is this a good economics book? what else do you guys recommend (better or supplementary)?
bump for knowledge
>>1048687
What do you mean by "good economics book?" The standard for introductory macroeconomics classes is Mankiw or Krugman.
>>1048819
i took a econ 101 course and mankiw's book was our textbook now that i google it lol. where should i go? im not in college yet (im 18), just want to learn more
>>1048825
Well you can find an earlier edition pdf online I'm sure. But you might get bored because it's kind of dry, naturally.
If you have a real interest in econ, you might also subscribe to a few econ blogs on RSS or something and google when you don't understand something.
>>1048687
The book reads very easy, he doesn't use any graphs or difficult words. You won't get any practical stuff out of it but it is enjoyable with all the examples and can be quite handy later when you are having a discussion with other people.
How an Economy Grows and Why It Crashes by Peter Schiff
Don't read shit by that retard Krugman
Sowell is good though
>>1048819
>Krugman
>>1049119
>Peter Schiff
top kek
OP, Sowell is fucking shit. Don't bother with that shill.
>>1049137
>Sowell is fucking shit.
Care to tell us why? Or do we just have to take your word for it.
>>1048687
It is an excellent book for having economic discussions because he abstracts the underlying theories to a conversational level, and provides a lot of examples.
If you're looking for something to study economic theory though, there are much better options. It's like Cosmos is to physics. You can understand what's going on, but you aren't really becoming a physicist.
>>1049175
Because he doesn't rely on empirical evidence. He uses verbal reasoning (axioms like the Austrians) instead of looking at the real evidence.
It's just sleight of hand for the weak minded.
>>1049185
But the point of the book is to keep it simple and explain how some things work. The policies etc. he talks about have been proven not to work ages ago.
Can you give an example of what you don't agree with?
bump, give me recs
>>1049135
Well, it's the truth. Krugman is used in lots of macro classes, whether you like it or not.
Blanchard.
For laypeople sure
Sowell is kind of Brietbart tier but it's a good introduction
Depends what you want from the book:
A laymans introduction to how to think about economics? Yeah that book will do, you should also check out "Naked Economics" and What's the "Economy for anyways". They're both good laymans introductions.
If you want to actually develop a more theoretical understanding I can recommend from my bachelor course we had "Microeconomics" by Goolsbee and Steven Levitt (the guy who did Freakonomics). For Macroeconomics I had a similarly titled "Macroeconomics" textbook by Blanchard. And then if you want to get into trade and international economics consider "international economics" by feenstra. These are all textbooks by the way, but from my memory, they weren't "dry" like most textbooks are, they are filled with real-life applications.
Also read the Ascent of Money and The Wealth of Nations. They're both good for developing some history about what money even is and the historical thinking of how economics developed.
last bump
>>1048687
I read economics in one lesson and finished it about a week before my first Microeconomics course which was extremely helpful.
>>1049135
Early Krugman was based
>>1049135
Krugman is an idiot who spurts fallacies like no one else I know, but his books do form the orthodoxy of contemporary economics. I an Austrian and I still reference Krugman and Keynes in my essays. It grinds my gears but my professors genuinely believe what they taught.
>>1049533
>Also read the Ascent of Money and The Wealth of Nations
>The Wealth of Nations
Nice meme, no economists have actually read this book.
Uncle Thomas Sowell... That nigger hates niggers more than any nigger hater that ever done lived. Enjoy your book, fucktard. It'll make an excellent piece of the kindling in the trash can fire you'll be warming yourself by if you listen to a word that nigger say.
>>1050230
>no economists have actually read this book.
Are you serious?
>>1050530
Reading the Wealth of Nations if 2016 is like reading Das Kapital.
You do it out of curiosity only.
>>1048687
I thought Man, Economy and State was pretty good as an introduction.
I go to an ivy league and my low test prof was shilling this shit.
[spoiler]he even removed the lines that show that asians have a higher average income than whites from his graphs during his presentation[/spoiler]
lol at all the trolls in this thread shitting on recs and not offering anything good in return
Ascent of Money is interesting. Currency Wars has lots of good info in it but you kind of have to ignore the DIE FIAT CURRENCY REEEE whining. Gonna do Sowell, dunno how good it will be yet though.
>>1048687
Economics in one lesson.
>>1050603
I'm sure broadening your view with old books that have had a great influence on economic thoughts is really stupod.
Im starting my own buisness, any recomendations for books to read?
I read "Like a Virgin" and "Awaken the Giant Within"
bump, i want some into investing suggestions
>>1048687
If you want text book understanding out of it, no
If you want a basic run down of economics for the layman, its good. By layman I mean middle aged person who has a general idea of what economic/financial terms mean because they watched the news and managed money for a few decades. But you can just wikipedia shit if you don't understand.
The added chapters on international wealth disparities really drag though. You just want to move on and he keeps assaulting you with example after example.
Also, it's a mostly neutral book. Most of the contents are basic bitches and aren't heavily debated among different schools of economics, but they are explained and emphasized in a way that a chicago school economist would. As for things that are debated, he explains the differences between Keynesian thought and Chicago thought, and leaves the answer ambiguous. He doesn't pretend to know everything, and he doesn't tell the reader what to believe when the jury is out. This is good because a lot of free marketers outright reject keynes when a good chunk of his contributions are not seriously debatable.
>>1049185
>Because he doesn't rely on empirical evidence. He uses verbal reasoning (axioms like the Austrians) instead of looking at the real evidence.
Whoever told you this greatly misinformed you.
>>1049485
Doesn't change the fact that he has been wrong numerous times. He can fool people with his fast talking verbosity but he has been wrong at many crucial points just like a majority of economists and their models quantifying fucking human behaviour.
>>1050272
Get a load of this edgy little cunt
>>1049524
>calling an author Breitbart tier
I have a hard time figuring out what this means. Is the content of his writing similar to that of a /pol/tard or is he just a low tier writer?
>>1055988
is there a site/publication that keeps track of economists predictions vs what came to be?
or do you have examples of when sowell was wrong? i dont want to have to read all of someones work just to find out they were already proven incorrect
if a site like this doesnt already exist it should
>>1056101
its mainly because sowell is generally conservative, but his books on economics are usually neutral on the most part. he talks about incentives, inventories, trade, why new york rent control damaged the industry and taxi licences if im not mistaken.
His other works like about intellectualsd is pretty conservative though
>>1056113
Recently krugman made a statement how he was wrong that interest rates cannot go into negative(view was held by some keynsians, but not monetarists). And 2 other things about monetary policy which i forgot. To his credit he is one of the few economicsts with high readership who is willing to acknowledge his mistakes and improve, which i respect alot.
>>1056121
that would be kick ass if there was a site soley for tracking financial predictions/theories that also provides links to current data, someone make it happen.
anyway thats cools that krugman admitted what he ws wrong about-thats not a common thing to do publically
I dont claim to be knowledgeable enough to "know better" but he seems to remove human element, as if people always made rational decisions/give a fuck about "the economy"( personally i want shit that works not stuff that works then breaks so i can go buy more of it and "get the economy moving" )
i will be checking out all the recommendations ITT though
>>1049119
>Don't read shit by that retard Krugman
*tips bowtie*
