Brad DeLong's reading list on the History of Economic Thought is too short and perhaps irrelevant to current events. Useful yes, but we need a nutshell series to limit the number of myopic nutcase "expert" economists that frequently appear in newspapers to help justify graft for a few in lieu of aggregate benefit for all.

A Few Short Readings in the History of Economic Thought

Too many of our entering graduate students know too little about the history of economic thought. So I am going to see if I can do a little painless supercharging to my graduate history of economic thought reading list for the second quarter. I think I have settled on:

Thomas R. Malthus (1795), "An Essay on the Principle of Population," Book 3 http://www.econlib.org/library/Malthus/malPlong.html

Adam Smith (1776), The Wealth of Nations, Book I and Book V http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWNtoc.html

David Hume (1752), "Of the Balance of Trade" http://www.econlib.org/library/LFBooks/Hume/hmMPL28.html

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels (1848), "Manifesto of the Communist Party" http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/

Karl Marx (1849), "Wage Labor and Capital" http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/Marx_Wage_Labour_and_Capital.pdf

Karl Marx (1867), "The Working Day," chapter 10 of Capital, vol. I http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch10.htm

[ Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal: A Few Short Readings in the History of Economic Thought ]

Economics in theory (or assumptions) falls apart when politicians discover that the free and fair trade that is supposedly assured by state equal privileges and immunities clauses can be dismissed in one fell swoop by a court's deference to the legislative branch under the guise of economic regulation.

You must synthesize both politics and law into the mix.

All things are relative: so I would add the following to the mix
The Theory of the Leisure Class, Thorstein Veblen
http://xroads.virginia.edu/%7EHYPER/VEBLEN/veblenhp.html

I would also add something from Richard Posner. It is not a "classic" but rather it is modern writing on economics and law that have been vetted for assertions that would be oblivious of the classics.

The lawyers are today's economists -- maximizing their authority to tweak special privileges at the margin, in the economic sense, to dictate winners and losers.

A recent Posner utterance that evidences recognition of history in addressing contemporaneous events can be found at "Federalism, Economics, and Katrina--Posner":

"Issues of federalism cannot be resolved solely by reference to economic criteria. The reason is that, the Revolution having been waged by states (the former British colonies) linked in a loose confederation, the Constitution, while tightening the federation, recognizes the states as quasi-sovereign entities. Even if it would be efficient to do without states and have as centralized a government as France has, this could not be done without amending the Constitution, and indeed perhaps without replacing it with a completely new Constitution adopted in a constitutional convention."

And continues:

"The other side of this coin, which is illustrated by the regime that preceded the Constitution--namely the Articles of Confederation, which created a very loose-knit federation of the states to conduct the Revolutionary War, and the inadequacies of which led directly to the Constitution--is that the lack of a central authority can result in suboptimal performance."

http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2005/10/federalism_econ.html

I would like to find someone that can articulate the notion that regional economists that trumpet the benefits of government created jobs through active government intervention in the economy are wholly ignorant of the notion of developmental economics from the perspective of developing countries in the international context. Ricardo or Smith or Marx all take a back seat to a local politician's index card with three words on it "jobs, jobs, jobs." These politicians (inclusive of lawyers) can't hardly tell whether the job is much different than a new occupational opportunity at a labor-intensive sugar refinery from a couple centuries ago. We need a concise reading list that will aid idiot economists that serve idiot politicians just so they can each get a buck tucked into their wallets. (Smith, by the way, offered a rationalization for what was; just as do our current crop of economists who need a patron to survive.)

Signed, The Wild Economist (without a patron).