Many on the right have tried to write something similar, but more in line with their ideological sensibilities. However, no one has been able to write an equally engaging, accessible or insightful introduction to economic thought quite like what Heilbroner accomplished.
“Since he came down from the trees, man has faced the problem of survival, not as an individual but as a member of a social group. His continued existence is testimony to the fact that he has succeeded in solving the problem; but the continued existence of want and misery, even the richest of nations, is evidence that his solution has been, at best, a partial one.“
Given that the status quo is so far from a Hayekian optimum -- both because of bad positive policy --e.g. immigration restrictions and bad negative policy, eg. no Pigou taxation of externalities -- I'd think the most useful kind of book for the novice would be something on moving from third to second best policies.
My first year teaching out of grad school, I by chance read Alchian and Allens University Economics (now, Universal Economics). I was depressed for weeks as I realized I really didn't know anything about economics. I assigned it for years after that, then began using The Economic Way of Thinking by Heyne et al. Both take the same approach. Highly recommended.
One of my favorite non-essential readings in economics: Ran Abramitzy’s book The Mystery of the Kibbutz: Egalitarian Principles in a Capitalist World. For a preview checkout the Econtalk episode on it.
I read Sowell's Basic Economics and found it very readable for what is essentially a textbook. That said, I also found it lacking regarding the difficult questions. For example, he is all about markets for healthcare but says absolutely nothing about how to deal with people who can't afford to pay for their own healthcare. I found plenty of other similar situations where I felt his explanations did not address, or even acknowledge, real life situations which are much less black and white than what he discussed in excellent fashion.
Regarding older works, I always recommend Adam Smith (Theory of Moral Sentiments and Wealth of Nations, in that order). The 1800's has some good stuff too, but I kind of think that Hayek captures enough that it isn't necessary. Or at least not worth digging through the language barriers right away. (Smith has a very modern style, even if some word use is archaic.)
I think you would have a hard time coming up with good "left wing" economics. Even the lefties like Krugman sound like right wing people. Almost to the point that one could argue that a defining feature of right wing is "understands the laws of economics." Not that right wing politicians all do, but it does seem that the left does not. Krugman frequently argues counter to his previous economic work in his column, for example.
When I've read apolitical economics from Krugman it has always been good though maybe occasionally difficult for me to follow and often clear his grasp of econ is better. When he introduces politics, it's like he turns stupid. I don't get the apparent Jekyll and Hyde.
I think really you have put your finger on it: when he is just writing economics for economists he is more disciplined and focuses on arguments they would accept as economists and when he writes on politics he allows what he wants to be true to run wild and engages in motivated reasoning.
*The Worldly Philosophers* by Robert Heilbroner
Many on the right have tried to write something similar, but more in line with their ideological sensibilities. However, no one has been able to write an equally engaging, accessible or insightful introduction to economic thought quite like what Heilbroner accomplished.
“Since he came down from the trees, man has faced the problem of survival, not as an individual but as a member of a social group. His continued existence is testimony to the fact that he has succeeded in solving the problem; but the continued existence of want and misery, even the richest of nations, is evidence that his solution has been, at best, a partial one.“
For a very basic explanation of economics, I recommend Henry Hazlett's Economics in One Lesson.
Given that the status quo is so far from a Hayekian optimum -- both because of bad positive policy --e.g. immigration restrictions and bad negative policy, eg. no Pigou taxation of externalities -- I'd think the most useful kind of book for the novice would be something on moving from third to second best policies.
I don't know what that would be!
My first year teaching out of grad school, I by chance read Alchian and Allens University Economics (now, Universal Economics). I was depressed for weeks as I realized I really didn't know anything about economics. I assigned it for years after that, then began using The Economic Way of Thinking by Heyne et al. Both take the same approach. Highly recommended.
One of my favorite non-essential readings in economics: Ran Abramitzy’s book The Mystery of the Kibbutz: Egalitarian Principles in a Capitalist World. For a preview checkout the Econtalk episode on it.
For a dose of reality, I’d add ‘The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One’
Thanks for the tips!
Wow. Lots of these recommendations sound great.
I read Sowell's Basic Economics and found it very readable for what is essentially a textbook. That said, I also found it lacking regarding the difficult questions. For example, he is all about markets for healthcare but says absolutely nothing about how to deal with people who can't afford to pay for their own healthcare. I found plenty of other similar situations where I felt his explanations did not address, or even acknowledge, real life situations which are much less black and white than what he discussed in excellent fashion.
Regarding older works, I always recommend Adam Smith (Theory of Moral Sentiments and Wealth of Nations, in that order). The 1800's has some good stuff too, but I kind of think that Hayek captures enough that it isn't necessary. Or at least not worth digging through the language barriers right away. (Smith has a very modern style, even if some word use is archaic.)
I think you would have a hard time coming up with good "left wing" economics. Even the lefties like Krugman sound like right wing people. Almost to the point that one could argue that a defining feature of right wing is "understands the laws of economics." Not that right wing politicians all do, but it does seem that the left does not. Krugman frequently argues counter to his previous economic work in his column, for example.
When I've read apolitical economics from Krugman it has always been good though maybe occasionally difficult for me to follow and often clear his grasp of econ is better. When he introduces politics, it's like he turns stupid. I don't get the apparent Jekyll and Hyde.
I think really you have put your finger on it: when he is just writing economics for economists he is more disciplined and focuses on arguments they would accept as economists and when he writes on politics he allows what he wants to be true to run wild and engages in motivated reasoning.