Scan barcode
t_roth32's review against another edition
4.5
This book really pushed my perspective and made me think about the future differently. Specifically made me think about the future with more optimism. When things are in dire straits, it pays to remember the knowledge gleaned from this book and realize things will likely turn out okay.
khristy's review against another edition
informative
reflective
slow-paced
4.0
Writing was fine.
Content was interesting. I’m curious how the ideas have held up over time. I definitely enjoyed the first half more than the second. I need to do more research to see where my thoughts settle.
Content was interesting. I’m curious how the ideas have held up over time. I definitely enjoyed the first half more than the second. I need to do more research to see where my thoughts settle.
chawkinsknell's review against another edition
challenging
hopeful
informative
inspiring
medium-paced
5.0
Loved this book. I wish I had read it with someone so we could talk about the ideas and compare them to other ideas.
michaelacabus's review against another edition
4.0
*Preface: I am no economist, and have worked approximately 6 months for a financial firm as a designer; the (probably misinformed) opinion are my own; correct me if I am wrong*
Matt Ridley loves lists; his book is filled with them. Not simply three- or four-item lists; often, ten examples of goods traded in ancient Samaria are listed with a flourish. Needless-to-say, he’s also a fan of statistics. It’d be a fair estimate that 20% of this book is composed of lists and statistics.
There is a point to this: after all, to argue that economic progress and trade has been a complete blessing to society requires a bit of belaboring the point. His readers may have, at best, mixed feelings: stagnant wages, higher prices, and environmental pollution dampers enthusiasm.
But enthusiastic Ridley is, and his use of data can seem convincing when absorbed in his book. When he argues that economic advancement was the chief reason slave labor stopped existing, citing that the US South simply needed better machinery or the country better trade, the argument holds, if only the reader is not aware that slave labor exists today, in various forms, despite our ever automated society.
Likewise, he eschews most environmental movements as wasteful. Biofuel is a waste of land, for instance, doing more harm than good; government-sponsored social programs are wasteful and inefficient, and often benighted, focusing their efforts on areas that in the end make matters worse.
The reader can have counterpoints, the immense social costs that happen when we rely on economic progress as our guide. He would probably argue, as he does as a sort of last refuge when discussing the loss of jobs in light of Walmart, that it’s natural that there is a bit of “creative destruction” as a result of economic progress; the long arc always points to a better, more freer society.
It can seem rather convincing, but it doesn’t like up with our experience. In the US and Western world we have unparalleled wealth and prosperity, and immeasurable economic choice. However, there is wide economic disparity, the path to wealth seems like a chimera, and one could argue that innovation of products has an equal, if not greater, rival in the innovation of ‘financial instruments’ that simply move wealth around, delaying larger social ramifications (i.e., the mortgage crisis, and probably the next financial crisis). Global economic growth has been a blessing and a curse, enabling luxuries, but passing on pollution and other social ills to others. It’s difficult to live with all that as simply “creative destruction”, and shrug it off.
However, there is also consumer choice, and human choice, and these often chose a sense of rightness over economic advantage; the trend of making socially conscious economic choices, choosing to patronize local businesses, being mindful of the things we use and buy, are not economic choices but rather what we do to keep our society as we want it. We get to define that, and it seems ill-advised to leave that choice to economic progress.
This review doesn’t suggest this book is no good; quite the opposite, for its genre and topic, it is nearly perfect. Some reviews expressed that Ridley is too libertarian, associating it with politics; Ridley is libertarian, but apolitically so. This leads to him dismissing straw men of conservatives as well as liberals; that the past was somehow better than modern times (it wasn’t); that limiting personal freedoms can co-exist with an expanding economy (it can’t, and personal freedoms enable economic growth); that protectionism is a way to raise employment levels (it won’t, and never has). The only ground he does not cover is public spending on the military (astronomical in the U.S.); this seems a bridge too far for most libertarians, and ultimately weakens his argument (ignoring what the U.S. anyway spends the most on with public money, and going after social services, would seem to make the whole libertarian experiment fail).
Is it really that our basis for happiness is co-operation, inquisitiveness, and to move towards a more humanistic world, fuels economic progress, rather than the other way around? It would seem so; however, if one wants to criticize libertarianism, or find its flaws, this book works as an excellent basis.
As an aside, Ridley (somewhat ironically) was in charge of a bank (Northern Rock) that was the first British Bank since 1878(!) to suffer a run on its finances; it eventually became nationalized after failing to get funding from the Bank of England. He also supported Brexit it seems. Perhaps his philosophies run counter to his experience (and preferences) also.
B-
Matt Ridley loves lists; his book is filled with them. Not simply three- or four-item lists; often, ten examples of goods traded in ancient Samaria are listed with a flourish. Needless-to-say, he’s also a fan of statistics. It’d be a fair estimate that 20% of this book is composed of lists and statistics.
There is a point to this: after all, to argue that economic progress and trade has been a complete blessing to society requires a bit of belaboring the point. His readers may have, at best, mixed feelings: stagnant wages, higher prices, and environmental pollution dampers enthusiasm.
But enthusiastic Ridley is, and his use of data can seem convincing when absorbed in his book. When he argues that economic advancement was the chief reason slave labor stopped existing, citing that the US South simply needed better machinery or the country better trade, the argument holds, if only the reader is not aware that slave labor exists today, in various forms, despite our ever automated society.
Likewise, he eschews most environmental movements as wasteful. Biofuel is a waste of land, for instance, doing more harm than good; government-sponsored social programs are wasteful and inefficient, and often benighted, focusing their efforts on areas that in the end make matters worse.
The reader can have counterpoints, the immense social costs that happen when we rely on economic progress as our guide. He would probably argue, as he does as a sort of last refuge when discussing the loss of jobs in light of Walmart, that it’s natural that there is a bit of “creative destruction” as a result of economic progress; the long arc always points to a better, more freer society.
It can seem rather convincing, but it doesn’t like up with our experience. In the US and Western world we have unparalleled wealth and prosperity, and immeasurable economic choice. However, there is wide economic disparity, the path to wealth seems like a chimera, and one could argue that innovation of products has an equal, if not greater, rival in the innovation of ‘financial instruments’ that simply move wealth around, delaying larger social ramifications (i.e., the mortgage crisis, and probably the next financial crisis). Global economic growth has been a blessing and a curse, enabling luxuries, but passing on pollution and other social ills to others. It’s difficult to live with all that as simply “creative destruction”, and shrug it off.
However, there is also consumer choice, and human choice, and these often chose a sense of rightness over economic advantage; the trend of making socially conscious economic choices, choosing to patronize local businesses, being mindful of the things we use and buy, are not economic choices but rather what we do to keep our society as we want it. We get to define that, and it seems ill-advised to leave that choice to economic progress.
This review doesn’t suggest this book is no good; quite the opposite, for its genre and topic, it is nearly perfect. Some reviews expressed that Ridley is too libertarian, associating it with politics; Ridley is libertarian, but apolitically so. This leads to him dismissing straw men of conservatives as well as liberals; that the past was somehow better than modern times (it wasn’t); that limiting personal freedoms can co-exist with an expanding economy (it can’t, and personal freedoms enable economic growth); that protectionism is a way to raise employment levels (it won’t, and never has). The only ground he does not cover is public spending on the military (astronomical in the U.S.); this seems a bridge too far for most libertarians, and ultimately weakens his argument (ignoring what the U.S. anyway spends the most on with public money, and going after social services, would seem to make the whole libertarian experiment fail).
Is it really that our basis for happiness is co-operation, inquisitiveness, and to move towards a more humanistic world, fuels economic progress, rather than the other way around? It would seem so; however, if one wants to criticize libertarianism, or find its flaws, this book works as an excellent basis.
As an aside, Ridley (somewhat ironically) was in charge of a bank (Northern Rock) that was the first British Bank since 1878(!) to suffer a run on its finances; it eventually became nationalized after failing to get funding from the Bank of England. He also supported Brexit it seems. Perhaps his philosophies run counter to his experience (and preferences) also.
B-
jonoberg's review against another edition
challenging
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
4.0
kilburnadam's review against another edition
3.0
Interesting read, but I'm not sure about the validity of some of the facts. According to the author, renewable energy and organic food are bad for the environment. And GM food, intensive farming, and fossil fuels are a good thing.
He reckons capitalism stopped slavery, not compassion.
I can't be bother to cross-reference, or confirm any of the information in this book.
He also thinks overpopulation isn't a problem. I'd describe myself as misanthropic, and 10 billion people by 2050 is way too many. And most of them will be idiots. We need less people not more.
He reckons capitalism stopped slavery, not compassion.
I can't be bother to cross-reference, or confirm any of the information in this book.
He also thinks overpopulation isn't a problem. I'd describe myself as misanthropic, and 10 billion people by 2050 is way too many. And most of them will be idiots. We need less people not more.
queenvalaska's review against another edition
emotional
hopeful
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
5.0
jnieto's review against another edition
1.0
Cannot like it. :-(
Some quotes from the book:
- "Capitalism exterminated slavery."
- "Chernobil [...] The evacuation of the area has caused wildlife to flourish there to an extraordinary degree."
- "Wind turbines require five to ten times as much concrete and steel per watt as nuclear power plants."
Some quotes from the book:
- "Capitalism exterminated slavery."
- "Chernobil [...] The evacuation of the area has caused wildlife to flourish there to an extraordinary degree."
- "Wind turbines require five to ten times as much concrete and steel per watt as nuclear power plants."