#60 in Business & money books
Reddit mentions of Naked Economics: Undressing the Dismal Science (Fully Revised and Updated)
Sentiment score: 14
Reddit mentions: 27
We found 27 Reddit mentions of Naked Economics: Undressing the Dismal Science (Fully Revised and Updated). Here are the top ones.
or
- New
- Mint Condition
- Dispatch same day for order received before 12 noon
- Guaranteed packaging
- No quibbles returns
Features:
Specs:
| Height | 8.2999834 Inches |
| Length | 5.499989 Inches |
| Number of items | 1 |
| Weight | 0.65697754076 Pounds |
| Width | 0.999998 Inches |
Hi, Econ undergrad here!
Econ is a little special when it comes to education because the vast majority of books in bookstores and youtube videos are not based on mainstream orthodox economics as you would learn in a university. Most of it is bunk and if you attempt to learn economic theory from youtube you'll probably end up misinforming yourself(It's happened to me firsthand). I would highly recommend you pirate 1 college micro and 1 macro textbooks and go through the math problems chapter by chapter. If you want a quicker intro to econ I highly recommend reading Naked economics since it summarizes intro micro and macro very well.
I wrote up a small explanation on how to debate economics a month ago. Here's a edited version of why theory is so important.
If you learn micro and macro theory's math for the short and long term you can use it to form opinions on a wide variety of policies. It's extremely important that you study the long term growth models immediately after you learn the short term growth models as their policy recommendations oftentimes directly contradict.
I'll be wrapping up a B.S. in Economics with a minor in statistics this December.
Books:
I also highly recommend the Open Course series to develop the fundamental skillset. You can generally get these texts cheap:
Blogs are also okay, but be wary of partisan biases. These are what I check daily:
Ultimately when it comes to econ, there's no perfect substitute for a set of intro micro/macro texts and a university framework. This is contrary to what most pundits/americans seem to believe (seemingly everyone has strong opinions on issues best-explored in an economic framework, no matter how little they've studied it). Also, it's important to note that 98% of what's posted on this subreddit is NOT what economists are talking about. This subreddit is full of news links to stories that promote partisan agendas.
I'll also warn you that any legitimate study of economics requires a decent handle on math. Through at least half the calc sequence. "Good economists are reborn as physicists, mediocre economists are reborn as psychologists, and bad economists are reborn as sociologists."
Economics is a pretty broad subject, is there anything in particular you're interested in? I'll list some sources that I find interesting and that have spurred my interest in economics.
Behavioral Economics
-One of the most engaging books about economics I've read.
-Applying economics to every day life, has a good chapter on how the average crack dealer makes less than minimum wage.
Macroeconomics
(Big picture economics)
Austrian School
(Popularized, not originated, with Friedrich Hayek and generally take a laissez faire approach to the economy)
Keynesian School
(Based on the ideas of John Maynard Keynes, advocates government intervention in the economy to smooth the otherwise turbulent waves of the business cycle)
-Haven't read this one, but Krugman is one of the more famous Keynesians.
Chicago School
Notable Economists:
Microeconomics
(How households / firms make decisions to allocate limited resources. Couple sub categories here, mainly Game Theory and some types of Behavioral Economics)
Casual Books about Economics
-Pretty sure this is available online for free.
-Read this a long time ago before I started seriously pursuing economics. Decent introduction to things like opportunity cost and other simple economic concepts.
Because there is so much information available about economics you might feel a little overwhelmed. That's fine, the important thing is to always keep an open mind and not to dismiss certain theories / information based on a few people's opinions. For example, a lot of people bash on Keyensians these days (and mostly for good reason) but it's important to note that Keyensian economics as its practiced today is vastly different than what John Maynard Keynes had in mind in the early to mid 1900s. Just keep an open mind and form your own opinion.
I'm sure I forgot a ton of stuff so hopefully other people can fill in what I missed.
I highly recommend Naked Economics as an introduction/overview. It should give you an informed, working knowledge of how economics works without getting lost in textbook details.
I like Naked Economics by Charles Wheelan:
https://www.amazon.com/Naked-Economics-Undressing-Science-Revised/dp/0393337642
It is just a good intro book on some basics with examples and it is fun to actually read, so you absorb more of it.
There are allot of topics within Economics so after you explore some you should have a better idea of what you want to focus on.
If you like the Simpsons, Homer Economicus is one of my favorite "economic" books, but I am definitely biased on that one.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0804791716/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1484673928&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&keywords=homer+economicus&dpPl=1&dpID=51etTg6WQLL&ref=plSrch
Really just entertaining with a little learning.
Anyway good luck.
Naked Economics by Charles Wheelan got me interested in the subject. It's a great place to start. Then I recommend reading an intro-level textbook, such as Mankiw's Principles.
De Economia posso recomendar alguns que eu gosto muito:
Naked Economics: Undressing the Dismal Science é um geral que cobre temas básicos mas sem ser massante como livro texto. Recomendo bastante, você aprende muito sobre economia lendo esse livro.
Para economia brasileira gostei muito do Por quê o Brasil cresce pouco. É extremamente valioso para entender porque o Brasil se encontra no marasmo que está hoje.
Ambos os livros não tentam ser compreensivos nem livro textos, por isso são muito mais agradáveis de ler do que livros tipo o Mankiw acima. Ainda assim, dá pra aprender muita coisa.
Naked Economics is really good and absolutely matches your criteria.
I enjoyed reading Naked Economics. It talks about the big concepts in economics (mostly macro) in an intuitive way, and it's a pretty quick read, although it's lacking in math as a result.
I absolutely loved "Naked Economics" by Charles Wheelan. The book provides great real-world context for so many fundamental economics concepts.
EDIT: Whoops; someone already mentioned this text. Apologies for the repeat, but 100% co-sign this suggestion.
Well this is a sad story. I am sorry your husband is so cruel.
I would recommend watching Ted talks to introduce yourself to new ideas. I would also recommend reading Western non-fiction books. This book is a very good introduction to capitalism and economics.
This is by no means either academic or comprehensive, but it's short, fun, and just might kick-start your interest, so give it a watch. There are a couple others following up. I seriously recommend you get one of the more accessible books on economics. NPR's Planet Money has a reading list of books they recommend, and a quick peek at top results in Amazon also indicate bestsellers like Basic Economics, Economics in One Lesson, or the humorously titled and fun Naked Economics.
Any of those will do wonders. Just select whichever looks like a good time.
Or don't -- what to do with scarce resources like your own time is of course your choice. An economic choice ;)
Naked Economics is a really great, approachable book that i've read and re-read before taking the test. I highly recommend it!
Take a look at "corporate economics" or "finance" blogs or books.
Another great book that is absolutely amazing is Naked Economics. I highly recommend it. You should buy it but you can find it on the internet easily. It goes into economic concepts first, and then once it tells you although economic concepts are self-evidently powerful, they are misused so many times and result in the fuckups we see everyday.
The issue above is called the Agency Problem. Where agents/managers' incentives do not align with the health of the company. Stock options is a huge culprit of this. Where an exec's bonus pay is tied to the stock's performance.
Have you already read some mainstream books on economics? I'm not sure going straight to the fringe is the best way of understanding how money works, if that's your goal. Personally, my own introduction to economics was through socialism and the works for Marx and Engels, but that just made it harder to understand how things work economically. If you're looking to understand economics in the context of a capitalist society I wouldn't jump straight into looking at anti-capitalists.
Personally, I've found Naked Economics to be extremely enlightening.
Since we're recommending books, I think everyone in the sub needs to read these two books before mouthing off in their respective topics.
Naked Economics
White City Black City
Edit: OP has revealed the truth. He does not hate capitalism, nor does he support socialism. He sees flaws in capitalism but stil supports it, and wished to test the socialism jerk on /r/truegaming , and also admits to not know that much about economics. This makes me respect OP a bit more, but I'm also not a fan of this type of manipulation in general as I feel it can lead to a waste of people's time. Hopefully, we've collectively at least informed those who didn't know of how capitalism can deal with this situation.
OP /u/whatamidoing11 I'd love it if you (or anyone) read this;
I understand you. Do you understand capitalism?
TL;DR OP blames capitalism for next gen consoles and believes socialism is better
I just went on OP's user page and read all their replies in this submission, and it was eye opening.
OP, you're not just angry at the lack of economic understanding in Redditors (if that lack of understanding even exists). You're angry at the economic system of capitalism. You're angry at the lack of understanding that the problems of the new generating of consoles are, as you perceive them, based on problems in capitalism, or at least our implementation of it, which you do not support.
No wonder you were upset that people thought you were a hardcore Republican! You're pretty much the opposite! You hate our version of capitalism!
The economic systems that you do support are:
> (Social Democracy, Socialism, Resource based societies, etc...)
Let me tell you how I misunderstood your original post.
I thought you were asking us to just accept these problems because they unavoidably stem from capitalism; that we should accept them and move on. I thought you were mockingly appeasing those who were unwilling to accept the problems by offering them an alternative you did not believe in.
It was the opposite. You are unwilling to accept these problems, and you believe strongly in these alternative economic systems.
Firstly, I know some basic economics.
I took a course. I read the book Naked Economics. That's not much, but it's a start. Maybe I'm brainwashed, or maybe I'm informed.
Do you know economics? Do you really know capitalism?
Next, you said yourself that you
> don't know a lot about economics
And that concerns me, because I wonder whether you hate capitalism because you truly hate it and believe in these other systems, or because you misunderstand capitalism. I'm not an expert economist either, and don't know about your other economic systems. Maybe you're right, or maybe you're wrong.
Whatever the case may be, if you've only learned about capitalism from sources that hate capitalism, I urge you to learn about it from a source that loves and understands capitalism like Naked Economics. It may change your mind, it might simply re-affirm your beliefs, or maybe you already know it all and it's a waste of your time. That's why I said if.
A lot of the other comments are already defending capitalism, and I've got a defence of it too, but I better see what work the others have done first to avoid repetition.
Edit: Wait, Socialism?
Now, socialism instantly brings communism to mind. Now, I'm not one to immediately dismiss communism and anything related to it just because America had a war against it, and I recognize that socialism is not communism. But I am highly skeptical of it based on actual economic reasons which are supported by the real life evidence of its failures. I intend to look into social democracy, socialism, and resource based societies as you suggested, but with skepticism.
I'll also put some of the burden on you. Commenters here have explained how capitalism will solve these problems. How exactly can socialism solve them?
Edit: Formatting
Hopefully OP is still checking in on this thread.
You'll need to start with the basics by registering for 100 level courses at your school whether or not you're already familiar with the subject, so Intro to Microecon, Macroecon and International Economics would be a start.
If you'd like to do some independent reading (which I personally recommend), here is the recommended reading list from /r/Economics. Their wiki lists books by increasing difficulty starting form the basics.
I'd also like to throw in some non textbooks I've read (and are reading) that helped me get an understanding of important fundamentals and obtain an idea of how economists think.
Both of these authors do a great job of grabbing the reader with their outlandish and interesting examples to explain various theories.
Freakonomics - Steven Levitt
Naked Economics - Charles Wheelan
No, it's not. Read this book and it will all make sense.
The same view is expressed in Charles Wheelan's book Naked Economics.
Also, Paul Krugman's In Praise of Cheap Labour (mit.edu) is worth reading.
Your opinion isn't how capitalism works.
I actually wrote a paper that touches on this topic a little bit. Here is an excerpt. I site this book throughout it.
"The book uses the example of Brad Pit being an insurance salesman rather than an actor. It explains how he is “one of a handful of people in the world who can ‘open’ a movie”(13) and how “millions of people around the world will go see a film just because Brad Pit is in it.”(13) It would therefore be a waste of his talents to sell insurance. There are many people who are able to sell insurance, but very few who can ‘open’ a movie with such high rates of success. This is why Brad Pit is paid so much money."
Similarly, (and I don't want to dismiss the hard work of many around the world but...) it is more likely that an individual will become a scientist than the next great basketball player or superstar of sorts. My point is that these people are valued more because they, in and of themselves are a very valuable commodity to many companies. In the brad pit example, a ton of companies would want him in a movie because he can basically guarantee that movie's success and make hundreds of millions of dollars.
You should read up on how government spending really affects the economy. You have some strong misconceptions about how the economy works.
All this money that is spent on welfare programs... where do you think they go? Do you think poor people receive that money, and just pile it up and set it on fire?
Or do they go and spend that money in their community, thus generating revenue for businesses, profits for the owners, and wages for those businesses employees?
Money spent on welfare programs directly injects wealth into communities, spurring economic growth where otherwise there may little to none. And growth is good for everyone.
You should read a few books on economics. You could start here - it'll provide some very valuable insights.
While I disagree with you, and think your point is inaccurate, I appreciate you providing your insight.
As promised:
I'll respond to the specific issues you brought up that, I presume, are important to you. Then I'll bring up a couple additional issues that I think are important. I want to say, firstly, that I don't hold any of my views on most of these matters as conclusive; I'm not trying to say "I'm right, you're wrong: suck it" or anything. I want to say that I'll make it as short as possible, but who am I kidding. Just look at my track record. You better grab a coffee and a meal, this shit is going to go on forever.
> Do you think building more prisons is financially sound?
I have no idea, and we really can't know. This is one of the issues that the opposition is perfectly right to demand numbers for - I'm all for the vote of no confidence, we'll see how the contempt looks after a few important documents are released. I do, however, think that building more prisons (and updating old prisons) is socially sound. Our prisons are packed. We have a growing population (thanks to immigration, not our birthrate, mind you) and a growing incarcerated population.
Now, what I'm referring to here is strictly the building of prisons, as you asked, but you're missing something crucial. There are also amendments planned for Bill C-34 which replaces "least restrictive" type language with "minimum necessary means" type language: read this. That overview is actually set up as a cautionary against the proposed amendments; I'm a little more shifty on that aspect of the social repercussions of proposed changes to our prison system. I think it's ridiculous to compare us to the U.S., but I can understand the worry that we're moving in that direction. That's all I'll say on this, because from here on in, I'm far less sympathetic and my views are not ones I'm prepared to defend outside of the pub. However, here's some stats on the prison system (notice that inbettwen 2001/2 and 2005/6, the capacity grew only 1%).
This will depress you.
This will not. (Unrelated to Canada, but still.)
> Do you think locking people up for weed is ethical?
I'm going to be honest with you. I could not care less. It's not because I have thought long and hard on it and come to the conclusion that I don't care or that it isn't important, it's because I've put no effort into following up on any of this. I'm not connected to the culture: I've never smoked weed and don't plan to; not because I'm "anti-marijuana," but because I never felt the need or curiosity to. I can't/don't sympathize with it, so it's slipped under my radar; my bad, but it's not a voting issue for me. I don't mean to sound like an asshole, but I just can't fathom why anyone would want to do it in the first place, so I'm in no position to consider it with an even keel. You can ask me questions about this if you want, but as far as its relation to the election goes, I'm ignorant.
> Do you honestly think the trickle down affect is valid (re: tax cuts for wealthy)?
This is difficult to talk about without a lot of speculation. Lower taxes for the wealthy allows incentive for productive investments: this is the conservative line. They're not wrong. Likewise, however, lower taxes are not a good way to deal with the problems of pollution/climate change and urban sprawl: which is the liberal line. They're not wrong. The real question you should be asking I think is not whether there should be tax cuts for the wealthy, but whether I think the Conservatives will strike a better balance between, for example, positive investment incentives and dealing with social problems. Short answer: yes. Long answer: no, but I think they'll strike a closer balance than the other parties. But I haven't really answered your question.
Do I buy into trickle-down economics? No. I think it's a rhetorical device uninformed people use to talk to even less informed people to make themselves (the initial group) seem informed. It's a bad theory (is it even a real theory? whatever) that attempts to draw our incredibly complex and unpredictable world in a way that allows it to be controlled. Are there stats that support trickle-down economics? Sure. Are there stats that don't? You bet. It's just not a responsible fall-back idea. However, I do think that the scheduled tax cuts will be beneficial for basically the reasons outlined briefly above. I don't want to get too far into this because it can be a really long conversation and I'm enough of a talker as it is.
It's fair to disagree with me. It's not fair to tell me that I'm flat wrong and it can't possibly help. I mentioned the unpredictability/complexity economics have to deal with: no one can know what the best route is, but we go with what persuades us and hope for the best. This is a rash oversimplification, but economic theory works on the principle that unpredictable things (i.e., people) can be treated as predictable elements in a plan or an equation. Every political party has treated their economic plans in this fashion, and it's wrong.
I'm going to rip a quote quoted in this book: "Ronald Reagan described economists as individuals who see something work in practice and wonder if it might work in theory. His observation was no doubt inspired by a frustration that so much of what happens in the world economy still seems beyond our control, or even our understanding." Food for thought.
> Do you think the G20 was an acceptable way to spend money? (That's rights violations aside!)
This is going to be a cop-out answer, and you're not going to like it. It's impossible to say anything before the Auditor General releases her final report, and since she reports to parliament and not to any party, she has to wait until parliament sits again. I've seen a few comments around Reddit that she could release it if she wanted to: that is simply not true (hyuk hyuk). Her position restricts her from being able to release her report yet. Aside from that, if she did release it, the results (whatever they may be) could be construed as partisan for a given party and as having an illegitimate effect on the election.
Unlike many other conservatives, I'm not expecting to be appeased. I'm expecting to be fucking pissed off and offended. If the draft is any clue as to what we can expect, it's going to be a shit show. The fact remains that we don't have the information needed to make a responsible decision on the matter; the A.G. said that we cannot take the draft into consideration, so it would not be responsible to. The fact that she cautioned Canadians against considering it makes me wonder how significantly the final report will differ. We'll see.
Everyone feels strongly about all the shit that went down, and I'm not going to talk about that here. I don't think I need to. Or at least I shouldn't need to.
> Do you agree with the long form census cancellation?
Fuck. No. Don't even... don't even get me started. Oh my fucking god. I'm inclined to say that I'm better informed than a lot of people on this issue, if only because a friend of mine wrote a very detailed paper on the matter for her grad program. Fuck man. Fuck.
Do you know how long it will be before we know for certain how much of an impact this will have? 92 years. NINETY-TWO YEARS. Do you know what the altered stats will affect in the meantime? Pretty much everything.
That said, it's a misnomer to say that the long form census was cancelled. A mandatory long form census was. There's a difference. The mandatory bit is the cancelled part, not the census bit. Of course, you can argue that, because it isn't mandatory, it cannot be relied on in any capacity.
So those are the issues you mentioned, feel free to ask me for points of clarification or whatever. Again, I'm not looking to have a debate about this, but feel free to disagree with me. I'll read your ideas, too.
Additionally: cancelling the per-vote subsidy and long-gun registration were both voting issues for me.
Here's what Harper says about it.
Here's a different view on the matter.
As for LGR, there has been plenty about it around the forums here already. Let me just say that, as a response to liberal views, LGR has not played any role in preventing crime. At all. If you're concerned about gun control and crime rates, that's fine, but LGR is not a factor in that.
So that's that. sigh For better and for worse.
Its hard to get a solid introduction to the subject without a hidden political view. Most people I know have enjoyed Naked Economics (http://www.amazon.com/Naked-Economics-Undressing-Science-Revised/dp/0393337642). Also, Colander's economics textbook (http://www.amazon.com/Economics-David-Colander/dp/0073375888) tries very hard to present a wide variety of view points, which is sadly not typical
See http://www.nytimes.com/1997/06/22/weekinreview/in-principle-a-case-for-more-sweatshops.html
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0393337642
http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/smokey.html
idk why people think adult sweatshops are so wrong. They typically have better labor conditions than other options in their area, and even if they don't, sweatshops are usually by far the highest paying job the people in those countries will have access to. Third world countries have far lower costs of living, and it's really not the job of major corporations to lift people from poverty.
but $1600/month in the US? That is fucked
Edit: I definitely recommend reading this if you don't believe me
I think everyone should have to read this book or at least take an Econ 101 class before voting on anything. A lot of it is about overcoming real problems with plausible solutions, rather than just spouting idealistic concepts that sound great in theory, but could never be put in practice.
Also, child sweatshops are bad news. Adults have a choice, though. They don't have to work in sweat shops, they do it because its their best option. Its better than starving, which is what they'd likely be doing otherwise.
Omg you've moved again revealed your profound ignorance. Are you capable of reading? That quote regarding supply effects was referring to earned income rather than capital gains. Cmon at least read if your going to try to pull a gotcha.
Your land isn't being taxed, the property on your land is what is taxed. It's an important distinction and no I shouldn't have to explain basic economic terminology to you. If you deem yourself qualified to comment on economic policy you should have at least an intermediate level understanding of microeconomic and macroeconomic analysis. I'm not going to spoon feed you.
I like how you didn't address the border adjustment tax as I linked. It is very much like a VAT tax, just sold under a different name. Please read before commenting.
I have no reason to entertain beginners mistakes. You went into this discussion in bad faith. I've caught you several times being unaware of economic concepts that even undergrads know. You've been spouting talking points hoping for them to stick. You're the reason the economic discourse in this country had dropped to the level of Donald Trump.
When I was an undergraduate, then had us read a very straightforward book that doesn't require any knowledge of advanced mathematics. It conveys the complex models underpinning economics in a very digestible format. I hope you abstain from commenting on matters of economic policy until you've acquired a bare minimum understanding. The political discourse in this country is abysmal and lacks rigor. I hope you decide to take steps to buck the trend that you're clearly contributing to.
https://www.amazon.com/Naked-Economics-Undressing-Science-Revised/dp/0393337642