If I was to read one book on economics

fred252

what should it be?

Idioteque

Howdy,

I'm currently reading Adam Smith's 'wealth of nations' but did come across the below post recently which offers a good selection...

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/01/11/132649042/must-read-economics

fred252

that's written in 18th century english. is it not a tough read?

Duke Leonal Felmet

fred252 wrote: »

that's written in 18th century english. is it not a tough read?

It is a tough read, as is Ricardo, etc. What do you want to learn about?

GCU Flexible Demeanour

If I was trying to impress people with how erudite and well-read I am, I'd say Thorstein Veblen's "Theory of the Leisure Class".

However, the truth is I've never actually read Veblen.

I think the best single volume introduction to economics is Tim Harford's "The Undercover Economist". He's one of those writers who can get to the point, while at the same time leaving out nothing salient. A very readable account, and you really need never read any other book on economics if you don't want to.

I'd avoid the Freakanomics stuff. Its really just for fun.

If I was to namedrop, I actually did read the Communist Manifesto recently. I was expecting a load of irrelevant rhetoric. To my surprise, Marx could actually be writing about the same crisis we're living through.

Harford's all you need to read. But the Communist Manifesto is very short - and very relevant to our times.

Duke Leonal Felmet

If you want to read a thorough stripping down of Marx, read the opening chapters of 'Capitalism, Socialism & Democracy' by Joseph Schumpeter.

If you want to know how global economics works, read 'Globalisation and its Discontents' by Joseph Stiglitz.

If you want to learn how recessions work read 'The Return of Depression Economics' by Paul Krugman.

If you want to learn how markets (of any kind) work read 'Reinventing the Bazaar' by John McMillan.


I would put Harfords books in the same league as Freakonomics. Fun, but really doesn't teach you anything useful about Economics.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

I would put Harfords books in the same league as Freakonomics. Fun, but really doesn't teach you anything useful about Economics.

Different people will clearly react differently to the same book, but I'm afraid that statement is simply wrong.

Freakonomics is, absolutely, just a collection of amusing articles. However, if someone reads the "The Undercover Economist", by the end of the book they will actually comprehend the key themes that economics is concerned with. If all the OP wants is the gist of economics, that book is all a body needs.

Marx is optional. But if the OP wants to know why Zurich Bank lent €32 million to a grocer to build a shopping centre in Castleblayney, and how it fits into the wider pattern of gonzo lending behaviour, he should read the Communist Manifesto. If he similarly wants to know why the parliamentary procedures intended to prevent charges being levied on the public without their consent have turned into a rubber stamp, he should read the Communist Manifesto.

And if he really wants to understand the banking crisis, he could try reading "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas". Or, alternatively, just go on a bender for a few days.

Duke Leonal Felmet

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Different people will clearly react differently to the same book, but I'm afraid that statement is simply wrong.

Freakonomics is, absolutely, just a collection of amusing articles. However, if someone reads the "The Undercover Economist", by the end of the book they will actually comprehend the key themes that economics is concerned with. If all the OP wants is the gist of economics, that book is all a body needs.

Marx is optional. But if the OP wants to know why Zurich Bank lent €32 million to a grocer to build a shopping centre in Castleblayney, and how it fits into the wider pattern of gonzo lending behaviour, he should read the Communist Manifesto. If he similarly wants to know why the parliamentary procedures intended to prevent charges being levied on the public without their consent have turned into a rubber stamp, he should read the Communist Manifesto.

And if he really wants to understand the banking crisis, he could try reading "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas". Or, alternatively, just go on a bender for a few days.

Thank you, that is entirely my problem with books like it. It gives people a "gist" of Economics, which is worse than no knowledge at all. Economics is not a subject where having the "gist" of it is equivalent to having useful, applicable knowledge. It is more likely to lead to misinterpretations. Reinventing the Bazaar tackles the nature of microeconomics is a far more informative manner, and relies a lot less on kooky funeconomics.

Ardennes1944

Nudge

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

It gives people a "gist" of Economics, which is worse than no knowledge at all.

Thank you for a fine example of someone attempting to create a barrier to market entry where none need exist.

Anyone who finds your behaviour intriguing would find "The Undercover Economist" an interesting read.

Duke Leonal Felmet

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Thank you for a fine example of someone attempting to create a barrier to market entry where none need exist.

Anyone who finds your behaviour intriguing would find "The Undercover Economist" an interesting read.

Sure thing. Why not get someone to read the above title, then apply for my job as a risk analyst. After all, no barrier need exist, I'm sure the application will be well received.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

Sure thing. Why not get someone to read the above title, then apply for my job as a risk analyst. After all, no barrier need exist, I'm sure the application will be well received.

There's no indication that the OP wants to pursue a career as an economist. If he was, I'd guess he'd want to read more than one book.

However, your evident sense of vulnerability over your 'profession' is noted.

If he's looking for a third book after The Undercover Economist and The Communist Manifesto, I suppose he could do worse than pick up The Black Swan.

Duke Leonal Felmet

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

There's no indication that the OP wants to pursue a career as an economist. If he was, I'd guess he'd want to read more than one book.

However, your evident sense of vulnerability over your 'profession' is noted.

If he's looking for a third book after The Undercover Economist and The Communist Manifesto, I suppose he could do worse than pick up The Black Swan.

It doesn't matter how many coffee table economics books the OP reads, none of them will ever sufficiently inform him of how economies function. Whether you like to admit it or not, Economics is a very technical subject and cannot be learned by reading these books alone. One must study to at least masters level to have a grasp of it. So I am afraid your dreaded 'barrier to entry' does exist, just like a 'barrier to entry' exists in Theoretical Physics, and no matter how many Brief History of Time books that you consume, it will not provide you with sufficient applicable knowledge and is more likely to be misunderstood by the reader.

So, no matter how many snide remarks you make in your next post, rest assured that you are only fooling yourself and no one else. Everyone thinks they are an economist, these days...

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

One must study to at least masters level to have a grasp of it. So I am afraid your dreaded 'barrier to entry' does exist, just like a 'barrier to entry' exists in Theoretical Physics, and no matter how many Brief History of Time books that you consume, it will not provide you with sufficient applicable knowledge and is more likely to be misunderstood by the reader.

Do you have a Masters degree in Theoretical Physics? If not, how you know your comparison is apt? (Note that I'm not directly addressing the question of whether, in fact, the subject matter of economics is comparable to the physical sciences.)

I really can't see your problem and why you can't relate to the question posed. No-one is suggesting you'd be an expert in physics after reading one book. But its perfectly reasonable for someone to ask what single book might be worth reading on the topic.

Duke Leonal Felmet

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Do you have a Masters degree in Theoretical Physics? If not, how you know your comparison is apt? (Note that I'm not directly addressing the question of whether, in fact, the subject matter of economics is comparable to the physical sciences.)

I really can't see your problem and why you can't relate to the question posed. No-one is suggesting you'd be an expert in physics after reading one book. But its perfectly reasonable for someone to ask what single book might be worth reading on the topic.

It is apt because both subjects are technical and thus have automatic barriers to entry, just as all technical subjects do. This isn't Greek & Roman History here. If you doubt my comparison with Physics, why not ask in the their forum? Is reading a coffee table physics book sufficient to gain a useful understanding of how Black Holes work, or is that not possible without going through the paces of a degree? Is the gist more likely to mislead the reader?

You see, when I read Harford, I see the model behind the anecdotes in his story. Therefore, I truly see what he is saying. I can see the flaws in his analogies. I can see what has not been said. I can see where else it applies. The person with no formal education does not see that, unless Harford tells them. It's like reading only one historians viewpoint on WW2, whereas I have scoured the archives.

I don't know how else to put it. There are barriers to entry, if you don't see that then I'm afraid Harfords book may have misled you too.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

It is apt because both subjects are technical and thus have automatic barriers to entry, just as all technical subjects do. This isn't Greek & Roman History here.

While the physical sciences have found things are less physical than they'd like, your comparison of economics to physics in this context suggests you understand less than you think.

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

If you doubt my comparison with Physics, why not ask in the their forum?

IF I ever feel a need to establish if a person who has read one book on a subject can be said to know more than a person who has read none, then I think I'lL actually raise it on the philosophy forum.

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

You see, when I read Harford, I see the model behind the anecdotes in his story. Therefore, I truly see what he is saying. I can see the flaws in his analogies. I can see what has not been said. I can see where else it applies. The person with no formal education does not see that, unless Harford tells them.

I think you are confusing economics with Scientology.

The question (remember, there was a question) was for a single, good book on economics. My vote goes with Harford. A person just looking for a grasp of economics will find it there.

While I'm on, I would not recommend McWilliams. Any day now he'll be unmasked as Darth Quiff.

Duke Leonal Felmet

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

While the physical sciences have found things are less physical than they'd like, your comparison of economics to physics in this context suggests you understand less than you think.IF I ever feel a need to establish if a person who has read one book on a subject can be said to know more than a person who has read none, then I think I'lL actually raise it on the philosophy forum. I think you are confusing economics with Scientology.

The question (remember, there was a question) was for a single, good book on economics. My vote goes with Harford. A person just looking for a grasp of economics will find it there.

While I'm on, I would not recommend McWilliams. Any day now he'll be unmasked as Darth Quiff.

I grow weary of this. Go away.

fred252

I was looking at this as a jumping off point fellows. A gist is sufficient to start with.

As it happens the OP is a physicist now working in the area of business intelligence. I have to disagree with Duke Leonal Felmet in that a layman can certainly get a good understanding of, lets say quantum physics, if he/she is interested and reads the right book or books. I'm not saying that person should be allowed near any research work in the area but they should be able to grasp the theory. I think Duke Leonal Felmet puts too much stock in classroom education. In my line of business I come accross a lot of people of business studies/accoutning/economics backgrounds and it seems in some cases their education is more of a hindrance than a help.

i would hesitate to make any comparison between economics and physics. physics is based on theories which are very well supported by data and have never failed any competent empirical test. lets call them natural laws or facts. they are not open to interpretation. its pretty much black or white. there seems to be a lot more interpretation in economics i.e. theories that are not in-controvertibly supported by data. of course i'm sure there are exceptions.

Duke Leonal Felmet

*sigh*

I merely compared economics to physics because they both happen to be technical subjects, not because they are equally proficient at making predictions. This should have been obvious.

*sigh*

fred252

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

*sigh*

I merely compared economics to physics because they both happen to be technical subjects, not because they are equally proficient at making predictions. This should have been obvious.

*sigh*

*sigh*

and my point there was that they are not equally proficient at making predictions. not even in the same ballpark.

fred252

btw duke,

i saw your post re: paul sommerville on vincent browne. how bad was he? he's in my constituency.

Duke Leonal Felmet

fred252 wrote: »

*sigh*

and my point there was that they are not equally proficient at making predictions. not even in the same ballpark.

What has that got to do with me? Or was that addressed to someone else? Perhaps you hit the wrong quote button. I am merely comparing economics to any technical subject, I couldn't care less about the predictive nature of their respective models. It has nothing to do with my point. Absolutely nothing. Do you understand? Good.

Duke Leonal Felmet

fred252 wrote: »

btw duke,

i saw your post re: paul sommerville on vincent browne. how bad was he? he's in my constituency.

He seemed out of his depth on economic issues, and just slouched in his chair and tried to use 'argument from authority' cases to back his point. 'This guy won the nobel, so that means he is right and you are wrong' type of thing. He just seemed like a poster from boards.ie, rather than a potential TD. I cannot understand why people even mention him.

fred252

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

What has that got to do with me? Or was that addressed to someone else? Perhaps you hit the wrong quote button. I am merely comparing economics to any technical subject, I couldn't care less about the predictive nature of their respective models. It has nothing to do with my point. Absolutely nothing. Do you understand? Good.

sorry didn't read your comment properly...just scanned.

i guess my issue is with lumping economics and physics in the same category as "technical subjects". i don't really see economics as a technical subject and i really have a problem with economists stating things as fact when clearly they are not. this is why i want to read more in this area.

SBWife

I'd vote for an introductory Economics textbook such as Samulson's Economics or Mankiw's Principles of Economics both are expensive and probably worth getting from a Uni library if possible. Otherwise there's an Economics for Dummies or 50 Ideas You Really Need to Know. If you're interested in learning online plenty of US universities including MIT and Carnegie Mellon offer free introductory economic courses online.

Duke Leonal Felmet

fred252 wrote: »

sorry didn't read your comment properly...just scanned.

i guess my issue is with lumping economics and physics in the same category as "technical subjects". i don't really see economics as a technical subject and i really have a problem with economists stating things as fact when clearly they are not. this is why i want to read more in this area.

It is a technical subject, neither mine nor your opinion dictates whether it is or not. I know many people who attempted to climb the ladder and failed. I know many people who read pop economics books for breakfast, but know SFA about the subject, when pressed. The models are far from perfect, to be sure, but they do provide you with the tools for assessing information in a way that reading pop economics books cannot.

"But the models are flawed"

Yes, I just said they were. But if you study the models and understand them well then you will know their strengths, as well as their weaknesses. Given this, it can be easy to analyse any economic scenario. No amount of pop economics books will give you this skill. As I said, the books are more likely to lead to misinterpretations, such as when people misapply the concept of 'barriers to entry'.

SBWife

I think someone is confusing the idea of a technical subject with that of an exact science.

Economics is a technical subject in that it uses mathematical models many of which are quite complex, however, these intersect with an error term that is in part based on peoples emotional and psychological reaction to events. This means that the results of the models may not confirm exactly to conditions in the real world - it does not imply that the models are invalid just that they must be used with a certain amount of caution.

fred252

SBWife wrote: »

I'd vote for an introductory Economics textbook such as Samulson's Economics or Mankiw's Principles of Economics both are expensive and probably worth getting from a Uni library if possible. Otherwise there's an Economics for Dummies or 50 Ideas You Really Need to Know. If you're interested in learning online plenty of US universities including MIT and Carnegie Mellon offer free introductory economic courses online.

Thanks SBWife

I've seen free course notes online but nothing really coherent or substantial. Do you have any links?

Duke Leonal Felmet

SBWife wrote: »

I think someone is confusing the idea of a technical subject with that of an exact science.

Good holy god, give me strength... are you reading another thread and pressing reply in here by accident? What is wrong with people in this thread?

I am sitting here, trying to find a way to describe what I am saying in simpler terms. I have gone to great length and I seem to be failing. Perhaps it is my fault, maybe I am not being clear enough.

*takes a deep breath*

1) I am not saying economics is an exact science.

(Ok, that's about as clear as I can make that. Do you understand this. If not, do not continue.)

2) I am saying that economics is a technical subject.

(Right, going well so far. Now the next bit is tricky, so read it slowly.)

3) As far as my point goes, 1) is not required. All I need is 2).


If you made it to the end, congratulations! Now, I can only presume that people will respond to my posts, and not the strawman in their minds.

SBWife

Here's the Carnegie Mellon site (more econ Nobel prize winners associated with the department than any other uni) http://oli.web.cmu.edu/openlearning/forstudents/freecourses

And MIT
http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/economics/

fred252

SBWife wrote: »

Here's the Carnegie Mellon site (more econ Nobel prize winners associated with the department than any other uni) http://oli.web.cmu.edu/openlearning/forstudents/freecourses

And MIT
http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/economics/

Nice, I'll have a go at those.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

I grow weary of this. Go away.

I was weary of it too, until this happened:

fred252 wrote: »

As it happens the OP is a physicist now working in the area of business intelligence. I have to disagree with Duke Leonal Felmet in that a layman can certainly get a good understanding of, lets say quantum physics, if he/she is interested and reads the right book or books.

i guess my issue is with lumping economics and physics in the same category as "technical subjects". i don't really see economics as a technical subject and i really have a problem with economists stating things as fact when clearly they are not. this is why i want to read more in this area.[/QUOTE]Of course, you're right and no amount of redefining what 'technical subject' means gets away from it. At the end of the day, economics is more of an art than a science, sometimes hidden behind a wall of pseudo mathematics to give the whole thing an air of certainty.

But there is some genuine insight in the discipline, frequently in articles where the maths is kept firmly the back seat. Coase's article on the nature of the firm being an example that comes to mind.

Anonymous1987

Numerous posts have deleted and edited, posters are reminded to stay on topic and keep it civil and respectful.

fred252

damn, what did i miss?

fred252

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

But there is some genuine insight in the discipline, frequently in articles where the maths is kept firmly the back seat. Coase's article on the nature of the firm being an example that comes to mind.

thanks GCU Flexible Demeanour, i'll have a read of that.

Duke Leonal Felmet

Like I said earlier, if what you said is true, try apply for a job as an economist as a test. Simply explain that your ignorance of the models is irrelavent, given that it is all pseudo-science and that you have read The Communist Manifesto and have seen the links with todays world.

I'd say you be guaranteed a job, right away.

:-D:-D:-D

fred252

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

Like I said earlier, if what you said is true, try apply for a job as an economist as a test. Simply explain that your ignorance of the models is irrelavent, given that it is all pseudo-science and that you have read The Communist Manifesto and have seen the links with todays world.

I'd say you be guaranteed a job, right away.

:-D:-D:-D

who's that directed to?

i was talking about a starting point for getting a decent undersatanding of economics not a level of intuition required for work in the industry.

don't be a dingbat

Duke Leonal Felmet

fred252 wrote: »

who's that directed to?

i was talking about a starting point for getting a decent undersatanding of economics not a level of intuition required for work in the industry.

don't be a dingbat

My last post was deleted so I had to take a step back. I recommended a ton of great books, if you recall. No need to call me names, it's only the internet.

Anonymous1987

This thread is not going anywhere constructive. Posters should remember personal abuse is not tolerated. Posters should also refrain from trading personal antagonism and deal with the topic on hand. Thread closed.