Recommendation of general economics textbook

the keen edge

I'm an avid follower of this forum, however I frequently find myself having to google definitions of the terms and topics discussed.

Can someone recommend an textbook, preferably cheaply available on amazon and unbiased in its opinions!, explaining the general economic processes occurring in the world today.

Much appreciated.

KyussBishop

I don't think it's easy to get unbiased opinions when it comes to economics; much of mainstream economics, including much of what is taught in academia, has an ideological bent, and many aspects of the topic have a certain learning curve to be overcome.

This is a good book, outlining the problems with the field of economics today:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Debunking-Economics-Revised-Expanded-Dethroned/dp/1848139926/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1341007914&sr=8-1

It also has a brief outline of some of the other competing 'heterodex' schools of economics.

I'd be careful about getting too drawn in to any one school of economics, stay skeptical; there are a lot of vested interests in promoting certain ideologies and well spun theories that have a superficial appeal/quality, but have serious fundamental flaws underneath.


A site I skim through regularly, which is quite a good resource, is Naked Capitalism:
www.nakedcapitalism.com

The quality of writing there is usually very good, and is the most well balanced resource I've found so far.

the keen edge

KyussBishop wrote: »

I don't think it's easy to get unbiased opinions when it comes to economics; much of mainstream economics, including much of what is taught in academia, has an ideological bent, and many aspects of the topic have a certain learning curve to be overcome.

This is a good book, outlining the problems with the field of economics today:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Debunking-Economics-Revised-Expanded-Dethroned/dp/1848139926/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1341007914&sr=8-1

It also has a brief outline of some of the other competing 'heterodex' schools of economics.

I'd be careful about getting too drawn in to any one school of economics, stay skeptical; there are a lot of vested interests in promoting certain ideologies and well spun theories that have a superficial appeal/quality, but have serious fundamental flaws underneath.


A site I skim through regularly, which is quite a good resource, is Naked Capitalism:
www.nakedcapitalism.com

The quality of writing there is usually very good, and is the most well balanced resource I've found so far.

I think I'm after something more elementary, more of a expanded glossary of terms kind of text.

Maybe at a level above leaving cert taught standard; sort of economics for dummies-maybe even the book by that title?

Something with a good explanation of the structure and mechanisms of micro/macro economics.

Blowfish

KyussBishop wrote: »

I'd be careful about getting too drawn in to any one school of economics, stay skeptical; there are a lot of vested interests in promoting certain ideologies and well spun theories that have a superficial appeal/quality, but have serious fundamental flaws underneath.

A site I skim through regularly, which is quite a good resource, is Naked Capitalism:
www.nakedcapitalism.com

The quality of writing there is usually very good, and is the most well balanced resource I've found so far.

How can you in all seriousness manage to consolidate your initial paragraph with the fact that you then go on to recommend nakedcapitalism as well balanced?

Even a cursory skim of the headlines shows that it's anything but. It's distinctly tabloidesque and prefers incredibly opinionated rants rather than constructing any sort of logical argument or critique.

I'd certainly agree with the comment on reading up on various different economic schools of thought though and with that in mind, though they aren't 'glossary' style intro's, to understand economic thought from a heavily capitalist perspective, this is a great intro and from the other end of the scale the communist manifesto.

Aside from that, there's a sticky in the Economics forum here which has a load more useful links etc. The link to Wealth of Nations in the first post is broken, but it's available here instead.

KyussBishop

Point out some examples from Naked Capitalism that you are critical of; you've just generally brushed it off without adding any substance to your post.

In the same breath that you discard Naked Capitalism, you post a link from the Mises Institute, which is as perfect an example of an ideologically-skewed place to learn about economics as any; it's a perfect example of a place to avoid if you want to learn anything about economics, because of the manner it tries to indoctrinate you into the Austrian school of economics and the more extreme aspects of right wing Libertarianism.

Even a cursory glance at the document in your first link displays that it's pure propaganda; the kind of thing used to try and indoctrinate someone who is completely new to economics, into a particular ideology.


the keen edge: The above highlights the problem with learning economics, in that a lot of sources, even basic textbooks, are skewed by ideology; the useful contribution you can get from Debunking Economics, is that it will instill a lot of valuable skepticism into your views on economics, and is a good book to research economics alongside.

I don't believe you will find the kind of book you are looking for unfortunately, which provides a simple introduction without containing any biased/flawed/ideological content; economics as a field of knowledge is still largely in-development, and is not really close to being a proper 'science' yet.

So, a lot of what you read on economics will be coloured by politics and propaganda; it really helps to start off approaching it all from a skeptical point of view, and Debunking Economics does a good job of displaying the severe problems with the dominant mainstream/neoclassical economics, whilst introducing you to a lot of concepts in economics at the same time.

Whatever books you choose to read, it pays to heavily research the reputation of the authors of the book, and criticism of the book itself, before embarking on reading.
It's not uncommon for book recommendations to beat you about the head with hundreds of pages of semi-impenetrable, superfically sound arguments, that are really heavily propagandistic and flawed.

southsiderosie

OP, the textbook Macroeconomics, by N. Gregory Mankiew is a good resource for understanding economic fundamentals. You can get it for less than $1 on Amazon because it is a required text at most American universities, but since they change the editions frequently the older versions are super-cheap.

I will note that Mankiew is a conservative economist (he worked in the Bush administration). But as I said, Macroeconomics is a standard textbook, and he writes very clearly, so I think it is a good way to become comfortable with key concepts: monetary policy, inflation, unemployment, and several key 'isims' that matter for economic policy. Armed with this information, you can draw your own conclusions about what is going on today.

Another book I would recommend that is a classic, but is not a textbook is Charles Kindleberger's Manias, Panics and Crashes: A History of Financial Crises. It is an old book, but has been revised several times, and the latest edition includes an analysis of the beginning of the current crisis. Despite the heavy topic, it is a surprisingly accessible, non-jargony book.

KyussBishop

While Macroeconomics seems like a good introductory book, just to re-illustrate my example regarding skepticism and checking up on authors
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/11/steve-keen-harvard-starts-its-own-paecon-against-mankiw.html (same author as Debunking Economics)

I'm not trying to dismiss the suggestion, so apologies if it comes across that way It seems like a book worth reading regardless of the authors school of thought, am just adding to my point earlier about how even the standard textbooks (likely most or even all of them) have their own leanings, so it's worth approaching all books with that extra tinge of skepticism, and the DE book I recommend seems like it would be a good companion to many standard textbooks.

Blowfish

KyussBishop wrote: »

In the same breath that you discard Naked Capitalism, you post a link from the Mises Institute, which is as perfect an example of an ideologically-skewed place to learn about economics as any

Are you intentionally ignoring the rest of what I wrote?

I really don't think I could have made it any more clear that I was highlighting various and opposing ideologies. I mentioned that reading from multiple perspectives is a good idea, linked introductory texts for 2 opposing schools of thought and qualified both links with the fact that one is a heavily capitalist and the other communist.

I do find it amusing that you only criticised one of them though

southsiderosie

KyussBishop wrote: »

While Macroeconomics seems like a good introductory book, just to re-illustrate my example regarding skepticism and checking up on authors
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/11/steve-keen-harvard-starts-its-own-paecon-against-mankiw.html (same author as Debunking Economics)

I'm not trying to dismiss the suggestion, so apologies if it comes across that way It seems like a book worth reading regardless of the authors school of thought, am just adding to my point earlier about how even the standard textbooks (likely most or even all of them) have their own leanings, so it's worth approaching all books with that extra tinge of skepticism, and the DE book I recommend seems like it would be a good companion to many standard textbooks.

I made it clear that Mankiw is on the conservative side of the spectrum. But that does not negate the fact that Macroeconomics is a pretty standard textbook for anyone who wants to familiarize themselves with key terminology. There is no point in banging the drum about 'different perspectives' if people aren't clear about the general concepts being argued about.

I can't open your link on Mankiw, but I am assuming based on the text in the link that it has something to do with the Harvard walkout. Frankly, I thought that was a disgrace, but that is an issue for another thread.

SupaNova

OP, I think there is no text that can completely satisfy your unbiased condition, Mankiw is a reasonable suggestion. Also read some competing texts. If you read Peter Schiff's How an economy grows and why it crashes, Krugman's The Return of Depression Economics would make for good balance. For terms that you come across that are new to you, Investopedia has a good dictionary.

KyussBishop wrote: »

Even a cursory glance at the document in your first link displays that it's pure propaganda; the kind of thing used to try and indoctrinate someone who is completely new to economics, into a particular ideology.

Are you talking about Economics in One Lesson, which is actually a great recommendation? If so, what did you some across in a cursory glance that caused you to pejoratively label it as pure propaganda?

KyussBishop

southsiderosie wrote: »

I made it clear that Mankiw is on the conservative side of the spectrum. But that does not negate the fact that Macroeconomics is a pretty standard textbook for anyone who wants to familiarize themselves with key terminology. There is no point in banging the drum about 'different perspectives' if people aren't clear about the general concepts being argued about.

I can't open your link on Mankiw, but I am assuming based on the text in the link that it has something to do with the Harvard walkout. Frankly, I thought that was a disgrace, but that is an issue for another thread.

Ya I wasn't meaning to counter your suggestion, and I agree it would be a good introduction to the general concepts, just seemed a good opportunity to point out those different perspectives yep the link was about the Harvard stuff indeed.

KyussBishop

Blowfish wrote: »

Are you intentionally ignoring the rest of what I wrote?

I really don't think I could have made it any more clear that I was highlighting various and opposing ideologies. I mentioned that reading from multiple perspectives is a good idea, linked introductory texts for 2 opposing schools of thought and qualified both links with the fact that one is a heavily capitalist and the other communist.

I do find it amusing that you only criticised one of them though

No I wasn't ignoring what you wrote, it was quite an odd about-turn to go from criticizing a link I posted for being unbalanced (are you able to link any issues with the writing on Naked Capitalism btw?), and then in the next sentence recommend a text you support which is itself an incredibly unbalanced piece of propaganda.
A good view on extreme capitalism as you say, yes; though a very imbalanced introductory economic textbook.

SupaNova wrote:

Are you talking about Economics in One Lesson, which is actually a great recommendation? If so, what did you some across in a cursory glance that caused you to pejoratively label it as pure propaganda?

Its multiple thinly backed assertions on various topics (claiming often to be dealing with many conventional fallacies, whilst employing plenty itself), with chapters on taxation and the minimum wage being notably facile (the former, on taxation, being particularly cynical regarding states and public projects, often portraying taxes for projects as destroying jobs).

In general and in addition, like most economics writing by Austrian economists, it completely ignores potential social costs when evaluating policies.

Channel Zero

Would second Steve Keens' Debunking Economics.

As for the Communist Manifesto and Austrian Economics? They're extremist ideologies, not really taken seriously by anyone other than their acolytes. I'd avoid them like the plague if i wanted to get a balanced view based on reality.

SupaNova

KyussBishop wrote: »

Its multiple thinly backed assertions on various topics (claiming often to be dealing with many conventional fallacies, whilst employing plenty itself), with chapters on taxation and the minimum wage being notably facile (the former, on taxation, being particularly cynical regarding states and public projects, often portraying taxes for projects as destroying jobs).

Quite an opinion for someone who glossed over it, can you give me examples of the multiple thinly backed assertions? love to hear em.

In general and in addition, like most economics writing by Austrian economists, it completely ignores potential social costs when evaluating policies.

For someone who didn't know what Austrian economics was only a couple of months ago, and from someone who conflated it with neoclassical economics because it suited your argument or out of ignorance, you must have been doing some speed reading. Can you give an example of your claim in what you have read?

Suryavarman

KyussBishop wrote: »

Its multiple thinly backed assertions on various topics (claiming often to be dealing with many conventional fallacies, whilst employing plenty itself), with chapters on taxation and the minimum wage being notably facile (the former, on taxation, being particularly cynical regarding states and public projects, often portraying taxes for projects as destroying jobs).

In general and in addition, like most economics writing by Austrian economists, it completely ignores potential social costs when evaluating policies.

Even if the conclusions in Economics in One Lesson were wrong it would still probably be one of the best introductory books on economics. This is because Hazlitt shows that it is important that people consider all the possible effects of government action on the economy. To quote Milton Friedman:

Henry Hazlitt's explanation of how a price system works is a true classic: timeless, correct, painlessly instructive.

SupaNova

"The bad economist sees only what immediately strikes the eye; the good economist also looks beyond. The bad economist sees only the direct consequences of a proposed course; the good economist looks also at the longer and indirect consequences. The bad economist sees only what the effect of a given policy has been or will be on one particular group; the good economist inquires also what the effect of the policy will be on all groups." - Hazzlitt

Hazlitt in the book tries to encourage you to put yourself in the position of the good economist described. And he is impressively logical and thorough in the position of the good economist himself. If you read one of his lesser known books Thinking as a Science you can see why he is so good.

KyussBishop

SupaNova wrote: »

Quite an opinion for someone who glossed over it, can you give me examples of the multiple thinly backed assertions? love to hear em.



For someone who didn't know what Austrian economics was only a couple of months ago, and from someone who conflated it with neoclassical economics because it suited your argument or out of ignorance, you must have been doing some speed reading. Can you give an example of your claim in what you have read?

Yea I'm not going to go picking out examples for you with your own ignorant assumptions about my reading of the book, and further attacks, plus your (previously visited) ridiculous standard that nobody can make a comment on the quality of a book, without reading it in its entirety.
It's not unlike your previous habit of responding to arguments, by telling people to read an entire book, and then bashing them when they're obviously not going to waste time reading through a large ideologically-bent text.

I'll let people who are curious about its balanced nature, read the chapters I mentioned (4 and 18; both short enough), and make up their own minds.

Suryavarman wrote: »

Even if the conclusions in Economics in One Lesson were wrong it would still probably be one of the best introductory books on economics. This is because Hazlitt shows that it is important that people consider all the possible effects of government action on the economy. To quote Milton Friedman:

I'll say that it does have value if you're looking for a thorough perspective on reasons to be cynical towards government, and the arguments therein; that's one of the few things I can say positively about Right/Austro-Libertarianism, that (if you avoid drinking deep from the kool-aid and getting sunk in its ideology) it can give you useful food for thought in that regard.

It comes with the big caveat though, that many of those arguments backing that cynicism are faulty and written with a specific political agenda, so should be taken with utmost skepticism; there's a lot that can be learned finding the faults within them.

KyussBishop

Here is a set of excellent articles outlining most economic philosophies/schools, their relations to each other and the problems therein, and deeper analysis of their philosophical structure and faults:
http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2012/06/the-mixed-economy-manifesto-part-1.html
http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2012/06/the-mixed-economy-manifesto-part-2.html
http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2012/06/the-mixed-economy-manifesto-part-3.html

I've not been following that blog long, but it puts out some good articles. I think that set is one of the better summaries of the state of economics I've read in a while.

SupaNova

KyussBishop wrote: »

Yea I'm not going to go picking out examples for you with your own ignorant assumptions about my reading of the book, and further attacks, plus your (previously visited) ridiculous standard that nobody can make a comment on the quality of a book, without reading it in its entirety.

It's not unlike your previous habit of responding to arguments, by telling people to read an entire book, and then bashing them when they're obviously not going to waste time reading through a large ideologically-bent text.

I've never set out some requirement that you read a whole book to form your opinion. From memory I have only ever recommended you read one chapter which you made a zero or half assed attempt to read.

I'll let people who are curious about its balanced nature, read the chapters I mentioned (4 and 18; both short enough), and make up their own minds.

Why not pull up a quote from the two chapters you have read or disagree with that back up your claim of thinly backed assertions or ideological bias?

I'll say that it does have value if you're looking for a thorough perspective on reasons to be cynical towards government, and the arguments therein; that's one of the few things I can say positively about Right/Austro-Libertarianism, that (if you avoid drinking deep from the kool-aid and getting sunk in its ideology) it can give you useful food for thought in that regard.

Again if there is a quote from Hazzlit that is using the kool-aid to sink you into an ideology can you share it.

Is a quote from what you have read too much to ask for?

KyussBishop

SupaNova wrote: »

I've never set out some requirement that you read a whole book to form your opinion. From memory I have only ever recommended you read one chapter which you made a zero or half assed attempt to read.

Ah yes, it wasn't an entire book, but a chapter (the first) of 70 pages of semi-impenetrable prose:
http://mises.org/Books/mespm.PDF

Electing not to read through all of that crap, makes my attempt "half assed"; again I'll let others judge the worth of it for themselves.

SupaNova wrote: »

Why not pull up a quote from the two chapters you have read or disagree with that back up your claim of thinly backed assertions or ideological bias?

Primarily because of the nature you presented the request, and willingness to make judgments/assumptions about what I've read and on my economic views.

I'm not much motivated to spend time going back through a book, when you're not interested in debating arguments on their own merit, and are instead interested in bashing and dismissing my views and me personally.

I'll engage when people are willing to make an effort to have an honest discussion, but when not I'll just let those reading judge for themselves.

andrew

I think the extent to which the 'ideology' underpinning a book matters (or even exists) is being overstated in this thread.

Economics is the study of the choices people make in response to scarcity, and the incentives which influence and shape those choices. It is not just about keynesianism, monetarism, or any other school of thought. It is positive, not normative, and so does not deal with what is morally right or wrong, or what should or shouldn't be. It describes what is or isn't and talks about optimality in a very narrow, strictly defined sense. To a large extent its a methology, a set of tools and concepts for looking at the world and analyzing human action.

With all this talk of ideology people seem to not realise that intro economics textbooks are just an introduction to these basic ideas and tools, which is what OP wants. They're an introduction to the language of economics; interest rates, thinking on the margin, supply and demand curves etc, and are not some kind of modern day mein kampf. There's not really a whole load of room for schools of thought in intro textbooks, because before you can even explain why keynesianism is good or bad (for example) you have to lay out the tools you're going to use in the explanation.

So OP, get a college level textbook. Mankiw has been mentioned. Introduction to economics by Parkin Powell and Matthews is Good too. Economics by paul Samuelson is another very well known one. After that, if you, or anyone else wants to understand the differences between schools of thought, this book is brilliant, but you'll have to have read a textbook first to understand it fully.

Channel Zero

So ideologically-driven libertarian cock-eyed bollocksology is ok then so long as it spells out the basics in it's cock-eyedness?

I see.

Here's a review of that apparently "unbiased" Economics in One Lesson by some nobody called Brad DeLong:
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2005/04/economics_in_on.html

Dr Galen

southsiderosie wrote: »

OP, the textbook Macroeconomics, by N. Gregory Mankiew is a good resource for understanding economic fundamentals. You can get it for less than $1 on Amazon because it is a required text at most American universities, but since they change the editions frequently the older versions are super-cheap.

God that brings back some memories. Some serious early college years flashbacks too. Good times!

It is a good book though, rather heavy so not suitable for reading on the train tbh, but I'm sure that in this day and age there is a Kindle or E-Book version if you were so interested. Learning about the basics and the fundamentals is a major part of then being able to draw your own conclusions on the more advanced theories and outlooks imho.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

southsiderosie

Channel Zero wrote: »

So ideologically-driven libertarian cock-eyed bollocksology is ok then so long as it spells out the basics in it's cock-eyedness?

I see.

Here's a review of that apparently "unbiased" Economics in One Lesson by some nobody called Brad DeLong:
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2005/04/economics_in_on.html

OK, I think you just proved the point of both the OP and others on this thread: it is nearly impossible to have a debate about schools of thought, underlying assumptions (which is really the crux of the issue much of the time), etc without a grasp of the basics. Even DeLong acknowledges this in reference to Economics in One Lesson:

It's an excellent book to read if one already knows a significant amount of economics.

Hell, you can't even understand the DeLong critique if you don't know what Say's Law is.

So, this brings us back to the question offered by the OP: do you have an alternative textbook which provides an overview of basic concepts and theories of economics? I don't think Debunking Economics is really a textbook; it is a critique of neo-liberalism...which brings us back full circle to the question of basics concepts vs competing schools of thought - and the former is ostensibly what this thread is about.

Dave!

I've just acquired Principles of Macroeconomics, by N. Gregory Mankiw. It any use?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

southsiderosie

Dave! wrote: »

I've just acquired Principles of Macroeconomics, by N. Gregory Mankiw. It any use?

I think it is, but perhaps I have been brainwashed. :pac:

Channel Zero

southsiderosie wrote: »

So, this brings us back to the question offered by the OP: do you have an alternative textbook which provides an overview of basic concepts and theories of economics?

I've personally only ever read what you've termed as opinionated books relating to economic issues. So the answer is no on that one. I wouldn't suggest anything i haven't read.
Just going on Amazon reviews, your recommendation of Mankiw's Macroeconomics definitely seems like the best so far; am going to buy a copy aswell as i frequently have the same problem as the OP. Googling terms only gets you so far i suppose.

I don't think Debunking Economics is really a textbook; it is a critique of neo-liberalism...which brings us back full circle to the question of basics concepts vs competing schools of thought - and the former is ostensibly what this thread is about.

Point taken. It's not a textbook.

I'm guessing KyussBishop was originally responding to the request in post 1 for something "explaining the general economic processes occurring in the world today".
Perhaps a textbook, albeit very helpful, can only go so far in examining these processes. Books written with a definite opinion on these processes are then kind of hard to avoid, whether it's some 60 year old diatribe against government regulation or a recently published criticism of neo-liberalism KB suggested.

It then just comes down to whether they're respected and fact-based.
The same goes for economics blogs i suppose. They'll inevitably be opinion-based, but ideally they should be reality-based too. Take KyussBishops's blog suggestion. Susan Webber's blog. Someone remarked that it's just opinionated ranting (that's rich!), which is all well and good, but it's not the third most visited business and economics blog on the web for nothing.
Another excellent choice imo as, besides being an excellent source of information, it represents the human perspective of economics; something which is sadly lacking in other places.

Blowfish

Channel Zero wrote: »

It then just comes down to whether they're respected and fact-based.
The same goes for economics blogs i suppose. They'll inevitably be opinion-based, but ideally they should be reality-based too. Take KyussBishops's blog suggestion. Susan Webber's blog. Someone remarked that it's just opinionated ranting (that's rich!), which is all well and good, but it's not the third most visited business and economics blog on the web for nothing.
Another excellent choice imo as, besides being an excellent source of information, it represents the human perspective of economics; something which is sadly lacking in other places.

That was me and yes, I probably was being overly harsh in my initial post. There can be some interesting articles there alright, but my reaction was quite frankly more to do with it being described as 'well balanced'. nakedcapitalism has certain contributors with incredibly strong ideological views, including going as far as describing views they disagree with as being a 'cult'. There's nothing wrong with them expressing that if that's how they feel, but I wouldn't exactly call it 'balanced' in any sense of the word.

Personally blogwise I'd prefer the likes of Zerohedge, but again, I wouldn't be silly enough to deny that they have ideologies that they prefer.

Channel Zero

Blowfish wrote: »

That was me and yes, I probably was being overly harsh in my initial post. There can be some interesting articles there alright, but my reaction was quite frankly more to do with it being described as 'well balanced'. nakedcapitalism has certain contributors with incredibly strong ideological views, including going as far as describing views they disagree with as being a 'cult'. There's nothing wrong with them expressing that if that's how they feel, but I wouldn't exactly call it 'balanced' in any sense of the word.

Personally blogwise I'd prefer the likes of Zerohedge, but again, I wouldn't be silly enough to deny that they have ideologies that they prefer.

Haven't read much of Zerohedge, but the times i have it was interesting.
The comments there are funny sometimes. One from the other day said something along the lines of "Goldman Sachs are now advising to buy Irish bonds. They obviously selling.."

KyussBishop

Yes Debunking Economics certainly wouldn't be a introductory textbook; in my view it would be very handy to have alongside a textbook though, with a view to seeing many of the limitations of what is taught in economics.

It doesn't suggest introductory economics brainwashes people but does provide a good critique against many accepted truths.


ZeroHedge is a good blog, but requires careful filtering of the articles you give credence to; low signal to noise ratio. It has some good authors with secondary blogs though.

Permabear wrote:

This post had been deleted.

Mainstream economics has little to do with science; if you extrapolate mathematical formulas from an inherently flawed premise, that is pseudo-science.

The main problem I've seen with the rejection of formalist economics, is it gets expanded to rejecting the entire scientific method; suddenly the requirement for empirical evidence to rigorously back up every facet of an economic theory gets discarded, in favour of wholly accepting an untested (or even failed) logical framework. This is the perfect way to construct a politically motivated ideology.

It leads to shifting away the burden of proof that an economic theory will e.g. not cause massive social issues, by pointing to a massive logical framework lacking empirical backing, as well as selective rejection of empiricism itself, so that only evidence that agrees with the theory is acknowledged, and that which does not can be ignored.


The proper solution is the rejection of the ideologically driven (even if not knowingly ideological for many) varieties of economics (including neoclassical), like a falsified theory, and focusing on alternative theories with a solid empirical and scientific backing instead (incorporating worthwhile parts of failed theories in the process).

The failure of mainstream economics isn't a failure of science, warranting the rejection of scientific methods along with neoclassical economics itself.

antoobrien

While writing a paper for my M.Sc., I came across The Theory of Games and Economic Behavior (J. VonNeumann and O. Morgenstern, 1947). While not a classical economics text it deals with a subset of economics called Game Theory (effectively the economics of making choices).

dashboard_hula

I bought Mankiw last year brand new. The poor thing is now destroyed in dogears, highlights, notes and yes, I f*cked at the wall once but don't blame the author, exams were in 7 hours and I couldn't remember my middle name.

What I also found helpful was a book called The Macroeconomy of the Eurozone which was co-written by a lecturer in UL who taught my own lecturer. I found the language and style a lot more accessible and Irish/EU examples used a lot more than an American based textbook.

For the craic though: Principles of Economics - Translated

Enkidu

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I'm just curious about this. Didn't mathematics in the modern sense (advanced mathematics, rather than just statistics, which had been in use since the 19th century) enter economics properly after Kiyoshi Itō formalised stochastic calculus, since this is the mathematics necessary for modelling an evolving system with some random element.

Didn't people just apply Itō's calculus? How did they implicitly have the goal of putting the state in charge?