Jump to ratings and reviews

Microeconomics: An Intuitive Approach with Calculus [with Study Guide]

Is it more efficient to rent a car or take taxis while on vacation? How do coupons change demand? MICROECONOMICS: AN INTUITIVE APPROACH WITH CALCULUS explains the economic theory underlying day-to-day choices. The A sections of each chapter introduce concepts using intuition, a conversational writing style, everyday examples, and graphs. The B sections cover the same concepts with accessible mathematical analyses. Each copy includes access to online LiveGraphs -- a suite of interactive, animated graphs that allows you to view dimensional graphs and functions illustrated in the book, as well as some additional graphs that are not in the printed text.LiveGraphs and the Study Guide are accessible through the access code that is included with the purchase of a new text.

1224 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2010

Loading...
Loading...

About the author

Thomas J. Nechyba

9 books1 follower

Ratings & Reviews

What do you think?

Friends & Following

Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!

Community Reviews

5 stars
2 (18%)
4 stars
3 (27%)
3 stars
4 (36%)
2 stars
1 (9%)
1 star
1 (9%)
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
Profile Image for Thanh.
14 reviews
August 9, 2025
This book is written in a very personal and engaging style. While it’s often difficult to make academic content feel relatable, the author succeeds by using examples drawn from his own life, including his relationship with his wife. One example I found particularly compelling was the discussion of risk appetite and insurance premiums, illustrated through a hypothetical scenario involving his own death and his wife's financial decisions. It added a human touch to the theory and made working through advanced microeconomics feel much less daunting.
2 reviews
August 6, 2026
Excellent treatise, exactly what it’s cracked up to be. However, it makes for tedious reading: the author’s writing urgently needs improvement. He should have used more laconic expressions and pert syntactic features, cf. Samuelson.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews