Customer Reviews

Principles of Economics

5 star:		(9)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Economics is the most abused science, the one most prone to fallacies (to which Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson is devoted), and yet certainly one of the most important. I purchased this textbook ten years after graduating from college, having read rave reviews and predictions of what it would mean for new generations of students freed from the long-outdated Keynesian textbook by Paul Samuelson, and indeed I was not disappointed. The book is not merely complete, comprehensive, and modern--it is designed to get knowledge into your head with maximum efficiency and enjoyment. A reviewer below called accused it of oversimplification, which I would call inaccurate even if it weren't an introductory text, in which space simply does not permit inclusion of the details of outmoded theories. Unless you are a student, you are unlikely to read it from start to finish, but you will find yourself skipping from one interesting topic or sidebar to the next that catches your eye.

Samuelson once said, "I don't care who writes a nation's laws, or crafts its advanced treaties, if I can write its economic textbooks," and Mankiw even slyly quotes him in his preface. Along with politics, the knowledge of economics is mandatory for being an informed voter. If more citizens were armed with this textbook, bonehead politicians would be a lot more respectful, and responsive to our real long-term needs.

If you read only one book on economics, read this. It deals clearly and concisely with the substance of economics and with the economists' approach -- an approach that far too few people appreciate, and which this book will instil in you. Claims that the book does not have enough math and does not cover Keynesian macroeconomics are misguided.

Regarding the supposed lack of math, one must remember that math is merely a tool that should be used to clarify and not confuse economics. If one can explain economics in English, so much the better. Economics needn't be hard. Mankiw's economics is at least as good as the best of the harder and more mathematical textbooks, and better than the rest. The need is for good economics to be explained well to a large audience, and this book does it superbly.

Regarding the exclusion of Keynesian short run macroeconomics, all I can say is "Whew! Finally! At last!". Keynesian short run macroeconomics taught at the undergraduate level is mindless, unintuitive curve pushing and generates neither understanding nor love for the subject. Teaching that (especially in a first course to a general audience!) is absolutely unforgivable. If anyone is married to Keynesian economics, they can use Mankiw's "Macroeconomics" which covers with exceptional clarity and brevity all the standard material in an intermediate macro course including the ugly Keynesian short run macroeconomics. However, I am against such an approach. The proper way would be to do Mankiw's "Principles of Economics" in the introductory course and then cover the market-clearing approach to macroeconomics of Barro's "Macroeconomics" in the intermediate macroeconomics course.

Mankiw's textbook is a giant leap backwards in the teaching of economics to undergraduates. Naturally, it is always commendable to attempt to simplify complicated concepts to students, but there are limits - particularly in a principles textbook, perhaps the only economics that many people will ever encounter. In this case, it can be considered downright dangerous.

Mankiw "dumbs down" economics, underestimating the average intelligence of a university student. The clearly anti-analytical tone of the book can be counterproductive at times. Several comments from my students noted that Mankiw's style makes it seem that, say, a particular argument is "obvious" when Mankiw explains it, but they could not produce it by themselves since the argument does not seem to use any of the tools which they are busily acquiring. In other words, what is "obvious" to Mankiw and to someone with more training in economics, is rarely "obvious" to the student. The student with analytical bent who has made the necessary investment into learning the tools will find them useless in a lot of the problems set out in the book.

The irritating "scientistic" tone of the book makes it seem as if what Mankiw says is "the truth" and "accepted" by all economists. At least Barro's principles text was considerably more honest in its partisanship and announced loudly that there were other views. Mankiw does not do this. What makes this "scientistic" tone even more irritating is that it is used with particular verve in areas where current economic debate is most controversial - thus giving a misleading view of even the "mainstream" of economics. Furthermore, it makes a lot of economics boringly "deadpan" rather than a living and growing discipline.

Most remarkable, given Mankiw's supposed specialty, is the incredibly compressed and poorly-written last few chapters on macroeconomics. He has singlehandedly decided to obliterate 70 years of research in macroeconomic analysis and leap back to the empirical platitudes of the 1910s and 1920s. It is one thing to be anti-Keynesian, it is quite another to pretend that the Keynesian Revolution never happened. Not even Barro did that. What is most dangerous is that Mankiw is now teaching thousands of students that unemployment is caused by labor market frictions and high wages, and never a word on effective aggregate demand (which, until Mankiw's textbook, was THE mainstay of macroeconomics).

On style: Mankiw writes in a nice conversational tone, albeit a bit too elementary, and always with very carefully chosen words. His examples are not always well chosen and even disturbing at times (e.g. the initial discussion of the impact of seat-belt laws).

I used this book to teach elements of macroeconomics this year. It was a terrible choice and I shall never do so again. Perhaps elements of microeconomics may be better served. Mankiw's textbook is not worth acquiring, assigning or reading. Barro or Colander are much, much, much better - and far more interesting.

This is the ONLY textbook which I read for PLEASURE. After reading his famous "Macroeconomics," I decided to pay 90 bucks for this book to read in my spare time. This book did not disappoint. Unlike most college professors, who beat their students with useless details that no one uses except economics professors, Mankiw delightfully teaches students to see the forest and THINK about economics instead of just memorizing boring details. I believe the quality of textbooks is measured by how much it makes students THINK and ANALYZE the subject than how much it shoves information down their throats. This book makes students WANT to think more about economics, not just force them to memorize facts, graphs, and figures.

I used this text in my intro Econ course this year and (for the first time in my memory) heard unsolicited praise of the book from many of my students. Academics might find the text oversimplified, but it is much more accessible to students; criticism that it "dumbs-down" Econ is ridiculous. It's refreshing to find a readable Econ text.

This book is an excellent source for understanding the major principles of economics. It seems more geared towards those people who want a general but accurate working knowledge of economic topics, especially since it shuns use of mathematics like the plague. It is this fact however, that makes the book less useful to the intermediate and higher level student of economics who just wants topics explained in as clear a way as possible, but then also wants to see the mathematical methods involved in these areas. Nonetheless, this is the first economics book that I have ever read that has such a high level of lucidity and clearness to it.

I have read this book for 6 months and now I think Mankwi has great work! I have read this sort of book, I never thought so easy like this book. I apreciate your work(the author), and I recommand this book to freshman of department of economics!

Basic Economics topics are explaned very well, and in great detail. Easy to get through.

This text is too simplistic, and its use at universities such as Columbia, Harvard and others is a problem. It has little math, and in effect, hardly prepares the student for the truly mathematically oriented study of Economics. Although this makes it easier to read, it is not appropriate for most colleges.

This is pretty much your everyday introductory textbook. This in itself will be seen by many as a damning criticism. That said, there are a couple of notable features that differentiate it from other texts. (i) It is very easy to read thanks to its conversational tone. (ii) It is brief; it does not "waffle on" unnecessarily. (iii) The lay-out is quite pleasent. It should be noted that these points have their opposites for some.