|
This survey will add to the reader's store of knowledge of an additional ten seminal thinkers. I am constantly amazed how little economists know about the history of their profession. They have heard (at best) of Adam Smith, David Ricardo, J.M Keynes.
So.Keynes (the aesthete) seemed to be some sort of reaction against the Victorian background from which he had come.2. 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. There were also a few problems with the author's attempts at drollery. 1. 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. 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.
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). But this one is of such a depth that I could read (and absorb) no more than one chapter per day.6. Most books this length I could take in about 2 afternoons of reading. There was also wonderful discussion of what they did explain and what they did not.3. On the down side, the book is not all that light to read.
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. It can also clarify the most fundamental differences between differing schools of thought.5. 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"). The Public Choice policy discussion was, by far, the best part of the book. Monetary and Fiscal policy were also great.
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". The book is so boring that I have to leave my first review on Amazon.com. I'm already bored to death before the author put some economic ideas at the end of each chapter. I'm not interested in how he teaches, I'm interested in what he teaches. I don't know economics. I'm expecting ideas from the famous economists and how to apply their ideas in the 21st century.
This book adds a nice thought just by itself: humor and economists. 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).
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. Many, many are the other way around, such as "Rise & Fall of the Roman Empire." "Dead Economists" is both. 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.
Luckily, economics got that "dismal science" label a long time ago, because this book is quite the opposite. Adam Smith and mirth, etcetera. Do read it.
Lest anyone be turned off by the relatively un-recent publication date (1989), the author has updates covering fairly recent events. Marx and laughter.
However I had three problems with the book. Second, from some of his comments it is clear his writing has a political/philosophical bias but he never comes out and states what it is.
Third, perhaps a minor point, but he keeps drifting slightly off-topic in order to include a cute saying or clever remark. Since I'm not an economist (after all, that's why I'm reading this book), it seems impossible to figure out what his bias is and how to correct for it.
This books generally delivers what it promises, a review of major thoughts from economists evaluated (somewhat) in a modern context. Even though they are topics outside of economics, they made me generally suspicious of his knowledge.
I mostly found this annoying, but other readers might find it helps keep the book light and fun. If that's what you are looking for, it's probably worth reading.
First, he says some incredibly, bizarrely wrong things (quantum mechanics is not a hard science, the internet was invented by private industry, California may float away into the ocean).
|
