Good, Unbiased and Simple Introductory Economics Text?

Post Reply New Topic

That is why I recommend it no one should be "taught" the pseudo-science of maths based economics macro or micro.
they are batting 0/1000 on prediction because the axioms they are based on are dubious at best.
(and this is from a Anthropologist/Applied mathematician <human behavioral economist>)
Modern Economics is basically (using a medical analogy) in the leaches and Arsenic stage of development.
I think we need at least 20 more years of experimental work before we even dare to venture an axiom.
All the work of everyone Nash to Arrow to Friedman is hogwash and hocus pocus.
and if I left anyone out remind me and I will say and them too.

Well... understandable, but I think the lines of the debate need to be recognized, even if they are questioned. Even further, I don't think that the axioms are completely useless, even if they are radically insufficient. I mean, game theory is simply reasoning about purposive agents, and while people aren't really there, I don't think it is invalid to use it as a method to understand people, particularly given that some positive response to incentives is going to occur simply out of the clumsy attempt to gain that reward.

Except it does not work the nash equalibrium is never anywhere close to the answer found by experimental economists
when using human subjects. (although strangely enough it does work on ducks and genetic code and a myriad of other agents
that are less "purposive" then humans.) humans are not rational (enough) or self-interested (enough) for it to work.
anyway as soon as you start adding delta values to accommodate actual human behavior you find the noise is stronger than the signal. Bah Humbug I say.
That is why a intellectual history of the great minds and concepts is more illustrative.
In the same way it is better to read the overview and general theories of the medieval doctors then actually learning how to
apply a mercurial suppository to correct someones choler or heaven forbid actually following that prescription.

The problem here though is that psychological data doesn't determine the full range of human behavior. Human behavior is modifiable, although not endlessly so, through institutions and cultural forces.(and both of these can be influenced by economic theory) It is correct that human beings likely need more than economic theory to understand human behavior, and most human beings have more than human behavior. However, when understanding large scale division of labor, economics is valuable. I am not arguing that behavioral economics and other similar things are irrelevant, only that they cannot be held to act as the entire story, and it is a finding that in certain cases, the behavior of individuals does alter away from the naive reactions of people in behavioral economic tests. (For example the endowment effect goes down with experienced traders.)

The problem with economics is that it is a bunch of very rough observations and anecdotes about generalised human behaviour. It is not actually a 'proper science'. Pretty much every time you try to boil it down to a mathematical equation along comes a new scam to break it.

If you make an assumption in your model of economics based on the observation that at no point in history has the property market across the entire US crashed at the same time, guess what happens a few years later?

If you read Marx, his solutions to the 'problem' suck just as every other economist's answers suck but he lays out the problems beautifully. The overwhelming majority of economic texts simply brush the problems under the carpet or flat out ignore them which is why Keynes gets away with 'in the long we are all dead'.

Does anyone want to buy a tulip bulb?

and to boot it is ridiculous to apply calculus to anything economic.
there is not a single truly continuous function or even a function of any kind other then the
I-just-pulled-this-function-out-of-my-ass sort in the economic world.
But we make policy based on this mumbo-jumbo, and worse yet through the world bank and the IMF we force struggling countries to implement our Voodoo (no offense to Haitians).
Until we can arrive at actually dependable and predictive axioms we should put the proofs and slide rules away.
before more people get hurt by our hubris.

Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell.

Right, I've seen the reviews. My major worry is just that I know Sowell and his readers are right-wing, so it's hard for me to figure out his presentation. So, like someone may say "Sowell smashes communism", but... I don't know what they mean when they say that.