1.5 Years In The Making

I've studied economics at an increasing rate over a 1.5 year span. I started with neoclassical textbooks, then read Reisman, and then was introduced to Mises and the Austrian school. However, I really didn't know much about anything until I read Man, Economy, and State last summer. Until then, I didn't have a reliable paradigm to work off of. Sure, I had knowledge of political economy and the like, but nothing that really let me sink my teeth into economic history, abstract theory, predictions, etc. Also, in acquiring my B.A., I've been bogged down by math and science classes that, in their own right, are interesting, but have nothing to do with economics. I'm really hoping I get into the school of my choice so I can dedicate in full my next few years to this stuff.

But if I had to do it all again, or, if I could give somebody just starting out some advice on how to go about acquiring a solid economics background, I'd say this: Start with Rothbard's Man, Economy, and State (Do not purchase the study guide). Then immediately follow with Landreth and Colander's History of Economic Theory. Then, go back to Man, Economy, and State, and in tandem with this, dabble on the footnotes and recommended readings of MES, to acquire a firmer understanding of the subject matter. After this (or alongside), I strongly recommend a neoclassical monetary economics book: Checchetti's Money, Banking, and Financial Markets is really good (get one from another author to gain a broader point of view, too). After these, one should be well-equipped to tackle Human Action, any of Hoppe's books, Knight's Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit, and the list goes on. This should all take about 1.5 years, and would leave one with plenty of time to complete all other undergraduate work, no matter the degree.

One might say that my recommendations are lop-sided, but that's wrong. I had to work my way through the muck and nastiness of the books that leave you with nothing to remember or think about in the long-term.

For instance, I made the mistake of reading Human Action when I was just starting out. I wanted to be ahead of the game, but it left me feeling more lost than I had started. And, I wasn't able to enjoy gems like this:

"Animals are bestial and inhuman precisely because they are such as the iron law of wages imagined workers to be." (Mises, Human Action, 1963, p.628).

The above statement is made so much more appreciable when you have a knowledge of not only who Malthus is and why animals are factors of production, but also when you realize the controversies that surround(ed) such thought, too. The above statement is also the more special when you realize how many economic historians look upon Menger, Mises, and the Austrian school with ignorance, disdain, pompous arrogance, and as "ideologically biased." You realize that the mainstream is flat wrong concerning the school, and it leads you to question the assumptions you've carried your entire life about 'facts,' science, and mainstream scholastic thought.

I'm really enjoying reading Man, Economy, and State again, and going through the footnotes and the actual texts that Rothbard cites (like Mises!). It makes me look forward to the next 30 years, and the work I will pioneer.