This is one of the worst entry-level that I have ever seen. It is badly organized. The material on Macroeconomics precedes the material on Microeconomics. It is out of date. Much of the content of this book consists of "Old Keynesian" economics of the 1950's that nobody- not even today's "New Keynesians"- believes in anymore. The authors briefly mention a few of the major changes in economic theory over the past 30 years, but do a poor job of explaining these new and dominant concepts. It is badly written. I have heard many students complain that it is a boring read, and that much of it is difficult to understand. It is unsophisticated and superficial. Its' muddled discussions lack depth, and fail to explore the subtleties of the faulty concepts it presents (this is the best things about this book). In short, this text is an embarrassment to the economics profession. The authors have failed to amend the content of their text in response to advances in economic theorizing, and continue to organize their text in accordance with the faulty and discredited Keynesian theories of the 1950's. If you must read this for a class, remember that its' content is as bad its' presentation.

I can't believe after fourteen editions of this book, the quality is still so poor. First of all, this book is too simple even for a high school AP economics class (the one I'm in now). The examples are stuipid and uninteresting. Secondly, this book is difficult to read because of the font type, the graphics and other things annoying to the eye. This means reading this book will put a student to sleep. Thirdly, one look at the table of contents will reveal that the book is totally out of order. It jumps into macroeconomics without saying anything about supply and demand essential to microeconomics (that's later in the book). Lastly, reading this book will not increase your knowledge of economics unless you attend the lectures. So reading this book on your own will only make a vague impression of what's said but no understanding. So, teachers and professors, do your students a favor by choosing another textbook.

In my experience, students usually violently disagree on the quality and difficulty of this text. Predictably, the division goes something like this: Camp 1 - it's too difficult, in places there is not enough explanation, and the writing style is turgid. Camp 2 - it rambles on for too long on irrelevant issues, it does not provide all the necessary formulae (let alone working out), and is basically high school material.

In my opinion, there is truth in both camps' evaluations. In places it does tend to ramble - especially with respect to boring examples, and it does not provide the necessary mathematical appendices for those students going on to intermediate study. In addition to these (justified) student-based complaints, I have my own: the first chapter on methodology is, as with just about every textbook written these days, pathetic. It does no service to the discipline of economics to patronisingly peddle the line that "economics is a science" when there is abolutely no evidence of a properly developed (let alone explained) scientific approach being used in the textbook itself. Introductory economics texts have to move into the late 20thC and admit that economics is not infact a covert physical science, and further, does face serious methodological questions about what it is actually capable of knowing. My other complaint is that there is no systematic linking together of the microeconomic (quasi-)normative chapters (e.g. the economising problem, general equilibrium, functions of government, and the section on current social issues). A more coherent approach that at least introduced students to Arrow, Rawls, Nozick and Sen would not only bring dispirate ideas neatly together, but would also supply students with a basic grounding in distributional theories of justice which they should encounter in more advanced subjects.

That said, some criticisms are unwarranted. For example, I don't believe that the text is 'too hard'. I have always found this complaint somewhat puzzling, given that it is probably the easiest text this side of the bombasically simple "Principles of Economics" by N. Gregory Mankiw. One suspects that this reaction is due largely to first year university students not having much experience with economics texts (i.e., not realising that it only gets MUCH harder from first year onwards). Also, it must be said that on the whole it is reasonably balanced in its political inclinations (in that it does not rant about the evils of trade unions or oligopolies). Finally, while the text does ramble, it is nonetheless well written. For the most part, those students coming to economics for the first time should have little difficulty in comprehending what is being articulated.

In the final analysis, the 'pros' and 'cons' balance each other out, making for an eminantly average textbook. This is not to say it's Bad - it's merely to say that buying it will not set you 'afire with desire' to do more economics...just like most textbooks currently on the market.

The Big Stick is a book about a guy named Rusty and his success with hockey. It's mostly predictable and is not very exciting. It tells about a lot of hockey games and puts in some play-by-play accounts of some of the games. It's not especially exciting and I wouldn't recomend it.