[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 25 KB, 325x499, 41uJ6cGAprL._SX323_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14513455 No.14513455 [Reply] [Original]

Is this book good if I want to learn economics?

>> No.14513464

>>14513455
Most books you'll find on economics, this one included, are really discussing the political side of economics. If you want to start learning actual economics then go find some old college textbook.

>> No.14513469

>>14513464
What do you mean political side?

>> No.14513482

>>14513464
but thats what economics is

do you mean an accounting textbook so you know how that dude in vienna or wherever introduced debit and credit

>> No.14513502

>>14513455

It's good. Just be aware that Hazlitt was against the economic mainstream.

>> No.14513503

>>14513455
Yes

>> No.14513510

>>14513502
I intend to read other books, such as the wealth of natins will this give me a solid view?

>> No.14513541

>>14513482
nvm i guess theres supply and demand type stuff

>> No.14513544

>>14513541
but i think you dont need a textbook for that, khan academy might be sufficient

>> No.14514216

>>14513455
Microeconomics by Mankiw -> Macroeconomics by Case, Fair & Oster -> Math & Statistics -> Anything you want perhaps some non technical book like Adam Smith or Hayek

Advice: avoid Keynes, Sowell, cryptokiddies, ancaps, libertarians, communists

>> No.14514295

>>14513464
fpbp

>> No.14514703

ezra pound solved economics

>> No.14514719

If you want to learn economics you buy yourself a textbook used in a university economics course. Get one for microeconomics and one for macroeconomics.

Any other type of book will be filling your head with opinions while you are not proficient to understand the underlying argument and judge its value.

>> No.14514730

>>14513482
>but thats what economics is

You can't start learning about economics by lecturing other people about what economics is.

>> No.14514748
File: 35 KB, 576x471, 1558516779849.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14514748

>>14514719
This. OP is heading right to mount stupid.

>> No.14514806

It's OK, but a bit dry.

>> No.14514961

>>14514719

Textbooks are full of opinions too.

>> No.14515017

>>14514961
They are the ones with almost no bias, just empirical evidence or they report what most economists say

>> No.14515047
File: 81 KB, 682x600, 1557842803988.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14515047

>>14515017
>economy
>empirical evidence
My fuckin sides.
Economy is voodoo. the only useful economic knowledge is microeconomy, as it works with certain data.
macroeconomy is as much science as reiki or crystal powers

>> No.14515094

>>14515047
You clearly don't know the contribute of neuroscience, psychology, game theory , statistics, math and data analysis to economics

>> No.14515115

>>14515094
oh fuck, you are one of those guys who thinks economy is a big deal and it influenced every kind of human knowledge and not the other way around, right?
please tell me so I can give up now on arguing with you and your senseless bullshit.

>> No.14515151

>>14515115
I just thinks it's interesting... Are you one of those guys who identifies himself as an "humanistic thinker" and likes to read books from lit charts pretending to know how the world works from literature, right? please tell me so I can give up now on arguing for real with you and your midwit pseud bullshit

>> No.14515185

>>14513455
Take a course, read a textbook. Ignore meme books, ignore Marx.

>> No.14515190

>>14515151
>I just thinks it's interesting...
what is interesting anon? because you didn't say "economy is interesting" but that it influenced on thing like neuroscience and psychology.
>Are you one of those guys who identifies himself as an "humanistic thinker"
nope, But I do know enough to tell you are full of bullshit if you really think economy can influence neurosciences.
who told you lies anon? did you read some smart-ass academic making some relation betwen...idk...maybe the cerebellun and the nikkei?

>> No.14515199

>>14515190
I said that neuroscience contributed to economics...

>> No.14515203

>>14515199
being your point that, as it sucks from other sciences it makes it one of them?

>> No.14515220

>>14515203
I don't reject the social science aspect of economics I said that some branch are totally rigorous like statistics, optimization theory, psychology behind consumer choice etc.

>> No.14515253

Yes, this one is really good

>> No.14515268

>>14515220
psychology behind consumer behaviour would be psychology. you are studying a certain behaviour, not economy.
your most valid point would be statistics, and you didn't exploited it for some reason. as statistics born from the state raising taxes (among other things).
take this advice. Science is a new religion an everybody wants to have his part on it. I have read retarded stuff relating neurosciences to comunism or trying to validate ideas with scientific principles.
so far, I haven't found any science on economy, and the only valid economy I saw is micro for the reasons I stated

>> No.14515284

>>14515047
literal the opposite. unless you talk about non-modern macro which is micro with "natural" rates.
micro, and I mean rational agent maximizing his marginal utility, is based on hypothetical axioms which have nothing to do with real human social behavior - or like you say voodoo

>> No.14515318

>>14515284
I see, I might not be clear enough about what I call macro and micro and we have to agree on this point if we want to discuss about the matter, so I'll try.
I call microeconomy the kind of economy you do at home or in a business. it works with certain data. how much I have, how much I owe and so.
I call macroeconomy the kind of economy that works with uncertain data, as in markets.
to put an example, a balance would be micro; Technical analysis would be macro.
the last would be a good example of what I call voodoo

>> No.14515332

>>14515318
Macro is aggregated micro

>> No.14515344

>>14515318
that's accounting, and econometrics, which is without theory indeed

>> No.14515350

>>14515344
then I'm wrong, basing my opinions on wrong/insufficient data and I won't argue anymore.
I do still thinking economy is not a science by any means.

>> No.14515424

Anyone know a good book for the history of economics? I'm sure one may be better for prior to the 20th century and another one for after, considering the biases, but either way I know nothing about economics.

>> No.14515434

>>14513455
Is reading the constitution a good way to learn government?
It’s a preface.

>> No.14515494

>>14514216
Based

>> No.14515822

>>14515094
t. useful idiot impressed by graphs and math, which he doesn't even understand fully

>> No.14515965

Economics is fucking bullshit. The whole idea of utility theory is refuted by Ole Peters. Also, the first thing that they teach you in econ class is the idea of comparative advantage, which can be refuted by common sense. Comparative advantage is the reason why everyone thinks that global trade is only a good thing, fucking imbeciles. Don't waste time on economics it has nothing to do with reality.

>> No.14516045

Guys do you know that micro is an abstraction and that it's impossible to calculate every aspect of human psychology right?

>> No.14516120

>>14515965
>Don't waste time on economics it has nothing to do with reality.

I disagree. being economy the main religion of our time, knowing about it is relevant to understand the world you live in.

>> No.14516242 [DELETED] 

>>14513455
>Is this book good if I want to learn economics?
I'm about halfway through it. First poster sums it up real fuckin' nicely quite honestly.

This is the kind of book that uses no formulas, has no graphs, and is just a wall of text to give you an idea of what economics in general is about. For example, chapter 2 explains over ~2 pages of a hypothetical situation basically what an opportunity cost is. This slide I found online in 15 seconds explains the exact same concept but in "textbook" terms.

I'd recommend the book; it gives you a good idea of what economics really is in layman's terms. But don't expect to "learn" economics from it: really, all you'll be doing, is being introduced to concepts that you cannot apply yourself, because you are never taught to, as only the idea behind it is explained.

If you are a dumb fuck and/or honest to god don't mind reading "simple" stuff because you recognize everyone has to start somewhere, there is a book published by DK called "The Economics Book" that is really quite engaging for newer students. If you want something a bit harder, there's plenty of options, but one I've been reading lately is "Money and Government" by Robert Skidelsky, which goes through the whole thought of how economies evolved over time and why they were wrong in the long run (e.g. what was the gold standard, how did it work, and why was it abandoned?) Both books (including the one in your OP) can be found very easily online in PDF format if you visit one of the sites in the sticky, and should give you an idea of whether or not they are worth your time.

>> No.14516254
File: 96 KB, 728x546, ppf-powerpoint-16-728[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14516254

>Is this book good if I want to learn economics?
I'm about halfway through it. First poster sums it up real fuckin' nicely quite honestly.

This is the kind of book that uses no formulas, has no graphs, and is just a wall of text to give you an idea of what economics in general is about. For example, chapter 2 explains over ~2 pages of a hypothetical situation basically what an opportunity cost is. This slide I found online in 15 seconds explains the exact same concept but in "textbook" terms.

I'd recommend the book; it gives you a good idea of what economics really is in layman's terms. But don't expect to "learn" economics from it: really, all you'll be doing, is being introduced to concepts that you cannot apply yourself, because you are never taught to, as only the idea behind it is explained.

If you are a dumb fuck and/or honest to god don't mind reading "simple" stuff because you recognize everyone has to start somewhere, there is a book published by DK called "The Economics Book" that is really quite engaging for newer students. If you want something a bit harder, there's plenty of options, but one I've been reading lately is "Money and Government" by Robert Skidelsky, which goes through the whole thought of how economies evolved over time and why they were wrong in the long run (e.g. what was the gold standard, how did it work, and why was it abandoned?) Both books (including the one in your OP) can be found very easily online in PDF format if you visit one of the sites in the sticky, and should give you an idea of whether or not they are worth your time. If you want to actually "learn" economics, and not "learn about" economics, do what first poster said and just pick up literally any textbook on the topic.

>> No.14516676

>>14513510
Wealth of nations is old and long. Worth the read but there are much newer and more accessible and complete books out there for an overview of modern economic thought

>> No.14516861
File: 127 KB, 1000x731, basedsowell.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14516861

>>14513455
read Sowell