Great economic philosophy, lacking data.
935203
As a politically independent, fiscally conservative U.S. citizen, I empathize strongly with Crescenzi's concerns, and similarly engage in the Keynesian vs. Austrian financial battle of present day. But regardless of personal bias, I cannot entertain causal claims and economic predictions without some matter of factual evidence. The Keynesian Endpoint does not offer hard factual data--in either economic or political terms--to be taken as a credible mainstream Austrian paper, though I sincerely hope Crescenzi will hear these issues and address them in future writings. Passion without merit, no matter how well intentioned, will not sway the mainstream populous from destructive Keynesian policies.

If criticism of Keynesian economics piques your interest, consider checking out End The Fed (Paul, 2010), The Case Against The Fed (Rothbard, 2007), Meltdown (Woods, 2009), and/or many of the free LvMI book downloads (mises.org).
360195
This book describes global socioeconomic up-trends that most people are unaware of. This is important stuff to understandwe need to know what has gone right, not just focus on disasters. A lot has gone right since the Scientific Revolution of the 1500s and the Enlightenment of the 1700s: increases in income, literacy, democracy, and womens rights, and, even remarkably large decreases in crime and violence.

The book gives a lot of the credit for the up-trends to free market capitalism, which, in many cases is quite accurate. But the book, published in 2017, ignores the Great Recession and growing income inequality and even growing poverty in countries like the U.S. It implies that at this time more free market capitalism is just what the doctor ordered. A more objective analysis would point out that given the cracks that are developing in the U.S. economic system, its time to re-evaluate our next steps.

The author, Johan Norberg, is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, a Libertarian think tank. His transparent agenda to reduce governmental regulation reduces the books objectivity. How can the author imply that free market capitalism has somehow IMPROVED the natural environment? He fails to mention or give credit to the dedicated environmental organizations which battled the corporations to increase regulations and ameliorate some of the worst corporate pollution problems. The book has the taint of propaganda. This is unfortunate, because the important and accurate statistical data presented on the many global up-trends should be better known.
235496
This book is easy and interesting to read...and a good introduction to economic thinking from a libertarian perspective, following Hayek's footsteps. It should not be taken for a basic economics or introduction to economics manual.

The chapters are short and very comprehensible, with a conspicuous lack of technical lingo, complicated graphs or strange data.  They are especially advisable to those that want to understand conceptually, in a clear language, some of the inner workings of national microeconomics. One important remark is that the book focuses mainly on microeconomics, (explaining, for example, some effects of prices, consumers/producers behavior, etc) rather than on the big macroeconomics (balance of payments, growth, etc) or international economics issues (trade, FDI, etc).

I like the point regarding one of the main troubles of modern-day economists: the fallacy of overlooking secondary consequences...I think this not only is true but also applicable to other arenas, like politics.  On the other hand, I think the author is too one-sided in his libertarian approach. He is plainly against government involvement and consistently overstates the role of rational markets and the evil of intervention.
4828148
The main value in this book is its critique of modern economics. Heilbroner correctly notes the `lack of vision' in modern economics. Modern economists have abandoned worldly philosophy that examines different visions of society in favor of narrow technical issues and `formal' models of the economy. These issues are, however, better dealt with in Heilbroner's subsequent book The Crisis of Vision in Modern Economic Thought.

The problem with The Worldly Philosophers is in content rather than its approach. There are serious errors of omission in this book. Heilbroner ignores several great thinkers of the twentieth century. Karl Popper's books on 'The Open Society' and his work on positvism deserved mention. Heilbroner also could have write a page or two on 'The Great Transformation' by Polanyi. Perhaps the biggest omission was Ludwig von Mises. Mises wrote important books on socialism, trade cycles, government and politics, ideology, and a 900 page treatise (Human Action), but was ignored in this book. Heilbroner could have written at least a few pages on Mises and Friedrich Hayek. By the time Heilbroner wrote his book Hayek had already published several books on trade cycles (building upon Mises), the Road to Serfdom (a classic in political economy), and was the leading figure in the debate over socialism during the 1930's. Hayek developed (also based on earlier work by Mises) a subtle critique of socialism based on the dispersed nature of practical knowledge. He published the papers from this debate in 1948- long before the 1st edition of the Wordly Philosophers. Hayek was also Keynes' primary opponent in the 1930's debate over the causes of the Great Depression. Heilbroner's chapter on Keynes should examined the Hayek/Keyes debate, but did not.

Heilbroner could have illustrated his complaints about modern economics with a chapter on the Cambridge Capital Controversy. This would have given him a chance to discuss the worldly philosophy of Joan Robinson.

Heilbroner wasted time on minor figures like Henry George and Robert Owen. He also included some whose focus was quite narrow compared to other 'wordly philosophers', like Alfred Marshall. Did Marshall really develop a grand vision of society? Heilbroner does a poor job in explaining the ideas of many legitimate worldly philosophers. Heilbroner does a poor job of explaining important concepts from Smith's Wealth of Nations. He does too little to explain the Smith's thinking on coordination and evolution in society. Then there is Smith's other great work- 'The Theory of Moral Sentiments'. Smith's other book deserved careful attention, but got very little. Heilbroner should have David Hume's in the same chapter with Smith. He might have discussed Montesqiue and Ferguson as well. A natural rights chapter on Rousseau, Locke, and Hobbes should have preceeded the chapter on Smith.

The chapter on Marx might have given more attention to some of the more prominent Marxists of the twentieth century. Some twentieth century Marxists have made efforts to revise their paradigm, and Heilbroner should have paid more attention to modern developments in Marxism. Part of this discussion could have examined Lenin and Trotsky. Heilbroner should have examined two economists who examined Marx from a Neoclassical perspective: Maurice Dobb and Oscar Lange.

All the changes I suggest would have made TWP a little longer and somewhat more complicated, but also more informative and compelling. Heilbroner had a great idea for a book, but the execution of this idea was seriously flawed. Heilbroner should have overhauled the content of TWP, but it is too late for that now. My one star rating might seem harsh, but there are some real missed opportunities here.
7473
Two things seem true. One, most people who think about such things believe that we're in some kind of information economy. Two, there are few goods book explaining what that even means or how it came about.
Beniger's book is full of useful data, fascinating stories and - most importantly - a coherent explanation of what happened to the economy in the 20th century. His theories are well grounded in specifics but nonetheless take in a wide sprawl of phenomenon.
I believe that his focus on the information economy is a tad narrow (Reich or Drucker's writing on symbolic analysts and knowledge workers is a great complement to his), but this is nonetheless a book I would consider essential for anyone seriously interested in understanding the economy of the late 20th and early 21st century.
1541949
Dedicated to Mises, this book brings the basic problems of socialism and advantages of the market to the common man with beauty and simplicity.  It is a wonderful, optimistic book that covers the entire range of basic economics while still leaving the reader to enjoy a world of fiction and of a parallel reality: a rediscovery of history very close to what really occurred. The world almost runs backwards with the Soviet Union being first and the establishment of the free world second, with a return to WWI and the loss of the gold standard.

The plot is that communism has won and taken over the entire world.  It has become entirely ingrained as a huge overhaul-- a massive Cultural Revolution-- has wiped out all remnants of capitalism, markets, pre-communist culture and literature, even language (everyone speaks Marxanto).  Though a stretch, suspension of disbelief doesn't really rest on the willingness to believe that the entire world including little isolated islands could have turned or been suppressed, it is enough to go along with the general notion which can't be called ridiculous when in fact 1/3 of the world did succumb to a communism which did in fact wipe out all remnants of markets within its borders.

Anyway, the wife of the dictator wants her son to be raised in isolation exposed only to academic schooling and not communist schooling because she distrusts the communist schools.  So, the boy doesn't know anything at all about communism or the world- he isn't indoctrinated.  Then, as heir, he ends up becoming the leader.

From that premise comes the story of The Great Idea.  What underlies the failure of the communist ideal?  What is the point of free markets?  From understanding the problems of calculation and incentives in a planned economy, to the (re-)discovery of markets and money, to the realization of the natural coordination within a market economy, to the discovery of freedom in free enterprise, and finally to the recognition of the problems of interfering in free markets-- it is all there.

And it is a great success.

The only teensy area I think that was missed, and its small given the amazing breadth of the economic discussion: the importance of allowing big profits for the ability of entrepreneurs (or enterprisers as he calls them) to reinvest and expand their businesses.

In addition, the political science questions are not fully elucidated, nor are public choice kinds of concerns.  But, that would expand the coverage beyond the true scope of the work.

Finally, as fiction, it does go a bit overboard with discussion to the point of preachy at times or anyway loses the narrative or the semblance of novel, to where it is more an economic treatise, kind of like Ayn Rand with the pages-long monologues (in fact Hazlitt never quite does that, there is always an interruption for a cigarette to be lit or something, and it is usually a discussion so there is interruption for a question, but otherwise it is the same kind of thing).  However, this is unavoidable really.  And the plot does matter.  Toward the end I had thought that the main plot points were over and I had soaked up all the good economics and it would soon end, and then the whole WWI / gold standard thing suddenly fell from the sky, and it was pure brilliance.  Well worth plodding through even the slowest bits.
2709540
This is a well-researched, well-written book. The author is an outstanding financial economist, with a broad knowledge across several fields. His style and approach to research should be an example for young economists. Except for one: Making a theory.

The author presents Adaptive Market Hypothesis (AMH) as an alternative to the infamous Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH). "It takes a theory to beat a theory," he keeps reminding us. The AMH is a hypothesis based on biology and behavioral economics. So far so good. But behavioral economics is really about "biases" and deviations from the benchmark of rational homo economicus. The author admits this objection, and then states his response (loc. 2171):

"This is the point where we turn the standard economic view of human rationality on its head. We aren't rational actors with a few quirks in our behavior instead, our brains are collections of quirks. Were not a system with bugs; were a system of bugs."

So the alternative that the author advances, the AMH, is actually not a theory, but a collection of atheoretical statements. And because the AMH is not a real theory, it can explain anything and everything. The reader will be surprised at how many issues the AMH can explain where the EMH fails. Plus more. The EMH itself is a special case of AMH. Buy one, get one free! On some occasions, the author will invoke a "principle" to explain the issue at hand, which was never discussed before and will never be used after. Two examples: Path dependence (location 4344), and the relation between form and function in biology (loc. 5355).

There is no scientific theory without refutable claims: Claims that might be true or false empirically, and thus are used to test the validity of the theory. The AMH provides no refutable claims. The author fails to distinguish between "prediction" and "explanation", and assumes that the explanations provided by the AMH to observed phenomena serve also as predictions of unobserved ones. This is not the case. Predictions are claims about a future phenomenon that is yet to take place, and thus serve as tests of the hypothesis. No such predictions are provided.

Overall, the book is highly informative with rich insights. It only falls short of its most important objective: To beat the theory of EMH.
3858660
Insightful book about the global rise of living standards during the industrial era.  Charts a path between the political left and right on where the data supports inferences on economic growth, health and wellbeing, and inequality.  Deaton also generally reflects a recognition that economics often serves best by obtaining and analyzing data to demonstrate the impact of particular policies, but that actual policy choices really often reflect considerations of norms and values that cannot be determined by the data alone.

However, I agree with many other reviewers that the final section on the ineffectiveness of international aid is a mismatch from the rest of the book.  It is the least data-centered of the sections and the most like a one-sided persuasive essay.  I think he raises a number of valid concerns and considerations about the efficacy of international aid as it is conducted, but I fail to be convinced by his seeming conviction that efforts to reform how aid is conducted would be fruitless.  He comes off as a person who has become deeply disillusioned by development aid and can no longer see the legitimacy of any arguments in its favor.  However, his even-handedness and open-mindedness about other economic matters in other areas of the book does mean that I am more willing to fully consider his arguments on this issue than I might have been from someone who had not demonstrated such qualities on other issues.
2571032
This is a great book.  But it is a book about the views of Minsky, and not really on Keynes.  The first chapter examines the way in which Keynes' 1936 book was received and interpreted, and Minsky's explanation is for the most part correct, namely, that Keynes' work represents more a revolution than an extension of "classical" economics.  However, as is argued throughout Minsky's book, The General Theory contained only "the seeds for a deep intellectual revolution in economics and in the economists' view of society."  According to Minsky, the Keynesian revolution was aborted and the seeds were prevented from reaching their full fruition due to the "bastardization" of Keynes' seminal message.  Minsky sets himself the task in this book to bring these ideas back to life.

Chapter two explores the more orthodox (conventional) view of Keynesian economics.  Chapter three is very good, as it spells out the concepts that are to be used later in Minsky's analysis of capitalism: the recurrence of the business cycle, uncertainty, and investment and disequilibrium.

Chapters 4 - 7 develop Minsky's theory of capitalism.  Minsky argues that booms are inevitably followed by crises and debt deflation not because of certain institutional weaknesses, but because of the fundamental nature of capitalism.  In other words, "Keynes visualized [the imperfections of the financial system] as systemic rather than accidental or perhaps incidental attributes of capitalism."  Minsky explores the way investments are made, and examines how they are financed.  Central to Minsky's analysis is the importance of uncertainty.  Financing and liability structures cannot insulate themselves from danger (excessive risk) precisely because the future is uncertain.  Another important element in Minsky's book is the importance of money, which he describes as as "insurance policy."  This is consistent with Keynes' definition of liquidity.  In the event that sales proceeds cannot meet existing liabilities, the possession of money becomes essential due to the frequent revaluations of capital assets making their quick sale at certain prices nearly impossible.

I really enjoy Minsky's work, but this book gives me the impression that Minsky was more concerned with fitting Keynes in his (minsky's) own analysis than in explicating very clearly and honestly Keynes' own economic views.  This can best be seen in the last two chapters on social policy.  Nevertheless, Minsky is the most important expositor of the "Financial Instability Hypothesis" and this book is a great place to begin.
2037475
This book is a collection of essays by the leaders in what has come to be called post-Keynesian economics.  Post-Keynesian economics represents a coherent alternative to mainstream economic theory by emphasizing certain features of the market economy while simultaneously questioning the analytical validity of the main assumptions that make up the mainstream view.

Post-Keynesian economics, like Austrian economics, believes very much in the radical uncertainty of the future.  Since action is always directed toward the future, and this state is unknowable, then the concept of equilibrium is self-contradictory.

However, post-Keynesians differ with Austrians on matters of policy, because unlike Ausrtians, post-Keynesians do not believe in the existence of "forces" that mainstream theorists typically ascribe to the economic system.  For example, post-Keynesians do not believe in the "law of substitution" which explains the effects of relative price changes.  For every other economist (Austrians included), this law is fundamental.  This is how markets are presumed to clear.  If goods in one area are not used, their price will fall causing entrepreneurs to substitute them for other goods.  This leads to full utilization and efficiency in production.  Post-Keynesians disagree with this argument for many reasons.  Without going into great detail, I can say that the various criticisms by post-Keynesians of this theory are all presented in this book, ranging from Joan Robinson to Pierro Sraffa and J. M. Keynes.

Another interesting aspect of post-Keynesian economics is its emphasis on the "unevenness of the growth process."  The basic idea is that not all factors included in the growth process grow or expand at the same constant rate, and the recognition of this fact will reveal to one the causes of economic disruptions.  Recessions, unemployment, and even inflation can all be explained by the unbalanced nature of economic growth.

Two other important themes of post-Keynesian economics are the theory of pricing and the emphasis on "mark ups" and their belief in the endogeneity of the money supply.

Post-Keynesian economics is a rich and controversial field of economic science.  It is relentless in its criticism of mainstream theory, and it has succeeded in making very important positive contributions to economics in the form of a persuasive and seemingly complete alternative.

Anyone interested in post-Keynesian economics should begin their study with this book.
2085440
The Theory of Economic Development represents a high point in the history of economic science. Schumpeter had a clear understanding of the difference between static and dynamic issues in economics, and an appropriate appreciation of the latter. This book also shows how advanced Schumpeter's thinking was. On page 10 Schumpeter appears to anticipate the modern definition of economics- 20 years before Robbins wrote his Nature and Significance of Economic Science (was this in the original edition, or just in my 1934 reprint?). Chapter one sorts out Say's Law of Markets in detail, and explains its static nature. Chapter two explains economic development in correct dynamic terms (unlike the pseudo-dynamics of Neoclassical growth theory). Schumpeter is able to explain dynamics because he examines entrepreneurship (and vice versa). Schumpeter also leaves room for real institutions, especially financial markets.

I can honestly say that I learned some new and important things from reading this book, despite the facts that I have a PhD in economics and took my first economics class 21 years ago. Unfortunately, most economists would learn more from reading this book than I. This is a sad commentary on the current state of affairs in economics. Schumpeter was interested in matters of great consequence and thought about them deeply. There is simply no comparison between Schumpeter's insightful analysis and the tedious and purely imaginary intellectual constructs of Solow influenced math modelers. There is a clear difference between Schumpeter's analysis and the intellectual gymnastics of modern mathurbationists. Schumpeter was a true professional.

I was somewhat surprised by the extent to which Schumpeter's ideas fit with the ideas of Mises, Kirzner, and Lachmann. Schumpeter is often seen as an Austrian born Walrasian instead of as an Austrian economist in the Menger-Mises-Hayek tradition. There are clear Austrian influences on Schumpeter's thinking, though he was not a Mises clone. I was already impressed with Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. Schumpeter was a true genius, and an economist on par with Ricardo and Hayek. Read this book to learn some development economics, and a little intellectual history too.
1319981
This book is a relation written by three most imprtant economists in the world, Stiglitz, Sen and Fitoussi.
The metrics, able to explicate the role in the job of a mass of workers, can be difficult to be studied by a statistical view. An important reference is the compatibility with the environment.
These parameters are apted to give a good measure of the job conditions.
An important part of this book is the relation between the GDP and the individual welfare. It exists a common perception that they are correlated, but it isn't true in the reallity.
1027286
I thoroughly enjoyed Michael Frayn's philosophical musings. "The Human Touch" is a fine partner in my bookcase with such volumes as Byan Magee's "Confessions of a Philosopher" and Julian T Fraser's "Of Time, Passion and Knowledge". The editorial review by Colin McGinn of the Washington Post completely misses the point about what Frayn is saying about knowledge. It seems to me that Frayn has stated the obvious that reality (in itself separate from an observer's biases) is unknowable. The central question becomes "What are the limits of what we can know and how can we reject wrong conclusions?" To forgive the pun this is the fundamental issue overlooked by fundamentalists of all persuasions and also by those in philosophy departments who expend too much emotion defending the validity of induction as a logical process. Frayn does not deny that there is a reality separate from our view of it. Whatever it is. It is reassuring to see Frayn giving Karl Popper his due. Karl Popper (1902-1994) proposed that knowledge is guesswork. These expectations or guesses express theories of reality that can never be validated absolutely but that, in science at least, should be always kept open to possible modification or rejection. Why not go even further and say that all knowledge should be open to refutation, including all forms of dogma? Michael Frayn's book is an enjoyable and rewarding read that brings a fresh perspective to our journey as knowing creatures. Let us start again and have another try as we are all wrong...although some guesses may be less wrong than others.

<a data-hook="product-link-linked" class="a-link-normal" href="/A-Guide-to-The-Logic-of-Scientific-Discovery-The-Popular-Popper/dp/B00BX3ATBS/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8">A Guide to The Logic of Scientific Discovery (The Popular Popper)</a>
<a data-hook="product-link-linked" class="a-link-normal" href="/All-Life-is-Problem-Solving/dp/0415249929/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8">All Life is Problem Solving</a>
4472062
Ben Carson clearly (and entertainingly) states a philosophy of personal responsibility based critical thinking and commitment to do right rather than to do the popular or the faddish.  I give the book a 4 rating because of my agreement and personal success with his philosophy.  But I almost gave the book a 3 rating, for it fails to accomplish the broader mission of how to reclaim the vigor of our country.  The advice given is surely right, but some of the overarching problems are not adequately addressed.  Consistent with the Supreme Court's decision in the Citizens United case, we suffer from the political corruption (legal and otherwise) of the executive and legislative branches by large private money interests, expressed through PAC's, special interest groups, and $lobbying.  The only good thing to take away from this is that the private interests come from all directions rather than "vast right and left wing conspiracies" (which Carson obliquely states).  But we are nevertheless left with gridlock and political candidates whom no one really wants.  Who, really, wants to vote for any of the likely candidates in the next Presidential election?  How do we circumvent the power of large private interest money?  Also, how do we circumvent the herd-behavior of a generation texting their way through high school with few prospects of being later employed in the "knowledge economy"?  How can public schools be realistically reformed to teach critical thinking skills to average people, those most needing outside advice on how to evaluate information?  The book, itself, gives some very good advice in learning how to be a critical thinker, but the actual process for all but the brightest is a long one, requiring constant nurturing and reinforcement.  The book is a good read, spelling out a solid philosophy of personal life and falling a bit short of the broader mission of saving America's future.
2356369
Provides as good a critique of capitalism as may be found. However, Bellamy's solutions to its shortcomings, and even more so the idea that man's problems are primarily economic and that his moral nature can be improved by improving economic conditions suck.
2536848
Freakonomics is an interesting book for the layman interested in economic theory applied to the real world - and in plain English!  Don't worry; there is almost no math in this book.  Dubner (the writer) and Levitt (the economist) team up to make this book on economics easily understandable to everybody.  I list Dubner first even though all the ideas are Levitt's.  Dubner has made Levitt's ideas understandable for us.  Without Dubner, the book would probably not have been written, and if it had, it would be read only by those with economic degrees.  The authors discuss wide-ranging issues such as: cheating teachers, collusion in sumo wresting, using information in real estate and terrorist groups like the Ku Klux Klan, and if parenting really matters.  The most interesting and most controversial topic is the relationship between legalized abortion in the mid-70s and lower crime rates in the 90s.  The authors make a compelling case for this relationship while trying to make it clear they are not trying to insult any groups (whether pro-life or pro-choice or anywhere in between), but just trying to show there was a direct link.  I was hoping they would discuss Levitt's thoughts on NFL betting (he wrote a paper on this topic), but they did not cover it in this book.  Hopefully they will write another book!  Freaknomics will be most appreciated by those that like to think outside the box and those that like to solve problems without staying between the lines.
4938247
Kindleberger dissects manias and panics to arrive at his conclusions. In the process, though, he bombards the reader with an abundance of detail and assumes a good understanding of university economics.
A non-economist will have difficulty to follow his line of reasoning. For example: "A synthesis of Keynesianism and monetarism, such as the Hansen-Hicks IS-LM curves that bring together the investment-saving (IS) and liquidity-money (LM) relationships, remains incomplete, even when it brings in production and prices (as does the most up-to-date economic analysis) if it leaves out the instability of expectations, and credit and the role of the leveraged speculation in various assets".
For those who enjoy thoughtful, dense reading, this book will make you a smarter investor. Unfortunately, for the large investing masses, those that have lost large sums in their 401k plans lately, the academic nature of this book puts this knowledge out of their reach.