New Ideas from Dead Economists: An Introduction to Modern Economic Thought [Todd G. Buchholz, Martin Feldstein] on mmoonneeyy.info *FREE* shipping on. The theories of John Maynard Keynes, developed in England during the.. themselves receive so much New Ideas NEw Ideas from Dead Economists. New Ideas from Dead Economists book. Read reviews from the world's largest community for readers. Featuring brand new sections on the remarkable shif.
|Language:||English, Spanish, French|
|Genre:||Fiction & Literature|
|ePub File Size:||22.54 MB|
|PDF File Size:||11.82 MB|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Regsitration Required]|
NEW IDEAS FROM DEAD ECONOMISTS. TODD G. BUCHHOLZ is an internationally acclaimed economist who advises some of the world's leading investment. The Library of Congress has catalogued the New American Library edition as follows: Buchholz, Todd G. New ideas from dead economists / by. New Ideas from Dead Economists, written by Todd G. Buchholz, is an introduction to the history Create a book · Download as PDF · Printable version .
Most egregious parts are- 1. I lost count of the number of sentences that added nothing to the text and could have been deleted. The fossil fuel and the technological innovations for instance. They say it's because only limited time exists to master the ever more complex tools of the trade. Interesting comparative read, but should not be a primary source. Of course, New Ideas from Dead Economists should interest an audience beyond the campus. A lot has happened since the 80s in terms of globalization and world trade, and not all developments would paint as optimistic an outlook as Buchholz has in this book.
Indeed, Buchholz has improved on the Heilbroner standard. New Ideas from Dead Economists follows the format of introducing the celebrated figures from the history of economic thought, telling briefly about their lives and the social and intellectual environment in which they found themselves, and then examining their ideas on the economy as they evolved.
That examination usually extends to contemporary issues and reminds us that we've struggled with many of the same problems century after century. Clearly, New Ideas is more readable than The Worldly Philosophers , due directly to the humorous examples that are liberally scattered throughout the chapters.
Even Gilligan's Island from "popular culture" is used to demonstrate, uninsultingly, an otherwise complicated economic idea. It's rare and a pleasure to chuckle through anything economic. Yet another agreeable aspect of New Ideas is that Buchholz sets the history of economic thought in the larger context of general intellectual history. His appreciation for and knowledge of the humanities is convincingly evident, and even though Buchholz claims the professions of economist and lawyer, he still has an obvious, impressive command of "high culture.
Most every reader should find points of interest in the book. Naturally, the parts about the Federal Reserve captured my attention. Only a few pages into the introduction we learn that, "Most of our presidents have shown little grasp of economic principles. John F. Kennedy once admitted that the only way he could remember that the Federal Reserve Board controlled monetary policy, not fiscal policy, was that Chairman William McChesney Martin's name began with the letter 'M. Another portion of New Ideas deals with the Rational Expectation school of thought.
That chapter is germane to us at the Minneapolis Federal Reserve because the now well-known intellectual earthquake had its primary epicenter in our bank's Research Department.
Rational Expectations is appropriately placed as the last chapter in the time line before the general summary. I could have been personally insulted, but knowing that it was intended as tongue-in-cheek, I took no offense.
In fact, Buchholz at one time sported his own Adam Smith necktie. He abandoned it not because he no longer subscribed to the ideas it symbolized, but for aesthetics. Too much polyester. Lists with This Book. Community Reviews. Showing Rating details. Sort order. A comprehensive but ideologically biased economics history There are a couple of points that are good to know before you pick up this short economics history.
Second, it is not only theories ideas , but also biography at least sometimes. The latter is where the book fails the most. This is a history of ideas book, but it is also a saga of how modern economy the dismal sci A comprehensive but ideologically biased economics history There are a couple of points that are good to know before you pick up this short economics history.
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. They place them in the ideological camp against Big Government.
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. 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. The first is how biography is misused.
The book presents mainly ideas, and in most cases biography is used to move the prose forward. Marx is portrayed as a drunken, money waster youth, negligent provider for his family. Buchholz critique of Marxism is tinted with this irrelevant biographical information. In my opinion, this is not a very honest way of debating economics.
The other problem is his uses of examples. 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.
View 2 comments. I fault myself entirely for finding certain subsets of economics rather dull. I don't know why, but when I open economics textbooks learning towards econometrics I am rarely drawn in by their contents. Economics boasts mathematical rigor certainly but does not offer the possibility of Platonic perfection as does pure mathematics.
As a social science it involves daily realities and historical conti I fault myself entirely for finding certain subsets of economics rather dull. As a social science it involves daily realities and historical contingencies.
It seems to be much more fruitful to study eternal things; and economics is so much a discipline wedded to both time and culture. But who could deny the importance of studying economics, as a window to understanding the financial structure of our society, as a conduit for better understanding solutions to global problems? And yet, I am often bored. I love reading economics journals. I love devouring trivia of national GDPs and growth rates, and reading about the current state of world economies.
But when it comes to studying economic theory, it often feels too much like a chore. Engineers are inventors and creators. Economists are the ones on Wall Street debating how and when to invest in the fruitful products of engineers on the other side of the country. But I am ready to confront my foolish stereotypes, to recognize that perhaps my disdain for the field comes from dogmatic assumptions that economists are the suited men in high rise NYC apartments with business graduate degrees trying to reap the benefits of the creative genius of an indie slacker on the West Coast.
Please watch the documentary Inside Job , as it only ever confirmed my stereotypes regarding the pre-eminent economists in this country.
I now recognize that it is wrong for me to characterize an entire field by a select few people; to disdain economics simply because it has real-world values and is not as immutable as metaphysical realism. Oh, and how privileged I am to disdain things for being practical in the first place! Nor is it fair for me to regard economics as devoid of creativity and passion and to consider the esteemed economists of lauded institutions to be people who are otherwise incapable of invention.
I admit to all of this. I am going to open my mind more and discard my assumptions. In college I was determined to only take basic economics and game theory because I was persuaded that game theory was the single form of economics that would hold my interest. I am doubly foolish to act as if learning things that are too worldly will sully me and to suppose that studying economics at all is just one perilous step from becoming an Investment Bank Analyst Intern.
How different, really, is the study biological or computational systems from the study of systems governing our economic structures? Economics is a science of the relationship of individual units to larger systems as much as physics and biology. But to me our equations are far more important, for politics are only a matter of present concern.
A mathematical equation stands forever. I've read a few pages of it, and it was promising, and full of joyful small details. 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.
Apr 11, Sarah Shahid rated it really liked it Shelves: View all 6 comments. Jul 18, Omar Halabieh rated it it was amazing. The main premise of the book, is best summarized by the author: 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. Cl The main premise of the book, is best summarized by the author: 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.
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. Below are key excerpts from the book that I found particularly insightful: A free market does not mean utter chaos; it requires ground rules.
It does not tell us what to choose.
It only helps us understand the consequences of our choices. 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. 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. Laws, morals, fashions, and philosophies all contribute to an economy. They may support it, or they may tear it down. Two basis propositions will suffice here: We are all monetarists now, thanks to Friedman. And we are all eclectics now, thanks to a turbulent world. 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. 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 In contrast, real markets for goods and services show more complexity and rigidity. 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. 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. I lost count of the number of sentences that added nothing to the text and could have been dele I learned a lot about economics in spite of how poorly written this book was. 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. 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 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.
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. Most egregious parts are- 1.
The acknowledgement A good introduction to economics from a conservative point of view of which I consider myself far from. The acknowledgement of damning reports 2nd edition published in of future environmental degradation that is swiftly dismissed.
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. Oct 02, John Igo rated it really liked it. This book was a good history for laymen of the main ideas in economics.