Ok Nick Rowe, You Win, I'll Read an Econ Textbook

     I've been intending to do something like that for awhile. I was just the other day browsing Paul Samuelson's original "Economics" textbook from 1948 at Amazon and was really impressed. So I'm going to order that. I was really impressed by Samuelson's style and what I read was already so thought provoking that I'm going for it.

    I always think of reading a textbook-in any subject-as a rather dry and dense way to learn anything. I like reading books but I see textbooks as rather a dull way to go about it. When Nick has reiterated his request that those like me who are interested in "heterodox" economics read an undergraduate textbook I kind of felt like, "Sure, but how many Macro students really read the textbook cover to cover?"

   Then too, from what I've heard many people today in these Macro classes are there for no reason other than that they're good at mathematics-heterodox econ guys like Steve Keen and Skidelsky argue for scaling back the mathematics for econ students and giving them more of a well rounded grounding in other subjects-the other sciences, history, politics, etc.

   Still I can't deny that to critique the neoclassical guys you need to really be able to understand where they're coming from and the seemingly rather counterintutiive way they look at the world. Indeed, Unlearning Econ has given advice on how not to debate neoclassical guys.

    http://unlearningeconomics.wordpress.com/2012/06/

    Even in trying to debate Sumner I see that they certainly have quite a reservoir of ways of avoiding polemical points.

    So I visited Nick's website to see which textbooks he recommended. Turns out he chose not to:

    " Non-economists may be surprised that I haven't said which textbook I would recommend. That's because it doesn't really matter much. They are all fairly similar in coverage and treatment. And they are almost all good, in my opinion."

    http://worthwhile.typepad.com/worthwhile_canadian_initi/2012/07/can-you-please-read-a-first-year-textbook.html

    For the last time I mixed it up with Nick regarding this issue of textbooks see 

    http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2013/02/what-nick-rowe-does-at-600-pm.html

    In his original post at Worthwhile he made a very good case:

   " You are probably very smart. You are probably very well-educated -- either formally, or self-educated, and probably both. You spend a lot of time on the internet reading economics blogs and commenting on those blogs. You maybe even have a blog of your own, where you write about economics topics. You are probably politically engaged. You are probably a lefty, but may be a righty, or someone who is not easily categorised on that political spectrum. You probably think of yourself as a critic of economics, or a critic of what you see as orthodox economics. You are probably sympathetic to what you see as heterodox economics."

   "But you have never once read a first year economics textbook."

   "You have probably many times told me, or people like me, that I really really should read something you want me to read."

    "Well now it's my turn."

    "I think you really really should read a first year economics textbook."

    "You have invested so much time in thinking about, reading about, and writing about, economics. Don't you think it would make sense to spend a tiny fraction of that time just reading a standard first year textbook, cover to cover? You could do it in one day. Maybe two, if you go really slowly and carefully. They were designed to be read by an average reader who is probably less smart and less motivated and less knowledgeable than you are. It's gonna be a breeze!"

     "Even if you think you won't agree with it. Even if you think it's going to be all horribly wrong."

     "Because, at the very least, you will better understand how the people you are criticising view the world."

     "Because, at the very least, you will better understand the language that is used by the people you are criticising."

     "Because, at the very least, you will better understand what is and is not an idea that is seen as "heterodox" by the people you are criticising."

     "Because, at the very least, you would make this blog and other blogs better."

      I found this appeal by Nick very persuasive. Unlike Sumner, he doesn't speak as if those interested in heterodox ideas are hopelessly ignorant and clueless. Not that I think Sumner's all bad but this is not an area that excels. For the most part if he doesn't like an idea he'd rather ignore it. 

      I was expecting Nick to say "read Mankiw" or something. So I'll definitely start with Samuelson as what I saw is pretty impressive. While his IS-LM approach gets jeers from Sumner-and cheers from Krugman- it remains to this day the standard for undergraduate textbooks-DSGE is for graduates. 

     Here are a couple of lines that took me in from Samuelson: "The Whole and the Part."

      "If all farmers work hard and nature cooperates and produces a bumper crop. total farm income falls."

      "One man by great ingenuity in hunting for a job or in willingness to work for less may solve his own unemployment problem, but all can't solve their problems in this way."

      "It may pay a business firm to take on some business at much less than full costs.'

       There are lots more good ones on this page but Amazon doesn't let you cut and paste. 

       http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0070747415/ref=gno_cart_title_5?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=A3ADN03F2ABAVW

       Yep, I got to read this just to figure out how these things are all true. 

        P.S. How much Sumner is not a fan of IS-LM is suggested here:

        "The architect Christopher Wren is buried in a simple tomb in the basement of St. Paul’s Cathedral.  I belive the inscription reads “If you seek a monument, look around you.”  I’m not trying to compare myself to that great man, but I suppose I could say something similar about my blog, which is almost entirely an implied critique of the IS-LM way of thinking about monetary economics."

         http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=915

         Krugman defends IS-LM:

            http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/is-lmentary/