Rating: 
Summary: A Very Good Book
Review: I took an economics class as an elective my first semester of college and had this book. It was a brilliantly written book and really stimulates thought on economics even way after the class is over.
Rating:
Summary: I wish all professors can teach as good as Mankiw does
Review: I totally absolutely agree with the opinions of [other reviewers]. I am a student from Norway, and with limited Macroeconomics books available in Norwegian, we have to chew the most incomprehensible Macroeconomics book written by our own professor. He teaches at our college so we have no other choice than using the Macroeconomics book he wrote. Students say there is a book mafia system at our school, meaning we only use the books written by our lecturers whether the books are well written or not.Lucky enough, the professor who wrote the most incomprehensible Macroeconomics book at my college also recommended us to read Mankiw's book and even claimed that this was the best Macroeconomics book ever written...even though, he said, it was at a slightly lower level than what he taught us. What he means by "at a slightly lower level" is probably due to the fact that our professor chokes the students with so much incomprehensible math and so many formulas which we do not understand and do not know how to relate to the real world unless we take Ph.D degree in Economics, whereas Mankiw refrains from doing so and instead gives us a passion to learn Economics and a critical mind to explore Economics issues further . Last semester, I finally ended up reading Mankiw's book for pleasure, knowledge, and understanding, and dropped my Macroeconomics course with the incomprehensible professor and his equally incomprehensible book. I do not want to take a course which I do not understand and which I am implicitly forced to answer the exam questions in the style my Macroeconomics teacher wants. Yes, I do lack a credit and a grade in Macroeconomics, but I do possess a much better understanding than my classmates who just memorize rawly our Macroeconomics professor's way of answering. If our professor used Mankiw's book instead of his own book, he would certainly produce much better students who possessed excellent understanding in Economics and passion to study this wonderful subject. Students must pay a hefty price when they end up with a professor who cannot teach and write. I wish we had more choices.
Rating:
Summary: A clear, readable introductory text
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: The Best Introduction to Economics!
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: Economics never were easier!
Review: It's a great book, very simple to understand and excellent explanations. A brilliant book by a brilliant economist! I 100% recomend it.
Rating: 
Summary: Generally a fine introductory text
Review: Like some other reviewers, I bought this as a "refresher course", since I graduated college (majoring in economics!) in the late '60's, and I've found it to be generally worthwhile. However, I also found Thomas Sowell's "Basic Economics" to be at least equally as useful (and much more concise). Thus, one should consider one's investment (cost) in relation to one's benefit from the product in question. All matters considered, even though this volume is danged expensive (Why are the book companies trying to give college students such a hard time?), it is a tome worth owning for study, reference, and personal edification.
Rating: 
Summary: Ridiculous Oversimplification
Review: Mankiw has taken a fairly complex discipline and "dumbed it down" so low that 60 percent of our economics faculty refuse to use this book. In 15 years of teaching at the university level, I had never objected to a departmental book recommendation until I used Mankiw's text for one semester. This thing is awful!! What's the problem? For starters, Mankiw preaches his own beliefs as if they are "generally accepted" by the discipline. He takes complex economic issues and solves them with overly simplistic statements that are presented as matters of fact. That's wrong when introducing students to economics for the first time. Students will think they understand economics when, in fact, they'll only be exposed to a very biased perspective. As an example, Mankiw introduces the Phillips Curve, of all things, in the FIRST chapter! Why not give students a little foundation for understanding the basics of the Phillips Curve, not to mention the controversy surrounding it, before laying this thing on them as though it is fundamental to the discipline (which it isn't)? He continues with this horrific oversimplification of complex or highly debatable topics, solving controversial problems with a stroke of the pen. I'm not one of these economists who believes that a principles textbook has to be terribly rigorous for it to be useful. I've used the Stiglitz book and concluded that it was beyond the scope of my students. On the other hand, I prefer a book with a little substance to it. If you're looking for a "highly readable" principles of economics textbook that is unbiased and technically correct, I recommend Irvin Tucker's Economics For Today.
Rating:
Summary: A dangerous oversimplification
Review: 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.
Rating: 
Summary: This isn't your father's Economics textbook!
Review: Recently I wanted to brush up on some Economics, so I purchased this book. The book is extremely reader friendly and the economic principles are clearly explained. But back in the eighties I took Economics in college and the class as well as the text were extremely rigorous. This book at times seems a little too simple when compared to that old text. I wish I still had it to make a comparison, but I don't. This book could be half its size due to a lot of wasted space. There are boring cartoons throughout, and why so many authors have to put cartoons in their textbooks is beyond my comprehension. It is all part of plan to keep reader attention; I wish the author would use the space to better illustrate an economic principle. I believe cartoons and photographs in this text as well as others, do nothing but water down an already difficult subject. These things also make the book more ........ Over ....for a textbook is ridiculous! I am glad I am not a student or I would be in the poor house!
Rating:
Summary: Decent review of basic economics
Review: This book is a good selection for those middle-aged, former students such as myself who wish to refresh their knowledge of the very important subject of economics. However, I wish this book (actually it is a "textbook") offered a key to its questions at the end of each chapter. Likewise, more visual aids would be appreciated, such as detailed graphs about inflation, prices, wages, etc during the Great Depression and other such significant eras. There are indeed some very useful and informative graphs and illustrations, but just not enough for a visually oriented person such as me.
| 
