Where can I find out little known traps , puzzles , paradoxes , myths and limitations of economics, beside wading through college textbooks?
April 14, 2006 9:27 AM   Subscribe

Where can I find out little known traps , puzzles , paradoxes , myths and limitations of economics, beside wading through college textbooks?

I am looking for books and articles etc on little known traps , puzzles , paradoxes, myths and limitations of economics.

They make the task of learning economics more interesting.

I have found a few but please share what you know . Thank you very much.

Economics on Trial: Lies, Myths, and Realities (Hardcover)
by Mark Skousen

Puzzles and Paradoxes in Economics (Paperback)
by Mark Skousen, Kenna C. Taylor

Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought (2 volume set)
AUTHOR: Rothbard, Murray N.



http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=1568
Ten Recurring Economic Fallacies, 1774–2004


http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/12/twelve_myths.html
December 21, 2005
Twelve Myths



http://wfhummel.cnchost.com/multipliermyth.html
The Myth of the
Money Multiplier




Many transactions are exduded from measures of national product. Intermediate goods have already been noted. Production within the household—work family members do for which they don't get paid—is exduded. The depletion of resources and the production of "bads"—also find no place in national product.
On the other hand, some things are induded that should not be. For example, in contract dispute cases, private
arbitrators' fees are exduded as intermediate goods, but judges' salaries are induded.
Some such oddities are simply decisions on xi/here to draw debatable lines, some are mistakes that are retained for historical reasons, some are shortcuts taken to make measurement easier.




According to their national
income and product accounts, countries like Kuwait, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia are relatively rich, 'nth high GDP per worker. But a very large chunk of this wealth in such resource-rich economies arises from the sale of limited and depietable natural resources.
Since 're indude investment in GDP—the increase in the economy's capital stock, its man-made productive resources—shouldn't we count resource depletion as a tor' of disinvestment—a reduction in the economy's stock of naturally occurring productive resources? There is no good reason not to. But it is difficult to measure, so we don't.





The four monetary aggregates do not behave the same. During 1992, for example, M 1—the narrow measure—grew by more than 13%, while M3, the broad measure, grew by less than 1%. As gauged by Ml,monetary policy in 1992 was expansionary: the Federal Reserve's monetary policy was forcing M l to grow rapidly, pushing down interest rates and boosting demand.
But as gauged by total M3, monetary policy in 1992 was contractionary: The Federal Reserve was allowing the supply of M3 to shrink, pushing up interest rates and deepening the 1991-93 recession. Different measures of the money stock say different things about monetary policy.
It is harder to be a monetary economist than it used to be.
posted by studentguru to Education (7 answers total) 4 users marked this as a favorite
 
Herman Daly makes a good critique about how neoclassical economics fails to adequately value the natural environment. You might also read up on the idea of natural capital.
posted by salvia at 9:53 AM on April 14, 2006


Another quick summary.
posted by salvia at 10:07 AM on April 14, 2006


The Post-Autistic Economics Network might have some links of interest.
posted by hilker at 11:22 AM on April 14, 2006


Popscience version of some of this stuff: freakanomics.

Obviously not rigorous, or some of it even correct, but fun nonetheles..
posted by lalochezia at 10:00 AM on April 15, 2006



I have found the following websites you might want to check out:


http://forums.4aynrandfans.com/lofiversion/index.php/t174.html

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1452
posted by studentguru at 8:30 PM on April 17, 2006



{In the following articles , Deborah Frisch explains why she is not impressed with economics as a discipline.}
"Imagine how neuroscientists would have felt about the phrenologists. Imagine how geologists would have felt about the creationists.
This is how psychologists would feel about economists if more psychologists understood the work of Kahneman, Tversky, Lichtenstein, Slovic and other judgment and decision making (JDM) researchers. One of the many contributions that JDM makes to the social sciences is that it debunks economics. ....One of the many benefits of the burgeoning academic blogosphere is that the fact that economics is a pseudoscience is readily observable to anyone willing to invest a little time in surfing the web."
http://debfrisch.com/archives/000112.html
http://debfrisch.com/archives/2005/10/bs_prize_in_mem_1.html
http://debfrisch.com/archives/2005/02/pies_are_shared.html
http://debfrisch.com/archives/000170.html
http://debfrisch.com/archives/cat_summers.html
http://debfrisch.com/archives/2006/03/reply_to_gary_b.html
posted by studentguru at 9:00 AM on April 26, 2006




« Older Parts to build a cheap(ish) Linux Desktop PC?   |   More Like This Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.