and doesn't seek to actually teach you about economics as a science.

>>15771736
The best thing to do is read an economics textbook. I've just finished reading Principles of Economics by Gregory N. Mankiw (a staple textbook in USA schools). Am I an expert? No. But I'm no longer clueless now. Read a textbook. Also, don't ignore microeconomics. It's fundamental for a complete understanding.

>>15771914
>>15771917
you two need to start being nice to each other after all we three share the same body

>>15771800
Very much still up to debate. I personally would say the opposite- a greater understanding of macroeconomics makes you supportive of the type of government intervention Keynes was advocating for

>>15771604
>sick of the right not have a legitimate theory of political economy

>>15771736
This.
More advanced would be getting into econometrics and reading academic papers.

>>15771736
This. Non-fiction bestsellers are mostly just sociology books written in the style of a long-form piece for The Atlantic. Pop Economics is really the best word

>>15771800
Not at all

>>15771941
Mankiw is the book I learned from and it was chosen by a professor I still respect

>>15771604

>Democracy the god that failed
>The Road to Serfdom
>What has the government done to our money?
>Human Action: A Treatise on Economics
>A Short History of Man: Progress and Decline

>>15773348
Based list.

>>15771604
Look into Capital as Power. A Study of Order and Creorder:
http://bnarchives.yorku.ca/259/

Also Chartalism has made a come back and is confusing the learned establishment so get familiar with it

>>15771736
Krugman and Sowell are textbook charlatans. By "basic theory" you must mean some idea of what capital is and that's exactly where mainstream don't have any coherent answer.

>>15771800
There is no "Keynesian" way of running an economy per se. Even what "Keynesianism" is is very contentious ranging from very conservative takes to more radical readings. The only agreement would be some form of of countercycical government spending. The counterrevolution that came about later is what known as "rational expectations" and whatnot so that e.g. if the government increases public spending people will actually individually spend less because they'll save more to pay for assumed higher taxes in the future. Of course this is insanely stupid but it wooed over everyone a generation of morons who are still the most respected leading "experts".

>>15771736
What this anon said.

>>15771736
Cringe (((economics))) bugman.

>>15771604
Pic related is the best textbook on the market.

>>15774970
Pretty sure not buying into bestseller trends that are the equivalent of podcasts and youtubers is the opposite of being a bugman