The first one is, more-or-less, but all three of them deal with a very exclusive topic: business cycle theory. It would make more sense to read Man, Economy, and State.
I’m still curious as to why anyone would recommend titles like this over the first three I listed.
It may not be a bad idea to read the most obvious “beginner” book - an introductory microeconomics textbook. I especially liked this one: http://www.amazon.com/Microeconomics-The-Mcgraw-Hill-Series-Economics/dp/0077247167/ref=pd_sim_b_1.
You can skip the section on macroeconomics if you wish.
Austrian trade cycle theory is merely the logical extension of its capital and monetary theory, which are the only elements that are exclusively “Austrian” (Austrian capital/monetary theory are usually dealt with in such books). Basic knowledge of elementary economics is obviously required before tackling such subjects. If you’re entirely ignorant, then you should start with introductory economics textbooks, which you can find at any school store or online.
Also, and this is more of a response to Dave’s post, both Hayek and Mises go to great lengths defining terms and explaining them, and this is especially true for Hayek’s Monetary Theory and The Trade Cycle, which was meant to be an introduction to his trade cycle theory (a beginners guide, so to speak). He puts forth a more advanced analysis in Prices and Production and an even more advanced analysis in The Pure Theory of Capital.
So yes, all 3 books are for beginners (in AE, not economics in general). Contra-Keynes and Cambridge is just a great read, and it clearly highlights most of the major differences between “Austrian” economics and Anglo-American economics.
Um.
It was the first sentence of this entire thread.
Organic chemistry is merely the logical extension of chemistry focusing on carbon-based compounds, which are the only elements that are exclusively “organic”. […]
So yes, books on organic chemistry are for beginners (in the study of living organisms, not chemistry in general).
If you’re entirely ignorant, then you should start with introductory economics textbooks, which you can find at any school store or online.
I’m wondering about this. Is it not possible to learn economics enough to understand the world around us and current events, starting with AE from scratch, skipping altogether other works? I of course don’t mean on the level of being able to critique an econometric paper filled with differential equations, because that’s witch doctory anyway.
After all, will not the mainstream works be full of stuff that has to be unlearned anyway?
I think MES has the standard economics stuff in there somewhere.
Of course we’ve discussed this before (here, and I’m sure other places).
I think one would do just fine (great, actually) by simply working through the typical beginner texts up through the advanced of say, the contents of the Mises Store.
But I would say there would be value to be had (that would largely be missed) in an introductory microeconomics textbook. Lessons for the Young Economist does a great job of giving a comprehensive overview of the whole of economic science (for the beginner, anyway), and of course includes some of this information. But I think the details included in a typical micro textbook would be largely helpful.
There are of course classics in the Austrian tradition that will cover this (e.g. Principles of Economics, MES…in fact there’s even a course by Rothbard “Introduction to Microeconomics” and a paper “An Austrian Foundation for Microeconomic Principles” [PDF]), but I get the feeling the format and arrangement of a typical modern day textbook would be useful.
That being said, there is actually a course in the Mises Academy coming up…Austrian Microeconomics. I’d be interested to see the syllabus.
At the very least, learn basic college Macro and Micro 101 first before going into any heterodox opinion.
There is simply no reason to start with Austrian Econ as step 1.
Of the books you listed:
End the Fed and Road to Serfdom are not econ books
Theory of Money and Credit, Great Depression, etc are but you can not start there.
Human Action or Man Economy State (of the two I would suggest HA) would be the definitive starting point.. You may want to warm up with Gene Callahan’s Economics for Real People first though.
Not explicitly Austrian, but, I’d start anyone on “Basic Economics” by Thomas Sowell, where his goal in writing the book is to create a near-textbook level text without all the math or graphs or charts. The entire book has one chart, as I recall, and no graphs or math. And his goal is to put econ in perspective with its effects on the economy at large. Really a wonderful read, and he followed it up with “Advanced Economics” in the same style.
For an absolute beginner, I recommend “Why Government Doesn’t Work” by Harry Browne. It was the first libertarian book I read. That was nine years ago.
At 800 pages in the 4th edition, I’d hope he was able to do that.
I believe you mean Applied Economics.
Yeah, Applied Economics, not ‘Advanced’. Always seem to misremember that one. 5 seconds of googling :\
I show his 2nd edition of Basic at some 448 pages? And Applied hits 352.
And?
I guess the part I was directly responding to was:
I don’t know anything about organic chemistry so I can’t directly respond to this, nor do I see how this is particularly relevant to what I’m discussing. I think you were trying to be clever here, and I’m not sure you succeeded. Either way, my only point was that once you understand Austrian capital and monetary theory (which, again, are the only things that are exclusively Austrian) then you can simply deduce the ramifications of a market rate of interest that deviates from the natural rate (which is what the Austrian theory of cycles is all about).
I guess the part I was directly responding to was:
I don’t know anything about organic chemistry so I can’t directly respond to this, nor do I see how this is particularly relevant to what I’m discussing. I think you were trying to be clever here, and I’m not sure you succeeded. Either way, my only point was that once you understand Austrian capital and monetary theory (which, again, are the only things that are exclusively Austrian) then you can simply deduce the ramifications of a market rate of interest that deviates from the natural rate (which is what the Austrian theory of cycles is all about).
I guess the part I was directly responding to was:
I don’t know anything about organic chemistry so I can’t directly respond to this, nor do I see how this is particularly relevant to what I’m discussing. I think you were trying to be clever here, and I’m not sure you succeeded. Either way, my only point was that once you understand Austrian capital and monetary theory (which, again, are the only things that are exclusively Austrian) then you can simply deduce the ramifications of a market rate of interest that deviates from the natural rate (which is what the Austrian theory of cycles is all about).
Esuric, I would certainly hold much of Austrian monetary and capital theory could be considered distinctively “Austrian”, but would you not say the same is true of their approach to value and price theory? It seems to me there are most definitely distinct analytical differences in the approach to price theory taken by Menger and Bohm Bawerk( and later Mises and Rothbard), to the approach taken by the Walrasian school originated by Walras and Pareto. It seems to me much of the controversies and confusions in disputes between Neoclassicals and Austrians concerning issues of uncertainty and profit and loss, notions of equilibrium and economic calculation ultimately stem from deeper seated analytical differences in the distinct price (and value) theoretic approaches of the 2 schools. Capital theory and monetary theory, while being immensely important, I would therefore rank as less important than Price theory to introduce to a beginner, and allow them a gateway to see the distinctiveness of the Austrian approach before delving deeper into capital and monetary theory.
Unfortunately, I don’t think there are any succinct, crystal clear expositions devoted to Austrian price theory alone. Rothbard comes closest in Man, Economy and State, but even his exposition of Bohm Bawerk’s marginal pairs price theory is incomplete.
Books on Economics:
http://www.vforvoluntary.com/books/economics/
I’ve decided to recommend Principles of Economics (Menger) over MES or Human Action. You can now also read it online here: http://www.vforvoluntary.com/principles-of-economics/ .
Nielsio, what’s your reason?