Economic Reading List

Denerick

I'd love it if you economics boffins could compile a list of economic literature for me to read at my pleasure. I'm thinking of tackling Keynes and Hayak, and I would like to keep it to pure theory for the moment.

So, off the top of your head, in chronological order, which books should I read and why? I'm thinking Adam Smith -> Milton Friedman and beyond here, but do throw up some names I'm unfamiliar with...

Joe1919

An ESRI economist Pete Lunn wrote a very good book called 'Basic Instinct' that's worth reading (imo) because its shows the problems and limits with 'theory' in economics. (and is very readable).
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2008/nov/01/economics

Economics is considered as an empirical (and practical) science by many. In the first instance one has to observe and measure before one comes up with a theoretical scheme to explain the phenomena.

Gregory Mankiw (who wrote my old text book on economics) wrote a great paper explaining the limits of theory in macro, stating..... 'God put macroeconomists on earth not to propose and test elegant theories but to solve practical problems'
http://www.economics.harvard.edu/files/faculty/40_Macroeconomist_as_Scientist.pdf

PS I'm not an economic boffin so I'm sure some will disagree with what I say.

Économiste Monétaire

Do you want to read their original texts, or their work distilled by other economists? Vis-à-vis theory: economists are more likely to read this than Smith's The Wealth of Nations .

In terms of history of economic thought, I found The Genesis of Macroeconomics, by Antoin Murphy, quite interesting. JK Galbraith's A History of Economics and Bob Heilbroner's The Wordly Philosophers are also worth reading. There's some overlap, but they cover the contributions of William Petty, John Law, Richard Cantillon (Irish; Spanish sounding name; wrote in French!), David Hume, François Quesnay, Turgot, Adam Smith, Henry Thornton, T.R. Malthus, Marx, David Ricardo, Veblen, etc. You would be better off reading these three books than antediluvian texts (tomes, in some cases), in my opinion.

If you want to read about Keynes—or, more accurately, John Hicks' interpretation of Keynes—then any intermediate macro textbook will cover IS-LM. Hyman Minsky wrote a book on Keynes and IS-LM. I'll let someone more familiar with Hayek and von Mises give a concise list for them.

I haven't read Lunn's book, but, for behavioural economics, Nudge by Sunstein & Thaler and Animal Spirits by Akerlof & Shiller are worth reading.

Joe1919 wrote: »

Gregory Mankiw (who wrote my old text book on economics) wrote a great paper explaining the limits of theory in macro, stating..... 'God put macroeconomists on earth not to propose and test elegant theories but to solve practical problems'
http://www.economics.harvard.edu/files/faculty/40_Macroeconomist_as_Scientist.pdf

Michael Woodford wrote a paper on how modern macro is used by policy making institutions (mostly central banks). Mankiw’s piece appears idiosyncratic to the CEA.

http://www.columbia.edu/~mw2230/Convergence_AEJ.pdf

Time Magazine

Joe1919 wrote: »

An ESRI economist Pete Lunn wrote a very good book called 'Basic Instinct' that's worth reading (imo) because its shows the problems and limits with 'theory' in economics. (and is very readable).
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2008/nov/01/economics

Pete's book is good but I recommend you just go straight to the bible. The closest thing to a page-turner I've ever come across in the discipline.

Économiste Monétaire wrote: »

Vis-à-vis theory: economists are more likely to read this than Smith's The Wealth of Nations .

I have a theory that we could save tens of millions of euro every year by abolishing prisons and instead making criminals do problem sets from Mas-Colell, Whinston and Green. That'd learn 'em.

In terms of history of economic thought, I found The Genesis of Macroeconomics, by Antoin Murphy, quite interesting.

+1. Good introduction to the history of macro.

I'll let someone more familiar with Hayek and von Mises give a concise list for them.

Meh. Road to Serfdom is the best exposition of that point of view.

I haven't read Lunn's book, but, for behavioural economics, Nudge by Sunstein & Thaler and Animal Spirits by Akerlof & Shiller are worth reading.

Nudge > Animal Spirits, imho. It'd be interesting OP for you to read Hayek, then Nudge. See on which side of the fence you sit.

Actually, in terms of reading order, this mightn't be a bad approach:

1) Genesis of Macro (Murphy)
2) Road to Serfdom (Hayek)
3) Judgment Under Uncertainty (K, T, S)
4) Nudge (Sunstein and Thaler)

Finnbar01

Economics in one lesson

www.hacer.org/pdf/Hazlitt00.pdf

Time Magazine

Finnbar01 wrote: »

Economics in one lesson

www.hacer.org/pdf/Hazlitt00.pdf

Economics has developed massively since 1946. Modern economic growth theory, game theory, econometrics, industrial organisation, behavioural economics: these things have changed our perspective a great deal in the past 65 years.

Finnbar01

Time Magazine wrote: »

Economics has developed massively since 1946. Modern economic growth theory, game theory, econometrics, industrial organisation, behavioural economics: these things have changed our perspective a great deal in the past 65 years.

Yes it has but that book is a classic and is relevant today than more so.

The problems we have with economists now, is that they've made it very complex and as Woody Guthrie once said: "Any fool can make something complicated. It takes a genius to make it simple."

Time Magazine

Finnbar01 wrote: »

Yes it has but that book is a classic and is relevant today than more so.

I disagree. Its lack of insights from sixty years of scholarship. That doesn't mean it's more relevant today.

The problems we have with economists now, is that they've made it very complex and as Woody Guthrie once said: "Any fool can make something complicated. It takes a genius to make it simple."

I disagree on three counts. First, crucially, a nice quote from someone for days of olde doesn't form the intellectual basis of an argument. Second, I don't think that simplicity is something that should be sought unless said simplicity exists. I don't think subject matter of economics is simple. Third, I don't think complexity is the problem with economics. The problem with (macro)economics is that it's wrong.

Finnbar01

Time Magazine wrote: »

I disagree. Its lack of insights from sixty years of scholarship. That doesn't mean it's more relevant today.

We've had 60 years of scholarship and look at the mess we're in today. Over 60 years to get it right or at least partially right and still no success.

I disagree on three counts. First, crucially, a nice quote from someone for days of olde doesn't form the intellectual basis of an argument.

the problem with economics today is that it has been made far too complex when it doesn't need to be.

Second, I don't think that simplicity is something that should be sought unless said simplicity exists. I don't think subject matter of economics is simple.

Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.

Third, I don't think complexity is the problem with economics. The problem with (macro)economics is that it's wrong.

Well if they had used macroeconmics over the last decade they would have seen where our economy was going. The problem with keynesian economics is that it's wrong.

Time Magazine

Finnbar01 wrote: »

We've had 60 years of scholarship and look at the mess we're in today. Over 60 years to get it right or at least partially right and still no success.

That shows, at a push, that forecasting and financial regulation have had no success. It says nothing about any of my original lists: growth theory, game theory, econometrics, industrial organisation, behavioural economics. In fact, game theory, econometrics and behavioural economics could all shed light on the current crisis. None of these fields really existed in the 1940s.

the problem with economics today is that it has been made far too complex when it doesn't need to be.



Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.

Saying it in another language doesn't make it true either, even if it's in a verbose old language that the majority of the population have to google to understand. You suggest economics does not need to be complex. I would like this to be the case. Unfortunately, I think "the economy" is very complex. Simple principles can shed a lot of light, but complexity is necessary to understand nuances.

Well if they had used macroeconmics over the last decade they would have seen where our economy was going.

If "they", "used"? Who are they? What use of macroeconomics? The most accepted parts of economics will not tell you much about where the economy is going at any given time period but rather it will provide you with good reasons why incomes/growth rates have been different in the past and good policies that will encourage growth.

The problem with keynesian economics is that it's wrong.

I'd say the problem with Keynesianism, as usually defined by the layman, is that it's too simplified