Scan barcode
wynkyn's review against another edition
5.0
Despite its Buzzfeed-y title this is a thoughtful, original intro to Chang's objections to free market economics and its woeful influence in recent decades.
tyworld's review against another edition
3.0
This was an interesting read as I consider my self a layman when it comes to economics and politics. In America, we are deluded into believing that capitalism is what makes us a strong, successful country. The majority of people have a weak understanding of what capitalism is and how we are effected by it. We hear from economists and politicians praising this prevalent economic system and how free markets are the key to success...which is measured in profits.
This books points out:
~ There is no such thing as a free market.
~ Capitalism doesn't pay fairly. People in rich countries are paid more than they should be. The rich are paid well to do the white collar work while the poor are paid poorly to do the hard blue collar work.
~ American CEOs today are paid 10x more than those in the 1960s and 20x more than European and Asian CEOs. And not because they are more skilled, but because they have more political power. They come out ahead because they help make the rules...or undo them.
~ People think and say we all have the same opportunity, but the equality of opportunity is not fair.
~ Pro-rich policies have failed repeatedly. Trickle down economics do not work, they widen the gap between the rich and the poor.
This books points out:
~ There is no such thing as a free market.
~ Capitalism doesn't pay fairly. People in rich countries are paid more than they should be. The rich are paid well to do the white collar work while the poor are paid poorly to do the hard blue collar work.
~ American CEOs today are paid 10x more than those in the 1960s and 20x more than European and Asian CEOs. And not because they are more skilled, but because they have more political power. They come out ahead because they help make the rules...or undo them.
~ People think and say we all have the same opportunity, but the equality of opportunity is not fair.
~ Pro-rich policies have failed repeatedly. Trickle down economics do not work, they widen the gap between the rich and the poor.
dave_peticolas's review against another edition
3.0
I can't seem to stop reading books about the world economy. And how we really screwed it up. And boy, did we.
xcalcifer's review against another edition
2.0
Even though Chang disproves some myths about the state of our markets in terms of ‘freedom’ and some other dimensions concerning its state which people not schooled in economic may believe are true, I have experienced some structural problems in the argumentation as well as in the structure of this book.
Chang method is best described by Paul Mason in the guardian: ‘Chang's method is not to engage with the arguments of the neoliberals but to knock them down with assertions. To City finance types and mainstream economists the book will read like a series of sharp and wilful blasphemies. And this is a weakness: because, if free-market ideology is fractured, the case for a return to state capitalism is by no means proven.’
The author insists on using ‘straw man fallacies’ whereby he proposes free market economists (which apparently is meant by the all including ‘they’) as short sighted individuals, negligent of histories evidence of their view being wrong, who view a totally free market as some holy mechanism which will achieve the best economic situation for everyone. Instead Chang proposes a heavier influence of the state in their capitalistic economies as the best way to improve our welfare. This ‘demonization’ of the arguments of free market economists which Chang then refutes, doesn’t make Chang very compelling, instead it makes him less believable. Chang should have nuanced the arguments which he is trying to oppose and describe more accurately how they actually felt.
As to the structure of the book; the chapters are all more or less similarly composed. An introduction to the problem (that is; the more universal economic thought that the monstrous free market proponents advocate), followed by several examples.
Some of these worked out quite well, others not so much.
I liked the idea of the author of implementing a few jokes here and there and keeping the topic light (except that this was done to the point that it was overdone and more than once it rather seemed that the author was not taking the time/attention span of the reader seriously and digressed to the point that it became annoying). The book was after all as acknowledged by the author, for people who in fact weren’t academician or anything short of that in economics neither was it intended for people without any economic intellect but for those somewhere in between; people with an interest for knowledge who would like to broaden their intelligence in terms of economic theory. The lack of explanation of certain things seems to be contributed to this, Chang distinguishes as an expert, an authority, who will tell you the true nature of things without you having to sit through tedious in depth explanations.
It seems as Chang takes on the role of a hypothetical doctor, who with several arguably effective treatments available to treat a disease, argues that and tells you to take one specific pill he thinks is the absolute best. Chang’s style of argumentation is as a ladder, where you have to climb each step to come to a conclusion. This is perfectly reasonable and welcomed, except that Chang often skips a step in the process.
The fact that you’re an expert, and that that you say something is so, does not make it true. You have to derive your findings/conclusions from a step to step argument.
Chang method is best described by Paul Mason in the guardian: ‘Chang's method is not to engage with the arguments of the neoliberals but to knock them down with assertions. To City finance types and mainstream economists the book will read like a series of sharp and wilful blasphemies. And this is a weakness: because, if free-market ideology is fractured, the case for a return to state capitalism is by no means proven.’
The author insists on using ‘straw man fallacies’ whereby he proposes free market economists (which apparently is meant by the all including ‘they’) as short sighted individuals, negligent of histories evidence of their view being wrong, who view a totally free market as some holy mechanism which will achieve the best economic situation for everyone. Instead Chang proposes a heavier influence of the state in their capitalistic economies as the best way to improve our welfare. This ‘demonization’ of the arguments of free market economists which Chang then refutes, doesn’t make Chang very compelling, instead it makes him less believable. Chang should have nuanced the arguments which he is trying to oppose and describe more accurately how they actually felt.
As to the structure of the book; the chapters are all more or less similarly composed. An introduction to the problem (that is; the more universal economic thought that the monstrous free market proponents advocate), followed by several examples.
Some of these worked out quite well, others not so much.
I liked the idea of the author of implementing a few jokes here and there and keeping the topic light (except that this was done to the point that it was overdone and more than once it rather seemed that the author was not taking the time/attention span of the reader seriously and digressed to the point that it became annoying). The book was after all as acknowledged by the author, for people who in fact weren’t academician or anything short of that in economics neither was it intended for people without any economic intellect but for those somewhere in between; people with an interest for knowledge who would like to broaden their intelligence in terms of economic theory. The lack of explanation of certain things seems to be contributed to this, Chang distinguishes as an expert, an authority, who will tell you the true nature of things without you having to sit through tedious in depth explanations.
It seems as Chang takes on the role of a hypothetical doctor, who with several arguably effective treatments available to treat a disease, argues that and tells you to take one specific pill he thinks is the absolute best. Chang’s style of argumentation is as a ladder, where you have to climb each step to come to a conclusion. This is perfectly reasonable and welcomed, except that Chang often skips a step in the process.
The fact that you’re an expert, and that that you say something is so, does not make it true. You have to derive your findings/conclusions from a step to step argument.
ryanmazzola's review against another edition
2.0
I mean, this barely scratches the surface about addressing the flaws of the capitalist system .. like this felt like very reserved commentary
martin_ridgway's review against another edition
4.0
A very useful corrective of some of the more strident free-marketeers (City AM springs to mind). OK, so some of them are very much 'stating the obvious', but others are challenging the assumptions I'd never realised I'd assumed - and that's always useful.