Social Question

Zuma's avatar

What are some good books would you recommend to help Americans get up to speed on economics?

Asked by Zuma (5908points) January 23rd, 2010

I am continually amazed by how little my fellow Americans know about economics. Most of what passes for economic knowledge is actually a kind indoctrination into “free market” ideology. I call it indoctrination because it tends to get people to embrace policies that are actually adverse to their interests.

For example, criticizing the government for “adding to the deficit” at a time when the country is in deep recession and in desperate need of stimulus spending shows a level of ignorance about economic principles that could be catastrophic if it were enacted into policy. Cutting back on government spending in order to “save money” during a recession can only deepen it. Yet many people have no idea why, and so they get suckered into voting for candidates and policies can only make things worse.

Many people seem to think that to understand economics you have to confront a lot of scary math, or that it is somehow irrelevant or unimportant to their lives. This is emphatically not the case. Economics and economic policy is right up there with religion and politics in the effect it has on people’s lives—and, if anything, even more so. Yet, most of what people know, or think they know, about economics is hardly worth mentioning.

Can anyone recommend any really good popular books on economics, or some aspect of economics (preferably not text books), that are well-written, engaging, and likely to help their fellow Americans to better understand economics, their economic institutions, and/or fiscal, monetary, trade, or industrial policy? If so, please tell us what the book is about and why you think it is important (and a link, if you can).

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

39 Answers

bigboss's avatar

economics, finance, accounting, all that good stuff is like a complete different language if one has not been in direct contact with it or voluntarily read about it and taught oneself…to me its hard to understand ANYTHING someone tells me about it. ugh i honestly wish i knew and could hold a conversation with an economist…

dpworkin's avatar

Das Kapital

janbb's avatar

Paul Krugman’s The Great Unraveling

ucme's avatar

Chicka Chicka 1*2*3 :by Bill Martin Jr & Michael Sampson. Even they could grasp the basics by reading that little number.

CyanoticWasp's avatar

Based on the wording of your question, I doubt if you’ll appreciate these suggestions at all, but I still have to try:

Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt
Free to Choose by Milton and Rose Friedman

john65pennington's avatar

A location is unknown. but, if you find these books you are looking for, be sure to send copies to President Obama and all the Washington politicians. john

RareDenver's avatar

I’ve not read it myself but have heard some good things said about The Armchair Economist: Economics and Everyday Life

jrpowell's avatar

I can’t think of any easy and fun to read books on econ that actually teach anything. Looks at Freakonomics

I know of some good textbooks that are pretty easy to read. In reality the ignorant aren’t going to read anything. The Republicans planted the (book readers = elite = bad) seed years ago.

ETpro's avatar

@Zuma Great question, and one I want to follow. You’ve already got some great suggestions above. I’d suggest @janbb and at least one of @CyanoticWasp‘s suggestions and decide for yourself. As @johnpowell says, Freakonomics is fun and easy reading with lots of pithy ideas. I will add one I intend to read, which might be the best starting point as it presents concepts in an understandable way more than arguing for one ideology or another. That is Naked Economics: Understanding the Dismal Science by Charles Wheelan.

If you’ll indulge me, this is a subject I’ve been thinking about. I disclaim any formal training or expertise, but in an age when people who NEVER read anything run for the highest offices in our land, why should won’t stop me from posting my rant? So here goes:

Who Loves Higher Taxes?

NOBODY likes paying high taxes. Take a public opinion poll if you must. But it would take some mighty fancy wording of the poll’s questions to get support for higher taxes at something better than 1%. Still, you can wreck an economy just as easily by setting rates too low as you can by setting them too high. So to decide where taxes should be set, we have to look not at opinion polls but rather at some recent history as it pertains to taxes.

The wealthiest 1% of Americans owned 25% of everything in the USA back in 1981 when Ronald Reagan took office. He cut the top tax rate from 70% to 28% in 3 slashes. George H. W. Bush succeeded Reagan and near the end of his first term he had to bump rates back to 31% because the government was hemorrhaging money. With his massive tax cuts for the rich, Reagan is the only President in US history to TRIPLE the National Debt.

Bush 41’s modest tax increase cost him a reelection to a second term. Nonetheless, Clinton further increased taxes to 39.6%. Even though that tax increase was a disastrous idea according to don’t-tax-just-spend Republicans, the nation’s economy actually did pretty well under it in the Clinton years. We enjoyed the longest peacetime boom in US history, the National Dent curve turned around and began shrink, and Bill left office, you may recall, with the largest budget surplus in US history.

George W. Bush ran on the promise he could slash taxes for the rich yet again, preserve the budget surplus Clinton had built up, and further reduce the debt. What actually happened? He blew through the surplus in less than a year, and doubled the National Debt to $11 trillion.

So who profited from all this tax meddling, and who lost? Where did the “transfer of wealth” really go? Remember, back in 1981 the wealthiest 1% had 25% of all the wealth of the USA in their hands, leaving 75% for all the rest of us to share? Well, today, the top 1% owns 50% of everything. The remaining 99% of us are left to divvy up the half that the wealthiest 1% doesn’t already own.

And still the corporatist puppeteers who pull the strings of new GOP howl about transferring wealth to the poor. We have more poor today, and they have to make do with less. Real income is down for the middle class. The top 1% have doubled their holdings in less than 30 years. They are now so rich and powerful they virtually control government and the media. But still it’s not enough. Now they want a flat tax so they can grab what little remains before they leave the newly created Banana Republic of America behind for a better neighborhood.

Sorry, but you can’t wring a tear for the rich out of me for the suffering of the rich. I’m doing my best to get rich. I’m a struggling small businessman who still believes in the best capitalism has to offer. But I’m not falling for the crock of baloney that maintains that America’s wealthiest families are an endangered species and Obama’s a Commie. Anyone who believes that either doesn’t understand how progressive taxes work to prevent oligarchy, or they are an oligarch or a water carrier for the same.

HungryGuy's avatar

“Free To Choose” by Milton and Rose Friedman

DrMC's avatar

@pdworkin Das Kapital is mentioned amongst economists as a pretty good coverage (surprisingly).

good work comrade

laureth's avatar

@ETpro – “Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society.” Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

@johnpowell – your point was that Freakonomics is a fun, easy read that doesn’t actually teach anything, right?

CyanoticWasp's avatar

@laureth, I’d say that Freakonomics is somewhat educational as well as entertaining. More the former than the latter, in fact.

ETpro's avatar

@laureth Dutifully copied to my list of favorite quotations. Thanks.

lordvader's avatar

Super Freakonomics is pretty new and also a great read.

Zuma's avatar

I was hoping that somebody had read something that they could enthusiastically recommend to their fellow Flutherites (as would be the case if we were recommending vampire novels). Unfortunately, I am afraid that the offerings above will add anything useful to one’s understanding of economics.

I’m afraid that the dense and ponderous Das Kapital is to antiquated to be of much use. Many of its central ideas (like the labor theory of value) have been discredited and pose traps for the unwary. Freakonomics, and Super Freakonomics, while amusing and readable, are mostly counter-intuitive vignettes based on some aspect of economic reasoning being turned on its head; they do not provide anything like a basic education in economics. All the rest of the offerings above are from a single discredited school of economics; namely, neo-liberalism.

Neo-liberalism (not to be confused with political Liberalism) is also known as “free market,” “trickle down,” “neo-con,” “laissez fair,” or the Chicago School of economics, after Milton Friedman who taught a virtual army of young economists, including—Krugman, Landsburg, and Hazzlit, et al. This is essentially the same “let er rip” economics that led to the Great Crash of 1929 and the anti-government, anti-taxation, anti-regulation, “conservative” ideology that has dominated Republican economic policy from Reagan to Bush II—policies that led directly to the great crash of 2009.

Everywhere that neo-liberal economics has been tried—Chile, Peru, Argentina, Brazil, etc.—it has been a complete and unmitigated disaster. Naomi Klein in The Shock Doctrine documents how the attempt to implement completely free markets (despite government-sponsored death squads “disappearing” any and all opposition) only succeeded in enriching a tiny elite at the top, while seriously impoverishing the rest of the country. But this is more of an economic history than a book on economics per se.

For a good, easy, brief, math-free introduction to economics, I recommend Thurow and Heilbroner’s Economics Explained or Thurow’s Zero-Sum Society.

Anything by Robert Kuttner, such as The Economic Illusion, which presents an alternative (or antidote) to neo-liberalism, Everything for Sale, and his latest book, The Squandering of America, which is about the capture of democracy by special interests, the resulting polarization of wealth, the deindustrialization of America, and why ordinary people need to rise up and take their government back from corporate interests.

William Greider is another great populist explainer of economics whose books include:

Who Will Tell the People, which I think tells you pretty much everything you need to know in order to be able to vote in your own economic interest, and to be able to evaluate the economic policies that politicians propose. His 900+ page Secrets of the Temple: How the Federal Reserve Runs the Country tells you everything you need to know about where money comes from, and how the money supply (monetary policy) is managed, and the history of our monetary policy (up to Volker). This is essential reading if you think Ron Paul’s ideas are interesting (i.e., his idea about making the Fed more transparent has merit, but his hard currency proposals would be disastrous). And his latest book, Come Home, America: The Rise and Fall (and Redeeming Promise) of Our Country looks like it is going to be my next economics book.

Also, John Kenneth Galbraith’s works are almost all timeless classics. I found The New Industrial State an excellent exposition of how technology fits into the picture, and how we need to have democratic participation in deciding our industrial policy, rather than leaving it to corporations (which have shipped our industrial base off to Mexico and China).

If people don’t educate themselves about economics, they can’t defend themselves from the the propaganda of special interests, the pandering and tomfoolery of politicians. Given the recent Supreme Court decision to allow corporations to make unlimited political contributions, we are about to be deluged with economic propaganda and self-serving nonsense like you have never seen. I don’t think people realize just how serious the situation is. If we don’t educate ourselves about economics, we risk losing everything—our country, our prosperity, and even our homes. If you don’t understand why, it’s because you don’t know enough about economics.

ETpro's avatar

@Zuma, Naomi Klein in The Shock Doctrine documents how the attempt to implement completely free markets (despite government-sponsored death squads “disappearing” any and all opposition) only succeeded in enriching a tiny elite at the top, while seriously impoverishing the rest of the country.

Silly soul, that’s exactly what it is intended to do. M<ost of those duped by it just don’t realize they are willing participants in their own mugging.

Zuma's avatar

@ETpro Yes, you and I know this, but what about all those poor schlubs who voted for McCain, who was proposing to cut back government and “regulation” while the world economy was circling the drain in November of 2008? Or those who are thinking of voting Republican because Obama has failed to meet their expectations? The trouble is that these folks are not only going to hell in a hand-basket, they are taking the rest of us with them.

ETpro's avatar

@Zuma I’m working on that. If you get any bright ideas, like Dumbo, I’m all ears. :-)

YARNLADY's avatar

Most people have no desire what-so-ever to learn about this issues. They would much rather complain and remain un informed. It’s way too much trouble to take responsibility for their own well being.

Besides, the book you are looking for hasn’t been written.

hiphiphopflipflapflop's avatar

Whatever you read, beware the plague bacillus that has infected the body of modern economics: the efficient-market hypothesis.

Zuma's avatar

@YARNLADY “the book you are looking for hasn’t been written”

Baloney, there are lots of good books on economics. Pick one, read one, and recommend one to a friend.

ETpro's avatar

@hiphiphopflipflapflop Fantastic link. VERY many thanks. Alas, I can only give you one lurve.

YARNLADY's avatar

@Zuma thank you for making me dig deeper. You are correct. This book is the one I was talking about, and it has been written. YAY

Zuma's avatar

@hiphiphopflipflapflop Yes, great article (if you already know the difference between the two schools of economics being discussed).

Certainly the “freshwater” Chicago School, free-market purists deceived themselves, and a great many others, through the elegant simplicity of efficient-market assumptions. When reality differed from assumptions, the assumptions prevailed; such is the blinding power of ideology. In this case, it clouded the judgment of a key player—Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan, who would have, could have, and should have intervened in the sub-prime mortgage debacle had he not been so self-deceived.

Rather than interfere with perfect self-correcting markets, he gave the green light to predatory lenders, the derivative risk bundlers, and the default credit swap buccaneers. The simple principle that escaped his grasp was that when you remove the cop on the beat, you get more crime. Indeed, he was shocked, just shocked, that the free markets didn’t police themselves.

According to the FBI, 95% of the sub-prime mortgages that went under water did so due to actionable fraud on the part of mortgage lenders. This was not an epidemic of greedy borrowers living beyond their means, this was organized crime instigated within the mortgage lending industry, sanctioned by the regulators on duty, and green-lighted by both the Fed and the Bush Administration.

I would also add that in addition to the “freshwater” Neo-liberal and the “saltwater” Keynesians, there are a lot of economists out in the sticks writing in the critical tradition of Karl Polanyi, Thorsten Veblen, Joseph Schumpeter and Robert Heilbroner. Many of them publish in the Journal of Economic Issues, which, to my delight, you can read some of for free online.

DrMC's avatar

It took me a week to get the efficient market computer virus out of my mind when I was memed.

I enjoyed immensely reading – May the Devil take the Hindmost

Cover the history of speculation – which is the antithesis of the efficient model.

If markets were efficient i would bet there never would have been communism.

I think the average reader my want to go to www.clearstation.com and pose as mao to trigger an intellectual flame war. You will learn much if you retain your scalp.

Much of the markets are intuitive, and no one book is perfect. I dislike all other than the above. If you want a bizarre spin on things, i am fond of eating the rich

Rolling stone journalist travels the world to see what makes capitalism and communism tick where and when it does, and strike out elsewhere.

Makes the argument that economies are morally dependent. Now that’s efficient don’t you think!

In this day and age you owe it to yourself to mosey on over to wikipedia, and google. I’ve found so much accurate material there (given the cost)

If you are a college student – then you are in the best place of all to learn (from someone perhaps who is not a practicing economic sorcerer)

Good work, comrades, extra food rations to all. Das Kapital I have never read – that it is a good source of kapilizm is a joke, but is amusingly true. You have to know the system you are predicting the downfall.

Many of my business practices are designed to prevent capitalistic injustice (piano workers should be able to afford piano’s – my staff have good health coverage comrade)

HungryGuy's avatar

The problem isn’t with lassiez-faire “free markets;” the problem is with the legal entity known as the Corporation. Allowing a business to, essentially, own itself without a sole proprietor (or partner) owning it, and allowing it to accumulate assets through the faux-ownership of stocks, allows it to accumulate insane wealth and power and influence over those running government. Had all businesses been owned by actual individuals who had to raise capital the old fashioned way, by saving money and getting business loans, the crash of 2009 could not have happened.

And had I been one to believe in conspiracy theories, I would be shouting from the rooftops that the events leading up to 2009 were a conspiracy to discredit political freedom.

Fiction has long been warning us of the dangers of the “corporate government” which is what, pretty much, exists now. The recent supreme court decision will now accelerate their plan to enslave the human race with corporate executives as our masters.

And as for economics books, well, as we see in this thread, almost everyone will tell you to read books favorable to their political ideology and shun books contrary to their own ideology. The answer, if you’re willing to make the effort, is to read economics books from all political ideologies, and decide for yourself—rather than letting anyone tell you that this ideology is corret and that ideology is wrong…

Zuma's avatar

@HungryGuy Laissez-fair is the economic ideology which serves the corporation, so the two go pretty much hand in hand. People do indeed need to read economic books from all economic ideologies so that they can decide which are in there interests and which are defenses of entrenched power.

There is such a thing as ideological hegemony—a kind of monopoly of ideas that occurs when only one side of the story is been presented for so long that people can not imagine anythings else. We Americans have been so indoctrinated by “free market” ideology that tens of millions of us are willing to vote for people like John McCain, who are essentially advocating that we “double down” on this ideology even while it being discredited before their very eyes by causing the economy to collapse. Such a thing would not be possible if Americans had even a basic understanding of economics.

Laissez-fair is wrong, and it is not simply a matter of opinion. If we can agree on that, it would be a great step forward.

ETpro's avatar

Interesting. One of Google’s Quotes for the day was “I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.”—Thomas Jefferson. That brilliant statesman saw that back in the 18th century, yet over 200 years later and after experiencing the Great Depression and the near Depression of 2007–10, most of us still haven’t caught on.

CyanoticWasp's avatar

To anyone else who really wants to know the answer to this question (but not to you, @Zuma, since it seems that you posted the Q under a false flag), I would recommend some easy-to-understand and very illustrative articles such as this.

But you yourself might as well save your time and skip it, since it obviously doesn’t fit with your stated biases.

Zuma's avatar

@CyanoticWasp Are you suggesting that it is disingenuous of me to ask if anyone has read any good economics books lately simply because I have read a number of them? That wouldn’t be the case if I were asking if anyone knew of any really good vampire novels.

Feel free to recommend whatever you like, but I don’t see why you think you should get a free pass for recommending an economic ideology that has been thoroughly discredited by last year’s financial meltdown. As for your article on the 1.6 gallon toilet, it only tells the tiniest fraction of the story.

In Santa Barbara, California, arguably one of the most desirable places on Earth to live (judging by how many people are trying to live there) there is a severe water shortage. The main source of potable water is from wells, but years of unregulated housing development has led to so many people drawing water from the city’s aquifer that it it is drawing down the water table faster than it can recharge. As a consequence, we have a classic “tragedy of the commons” situation where the depleted aquifer is pulling in salt water from the nearby ocean, rendering the parts of the aquifer brackish and unfit to drink. So, in drought years, the City has to institute severe mandatory water rationing. Any household that goes over their 10 gallons per person per day allotment faces stiff punitive fines.

So people buy bottled water for cooking and drinking in order to save their tap water allotment for flushing toilets and showers. People take buckets with them into the shower, so as to reuse the shower water to flush their toilets. And they only flush their toilets when absolutely necessary (it stinks but one gets used to it). For them, the 1.6 gallon toilet is a godsend, since it would be foolish to blow their whole daily allotment on a couple of 3.5 to 5 gallon flushes.

Now, as it so happens, these toilets work quite well. I recently had to replace my toilet from the 1930s with a new one. And I found in shopping for one that all manufacturers are now required to list a “flush factor” statistic that tells you how well it flushes. Mine is something like an 8 (out of 10) and it is guaranteed to flush a bucket of golf balls. In the higher numbers, you start getting into air-charged mechanisms that will suck down a whole pair of overalls in one go (don’t ask me how I know). So, toilet flushing technology has come a long way over the past 15 years and it would not have happened if we had to rely on the free market. In fact, it would not have happened were it not for manufacturers adapting to the government’s edict to make a product that performs well at 1.6 gallons. (The same can be said for seat belts, air bags, and improvements in gas mileage standards which the industry fought every step of the way.)

The 1.6 gallon toilet is certainly a lot less onerous than an army of water meter checkers and hefty fines, and far, far cheaper than trying to keep up with demand by building expensive desalinization plants (which aren’t feasible inland).

So, is this all much ado about nothing? No, it isn’t. In California the competition over water between people and agriculture is already fierce, and it only gets worse each time we go through the El Nino cycle of 7 wet years followed by 7 drought years, and as global warming diminishes the density of our mountain snow packs.

As glaciers recede all over the world, this water-saving technology is going to be even more important. But, if you want to say “screw the environmentalists,” that’s your prerogative. But you are still going to have to deal with government sooner or later because, while the “free” market may bring you bottled water (at exorbitant cost), it is the government that builds the aqueducts, the desalinization and the water recycling plants which bring you the water you use to flush your toilet with.

The free market is not going to solve this water shortage, or pollution, or global warming, in large part because there are no free markets. They are a myth. Every mature industry in America is dominated by a relative handful of corporations, and these engage in noncompetitive practices. And to the extent there are no regulations to stop them, these corporations tax the public but, unlike government, they don’t give anything in return.

HungryGuy's avatar

Lassiz-faire isn’t wrong. To the contrary, lassiez-faire is the principle that two (or more) people have the right to interact with each other any way they choose to (i.e., mutually consensual) without interference from others. That’s not wrong!!!

What’s wrong is that the concept of a “corporation” as an artificial, government-created, entity that is owned by nobody and, through selling shares of itself to the public, can amass obscene wealth and, thus, unreasonable influence over political leaders.

laureth's avatar

A lot of that bottled water comes from here in Michigan, where we don’t really care to have all y’all taking it away, either. We’re going to need it eventually, too.

Zuma's avatar

@HungryGuy No, laissez-faire means unregulated capitalism (where capitalism means industry and finance, not some guy with his own lawnmower). To the extent corporations are economic actors, laissez-faire means unregulated corporations and unrestrained corporate power; so if banks want to charge you 30% interest, there is no impediment for them to do so.

If banks want to sell you a mortgage that has traps hidden in the fine print, so that when you fall onto hard times and default, they can suddenly foreclose on you and steal all the accumulated equity in your house, they are perfectly free to do so. That, by the way, is exactly what happened in the sub-prime meltdown of 2008, which led to the collapse of the real estate market, and the subsequent collapse of the secondary mortgage securities and derivatives markets, and the near collapse of the world economy. When the bubble burst, somewhere between $6 to $13 trillion blinked out of existence from the securities markets when all was said and done, and that is why we are in a recession today. If that isn’t wrong I don’t know what is.

ETpro's avatar

@CyanoticWasp I often see in such debates the charge being made that the other guy simply isn’t willing to look at the assembled evidence. Sometimes, it is quite true. All too often, though, it is more a form of projection from someone having a deeply ingrained ideology that it is an observation about that actual information gathering behavior of their adversary in the debate.

People often tell me I’m closed-minded because I cite a source that is either too left0wing or too right-wing for their preconcived notion of who always tells the truth. But when I p[robe, all to offten I find that they avoid all media, books and so forth that conflict with their world view. I don’t. I seek out opising views. So who’s really the one with the closed mind.

I’m not accusing you, just noting that when the “you won’t even look” charge is made, it is often more a reflection of the one making the charge than it is a clear observation.

CyanoticWasp's avatar

@ETpro, I missed the part where I said “you [or anyone] won’t even look”.

ETpro's avatar

@CyanoticWasp Sorry. That was in-artfully worded. Let me see if I can be more clear.

Let’s step out of our selves for a moment to disengage any ego attachment and look at a debate between two people, Person 1 who believes firmly in Theory A and Person 2 who thinks Theory A is a total bunch of bunk.

As the debate proceeds, Person 1 becomes more and more angry that Person 2 will not accept that Theory A is truth beyond doubt. So Person 1 declares, “You probably won’t even read this but here is a link supporting Theory A.” The implication is that Person 1 is widely read on the topic, but Person 2 is very closed-minded about it. Right?

But what if the truth of the matter is that Person 2 has actually read widely on the topic of Theory A looking at sources that support it and others that attempt to point out its flaws. What if only after all that study did Person 2 arrive at the conclusion, “Theory A is a bunch of bunk.”? And what if the truth is that Person 1 has spent all his/her available spare time exclusively reading things that explain why Theory A is the only possible explanation and all who dismiss it are either idiots, blind or both?

What I am saying is that in debates where the charge is made that one person is biased, it is often true, but often the one making the charge is the guilty party. Of course, it’s equally possible both debaters come with a deeply ingrained bias that they formed without due consideration of the facts. But it is rare indeed to see the bias charge leveled when both debaters have actually studied both sides of an issue fairly and believe they have the facts right about it, but have no ego invested in defending an ideology. In those cases, the debate proceeds around an exploration of known foact and disputes about them rather than moving to a debate about the character of the debater.

CyanoticWasp's avatar

@ETpro I get what you’re saying, and it wasn’t lost on me in the first place. Where I’ve been getting… hmm, not “frustrated”, “angry” or “upset” ... let’s say “bemused” about someone’s proposition that “Theory A” is “X, Y and Z”. I don’t think someone has a clue about what Theory A really is, but he’s attributed all of the ills of the world to it, apparently.

You seem to be ignoring, too, that Person 1 could have already been through the spectrum of possibilities, starting from where Person 2 ended up, and having already realized that Theory B really is nonsense.

ETpro's avatar

@CyanoticWasp No, I wasn’t ignoring the possibilities. I created my characters to set up a parable. I specifically gave each different personalities. I could write 100 different versions with Person 1 and Person 2 each having some new and unique personality traits. I was not trying to explore all the possible ways a person can behave, just look at a specific behavior often observed in debates, particularly between partisans or opposing views.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther