New Ideas from Dead Economists: The Introduction to Modern Economic Thought

A comprehensive but ideologically biased economics history<br /><br />There are a couple of points that are good to know before you pick up this short economics history. First, the title is misleading, it is not “new ideas”, but just “ideas” form dead economists. Second, it is not only theories (ideas), but also biography (at least sometimes). The latter is where the book fails the most. I’ll come back to this later.<br /><br />This is a history of ideas book, but it is also a saga of how modern economy (the dismal science) came to life. This epics starts, naturally, with the Physiocrats and Adam Smith. Modern free-marketeers and Republicans have taken for themselves Smith’s theories. They place them in the ideological camp against Big Government. But “The Wealth of Nations” starts with a critique to Mercantilism and its focus on money. Wealth, in Smith’s view, is productive, not monetary. Of course the Spanish Empire learned this the hard way after bringing gold and silver from America. This new theoretical framework for wealth is the real revolution. One wonders what Smith would have thought of modern finance, with its obsession with paper money and fancy instruments that are several levels of abstraction removed from real wealth. In this sense, Adam Smith is more of an Economics Theory Foundation figure, and not so much a piece to place on one side or the other of the ideological camp.<br /><br />Buchholz traces how economics develops from this early foundation, explaining Malthus, Ricardo, Alfred Marshal invention of the economic supply and demand curves, and then moving forward to modern economics from Keynes to Behaviorists. The book is very successful in presenting all these theories in a coherent framework and a small package.<br /><br />There are, however, two big problems with “New Ideas from Dead Economists”. The first is how biography is misused. The book presents mainly ideas, and in most cases biography is used to move the prose forward. But when the author doesn’t agree with a theory, he spends more time on the economists’ flaws. Marx is portrayed as a drunken, money waster youth, negligent provider for his family. I don’t see how this is relevant at all in understanding his theories—it is a fun story, but that’s a different type of book. Buchholz critique of Marxism is tinted with this (irrelevant) biographical information. In my opinion, this is not a very honest way of debating economics.<br /><br />The other problem is his uses of examples. Marshall is praised with many illustrations that “prove” him right. Malthus, the opposite. With almost every economic theory on can find examples to prove or disprove it. So one wonders how these examples were chosen, and if this is just confirmation bias on the part of the author.

<b><br />I've read a few pages of it, and it was promising, and full of joyful small details.<br />One of the Arabic translations has a lot misunderstanding of phrases meaning, though it had checked by a famous Egyptian economist, "Hazem EL-Beblawy". That translation published by "academic library". Luckily, there is another recent translation by "Arabic words", and it was so good.<br />تحذير متأخر قليلاً، ولكن ترجمة "المكتبة الأكاديمية" لهذا الكتاب هي أسوأ ترجمة قابلتها على الإطلاق؛ فمعظم ترجمات العبارات مغلوطة تماماً، ولا تعكس مقاصد الكتاب من قريب أو بعيد حتى!. <br />ولا أستطيع تخيل كيف آلت الأمور إلى هذا الهراء، وكيف واتتهم الشجاعة لنشره، ولا أستطيع أن أتخيل كيف أن الدكتور "حازم الببلاوي" موضوع اسمه كمراجع للكتاب.<br /><br />ومن حسن الحظ أنه هنالك ترجمة بديلة ممتازة، أصدرتها "كلمات عربية". وقد قارنتها بنفسي مع الترجمة الأخرى.<br /><br />ومن الجزء البسيط الذي قرأته، فالكتاب رائع وواعد، بتفاصيل صغيرة مميزة.</b><br />

i actually only read 228 pages of this book but i’m still marking it as read for compensation of the pain that econ symposiums brought me

هذا الكتاب هو عبارة عن النسخة المعاصرة من كتب تاريخ الأفكار الاقتصادية والتي اعتدنا دراستها عند دراستنا للاقتصاد<br /><br />لقد بدأ بلمحة بسيطة عن المركانتيليين وبعدها بدأ بدراسة أفكار آدم سميث "أب الاقتصاد الحديث" والأب الفكري لليبرالية الاقتصادية، وتابع دراسته مروراً بريكاردو، ماركس، جون ستيوارت مل، مارشال، كينز وأخيراً ميلتون فريدمان والمدرسة النقدية ويليه مدرسة التوقعات العقلانية وأهم ناقديها المدرسة السلوكية<br /><br />يتميز هذا الكتاب بالموضوعية وعدم التحيز لآراء مفكّر معين أو إنكار جهد مفكّر آخر، كما أنه يقوم بإيصال أفكارهم بشكل بسيط وخالٍ من التعقيدات الأدبية والفلسفية<br /><br />على الرغم من أن هذا الكتاب يصنف لغير المختصين إلا أنه يتطلب حداً أدنى من المعرفة بأساسيات علم الاقتصاد، لأنه يقوم بالسرد متجاوزاً بعض المبادئ الأساسية والتي يفترض معرفة القارئ لها<br /><br />على كل حال فإن هذا الكتاب مميز، وقد قام بترتيب أفكاري بشكل مذهل <br />بالنسبة لي أنصح ��ه لغير المختصين والمهتمين، إنه يستحق القراءة فعلاً

giờ mới biết có 1 bản dịch chương 6 nói về Marx của 1 thành viên x cà ngày xưa, mà đã bị kiểm duyệt thẳng thường trong bản in của nxb tri thức in lần đầu hồi 2008 . hy vọng cuốn này có tái bản lại thì đưa chương này vào lại cho hoàn chỉnh, giờ chắc cũng đỡ nhiều rồi. Mà giọng điệu của tác giả khi nói về Marx chua cay quá :)), khác hẳn nói về mấy bác khác.<br /><br /><a target="_blank" rel="noopener nofollow" href="https://goo.gl/oAD11F">https://goo.gl/oAD11F</a>

A good introduction to economics from a conservative point of view (of which I consider myself far from). It floored me that this book is genuinely funny. So take note writers- If this book can be funny, anything can have humour dispersed. <br /><br />Ultimately the author achieved his aim of detailing the importance of economics and introductory concepts from the most notable economists. Sometimes it dragged during the tougher concepts but I blame the reader.<br /><br />Most egregious parts are- <br />1. The acknowledgement of damning reports (2nd edition published in 1999) of future environmental degradation that is swiftly dismissed.<br />2. The Karl Marx chapter. Annoyed by the double standards when his personal life is eviscerated unlike the other featured economists. The author couldn't maintain his general impartiality here and his arguments suffered as a result.

أعجبني الكتاب كثيرا خصوصا انه يتحدث عن موضوع قليل من الناس يعرفه وكثير من الناس يخاف منه ألا وهو الاقتصاد. في الحقيقة ليست لدي خلفية كبيرة عن الاقتصاد إلا ما قرأته من بعض الكتب المشهورة مثل Freakonomics و thinking fast and slow. بعد قراءة هذا الكتاب قررت أن اخذ دوره اكاديمية فيما بعد الاقتصاد عن طريق موقع رواق الإلكتروني الذي يقدم حضرات اكاديمية متخصصة. <br /><br />هذا الكتاب بشكل عام يتطرق لتاريخ علم الاقتصاد والمؤثرين فيه والمدارس الاقتصادية بالإضافة إلى أثر كل فكر أو مدرسة اقتصادية على حياتنا اليومية.

The main premise of the book, is best summarized by the author: "It is striking that so many of the lessons of the great economists still speak to us. Each of their wisest theories has a practical point or analogy today. This book seeks their wisdom by looking at mainstream economics and asking, Who first had these insights and built these durable models? We can learn from the masters."<br /><br />Todd then embarks his readers on a journey through the contributions of the greatest economists of our time. Clearly explaining how they analysed the existing models and theories of their time, and their own contributions to advance the filed of economics. He does so, in a very simple style that is accessible to any audience regardless of their background in that field. <br /><br />What truly sets this book apart is the breadth of content, spanning a period of several centuries. Sufficient depth is included so that one gains an appreciation and broad understanding. The included references make it easy for one to dive deeper into more details. A must read for anyone seeking an introduction and/or a broad understanding of the field of economics!<br /><br />Below are key excerpts from the book that I found particularly insightful:<br /><br />1- "Russia's 1998 debacle teaches us that a market economy must rest on a dependable legal system. A free market does not mean utter chaos; it requires ground rules."<br /><br />2- "Economics if the study of choice. It does not tell us what to choose. It only helps us understand the consequences of our choices."<br /><br />3- "...as an economist isolates causes and estimates their influence, the degree of influence changes...Economics may not be a "hard" science. But that does not mean it is an easy science. Because it is so fluid, it is hard to hold in place and to study."<br /><br />4- "Smith clearly defined the proper role for government: first, providing for national defense; second, administering justice through a court system; third, maintaining public institutions and resources such as roads, canals, bridges, educational systems, and the dignity of the sovereign."<br /><br />5- "The point of Ricardo's analysis: free trade makes it possible for households to consume more goods regardless of whether trading partners are more or less economically advanced."<br /><br />6- "By investing, the capitalist gives up the immediate gratification of buying goods. His return on investment pays him for waiting, for delaying his pleasure. If everyone consumes everything now, society will produce nothing new. Thus, profits play a crucial role."<br /><br />7- "...four very important areas in which economists have dramatically transformed traditional legal analysis: negligence law; property law; criminal law; and corporate finance."<br /><br />8- "There is clearly more to economics than prices, profits, rents, and costs. Laws, morals, fashions, and philosophies all contribute to an economy. They may support it, or they may tear it down."<br /><br />9- "What does it mean to be Keynesian? Two basis propositions will suffice here: (1) the private economy may not reach full employment; (2) government spending can spur the economy into filling the gap."<br /><br />10- "Keynes cleverly speculates that the way to make money in the stock market is not to be the best corporate analyst, but to be the best at guessing what others think is good."<br /><br />11- "This movement, called monetarism, admits that the economy does have an accelerator and a brake, but insists that the accelerator should be marked "higher money supply" and the brake "lower money supply...the monetarists portray the Federal Reserve Board...as the driver."<br /><br />12- "With perhaps uncustomary humility, Friedman claims that economists do not know enough about monetary policy to manipulate it wisely."<br /><br />13- "We are all Keynesians now, thanks to Keynes. We are all monetarists now, thanks to Friedman. And we are all eclectics now, thanks to a turbulent world."<br /><br />14- "This problem emerges again and again in democracies. Motivates organizations trample on the interests of consumers, who individually have a small stake in the outcome. Ultimately, the individual consumers are hurt badly as a national efficiency and income fall."<br /><br />15- "Rational Expectations theory predicts that government stimulus does not spur the economy and that government contraction does not hurt...Why do most economists tend to agree with Rational Expectations theorists when they talk about the stock market, yet explode in disagreement when speaking of the macroeconomy? The fact is, the stock market is a more efficient...it is quite liquid...In contrast, real markets for goods and services show more complexity and rigidity."<br /><br />16- "...each of the economists we have studied, despite their many differences, warned us that governments always face political pressures to take measures that can ruin good economies...Because even good economic policies often produce victims, economists have a very tough time persuading democratic governments to take good advice. Good economics may not be popular economics, especially in the short run."<br /><br />17- "Parents must eventually learn to teach their children how to handle uncertainty - not how to ensure stability."<br /><br />18- "For most of man's life on earth, he has lived no better on two legs than he had on four . Give the economist a little credit for explaining and depicting the brief, shining moments when there has been a difference."

I learned a lot about economics in spite of how poorly written this book was. Although the economic schools and personalities were generally organized chronologically, each chapter felt haphazard and unorganized. It felt like the author was trying to write a popular economics text à la Stephen Hawking for astrophysics, but it came off as your grandpa trying to be cool and hip with the kids these days. I lost count of the number of sentences that added nothing to the text and could have been deleted. Unfortunately, this would have made the book at least a third shorter and publishers probably don't like that. There were also so many throwaway lines in which critiques of one school or another were dismissed out of hand with no explanation. Left me with the idea that I should just trust the author's opinion on one thing or another with no evidence or support. Finally, while I acknowledge the importance of the context of the personalities that developed different schools of thought, the author seemed to dismiss people or ideas based on their character flaws where the time would have been better spent trying to actually explain different concepts more clearly.<br /><br />There HAS to be a better introduction to economic thought that doesn't treat the reader like a small child and actually engages with the ideas in a way that makes them more clear and understandable.

A decent attempt at an ambitious task - Buchholz traverses the sweep of Western economic history from Adam Smith, Alfred Marshall, Karl Marx, Milton Friedman and others in 300 odd pages. I liked the way he tried to set each economist's theory in his (I wish I could say her, but economics has been a sexist profession until lately) own era, with its historical context. Subsequent economists built refinements to the previously held theories, or were confronted with geopolitical situations where certain hypotheses didn't work. <br /><br />The attempts to connect their theories with the economists' personal lives seemed clumsy at best, and irrelevant. This book also does not cover more recent insights by behavioral economists like Kahneman, Thaler and others.<br /><br />Flawed but a useful book if you are looking for a lens into economic history since Adam Smith.