Is it really necessary for someone, like me, who does not want to become a professional economist to make "Economics" a major part of his studies (in college or elsewhere)? It seems to me that it shouldn't take too much study to decide whether or not a free marker is truly the most efficient system.
How much study of economics do you recommend to one who is going into the profession of history/journalism? How much is needed to have a good grasp of political theory and the self-ownership proposal?
Vitor:Read some Bastiat and and Hazlitt "One Lesson" and you will make more sense than 95% of the mainstream economics.
This. If you want to actually understand things that are happening/have happened, continue private study such as reading what is on this website. Unless you want/need an economics qualification for job prospects, there's no need for formal study.
Read some Bastiat and and Hazlitt "One Lesson" and you will make more sense than 95% of the mainstream economics.
Individualist: Is it really necessary for someone, like me, who does not want to become a professional economist to make "Economics" a major part of his studies (in college or elsewhere)? It seems to me that it shouldn't take too much study to decide whether or not a free marker is truly the most efficient system. How much study of economics do you recommend to one who is going into the profession of history/journalism? How much is needed to have a good grasp of political theory and the self-ownership proposal?
Don't think of it as studying economics. Think of it as studying freedom. If you ever want to defend your standpoint and hold your weight you'll study up on freedom as much as you can. If you don't ever intend on disputing freedom with people than I could see why you wouldn't worry about it.
Though on a personal note, I would recommend studying up as much as you can. In the fight for freedom we are not the leaders and the more widespread knowledge power we have the better.
In college you won't be learning economics, just as studying under a witch doctor how to exorcise evil spirits will not teach you modern medicine. What they teach is some fairy tale.
The place to learn economics is right here, and for free! And of course, you need only study till you feel you know enough for your needs.
For a historian, this place is also a gold mine, with lots of important hard to find stuff.
I don't know what political theory is, nor what self ownership proposal is, so someone else will have to answer that one.
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
You are right. Economics is essentially useless for anything but politics. As a profession it is crock. What respectable person would want to be a professional economist?
The important thing is that you seek an actual job, as opposed to crunching numbers at a bureau. I'm an economics B.S. later this year, but I have work and publications in material science, for instance; I'm not going to seek jobs in crunching numbers in government positions.
Remember Mises' distinction, in Human Action:
1rstly. A consultant economist is a consultant, a writing economist a writer, a philosopher has a day job, a banker is banker, an investor an investor, a teacher a teacher, a researcher a researcher, and so on.
2ndly. A "professional" economist, on the other hand, is someone whose job presupposes "policy" is the answer to everything, because a "professional" economist's job is to suggest "policy." No unbiased answers can come from a "professional" economist, as opposed to someone who works AND writes in economics.
Individualist:How much study of economics do you recommend to one who is going into the profession of history/journalism? How much is needed to have a good grasp of political theory and the self-ownership proposal?
If you are a historian then you should have a working knowledge of all the other social sciences including a knowledge of two foreign languages.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Adam Frost: Vitor:Read some Bastiat and and Hazlitt "One Lesson" and you will make more sense than 95% of the mainstream economics. This. If you want to actually understand things that are happening/have happened, continue private study such as reading what is on this website. Unless you want/need an economics qualification for job prospects, there's no need for formal study.
Individualist:I don't want to only hear one side of the argument. What's a good way to quickly learn all the major economics viewpoints (each presented in the words actually used by the view's adherents)?
There is no easy way out of this. You have to read. Lots. Thats the only way I can figure.
Individualist: I don't want to only hear one side of the argument. What's a good way to quickly learn all the major economics viewpoints (each presented in the words actually used by the view's adherents)?
I don't want to only hear one side of the argument. What's a good way to quickly learn all the major economics viewpoints (each presented in the words actually used by the view's adherents)?
It is impossible to learn this material quickly. If you plan to refuse to participate unless the process is quick, just quit now.
If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.
It will take about a year of ready about 300 books. ~half are on this site. Rest are on Online Library of Liberty. Some must be bought, or are very rare:
I'll list these, of the last category, since your into history:
This is good business histories.
George Selgin's: Good Money. Buy it.
David Landes': Revolution in Time. Rare.
This outlines an exact replica of today's crisis: banks, governments, fiat money, and expectations of bailouts.
David Landes': Bankers and Pashas. Rare.
These show what totalitarian economic planning has done in the non-western world.
Karl Wittfogel's: Oriental Despotism. (Actually the title is misleading, as he goes from China to other societies; it's a joke on Marx's misuse of the term.) Very rare book, however. Very powerful.
Ettiene Balaz': Chinese Civilization and Bureaucracy is a winner.
Boris Brutzkus: Economic Planning in Soviet Russia. Very rare, but written while Mises wrote on economic calculation.
Victor's Suvorov's (Vladimir Rezun's): Icebreaker, Inside the Soviet Army, etc. Very rare, except in Russian. But very powerful, and since then, many historians have agreed with him. Great counterpart to Mises' Planned Chaos. Most new stuff on topic is in Russian, so you'll need that to read it. But for your purposes it'll do.
These are theory:
Hayek et al: Collectivist Economic Planning. Very rare.
David Landes': What do Bosses Really Do? This is article, Landes's response to an incredibly idiotic essay by an economic historian in his department. Quickly break all historical myths advanced since 1970's by pro-socialist American historians.
Yves Guyot's essays.
John Craig's: Remarks on Political Economy. Rare.
Hermann Gossen. 1983 translation. Great translation, but skip the long intro, because the buddy of the translator dislikes Menger enough to twist interpretations. Very rare.
These are histories written by people living under communism:
Jung Chang's: Wild Swans.
Nien Chang's: Life and Death in Shanghai.
Anatoly Kuznetov's Babi Yar. Very rare. Soviet Union border 1917-1960. Definite companion for ready any economic comparison of Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. Most powerful account on the list of life under these regimes. Read after Boris Brutzkus.
Claim rational ignorance then. No one will think less of you. The division of labor shows that we cannot all be experts in the study of freedom or economics. Just remember what Rothbard said however whenever you feel you need to espouse to some random idea.
Murray Rothbard: It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.
It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.
To me a historian is basically someone who explains the past using theory from the social sciences. You don't have to be an expert economist, but knowing the basic principles is essential. I would also suggest studying some sociology and psychology as well.
"I cannot prove, but am prepared to affirm, that if you take care of clarity in reasoning, most good causes will take care of themselves, while some bad ones are taken care of as a matter of course." -Anthony de Jasay
Formal study of economics is very mathematical and full of graphs and charts. There is absolutely nothing wrong with math and diagrams. But they only serve to further confirm things you could have already understood through basic reasoning.
Everyone knows that minimum wage laws cause shortage, putting this diagram to show it is only redundant.