Good Books Regarding Economics?

[wuwei]

[ QUOTE ]
I just thought that most stuff was based on statistical analysis.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then you have a lot to learn [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

As others have said, Krugman's books are very good. I like the older stuff, Peddling Prosperity is a good read.

If you're interested in taxation, Taxing Ourselves by Slemrod is as good as it gets.

Freakonomics just came out. I haven't read it, but it looks very interesting.

The Wordly Philosophers (Heilbroner) is the standard intro to the history of economic thought - very readable.

[ericslagle]

Is there an essay from an economist that argues against this baby sitter story? Specifically, I'm know there are economists that don't think there should be a central bank. I assume these people would argue that the baby sitting story problem is more complex. Initially I think there is a problem of price setting too. A unit of baby sitting cost one coupon. But some couples may be willing to baby sit at a lower rate, say, 3 units for 2 coupons because they have more free time and less money to go out anyway. Then when they do go out they could prefer to take their kids to Moneymaker's house for some poker lessons but they have to pay 3 coupons for one unit (since they are getting lessons from a world champion).
I'm not much of an economist, but I feel like I have a decent understanding of economics. I do think that most problems that are solved by price setting (i.e. changing the cost of borrowing coupons due to seasons and not letting the price float) could usually be solved "better" by the "invisible hand".
Let me know what you think.

[IronDragon1]

[ QUOTE ]
I just thought that most stuff was based on statistical analysis.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most of the scholarly stuff (articles in the journals, quite a few papers) tend to be based on statistical analysis but most of what is being recommended-and what you'll read so long as you don't foray into the ivory tower-are based on take their basis from qualitative evidence.

[Self Made]

For non-economists I recommend the first economics book I've ever read, Common Sense Economics, by John Pugsley.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...s&n=507846

I read it in the 70s, as a teenager, and came to understand inflation, something that I think 99% of even politicians didn't understand at the time.
Later, in college, I took three or so economics classes. I remember thinking in one that if you read the text very carefully, it did explain inflation. But the class didn't stress it and 99% of students probably missed it.
College economics classes just don't cover practical stuff like inflation and taxes too well in my opinion. The exception may be trade barriers, which pretty much all economists agree are bad, and can explain reasonably well. Economists seem to love useless theory, not the valuable study of how to increase prosperity, which really is quite simple.

[SossMan]

Keynes said it best:

"In the long run, we're all dead".

Does the invisible hand eventually work? Yes. It has to. However, Keynsians argue that there are specific points in a business cycle (both peaks and troughs) in which a managed economy, while ineficient, reduces the extremes of the cyclical nature of the business cycle.

[gergery]

Economics should be called Assumptionomics

Old joke:

A Chemist, a Physicist and an Economist are trapped on an island. All they have is 1 can, which they must open to free the magic Genie who will grant their wish and get them off the island.

Chemist says, “Well, a hyperchlorite acid could get thru that, and that occurs naturally in the bark of that rare tree over there, so if we can just…” He continues for several minutes on how to create the appropriate acids.

The Physicist says, “Well, that can will open if we can generate the correct force per square inch on an appropriate fulcrum points. So if we just…” He continues for several minutes about the potential energy of rocks dropped from the top of cocoanut trees.

The Economist says, “Well, let’s assume we have a can opener…”