4 ms·

I've recommended to plenty of people that they read "Principles of Macroeconomics" by Greg Mankiw, but weirdly enough no one has. Maybe I just didn't urge urge

I've recommended to plenty of people that they read "Principles of Macroeconomics" by Greg Mankiw, but weirdly enough no one has. Maybe I just didn't urge urge urge them enough? Actually, if you believe economics hasn't changed since the 18th century you really should read it. Who knows, maybe you'll even reevaluate your understanding of economics.

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
Principles is the exact wrong thing for someone casually interested in economics to read. It's the proliferation of the belief that Econ 101 is "real econ" when it's anything but. You can get an undergrad degree in Econ and still have no real understanding of how the economy works. Sure you'll have a simple model but that model will fail over and over again because it's far too simplified. That's why I recommend Economism. It's inoculation to Econ 101.
- cgmg 9y ago
  Please enlighten us as to how your non-mainstream model is superior. The burden of proof is on you. Also, your claim that economics hasn't advanced since the 18th century is absurd and betrays an ignorance of the subject.
  - mrout 9y ago
    ECON101 isn't 'mainstream economics'. It's incredibly simplified economics.
  - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
    >Also, your claim that economics hasn't advanced since the 18th century is absurd and betrays an ignorance of the subject. Perhaps it was worded poorly but if you reread you can actually see that's the opposite of what I said.
- kevinnk 9y ago
  I don't really care if people understand "real econ" (whatever that means) but most people haven't even progressed past a folk understanding of economics. Having at least a cursory understanding of why, e.g., price controls lead to scarcity is really a requirement to create an informed criticism of any part of Econ 101. To get to that point, reading through an intro level textbook is exactly what is needed.
  - TheOtherHobbes 9y ago
    Of course absence of price control mechanisms can also lead to scarcity through bubble mechanisms - which can be tamed through taxes. Ask anyone trying to buy a house in Vancouver. Does Mankiw mention this in his "requirement for informed criticism"?
    - stupidhn 9y ago
      >Does Mankiw mention this in his "requirement for informed criticism"? Are you honestly asking whether Mankiw discusses supply/demand price effects in his textbook?
    - kevinnk 9y ago
      Prices are high because demand is high and supply is low. Yes, that gets covered.
  - stupidhn 9y ago
    >but most people haven't even progressed past a folk understanding of economics There are a few subjects where the average HN denizen thinks they know more than the professionals by having read a mainstream book or two. Economics is one. You can identify these people when they ask, 'How come economists couldn't predict the crisis?'
  - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
    I just don't buy that. Despite being less popular in academia there is absolutely an abundance of politically motivated libertarian/austrian/chicago school blogs, videos and books out there. Many intelligent young people fall down this rabbit hole early and never try to get out. Econ 101 books are only going to solidify their belief that they know economics. Something that challenges the simplified view of economics, that asks when the assumptions of some of these models ever actually apply, about what happens when you start dropping assumptions, about frictions and so on is what's needed. I looked around a bit to find the best article I could from my perspective, maybe you could read it and tell me what you think? https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-11-24/most-of-what-you-learned-in-econ-101-is-wrong https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-11-24/most-of-w...
barrkel 9y ago
Mankiw is a bit of a right wing nutjob, though orthodox in the Chicago school. I wouldn't recommend his books, despite their prevalence in academia.

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago

Principles is the exact wrong thing for someone casually interested in economics to read. It's the proliferation of the belief that Econ 101 is "real econ" when it's anything but. You can get an undergrad degree in Econ and still have no real understanding of how the economy works. Sure you'll have a simple model but that model will fail over and over again because it's far too simplified. That's why I recommend Economism. It's inoculation to Econ 101.

cgmg 9y ago
Please enlighten us as to how your non-mainstream model is superior. The burden of proof is on you. Also, your claim that economics hasn't advanced since the 18th century is absurd and betrays an ignorance of the subject.
- mrout 9y ago
  ECON101 isn't 'mainstream economics'. It's incredibly simplified economics.
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
  >Also, your claim that economics hasn't advanced since the 18th century is absurd and betrays an ignorance of the subject. Perhaps it was worded poorly but if you reread you can actually see that's the opposite of what I said.
kevinnk 9y ago
I don't really care if people understand "real econ" (whatever that means) but most people haven't even progressed past a folk understanding of economics. Having at least a cursory understanding of why, e.g., price controls lead to scarcity is really a requirement to create an informed criticism of any part of Econ 101. To get to that point, reading through an intro level textbook is exactly what is needed.
- TheOtherHobbes 9y ago
  Of course absence of price control mechanisms can also lead to scarcity through bubble mechanisms - which can be tamed through taxes. Ask anyone trying to buy a house in Vancouver. Does Mankiw mention this in his "requirement for informed criticism"?
  - stupidhn 9y ago
    >Does Mankiw mention this in his "requirement for informed criticism"? Are you honestly asking whether Mankiw discusses supply/demand price effects in his textbook?
  - kevinnk 9y ago
    Prices are high because demand is high and supply is low. Yes, that gets covered.
- stupidhn 9y ago
  >but most people haven't even progressed past a folk understanding of economics There are a few subjects where the average HN denizen thinks they know more than the professionals by having read a mainstream book or two. Economics is one. You can identify these people when they ask, 'How come economists couldn't predict the crisis?'
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
  I just don't buy that. Despite being less popular in academia there is absolutely an abundance of politically motivated libertarian/austrian/chicago school blogs, videos and books out there. Many intelligent young people fall down this rabbit hole early and never try to get out. Econ 101 books are only going to solidify their belief that they know economics. Something that challenges the simplified view of economics, that asks when the assumptions of some of these models ever actually apply, about what happens when you start dropping assumptions, about frictions and so on is what's needed. I looked around a bit to find the best article I could from my perspective, maybe you could read it and tell me what you think? https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-11-24/most-of-what-you-learned-in-econ-101-is-wrong https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-11-24/most-of-w...

barrkel 9y ago

Mankiw is a bit of a right wing nutjob, though orthodox in the Chicago school. I wouldn't recommend his books, despite their prevalence in academia.