 |
Comments |
|
 | Wednesday, November 26, 2008 at 0:27:08 mst
Comment ID: #1
Name: Jason Head
I read Basic Economics many years ago. I remember it being clear and very similar to Hazlitt's __Economics in One Lesson__, only written slightly more in depth. It is an easy read; a good introductory book written to appeal to common sense. |
|
| Wednesday, November 26, 2008 at 0:37:51 mst
Comment ID: #2
Name: Jason Head
Oh, I forgot to mention that Robert Murphy has a book on Audible called _The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism_ which I found a pleasure to listen to. |
|
| Wednesday, November 26, 2008 at 0:49:56 mst
Comment ID: #3
Name: subzero
he is ok. he is able to communicate a lot of insights in simple terms, but he is from the chicago school, and like many economists from chicago, he is kinda messed up on the issues relating to central banking. also, his epistemology is bad, his approach is that the science is not perfect, so we make models and see how it works and use the best model we have so far, hoping that our model did not leave out too many important things. his approach differs from the austrian school, which is built on more solid axioms.
there are many people who have the strange ability of getting the right conclusions without having a good foundation, e.g. spinoza and thomas jefferson, and sowell seems to be like them.
if i were you, however, i'd read the austrians, particularly Menger's Principles of Economics*. reading bad economics seems like a waste of time.
(*) you can get it for free online.
p.s. if you want to read funny economics, read krugman's blog, the conscience of a liberal. it's truly hilarious. mises blog is pretty good, but i don't know if you can tolerate reading from libertarians. there are many good articles but there is also the ocasional anarcho-capitalist crap. |
|
| Wednesday, November 26, 2008 at 0:52:58 mst
Comment ID: #4
Name: subzero
Jason Head :
agreed, murphy is my favorite contemporary economist. |
|
| Wednesday, November 26, 2008 at 3:49:50 mst
Comment ID: #5
Name: Daniel
The good thing about Sowell is, that he definately has his facts down. He knows every statistic, every study and every weak point of every study. He gives tones of examples of every point he wants to make.
Reminds me of Milton Friedman (of whom he was a student, of course) in that respect. If you agree with an argument of him, you will love his arguments. If you disagree, well, you are scrued :-)
He is a very solid free marketer, but he also gives an overview of points, where governments could potentially improve the economies (if you have externalities e.g.), but he runs down the standard case of why they usually don't do it, because political pressure points in another direction.
BTW, his other writings outside of economics I really don't like. On social issues, he is pretty much a hardcore republican-conservative, which is awful.
So, pick up "Basic Economics" and see if you like it. If you do, you can look further into it, I'd say. |
|
| Wednesday, November 26, 2008 at 6:22:36 mst
Comment ID: #6
Name: KPO'M
E-mail: ka84796(at)comcast.net
I agree with the others that it is better to stick with the Austrian economists. I'm not sure what the views are towards George Reisman around here, but perhaps the writings of von Mises or Hayek may be a good place to start. The problem with the Chicago School economists is that they accept the need for a central planner (i.e. central banks). I heard on Bloomberg yesterday that when all is said and done, the Federal Reserve will hold $3 trillion of assets directly (including the $800 billion TARP-like program they announced yesterday with absolutely no accountability or need for approval by anyone). This is a crisis facilitated by central banks, GSEs, and the arbitrary bailouts of the past decade (starting with the bailouts during the Asian financial crisis in 1998). |
|
| Wednesday, November 26, 2008 at 6:28:53 mst
Comment ID: #7
Name: Billy Beck
E-mail: wjbiii(at)frontiernet.net
URL: http://www.two--four.net/weblog.php
I can easily think of at least a half-dozen others that I would read on economics before Sowell. Hell, before I would do that, I would go through Hutt on Keynes again. I should, in fact: it would be timely. |
|
| Wednesday, November 26, 2008 at 6:31:30 mst
Comment ID: #8
Name: Jasmine
E-mail: uslifemag(at)gmail.com
Diane,
Sowell's weekly columns are well-written from the layman's perspective. Also compared to most of the columnists one reads, he makes a lot of sense, and feels like a ray of sunlight in a dark room. I have found him especially refreshing in his stance on crime and self-defense, both and the domestic and foreign policy level. Personally I presently like (for the most part) on a consistent basis Sowell and Walter Williams weekly writings. However, I have found occasional issues when cost-benefit is discussed -then they go right off the cliff. It is when issues of morality come in that it becomes very murky with some of the Sowell books I have read. But like one of the other comments has said he does get it right most of the time. Both their columns can be read online at www.townhall.com.
I would agree with the comments that suggest go to the best source (my take). Depending on your purpose for reading Sowell, if it is understanding of pure Economics, there are lot of other books. It took me personally a long time to pick up Human Action by Ludwig Von Mises, because of the size and my thinking that economics would be so boring and drab. I would have done better for myself if I had picked up the book long back! There are some reservations to his writing (reviews for his books in the The Objective Newsletter explain those) -but as far as economics goes he is a Master Builder. Among some of the gems outside of economics I found his summary exposing and effortless refuting of "polylogism" in the initial chapters exhilarating. I am still trying to understand his business cycle explanation I will admit and trying to collect more relevant material to help explain how government intervention creates these horrendous cycles. Overall there are tons of gems all over the book. Armed with Objectivist philosophy there is a great deal to learn from his book if you have not read it as yet. Also it is like his Magna Opus -most of his writings on a variety of economic problems one can read in one book.
Happy reading,
Jasmine |
|
| Wednesday, November 26, 2008 at 7:09:55 mst
Comment ID: #9
Name: MPH
E-mail: harpers(at)sharpercommunications.com
URL: http://www.michaelhussey.com
Just reading the first hundred pages of Human Action was a life changer..."praxeology" |
|
| Wednesday, November 26, 2008 at 7:29:13 mst
Comment ID: #10
Name: champthom
Sowell's "Basic Economics" and Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson" are the two books that made me decide to go into economics. Really, Sowell is that good. |
|
| Wednesday, November 26, 2008 at 7:33:04 mst
Comment ID: #11
Name: Paul Revere
What ARE the views on George Reisman here? I'm just getting into his _Capitalism_ book and it's very promising so far. Anything I should watch out for? |
|
| Wednesday, November 26, 2008 at 7:43:33 mst
Comment ID: #12
Name: Tom Rowland
E-mail: trowland08(at)gmail.com
I am unable to say anything positive about Sowell's Basic Economics. You can find an online copy at Google Scholar and read his definition of economics as "the study of scarce resources that have alternative uses." This is far from satisfactory since it begins by assuming that wealth (a resource) is scarce, rather than limited, the supply of which can be increased to meet man's wants and needs through productive effort. His approach makes of man's wealth building a zero-sum game, which is reflected in the second chapter, on price, which begins with an equally mistaken assumption, that the task of an economy is to allocate scarce resources. This, of course, makes the unit of action not the individual but, as he says later in the chapter, "society as a whole." Reading pages 10-11 should call into question any belief that Sowell's approach is up to the task of defending Capitalism. Government can, according to Sowell, tweak the resources to solve market (capitalism's)distortions.
I would recommend anything by Mises. Human Action is daunting but worth the effort in the long run, though probably too much to deal with while you finish your dissertation. Haven't read Capitalist Manifesto or listened to the new CD recording of Economics (part 1) by Brian Simpson, available at the Ayn Rand Bookstore. But I do know this from having read Reisman (who I do recommend with the reservation that he is long-winded and equally daunting). Economics in One Lesson is very good on practice and is essential for anyone wanting to understand the unintended consequences of leaping to "solve" a problem before looking at the likely results (as in the current situation). Mises and Hazlett are both available online at no cost at mises.org.
Tom |
|
| Wednesday, November 26, 2008 at 7:58:39 mst
Comment ID: #13
Name: PMB
When I started learning economics not too long ago, I began with Sowell's book. The problem is that even his good economics is so badly misconceptualized, and mixed in with subtle errors, that in some ways it's more difficult reading than someone like Mises.
I definitely recommend Reisman, though. He's not perfect, but he's an excellent writer, with fascinating insights on every page. Be warned, though--his book is a mix of economic basics and very technical stuff I don't understand at all, so it's best read selectively.
I do *not* recommend Brian Simpson's book. It is basically Reisman's material condensed and poorly written. The courses are somewhat better. |
|
| Wednesday, November 26, 2008 at 8:10:43 mst
Comment ID: #14
Name: Tom Rowland
E-mail: trowland08(at)gmail.com
Opps! Failed to complete Reisman sentence, which should read: But I do know this from having read Reisman ...one of the central things to look for is the author's attitude toward Say's Law which states that "supply of a good creates its own demand" whic indicates the proper relation between production and the creation of wealth equal to the what is produced.
I would add that Chapter 13 of Capitalism by Reisman is particularly relevant to today's mess. |
|
| Wednesday, November 26, 2008 at 8:21:23 mst
Comment ID: #15
Name: Tom Rowland
E-mail: trowland08(at)gmail.com
PMB -- Just so I know which book you mean, is it Capitalist Manifesto by Andrew Bernstein or Markets Don't Fail by Brian Simpson that you wouldn't recommend. Easy enough confusion since I failed to give Bernstein as the author of CM and the sentence can be read as if Simpson were the author of both. Sorry. |
|
| Wednesday, November 26, 2008 at 8:56:44 mst
Comment ID: #16
Name: Greg Perkins
E-mail: greg(at)ecosmos.com
URL: http://ecosmos.com
I went through the entirety of Reisman's _Capitalism_ a few years ago. It was a serious and worthwhile slog that I would recommend to those interested in training in economics. As for Normal People, well, I would only recommend it for those with considerable mental stamina. :^) (Some of the later chapters' more technical aspects were beyond the time/effort I wanted to invest, and so I skimmed through aspects without much understanding.) Reisman strives for an integration of Austrian insights on an Objectivist philosophical foundation, drawing on neglected material from the British school and developing his own contributions from this base. The biggest caveat I would offer is methodological: he seems to slide into Rationalistic approaches to some of his philosophical groundings. Like with his moral case against fractional reserve banking that Diana wrote about a while back. Still, I think the book is a significant achievement, and for me it was well worth the investment. |
|
| Wednesday, November 26, 2008 at 8:57:56 mst
Comment ID: #17
Name: Justice
E-mail: y_feldblum(at)yahoo.com
Reisman is an economist allying himself with the Austrian school. That is the only school of economics alive today that has any tether to reality. Not only is it worthwhile to read only Reisman, but it is also worthwhile to read various other Austrian economists. Reisman stands out for his knowledge of Objectivist thought and for his ability to integrate the principles and laws driving complex economic phenomena with the principles and laws of philosophy.
I've read Reisman's Capitalism cover-to-cover, and I would absolutely recommend that everyone with an interest in economics do the same. He integrates the economics of capitalism well with reason and egoism, showing how they are intimately related, not just in principle but in innumerable practical ways as well (and vice versa with relating socialism etc. with fantasy and altruism). And he does it in a well-structured, properly ordered, hierarchical manner. If that is what you are looking for, it seems to me, there is no better author.
One catch to watch out for is that, partly due to him being economist first, philosopher second, he tends to stress the economics aspect of many issues, when in my opinion, and in the opinion of anyone who thinks that philosophy drives the course of history, the philosophic aspects should be stressed, with the economics arguments providing tangible proofs.
Another catch to watch out for is that, while some bits are juicy, other bits are dry. Reisman aims for precision and accuracy in everything he writes. His Capitalism is primarily a technical textbook, not a novel. It seems that the book was written for those with the patience of a professional economist, not for those with the patience of a layman. When you find yourself getting bored or falling asleep, simply skip to the next section. |
|
| Wednesday, November 26, 2008 at 9:39:18 mst
Comment ID: #18
Name: Doug H.
E-mail: radiotheatre[at]gmail.com
I own "Basic Economics", and it's helpful for the person who already lacks knowledge in that area. I recently finished "Knowledge and Decisions" which definitely lags at times, but was still worth the read even though the phrase "man's subjective values" is encountered some 60ish times. |
|
| Wednesday, November 26, 2008 at 10:54:54 mst
Comment ID: #19
Name: Kyle Haight
E-mail: khaight(at)alumni.ucsd.edu
URL: http://www.leftist.org/haightspeech
I'd definitely start with Hazlitt's _Economics in One Lesson_. There is an audio version of it on CD available from Amazon. Following that, and building on it, I'd actually suggest Reisman's first book _The Government Against The Economy_. The material there is incorporated into his _Capitalism_, but it stands well on its own and provides significant value, and it's a lot less expensive. No audiobook version of that, unfortunately.
I have a copy of Sowell's _Basic Economics_ on my bookshelf, but to be honest I've never found the time to sit down and read it so I can't comment on its quality. I'd also caution about Bernstein's _Capitalist Manifesto_. Not that it's a bad book -- it isn't -- but it focuses on the historical and moral case for capitalism, not the economic case. There's discussion of a few economic issues, but if you're seeking an understanding of the principles of economics this isn't the book you should be reading. |
|
| Wednesday, November 26, 2008 at 11:23:42 mst
Comment ID: #20
Name: Paul Revere
I'd like to mention that Reisman's book is available for free as a pdf from http://www.capitalism.net/ (his own website). Very generous of him! |
|
| Wednesday, November 26, 2008 at 11:33:12 mst
Comment ID: #21
Name: Jason Head
Also, pertaining to the current crisis, I can't help but recommend Rothbard's books _The Mystery of Banking_ and _America's Great Depression_. The first explains how central banking works and how it creates business cycles. The second is an historical analysis of how the Great Depression was created by the central bank. I know, I know...he was an anarchist libertarian, but when he's right, he's right, and these books are very accessible to the average reader. You can find free e-books of these at Mises.org. |
|
| Wednesday, November 26, 2008 at 12:58:28 mst
Comment ID: #22
Name: Doug A.
URL: http://ruleofreason.blogspot.com
I have not read the Sowell books that you listed, but I recommend not writing off Sowell books in general because "Marxism: Philosophy and Economics" is not that helpful. I think Sowell's books widely range in value and his book on Marx is definitely not his most interesting work. If I had to guess, his "Basic Economics" is probably worth reading for good, introductory economic arguments. However, like nearly all works of neoclassical economics, the philosophic foundation is surely way off. As is previously indicated in this thread, expect Sowell's definition of economics to include something about the allocation of scarce resources, expect a subjective theory of values, expect a cynical view of man, and the like. Sowell's "Economic Facts and Fallacies" might be just a book version of many of the arguments presented in his op-eds over the past five years. I remember reading several Amazon.com reviews that suggest Sowell is notorious for recycling a lot of old material into new books.
To provide context, I have read four of Sowell's books so far. "Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality?" is fantastic. "On Classical Economics" is pretty good to flesh out a few technical points on the ideas of the classical economists, but I recommend Mark Skousen's "The Making of Modern Economics" and "The Big Three in Economics" as much better places to start. Sowell's "Inside American Education" is very mediocre. It is not organized or written well. Most of the value is lies in the scattered factual content but he sours several of his decent observations with periodic Republican gripes over public schools encouraging students to be open-minded towards abortion rights.
I have also read "Marxism: Philosophy and Economics" a while ago. I remember liking it at one point, but in retrospect, I think Sowell spends too much time fixating on academic points (such as whether Marx was truly a labor-value theorist) as opposed to clearly illustrating essentials. Sowell also seems to have more admiration for Marx than most free market economists, so reading Sowell on Marx also lacks the moral outrage one might otherwise expect. |
|
| Wednesday, November 26, 2008 at 13:33:50 mst
Comment ID: #23
Name: Michael Labeit
E-mail: logician169(at)yahoo.com
URL: http://unit-perspective.blogspot.com
I want to echo Reisman's The Government Against the Economy. It is an execelent text on the market price system. |
|
| Wednesday, November 26, 2008 at 14:04:42 mst
Comment ID: #24
Name: Jim May
E-mail: seerak(at)gmail.com
"BTW, his other writings outside of economics I really don't like. On social issues, he is pretty much a hardcore republican-conservative, which is awful."
Oh yes. Of particular note in that respect is that he explicitly puts forth the misdefinition of "tabula rasa" that is implicit to both conservatism and the Left. This is the idea of "tabula rasa" as meaning that *human nature* itself is infinitely malleable.
The Left finds man wanting, and seeks to reform him in accordance with their (arbitrary) prior ideals -- that is, make him into something he is not. Conservatism also finds men wanting according to prior (religious) moral ideals, which in their "tragic" view of man includes built-in tendencies to immorality (Original Sin). Their approach is simply that society must "contain" and channel these tendencies to "socially desirable" outcomes.
Both of these are based on the failure to distinguish between human nature, and individual character. The former is a metaphysical given, and thusly immutable -- while the latter is the blank slate, clean of any innate ideas or "tendencies".
The likely motivation on the part of both the Left and conservatism for clinging to this misconception, is fear of the moral responsibility for the content of our character that comes with the power and freedom of self-authorship. |
|
| Wednesday, November 26, 2008 at 16:38:37 mst
Comment ID: #25
Name: PMB
Tom,
I was speaking of Brian's works. Andrew Bernstein's book, The Capitalist Manifesto, as another poster pointed out, isn't really a work of economics. (As history, it's pretty good.)
As an aside, for an economic understanding of this crisis, I definitely recommend Peter Sciff's "Crash Proof." He's heavily influenced by Austrian economics, and precited the crisis years ago.
(I'm about to read Rothbard's "America's Great Depression," which I've heard is a very accessible explanation of the Austrian theory of the business cycle. But his book against the Fed was NOT very good, so I'm not expecting much.) |
|
| Wednesday, November 26, 2008 at 16:42:37 mst
Comment ID: #26
Name: PMB
Sorry, should have been: Peter Schiff |
|
| Wednesday, November 26, 2008 at 16:54:22 mst
Comment ID: #27
Name: Kevin Clark
As I see it, Sowell is a Burkean Conservative. This means that, like Edmund Burke, Sowell believes that reason is limited and that it is a flaw to believe that humanity can create social and political structures solely by "unaided reason." Because reason is limited, man must therefore rely on the wisdom of evolved and developed institutions and traditions. It is these which provide a repository of human wisdom and must serve as the foundation for society. To me this really is nothing more than social subjectivism of a traditional (and often religious) variety.
Thus, Sowell ends up a watered down Social Conservative with a number of traditional views; anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, etc. This also undermines him on economics to a certain extent as he is anti-immigration, or as he would call it "anti-illegal-immigration." I have not read his books on culture and race to know how it affects him on those subjects. So I agree with the above comments that say that his beginners Economics book is a good though flawed primer on the subject and that there are better places to get the same material.
Jim May says: "The Left finds man wanting, and seeks to reform him in accordance with their (arbitrary) prior ideals -- that is, make him into something he is not."
I agree with this. The modern Left is dominated by a collectivism that worships "humanity". As such they want to remake the world into one large collective organ. This is the dead end of "secular humanism." They have replaced worship of God for worship of "the human race." The Right sees this and rightly rejects it but they want to replace it with a return to a traditionalist, religious, nationalist, or racist collectivism. The Left's collectivism is "universal" (at least in terms of rhetoric). The Right's collectivism is particular (nation, religion, race, etc.).
To a conservative, anyone who advocates building an ideal society by the use of reason-based theories is a "Utopian liberal" because following Burke and Russel Kirk they do not believe in the unlimited power of reason. So any system claiming reason as a foundation is dangerous to a conservative (Burke thought it was precisely this reliance on reason that led to the French Revolution); that goes for Communism or Laissez Faire. Incidently, I have seen a number of conservatives attack Rand for this very reason, because she believed in an ideal society based on reason. One particularly ugly conservative named Greg Nyquist has even called Rand a "Utopian Leftist" for this very reason.
The sad fact regarding Sowell is that he is somewhat contaminated by this worldview. It undermines him. But all that being said, he is still worth reading and overall a pro-liberty figure. |
|
| Wednesday, November 26, 2008 at 23:04:58 mst
Comment ID: #28
Name: Wayne
One valuable insight I got from Sowell and Sowell alone is an answer to the charge that the stock market is the same as a casino.
He pointed out the difference between betting and investing.
Betting takes something without much intrinsic risk such as a ball dropping into either a red or black spot and adds risk to make things more interesting.
Markets are about activities with natural risks such as growing crops which can be wiped out by unpredictable droughts and fires and floods and strikes. The markets seek to lesson the risk or spread it out.
His work is full of such common sense insight that you won't find elsewhere.
Yes, I recommend Thomas Sowell highly. |
|
| Thursday, November 27, 2008 at 9:47:39 mst
Comment ID: #29
Name: Per-Olof Samuelsson
E-mail: per-olof.samuelsson(at)swipnet.se
URL: http://www.nattvakt.com
I haven't read any of Sowell's books. (I generally enjoy the short pieces by him that are regularly published on CapitalismMagazine, though.)
As to Reisman's "Capitalism", this is simply the best book published on the subject of economics ever. (And I have read some other classics, including most of Mises' works.) But it is too heavy for beginners. If you are a beginner, I recommend you start out with "The Government Against the Economy". |
|
| Thursday, November 27, 2008 at 9:54:17 mst
Comment ID: #30
Name: Per-Olof Samuelsson
E-mail: per-olof.samuelsson(at)swipnet.se
URL: http://www.nattvakt.com
PS. You could also start with reading some of his blog posts. For example his latest one:
http://georgereisman.com/blog/2008/10/myth-that-laissez-faire-is-re ... |
|
| Thursday, November 27, 2008 at 17:46:39 mst
Comment ID: #31
Name: Will Sellars
Just started reading this free online economics book
http://mises.org/books/econforrealpeople.pdf
on Andrew Medworth's recommendation in his classy objectivist blog here (http://www.medworth.org.uk/)
On this book, Medworth wrote here (http://www.medworth.org.uk/?p=360); I quote:
"Let us begin, though, with economics. This is a subject I find rather intimidating, so I have recently been trying to brush up on the basics. For a long time, I have had on my bookshelf an unread copy of a book (amazingly available free online in full) entitled Economics for Real People, by Gene Callahan, which describes itself as a layman’s introduction to the economic thought of the free-market “Austrian school”, encompassing thinkers such as Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek.
Given the circumstances, I decided to pick it up: I was glad I did, because it is brilliant. Funny, lucidly written, and building up logically from the fundamentals, it helps the reader understand the principles of human action better than anything else I have ever read. Compared to the vague, confused, non-essentialised, and plain wrong coverage of finance flooding our newspapers, Callahan’s writing is like a breath of fresh air, and is much more relevant and enlightening on recent events, despite having been written back in 2002."
Enjoy |
|
| Friday, November 28, 2008 at 9:26:44 mst
Comment ID: #32
Name: Per-Olof Samuelsson
E-mail: per-olof.samuelsson(at)swipnet.se
URL: http://www.nattvakt.com
I've also put Callahan's book on my reading list - I just haven't had the time to read it yet.
And, btw, I think Medworth's article is one of the best I've read on the current financial crisis. |
|
| Saturday, November 29, 2008 at 11:23:21 mst
Comment ID: #33
Name: Jasmine
E-mail: uslifemag(at)gmail.com
Diane:
Lot of posts have suggested Reisman's opus. I will admit that I did not find the time to read his book cover to cover so far -ordering and paying for an actual copy will help(!) instead of trying to read the PDF provided by him at no cost. I am a physical book kind of person -audio on subjects that are new and from which I expect to learn a lot are hard for me to digest. With a book I can take it anywhere and more importantly go back to re-read sections to get better grasp of what author is saying. Also gives chance to underline, highlight, and pencil my own comments for understanding and being able to come back to later. Any way enough of what works for me and why!!
To get back to the subject of my two cents of recommendation:
I havc not read the pioneers of the Austrian school of economics Bohm-Bawerck, Carl Menger as yet, hopefully one of these days. Coming back to the many recommends for Reisman, I will still suggest read Von Mises "Human Action" (or listen to audios of the book which I believe are available) as well at least and any of his other smaller books like the "Anticapitalsitic mentality". Maybe it is a sense of life empathy that I have with him. But his intransigience in the face of every attack on Capitalism is phenomenal. He just does not budge -and vanquishes all collectivist arguments for economic undertakings with such ease and effectiveness. He is a master at work and an absolute pleasure to read. LIke I said in my earlier post-armed with Objectivist philosophy one is able to get over the small reservations to his writings.
Happy Reading or Listening!
|
|
| Monday, December 1, 2008 at 9:42:41 mst
Comment ID: #34
Name: Per-Olof Samuelsson
E-mail: per-olof.samuelsson(at)swipnet.se
URL: http://www.nattvakt.com
Jasmine: "[Mises'] intransigence in the face of every attack on Capitalism is phenomenal. He just does not budge - and vanquishes all collectivist arguments for economic undertakings with such ease and effectiveness. He is a master at work and an absolute pleasure to read. Like I said in my earlier post - armed with Objectivist philosophy one is able to get over the small reservations to his writings."
I, for one, agree wholeheartedly with this. (There are some things in Mises' philosophical framework one has to take exception to, e.g. his idea that ultimate ends are outside the realm of science or reason.) And I certainly did not praise Reisman in order to diminish Mises (Reisman himself would probably get mad at me, if I did!)
Another "must-read" if one wants to get acquainted with economics is Carl Menger's "Principles of Economics", the book that inaugurated the "Austrian" school.
Böhm-Bawerk is hard reading, but if one merely wants to get a taste of him, I would recommend his "Karl Marx and the Close of his System".
Murray Rothbard, too, is good reading, as long as he writes on economics. (As you probably all know, he is very bad on some other things.) |
|
|
Post Your Comment |
|
|
|
E-mail Diana Hsieh
Comments
