Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.77 AVERAGE
3.77 AVERAGE
I enjoyed it, and I thought it was well written. I think I would have enjoyed it even more if I had a bigger background in economics, but it definitely made me want to read more of the works of Keynes, Hayek, and Friedman.
informative
medium-paced
Not that great a discussion of the actual economic theory, but this is an acceptable introduction to the lives of Keynes and Hayek and the influence they had on policy.
challenging
informative
slow-paced
Started it to learn more about two economic theories. It was interesting enough for 100 pages or so and then it really got bogged down by essentially listing out every tiny note Keynes and Hayek sent back and forth to each other. Then it felt like too much trouble to sift through a largish book to get to the occasional nugget of interesting analysis.
In the end I couldn't bring myself to read it all the way through.
In the end I couldn't bring myself to read it all the way through.
informative
reflective
fast-paced
An economics book that does not hold back the economics. In each chapter, the author provides more and more economic theory that have been developing. Initially, some of the economics presented are difficult to understand, but that is where the author makes the book great, by explaining the theories in different ways again in later chapter making the theory understandable. Every chapter goes deeper and deeper in the great debate of economics without taking a side. Based on this book, the last century had many great debates where intellectuals not only did not mind arguing but did not mind disagreements. No offence was taken to the disagreements as the disagreements helped develop many theories. Today there does not seem to be many debates going on and many intellectuals becoming offended if their research has become criticized. As the debates in this book provided justifications and arguments for policy decision, the researchers of today should strive to obtain public arguments and make differences such as the cost and benefits of policy known. This book is not a difficult read and provides an understanding of economics on a deep level.
John Maynard Keynes and Friedrich Hayek, two high priests of finance poured forth from their respective ideological pulpits more than eighty years ago. Their polemics and preaching had such reverberations that they spawned a new divide of loyal pupils. A divide that carries on the legacy long after their Masters have gone.
On one side of the divide resides the freshwater tribe. Advocating theories such as bounded rationality, efficient market hypotheses and rational expectations, the followers of Hayek abhor Government intervention in the functioning of markets. Their rivals, the saltwater practitioners emphatically proselytize Keynesian Principles and reiterate the need for Government intervention to prevent the untrammeled ravages of an invidious market.
In this splendid work, Nicholas Wapshott brings to life the towering and intimidating personalities of both Keynes and Hayek. Using exemplary simplicity, Wapshott distinguishes the key and core tenets separating Keynesian Principles from the Austrian School of Thought. As he proceeds to unravel the deep debates and intense implications of the clash between microeconomics and macroeconomics, the reader is roused to interest as Economics absolutely ceases to be a dismal Science.
A highly recommended read!
On one side of the divide resides the freshwater tribe. Advocating theories such as bounded rationality, efficient market hypotheses and rational expectations, the followers of Hayek abhor Government intervention in the functioning of markets. Their rivals, the saltwater practitioners emphatically proselytize Keynesian Principles and reiterate the need for Government intervention to prevent the untrammeled ravages of an invidious market.
In this splendid work, Nicholas Wapshott brings to life the towering and intimidating personalities of both Keynes and Hayek. Using exemplary simplicity, Wapshott distinguishes the key and core tenets separating Keynesian Principles from the Austrian School of Thought. As he proceeds to unravel the deep debates and intense implications of the clash between microeconomics and macroeconomics, the reader is roused to interest as Economics absolutely ceases to be a dismal Science.
A highly recommended read!
I have to give credit where credit is due: writing a book about two theories of economics that has readers on the edge of their seats is no easy task, and the author does just that! He also manages to tell both sides of the story in a balanced manner throughout the whole book, which is extremely well written and approachable - even for those who have not studied economics past the "Econ 101" level. Plus, even as someone who leans more towards the Hayekian side of things, that final quote gave me pause, and I always appreciate a challenge to the way I see things.
Imperfect on its politics (it really is too short a book to take up all the issues it casually throws around in the second half), its economics (which it doesn't engage with substantively), and even its storytelling (the book really could have ended with one summary chapter after the death of keynes - not 5), this book is nonetheless great fun, sheds light on the personal backgrounds and interconnections between economists, and - in so doing - reveals the small size and social inbreddedness of the coterie in charge of our world.
This book is written by a journalist and both gains from the emphasis on narrative craft and suffers from the emphasis on (usually biographical) colour that are the mark of books written by journalists. The (first half of the) book's methodological individualism is at once predictable and deadening - and yet also the reason why this book is good fun.
Ultimately, once the fun has been had, one is left with the beginnings of a structure for developing a history of contemporary economic thought. This is no useless thing, given a world of economics instruction that teaches theories in isolation from the context that produced them or even, indeed, competing theories. It is, of course, only a beginning.
This book is written by a journalist and both gains from the emphasis on narrative craft and suffers from the emphasis on (usually biographical) colour that are the mark of books written by journalists. The (first half of the) book's methodological individualism is at once predictable and deadening - and yet also the reason why this book is good fun.
Ultimately, once the fun has been had, one is left with the beginnings of a structure for developing a history of contemporary economic thought. This is no useless thing, given a world of economics instruction that teaches theories in isolation from the context that produced them or even, indeed, competing theories. It is, of course, only a beginning.
Completely fascinating--I never thought I would enjoy a book on economics this much. If you have any interest in understanding the current economic debate, it's a must-read.