Macroeconomics

What do you suggest?
Mankiw seems alright.

Macroeconomics by faggot op

The Undercover Economist Strikes Back by Tim Harford

anything by paul krugman

What was so good about it?

It provides literally nothing new, or even true.

I don't know if they're intermediate or not, but I think Hazlitt's 'Economics in one lesson' and Sowell's 'Basic economics' were very good.

That's actually what stood out about it to me: the author's conclusion is that capital is expanding out of control and can only be stopped through massive government redistribution, but his own graphs show that we're really just returning to the stable levels that have persisted for most of the last 400 years. I was particularly struck by his estimates of the magnitude of the disruption caused by WW1-Great Depression-WW2, and how what we think of as 'normal' is really just the extended recovery from that cataclysm.

I'm really not sure how he could write the last chapter, after everything that came before it. Ideology is a hell of a drug.

Macroeconomic theory is keynesian interventionist cancer at the moment. The more mathematical it gets, the less it in any way describes the reality of how an economy functions. Unless you're incredibly sceptical, reading a modern macro book will probably increase your chances of being wrong about economic issues.

Just look up syllabi from respectable schools, and use the texts they list.

I did a degree in economics. It's mostly Keynesian stuff, but there was also a mandatory course in the history of economic thought. There was also the option to do a couple of fourth-year courses in post-Keynesian stuff, but I chose other courses instead.

If this is your first book on economics, I'd recommend starting with Mankiw, as was mentioned above. You'll learn the basic supply and demand stuff, as well as aggregate supply and demand, and some basic monetary theory. All the intermediate stuff builds on that knowledge.

In my intermediate courses, I studied (in macro) IS-LM, the Solow model, unemployment models, and intertemporal choice. You need to understand the basics before you get to this stage.

My more advanced macro courses were based on micro foundations, so you should probably look into learning your micro. I again recommend Mankiw. My highest macro theory course was literally using micro and math to derive macro models.

I also had to take stats and econometrics, as well as specialised math courses.

I would not recommend starting with Das Kapital, the Wealth of Nations, or Economics in One Lesson. Marx and Smith are pretty boring reads, and you can find more accessible summaries of classical economic theory elsewhere. The danger of Economics in One Lesson is that you might get locked into thinking just one way. The One Lesson is just that you need to think through all the consequences of something, but you need to have a basic understanding of supply and demand and other fundamentals before that helps.

I haven't read Sowell, but I probably wouldn't recommend him either, just because I think you should learn the mainstream theory before you go off to the heterodox people.

Krugman is probably fine because he adheres to the mainstream view and he writes introductory textbooks and articles for lay people. But Mankiw has less political baggage and is probably cheaper.

That's a nice answer, thanks user.

Macroeconomics is flame.
Just read Fooled by Ramdomness

He deserves credit for taking on the shit-job of collecting all that data, that'll probably be enough for him to win the Nobel prize but more importantly it'll provide other, better qualified people a lot of material to work with.

>anything that isn't neo-con/lib
>heterodox

check out David Romer

Neo-cons and liberals are different. I've been recommending liberals and neo-liberals.

But anything outside the mainstream, I refer to as heterodox. The Chicago School is outside the mainstream of Keynesian thought. Most economists are some form of Keynesian.

Hey, look, someone who isn't a complete moron.

Something by Romer

Hey, look, someone who is.

Haha, oh, wow!

what you actaully need to study is mergers and acquisitions, which is the division of Pierce and Pierce that Patrick Bateman, BBA, MBA worked for during the 1980s and early 1990s.

Sadly this

What are you doing with your Econ degree user? I'm graduating soon but afterwards I'm planning on taking stats courses to help me for actuarial work

That's funny, I actually work at P&P in the mergers division. I'm just asking this for a friend. Here is attached my business card if you want it, call me.

Tim PRICE nigger fucking commit suicide

>Neo-cons and liberals are different.
Definitions may vary, but this is theoretically true at least. In practice not so much. Whatever outwardly held differences there are tend to be traded away to produce the typical political situation: mass immigration, dogmatic adherence to free trade, short-termist views on regulation.

>What are you doing with your Econ degree user? I'm graduating soon but afterwards I'm planning on taking stats courses to help me for actuarial work

I thought about doing an MA, but I ended up going to law school. So far so good. I'm in Canada, though.

Actuarial work would be good, though. Lots of jobs at insurance companies.

If you get an MA, you should be able to work at a central bank.

What about Leamer - Macroeconomic Patterns and Stories? I found this title recommended on leddit

Haven't read it, but judging from the table of contents, it seems good. It strikes me as a book about dealing with data more than anything else, though. Not sure how much that would help most people other than aspiring economists.

Thanks for the advice Canada user, graduates schools an option, I just need to complete calc 3