Good book?

[Thunder]

Hello, I know basically nothing about economics to be honest. And I wandering if anybody could recommend anything NEUTRAL that would be good for someone new to read about economics. Thanks.

[gla22]

Probably read more than one book. Read Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith and read a few by Marx. Capital if you want something long and painful, the grundisse if you like yourself a little more.

[Hit The North]

You mean, "Capital if you want something long and painful, the grundrisse if you're a real masochist."

Start with "Value, Price and Profit": http://marxists.architexturez.net/archive/marx/works/1865/value-price-profit/index.htm

Trotsky also cherry-picked key extracts from Capital Vol 1 and compiled them in a book called "The Essential Marx" which is well worth reading: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Essential-Dover-Books-Western-Philosophy/dp/048645116X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1219111653&sr=1-1

[leftist manson]

Hello, I know basically nothing about economics to be honest. And I wandering if anybody could recommend anything NEUTRAL that would be good for someone new to read about economics. Thanks.
Hi comrade,
It depends on what sort of economic education you need. If it's really really basic stuff that is general and that is within the context of modern 'neo-classical' theory (supply and emand etc.) then i'd propose reading up on intro to micro books (Not sure if varian has his line out but he's a really simple writer. LOL make sure you don't get his 'intermediate microeconomics' book but the very first intro one:)). This would give you a rough idea of how the basic things like prices and quantity produced in the context of modern production (post-industrial lol) work. The thick marxian political economic texts would make more sense afterwards.Moreover 'neo-classical' theory is quite 'neutral' and 'objective' (no doubt it's a justification of the existing order but in this case it won't matter that much.).If you want a slightly left analysis go for Larouche's book and Israek kirner's for the rightist analysis(not read them myself but friends did so)

[Thunder]

Hi comrade,
It depends on what sort of economic education you need. If it's really really basic stuff that is general and that is within the context of modern 'neo-classical' theory (supply and emand etc.) then i'd propose reading up on intro to micro books (Not sure if varian has his line out but he's a really simple writer. LOL make sure you don't get his 'intermediate microeconomics' book but the very first intro one:)). This would give you a rough idea of how the basic things like prices and quantity produced in the context of modern production (post-industrial lol) work. The thick marxian political economic texts would make more sense afterwards.

Thanks. This is exactly what I was asking about.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I hereby recommend The Economic Doctrines of Karl Marx (http://www.marxistsfr.org/archive/kautsky/1903/economic/index.htm) by Karl Kautsky. :)

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I don't think you'll find any neutral works. Adam Smith and Karl Kautsky do good jobs, respectively.

[ComradeRed]

Hi comrade,
It depends on what sort of economic education you need. If it's really really basic stuff that is general and that is within the context of modern 'neo-classical' theory (supply and emand etc.) then i'd propose reading up on intro to micro books (Not sure if varian has his line out but he's a really simple writer. LOL make sure you don't get his 'intermediate microeconomics' book but the very first intro one:)). This would give you a rough idea of how the basic things like prices and quantity produced in the context of modern production (post-industrial lol) work. Uh no, that's not how "modern production" works...in fact, it's been mathematically demonstrated that the vulgar supply and demand approach doesn't work since 1925!

Sraffa proved the inconsistencies of vulgar economics in a number of papers: "On the Relation Between Costs and Quantity Produced" (http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/texts/sraffa/sraffa25.pdf) is one, "The Laws of Returns under Competitive Conditions" (http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/texts/sraffa/sraffa26.htm) is another.

The only reason one would want to read vulgar economics is to criticize it, which unfortunately requires quite a bit of math.

It's best to avoid such works for as long as possible, since they're based on circular reasoning and inconsistent models.


The thick marxian political economic texts would make more sense afterwards. Hardly.

If you want to understand Capital, study Ricardo and Smith first.

If you're trying to figure out how the economy works, studying Neoclassical economics won't help. In fact, it'll only hurt.

The track record, by the way, of Neoclassical economics' predictions is atrocious...it's a statistical anomaly that Neoclassical predictions are correct!

The empirical track record for, e.g., the Labor theory of value is better. It's around 95% accurate. The 5% error can be chalked up to human error in gathering data. (See The Empirical Strength of the Labour Theory of Value (http://homepage.newschool.edu/~AShaikh/labthvalue.pdf) for technical details)


Moreover 'neo-classical' theory is quite 'neutral' and 'objective' (no doubt it's a justification of the existing order but in this case it won't matter that much.). "Capitalism is the best system that will ever be" is hardly "neutral" or "objective".

It's just blatant apologism for capitalism!

"The ruling ideas are the ideas of the ruling class themselves" you know...


If you want a slightly left analysis go for Larouche's book and Israek kirner's for the rightist analysis(not read them myself but friends did so) Or meek, or Mandel or anyone with half a brain in their head....

[xhcn]

Should Moral Sentiments be read first, in order to understand Wealth of Nations, or no need?

[benhur]

You mean, "Capital if you want something long and painful, the grundrisse if you're a real masochist."

Start with "Value, Price and Profit": http://marxists.architexturez.net/archive/marx/works/1865/value-price-profit/index.htm

Trotsky also cherry-picked key extracts from Capital Vol 1 and compiled them in a book called "The Essential Marx" which is well worth reading: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Essential-Dover-Books-Western-Philosophy/dp/048645116X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1219111653&sr=1-1


Is this particular work of Trotsky's available for free download?

[Junius]

Should Moral Sentiments be read first, in order to understand Wealth of Nations, or no need?

No. It is an ethical essay, not an economic text. Certainly don't need to read it to understand Nations. And 300 pages on ethics doesn't particularly make a fun reading.

[KC]

Should Moral Sentiments be read first, in order to understand Wealth of Nations, or no need?

It isn't necessary, but it's a good supplement. Really, all you need to understand before reading Wealth of Nations is the context in which it was written. It's also important to realize that Smith has been somewhat iconified in bourgeois economics and has largely been distorted and misrepresented in order to turn him into a "deity". Many highschool and college texts on Smith's economic theories are completely messed up. Keep that in mind and you will find Wealth of Nations really eye opening and intriguing.

Also keep in mind that Marx drew a lot from Smith in his earlier years, although he's always leaned more towards Ricardo's theories. He quotes Smith extensively in his 1844 Economic Manuscripts, and always held him with high regard.

[bailey_187]

edit: the book i recommend then were shit

[The Grapes of Wrath]

Alec Nove - The Economics of Feasible Socialism


Great book. I'm happy to have finally "met" someone who has read it.

TGOW

[piet11111]

Trotsky's the essential marx is a good book.

[Kassad]

I know you said neutral, but if you're looking to understand the opposite of what we stand for, read Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt. It's one of the worst books I've ever read, but it helps you understand what we're up against.

[swirling_vortex]

Jared Bernstein writes in a clear manner. I'm actually reading one of his books now: http://www.amazon.com/All-Together-Now-Currents-Paperback/dp/1576753875/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1230323487&sr=8-2

I didn't read this one, but this book seems to be the intro. to economics you may be looking for: http://www.amazon.com/Crunch-Squeezed-Unsolved-Economic-Mysteries/dp/1576754774/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1230323487&sr=8-1

[vgold715]

Very cool article you got! I just added you to my bookmarks!________________________________________ ___________________________Runescape Money (http://www.vgoldzone.com/runescape-buy-cheap-gold-231.html)Runescape Gold (http://www.vgoldzone.com/runescape-buy-cheap-gold-231.html)Dofus Kamas (http://www.vgoldzone.com/dofus-buy-cheap-gold-32.html)

[rararoadrunner]

Greetings comrades!

I for one would heartily recommend anything in the illustrated "For Beginners" series, especially "Marx," Marx' Capital," "Capitalism," "Socialism," and "Economists."

Beyond that, I offer "History of Economic Thought" by EK Hunt: definitely comprehensive, definitely Marxist, will give you an excellent grounding (it's what got me interested in Pierro Sraffa's Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities, my effort to understand which, in turn, motivated me to write A Theory of Industrial Imbalances and Investments: Sraffa's book is about 80 pages, and my work weighs in at a slender 50-odd with three appendices, tables, one illustration, but kinda like eating coughee grounds if one isn't yet solidly grounded in the history of economic thought).

Beyond that, I would offer that, after you read a couple of standard texts on microeconomics and macroeconomics, catch up, if you can, on development econ: sadly but predictably, capitalist universities and community colleges don't offer development economics in the lower division as they do micro and macro: they should, if they hope to respond to all three volumes of Capital!

[rararoadrunner]

On Leon Trotsky and Alec Nove:

1) Both good authors, mind, but I still tend toward the afmd. illustrated intros, followed by EK Hunt's history of economic thought: together, they leave one less likely to be blindsided by critics than do Trotsky or Nove.

2) Sometimes, both authors can be misleadingly simple in their formulations: this was a problem with the economics of Permanent Revolution, to which Lenin had to apply heavy doses of concrete analysis; in the case of Alec Nove, I know that, in opining that markets vs. central planning as being the only choices available to the Soviets, he totally overlooked the concrete experience of the Soviet of 1905 (q.v.) in achieving democratic socialist decision-making, at least over the short term (whether this could have proven viable over the long run is a seperate discussion, but Nove totally misses this experience altogether).

[bailey_187]

Market Socialism: the debate among socialists by Bertell Ollman, David Schweickart, James Lawler, and Hillel Ticktin