The review on The Mystery was interesting to me, in that the liquidity of assets sounds like a property rights issue, and I've long argues that liberal (I mean that in the classic sense) property rights are the reason that the west was able to become as strong as it is, and poverty inevitably follows a constriction of property rights (although I have yet to see that effect in CA, I'll admit.)My next non-fiction purchase is probably going to be Economics Applied by Thomas Sowell, so maybe I can trade you when we both finish them.Noticed this in the review of Economics Explained:

It also provides an overview of the history of economic thought by contrasting the theories of Adam Smith, Karl Marx, and John Maynard Keynes.

I would love to see what they say about the "economic theories of Karl Marx". That's usually a good indicator of someone's grip on reality, since I can't think of any system that has failed as miserably in practice as Marxism.

The Mystery of Capital would appeal to you, I think. Slate called de Soto "a genius of property rights."I'm not really prepared to discuss your theory yet. I have a general sense of the importance of economics because its principals are what guide many (if not most) public policy decisions, but all I can reall say now is whether or not a thing said makes sense to a human.Maybe we can trade, but we'd have to trade it back. Having one of Sowell's books live permanently in my house would disrupts its aura.

The economic theories of Karl Marx were actually those of David Ricardo. Marx actually ridiculed those who attempted to design a society based on some recondite theory; he called them "doctrinaire socialists." Please avoid confusing Karl Marx with the rubbish undertaken in the USSR and its colonies.Pierro Sraffa did some research at Cambridge University on the Economics of Karl Marx, but as they say, "that's why Sraffa is a genius."I'm getting an MA in economics and I have to say that, judging by his columns, Sowell is not interesting in communicating a remotely accurate picture of the field; he is engaging in polemics. I can tell when he's using rhetorical tactics to mislead. The idea is to make Keynesian ideas look ridiculous to non-economists, and so naturally he manufactures a bunch of straw men.Actually, De Soto is very perceptive. I read his The Other Path, about the informal sector in Peru. In much of Latin America, the informal sector accounts for over 40% of employment. Very cogent stuff.