is there a liberal equivalent to this book?
i'm trying to teach myself economics and i want to hear both sides of the story.
not sure if this is a dumb question
You're trying to teach yourself perspectives of a subject by polar ideologies. Very smart.
>>7801987
start with the greeks
>>7801987
Do you mean american liberal or proper liberal
>>7802043
the man's question speaks for itself when combined with the image
>>7802046
Well I thought it was counter intuitive to ask for a liberal book while posting an image of one.
If OP doesn't understand basic economics after reading a book titled literally that well I don't know how to answer.
You need a lot more than liberal economics to get a well rounded perspective t.b.h.
>>7802058
free market=liberal
ya dingus
>>7802053
i haven't read it yet :^)
>>7802062
Dont bother
>>7802057
like what?
>>7801987
It's a biased question. "Basic Economics" or American conservative economics sticks close to Adam Smith's model. Modern economists acknowledge Adam Smith, but realize that his theories only work for an idealized perfect competition style market and only in the long run. This is where Fox News/"Austrian" economics stops.
In the short run, lots of problems occur, including sticky prices, lack of internalization, and externalities (I.e. pollution) and virtually no real markets follow perfect competition (except agriculture, which is royally fucked).
These complicate the overarching "invisible hand fixes everything" idea and create places where policy can be applied to fix shit.
If you look up all of the stuff in my post plus a brief overview of game theory that'll take you through the jist of a 200-level micro Econ course; macro (inflation, fiscal policy) is its own beast.
>>7801998
In this case? No. The Greeks and Romans sucked pretty hard at Econ.
Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt
yeah
John Kenneth Galbraith's The Age of Uncertainty
if you're lazy like I am theres a video that does all the talking on youtube, if you can accustom to Galbraith monolithic voice you might be able to enjoy it
>is there a biased equivalent to this that no economist takes seriously?
Probably, but why would you want to read it? Liberals literally think the gender wage gab is a viable argument
>>7801987
Depends on what you get out of Basic Economics and what you think the 'liberal equivalent' would be. If you're just looking at it as an educational book, like an economics textbook that tries to simplify the jargon, then you're probably assuming it's as objective as a physics textbook or something. But if you're looking at it and assuming it's biased because Sowell is a noted conservative, then I assume you'd want views of economic theory from the other side.
But do you want a liberal perspective of capitalism, or a leftist perspective? The former has criticisms but fundamentally still likes the idea of capitalism (and may invoke terms like 'crony capitalism' as opposed to a more pure ideal). The leftist perspective typically has criticisms that strike at the very foundation of capitalism, so their proposals for solutions will often fall under various socialist/anarchist ideologies. And then Marxist/communist theory is like its own beast.
Capital in the Twenty-First Century is talked about a lot here. Piketty makes some pretty good points in his critiques of modern capitalism, but I think his solutions are basically "Tax the rich more!", so he's not rejecting capitalism entirely, but rather the inequality it can create.
Capital and the Debt Trap takes a pretty analytical approach to looking at worker co-operatives and how they perform compared to standard corporations, but that's more for those curious about market socialism.
Chomsky doesn't talk much about economics directly, but he'll often tie it into discussions of power. Understanding Power goes into it a fair amount, and there are plenty of interviews floating around where he addresses the issue more directly. Most of his work focuses on imperialism and thought control, which often tie into socialist thinking.
I haven't read much of communist theory. A lot of the followers are a bit too dramatic for my tastes. I hear Bukharin is good.
Anyone read pic related? Feel like it might be an interesting read, especially since he was previously an ardent left-winger.
>>7802218
>>7802222
I dont know this book, but Marx: Capital: Critique of Political Economy I-III would be more interesting
;)
Econ BSc and MSc holder here, as well as MPS essay contest winner which should illustrate my views. The book you posted is no doubt a 'liberal' book from the viewpoint of economics, so I am not sure what you are asking for. It seems you want a book that shows the role protectionist measures and market inverventions can play in societies, as opposed to Sowell who is a proponent of the idea of 'free markets'. Books of this sort are plentiful for the general reader, I would recommend the work of Ha-Joon Chang. Read "23 Things..." for some insight into the limitations of economic liberalism and his work on development. Related again to development is Erik Reinert's book in the picture. These two writers are very good at illustrating alternatives to 'laissez faire', passive policies, without going into the realm of heterodox viewpoints that have no relation to the reality of how economics is thought about or conducted.
>>7801987
>2016
>Wanting to hear anything other than the right side
>>7802297
There's two right sides dummy. Conservatism and Liberalism.
>>7801987
OP, this is a decent primer on a center-left perspective of economics, although it's more of a survey of the progression of economic thought in response to real economic phenomena. Or you could try Robert Heilbronner's "The Worldly Philosophers" which gives an overview of the big game-changing names in economic thought; it's a classic.
For a more academic approach you could try Steve Keen's Debunking Economics. I think Steve Keen is the closest anyone has come so far in terms of an accurate concept of the functions / mechanisms of an economy.
>>7802285
Is an excellent suggestion. It's more about trade than anything but it's very good. The more you read about economic history, the more skepticism you will have about the economic profession's slavish devotion to free trade.
>>7802285
What was your essay about?
>>7802544
>There's two right sides dummy. Conservatism and Liberalism.
Economic conservatism and economic liberalism operate on a different paradigm than American conservatism and American liberalism.
American liberalism would rather there be no economics at all (yes, they actually believe this can happen).
>>7802236
>I-III
>no iv
Go to bed Kautsky.
>>7801987
I would recommend Tim Harford's two economist strikes back books. He comes across as fairly centrist and even-handed, much more so than Sowell.
>>7802085
decent post
>>7802247
the first 200 pages of this are ok, then it turns into shit
>>7802285
HJC is awful. Did you know south korea did some things once? let's expand this to everything.
>>7802297
>carlyle
>liking anything related to economics
Get a textbook. Principles of Economics is a solid one.
>>7801987
you could try keynesianism but keynesian economics is retarded
Read Keynes and Friedman, also stop visiting /pol/ learn to form your own opinions without infographic tier knowledge and memes.
Sorry, but the truth tends to end up pretty right wing
>>7802988
It depends what you mean by right wing, do you mean libertarianism ? Because that's as deluded as communism
Which book is the dark souls of economics?
I read Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One lesson and ha joon changs 23 things they don't tell you about capitalism. I'm happy with that.
Honestly, the ideological criticism of these two books, even though they make opposite points, is dumb. All Hazlitt (and Sowell, though I only skimmed his basic economics) book seek to do is describe the most trivial economic laws and how these can be applied to everyday understanding. But if Hazlitt says something like "The government building bridges that don't need to be built and taxing people who could've spent the money more wisely is a bad thing, not to say all bridges are bad", then people read it as " Kill all blacks, taxation is theft. "
Similarly, Chang bats for team librul and puts forward similarly modest arguments, showing how the free market doesn't lead to utopia.
try Ha Joon Chang
>>7802971
post Keynesianism is right, though
>>7801987
In liberal economics does communism work? It would be one sided if it didn't.
>>7803262
I've heard that reality can be biased against socialism.
>>7802988
economic truth is left wing, social/cultural truth is right wing.
>>7803278
Does left wing mean communism?
>>7802085
Basic Economics is not full-retard laissez faire
>>7803278
But that's the opposite of what's true.
>>7802796
>He comes across as fairly centrist and even-handed, much more so than Sowell.
Sowell was right, though.
>>7803315
>Social/Cultural Leftism
>LGBTQ, Nu-Males, etc
>True or good in any way
No.
>>7803318
Well perhaps the opposite is not entirely proper. I mean social liberalism, not social leftism/cultural marxism.
>>7803984
Sowell had nothing to do with that.
In fact, he was among though calling out the 2008 crisis before it happened.
