|
It begins with Smith, devotes chapters to Malthus, Ricardo, Marx, Veblen, Marshall, Mill, Keynes, Friedman, Public Choice, Rational Expectations, etc. A great companion book to Naked Economics, Basic Economics (Sowell), or Economics in One Lesson.For a far more accurate (and far more in-depth and less beginner-friendly) treatment of Marx, see Sowell's book on Marxism, the chapter here repeats a few well-worn misconceptions about Marxian economics. Other texts are more technical and exhaustive, but this book is written for the layperson and is *almost* a primer for economics itself, seen through the passage of history. The descriptions of how prices coordinate activity and of comparative and absolute advantage is about as good as any, and clear enough for anybody to understand.This is a great book to use as a jumping off point for studying more of the economists, schools of thoughts, and concepts mentioned.
They have heard (at best) of Adam Smith, David Ricardo, J.M Keynes. I am constantly amazed how little economists know about the history of their profession. This survey will add to the reader's store of knowledge of an additional ten seminal thinkers.
I counted in these people before reading this elucidating book but can at least talk conversationally about it.4. I have a feeling that it is something to which I'll return time and time again. A lot of people know those words, but don't know the profound differences in the ideas that anchor these concepts ("fiscal stimulus"/"Monetary stimulus"). Most books this length I could take in about 2 afternoons of reading.
Because this book deals with the basic schools of thought in different parts of Economics, it can give you specific places to start looking in the search for deeper information. But this one is of such a depth that I could read (and absorb) no more than one chapter per day.6. So.Keynes (the aesthete) seemed to be some sort of reaction against the Victorian background from which he had come.2. There were also a few problems with the author's attempts at drollery. There was also wonderful discussion of what they did explain and what they did not.3. There was a bit too much detail about the subjects' private lives-- however this information was somewhat useful in getting an idea of the context from which the ideas came.
The Public Choice policy discussion was, by far, the best part of the book. Monetary and Fiscal policy were also great. It can also clarify the most fundamental differences between differing schools of thought.5. He could have left them out and the book would not have been diminished in any way.Other than that, this is a great book and well worth the (new) purchase price. 1. The thoughts that were expressed in this chapter are ideas that I have encountered in many other contexts-- but these were a wonderful, concise exposition to the ideas and their founding fathers (Mancur Olson).
On the down side, the book is not all that light to read.
I'm not interested in the their lives, their childhood, their education, their friends, their abilities, etc.For example, "Marshall also realized that facts teach nothing by themselves". I'm expecting ideas from the famous economists and how to apply their ideas in the 21st century. I'm already bored to death before the author put some economic ideas at the end of each chapter. The book is so boring that I have to leave my first review on Amazon.com. I don't know economics. I'm not interested in how he teaches, I'm interested in what he teaches.
Do read it. The story covers the really big names in the field in chronological order, and you just know that each personality coming up will get the same fair treatment: a description of the old economists' philosophies and systems, the good parts, the bad parts, the dumb parts, and what they said about each other. Marx and laughter. Some books are not that good, but have a great title (e.g., "Blink" or "Feel the Fear but Do It Anyway"). Written in both lively style and learned content, the reader will want to go through each chapter wondering "who's next on the chopping block." And who would have expected to find this gem in a normally dry-sounding field (economics), or a self-serving field (biography).
Many, many are the other way around, such as "Rise & Fall of the Roman Empire." "Dead Economists" is both. Adam Smith and mirth, etcetera. Lest anyone be turned off by the relatively un-recent publication date (1989), the author has updates covering fairly recent events. Luckily, economics got that "dismal science" label a long time ago, because this book is quite the opposite. This book adds a nice thought just by itself: humor and economists.
At the end, just as we figure out what the author REALLY thinks is the best economic structure, we find the answer is more along the line, "it depends." How can you not like a work like this.Dead economists.
|
