Economics Questions

Re: Learning Economics

chloe732 — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 05:24:34 GMT

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.

Re: Learning Economics

Le Master — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 07:17:49 GMT

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.

Re: Learning Economics

Jonathan M. F. Catalán — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 07:07:44 GMT

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.

Re: Learning Economics

Jonathan M. F. Catalán — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 07:05:38 GMT

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.

Re: Learning Economics

chloe732 — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 05:37:32 GMT

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.

Re: Learning Economics

thelion — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 05:33:08 GMT

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).

Re: Learning Economics

Individualist — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:57:59 GMT

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?

Re: Learning Economics

Andrew Cain — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 01:05:14 GMT

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.

Re: Learning Economics

Caley McKibbin — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 00:51:57 GMT

I would have demanded a refund and threatened to take that story to the media.

Re: Learning Economics

thelion — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 00:38:20 GMT

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.

Re: Learning Economics

Caley McKibbin — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 00:32:14 GMT

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.

Re: Learning Economics

nirgrahamUK — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 17:55:06 GMT

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.

Re: Learning Economics

Individualist — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 17:21:23 GMT

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.

I want to be an expert in freedom. If a thorough education in economics is necessary, I'll try to get one. I'm just trying to find a way to reduce the number of things I'll have to study. I just wasn't sure how much economics I'd have to study for a good grasp of history and politics. I guess it's pretty much agreed here that I need to study a lot?

Re: Learning Economics

Prateek Sanjay — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 09:53:28 GMT

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.

Re: Learning Economics

Solid_Choke — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 09:23:52 GMT

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.