= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ahbwramc comments on Open Thread March 31 - April 7 2014 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (233)
Continuing the use of LW as my source for non-fiction recommendations...
Any suggestions on a decent popular-but-not-too-dumbed-down intro to Economics?
Hidden Order by David Friedman is a popular book, but is semi-technical enough that it could serve as a textbook for an intro microeconomics course.
Naked Economics by Charles Wheelan, is a good all-rounder. It's America-centric, but still generally applicable.
The Undercover Economist by Tim Harford is a good popular micro/market/margins introduction.
The Armchair Economist by Steven Landsburg is the granddaddy of popular economics books. It's very much "here's how economists think". Unfortunately it doesn't do the profession many favours, because Steven Landsburg is kind of obnoxious.
I generally recommend one of these three to friends who show an interest. The first is the default. The second is for slightly nerdier clientèle, and the third is for people who won't be put off by kind-of-obnoxious writers. If you can forego the "popular" bit of your requirements, Cowen and Tabarrok's Modern Principles textbooks are highly readable and quite entertaining.
Thanks for those recommendation, I was a bit disappointed by Naked Economics, your alternatives seem to be what I was looking for!
Naked Economics is the most human-friendly pop-econ book I've read. For a reader who isn't familiar with utilitarian frameworks or cost-benefit analysis, it's a more gentle opposition-softener.
It's also less likely to leave a reader thinking "economics says we should do away with all governance". This makes it more palatable to left-leaning readers and less confirmation-bias-y to existing free-marketeers. When you're at a dinner party, it's easy to spot people who've read a single pop-economics book.
John Maynard Keynes: The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money.
That will probably do more to increase your understanding of economics than any other single book you could pick, Keynes being ridiculously.. better.. than the typical economist, and is in any case a highly recommended prelude to any further readings. - among other things because lying about what Keynes says has become a very popular sport, so familiarity with the original is very useful for detecting later horseshit.
When you take a book by Keynes down off the shelf, you're not taking Keynes himself down off the shelf. It's not like those heads in jars from Futurama. It's a book. Its core contents have been synthesised for a modern audience, with the benefit of decades of subsequent analysis, in every contemporary macroeconomics textbook worth its salt.
It might be worth your time, at some point, to read the original Keynes, just as it might be worth your time to read the original Origin of Species. But don't fool yourself into thinking you're tapping into the secret wisdom of an ancient master. It's a book. It's been widely available for several decades, and the discipline has not been standing still for all that time.
Also, if you're frequently in the sort of discussions where people are arguing about what dead economists did or did not say, I humbly suggest you re-evaluate those discussions.
Five minutee has not found me the link but there is a much upvoted post on the value of reading the Classics or Great Works of a field. IIRC Vassar commented that outside of fields like Math or Chemistry where progress is completely unambiguous it's a good idea. Darwin invented, conceived and distinguished natural and sexual selection in his greatest work. Despite this sexual selection was more or less rediscovered from scratch starting in the 70's.
Macroeconomists are still talking about DSGE models, right now, after the Great Recession. I recall a recent crooked timber post about a macro survey book which (basically ignored Keynes and Keynesianism)[http://crookedtimber.org/2014/02/10/macroeconomics-made-easy/]. If population genetics can ignore Darwin to its detriment macroeconomics is entirely capable of underselling Keynes.
Why are people downvoting this? It is the refounding of macroeconomics.
If I was recommending a first book on economics this would not be it because macroeconomics is compared to microeconomics useless and something we know nothing about but still. Also, if your only reason for learning about economics is to bullshit about politics Keynes' book will equip you to crush the ignorant quite adequately.
As a counterpoint to most of the other recommendations you are about to get:
Debunking Economics by Steve Keen. Thesis is basically that many of the assumptions of economics (especially macroeconomics) are at odds with reality enough that it doesn't actually work that well. Gets into some interesting modelling that the author has done as well using a different basis.
Naked Economics is an accessible, well-written book that sparked my interest in the subject.
From what I remember (I I got it 'cause I was looking for a good broad intro to economics, but stopped reading it), I found it a bit too dumbed-down (too much "don't worry I'm not going to scare you with maths) and too focused on hot-button political issues. I didn't get the impression I was learning much, I may give it another stab tho.
I would think that "don't worry I'm not going to scare you with maths" is what you'd want from a basic popular introduction to economics. It's good at teaching the intuitions, IMO.
Youtube + "econstories". :) (Preferably not just that, but it's good and if you haven't seen it you should.)
I've been meaning to get into econ for a while, and after searching LW and other areas, the first six on my goodreads list all look good. I've not read any of them myself.
Actually, the wikipedia articles are great. Start at economics and follow subtopics as they pique your interest.
Niall Ferguson's "The Ascent of Money" provides a good background for understanding what money happens to be historically if your interest is more generally and not specifically in understand what the economics professors preach.