|
United States22883 Posts
Theodore Lowi is like the god father of American government stuff and where most new students start, but a lot of it's very dry (and there's a LOT of it.) The End of Liberalism oddly enough goes nicely with Hayek's Road to Serfdom. If you want to go further, you can read Constitution of Liberty and several others from Lowi, but they may put you to sleep and might be difficult to follow unless you're extremely dedicated.
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.
The Best and Brightest isn't exactly an academic book, but it gives extremely good insight into how things work and how institutional failures happen.
Among "pop" stuff, Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel is decent, but not great. One problem with all big academics is that they eventually try to go out of their depth, and most fail because the stuff is so complicated. Diamond goes into anthropology and he shouldn't, and Mearsheimer wrote a book on Israeli Lobbies he had no business covering.
|
United States22883 Posts
On August 18 2011 06:45 ryanAnger wrote:Show nested quote +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. 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. 
Well, the interesting stuff is usually easier to read, more entertaining, and less accurate. Once you've read the serious stuff, you can better critique the interesting ones. Basically, I'm talking about "pop" stuff that shows up in the NYT Best Seller list. Notice on Amazon, Waltz's book only has 13 reviews, but I can guarantee you people in or studying international relations have read at least part of the book or have an opinion on it.
|
We recently used Acemoglu's Introduction to Modern Economic Growth in a class. Great textbook, I can't recommend it enough. Pretty thorough and rigorous, even including a short primer to the relevant topics in Analysis, and, as it says, teaches the basics of the tools modern macroeconomists use. A couple steps up from intro books, but if you've done analysis it's readible and it doesn't use the outdated quasi-keynesian tools most intro macro books teach.
Also, currently working through Kreps' Notes on the Theory of Choice. Make sure you have an understanding of probability going through it, but it's a very interesting and much more thorough examination of the models of choice that underly micro models. Also includes a lot of good problems.
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.
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.
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.
|
Hong Kong9157 Posts
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.
I see you got to this thread before I could recommend these, Jibba :D
Here are my suggestions:
Some classics...
Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes
Utopia, Thomas More
The Prince, Niccolo Machiavelli
On Liberty, J.S. Mill
Democracy in America, Toqueville
International Relations...
Politics Among Nations, Hans Morgenthau
Theory of International Politics, Kenneth Waltz
Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics, Joseph S. Nye Jr.
Empire, Antonio Hardt and Michael Negri
Popular Dissent, Human Agency, and Global Politics, Roland Bleiker
Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition, Nye and Robert Keohane
Perpetual Peace and Other Essays, Immanuel Kant
The CNN Effect: The Myth of News Media, Foreign Policy and Intervention, Piers Robinson
Domestic Politics...
The Imperial Presidency, Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.
With the Stroke of a Pen: Executive Orders and Presidential Power, Kenneth Mayer
Third Parties in America, Rosenstone, Behr, and Lazarus
Political Economy
Das Kapital, Marx
The Power of Ideology, Istvan Meszaros
The Fatal Conceit, Hayek
The Fountainhead, Ayn Rand
The Ascent of Money: A Financial History of the World, Niall Ferguson
Case Studies...
The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, William L. Shirer
Shake Hands With the Devil, Lt. Gen. Romeo Dallaire
Philosophy...
Discipline and Punish, Michael Foucault
Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature, Richard Rorty
Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life, Giorgio Agamben
The Gulf War Did Not Take Place, Baudrillard
Being and Time, Heidegger
Selections from the Prison Notebooks, Gramsci
Orientalism, Said
** Bolded titles are, imo, more important than the others.
also...
Khalilzad 1995 (Zalmay, Def. An RAND, "Losing the Moment? The United States and the World After the Cold War," Washington Quarterly, vol 18, no 2; p 84)
Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.
Edit: Also, there will always be bias in what ever you read, see, or are presented with. The challenge is to see around the bias, and the best strategy is to be as well rounded in your search for knowledge as possible.
|
United States22883 Posts
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.
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.
Discipline and Punish, Michael Foucault I think one of the most important things you can read.
Honestly, I would stick to the Wikipedia entry on Das Kapital, though. >.>
|
Hong Kong9157 Posts
On August 18 2011 08:17 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +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. 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.
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.
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.
Words cannot express my jealousy. How did he handle contrasting viewpoints from people in class?
|
Well, economics is tricky due to the "political" stances within but basic micro- and macroeconomics should be learned with books from Mankiw or Varian with the respective titles.
|
On August 18 2011 06:10 Milkis wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2011 05:46 Hider wrote: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.
This isn't really that you will learn at a university. Never the less this is real economics. Since when was austrian economics "real" economics? -_-??? austrian economics is a religion
Listen to this man.
As for books, Idk what to recommend, but library.nu is a really good site to search for them.
I believe introductory econometrics might be more helpful if you're going into theory style econ, but for applicable economics, just something like Mankiw's Principles of Macro/Micro economics should be more than enough.
|
Mellamosatan and itsjustatank both have a pretty solid list of suggestions. My only thought is this, particularly in regards to philosophy- even if you read the books or even memorize it, you will not understand the full weight of what is being put down in words unless you supplement it with the "appropriate" analysis. I swear during my college career I've re-read (>5 times) large chunks of Summa Theologica and not fully understood it until I read an accompanying work expounding upon some easy-to-miss detail which happens to be critical to what Aquinas wanted to explain. Even if you're a super-genius, there's no point reinventing the wheel; this also enables you to better formulate/critically assess your own thoughts about the work.
I think most of the above can be ignored for something like economics where you will understand the substance without necessarily learning the adjacent mechanisms. Of course you may miss how one mechanism affects another, but that's different a misunderstanding a la philosophy reading.
|
5003 Posts
On August 18 2011 06:13 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2011 06:10 Milkis wrote:On August 18 2011 05:46 Hider wrote: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.
This isn't really that you will learn at a university. Never the less this is real economics. Since when was austrian economics "real" economics? -_-??? austrian economics is a religion 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:Show nested quote +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.
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.
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.
|
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 08:33 Milkis wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2011 06:13 BluePanther wrote:On August 18 2011 06:10 Milkis wrote:On August 18 2011 05:46 Hider wrote: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.
This isn't really that you will learn at a university. Never the less this is real economics. Since when was austrian economics "real" economics? -_-??? austrian economics is a religion 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. Show nested quote +On August 18 2011 06:28 Klaca wrote: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.
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. 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.
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.
|
5003 Posts
On August 18 2011 09:24 Klaca wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2011 08:33 Milkis wrote:On August 18 2011 06:13 BluePanther wrote:On August 18 2011 06:10 Milkis wrote:On August 18 2011 05:46 Hider wrote: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.
This isn't really that you will learn at a university. Never the less this is real economics. Since when was austrian economics "real" economics? -_-??? austrian economics is a religion 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: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.
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. 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. 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.
I don't need to know whether in Hobbes' premises in the Leviathan are true or not to realize his conclusions are extreme.
And yes, austrians are *very* good at strawmans
|
Hong Kong9157 Posts
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.
Well whether or not you decide to enter politics, it is a noble effort to try and teach yourself something even if you are out of school. You'd certainly be ahead of most politicians in actually being prepared; most politicians aren't as prepared as you might think for the challenges that await them.
Have you considered things outside of traditional textbooks and academic writing? A great deal of fiction literature as well as other forms of fictional media contain frameworks of understanding that are potentially very applicable to politics as well as the real world.
Some examples (Books)...
Starship Troopers, and "If This Goes On--", Robert Heinlein
Nineteen Eighty-Four, and Animal Farm, Orwell
Fahrenheit 451, Ray Bradbury
Lord of the Flies, William Golding
The Wall, Jean Paul Sartre
Heart of Darkness, Joseph Conrad
Richard III, Shakespeare
(Media)...
Network (1976)
The China Syndrome (1979)
Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964)
Now and Then, Here and There (1999)
Battlestar Galactica (2004)
Fight Club (1999)
Yojimbo (1961)
|
Kind of want to hug Milkis in this thread.
|
Man, if you want to enter politics, you better find some rich friends and sell your soul right now.
On a more serous note, who you meet will be important, so prepare well to enter the best school possible. My first guess on educating yourself would be... grabbing a map and reading 1 or 2 newspapers everyday, to get a picture of what's going on.
You also need a strong historical knowledge, otherwise the world of today is just a random and nonsensical chaos.
Idealistically, a taste for philosophy would be a blessing, but the immense majority of politicians get away with being pure ideologists and putting very little thought in their positions. No joke, you could just be a "modern" kid and forget about it, but you would end up spitting many aberrations in your life of responsabilities.
Also, finance and trade is where the power is, if you want your piece of the cake.
|
Are you a math person? In my mind economics, when studied seriously, does require a lot of mathematics. This is something you may want to keep in mind, especially the other two fields you listed are more in the "arts" faculty.
|
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.
Oh, you want to become a politician? That's a very different thing from becoming a student of political ideas! You should probably disregard every book everyone's said so far, (although you should still read and namecheck the most appropriate tomes, according to ideological taste and fashion).
Instead, Machiavelli's The Prince should obviously be one of the first things on your list then. Also I've heard that Caro's unfinished multi-volume biography of Lyndon Johnson is a good source on how a career politician maneouvres his way to power.
|
Norway28703 Posts
as far as economics goes I only have to second milkis' posts. people who follow austrian economics almost invariably seem to fit into a certain group of people; reasonably young (20-30) white males (meaning that they've never experienced the discrimination lack of government intervention leads to) who are internet educated rather than university educated. (Meaning that the knowledge they have attained is based around their own capabilities of finding and interpreting various sources, and that they've never been challenged to produce anything to prove their understanding, nor have their understanding evaluated.) same group of people tends to be highly conspiratorial and anti-government (because once again, they've never noticed how their government has benefitted them, and because they are self-educated, they have a high belief in their own ability to understand the world. there's a reason why university hardly ever teaches either - although I do have the impression of economic theory as somewhat of an ideology, rather than a science, no matter where you go.
as far as political science goes, many good ones have already been mentioned, I'd like to mention henry kissinger's diplomacy as a sort of, overview of different approaches to foreign policy. granted, it's from an american perspective, and while I think kissinger is a major crook, his analytical powers, and writing ability, are absolutely top notch.
|
On August 18 2011 08:19 itsjustatank wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2011 08:17 Jibba wrote: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. 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. 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. Show nested quote +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. Words cannot express my jealousy. How did he handle contrasting viewpoints from people in class?
It was a pretty large lecture (~200 people), so there wasn't very much interaction. And honestly, no one really wanted him to ever stop talking.
He did talk about wanting to teach a method of thinking/analysis at the beginning of the class, just taught through his own conclusions. The realist element was only probably about 1/4th of the class, it didn't dominate it. He does teach a realism seminar, which is where you'd probably see better how he deals with criticism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
