3bc0c09b_30_of_130___sorted_by__review___review
[0] checkbox [#] position [cover] cover [title] title The Making of Modern Economics: The Lives and Ideas of the Great Thinkers [author] author Skousen, Mark * [isbn] isbn 0765622262 [isbn13] isbn13 9780765622266 [asin] asin [num pages] num pages 494 pp [avg rating] avg rating 3.80 [num ratings] num ratings 219 [date pub] date pub Dec 31, 2000 [date pub (ed.)] date pub edition Feb 01, 2009 [rating] Lucas's rating 3 of 5 stars [my rating] my rating 1 of 5 stars2 of 5 stars3 of 5 stars4 of 5 stars5 of 5 stars add to shelves [notes] notes Notes are private! [recommender] recommender none [comments] comments 0 [votes] votes 1 [read count] # times read 1 [date started] date started Nov 22, 2010 [date read] date read Dec 23, 2010 [date added] date added Nov 21, 2010 [date purchased] date purchased [owned] owned [purchase location] purchase location [condition] condition [format] format Hardcover [29] actions view [review] 
review The history of economic thought told via chronological serial biography is a refreshing alternative to other more narrowly scoped economics books. Aft 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. ...more
Lucas's bookshelf: audio (showing 1-30 of 130) (sorted by: review)