What do you think?
Rate this book
The Making of Modern Economics: The Lives and Ideas of the Great Thinkers
Noted financial writer and commentator Mark Skousen traces the development of modern economic science through engaging accounts of the lives and contributions of every major economist over the past 225 years.
384 pages, Hardcover
First published December 31, 2000
About the author
Mark Skousen
66 books118 followersI am a professional economist, financial adviser, university professor, author and producer of FreedomFest, the largest annual gathering of free minds about liberty and freedom in the world. I edit the award-winning financial newsletter, Forecasts & Strategies (www.markskousen.com), and have authored many books on economics, finance, investing and Benjamin Franklin. I have been married to my wife Jo Ann for 35 years, and we have 5 children and 3 terrific grandsons.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 60 reviews
January 17, 2011
The history of economic thought told via chronological serial biography is a refreshing alternative to other more narrowly scoped economics books. After this book I feel like I have a more all-encompassing understanding of the major personalities and theories of the field, but the weakest aspect is the insistence on including all the tabloid details of the lives of the economists regardless of relevance to their public economic or political positions. The book is slightly more engaging for it but could have been a third shorter.
The economic theory of each subject is rated against the author's conception of economic freedom. A numerical rating could have saved a lot of additional text, or little more credit could have been given to the reader who after being presented with one theory is capable of comparing it to another.
Part of that rating is the use of the phrases 'universal affluence' and 'natural liberty' in nearly every biography. 'Universal affluence', the author says, will be achieved after society completely accomplishes the economic system of 'natural liberty' imagined by Adam Smith. This utopian outlook undermines the authors goals- I'd prefer more grounded visions of economic growth percentage points better than current if one or another policy change is accomplished.
Although some of the policies the author prefers are clearly defined, tax policy is repeatedly mentioned but without any conceptual backing. I see two sometimes contradictory policy goals at work in any discussion of tax policy- the desire to raise directly funds to accomplish some goal, and the the desire to incentivize or penalize behaviour or accomplishments. Any solution that doesn't address both is going to be lacking. Arguments against dis-incentivizing income growth with progressive taxation have to recognize that there's more money to be had for aircraft carriers or your government spending program of choice with progressive taxation than without.
Redistribution of wealth can go two ways (simplistically speaking), in a democracy the public is probably going to want to err on the side of redistribution towards themselves, which means progressive taxation.
Problematic use of 'limited' or 'small' government. When it's qualified with the metric of comparing public to private spending I have less of a problem, and it's easy to say that a high public/private ratio is bad for multiple reasons. But here and (in many other places in economic theory) it's easy to mistake correlation for causation, or improperly compare a nation and government in a very mature stage of development to a very immature one. The 'small government' phrase at face value marginalizes all advancements in constitutional government, rule of law, and democracy that many countries today are yet to achieve.
Quotes attributed to Adam Smith emphasize freedom of the individual as opposed to collectives- and I'd include corporations and other aggregations of people and capital as collectives. Why then is no attention paid to large capital collectives in the form of corporations or trusts but so much to governments? Within a corporation, how is the central planning exercised there preferable to central planning of a government at least accountable to voters? If every company was small would not personal freedom be greater than one where very small numbers of large employers might dominate the profession of your choosing? I'd much prefer instead of the somewhat arbitrary anti-trust laws we have today that only target the very largest of the large, to structure laws to increasingly disincentivize growth of collectivizes beyond certain numbers of people (say 500) or amount of money/property acquired. A collective that's bigger than the ability of any member to recognize every other member is too large, and there are some amusing laws I can imagine to enforce the restriction. Monopolies and problems associated aren't really discussed in this book.
Property exists because of laws protecting it, but in the authors view the government has to 'get out of the way' of property and exchanges of property. The physical body of the individual, and the property the individual lives on, and artifacts carried with an individual outside of the property they live on can be viewed as natural, but the naturalness of extensions beyond that get less justifiable. Intellectual property is especially problematic as viewed as an unlimited license from the government to create monopoly rights over abstract property. The physical property the government has to protect in law internally and from external invaders is fixed and obvious to all, but why should the government subsidize abstract property? Why not de-regulate intellectual property, or at least only grant a limited number of licenses to be auctioned off periodically? And certainly no one should be deprived of real physical property because of violations of abstract property rights.
Many socialist/communist communes are mentioned, mostly because they tend to fail quickly or after a generation. But where are the Adam Smith communities? Could it be that nation-building requires values and attitudes at odds with economy-building in an already built country? In other words the costs of establishing a country were socialized by the founding citizens, and the profits of living there later on are then privatized.
Prison privatization mentioned is mentioned in passing. It seems bad to make a profit oriented business in the name of economic freedom where the point of the business is to deprive individuals of freedom. Private military contracting isn't mentioned.
Freedom of immigration is also mentioned in a list of policy goals of one economist, but the author does not discuss it much less openly support it. I suppose this is what passes for political correctness among the likely receptive audience of other policy goals more enthusiastically promoted in the book. Free immigration is an obvious corollary to free trade, but the political party most strongly agitating for less regulation on business and small government wants to vastly increase regulation and the size of government where immigration is concerned. Immigration restrictions are a form of government intervention into labor markets, and are therefore socialist in intent- that's not an argument for or against, just a statement of fact.
Inheritance/estate/death taxes are mentioned negatively several times, but I don't really see what they have to do with economic liberty. If I had to make a choice between paying a tax while I was alive or while I was dead, I'd much rather go with the latter. The historical reasons for inheritance are understandable, but in the modern world why should the government discriminate on behalf of biological or adopted off-spring? Why not get rid of inheritance taxes and instead apply gift taxes uniformly regardless of whether the giver is alive or dead, or related to the recipient? Also if we no longer pass on debts to progeny, why make a special case for passing on assets?
There's a strange claim that the government should only exist to uphold law (and provide national defense which I suppose is upholding the law through means of last resort) but then simultaneously business should be regulated less. What's difference between a law and a regulation?
There's a vagueness when it comes to the author choosing to be on the side of monetarists like Milton Friedman, or on the side of supply-side economists. Supply-side economics is still government intervention but through non-Keynesian means, only Friedman can claim to truly avoid fine-grained intervention (though intervention in the form of changing the money supply is still advocated). As I understand it Friedman has no problem with tax policy to achieve any goal except economic growth, I say solvency should be the main goal of tax policy.
The economic theory of each subject is rated against the author's conception of economic freedom. A numerical rating could have saved a lot of additional text, or little more credit could have been given to the reader who after being presented with one theory is capable of comparing it to another.
Part of that rating is the use of the phrases 'universal affluence' and 'natural liberty' in nearly every biography. 'Universal affluence', the author says, will be achieved after society completely accomplishes the economic system of 'natural liberty' imagined by Adam Smith. This utopian outlook undermines the authors goals- I'd prefer more grounded visions of economic growth percentage points better than current if one or another policy change is accomplished.
Although some of the policies the author prefers are clearly defined, tax policy is repeatedly mentioned but without any conceptual backing. I see two sometimes contradictory policy goals at work in any discussion of tax policy- the desire to raise directly funds to accomplish some goal, and the the desire to incentivize or penalize behaviour or accomplishments. Any solution that doesn't address both is going to be lacking. Arguments against dis-incentivizing income growth with progressive taxation have to recognize that there's more money to be had for aircraft carriers or your government spending program of choice with progressive taxation than without.
Redistribution of wealth can go two ways (simplistically speaking), in a democracy the public is probably going to want to err on the side of redistribution towards themselves, which means progressive taxation.
Problematic use of 'limited' or 'small' government. When it's qualified with the metric of comparing public to private spending I have less of a problem, and it's easy to say that a high public/private ratio is bad for multiple reasons. But here and (in many other places in economic theory) it's easy to mistake correlation for causation, or improperly compare a nation and government in a very mature stage of development to a very immature one. The 'small government' phrase at face value marginalizes all advancements in constitutional government, rule of law, and democracy that many countries today are yet to achieve.
Quotes attributed to Adam Smith emphasize freedom of the individual as opposed to collectives- and I'd include corporations and other aggregations of people and capital as collectives. Why then is no attention paid to large capital collectives in the form of corporations or trusts but so much to governments? Within a corporation, how is the central planning exercised there preferable to central planning of a government at least accountable to voters? If every company was small would not personal freedom be greater than one where very small numbers of large employers might dominate the profession of your choosing? I'd much prefer instead of the somewhat arbitrary anti-trust laws we have today that only target the very largest of the large, to structure laws to increasingly disincentivize growth of collectivizes beyond certain numbers of people (say 500) or amount of money/property acquired. A collective that's bigger than the ability of any member to recognize every other member is too large, and there are some amusing laws I can imagine to enforce the restriction. Monopolies and problems associated aren't really discussed in this book.
Property exists because of laws protecting it, but in the authors view the government has to 'get out of the way' of property and exchanges of property. The physical body of the individual, and the property the individual lives on, and artifacts carried with an individual outside of the property they live on can be viewed as natural, but the naturalness of extensions beyond that get less justifiable. Intellectual property is especially problematic as viewed as an unlimited license from the government to create monopoly rights over abstract property. The physical property the government has to protect in law internally and from external invaders is fixed and obvious to all, but why should the government subsidize abstract property? Why not de-regulate intellectual property, or at least only grant a limited number of licenses to be auctioned off periodically? And certainly no one should be deprived of real physical property because of violations of abstract property rights.
Many socialist/communist communes are mentioned, mostly because they tend to fail quickly or after a generation. But where are the Adam Smith communities? Could it be that nation-building requires values and attitudes at odds with economy-building in an already built country? In other words the costs of establishing a country were socialized by the founding citizens, and the profits of living there later on are then privatized.
Prison privatization mentioned is mentioned in passing. It seems bad to make a profit oriented business in the name of economic freedom where the point of the business is to deprive individuals of freedom. Private military contracting isn't mentioned.
Freedom of immigration is also mentioned in a list of policy goals of one economist, but the author does not discuss it much less openly support it. I suppose this is what passes for political correctness among the likely receptive audience of other policy goals more enthusiastically promoted in the book. Free immigration is an obvious corollary to free trade, but the political party most strongly agitating for less regulation on business and small government wants to vastly increase regulation and the size of government where immigration is concerned. Immigration restrictions are a form of government intervention into labor markets, and are therefore socialist in intent- that's not an argument for or against, just a statement of fact.
Inheritance/estate/death taxes are mentioned negatively several times, but I don't really see what they have to do with economic liberty. If I had to make a choice between paying a tax while I was alive or while I was dead, I'd much rather go with the latter. The historical reasons for inheritance are understandable, but in the modern world why should the government discriminate on behalf of biological or adopted off-spring? Why not get rid of inheritance taxes and instead apply gift taxes uniformly regardless of whether the giver is alive or dead, or related to the recipient? Also if we no longer pass on debts to progeny, why make a special case for passing on assets?
There's a strange claim that the government should only exist to uphold law (and provide national defense which I suppose is upholding the law through means of last resort) but then simultaneously business should be regulated less. What's difference between a law and a regulation?
There's a vagueness when it comes to the author choosing to be on the side of monetarists like Milton Friedman, or on the side of supply-side economists. Supply-side economics is still government intervention but through non-Keynesian means, only Friedman can claim to truly avoid fine-grained intervention (though intervention in the form of changing the money supply is still advocated). As I understand it Friedman has no problem with tax policy to achieve any goal except economic growth, I say solvency should be the main goal of tax policy.
December 9, 2011
As a reference, this book has its good points and bad. It is broad, managing at least to touch on nearly every important theorist of the last 200+ years. But in some cases this completist approach produces a shallowness of treatment (particularly with Pareto, Clark, Edgeworth, Knight, and others from that time) that calls into question the value of the breadth. Another point of weakness is that Skousen either cannot or will not provide the strongest and most plausible exposition of theories to which he's hostile. Skousen's rigidity is such that even Ricardo, author of the Comparative Advantage argument for trade, appears to him to have been insufficiently enamored of free markets. Hence the work is only fully reliable on those theorists who have Skousen's full approval (broadly speaking, the Chicago and Austrian schools).
The preface of the book contains Skousen's touching and humorous account of how he unintentionally killed Murray Rothbard. It goes downhill from there.
Skousen's work continues in the long tradition of unjustly setting up Adam Smith as the first economist, and proceeds to engage in a sustained act of necrophilia with the famous Scotsman, carrying his corpse through the succeeding two-hundred years and comparing it favorably to every subsequent thinker who was less optimistic on free markets, while also claiming that the Austrian and Chicago schools advanced the true Adam Smith tradition. Skouson never settles on a single metaphor to pin this conceit to, and so sometimes he tells us we are hearing the story of "Adam Smith" himself, while at other times economic thought is Adam Smith's "house". This framing device is well beyond asinine, and one wonders how the editors allowed it to remain. Skousen acknowledges early on that the historical Adam Smith was no libertarian, in that he espoused a labor theory of value, opposed monopolies, wrote in favor both of land taxes and of progressive income taxes, and made the case for public schools and public works projects, but somehow this isn't the Smith that Skousen takes with him through the remainder of the text. Smith lived long ago so of course he didn't quite get his theory to be the way Skousen wants it.
The chapter on John Stuart Mill is called "Milling Around." The chapter on Alfred Marshall is called "Marshaling the Troops." These are representative examples of Skousen's quick wit and devilish way with words. Skousen also thinks he can get us to put on a piece of classical music, chosen by him, whilst we read each chapter. Being a libertarian does not preclude being plenty meddlesome.
In the chapter on Max Weber, whom he somewhat implausibly counts among the economists, Skousen asserts the real value of Weber's work to have been that theory must be based on empirical evidence. No theory that shirks this test is worthwhile, Skousen avers. He repeats this a bunch of times since there's not a lot else to say, which is one of the downsides of putting a non-economist in a book on economics. In the chapter on Ludwig von Mises, however, in which Skousen becomes ostentatiously unfaithful to the Smithian corpse, Skousen approvingly repeats Mises's opinion that empirical evidence merely tells us what happened one time in the past, and that the only reliable economic theory is one that builds from first principles and rejects empiricism altogether. Empirical evidence, in short, is for losers (the chapter is devilishly titled "The Missing Mises"). Between Weber's view and Mises' there is a certain tension, but in Skousen's way of seeing things this is apparently no problem. It is really only the ideological end point that matters, and the route to get there is chosen for convenience's sake. Two contradictory stories is not a big deal. Psychologists call this phenomenon "cognitive dissonance." Skousen is no psychologist, so you can't blame him for not recognizing it.
Having been written and released at the high point of the "endless privitization and deregulation of everything!!" tendency that culminated ten years ago in rolling blackouts and the presidency of George Bush, this book has an unreal, triumphalist tone. Skousen assumes that his side has won and will continue winning, so he has the smugness of all who have succumbed to hubris. In attributing this tone to the era, I am perhaps being too generous, as I have checked Skousen's present output and he still sounds this way.
Skousen has striven to provide a work accessible to the public, so he has larded it liberally with gossip. I trust that some of this is true, but Skousen seems excessively credulous -- his depiction of Pigou as a Soviet spy seemed to me at first to have been pulled directly from his nether regions, but when I researched the claim, I found that it stemmed from a single unreliable source in the mid-70s (and so far totally unsupported by information from the Russian vaults). We also get to see Skousen bombastically reporting on tepid episodes, such as Menger's affair... with a woman to whom he was not married! Skousen acts as though such banalities were quite scandalous indeed, much like a bored tween. We also get to see him musing about the causes of Keynes's homosexuality (he thinks it may have resulted from Keynes's estrangement from his father). Ten years ago it was all good fun to ponder this sort of thing, even for a lover of liberty.
The book's treatment of Milton Friedman is of historical interest, given the rift that has since opened between the monetarists and the Austrians. Skousen presents Friedman simply as the knight in shining armor, who burst forth unexpectedly and saved "Adam Smith" (or is it Smith's house?) from the interventionist barbarians of Cambridge, MA and Cambridge, UK. One wonders how much more measured Skousen's assessment might be in future editions, given how much of a flashpoint central bank policy has become between the two schools, now that the business cycle has shown that it still can muster a vicious downside.
Skousen says that Joan Robinson's left-wing comments on current events in the late 60s and early 70s were why the Nobel committee snubbed her (this much is certainly true), and that the comments were an embarrassment to her friends and foes alike. I do not see why her foes should have been at all embarrassed. Shouldn't they have been glad that Robinson was giving them fodder for criticism?
I could really go on and on saying unfavorable things about this book, but I must acknowledge, again, that as a general survey it is not without utility. It cannot be recommended as a final authority, however.
The preface of the book contains Skousen's touching and humorous account of how he unintentionally killed Murray Rothbard. It goes downhill from there.
Skousen's work continues in the long tradition of unjustly setting up Adam Smith as the first economist, and proceeds to engage in a sustained act of necrophilia with the famous Scotsman, carrying his corpse through the succeeding two-hundred years and comparing it favorably to every subsequent thinker who was less optimistic on free markets, while also claiming that the Austrian and Chicago schools advanced the true Adam Smith tradition. Skouson never settles on a single metaphor to pin this conceit to, and so sometimes he tells us we are hearing the story of "Adam Smith" himself, while at other times economic thought is Adam Smith's "house". This framing device is well beyond asinine, and one wonders how the editors allowed it to remain. Skousen acknowledges early on that the historical Adam Smith was no libertarian, in that he espoused a labor theory of value, opposed monopolies, wrote in favor both of land taxes and of progressive income taxes, and made the case for public schools and public works projects, but somehow this isn't the Smith that Skousen takes with him through the remainder of the text. Smith lived long ago so of course he didn't quite get his theory to be the way Skousen wants it.
The chapter on John Stuart Mill is called "Milling Around." The chapter on Alfred Marshall is called "Marshaling the Troops." These are representative examples of Skousen's quick wit and devilish way with words. Skousen also thinks he can get us to put on a piece of classical music, chosen by him, whilst we read each chapter. Being a libertarian does not preclude being plenty meddlesome.
In the chapter on Max Weber, whom he somewhat implausibly counts among the economists, Skousen asserts the real value of Weber's work to have been that theory must be based on empirical evidence. No theory that shirks this test is worthwhile, Skousen avers. He repeats this a bunch of times since there's not a lot else to say, which is one of the downsides of putting a non-economist in a book on economics. In the chapter on Ludwig von Mises, however, in which Skousen becomes ostentatiously unfaithful to the Smithian corpse, Skousen approvingly repeats Mises's opinion that empirical evidence merely tells us what happened one time in the past, and that the only reliable economic theory is one that builds from first principles and rejects empiricism altogether. Empirical evidence, in short, is for losers (the chapter is devilishly titled "The Missing Mises"). Between Weber's view and Mises' there is a certain tension, but in Skousen's way of seeing things this is apparently no problem. It is really only the ideological end point that matters, and the route to get there is chosen for convenience's sake. Two contradictory stories is not a big deal. Psychologists call this phenomenon "cognitive dissonance." Skousen is no psychologist, so you can't blame him for not recognizing it.
Having been written and released at the high point of the "endless privitization and deregulation of everything!!" tendency that culminated ten years ago in rolling blackouts and the presidency of George Bush, this book has an unreal, triumphalist tone. Skousen assumes that his side has won and will continue winning, so he has the smugness of all who have succumbed to hubris. In attributing this tone to the era, I am perhaps being too generous, as I have checked Skousen's present output and he still sounds this way.
Skousen has striven to provide a work accessible to the public, so he has larded it liberally with gossip. I trust that some of this is true, but Skousen seems excessively credulous -- his depiction of Pigou as a Soviet spy seemed to me at first to have been pulled directly from his nether regions, but when I researched the claim, I found that it stemmed from a single unreliable source in the mid-70s (and so far totally unsupported by information from the Russian vaults). We also get to see Skousen bombastically reporting on tepid episodes, such as Menger's affair... with a woman to whom he was not married! Skousen acts as though such banalities were quite scandalous indeed, much like a bored tween. We also get to see him musing about the causes of Keynes's homosexuality (he thinks it may have resulted from Keynes's estrangement from his father). Ten years ago it was all good fun to ponder this sort of thing, even for a lover of liberty.
The book's treatment of Milton Friedman is of historical interest, given the rift that has since opened between the monetarists and the Austrians. Skousen presents Friedman simply as the knight in shining armor, who burst forth unexpectedly and saved "Adam Smith" (or is it Smith's house?) from the interventionist barbarians of Cambridge, MA and Cambridge, UK. One wonders how much more measured Skousen's assessment might be in future editions, given how much of a flashpoint central bank policy has become between the two schools, now that the business cycle has shown that it still can muster a vicious downside.
Skousen says that Joan Robinson's left-wing comments on current events in the late 60s and early 70s were why the Nobel committee snubbed her (this much is certainly true), and that the comments were an embarrassment to her friends and foes alike. I do not see why her foes should have been at all embarrassed. Shouldn't they have been glad that Robinson was giving them fodder for criticism?
I could really go on and on saying unfavorable things about this book, but I must acknowledge, again, that as a general survey it is not without utility. It cannot be recommended as a final authority, however.
August 11, 2021
An interesting and often humorous chronology of economic thought, including the ideas of Adam Smith, Ludwig von Mises, Karl Marx, Keynes, etc. I enjoyed reading about the major conflicts - both of theory and personality - that took place in the field. In eminently readable fashion, Skousen dramatically recounts the great economic battles over the labor theory of value, marginal utility, nationalism, and many other contentious issues.
Take note that this is not an objective history. Rather, from the start, Skousen makes known his bias toward free market economics and his admiration for Adam Smith's conception of "natural liberty." As someone personally inclined toward the Austrian school, the author's affinity for laissez faire didn't bother me in the slightest. However, those looking for a dispassionate historical account of economic history may wish to look elsewhere (though readers would miss Skousen's humorous and engaging writing style).
Take note that this is not an objective history. Rather, from the start, Skousen makes known his bias toward free market economics and his admiration for Adam Smith's conception of "natural liberty." As someone personally inclined toward the Austrian school, the author's affinity for laissez faire didn't bother me in the slightest. However, those looking for a dispassionate historical account of economic history may wish to look elsewhere (though readers would miss Skousen's humorous and engaging writing style).
January 6, 2015
I was slightly disappointed that Mr. Skousen's book, The Big Three in Economics, which I've already read, consisted of chapters taken wholly from this book. I suppose that the double-reading of those chapters helped refresh my memory, and I can't be too upset. That aside, I really liked the big picture that this book painted. It is not an economics book per se. It is really a historical writing about the lives and interconnectivity of the great economists since Adam Smith. Skousen is clearly a free-market advocate, so Keynesians and Marxists beware, you will probably have plenty to gripe about.
Read
September 28, 2021this wasn't horrible for an economics textbook.
just a LOT that could've been cut because it was not useful information
but still, interesting enough
even though I took enough notes to make my own textbook
just a LOT that could've been cut because it was not useful information
but still, interesting enough
even though I took enough notes to make my own textbook
August 16, 2019
Her iktisat fakültesinde zorunlu olarak özellikle makroekonomi derslerinde okutulması gerektiğini düşündüğüm roman tadında, yer yer güldüren iktisatçıların teorilerini anlatırken onlar hakkında kişisel bilgiler veren bir kitaptı.
March 4, 2015
A very good survey of economic thought and those thinkers who've contributed to the field. While the author is very Conservative and his prejudices negatively impact his views of all thinkers who do not falling into his preferred category of free marketers, it is still a useful primer, especially for those not intimately aware of economic thought.
As might be imagined, Marx comes off badly. But Skousen fails to even give Marx credit as a critic of capitalism, where Marx's thought is very useful. He does not bother to explore Marx's theory of capitalism ending inevitably in monopoly, he does not explore Marx's insight that capital knows no borders nor owes any loyalty save to profit. We have plenty of evidence of capital seeking to avoid competition, seeking to keep profits private but loses public. It does not speak to capital restricting labor, even employing extra-legal means to protect its hegemony. He speaks to perfect markets and their advantages. Skousen hates regulation and laws restricting trade.
While Skousen spends very few words analyzing Marx as critic of capitalism he spends a lot of time showing how wrong Marx's theory of economics was. But he does spend a lot of words seeking to undermine the greatest economic thinker of the 20th century, JM Keynes. As might be imagined, Skousen spends a lot of time attempting to debunk Keynes theory of the business cycle. While Skousen's conclusions are tendentious his book is still a useful précis into economic thought and those who contributed to the field.
As might be imagined, Marx comes off badly. But Skousen fails to even give Marx credit as a critic of capitalism, where Marx's thought is very useful. He does not bother to explore Marx's theory of capitalism ending inevitably in monopoly, he does not explore Marx's insight that capital knows no borders nor owes any loyalty save to profit. We have plenty of evidence of capital seeking to avoid competition, seeking to keep profits private but loses public. It does not speak to capital restricting labor, even employing extra-legal means to protect its hegemony. He speaks to perfect markets and their advantages. Skousen hates regulation and laws restricting trade.
While Skousen spends very few words analyzing Marx as critic of capitalism he spends a lot of time showing how wrong Marx's theory of economics was. But he does spend a lot of words seeking to undermine the greatest economic thinker of the 20th century, JM Keynes. As might be imagined, Skousen spends a lot of time attempting to debunk Keynes theory of the business cycle. While Skousen's conclusions are tendentious his book is still a useful précis into economic thought and those who contributed to the field.
April 14, 2016
A knock off of the book "the worldly philosophers." This absurd book tries to find a market by appealing to right wing think tanks by copying a popular work, but altering it to conform to the free market fundamentalist ideology. instead of viewing each economist as a contributor to our understanding, they are interpreted as either keepers of the supposed smithian faith, or apostles of evil. the author even suggests musical pairings to reenforce the religious motif. Ricardo's introduction of the labor value theory is to be accompanied by Grieg's "in the hall of the mountain king" as he sneaks toward a subversion of the holy Smith. Marx the "diabolical" is to be read with the accompaniment of Holst's "Mars the bringer of war." Then Friedman is to be read along side the 1812 overture as he heroically battles down the doubter's of the one true Smith. The primary source for this book is one other popular book, not the academic literature. The clown that wrote this includes a few passages that seem to convey a belief that the popular press is a better place to go for knowledge than the academic literature. Clearly one of those geriatric professors who was tenured in a day when there wasn't much to the field and now cannot publish in an academic field for which he is inadequate.
January 18, 2015
I listened to the audiobook. I'll probably listen to it again at some point; I learned a lot but also missed a lot.
Skousen is an unabashed Adam Smith fanboy, but he's so up front about it that I didn't mind at all. (Not that I have any particular views on Adam Smith yet but usually I'd prefer a book like this to be a bit less biased.)
I was a little irritated that the only section on a woman (Joan Robinson) had maybe a paragraph about her, and then twice that about the dearth of women in economics and a quick mention of "feminist economics". It wasn't so much a look at Robinson as a little section that said "There's one woman but she was crazy, not a lot of ladies in this profession."
Other than that, though, lots of interesting stuff about all the crazy dude economists. The section on Marx amused me to no end. What a prick. Like so many Marxists.
Skousen is an unabashed Adam Smith fanboy, but he's so up front about it that I didn't mind at all. (Not that I have any particular views on Adam Smith yet but usually I'd prefer a book like this to be a bit less biased.)
I was a little irritated that the only section on a woman (Joan Robinson) had maybe a paragraph about her, and then twice that about the dearth of women in economics and a quick mention of "feminist economics". It wasn't so much a look at Robinson as a little section that said "There's one woman but she was crazy, not a lot of ladies in this profession."
Other than that, though, lots of interesting stuff about all the crazy dude economists. The section on Marx amused me to no end. What a prick. Like so many Marxists.
July 24, 2012
Considering how much I don't know about economics, surprisingly little went over my head. This is, in fact, a ground-level overview. I managed to understand why my former hero Keynes is not exactly worship material, and what Milton Friedman did for modern economics and so on. It's not a definitive history of economics - nor does it try to be; it's more of a compendium of economic ideas since Adam Smith, and why Skousen thinks they are right or wrong. But if you're in the ballpark of his ideology, it's an interesting read.
October 4, 2013
Probably not a book for the general reader, but if you are a student of economics this is a very readable history of the important economists from Adam Smith to Milton Friedman. The author acknowledges that he has a bias towards free market economics so people likes Hayek and Mises are portrayed favorably while Keynes and Samuelson and especial Marx are shown as flawed. Given the dismal results of socialist economic models, I think this book, those biased, is an accurate history.
July 18, 2010
I support the free market. I love msies, hayek, rothabrd ect. But this book sucked. It was more about their lives then their ideas. And the bias was so bad that he neglected key arguments from opponent. If your looking for an Austrian history of economic thought, but rothabrds. If your looking for shit, find a dog. No one needs this book.
February 15, 2015
What an incredible history! Having read Adam Smith I found this book interesting as the differences between Wealth of Nations were well explained. Especially interesting was the comparison of Keynes' economics to Smith's. That said, I'm anxious to read more about Keynes and Friedman to better appreciate the struggle between these two outlooks on public policy.
May 6, 2015
A good history of economic thought. The author gets beyond the familiar explanations and interpretations. You see the philosophies of Adam Smith, Milton Friedman, John Maynard Keynes, and others in more complexity than is typically conveyed. Doesn't seem to have a major left or right slant, but portrays the philosophies as reactions to consequences of earlier theories and practices.
April 23, 2015
A great historical overview. Highly recommended for those interested in acquiring some base knowledge of Economics. I will definitely be adding to the bibliography I provide my students.
May 26, 2016
Muy interesantes las historias personales de cada uno de los economistas de los que trata el libro. Me gusta su enfoque libertario.
August 24, 2023
I’ve long been puzzled and frustrated by matters of economy. Questions about inflation, interest rates, markets, and money have always confused me, and whenever I’d express this to other people the reply most often given was, “That’s okay, no one understands that stuff.” I finally realized that someone had to understand at least some part of it, otherwise how was it even an academic subject?
I Googled “best book on economics” and Skousen’s tome was one of the hits.
I have never sat down and read a textbook that I didn’t have to. This experience got me thinking about how I could take my reading project to the next level with actual study. I approached this read with real discipline, and a plan: fourteen pages a day, first thing in the morning, and leveraged ChatGPT 4.0 (an artificial intelligence-powered chatbot) to explore concepts and reinforce my understanding. It was through this month-long practice that I came to realize how superior GPT could be to a human professor. To address the AI alarmists in the room: yes, it’s like a Terminator, but one that will not stop until it’s answered all your questions. But that’s a topic for another discussion.
It's also worth noting that this was the first time I’ve ever read any non-comic book from cover to cover on an iPad. I used to think it would be too distracting or fatiguing, but in the short sessions I used it was easily tolerable. This was a huge breakthrough, as there is a wealth of informational textbooks available through the university’s library.
The self-study program worked, and I now have a rudimentary understanding of the foundations of economic thought. There were no explicit exercises in the book, and I think I would have been better served by writing out summaries of each section and then confirming those with GPT, refining everything down into personal notes. That being said, my crack-of-dawn conversations with the large language model produced over 40,000 words, nearly enough for a textbook of my own!
As for Modern Economics, it’s a remarkably easy book to digest that gives you exactly what the title says. I was worried I’d get lost in discussion of theory and mathematics, but Skousen does an excellent job of keeping it conversational and often injects much-needed humor. I highly recommend this as an introductory text to economics, provided you’re willing to go abroad on occasion to fill in any gaps you may have with vocabulary: I came away with thirty-eight new words myself.
I Googled “best book on economics” and Skousen’s tome was one of the hits.
I have never sat down and read a textbook that I didn’t have to. This experience got me thinking about how I could take my reading project to the next level with actual study. I approached this read with real discipline, and a plan: fourteen pages a day, first thing in the morning, and leveraged ChatGPT 4.0 (an artificial intelligence-powered chatbot) to explore concepts and reinforce my understanding. It was through this month-long practice that I came to realize how superior GPT could be to a human professor. To address the AI alarmists in the room: yes, it’s like a Terminator, but one that will not stop until it’s answered all your questions. But that’s a topic for another discussion.
It's also worth noting that this was the first time I’ve ever read any non-comic book from cover to cover on an iPad. I used to think it would be too distracting or fatiguing, but in the short sessions I used it was easily tolerable. This was a huge breakthrough, as there is a wealth of informational textbooks available through the university’s library.
The self-study program worked, and I now have a rudimentary understanding of the foundations of economic thought. There were no explicit exercises in the book, and I think I would have been better served by writing out summaries of each section and then confirming those with GPT, refining everything down into personal notes. That being said, my crack-of-dawn conversations with the large language model produced over 40,000 words, nearly enough for a textbook of my own!
As for Modern Economics, it’s a remarkably easy book to digest that gives you exactly what the title says. I was worried I’d get lost in discussion of theory and mathematics, but Skousen does an excellent job of keeping it conversational and often injects much-needed humor. I highly recommend this as an introductory text to economics, provided you’re willing to go abroad on occasion to fill in any gaps you may have with vocabulary: I came away with thirty-eight new words myself.
June 23, 2012
As a reference, this book has its good points and bad. It is broad, managing at least to touch on nearly every important theorist of the last 200+ years. But in some cases this completist approach produces a shallowness of treatment (particularly with Pareto, Clark, Edgeworth, Knight, and others from that time) that calls into question the value of the breadth. Another point of weakness is that Skousen either cannot or will not provide the strongest and most plausible exposition of theories to which he's hostile. Skousen's rigidity is such that even Ricardo, author of the Comparative Advantage argument for trade, ardent champion of laissez-faire, appears to him to have been insufficiently enamored of free markets. Hence the work is only fully reliable on those theorists who have Skousen's full approval (broadly speaking, the Chicago and Austrian schools).
The preface of the book contains Skousen's touching and humorous account of how he unintentionally killed Murray Rothbard. It goes downhill from there.
Skousen's presentation continues in the long tradition of unjustly setting up Adam Smith as the first economist, and proceeds to engage in a sustained act of necrophilia with the famous Scotsman, carrying his corpse through the succeeding two-hundred years and comparing it favorably to every subsequent thinker who was less optimistic on free markets, while also claiming that the Austrian and Chicago schools advanced the true Adam Smith tradition. Skouson never settles on a single metaphor to pin this conceit to, and so sometimes he tells us we are hearing the story of "Adam Smith" himself, while at other times economic thought is Adam Smith's "house". This framing device is well beyond asinine, and one wonders how the editors allowed it to remain. Skousen acknowledges early on that the historical Adam Smith was no libertarian, in that he espoused a labor theory of value, opposed monopolies, wrote in favor both of land taxes and of progressive income taxes, and made the case for public schools and public works projects, but somehow this isn't the Smith that Skousen takes with him through the remainder of the text. Smith lived long ago so of course he didn't quite get his theory to be the way Skousen wants it.
The chapter on John Stuart Mill is called "Milling Around." The chapter on Alfred Marshall is called "Marshaling the Troops." These are representative examples of Skousen's quick wit and devilish way with words. Skousen also thinks he can get us to put on a piece of classical music, chosen by him, whilst we read each chapter. Being a libertarian does not preclude being plenty meddlesome.
In the chapter on Max Weber, whom he somewhat implausibly counts among the economists, Skousen asserts the real value of Weber's work to have been that theory must be based on empirical evidence. No theory that shirks this test is worthwhile, Skousen avers. He repeats this a bunch of times since there's not a lot else to say, which is one of the downsides of putting a non-economist in a book on economics. In the chapter on Ludwig von Mises, however, in which Skousen becomes ostentatiously unfaithful to the Smithian corpse, Skousen approvingly repeats Mises's opinion that empirical evidence merely tells us what happened one time in the past, and that the only reliable economic theory is one that builds from first principles and rejects empiricism altogether. Empirical evidence, in short, is for losers (the chapter is cleverly titled "The Missing Mises"). Between Weber's view and Mises' there is a certain tension, but in Skousen's way of seeing things this is apparently no problem. It is really only the ideological end point that matters, and the route to get there is chosen for convenience's sake. Two contradictory stories is not a big deal. Psychologists call this phenomenon "cognitive dissonance." Skousen is no psychologist, so you can't blame him for not recognizing it.
Having been written and released at the high point of the "endless privitization and deregulation of everything!!" tendency that culminated ten years ago in rolling blackouts and the presidency of George Bush, this book has an unreal, triumphalist tone. Skousen assumes that his side has won and will continue winning, so he has the smugness of all who have succumbed to hubris. In attributing this tone to the era, I am perhaps being too generous, as I have checked Skousen's present output and he still sounds this way.
Skousen has striven to provide a work accessible to the public, so he has larded it liberally with gossip. I trust that some of this is true, but Skousen seems excessively credulous -- his depiction of Pigou as a Soviet spy seemed to me at first to have been pulled directly from his nether regions, but when I researched the claim, I found that it stemmed from a single unreliable source in the mid-70s (and so far totally unsupported by information from the Russian vaults). We also get to see Skousen bombastically reporting on tepid episodes, such as Menger's affair... with a woman to whom he was not married! Skousen acts as though such banalities were quite scandalous indeed, much like a bored tween. We also get to see him musing about the causes of Keynes's homosexuality (he thinks it may have resulted from Keynes's estrangement from his father). It's all good fun to treat homosexuality as a failing or a pathology, even for a lover of liberty.
The book's treatment of Milton Friedman is of historical interest, given the rift that has since opened between the monetarists and the Austrians. Skousen presents Friedman simply as the knight in shining armor, who burst forth unexpectedly and saved "Adam Smith" (or was it Smith's house?) from the interventionist barbarians of Cambridge, MA and Cambridge, UK. One wonders how much more measured Skousen's assessment might be in future editions, given how much of a flashpoint central bank policy has become between the two schools, now that the business cycle has shown that it still can muster a vicious downside.
Skousen says that Joan Robinson's left-wing comments on current events in the late 60s and early 70s were why the Nobel committee snubbed her (this much is certainly true), and that the comments were an embarrassment to her friends and foes alike. I do not believe that her foes were embarrassed. Most foes like it when their enemies say embarrassing things. I certainly take pleasure in the embarrassing things that Skousen says.
I could really go on and on saying unfavorable things about this book, but I must acknowledge, again, that as a general survey it is not without utility. It at least does not make a pretense of objectivity: I will give it that.
The preface of the book contains Skousen's touching and humorous account of how he unintentionally killed Murray Rothbard. It goes downhill from there.
Skousen's presentation continues in the long tradition of unjustly setting up Adam Smith as the first economist, and proceeds to engage in a sustained act of necrophilia with the famous Scotsman, carrying his corpse through the succeeding two-hundred years and comparing it favorably to every subsequent thinker who was less optimistic on free markets, while also claiming that the Austrian and Chicago schools advanced the true Adam Smith tradition. Skouson never settles on a single metaphor to pin this conceit to, and so sometimes he tells us we are hearing the story of "Adam Smith" himself, while at other times economic thought is Adam Smith's "house". This framing device is well beyond asinine, and one wonders how the editors allowed it to remain. Skousen acknowledges early on that the historical Adam Smith was no libertarian, in that he espoused a labor theory of value, opposed monopolies, wrote in favor both of land taxes and of progressive income taxes, and made the case for public schools and public works projects, but somehow this isn't the Smith that Skousen takes with him through the remainder of the text. Smith lived long ago so of course he didn't quite get his theory to be the way Skousen wants it.
The chapter on John Stuart Mill is called "Milling Around." The chapter on Alfred Marshall is called "Marshaling the Troops." These are representative examples of Skousen's quick wit and devilish way with words. Skousen also thinks he can get us to put on a piece of classical music, chosen by him, whilst we read each chapter. Being a libertarian does not preclude being plenty meddlesome.
In the chapter on Max Weber, whom he somewhat implausibly counts among the economists, Skousen asserts the real value of Weber's work to have been that theory must be based on empirical evidence. No theory that shirks this test is worthwhile, Skousen avers. He repeats this a bunch of times since there's not a lot else to say, which is one of the downsides of putting a non-economist in a book on economics. In the chapter on Ludwig von Mises, however, in which Skousen becomes ostentatiously unfaithful to the Smithian corpse, Skousen approvingly repeats Mises's opinion that empirical evidence merely tells us what happened one time in the past, and that the only reliable economic theory is one that builds from first principles and rejects empiricism altogether. Empirical evidence, in short, is for losers (the chapter is cleverly titled "The Missing Mises"). Between Weber's view and Mises' there is a certain tension, but in Skousen's way of seeing things this is apparently no problem. It is really only the ideological end point that matters, and the route to get there is chosen for convenience's sake. Two contradictory stories is not a big deal. Psychologists call this phenomenon "cognitive dissonance." Skousen is no psychologist, so you can't blame him for not recognizing it.
Having been written and released at the high point of the "endless privitization and deregulation of everything!!" tendency that culminated ten years ago in rolling blackouts and the presidency of George Bush, this book has an unreal, triumphalist tone. Skousen assumes that his side has won and will continue winning, so he has the smugness of all who have succumbed to hubris. In attributing this tone to the era, I am perhaps being too generous, as I have checked Skousen's present output and he still sounds this way.
Skousen has striven to provide a work accessible to the public, so he has larded it liberally with gossip. I trust that some of this is true, but Skousen seems excessively credulous -- his depiction of Pigou as a Soviet spy seemed to me at first to have been pulled directly from his nether regions, but when I researched the claim, I found that it stemmed from a single unreliable source in the mid-70s (and so far totally unsupported by information from the Russian vaults). We also get to see Skousen bombastically reporting on tepid episodes, such as Menger's affair... with a woman to whom he was not married! Skousen acts as though such banalities were quite scandalous indeed, much like a bored tween. We also get to see him musing about the causes of Keynes's homosexuality (he thinks it may have resulted from Keynes's estrangement from his father). It's all good fun to treat homosexuality as a failing or a pathology, even for a lover of liberty.
The book's treatment of Milton Friedman is of historical interest, given the rift that has since opened between the monetarists and the Austrians. Skousen presents Friedman simply as the knight in shining armor, who burst forth unexpectedly and saved "Adam Smith" (or was it Smith's house?) from the interventionist barbarians of Cambridge, MA and Cambridge, UK. One wonders how much more measured Skousen's assessment might be in future editions, given how much of a flashpoint central bank policy has become between the two schools, now that the business cycle has shown that it still can muster a vicious downside.
Skousen says that Joan Robinson's left-wing comments on current events in the late 60s and early 70s were why the Nobel committee snubbed her (this much is certainly true), and that the comments were an embarrassment to her friends and foes alike. I do not believe that her foes were embarrassed. Most foes like it when their enemies say embarrassing things. I certainly take pleasure in the embarrassing things that Skousen says.
I could really go on and on saying unfavorable things about this book, but I must acknowledge, again, that as a general survey it is not without utility. It at least does not make a pretense of objectivity: I will give it that.
October 24, 2018
Interesting and insighting, but clearly biases.
Evolução histórica do pensamento econômico e alguns comentários sobre a vida pessoal de diversos economistas, como Adam Smith, Karl Marx, John Maynard Keynes, Joseph Schumpeter, Milton Friedman, Alfred Marshall, Ludwig von Mises, David Ricardo, Thomas Malthus, Arthur Cecil Pigou, John Stuart Mill, Paul Samuelson, Friedrich Hayek, Irving Fisher e outros.
O livro traz um ponto de vista completamente diferente daquele que estudamos nas salas de aula. Recomendo para economistas e pessoas interessadas no assunto. Claro que o melhor entendimento da obra exige um conhecimento básico de micro e macro.
Um livro revelador, pois mostra como valores e experiências pessoais influenciam SIM na construção dos modelos e argumentos. No fim, não existe uma fórmula perfeita e inquestionável. Temos antes que nos perguntar que sociedade queremos, com base em quais princípios e valores prioritários. A “ciência” Econômica é muito mais orgânica do que muitos economistas gostariam de admitir – ou mesmo compreender. E talvez a relutância em assumir que somos seres racionais, mas não necessariamente com base em uma única racionalidade, seja uma fraqueza de muitos modelos ensinados em escolas conceituadas pelo mundo.
Afinal de contas somos diferentes, e não necessariamente por ignorância, mas por opção – ou mesmo por falta dela, já que podemos ser diferentes simplesmente devido aos nossos genes serem diferentes. E isso talvez, talvez, não seja ruim assim, mas requisito necessário para sermos tão bem sucedidos como espécie nesse planeta.
Obs: Não concordei com alguns comentários finais do autor. Enfim, faz parte.
Evolução histórica do pensamento econômico e alguns comentários sobre a vida pessoal de diversos economistas, como Adam Smith, Karl Marx, John Maynard Keynes, Joseph Schumpeter, Milton Friedman, Alfred Marshall, Ludwig von Mises, David Ricardo, Thomas Malthus, Arthur Cecil Pigou, John Stuart Mill, Paul Samuelson, Friedrich Hayek, Irving Fisher e outros.
O livro traz um ponto de vista completamente diferente daquele que estudamos nas salas de aula. Recomendo para economistas e pessoas interessadas no assunto. Claro que o melhor entendimento da obra exige um conhecimento básico de micro e macro.
Um livro revelador, pois mostra como valores e experiências pessoais influenciam SIM na construção dos modelos e argumentos. No fim, não existe uma fórmula perfeita e inquestionável. Temos antes que nos perguntar que sociedade queremos, com base em quais princípios e valores prioritários. A “ciência” Econômica é muito mais orgânica do que muitos economistas gostariam de admitir – ou mesmo compreender. E talvez a relutância em assumir que somos seres racionais, mas não necessariamente com base em uma única racionalidade, seja uma fraqueza de muitos modelos ensinados em escolas conceituadas pelo mundo.
Afinal de contas somos diferentes, e não necessariamente por ignorância, mas por opção – ou mesmo por falta dela, já que podemos ser diferentes simplesmente devido aos nossos genes serem diferentes. E isso talvez, talvez, não seja ruim assim, mas requisito necessário para sermos tão bem sucedidos como espécie nesse planeta.
Obs: Não concordei com alguns comentários finais do autor. Enfim, faz parte.
June 12, 2023
Amusing and informative but hopelessly opinionated. While I am in full agreement with the author about the superiority of free markets, I seriously question his grasp of non-capitalist economists.
For example, he only mentioned that Marx changed his views and opposed revolutionary activity later in his life in a tiny section towards the end of the chapter on him (For a fairer assessment and deeper critique of Marx I recommend The Open Society and Its Enemies). I am also not sure if he fully understood Keynesian economics, and given his track record I would not be surprised if he horrifically misrepresented Keynes.
One thing that especially annoyed me was that he kept saying Adam Smith was a laissez-faire advocate who opposed any and all government interference, when in reality he understood there were certain occasions where it made sense for governments to step in, such as the need for law enforcement or a national defence.
I will at least say in the author's favor that he wrote extensively on some rather obscure and forgotten economists like Bastiat and Böhm-Bawerk. Even Knut Wicksell was given a generously large section. If you need any reason to read this book, read only those chapters, and not the whole thing.
For example, he only mentioned that Marx changed his views and opposed revolutionary activity later in his life in a tiny section towards the end of the chapter on him (For a fairer assessment and deeper critique of Marx I recommend The Open Society and Its Enemies). I am also not sure if he fully understood Keynesian economics, and given his track record I would not be surprised if he horrifically misrepresented Keynes.
One thing that especially annoyed me was that he kept saying Adam Smith was a laissez-faire advocate who opposed any and all government interference, when in reality he understood there were certain occasions where it made sense for governments to step in, such as the need for law enforcement or a national defence.
I will at least say in the author's favor that he wrote extensively on some rather obscure and forgotten economists like Bastiat and Böhm-Bawerk. Even Knut Wicksell was given a generously large section. If you need any reason to read this book, read only those chapters, and not the whole thing.
August 7, 2019
I very much enjoyed this book. I was never an economics fan in college or graduate school and found it to be quite dull, boring and unmemorable. However, after reading Fed Up: An Insider's Take on Why the Federal Reserve is Bad for America, I wanted to know more about the subject. I started reading Wealth of Nations, and then I discovered this book with a good history of economics and economics theories.
I cannot comment on whether the author is right, wrong, or indifferent on 99.9% of the book. Its really my first deep dive into the subject and I appreciated the ability to get a concise overview of the topic.
I can comment on page 465 that the financial crisis of 2008 explanation is limited. The author fails to look at a simple fact that for thousands of years, banker made loans with the understanding that the borrower had to pad the loan back. The risk to the bank was the borrower would not. However, we created an environment where the bank did not care if the borrower could pay it back because they packaged it up and sold it transferring all risk and allowing all fees and profit. This lack of "skin in the game" and desire to apply prudent risk management to loans would have effected the economy no matter what.
I cannot comment on whether the author is right, wrong, or indifferent on 99.9% of the book. Its really my first deep dive into the subject and I appreciated the ability to get a concise overview of the topic.
I can comment on page 465 that the financial crisis of 2008 explanation is limited. The author fails to look at a simple fact that for thousands of years, banker made loans with the understanding that the borrower had to pad the loan back. The risk to the bank was the borrower would not. However, we created an environment where the bank did not care if the borrower could pay it back because they packaged it up and sold it transferring all risk and allowing all fees and profit. This lack of "skin in the game" and desire to apply prudent risk management to loans would have effected the economy no matter what.
November 27, 2020
3.5/5
Interestingly, I bought a used copy that turned out to originally be a gift from the author to his nephew (there's a cute message written in pen on the inside).
I really enjoyed the writing style + general approach of the book. It's my first time really looking at econ and it was really helpful understanding the historical context of the different people that were discussed. Certainly not a technical book, but it felt like a good overview of various approaches to understanding economics.
If I had stopped reading 3/4 of the way through it'd be 4/5, but the last 2 chapters just felt really biased to me. I don't mind biased perspectives to a point and he was pretty open about his opinions from early on, but the last 2 chapters just felt like he was giving only his opinions. I didn't really learn much from them. I wish he also gave more historical data to back up some of his assessments of various theories.
Interestingly, I bought a used copy that turned out to originally be a gift from the author to his nephew (there's a cute message written in pen on the inside).
I really enjoyed the writing style + general approach of the book. It's my first time really looking at econ and it was really helpful understanding the historical context of the different people that were discussed. Certainly not a technical book, but it felt like a good overview of various approaches to understanding economics.
If I had stopped reading 3/4 of the way through it'd be 4/5, but the last 2 chapters just felt really biased to me. I don't mind biased perspectives to a point and he was pretty open about his opinions from early on, but the last 2 chapters just felt like he was giving only his opinions. I didn't really learn much from them. I wish he also gave more historical data to back up some of his assessments of various theories.
June 11, 2022
Lots of interesting content about the people who created the discipline of economics. It’s a pretty good history of the people, but it doesn’t do enough to explain and contrast their ideas. The e format of the book made me wish I had purchased a hard copy rather than an ebook. Irritating quirks in the ebook format. The insights into the economists through history had a lot of information that was u familiar to me. It made me curious about how their ideas compared with each other. Are we closer to understanding what’s true and what’s not. Are we closer to understanding which economic systems work best? It doesn’t seem so. Economics still seems to live in a world of opinion rather than empirical evidence. At least it seems so to me. Still, reading this was worth the effort, even though it was painful at times.
May 15, 2017
I had a hard time figuring out how to rate this one. Every chapter prior to the last one was a solid 4 star, maybe even 5 because I love economic history and this one seemed thorough and entertaining. The last chapter is barely a 1 star, though, because the author decides to suddenly make many strong statements in conclusion that are not even remotely backed up by the preceding book. It's like the thoughtful, relatively objective person that wrote the book asked his crazy, right-wing fanatic friend to write a blog rant and included it as the concluding chapter.
September 27, 2021
Economics is one of the most fascinating of the sciences. This book brings the humanity of the major players over the centuries to life. Don't hesitate to read this very readable book! Skousen tells the backstory of things that go right—and very wrong—in economic thinking that affect us all. You will be equipped to make better sense of things you observe taking place in the economy (inflation, product shortages, interest rates, etc.). A perfect overview of economics for the serious scholar and the layperson alike.
August 16, 2022
The book goes from history of economics to a snarky tongue-in-cheek rebuke of any challenge or criticism of unchecked free-market capitalism.
But it's a good history of the subject, and my already owned reading list of economics books got a contextual sorting for me to read in order.
All economic texts should include the following sub-lines "NONE OF THESE CLAIMS HAVE BEEN VERIFIED AGAINST AN EVOLUTIONARY TIMELINE."
But it's a good history of the subject, and my already owned reading list of economics books got a contextual sorting for me to read in order.
All economic texts should include the following sub-lines "NONE OF THESE CLAIMS HAVE BEEN VERIFIED AGAINST AN EVOLUTIONARY TIMELINE."
September 5, 2019
Great book on The Lives and Ideas of The Great Thinkers in the world of economics, all the way from the free market ideas of Adam Smith to the socialistic ,communistic, ideas of Karl Marx to today's leading economists. A great debate between socialism and capitalism. A must read for any one interested in the effects of government policy on our lives.
September 6, 2022
The author does a fantastic job to enliven a potentially dull topic. He mostly does this by details, sometime salacious, of the lives of key economists. One interesting things to me was that both Keynes and Karl Marx found wealth in market speculation.
July 6, 2018
Effortless read in the economics category.one of the best book.
August 19, 2018
Excellent!
Displaying 1 - 30 of 60 reviews