<p>I don't think you should read it at any point in your carrer, honestly. It is severily outdated, ambiguous and overall not worth the time and effort put into reading it.</p>

<p>Try Screpanti &amp; Zamagni's <em>An Outline of the History of Economic Thought</em>. Undergraduates do better when studying the works of economists who have been dead for decades as what they are, historical curiosities.  </p>

<p>If you are really bent on reading the General Theory and/ or pretend to research history of economic thought, then I'd say after you go through an intermediate macroeconomic theory course you're good to go.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-09-14T17:33:21.687Z
Indeed I do. Smith, Keynes, Ricardo... These guys are too outdated and the opportunity cost is just too high to be worth reading them - unless one's research is in history of thought.
Pedro Cavalcante
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-09-14T18:49:44.153Z
Just to be clear: I'd think twice before being a person who disagrees with Krugman on international trade theory, just not on undergraduates reading the General Theory.
Pedro Cavalcante
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-09-15T22:55:13.733Z
Just lol at the people downvoting my answer. Is it safe to assume you all read Marshall, Walras, Hicks and Leontief in the original then? Good god, anything worthwhile in Keynes' work is contained in any reasonable intermediate macro textbook. I studied in a university where there were four obligatory courses on the history of economic thought, read all of these dead economists' works and can safely say there's little value added in that.
Pedro Cavalcante
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-09-13T18:45:00.983Z
2018-09-13T18:45:00.983Z
Pedro Cavalcante
<p>I am a first-year undergrad econ student and was interested in reading Keynes' book. in the preface, Keynes pointed out that the text deals in the abstract and is meant for his fellow economists. After reading a few chapters its become quite clear that he wasn't kidding. there so many theories and ideas that I am not familiar with and most of the ideas are criticised more than they are explained.</p>

<p>So my question is: what prior knowledge do I need to possess to understand the book? Any books you can recommend to acquire said Prior knowledge? 
and lastly is the book even worth reading?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-09-13T15:11:42.110Z
@KennyLJ: Perhaps post your comment as an answer?
Herr K.
<macroeconomics><theory><keynesian-economics><keynes>
When can one read the general theory of employment,interest and money?
NoLifeKing
# When can one read the general theory of employment,interest and money?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2018-09-13)

I am a first-year undergrad econ student and was interested in reading Keynes' book. in the preface, Keynes pointed out that the text deals in the abstract and is meant for his fellow economists. After reading a few chapters its become quite clear that he wasn't kidding. there so many theories and ideas that I am not familiar with and most of the ideas are criticised more than they are explained.

So my question is: what prior knowledge do I need to possess to understand the book? Any books you can recommend to acquire said Prior knowledge?
and lastly is the book even worth reading?

**Tags:** macroeconomics, theory, keynesian-economics, keynes
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: @KennyLJ: Perhaps post your comment as an answer?  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2018-09-13. Score: -2

I don't think you should read it at any point in your carrer, honestly. It is severily outdated, ambiguous and overall not worth the time and effort put into reading it.

Try Screpanti & Zamagni's *An Outline of the History of Economic Thought*. Undergraduates do better when studying the works of economists who have been dead for decades as what they are, historical curiosities.

If you are really bent on reading the General Theory and/ or pretend to research history of economic thought, then I'd say after you go through an intermediate macroeconomic theory course you're good to go.

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: Indeed I do. Smith, Keynes, Ricardo... These guys are too outdated and the opportunity cost is just too high to be worth reading them - unless one's research is in history of thought.  
> **username_2**: Just to be clear: I'd think twice before being a person who disagrees with Krugman on international trade theory, just not on undergraduates reading the General Theory.  
> **username_2**: Just lol at the people downvoting my answer. Is it safe to assume you all read Marshall, Walras, Hicks and Leontief in the original then? Good god, anything worthwhile in Keynes' work is contained in any reasonable intermediate macro textbook. I studied in a university where there were four obligatory courses on the history of economic thought, read all of these dead economists' works and can safely say there's little value added in that.  

---

