I'm looking for good Econ/PoliSci/Gov books, etc.

On August 18 2011 05:43 AndyG wrote:
While I'm a Math/Computer Science head and have no idea what books to recommend, I just wanna commend you for taking this step. Self-education, especially at a college level, takes a lot of commitment, so this is really cool :D Good luck!

On August 18 2011 05:43 AcuWill wrote:
mises.org

It has hundreds of free economy books on Austrian economics.

TBH read different baised views and draw your own conclusions. Truly sterile text-books that are not biased in any fashion and try to appease everyone are so watered down you won't get anything of real value.

On August 18 2011 05:46 Hider wrote:


This isn't really that you will learn at a university. Never the less this is real economics.

On August 18 2011 05:50 ryanAnger wrote:


I don't necessarily want something that will be taught to me at university, I just want something that will give me an excellent understanding and comprehension of the topics at hand.

On August 18 2011 05:54 Myles wrote:


The 'problem' is that there are distinct groups in economics that have very different ideas. You will spend a lot of time and energy learning about the differences between Neo-Classical, Austrian, and Keynesian economics if you really want a strong understanding and comprehension. If you just want a basic understanding of Ecomics like you would get in an econ 101 class, just get any basic college textbook.

On August 18 2011 06:00 ryanAnger wrote:


Also, to the above poster, I've already read the Communist Manifesto, and the Prince, years ago. I guess I should have probably clarified, I'm not ignorant to any of the subjects I want to study, and that my desire to study them in depth comes from my interest in them, despite (or perhaps because of) my limited understanding of them.

On August 18 2011 06:06 MisterD wrote:
for science with political aspects check out the berkley lecture physics 10 "Physics for future Presidents" -> http://www.youtube.com/user/UCBerkeley?blend=3&ob=4#g/c/095393D5B42B2266

pretty good stuff, and muller does a really good job at lecturing!

probably not exactly what you're looking for, but hella good nontheless.

On August 18 2011 05:46 Hider wrote:


This isn't really that you will learn at a university. Never the less this is real economics.

On August 18 2011 06:10 Milkis wrote:


Since when was austrian economics "real" economics? -_-???

austrian economics is a religion

On August 18 2011 06:00 ryanAnger wrote:


The goal would be to learn all of them (Neo-Classical, Austrain, Keynesian, etc.) I'm the kind of person who can just read something once, and then it's in my head for good.

Also, to the above poster, I've already read the Communist Manifesto, and the Prince, years ago. I guess I should have probably clarified, I'm not ignorant to any of the subjects I want to study, and that my desire to study them in depth comes from my interest in them, despite (or perhaps because of) my limited understanding of them.

Kropotkin - Mutual Aid
Proudhon - What Is Property?: or, An Inquiry into the Principle of Right and of Government

Basic works about Anarchism, and the philosophy behind it.

TBH read different baised views and draw your own conclusions.

On August 18 2011 06:20 ICA wrote:
Okay, I can only talk about Economics since this is the field of my study.
I do not know how advanced you economics/ math knowledge is and how far you want to dig into it. Since you are interested in multiple disciplines I think you only want to get the basics, right?
In that case, grab Mankiw's principles of economics. I am by no means a big fan of this book but I feel that it gives the best overall insight into the topic.
If you want to dig deeper into it go for either Perloff or Varian for Microeconomics and Blanchard for Macroeconomics. A first introduction to trade theory and International Economics is done in Feenstra and Taylor, quite easy and good to read. I would neglect the field of Public Economics for now (though it might be suited for the interdisciplinary approach you take). Same goes for Finance. Introduction to Growth is well covered by Jones.
Up from this point, you need some better knowledge in math and statistics to cover the serious stuff.
Tell me if you need more information.

On August 18 2011 06:24 jdseemoreglass wrote:
It's not possible to find unbiased books on these subjects. Their very nature ensures that proposing any stance will be biased.

I would say just get a little mix of left/right/anarchist theory and see which ones appeal most strongly to you. Some of my favorites:

Basic Economics - Thomas Sowell (anything by Sowell is great)
The Ego and It's Own - Max Stirner (very difficult to read, but has a very interesting anarchist ideology)
For A New Liberty - Murray Rothbard

And do a lot of browsing on wikipedia... it has tons of information giving a brief overview of all of the different ideas and branches in these subjects.

On August 18 2011 05:43 AcuWill wrote:
mises.org

It has hundreds of free economy books on Austrian economics.

TBH read different baised views and draw your own conclusions. Truly sterile text-books that are not biased in any fashion and try to appease everyone are so watered down you won't get anything of real value.

On August 18 2011 06:23 ryanAnger wrote:


Math has always been my strong point, and ideally, I would learn the ins and outs of all of the economic disciplines (or as many as is reasonable.)

On August 18 2011 06:35 Jibba wrote:
Are you looking for interesting books or the kinds of hardcore academic books you'd get from college? Many of MeLlamoSatan's are good, although I'd leave out the Chomsky until you've read other things.

On August 18 2011 06:45 ryanAnger wrote:


Both, but ideally, I'd start with academic so I have a better understanding of the subject before I get into the "interesting" stuff. But to be honest, I'm probably going to end up getting a stack of books and reading them simultaneously, because that's just how I do things.

Also, thank you, everyone, I wasn't expecting so many responses.

On August 18 2011 06:59 Jibba wrote:For international relations, Waltz's Man, the State, and War is a staple that everyone in the field should/has read. Also Perception and Misperception in International Politics by Robert Jervis and maybe The Tragedy of Great Power Politics by Mearsheimer. Mearsheimer is kind of out of vogue in the 21st century, but following crises, there isn't much evidence that contradicts his views.

On August 18 2011 06:59 Jibba wrote:
For international relations, Waltz's Man, the State, and War is a staple that everyone in the field should/has read. Also Perception and Misperception in International Politics by Robert Jervis and maybe The Tragedy of Great Power Politics by Mearsheimer. Mearsheimer is kind of out of vogue in the 21st century, but following crises, there isn't much evidence that contradicts his views.

On August 18 2011 07:18 theonemephisto wrote:
From a decidedly non-polisci background, it seems that people don't like Mearsheimer because of the idealist liberal etc. etc. philosophy that tons of academics have. He's a realist for a reason, and most people don't like to think like that, because they want to believe in liberal ideals. Even if that's not how they act.

Discipline and Punish, Michael Foucault

On August 18 2011 08:17 Jibba wrote:

Well, I think he's too much of a (neo)realist at times, but it's not like there's really a correct theory or perspective. Things are cyclical and in the last two years, he's looked a lot smarter than he did before then.

On August 18 2011 07:18 theonemephisto wrote:
Also, I took a class from Mearsheimer a couple years ago. He is a god of the lecture hall. Maybe that's why I love him so much. I don't know how he is perceived in the field, but everyone who took that class at least grudgingly admitted that his ideas were somewhat true.

On August 18 2011 06:10 Milkis wrote:


Since when was austrian economics "real" economics? -_-???

austrian economics is a religion

On August 18 2011 06:13 BluePanther wrote:



That's not true. Keynesian is a religion. Austrian is, in function, the rejection of Keynesian.

Austrian economics is more like.... evolutionary economics. The strong survive. It's actually very simplistic and true, it just tends to ignore social implications that may hold weight over a people beyond the mere accumulation of wealth.

On August 18 2011 06:28 Klaca wrote:

Agreed. Mises.org is the only way to go. It has basically refuted all the modern political science and economics. It is the largest economics site on the web and the intellectual giant of our age.

On August 18 2011 08:33 Milkis wrote:





Keynesian Economics is far from a religion. Keynesian Economics did give birth to ideology far after the main ideas of it was conceived. Austrian Economics created itself due to ideological disagreements with Keynesianism. Austrian Economics is actually birthed from said ideology -- in fact, Austrian Economics set itself up from "irrefutable" axioms and verbal logic that are a consequences of interpretations of said axioms.

Essentially: Austrian Economics is an implicit rejection of many mainstream economic thought simply due to ideology. I could go on (but I'm bounded by time, sadly) about why it's nonsense, especially since it is, after all, a field of ideology that really does set itself up to be untestable due to many constraints.

Simply put: Mises.org will brainwash you into a very fringe way of thinking that will close your mind more than any other field of economics or political science. If you're interested in learning about the matter I recommend you start with more reputable, classical sources and work your way rather than enclosing yourself in such a simplistic and naive way of looking at the world.

In my opinion, the best approach to economics, politics, or anything is to keep an open mind. While Austrian Economics has its merits, the downside that the movement tries to close your mind to many many things is a huge downside. It's only worth looking at after you're more educated, as most people who tend to be Austrians tend to be internet educated and not much else.

On August 18 2011 09:24 Klaca wrote:

Look, its simple.
No one has refuted Mises-Rothbard praxeology. Not a single person in history. Not even the premises. As such it is.. proof of it being rock solid.

Compare this to textbook economics and Neo-keynesian & monetarist schools whose theories have been largely obliterated by the Austrianns.

On August 18 2011 09:06 ryanAnger wrote:
In case you guys were wondering, my primary reason for studying all of this is that I have an inkling of a desire to enter politics, and I want to ensure that I am adequately prepared for it. I feel like these subjects (and law when I get around to it) are most important in politics.

On August 18 2011 09:06 ryanAnger wrote:
In case you guys were wondering, my primary reason for studying all of this is that I have an inkling of a desire to enter politics, and I want to ensure that I am adequately prepared for it. I feel like these subjects (and law when I get around to it) are most important in politics.

On August 18 2011 08:19 itsjustatank wrote:


Mearshimer, and his brand of Offensive Realism, has fallen out of favor ever since the end of the Bush Administration's tenure.

Sometimes though, you see glimpses of it even in the current administration's policies. See: the death of Osama Bin Laden.



Words cannot express my jealousy. How did he handle contrasting viewpoints from people in class?