I’m a senior in highschool and I’m currently beginning my semester on Macroeconomics. I’ve been thinking about buying and reading Man, Economy, & State and Human Action but I was worried I wouldn’t understand much of it yet. I’ve read several of Rothbards work not that much of Mises. I’ve got a pretty good understanding of the Austrian Business Cycle but now so much how the gold standard would work. I know the philosophy and rational behind the Gstandard though. So I’m wondering if I should hold off from Reading Man, Economy, & State until I’m done with Macro?
You should do fine: it was originally conceived as a textbook, and I (with I suppose a few months at most of haphazard reading of mises.org for an economics background) just plowed comprehendingly to within 100 pages of the start of Power and Market.
Start with more principled economics. Henry Hazlitt stuff is good. Articles are good, but unless you have more of a formal understanding of economics, I think reading major works is largely fruitless.
I don’t really have the same appreciations that most people here do for Rothbard as an economist though, so I’d suggest Human Action over MES. I just question whether or not Human Action has a study guide too.
Henry Hazlitt’s “Economics in one Lesson” is the best intro. Read that first, then read Man, Economy and State. Then read Human Action. If you read Human Action first, you will almost certainly give up.
BTW, any course in mainstream macro will be of no help with Man, Economy and State. In fact it will be just the opposite. If you fill your mind with mainstream macro it will make MES more difficult.
Niccolo, I should’ve qualified my response with regard to Garrison’s work - it’s excellent if you’re into macro. But yes, it’s an advanced piece of work and not a good starting point. As for Human Action, it has a study guide IIRC, but unless you have a sound philosophical background, it’s much more difficult to read than MES. So I agree with Leonidia. I’m not sure what would make you think Rothbard wasn’t a good economist, but he was definitely easier to read than Mises. Others have suggested to me that I go with Reisman first (which is controversial because of his modifications to Austrian theory), but I’ve decided to leave him for later, perhaps after HA even.
I second the idea of reading Hazlitt first. I don’t consider myself of the Austrian school but between “Basic Economics” by Thomas Sowell and “Economics in One Lesson” by Henry Hazlitt you should have a decent platform to start “thinking in economics”. Also if you want something less serious but more fun you should check out “The Economic Naturalist” by Robert H. Frank. It has you applying economic principles in everyday life only after a few pages. If you don’t understand any of the terms used in the books just search for it here.