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.
filc: 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)? 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.
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)?
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.
on economics; aside from Hazlitt's one lesson, which is great for a feeling of 'applied' and the overturning of the most prevalant fallacies,
some great intro's available on Mises.org are Thomas Taylors introduction; (which is like a whistle stop tour; including Calculation argument!!!)
and David Gordons intro, which is great into to the foundations of praxeology; which you will need to ground your thinking. it'll catch you up on Menger;/value theory etc.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
There was actually a survey of economists that found 29% arguing that minimum wage does not cause unemployment, proving once again that no stupidity is beneath the economics profession.
I had a professor who, I quote said, "Profit is the interest extracted from the working class by the parasitic capitalist class." Which is to say he doesn't know what interest, or profit is.
He taught first-year micro and macro, if I remember correctly. Imagine his students failing intermediate Micro: they did, with that kind of teaching.
I would have demanded a refund and threatened to take that story to the media.
nirgrahamUK:and David Gordons intro, which is great into to the foundations of praxeology; which you will need to ground your thinking
A great book which I am reading right now. I have already learned so much from the first chapter alone.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
I think a good way to study economics would be to study the development of economic thought over the course of human history. Do you agree? What would be some good books to study in this regard?
A great book to start is Edwin Cannan's Review of Economic Theory. It was the 2 year course given by Cannan in the LSE. Buy it; only about 20 dollars at places, even if its rather old.
Then, begin with de Condillac 1776 book (google it), then move on to Gossen's 1854, after that Mises' Human Action and Theory of Money and Credit.
Read Bastiat's Economic Harmonies and Carl Menger's Principles of Economics while reading the above.
Then, read the books I've listed in this thread, earlier, at your own pace. They are fun reading.
Most importantly, read Brutzkus in the 1935 edition. Its worth it. Your university library will have it (else its $2000).
I would not waste time studying Keynesian economics. Instead, study free market economics (Austrian economics) on your own. The Mises Institute is the center of free market thinking. Read Thomas Wood's "Meltdown". He is a historian, and his manner of thinking and writing might be an inspiration to you. If you become a journalist, you will be alone in defending the free market, but you will be right. Good luck.
"The market is a process." - Ludwig von Mises, as related by Israel Kirzner. "Capital formation is a beautiful thing" - Chloe732.
I am an economics major at San Diego State University. I have learned more in the past six months while reading books like Huerta de Soto's Money, Bank Credit and Economic Cycles than in all my economics classes put together. In fact, I have been better prepared than any other student just because of my reading of Austrian economics. In fact, these books have made me understand Keynesian theories far better than my professors (which is sad, because I do not understand them as well as many other people on these forums). The only reason I am doing the major (along with political science) is because I want to work in the field. Otherwise, it would be a waste of my time.
chloe732: I would not waste time studying Keynesian economics. Instead, study free market economics (Austrian economics) on your own.
I would not waste time studying Keynesian economics. Instead, study free market economics (Austrian economics) on your own.
I disagree. The study of Austrian economics has actually pushed me to study Keynes' theories (I am currently researching his idea of the bancor, presented at Bretton Woods) to better understand them and be able to refute them. I think that you can only really consider yourself knowledgeable until you know all the perspectives on the issue.
Jonathan M. F. Catalán:I disagree. The study of Austrian economics has actually pushed me to study Keynes' theories (I am currently researching his idea of the bancor, presented at Bretton Woods) to better understand them and be able to refute them. I think that you can only really consider yourself knowledgeable until you know all the perspectives on the issue.
I agree, Jonathan. I mean, look at how knowledgeable Laughing Man is because he's studied Marxism so in depth. It really helps to have a full grasp on what you oppose. And it allows you to demolish anyone's argument coming from that angle.
Jonathan M. F. Catalán: chloe732: I would not waste time studying Keynesian economics. Instead, study free market economics (Austrian economics) on your own. I disagree. The study of Austrian economics has actually pushed me to study Keynes' theories (I am currently researching his idea of the bancor, presented at Bretton Woods) to better understand them and be able to refute them. I think that you can only really consider yourself knowledgeable until you know all the perspectives on the issue.
Excellent point. It is essentional to understand Keynesian theory in order to refute it.