3 ms·

not books, but would anyone here recommend that he try the lecture videos at KhanAcademy.org? Or entries in Wikipedia?

hga 16y ago
Economics is so fantastically politicized---in a more honest age, it was called political economy---you'd have to apply your maximum filters for Wikipedia to be of any use. Probably not the best choice for a beginner.
- mkramlich 16y ago
  Agreed. I think it is because unlike with the real/natural sciences, in Economics it's very easy and common to commit fallacies like cherry picking and making deductions based on incomplete information or emotion-based assumptions. Folks that grew up with a silver spoon in their mouth (relatively speaking) are more likely to be anti-government/pro-market, and folks who want to make a living by running a business tend to not like taxes and not like external regulation of their activities, even when their activities would cause harm or impose external costs on their fellow citizens (pollution, etc.). Actually I'd argue that Wikipedia may be a more neutral resource than many books because with books there can at times be only 1 person who blesses it with authority whereas most economics articles are vetted by the community and endlessly critiqued and debated over by editors, with both Pro and Con factions wrestling over the fairness and objectivity of each sentence. A book can often just be an attack piece or propaganda tool.
  - hga 16y ago
    The problem is that Wikipedia articles will have "random" biases and omissions. When you read a book by one author it's at least likely to be consistent in its bias. E.g. the latest example I've found of this, which I grant you is relatively obscure compared to more prominent and no doubt well fought over articles, is the one on the Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS), which had one of the largest Chapter 9 bankruptcies in history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Public_Power_Supply_System http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Public_Power_Supply_... All that financial history has been airbrushed out; unless you notice the categories at the bottom, check out the Further reading or the right External Link or sample the article's history you'd have no idea about what was a rather major bit of economic history, rated as one of the three both large and notable Chapter 9 bankruptcies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapter_9,_Title_11,_United_States_Code#Notable_Chapter_9_bankruptcies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapter_9,_Title_11,_United_Sta...

hga 16y ago

Economics is so fantastically politicized---in a more honest age, it was called political economy---you'd have to apply your maximum filters for Wikipedia to be of any use. Probably not the best choice for a beginner.

mkramlich 16y ago
Agreed. I think it is because unlike with the real/natural sciences, in Economics it's very easy and common to commit fallacies like cherry picking and making deductions based on incomplete information or emotion-based assumptions. Folks that grew up with a silver spoon in their mouth (relatively speaking) are more likely to be anti-government/pro-market, and folks who want to make a living by running a business tend to not like taxes and not like external regulation of their activities, even when their activities would cause harm or impose external costs on their fellow citizens (pollution, etc.). Actually I'd argue that Wikipedia may be a more neutral resource than many books because with books there can at times be only 1 person who blesses it with authority whereas most economics articles are vetted by the community and endlessly critiqued and debated over by editors, with both Pro and Con factions wrestling over the fairness and objectivity of each sentence. A book can often just be an attack piece or propaganda tool.
- hga 16y ago
  The problem is that Wikipedia articles will have "random" biases and omissions. When you read a book by one author it's at least likely to be consistent in its bias. E.g. the latest example I've found of this, which I grant you is relatively obscure compared to more prominent and no doubt well fought over articles, is the one on the Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS), which had one of the largest Chapter 9 bankruptcies in history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Public_Power_Supply_System http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Public_Power_Supply_... All that financial history has been airbrushed out; unless you notice the categories at the bottom, check out the Further reading or the right External Link or sample the article's history you'd have no idea about what was a rather major bit of economic history, rated as one of the three both large and notable Chapter 9 bankruptcies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapter_9,_Title_11,_United_States_Code#Notable_Chapter_9_bankruptcies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapter_9,_Title_11,_United_Sta...