[davidp]

Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics[1] is a superb book on the subject. It's lengthy but very readable, especially for its real-world examples. Particularly excellent are the explanations for the unintended consequences from price controls.

The first edition came out many years ago. Since then, the world has provided a few case studies on the matter. For example we've been been watching the slow-motion train wreck that is Venezuela's economy, as first Chavez and then Maduro gripped prices tighter and tighter. The horrible consequences Sowell describes have shown up inexorably, predictably, just like clockwork. It's grim to watch; but my point is that his book and other writings give a real intuition about economic fundamentals that you can see every day.

[1]: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Basic_Economics_(Thomas_Sowell...

[karanbhangui]

Big fan of Sowell's books. As a next step, for a more analytical treatment: http://www.mcafee.cc/Introecon/

[davidw]

That's a good one. A lot of 'free' econ materials on the internet are there to Push An Agenda and often in a not very subtle way. That "intro to econ" book seems fairly neutral in comparison and more like a standard introductory text.

[littlestymaar]

I don't think there is any «neutral» way to talk about economics. At the lowest level, how you model the human behavior is not neutral : if you think of humans as rational beings trying to maximize their well-being, you'll talk about price, market and competition : you're describing the world in the classical / liberal point of view. On the other hand, if you describe them as social creatures under the influence of social forces, you'll talk about wage slavery, alienation and class conflict and you'll see the world in a socialist point of view.

Both aspect are interesting to learn about but none of them is neutral and they both come with a bunch a ideology. Even if the first usually hides it, pretending to be a neutral and rigorous analysis of the world. Introduction to Economic Analysis is clearly in this category.

[Retric]

As neither of those models actually work 100% of the time, I don't think they have much to say about a neutral point of view. Any serious work is going to say ~"This is false, but..."

A neutral POV might be Humans are computationally limited mostly independent actors who's actions are based on updatable heuristics. This much more closely matches things like asset bubbles or creation of unions, but also preference for name brands.

PS: The truth is not trying to tell a story. Suggesting the truth is biased is suggesting the world is also biased.

[amelius]

Then a neutral approach would cover both viewpoints (?)

[JumpCrisscross]

No, it would cover the models that work. The reason any respectable economics text starts with frictionless markets of rational and then immediately talks about market failure is because to recognise the latter as a divergence you need the former as a baseline. Looking at things and asking "how does this make you feel" isn't scientific. Learning models that, while not great have shown some predictive power, is better. Economics pedagogy is far from perfect, but backing into the model by studying deviations seems like the wrong way to do it.

[littlestymaar]

> Learning models that, while not great have shown some predictive power, is better.

The problem is that theses models have a predictive power approximatly the same that Aristotle Law of free fall. They describe a world that seems intuitive but is totally wrong in most cases. For instance the diminishing return hypothesis comes from Ricardo's studies of agriculture in the UK. Since then this hypothesis is almost always used when studying the law and supply and demand. The problem is : it's almost always false unless you're harvesting a natural ressource.

Teaching a model which is known to be a pretty terrible representation of reality is not a good thing because it gives a false sense of understanding, which is dangerous from a democratic point of view.

[littlestymaar]

Should we teach both evolution and intelligent design for the sake of neutrality ?

A scientific theory shouldn't pretend it's «neutral»: biology isn't «neutral» since it's clearly again the religious believes of huge part of the humanity. What's makes a science true is its ability to explain and predict the real world.

The socialist view of the world doesn't even pretend to be scientific : it doesn't give any predictions. (unless you consider that Marx predicted the communist revolutions, but it looks more like a self-fulfilling prophecy than a prediction).

The classical/liberal view pretends to be a scientific point of view, despite being unable to predict anything accurately and having almost all the founding hypotheses proved wrong. Historically the reason the classical economic theory became popular was because the classical economists where against the corn laws[1] and they convinced the nascent industrial bourgeoisie that the free market would be good for them. Then the Anti-Corn Law League was born, and The Economist and the political destiny of the classical economics.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corn_Laws

[TheCowboy]

I'd drop the word "neutrality" and replace it with what is trying to be expressed that economics aims to do: make positive statements, attempts to describe something, makes statements that are falsifiable/testable.

Political economy is where the value judgments and arguments about why we should implement some form or system of economics.

Economics doesn't disappear under socialism or communism. Many basic principles apply depending on what form of socialism is adopted, such as supply and demand. Socialists tend to run into problems when they decide economics is some 'tool of the bourgeoisie' when it is a tool for everyone who want to solve real problems involving the distribution of society's wealth.

[yorwba]

> Should we teach both evolution and intelligent design for the sake of neutrality ?

Since both of them are influential in society, I think it's appropriate to address both of them. My high school biology teacher did a short session on intelligent design before proceeding with Lamarckism, Darwinism, Mendelian genetics and so on. Of course we mostly just mocked biblical literalism, which I think is not the intention of those who want intelligent design taught in schools, but we did talk about it.

[nimish]

This overweights viewpoints that aren't actually relevant.

[crdoconnor]

>The first edition came out many years ago. Since then, the world has provided a few case studies on the matter. For example we've been been watching the slow-motion train wreck that is Venezuela's economy

Venezuela's economy already went through this period in the late 80s/early 90s. The collapse of oil prices and its subsequent effect on the economy and the government's ability to maintain services is partly what led to an infuriated populace electing Chavez.

[owebmaster]

> Since then, the world has provided a few case studies on the matter.

I just want to point that the world has provided a lot more case studies on the matters of Karl Marx economical bibliography.

[djrobstep]

Sowell's book is ideological right wing garbage disguised as Econ 101.

[chrismealy]

Books like that mostly just narrow their vision to exclude anything that's not in harmony with the libertarian view. More woefully incomplete than wrong.

[legulere]

By leaving important facts out you paint a wrong picture of the situation.

[u385639]

To borrow the spirit of your impassioned comment - could someone point to a criticism of Sowell's work/ideas?

[grzm]

I find Wikipedia a useful jumping off point in general to get a sense of common criticisms on a variety of topics. In this case, I'd start in the Reception section of Sowell's:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sowell#Reception

[jnordwick]

I didn't see anything referring to EIOL. Can you point to something more specific than just a general critique of Sowell?

[grzm]

Are you referring to Economics in One Lesson? It looks like that's Henry Hazlitt, not Sowell. (Am I missing something?) It looks like DeLong has some criticism of that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_in_One_Lesson#Critic...

Just to be clear, I'm not an expert on any of this. I just popped in to provide a pointer I've found useful in learning about a topic when I'm not sure where to start. Similarly here, I just applied a bit of search-fu.

[djrobstep]

The problems with capitalism are widely documented.

Here for instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_capitalism

[virmundi]

An interesting idea is that mine, unlike that defined in the link, is defined by force of the individual first and foremost. My dogs and cats all have a sense of mine. They own things. They keep things from one another to the point of force if necessary. Mine is that which I hold by force. For the modern society, the force is, at least for the most part, yielded to the State. Indiana or Florida enforce mine. I promontory not kill those who seek to take from me in exchange for the State using its collective force against my adversaries.

[dmichulke]

Property rights and violence, the two dont go without each other in any fundamental discussion.

The standard view here is that the state is the guarantor of those rights via a monopoly of violence granted by the people.

The libertarian view is that the state didn't ever contractually obtain this monopoly and will use it against you i.e. via taxation or when you are/do something your state thinks you shouldn't - often among them: Being gay, black, white, Jew, Christian, Muslim, raped, communist, capitalist, rich or poor.

[quadrangle]

How is this idea of personal property a reasonable reply to criticisms of capitalism? Capitalism is about private ownership of means of production and core resources and is a mere subset of the wide range of economic structures that include personal property.