Scan barcode
A review by xcalcifer
23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism by Ha-Joon Chang
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.