(Part 2) Reddit mentions: The best macroeconomics books

Hey, so I'm going to address your points indirectly. Economic freedom (capitalism) is not the sole driver of consumption growth. It is definitely a factor, and if you agree with "Capitalism Reassessed" by Frederic Pryor then yes, economic freedom does drive a large portion of consumption growth. The data he used can be found here:

http://www.swarthmore.edu/SocSci/Economics/fpryor1/CapFreeAppendix.pdf

Take a look at table A2. A higher capitalism score does correspond to a higher real GDP per capita but within that set, some nations with lower capitalism scores have higher real GDP per capita. Of course, this is comparing a stock with a flow and looking at growth rates for real GDP per capita would be more helpful but he doesn't provide those.

By the way, if you're really interested in this subject I would definitely check out his book:

http://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Reassessed-Frederic-L-Pryor/dp/0521190207

In any case, the debate around consumption growth is basically centered around the year 1800. Take a look at this graph. You can see that real GDP per capita was basically flat until around 1800, then it just explodes. Goes right off the damn charts. Capitalism cannot explain this, people have looked at it and it simply cannot explain it.

So basically, up to around 1800 Malthus was right. We had a finite set of resources and more people meant that these resources would be divided among a larger and larger group. But something happened that blew Malthus out of the water and allows us to sustain our standard of living today. That something, is NOT capitalism.

Edit: Capitalistic societies existed long before the 1800's. I'm not a historian so I hesitate to name specific cultures but I speculate that the Chinese, Romans, and Egyptians all had forms of capitalism. Or you can say it started with Mercantilism. Either way, long before the 1800's.

What caused that explosion in consumption growth is a major point of contention in modern Economics. My favorite explanation, and this is a shameless plug for my University, is endogenous growth theory. If anyone cares to read it:

http://econ.as.nyu.edu/docs/IO/19160/Perla_2011Mar09.pdf

Basically, it postulates that interaction/communication between people facilitated economic growth. By being able to share ideas and knowledge we create externalities that ultimately led to economic growth. This has nothing to do with an economic system, which dictates how we exchange our goods and services for that of others. It has everything to do with our social system, how we interact with each other and the rules that bound those interactions. Too often, people confuse capitalism with a social system - it is purely an economic system. On the topic of social systems, I think Vonnegut said it best:

"There's only one rule that I know of, babies—God damn it, you've got to be kind."

Edit: Okay, I felt like that last line was a bit pretentious. What I meant to emphasize was that how we trade what we produce, goods and services, does not necessarily determine how we treat each other. Capitalism doesn't ensure empathy, being good to your neighbor, or valuing knowledge for knowledge's sake. The thing is, those things and the million other rules that form a culture and a society, are a large part of long run economic growth and prosperity.

I feel this quote from Paul Samuelson sums this up pretty nicely:

"Every good cause is worth some inefficiency."

First off, congrats on the amazing score and profile!

1. What to focus on next: If you're not too familiar with the application process (what schools are looking for, what goes into an effective profile/"story"), I'd recommend researching the overall process. The /r/MBA wiki is a decent starting point. During my admissions cycle last year, I read through some of the bookmarked threads on gmatclub (lotta info) and also read Paul Bodine's book. In hindsight, doing both was information overload; one is enough. It should take a couple days to a week but it'll help you have a very clear understanding of how to proceed and formulate a road map that works for you.
   
   
2. Supervisors: Perfect. Start trying to find the questions for the recommenders online. Most of the top schools have similar/same questions but some are notably different. If you can aggregate these for your recommenders including the deadlines, they'll greatly appreciate it. Regardless, you're gonna have to go into each application portal and send them a unique link for each school to fill out. Schedule time to sit down with your recommenders 1-on-1 to discuss your candidacy. If you've done the research suggested above, you'll have a good idea on how to approach this.
   
   
3. Resume: Depending on how yours look, B-school resume might be a little bit different. They're gonna look for evidence of teamwork, leadership, and career advancement. So if your resume doesn't already emphasize these points, it might need slight reworking.
   
   
4. Time: Your first applications will take longer and your final ones will be quicker. My longest application took over a month (it's hard to know when to stop rewriting). My last ones with overlapping questions took about a week.
   
5. 10 schools: Definitely do not 10 in one round. If you attempt 10 in one round, the questions will be so different that you end up compromising on quality. I'd either do your top choices in round 1 and safeties in round 2, or a mix of reaches and safeties in each round. 3-5/round is ideal. Start researching the schools and seeing which ones you really like. This should help you trim down the list from 10. Having your list ranked by personal preference will help you identify where your priorities are.
   
   
6. Additional to-do's: Get onto the school's mailing list so you know when they are doing admission events in your area or nearby. Try to make it to these events so you know the schools better and can answer the "why school x" questions. If time/money permits, try to attend campus events (probably won't start backup till the fall near Round 1 deadlines).
   
   Best of luck!
   
   

This is definitely the right sub. A few notes:

1. You can approach applied economics papers with just a semester of economic statistics / econometrics and a semester of intermediate theory. Applied papers can be either micro or macro. For example, at this point you should be able to comfortably read Mankiw, Romer, and Weil (1992).
   
   Most applied economics paper boil down to I ran a regression of Y on X. The key question you have to ask yourself is, "Do I buy their identification?" To assess such claims, you don't need much more than a semester or two of econometrics and critical thinking. Sure, some of the more obscure estimators might be beyond your ability, but the broad swath of applied papers boil down to some kind of instrumental variables regression.
   
   A somewhat more advanced paper that should still be readable to you is Gali and Gertler (1999).
   
   The game here is: write down your model to be estimated; argue that you have a good identification strategy; show us the tables of coefficients; argue that your results are robust; tell me why I should care. The trick is clean identification and economically & statistically significant results.
   
   Resources: your companion here should be Mostly Harmless Econometrics.
   
   
2. Then there are theory papers, which can be micro or macro. These will generally set up an economic model and prove some results analytically. The limiting factor in reading them will be your mathematical maturity: here is where the real analysis and topology come into play. A typical theory paper (that you cannot probably read comfortably) might look like Mas-Colell (1975).
   
   The game here is: write down a model; derive some mathematical results (typically about certain partial derivatives, cross-elasticities, or existence of equilibria); tell me why I should care. The trick is to write down a model that makes sense and bring results that are applicable, either to other theoretical problems or that can be applied to practical problems.
   
   Resources: MWG is probably good preparation for these papers, at least in form.
   
   
3. Third, there are computational papers. These tend to be macro, and within macro tend to be oriented around business cycle analysis. Here there is a lot of assumed background knowledge: macroeconomists expect to see models written down in particular ways and have certain preconceived expectations of what your "results" should look like. Again, I don't think these are approachable right out of the undergrad curriculum. I certainly could not follow the arguments of Ireland (2004) when I was an undergrad. I could barely work through the first few pages of Clarida, Gali and Gertler (1999).
   
   The game here is: write down a model; solve it approximately near the steady-state; simulate the model; show me some dynamics around the steady-state; show me how the model reacts to shocks; tell me why I should care. The trick is: write down a sensible model that captures the phenomena of interest, and show how the economy reacts to the shocks that you hit the economy with. Sometimes you want to show how policy can counteract those shocks.
   
   Resources: while reading a few chapters of Sargent & Ljungqvist is nice, there is still a lot of assumed background when reading macro that makes these papers a bit forbidding if you haven't had graduate training in the subject. Yes, I find it deplorable, but that's how the profession has evolved.
   
   A fantastic place to start in macro is Models of Business Cycles. You can probably read it if you know a little calculus and have taken a course in intermediate macro.
   
   By the way, all of the papers I've linked to are "classics" and are worth perusing, even if you don't fully grasp what's going on in them. I'm biased, so you've gotten a sampling of macro papers. Let me know if you want details/context on any of the papers I linked to.
   
   My deepest apologies if, in these summaries, I have offended the sensibilities of my applied and theoretical brethren. I'm stepping a bit out of the bounds of my field (money & macro). :)
   
   (Anyone know of good "classics" in applied micro that are readable? Card-Krueger (1994) is probably readable, as is Angrist (1990). But I'm not familiar with the classics in labor and IO.)

There's been a lot of discussion in political philosophy about how resources, power, and money (capital) ought to be distributed in a just society. Any good introduction to political philosophy will give you a chapter or two discussing Rawls' theory of justice and how we ought to apply it. Most interpretations of the theory lend themselves to more socialist ways of doing things (details will vary). Jonathan Wolff's An Introduction to Political Philosophy does just that. The chapter about just distribution also gives a very brief look at Marx. He also talks about Rousseau's views on the existence of private property. Rousseau was influential to early socialist movements but he was also from the 1700s so he might not be of interest to you.

I'd also recommend The Communist Manifesto. Although you clearly want something more modern, this is a very short book and is super digestible and pithy. Straight to the point and it's a good place to start if you wanted to learn about Marx.

But here's a list of more modern books that I want to read soon on this topic in no particular order:

1. Seventeen Contradictions and the End of Capitalism
   
2. Why Not Socialism?
   
3. Introduction to Socialism
   
4. PostCapitalism: A Guide to our Future (Olly recommends this one)
   
   Since you say you're a "thoroughly indoctrinated capitalist", I'm sure you'll do this anyway but I just thought I'd say that it's always good to read critically. Make sure to go out of your way to find responses to the arguments made in any of these books. If you did find what Rawls had to say interesting, for example, you should also look at the stuff that Robert Nozick has written in Anarchy, State and Utopia which is a direct response to the Rawlsian theory of justice where he claims that people have intrinsic rights to ownership and that whether or not the distribution of resources is just has nothing to do with who has what but is more to do with whether the means by which they acquired them is just.
   
   Also, I'd like to help with recommending books that will teach you how to be "good" at philosophy. Think you could explain what you mean?
   
   As it stands, the only way to get "good" at it is probably to just make sure you take plenty of notes explaining the arguments made and look at them through a critical lens. Even when you agree with an argument, it's good to know how one could challenge it if your values or underlying intuitions are different.
   
   ​
   
   Left is best.
   
   ​

Well different proposals have different constituent and different reasons for supporting or opposing them. Good politics does not mean good economics.

A classic example of rent control failing is in NYC. When prices (rents) are capped, or slowed in NYC case, that lowers the incentive for builders to build more housing.

Economists reckon a restrictive price ceiling reduces the supply of properties on the market. When prices are capped, people have less incentive to fix up and rent out their basement flat, or to build rental property. Slower supply growth actually exacerbates the price crunch. Those landlords who do rent out their properties might not bother to maintain it, since both supply and turnover in the market are limited by rent caps; landlords have little incentive to compete to attract willing tenants. Landlords may also become choosier, and tenants may stay in properties longer than makes sense. Interestingly some evidence shows that those living in rent-controlled flats in New York also tend to have higher median incomes than those who rent market-rate apartments. That may be partly down to the fact that controlling rent does not mean that those with more resources are not better positioned to find good housing; households of means may in some cases find it easier to track down and secure rent-stabilised properties.

Nothing is "being done" about this because the people currently in rent controlled housing benefit substantially and they are also the ones eligible to vote. If a politician agrees with the economist they will likely be voted out because there are a large number of people with a huge incentive to keep rent controls in place even though it would benefit most people (but only slightly) to remove them.

I double majored in economics and molecular biology 7 years ago. Now I'm in the biotech industry so economics is more of just an interest at this point.

You might want to check out a slightly out of date econ textbook off amazon they are very cheap:

This one is pretty good quite easy to follow

I've found Dowling's Mathematical Methods for Business and Economics helpful in refreshing my existing math skills and in learning others. It's very accessible, light on theory, and has tons of practice problems. It's also very cheap. Getting up on cutting edge empirical theory is all well and good, but if you want to do economics, you're going to need the math in this book. Without at least a solid understanding of calculus, you're not going to get much out of a micro course, unless it's very basic and/or abstract, which seems to be what you'r trying to get away from.

I've never encountered a good micro book, but I've heard Cowen and Tabarrok's Modern Principles: Macroeconomics is pretty good - a guy I know actually held onto it from undergrad as a reference, which is a better endorsement than I've heard for any other econ text. Based on the hours I've spent listening to Cowen talk, I can't imagine he'd write too shitty of a textbook, but you never know.

Since it's free, it might be worth going through the Khan Academy courses on Economics topics. For me, that's not nearly as helpful as being in an actual classroom, but it's better than nothing. MIT Open Courses might have something too - you can probably shop around and at least find a free Principles course that makes some kind of sense.

EDIT: Also, if, for some strange reason, you want to learn linear programming, Kaiser and Messer's Mathematical Programming for Agricultural, Environmental, and Resource Economics is very readable, and does a great job easing you into the theory. I can't speak to how it is at teaching you to use software, but so far, I really like it.

Whoop totally forgot about this.

>"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle

Frankly I think you have gone beyond that unless you are doing some sort of performative act to ingratiate yourself with the Alt Right types for research or something.

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAltRight/comments/8arg73/is_americas_gun_violence_problem_really_a_race/dx0zg45/

George Zimmerman is not a "hero" and Trayvon isn't a "thug"...you saying so unironically means you've uhh for lack of a better word radicalized much further than I think you are making it out to be here. Of course it's more complicated than "Zimmerman maniacally killed a black youth out of racial animosity because he could get away with it" but your angle is crazy biased.

>If it's any consolation there was an EPIC debate between Styx and Greg Johnson about civic nationalism and ethno nationalism and I think Stryx (civic nationalist) won that debate despite Greg Johnson's impressive political and historical IQ.

You are never going to sell me on Styx. I've been laughing at this meme-atic wannabe Matrix looking ass for years.

He's just too ridicuous for me take seriously after years of ironically consuming his content.

Did you know Zyklon B was just a delousing agent? LMAO

>I still stand pretty firmly against the monarchist leanings of the alt right as well. But count me in to the alt-light the side of things that's not afraid to point out that identitarian politics are going to dominate the political landscape of the future and we need to have more honest conversations about it.

I think you are wildly exaggerating the amount of monarchists in the Alt Right based on that one dude who pops off all the time in /r/DebateAltRight

They mostly have no real consensus on what comes after the ethnostate except no gays or trannies or thots.

>Steven Pinker, Thaddeus Russel, Jordan Peterson Sam Harris. What do all of these people have in common? They are all liberals that are race realists

I think they would object to this classification for the most part unless you mean "race realist" in the most milquetoast of ways i.e. "there are differences between racial population groups but what we don't know exactly to what degree that causes the inequality we see and it shouldn't factor into social policy".

In which case 99% of people alive today are race realists including me.

>You can be honest about the science around ethnicity and heredity but be cautious or neutral about how this applies to politics.

Something the Alt Right, and I would argue you now, very much doesn't do.

>Glad you enjoyed it! Naomi Klein Shock Doctrine is good too (Undercover economist as well).

Next on my list after Capitalism's Crisis Deepens: Essays on the Global Economic Meltdown}

Gotta break up fascinatingly depressing stuff with other fascinatingly depressing stuff.

>You need to come over to the right with me bro. So much more intellectual honesty. So much room for activities!

I actually strongly disagree with this. I think the Right as a whole has a much smaller window of acceptable discourse in general, just not in the things you consider really important like race relations and political correctness.

The fact that some on the Right are willing to more openly talk about race realism != intellectual honesty abounds on the Right

This is coming from someone who 10 years ago was a full on holocaust denying(ish) Alex Jones watching conspiracy theorist hippie-libertarian who thought blacks culture problems was the main thrust of inequality and Jews ran the world. I was a full on /pol/tard.

>edit. You can also see some of the areas/danger zones that I think the alt right goes down in this post.

>https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAltRight/comments/87u46x/hooks_into_the_alt_right_allies_and_detractors/

I'll read through it.

Edit - Oh I already saw this post of yours, cool work with the graphs but this is just reinforcing my idea that you are much deeper in this than I think you are portraying in this comment at least now that you are doing marketing and messaging advice for the Alt Right not just debating them or whatever.

Clearly this has moved beyond Artistotle's ole' adage.

This does the warm the cockles of my cynical ass heart tho

I'm talking about 'stable' in terms of the money supply not racing ahead of savings. e.g. if fractional reserve banking was banned or constrained by a free banking system.

Land is very different to other types of capital because you can't produce anything without it. All the basic resources of production are on it or in it. It gets its value from the things in it, on it and all the public and private investment around it. The speed of land development is constrained even in a free market. Thus as more is produced, demand for developed land rises and prices/rents are bid up.

Land (and the natural resources in it) is similar to EM spectrum, airspace and sea in that it is not manufactured. Land must be 'shared' somehow because of the value that it gets from public and private investments around it. Land values increase when investments are made around it (e.g. an airport is built) because companies on the land now have increased profits because of the investment by someone else in the community (not by their own investment).

Thus this extra profit should be paid back to the community (e.g. in tax) to pay for this and further community infrastructure investments. At the same time most other taxes should be abolished because of the drag they put on the economy and the poverty traps they create for the poor. The best way to 'share' the land resource is to have all 'freehold' held in common, only allow the sale of leases and raise required taxes from ground rents based on the unimproved value (the value the land gets from the investments made around it, not on it) of the land.

When Milton Friedman went to Hong Kong (for 'free to choose') he showed the massive growth that capitalism had achieved on some small barren rocks. However he forgot to mention that there was no 'freehold' land (only leases) and that the government raised most of its revenue from land taxes (and thus could keep all other 'bad' taxes low).

There is a 'land problem' in economics. Freehold land laws allow landlords to make money doing nothing by extracting the value that accrues in land over time (the the result of public and private community investments around the land) as large capital gains. Because these aren't captured and paid back to the community (as tax or ground rent on a lease) the community can't pay for its infrastructure without unfair levies of some kind (that often fall mainly on the poor).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism

http://www.youtube.com/user/geophilos

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_george

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_rent

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Power-Land-Fred-Harrison/dp/0856831093/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1319728026&sr=8-1

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Ricardos-Law-House-Prices-Clawback/dp/0856832413/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1319727990&sr=8-2

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Silver-Bullet-Fred-Harrison/dp/0904658104/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1319727990&sr=8-3

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Boom-Bust-Prices-Banking-Depression/dp/0856832545/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1319727990&sr=8-1

In this day and age of social reckoning ignited by the #metoo phenomenon, sexual relationships and attitudes feels like it has become a touchier subject than in days gone by. For me, it has put a dampener on one of my favorite conversation starters.

Before I was delighted by the thought provoking wackiness of freakonomics, I enjoyed the dubiously titled "More Sex is Safer Sex". Which made a case for encouraging the general public to become more sexually active in the interest of public health.

As the times article's reflections on the psychological and mental health aspects of sexuality shows, there is so much need for this somewhat taboo subject to become less so. I'd really look forward to the day when there is enough impetus for social institutions, in whatever form, to address this vital aspect of the human experience in a more healthy, constructive way - for all our benefits.

Here is a list of 5 books specifically in an Indian context

1. "India since Independence" by Bipin Chandra. It is a well researched, thorough, and succint book on India's journey after attaining independence. It chronicles the significant events accurately, and doesn't leave any aspect untouched.
   
   
2. "Every loves a good drought" P Sainath is among those, fast dissappearing breed of journalists who reports on poverty related issues from the hinterland. He single-handedly thrust the issue of farmer suicide in the Vidarbha region onto the mainstream through his dogged journalism. This is one of his earlier books in which he details extreme poverty and the policies that sustain it with his own keen insights.
   
   
3. "The Meadow" . One of the authors is Adrian Levy who is an award winning investigative journalist. He has also written a book on 26/11 attacks; The siege. In 'The Meadow', the authors investigate the kidnapping of ten Western backpackers in Kashmir during the height of freedom movement in 1995. The book explains how their lives became pawn in the geo-politcal struggle, the role of Indian army during the event, while at the same time providing a good understanding of the Kashmir Issue. Highly Recommended.
   
   
4. "The Discovery Of India" It is a scholarly work on India's history.
   
   
5. "Gunahon ka devta" by Dharmveer Bharti. It is the only fiction book in the list, and probably the last hindi novel I finished. I read this when I was still quite young (I think in eight or ninth class). The characters, their complexities, ambitions, are etched very nicely. If you are still not sold, read the first paragraph.
   
   Along with these 5, one of my favourite book is "The banality of Evil". It deals with something which confounds me still, just how the seemingly nice, sane people come to support the purest manifestations of evil. What drives such public sentiment ? The book gives some of the answers.

Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) is just that, a theory. I do not subscribe to MMT. None of what I have said is based on MMT.

I am in a "Wall Street" industry. I have been making money for the past 10+ years taking the opposite side of trades for people talking about bond vigilantes, QE being inflationary, the USA becoming the next Greece, the US going bankrupt, etc. It's because I use an objective, fact-based analysis of the operational reality of modern monetary systems and am not an academic or politician using historical theories not rooted in reality.

Did you know Paul Krugman didn't incorporate the banking system into many of his models for a long time? Don't even get me started on the Austrian School dorks like Peter Schiff. I lost count of the number of calls they got wrong.

Several of the things you stated are factually incorrect and I explained why. I am beginning to think you don't care about objective facts and are much more interested in emotions and identity politics. It seems like you were trying to bait me into an argument over those but I'm not interested.

If you want to expand your understanding, I highly recommend Pragmatic Capitalism by Cullen Roche.

https://www.amazon.com/Pragmatic-Capitalism-Every-Investor-Finance/dp/1137279311/ref=tmm_hrd_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=1397498215&sr=1-1

Best of luck in the future.

So... Given that you are clearly not engaging in good faith, can I ask, have you ever actually read anything on macroeconomics, and specifically MMT before this discussion?

Before I take the time to explain the points that will quickly be ignored by you like they were previously, id love if you could first give me an answer.

> (they should have some good data/theories from South Korea, China, Japan, right? :)), backing? If you're short on time or whatever, please answer this question at least!

Sure, here you go;

http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_821.pdf

http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=6624

https://www.amazon.com/Macroeconomics-William-Mitchell/dp/1137610662

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/4/16/18251646/modern-monetary-theory-new-moment-explained <- Very, very simple article, but I link it anyways because some of the hyper links and sources were quite good

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2019/04/mmt-scholars-predictive-and-policy-successes-part-a.html

https://heterodox.economicblogs.org/bill-mitchell/2019/mitchell-madame-lagarde-mmt

Richard D Wolff is big in the Market Socialism/Democratic Socialism world right now.

A good intro to Economics in general would be Economics: a User's Guide (it's very easy to understand and the author has a short animated introduction to his book)

A good intro to Marxism specifically is the Mad Marx series.

Other than that, I recommend that you look into the different forms of Socialism and what's been tried before.

I enjoyed reading Economics: The User's Guide by Ha-Joon Chang, he does a good job of providing an over view of different schools of economic thought. He points out the (often large) assumptions each school makes and then provides the reader with some idea of the limitations of those economic models.

A somewhat more recent idea in economic is the role of psychology is economic activity - see for example Irrational Exuberance - by Shiller , essentially as humans are not rational creatures and out behavior plays a huge role in economic activity (contrary to a central assumption of the neoclassical theory) - this places firm limits to the ability of mathematical models to predict behavior and therefor puts some bounds on the predictability of economic models.

This reminds me of a decent book I read some years ago titled More Sex is Safer Sex. It was interesting to me, partially because the reviews of it were pretty polarized. Here's a link if you're interested: https://www.amazon.com/More-Sex-Safer-Unconventional-Economics/dp/1416532226.

Here's the economics guide I typically recommend for newcomers:

Pirate a intermediate micro and macro textbook and do the math problems. Mankiw's macro and Krugman's micro are good for basic stuff. For intermediate+ macro textbooks we used blanchard and Sanjay Chugh's for advanced stuff. I forget what textbooks we used for intermediate and advanced micro but any textbook that has math for the models listed below should be good.

The recommended model order I would say is:

• Supply and demand, PPF's
  
• Utility, derive supply and demand curves from them
  
• Basic neoclassical macro(the supply and demand macro). Fractional reserve banking, how interest works, savings=investment. Basic Keynesian stuff like keynesian crosses, multiplier effect.
  
• Game theory+utility and risk for micro practice, Monopolistic competition and monopoly power
  
• Intermediate Keynesian stuff like ISLM, phillips curve for different expectations of inflation.
  
• Solow Swan immediately afterwards.
  
• Trade theory: Ricardian, HO(HO is kinda crappy but you need it in the event of DRS industries), Krugman
  
• More micro stuff but with lagrangians and more utility.
  
• Advanced macro models. In my Uni we did RBC and New Keynesian stuff with inter-temporal euler equations.

When rates increase it means the BoE pays more on reserves held by commercial banks (so they are less incentivised to lend it out)

Bank rate would also affect LIBOR (cost of borrowing between financial institutions) - which is basically what financial products are based off e.g. LIBOR + x basis points

The commercial banks can then pass on the cost to consumers/businesses and pocket the difference (i.e. the spread) between what capital costs and what they can lend to the end user (i.e. consumers)

That is why financial institution equities have been creeping up in price - increase in rates mean there is more wiggle from for them to be more profitable

Also read: http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetarypolicy/Pages/how.aspx

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/quarterlybulletin/2014/qb14q1prereleasemoneycreation.pdf

Good textbook too: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Macroeconomics-Institutions-Instability-Financial-System/dp/0199655790

Short rates have almost never seen a 5% real rate. Don't be ridiculous. And I'm not gonna argue with you on two fronts. See my other comment and come back when you're ready. Might I recommend snagging this as well?

Mic/Mac 201/202? :P

As someone else recommended, Mankiw's Macroeconomics is a pretty standard intermediate text.

For micro, I used [Pindyck and Rubinfeld's Microeconomics] (http://www.amazon.com/Microeconomics-7th-Edition-Robert-Pindyck/dp/0132080230/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1377288113&sr=8-1&keywords=microeconomics+rubenfield) for my intermediate text.

Both are decent, but there are many others out there that will suffice. Check Abe books or Amazon for used, older versions.

I stand behind using a textbook, though. We grow up hating them, but going back and reading them when it isn't required if insightful. They are more enjoyable and well written then I ever remember.

Reading recommendation for a new book coming soon for anyone interested in how news stories and narratives drive economic events - of course talks about Bitcoin. From Robert Shiller, who understands crazy markets better than anyone. IMO, you’ll learn more from books like this than you will from most stuff attempting to predict or understand crypto prices.

https://www.amazon.com/Narrative-Economics-Stories-Economic-Events/dp/0691182299

If you're American, I think the stuff here is good.

For me as an Indian, this book was extremely powerful: https://www.amazon.com/Everybody-Loves-Good-Drought-Districts/dp/0140259848

I tried reading General Theory last year, didn't finish it. I think there really isn't a way of learning macro that isn't textbook based.

I'd recommend using the MIT OC page at http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Economics/14-02Principles-of-MacroeconomicsFall2002/CourseHome/index.htm . Try and get the Blanchard textbook they use - consider buying a used copy, and reselling it when you're done.

...the people pointing you towards Austrian stuff are hilarious. There's no macro in Human Action or Economics in One Lesson!

At least it actually HAS a diagram. You have to at least be able to push curves around if you want to sit at the feet of PK.

Btw as a warm-up I would highly recommend this curve shifting book by Soskice and Carlin. I haven't read this one, but it's an updated version of their 2006 book which I thought was excellent. It's what the undergrad kids are reading these days at some of the lower ranked universities (hey we can't all go to BMS).

Abel and Bernanke's Macroeconomics is standard mainstream intermediate macroeconomics. Williamson's Macroeconomics introduces new classical Real Business Cycle type modelling. It's useful if you intend to go on to graduate work, especially a PhD in Economics, but I wouldn't recommend it if you just want to build up your economic intuition on how the economy ticks. If you don't want to go on to graduate work, I would recommend Blanchard's Macroeconomics instead of Williamson.

https://www.amazon.com/Macroeconomics-7th-Olivier-Blanchard/dp/0133780589/

He wrote a book on economics, Mankiw wrote the book on economics (not that Mankiw's is great, but it is the dominant text). Bernanke is known less for his textbooks and more for his research and papers on the Great Depression.

http://www.amazon.com/More-Sex-Safer-Unconventional-Economics/dp/1416532226/

Somewhat related and quite amusing

What you want to do is to understand the basic "framework" of the macroeconomy, and I'm afraid that the most effective way to do that is to read an introductory level textbook.

Reading the financial press or these type of "nuggets" from famous investors does not and cannot substitute for having a thorough and deep understanding of the basic framework. No amount of "story-telling" can substitute for that.

I think Mankiw's intro macro textbook or Krugman's basic macro textbook cover what you need to know.

I would say that they are fairly cheap and accessible.

> What does growing economy mean? What does growing currency mean?

Here you go.

I recommend Economics: The User's Guide by Ha-Joon Chang

It's very accessible and covers different economic theories, their strengths and their weaknesses.

> (e a diferença de preço de livros acadêmicos na língua original pra versão traduzida nem é lá grande coisa).

Ai que você se engana

https://www.saraiva.com.br/macroeconomia-5-ed-2011-3453061.html


https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0132078295/ref=dp_olp_new?ie=UTF8&condition=new

https://www.amazon.com/Macroeconomics-7th-Olivier-Blanchard/dp/0133780589/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1503728656&sr=1-1

200 dólares se novo, apesar que a edição mais antiga que se iguala a mais nova traduzida é tipo 4 dólares

Thanks for the rec by Sowell. Am I the only one who thinks there should be a good economics anthology out there that chooses from the nine or so major economic schools? The closest I can come to this is Ha-Joon Chang's remarkable Economics: The User's Guide, where he spends a very long chapter delineating the nine major schools out there, emphasizing at the end that we should not only let a hundred flowers bloom but also cross-pollinate. He's said elsewhere that although he disagrees with Marx and Hayek, he thinks reading both is invaluable for forming an eclectic and well-rounded understanding of economics. And he's totally right.

When you raise the price of something above the market equilibrium, you get more supply.

It looks like the trend of Poles leaving the country is already diminishing thanks to rising wages from my lazy one minute of research.

These things take time. Once an idea like "high achievers need to leave Poland" takes hold in a society, it can have inertia and take years and years to be reversed, but it can be reversed.

Might try Economics: The User's Guide. https://www.amazon.com/Economics-Users-Guide-Ha-Joon-Chang/dp/1620408147

Word of warning: the font size in the paperback is really small, you might be better off getting the ebook. (Haven't seen a hardcover).

It won't work though: https://www.amazon.com/Macroeconomics-N-Gregory-Mankiw/dp/1429240024 (that's a current text, not from 1930)

https://www.amazon.com/Macroeconomics-William-Mitchell/dp/1137610662/

https://www.amazon.com/Modern-Money-Theory-Macroeconomics-Sovereign/dp/1137539917/

You should tell that to the developers of Reddit's iOS APP.
Without the space between the URL and the period, reddit's iOS app treats it as part of the URL and tries to take you to https://www.amazon.com/More-Sex-Safer-Unconventional-Economics/dp/1416532226. when tapped.

I have a few:

• When Genius Failed
  
• Black Edge
  
• Majority of Michael Lewis' works
  
• Barbarians at the Gate
  
• Naked Economics
  
• Naked Money
  
• Pragmatic Capitalism

For macroeconomics we used 'Macroeconomics: A European Perspective' by Blanchard, Amighini and Giavazzi. It is focused on the eurozone though so I'm not sure how helpful it is. There also seem to be a Canadian version and an international version, the Canadian version is crazy expensive though (at least if I convert it to euros and compare it to my book), or are those normal textbook prices in Canada?

No

No

No

No

And

No

Deflating the cost of housing will increase the velocity of money through the economy by increasing new home development due to an increase in demand.

Read this please

In general, one should refrain from judging. How can you say to your brother, "Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye," when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye?

> if a girl has had a lot of dicks she is less and less likely to be enamored with any one of them.

Possibly, but you don't have to make the evaluation in the abstract. "This girl has had a lot of partners, but in fact, she particularly likes me; that girl is a virgin, but she's still cold and unpleasant." Why rely on shaky statistical correspondence when the actual case is in front of you.

> There is no double standard. Males and females are different and have different preferences.

That is exactly what a double standard is.

> Very few men want a girl with a reputation.

Circular reasoning: people think promiscuity is a bad thing because people think promiscuity is a bad thing.

> STD risk goes up

Obviously, you haven't read economist Steve Landsberg's classic text, More Sex Is Safer Sex.

> Closely tied to 3, but having a girlfriend with a past is shameful for most men

And circular, just like (3).