The Worldly Philosophers

Jan 20, 2013 Ian Graye rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: cul-poli-phil-art, marx-bros-and-karl, reviews, read-2012, reviews-4-stars

As Seen in the Sub-Blurbs

This is step two in a project to acquire a modest foundation in political and economic philosophy before some more focused reading in both areas.

The first step was Thelma Lavine’s “From Socrates to Sartre: The Philosophic Quest”:

http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...

Both books summarise the lives and philosophy of key philosophers in language that is easy to understand.

While I intend to read some other generalist philosophy books as well, I recommend both books for re...more

33 likes · like · see review

Nov 12, 2011 Erik rated it 3 of 5 stars

My estimation of economic science lies somewhere between where I rate astrology and phlogiston, but I'm giving this a chance to convince me otherwise...

Update: A little breezy, but so far it is interesting to read that Adam Smith was a lot brighter than his latter day followers. He recognized that the division of labor did not create economic growth by any sort of magic, but by the systematic exploitation of available resources including labor. He thought that eventually wages would either rise...more My estimation of economic science lies somewhere between where I rate astrology and phlogiston, but I'm giving this a chance to convince me otherwise...

Update: A little breezy, but so far it is interesting to read that Adam Smith was a lot brighter than his latter day followers. He recognized that the division of labor did not create economic growth by any sort of magic, but by the systematic exploitation of available resources including labor. He thought that eventually wages would either rise so high that profit was impossible or wages would fall with a rising population of workers competing their way to the bottom. He even predicted that eventually capitalism would expand to exploit every available resource and then reach an equilibrium where wages are as low as possible and profits are impossible because there are no inefficiencies left, the market is as perfect as it can be. No more growth after that. He thought this would take about 200 years, so I guess TIME'S UP!

His treatment of Mill is good, never someone I would have otherwise considered a great political philosopher, but I changed my mind. Mill is the intellectual father of the modern welfare state compromise, because he admits the power of politics to control distribution through tax policy.

The treatment of Marx is however too breezy. He does a good job with the surplus value argument against capitalism--Marx's one trump card it seems to me, and still one that has extraordinary power, but only if you overlook Marx's labor theory of value and its weaknesses. Labor power was to Marx a fact of nature to be integrated in his faulty edifice of Hegelian inspired metaphysics-rubbish. But labor power makes no sense in economics unless we say what the labor produces and whether or not it has any social value. I once met a woman who made Goblin head flower vases for a living. They're all different, she said, I never make two alike. While that may be a fascinating fact about the amount of labor power and thought and creativity she put into these Goblin heads, I did not feel inclined to value them for that reason.

Probably the nicest chapter is about Thorstein Veblen. His second book about the rise of the Engineers is even more interesting than his Theory of the Leisure Class. The chapter on Keynes is more focused on his personality, but I got the point. I did not see what merits Schrumpter a place in the pantheon however. Some catchy words, entrepreneurship, the swarm, scientific rational socialism etc.

I did however come to appreciate Heilbroner's point that economics should be seen as a foster child of philosophy rather than a dismal science of numbers and data crunching. Ultimately it is about the structure of society and human relationships in a practical way to their environment and each other. Probably for our own time period this is also far too simple an analysis of the toxic and volatile mixture of economic, political and social forces currently twisting and churning out of control, and by no means headed toward greater human enlightenment.(less)

4 likes · like · see review

Sep 09, 2008 Bruce rated it 5 of 5 stars Recommends it for: everyone

If you're a Goodreader (or a Virtual Bookshelfer?), you may have come to know and enjoy particular reviewers' reviews. For example, I've become something of a fan of the reviews of fellow Goodreaders Trevor McCandless and Ginnie Jones. I mean it as the height of compliments to say that reading Heilbroner is like reading McCandless and Jones. In a nutshell, Heilbroner surveys and summarizes the major ideas/writings and lives of economists beginning with Adam Smith and culminating in John Kenneth...more If you're a Goodreader (or a Virtual Bookshelfer?), you may have come to know and enjoy particular reviewers' reviews. For example, I've become something of a fan of the reviews of fellow Goodreaders Trevor McCandless and Ginnie Jones. I mean it as the height of compliments to say that reading Heilbroner is like reading McCandless and Jones. In a nutshell, Heilbroner surveys and summarizes the major ideas/writings and lives of economists beginning with Adam Smith and culminating in John Kenneth Galbraith. Malthus, Mill, and Marx all put in an appearance, among others, and the tone is always light, easy to read, thought-provoking, and entertaining.

This book is apparently in its 7th edition, which I'll have to pick up, as the copy I read was the "Revised" (2nd edition) from 1961, thanks in no small part to my spouse's real (as opposed to virtual) bookshelf. That said, it's remarkable how current and applicable this historical review remains. There’s something prophetic in Heilbroner’s devoting 32 riveting (I’m serious) pages to Thorstein Veblen’s Vanderbilt/JP Morgan-era beliefs that (a) venal, corrupt CEOs serve more as parasites that suck the productivity of otherwise well-oiled industrial businesses (Halliburton, Enron, step right up), while cautioning against Veblen’s fascist-leaning desires to (b) place the salvation of corporate mores in the hands of its engineers/technocrats (hello, Gates-led Microsoft, Google, Apple, and every other innovation-driven corporation whose original vision gets corrupted into monolithic, monopolistic, make-‘em-buy-schlock attitudes, which “may stifle and frustrate our imaginations and emotions” a la Charlie Chaplin in Modern Times). (p. 212)

I find myself greatly intrigued by the ideas of John Maynard Keynes, that ongoing investment (whether public or private) and the flow of currency from hand to hand to hand is what drives a capitalist economy (in which case, thank goodness for global markets and the communal stimulus of wikinomics). Since I can’t intellectually hold the hem of Keynes’ trousers, I don’t doubt for a minute that this is true – at least, I have no reason and insufficient math to rationally dispute it, but is that all? (I guess Galbraith, with his segregation of public and private activity into separate economies might say no, or at least not quite.) It sounds to me like a great shell game. Just keep hopes high and everything in motion and prosperity will follow.

But if defense spending ultimately got us out of the Depression, we know it bankrupted the Soviet state. War is hell on both people and economies. Indulge me a one-paragraph rant/digression and excuse me for asking, but why must we squander so much taxpayer money on engines of destruction instead of promoting agents of understanding? Outreach? The arts? Education? Heck, I’d settle for more equitable distribution of good homes, food, and social welfare. America seems to have a preference for indulging millions of individual cruelties over running the risk of collective incompetence. Doesn’t seem to gibe with the Constitutional concept of check-and-balance, but perhaps I’m conflating two unrelated bases of policy. In any case, I feel strongly that economic and social policy (public or private) should promote in some positive way one or more of the essentials for life (food, shelter, clothing, personal safety, and mutual tolerance) without sacrificing one or more of another. In our mutually inconsistent priorities and definitions, there the devil lies.

Rant over. Two more 'what I learned from this book' observations. First, I wonder if Heilbroner has evolved from his position of almost half a century ago that in (occasionally) regulating market forces to promote moral ends (for example, favoring the tyranny of oligopoly over that of outright monopoly, investing in social security, workfare, or unemployment plans, health and safety regulations, etc.) “society no longer obeys its economic impulse alone.” (p. 283, emphasis in Heilbroner) Why should economics restrict its definition of value to those that can be monetized (raw materials, labor, capital, goods)? Rather, why can we not include in our calculus the value of improving the lot of our neighbor, or less altruistically, just simply enjoying Life-on-Earth, the Ride? I know I’ve read this idea recently, though I don’t think I’ve been exposed to any philosopher’s application of it. It would seem to throw wide open the realm of economics into an impossible-to-predict iterative complex like the weather, as wholly incompatible individual value systems are understood to influence communal activity. (Case in point, as this Goodreader indulges in, er… invests his time in… his passion for online blather, an activity that in conjunction with the like activity of millions of others around the world presumably helps drive the engine of the internet as a whole. And thanks again to the McCandlesses and Joneses whose shared passion adds tremendously to my weekly literary consumption.)

Second, I note that Heilbroner ends the Revised Edition (pp. 290-292) by classifying the spectrum of economic philosophy from the Marxists (“at the extreme left;” dooming capitalism in the long run, when as Keynes would have it, “we are all dead”) through the socialists, the “advocates of managed capitalism” (distinguished from socialists since these advocates “do not believe that capitalism must disappear, and… do not want to displace the institution of private ownership with public ownership”), and ending with the “Right-of-Center” laissez-faire capitalists (like Adam Smith?) who believe that good things (or at least no worse things) come simply of leaving God to sort out the mess however it may unspool. I’ve always been flummoxed at how this spectrum was arbitrarily laid out in a metaphoric left-to-right axis (surely not Heilbroner’s concern), and more puzzled still by what seem to me to be pointless distinctions.

Here I find myself with John Stuart Mill, who (Heilbroner has taught me) wrote that, “The things are there, [we:], individually or collectively, can do with them as [we:] please…. The distribution of wealth, therefore, depends on the laws and customs of society.” (quoted at p. 108) In other words, our lives do not depend on economics defined as the laws of production, but on politics defined as the laws we establish and effort we exert to spread material joy irrespective of geography and immediate self-interest. So Heilbroner appears inconsistent between restricting economists’ purview to worldly (material) philosophy on the one hand and allowing this purview a spectrum defined by the level of tolerance for political (immaterial) intervention on the other. This is a red herring; Heilbroner illustrates throughout the book how the output of these major thinkers was of their time and yet resonates still. I’m happy to testify to this, as I’ve felt my horizons expand for the pleasure of their temporary company. A Goodreads proof -- check the consensus -- good books make a reader verbose.
(less)

3 likes · like · see review

Mar 30, 2008 Holly Goguen rated it 4 of 5 stars

Recommended to Holly by: jarrod

Shelves: nonfiction

So interesting and what an introduction! The idea that has most stuck with me in the book, I felt, is that in a group of non-industrialized peoples, increasing wages will result in a voluntary decrease of hours instead of an increase or no change. The concept of accumulating wealth while sacrificing free time is not inherent! Imagine that....we are so tied into this system of living that we forget alternatives are possible sometimes. I would never even think of cutting my hours if I got a raise...more

2 likes · like · see review

May 07, 2013 sologdin rated it 1 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: miscellaneous-crap

Nutshell: cold warrior burps up whirlwind dilettante's tour of the chrematistical arts.

Overall presents an affective dialectic, positioning various theorists of political economy in relationship to each other on the basis of how they feel about the future. Smith is pragmatically optimistic; Malthus and Ricardo are independently despairing; Owen, Fourier, Saint-Simon are presented as insanely optimistic; and so on. This presentation sweeps up the whole: “behind this diversity was a common thread,...more Nutshell: cold warrior burps up whirlwind dilettante's tour of the chrematistical arts.

Overall presents an affective dialectic, positioning various theorists of political economy in relationship to each other on the basis of how they feel about the future. Smith is pragmatically optimistic; Malthus and Ricardo are independently despairing; Owen, Fourier, Saint-Simon are presented as insanely optimistic; and so on. This presentation sweeps up the whole: “behind this diversity was a common thread, a thread of continuity which we should now stop to recognize. It was this: If one could divine the nature of the economic forces in the world, one could foretell the future“ (291).

Though this approach to economics as a form of prophetics is generalized in this section, he nonetheless shows his philistine US roots by referring blithely to such things as “Marxian consecration of infallibility” (181) and other slurs suggesting religiosity--as though other economists thought that they were wrong, or that the US was not fanatically devoted to its variant of capitalism during the Palmer Raids. Marx is held responsible for the alleged “pattern of intolerance” of communism in general (139), such as “internal witch-hunts for ‘deviationists’ and ‘counterrevolutionaries’” (138), through his ”infuriating and absolute inability to entertain dissenting opinions, that autocratic air, and that antipathy for democracy which communism has inherited” (139-40). Incidentally, this hasty conclusion arises out of an (under-)analysis of Marx's dispute with Proudhon, which was carried out through the writing of contending pamphlets--telling, then, that this author regards strident disputation in writing to be "antipathy for democracy"--I suppose this reveals my own antipathy for democracy by disagreeing with author in writing. Such tyranny!

We see the blinkered US-orientation in how “the relationship of American corporations to their foreign hosts [sic] is not altogether the same as the typical imperialist relationship of the nineteenth century” (184) and “thus, we [sic] never became a formidable imperialist power” (185). Though he mentions the 1954 Guatemala operation and several other US crimes, the full measure of rightwing horror from the early cold war is much nastier than this author will acknowledge, which, by my reckoning for the years 1946 until 1967 (the year in which this edition of the text was published), the US committed crimes under international law in Thailand, France, Italy, Philippines, Colombia, Peru, Syria, Albania, Romania, Poland, Bolivia, DPRK, Egypt, Cuba, Guyana, Iran, Guatemala, Argentina, Vietnam, Hungary, Haiti, Japan, Iraq, Laos, Sudan, Lebanon, Nepal, Ecuador, South Korea, Turkey, Congo, Dominican Republic, Brazil, Honduras, Chile, Indonesia, and Greece.

None of that, surely, stamps the imprimatur of a capitalist consecration of infallibility, nor does it evidence an absolute inability to entertain dissenting opinions. Surely not, no! “We” rather have the “immeasurably more difficult and subtle task of persuading the world’s dispossessed that we are just as concerned with their lot, just as eager to aid reform as the Russians--although our means and slogans are less dramatic and our promises less tinged with paradise than theirs” (298). Easy to persuade all of those corpses, no? Why not go recruit some Nazi war criminals to help with all that? (cf. Blowback America's Recruitment of Nazis and Its Effects on the Cold War.)

We know this is a hit piece in which the cold warrior lines up all of classical political economy against Herr Marx when--after frivolously suggesting that marxism acts religiously, even though all economics attempts to predict the future--he dicks up the summation of marxist theory: “For profits do tend to fall in an enterprise economy. The insight was not original with Marx, nor do profits fall for the reasons he gave--we can dispense with the idea of exploitation contained in the theory of surplus value” (148). This is of course a misstatement of the thesis that the rate of profit tends to fall; the marxian formulation of that thesis is definitional, rooted in other terms of art, and not easily conflated with the cursory statements by other political economists on how profits go down as a matter of diminishing returns or because other capitals rush in to compete down the price.

Otherwise, safe to say that this text is in some ways the gold standard for non-fiction writing: lively in style, manifestly popularizing many thousands of economics pages into a slim, readable volume, witty, committed. Despite my critique, supra, the presentation of Marx is not completely dishonest, even though it holds marxism static with Marx himself, whereas bourgeois economics is presented as a continuing development and therefore continuously relevant and improving, whereas marxism is simply ossified stalinism--it’s nasty, and it means that he has not really serious.

Presentation of the “utopian socialists” is much too glib; presentation of Smith much too glowing; presentation of Keynes very much an adoration. Often gossipy and trivial, focusing on personal details (Veblen is an interesting cat--but this is economics?). Accordingly, not a substitute for a proper history of economic theory.
(less)

3 likes · like · see review

Apr 06, 2013 Steve rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: economics

I first read this book in the early nineties, and the book has been revised slightly since then. The book is a classic, and serves as an able introduction to what economics should be, as opposed to the way in which it is practiced today.

After explaining why economic theory didn't really get started until Adam Smith (because before Smith economics were too simple to require economic theories to explain them) Heilbroner approaches the major luminaries of economics in turn, while also taking some t...more I first read this book in the early nineties, and the book has been revised slightly since then. The book is a classic, and serves as an able introduction to what economics should be, as opposed to the way in which it is practiced today.

After explaining why economic theory didn't really get started until Adam Smith (because before Smith economics were too simple to require economic theories to explain them) Heilbroner approaches the major luminaries of economics in turn, while also taking some time to examine the ideas and contributions of some of the lesser lights.

Adam Smith is the father of economics, of course, and is followed by Malthus and Ricardo. Malthus, whose theories are often used even today to justify some sort of naturalistic inevitability of mass starvation due to over-population, is a figure whose theories need particular deflating in my mind. The simplistic reading of his ideas is that overpopulation will tax our ability to feed everyone, but his actual thoughts are more in line with the idea that if we pay people more money, they will breed faster. Today we know that the opposite is true. Higher standards of living and a strong social safety net decrease population growth.

After Ricardo seeks to describe capitalism, we enter the world of Utopian Socialists and Karl Marx. Though Marx, like Malthus, has suffered his share of discredit, Marx was a great critic of capitalism, and even today defenders of our economic system struggle to answer those critiques. It is far easier to demonize Marx and pretend that his works of "of the devil" than to actually confront his ideas in a sober fashion.

I especially liked the chapter on Thorstein Veblen, whose critique of what we would today call the 1% is dead on, more so today than in his time. I also thank Veblen as being the first person to point out that the poor don't resent their position in society because they all secretly harbor a desire to one day be rich. they don't want to make the system more fair, they want to be on the winning side. This is a sad appraisal of humanity, and unfortunately accurate.

John Maynard Keynes, despite is present status among modern economists and idiotic commentators as some sort of big government socialist is given a thorough going and fair exposition here. Would that anyone in the right-wing echo chamber read this one chapter and learn something. I see Keynes as being to economics what Darwin was to biology. Darwin didn't have all the pieces when he suggested his great theory of evolution, he was unaware of genetics, and some of what he stressed as being important turned out to be somewhat wrong or in needing of modification as new evidence came to light. Such is the nature of science.

Keynes should be regarded similarly. He didn't get everything right, but he did get it mostly right when he suggested that capitalism requires regulation and periodic investment from government. Of course, for government to do this, taxes must be imposed. The idea of limited government, in a market system like we seem to be hopelessly mired in, is like the idea of limited farming in agriculture. If you don't regulate your crops, you won't get a decent yield. Keynes probably didn't really care all that much about the working classes and the lower classes. Like I said, he missed a lot and didn't get it all right. But he got a lot right, and with modification, like a decent amount of wealth redistribution and a strong social safety net that guarantees everyone a good living wage, we might have a system worth fighting for.

Libertarian economists, like Friedman and Hayek, get little mentioned in Heilbroner's book, and for good reason: Heilbroner doesn't say so but let's face it, their economic theories are nonsense. The last economist the book deals with is Joseph Schumpeter, a man who doubted his own theories. I think it's trenchant that Schumpeter is slowly being forgotten in conservative circles while Hayek is being praised.

I once said that Hayek is the Lysenko to Keynes' Darwin, and I mean that. The failure of small government policies as evidenced by the boom and bust cycle I've lived through all my life are similar to the massive crop failures suffered by the USSR under the guiding, anti-Darwinist theories of Lysenko under Stalin.

Rescuing our economy means embracing truth and science over wishful thinking and dogma.(less)

like · see review

Feb 22, 2013 Michael de Percy rated it 5 of 5 stars Recommends it for: Economics students

Shelves: read-reviewed

What I particularly like about this book is how Heilbroner begins with the term “political economy”, then relegates it to “economics” (as happened in history), only to revive the term at the end where he tells us that Schumpeter is the last worldly philosopher as we have – more or less – learnt all we can through a scientific approach based significantly on grand assumptions about the behaviour of homo economicus, and it is time to reintroduce politics. That Heilbroner ends with Schumpeter is in...more

like · see review

Sep 03, 2012 David Sarkies rated it 3 of 5 stars Recommends it for: Historians and Economists

Recommended to David by: Some Guy at Law School

Shelves: philosophy

A friend at lawschool recommended this book to me after I had decided to read the works of Adam Smith and John Maynard Keynes in the hope that I could glean some ideas on how to become wealthy. My belief was that wealth lay in understanding the basics of economics, and when it came to economics, I believed that the basics could be found in a number of authors that my American History lecturer had mentioned who had been quintessential in determining the economic policy of the time. My friend the...more A friend at lawschool recommended this book to me after I had decided to read the works of Adam Smith and John Maynard Keynes in the hope that I could glean some ideas on how to become wealthy. My belief was that wealth lay in understanding the basics of economics, and when it came to economics, I believed that the basics could be found in a number of authors that my American History lecturer had mentioned who had been quintessential in determining the economic policy of the time. My friend then recommended this book to me, and in a way I am glad he did because by reading this book I came to understand that there were more than just four people that developed the social science known as economics.
Now, I noticed one review on Goodreads making a comment about whether economics is a science or not. In my opinion it is a science, but it falls into the category of 'soft' or 'social' science, as opposed to the 'hard' or 'physical' sciences. The differences between the two sciences is that the hard sciences tend to be easier to measure and determine than the soft sciences. However, just because a field of study cannot be measured quantitatively, it does not mean that it is any less of a science than say physics or chemistry. To be blunt, hard sciences are based just as much on conjecture and supposition as is history, economics, and political science. If one wants to get into something that rests purely on hard facts, then the best you can get is mathematics, and even then one can prove anything with mathematics simply by starting off with a specific proposition.
As for becoming wealthy by reading the works of the great economics, once again that is pure supposition. It is possible, but in the end the only way to wealth is through hard work, connections, and luck, however by understanding the theories put forward by the economists, one can understand the way commerce works, and by understanding it, can use one's knowledge to take advantage of such things. However, remember this, many of these economists were hardly wealthy in an off themselves, and in fact the lazy ones, such as Karl Marx and Thorstein Veblen. Also, just because a nobel prize winning economist says something does not mean that it is right. The founders of Long Term Capital Management won nobel prizes for their mathematical equation used to determine the price of options, and the proceeded to send the United States to the brink of economic collapse. The same goes with Milton Friedman, who continually praised the free markets and the invisible hand, only to die a few months prior to the entire ediface collapsing. We are still living in the aftermath of the banking crisis which has effectively crippled the developed world, as well as bringing the developing world down with it.
As for the book I found it quite enlightening as he explores who he believes were the major contributors to the economic theories that fly about the world today. Economics was not invented with Adam Smith, people have been buying and selling, and participating in complex financial transactions long before he came around. Insurance had existed as far back as the ancient times, and the bond market grew out of the sophisticated banking systems of Renaissance Italy. What Adam Smith did was step back, look at what was going on, and wrote it down. Even then he wasn't the first as people have been developing economic theory long before he appeared on the scene. In fact, it is interesting to note that Verblen flagged the Christian Church as being the first example of a franchise.
Studying economics, and postulating economic theory, is not going to make you rich, but what it is going to do is to help you understand how trade and commerce work. However, like all of the soft sciences (and even the hard sciences) opinions are going to differ. Some are going to point at a single passage in Adam Smith and claim that the market works best when left alone, whereas I will point at Adam Smith and show that he believes that one of the ways to completely ruin an economic system is to allow businessmen to influence and run the government. Some will say that greed is good, whereas I will say that greed is destructive, and the thing is that I believe that I am right, but others will violently disagree. In the end, I guess that is why the ended up executing Socrates and Jesus Christ, among others, simply because their world views rubbed the wrong people up the wrong way. In the end, who cares, if I go the way of Socrates and Jesus Christ, at least my theories will survive the test of time.(less)

like · see review

Mar 21, 2011 Aurochz rated it 3 of 5 stars

Shelves: economics, history

A nice romp through some of the major names in economics, though I had a few problems with it which I thought weighed the book down. First lets talk about the good. If you don't know anything about economics at all this book will be very easy for you to understand and you will come away with at least a conversational understanding of at least some of the major figureheads he talks about in this book. So as an introduction which this is not intended to be, it works pretty well.

That being said, I...more

like · see review

Mar 02, 2011 Megan McDowell rated it 5 of 5 stars

Something about reading a book on economics for dummies (my first!) while utterly broke and living in a hovel in Portugal seemed apt--I was thinking about money all the time anyway, I may as well enter into the philosophy behind it. And I wasn't disappointed--while I couldn't discuss Marx or Keynes at any great length now, I can feel pretty confident in my understanding of their general theories, of which before I only had dim, contradictory outlines. The way Heilbroner interweaves the men's liv...more

like · see review

Feb 01, 2011 Peter rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: economics, history

I started to teach a general course, Global Issues. I am co-teaching it with a business teacher. We are using the course to provide the students with an introduction to economics in a global perspective. He provides the business knowledge, I provide the historical, philosophical knowledge. I used this book to develop lecture notes on several important economic thinkers - Adam Smith, Karl Marx, Alfred Keynes, Joseph Schumpeter, etc. They students enjoyed the discussion on Smith. I am becoming par...more

like · see review

May 05, 2010 Jack rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: nonfiction, history, biography

I'm no economist, but this seems like a must-read for those who aren't, but want to know more about the great thinkers in economics. Also a nice starting point for anyone wanting to get into that field. Each chapter is readable without being too basic. And each chapter covers a major figure in the field of economics, starting with - if I remember correctly - Adam Smith, going through to Ricardo, Mill, Marx, Schumpeter, and Keynes (lots of others in there too). Each chapter is part bio, part expl...more

like · see review

Jul 22, 2011 Mark Nenadov rated it 2 of 5 stars

Shelves: economics

One reader of this book has noted that this book is a "mixed bag". I think he/she is exactly right.

Obviously, this author has done something pretty remarkable, and has compiled a unique treatment of the history of economics. And the writing style is engaging and entertaining. In many areas, too, the author is very balanced and accurate. In other areas, not very balanced at all nor accurate.

The author resorts often to equivocation and the adoration of Keyenes is sometimes nauseating. And the omis...more

like · see review

Oct 26, 2011 Brandon Peele rated it 4 of 5 stars

Entertaining exploration of the key players in economic thought. Heilbroner uses layman's terms and easy prose to illuminate the biographical, historical, cultural, scientific and economic context that comprised the fertile soil, from which each successive theory sprouted. I was amazed that so many of the early economic theories are still relevant, e.g.: Malthus's concerns about the limits of the environment, Quesnay's physiocracy - likening economics to a living organism which must be mindful o...more

like · see review

Feb 01, 2013 Ecoute Sauvage rated it 1 of 5 stars

I'm impressed by fact all those who know economics on this page thought nothing of this book while all those who don't know anything about the subject liked it. I just read it, and have only a couple of comments

1. It's surprising that no subsequent edition picked up one of the top names in economics (first edition appeared in 1953).
2. From the title I'd have expected the late prof. Heilbroner to at least mention some great names he must have known about, such as this one
http://philosophy.lander ...more

like · see review

Sep 22, 2012 Katidid rated it 4 of 5 stars

I did not expect this book to be this good!

I was interested in learning about the historical context of various economic theories I have admitedly a mere surface understanding of. What I didn't expect was for it to be so fascinating. Also, the lives of these economists were just plain interesting to read about. I was as ready to pick it back up to see where the stories were going as much as if I was reading a decent novel.

Also, part of my interest in this book is that I have several politicall...more

like · see review

Oct 27, 2012 Paul rated it 4 of 5 stars

Great introduction to the world of economics. Heilbroner's book has no charts or equations, it's all prose - very well written prose. Heilbroner gives biographical information about some of the greatest economic thinkers, including, among others, Adam Smith, Karl Marx and John maynard Keynes. Heilbroner alos porovides the historical context in which these thinkers developed their theories. There are a cople of themes thaty run through the book. The first is that the study of economics cannot be...more

like · see review

Nov 09, 2011 Cameron rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: finished

Wow. What a book. It is essentially an economic world history as told by the economic philosophers. Heilbroner gives an excellent review of the development of capitalism during the last 250 years. He begins by setting the scene of the economic, social and political environments prior to the Industrial Age, then leads into the most famous economist of all time, Adam Smith. He develops the story of economic evolution and related challenges by analyzing the key economists of the period and their pu...more

like · see review

Sep 18, 2011 Karen rated it 2 of 5 stars

Shelves: school-reading

The Worldly Philosophers was my AP Euro summer reading book and in some retrospects it's fairly interesting and filled with business basics, yet at the same time it was a pain to get through.

Heilbroner summarizes some of the great names in economic history - from Adam Smith to Thorstein Veblen, he covers some of the most prolific names in the shaping of economic policy and capitalitic/socialistic ventures. Heilbroner does a wonderful job at keeping the information simple, readable and interestin...more

like · see review

Jan 27, 2010 M rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: ppe, 2010, non-fiction

It seems that all famous economists are either ugly or lead depressing lives or both (possibly with the exception of Mill and Keynes). And were all rather mad.

Very good at explaining the basic concepts of economics, and providing a social/historical context to them. I never realised how revolutionary Adam Smith's work was, because up until that point, the market system didn't exist, and any kind of profit was deemed sinful. Then of course, there's the concept of profit itself, which seemingly,...more

like · see review

Jan 11, 2013 Kate rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: business-finance

This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it, click here.

like · see review

Jan 08, 2013 Jon Choi rated it 5 of 5 stars

A sweeping examination of great economists through the ages. Heilbroner, beginning with Smith and ending with Schumpeter (Hayek might have been a better choice, but hadn't fully made his mark when the book was written), places the entertaining eccentricities of these great men alongside their earth-shaking ideas, resulting in a book that is both fun and informative to read. My favourites: Ricardo, Veblen and Keynes. Absolutely everything the layman needs to know about economic ideology (and few...more

like · see review

Dec 28, 2008 Abdullah rated it 5 of 5 stars

One of the best Economic books I have read to date. The book is definitely a page turner regardless of your like or dislike for the discipline of economics. I would recommend this book for any person who is concerned about the current economic plight of this country. The text will give the reader a better understanding of why certain economic systems succeed or fail.

The book covers both the history of economic systems and the lives of those who created or articulated the major components of the...more

like · see review

May 18, 2013 Tam rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: non-fic, like-a-lot

Now I find another must-own. This is truly a model for non-fiction [of my taste]. This is the quality that I expect to find in every non-fic.

The Worldly Philosophers first of all is educational, very illuminating. I am not yet an expert to evaluate the author's interpretation of great men's ideas, and I am not at all certain whether his choice of economists to present is appropriate. Nevertheless, for every single philosopher, especially after reading the disappointing "Grand Pursuit," I find He...more Now I find another must-own. This is truly a model for non-fiction [of my taste]. This is the quality that I expect to find in every non-fic.

The Worldly Philosophers first of all is educational, very illuminating. I am not yet an expert to evaluate the author's interpretation of great men's ideas, and I am not at all certain whether his choice of economists to present is appropriate. Nevertheless, for every single philosopher, especially after reading the disappointing "Grand Pursuit," I find Heilbroner's argument amazingly convincing, clear and straightforward. He was able to get all those complex thoughts simple, but not overly so. He kept a perfect balance between each economist's thought and his personal life, between seriousness and wittiness. For his audience of purpose, which is newbie to the field, I guess I could not find a better book on economic doctrines.

I could not praise the main text more, but there is something else I want to mention, which is the very last chapter of the book. I am interested in the way Heilbroner call Economics as a type of philosophy. He points out the very thing that has been troubling my mind all this time as a Econs major: sometimes I dislike so much the mechanical math prevailing in the field. That's why the more I dig into it, the more frustrated I feel. No matter how much math is employed, Econs in my mind can never predict with definite like the speed of a ball falling in Physics. After all economics is about human behavior, and so far I could not even predict my own spending accurately. Why bothering to find laws when they are not laws at all? They are just "law-like," as the author said. What's the point? (Now, for some who wants simply to make money in financial market, or to run a business, they may never care for this question. But I do. Since there are times I hate the field dearly, and other times I am so fascinated by these men's beliefs)

The point is that Economics before 1950s was about the explanation, the vision of the society (capitalism & socialism alike). Economics could be considered an effort to make sense the world we live in (in realm of worldly matter - wealth), and then to guide us, to find our place in that world. Unfortunately, for now, the field tries to become a science. Still, I believe at heart (and hope) and Economics would stay to be the "worldly philosophy".

(less)

like · see review

Jan 04, 2013 Joy Schwabach rated it 4 of 5 stars

"Worldly philosophers" are all about wealth and poverty, progress, and human action. Here you'll meet the great ones, and learn about their eccentricities.

Heilbroner, who died in 1995, favored Sweden's economy, though he admitted in later years that capitalism had won, socialism had lost, and you could not find an anti-capitalist society that was democratic.

The opening chapter is worth the price of admission. We learn of the many steps society took to shake off anti-capitalist superstitions. The...more "Worldly philosophers" are all about wealth and poverty, progress, and human action. Here you'll meet the great ones, and learn about their eccentricities.

Heilbroner, who died in 1995, favored Sweden's economy, though he admitted in later years that capitalism had won, socialism had lost, and you could not find an anti-capitalist society that was democratic.

The opening chapter is worth the price of admission. We learn of the many steps society took to shake off anti-capitalist superstitions. The whole idea of personal gain was anathema. Not only was the European church against interest income, but there were state regulations about everything -- even buttons and the number of threads in a fabric. All were bound to follow the profession of their fathers. You were either ruled by tradition or command.

We follow a merchant in the 16th century who must pay a customs toll every ten miles. Before reaching home he's paid 31 tolls. Each community he visits has its own money, its own rules and regulations. In Baden, there are 112 different measures of length, 65 dry measures, 123 for liquids, and 80 different notions of a one pound weight. Even in the next century, the idea of selling cheap and buying dear is frowned upon.

When we get to the lives of the economists, two so far stand out in my mind: Adam Smith, who at 4 years old was captured by gypsies and rescued by his uncle. Smith helped us understand how a man or woman, working in their own self-interest, aids society as a whole.

In the profile of Karl Marx, we learn that he cheated on his wife four or five times, was desperately poor, and was Engel's intellectual superior, though Engels was fluent in 22 languages, stumped only by Arabic. As the political movement grew, Marx disappointed followers by saying "I am not a Marxist." His basic idea was that entrepreneurs were too individualistic for the large organizations that would ensue and hence capitalism would collapse.

We also visit several Utopians, as well as John Maynard Keynes, whose ballerina wife once thumped so loudly in her upstairs practice, it alarmed the guests below.(less)

like · see review

Feb 04, 2012 Ted rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: economics, essays, history, classics, multiple-reads, biography-autobiography

If you have an interest in economics, particularly in the historic and philosophical aspects of the subject, but don’t know where to begin, this book is what you are looking for!

(On the other hand, if you have an interest in the Econ 101 side of the subject, enroll in an Econ 101 course and learn about the “dismal science” from that vantage point: the relations between distribution and consumption; buyers, sellers, and markets; economic growth, inflation, and unemployment; and the microeconomic...more

6 likes · like · see review

Apr 30, 2012 Ian Robertson rated it 5 of 5 stars

There’s a good reason this is the second best selling economics book of all time (the first is Paul Samuelson’sEconomicstextbook, which was prescribed by professors for introductory economics classes for decades): its subject matter - the great economic thinkers, or “worldly philosophers - is both timeless and assembled with great care; and the erudition and style with which Heilbroner writes is unparalleled. With seven editions over more than 60 years (Heilbroner died in 2005), this landmark bo...more There’s a good reason this is the second best selling economics book of all time (the first is Paul Samuelson’s Economics textbook, which was prescribed by professors for introductory economics classes for decades): its subject matter - the great economic thinkers, or “worldly philosophers - is both timeless and assembled with great care; and the erudition and style with which Heilbroner writes is unparalleled. With seven editions over more than 60 years (Heilbroner died in 2005), this landmark book should continue to serve as an introduction and reference for years to come.

The text flows chronologically, with ample references forward and back in time as necessary to provide context, starting with the smaller building blocks of economic thought prior to Adam Smith and progressing with separate chapters for Smith, Malthus and Ricardo, Marx, Veblen, Keynes and Schumpeter. There are two additional chapters - one for the Utopian Socialists of the early 1800s, including John Stuart Mill, and a second for the Victorian era, including Bastiat, Henry George, and John Hobson. The seventh edition also includes a new concluding chapter lamenting “The End of Worldly Philosophy”, or more specifically the evolution of economics as a science disaggregated from its necessary social causes and effects.

It’s not difficult to find information on any of the people noted above, or to access their major works. What sets this book apart is the seamless weaving of the subjects' accomplishments into a compelling narrative along with a context and frame of reference for assessing their work. In this regard, Heilbroner’s work stands at the opposite end of the scale from the excellent but inevitably dry reference books commonly available.

Heilbroner’s literary style is unlike that of any economic or financial writer today. Most today write factually and clearly, and in the case of Michael Lewis and a few others, with a flair for character development and storytelling. Only John Kenneth Galbraith matches Heilbroner’s elevation of his prose to literary level, enjoyable not only for the content, but for the grace and style with which it is delivered.

While some may feel that Heilbroner editorializes too much for a historical survey, he is a wise and genial guide, his commentary is well placed and apolitical, and his insight serves to highlight some of the economic debate that continues to this day. The only major flaw with the book is that, despite the seven updated editions, there would appear to be few contributions to the field of economics in the past half century. Thorsten Veblen has a chapter, but Milton Friedman, John Kenneth Galbraith, Paul Samuelson, Daniel Kahneman, Amartya Sen and others receive scant or no attention.

A landmark book that can be enjoyed by both seasoned professionals and those new to the field. Highly recommended.
(less)

1 like · like · see review

Oct 29, 2012 Will rated it 2 of 5 stars

This book was Heilbroner's bread and butter, paying his way through old age. It has a number of serious shortcomings:

-It is heavier on biography than on history of ideas, skewing toward gossipy details

-It contains assertions that Heilbroner knew by the end of his life to be false. In particular, the chapter on Thorstein Veblen contains more slander and fantasy than truth. Heilbroner writes that Veblen did not learn English until adulthood, which is supposed to account for his peculiar writing st...more This book was Heilbroner's bread and butter, paying his way through old age. It has a number of serious shortcomings:

-It is heavier on biography than on history of ideas, skewing toward gossipy details

-It contains assertions that Heilbroner knew by the end of his life to be false. In particular, the chapter on Thorstein Veblen contains more slander and fantasy than truth. Heilbroner writes that Veblen did not learn English until adulthood, which is supposed to account for his peculiar writing style. In fact Veblen spoke English throughout childhood. Heilbroner writes that Veblen came from a poor family, which presumably accounts for his hostility to the wealthy. In fact Veblen's family was moderately wealthy itself. Most importantly, Heilbroner presents Veblen as a serial philanderer -- a comic figure with no boundaries or self-control. However, serious biographers report that behind all the stories of Veblen's womanizing there was a single affair, with the woman who became his second wife as soon as his divorce was finalized. Heilbroner writes that Veblen refused to provide financial aid to his first wife, when in fact Veblen supported her generously until his death. Heilbroner neglects to tell us that this poor woman suffered from mental illness. All of Heilbroner's errors on Veblen trace to a single malicious 1934 biography, Thorstein Veblen and his America, which collected unflattering stories about Veblen from his detractors. Heilbroner acknowledged as much to other scholars by the time the final edition if the Worldly Philosophers came out, but he still left all these falsehoods in the book, probably for their entertainment value. (This is documented in the article "The Stigmatizing of Thorstein Veblen: A Confection of Academic Reputation", by Russell and Sylvia Bartley).

-The timeline is strange, given how long after the 1930s the later editions came out. It is probably forgivable that Heilbroner leaves out the long tradition of economic thought before Smith (there is literally no new idea anywhere in Wealth of Nations, as the Smith scholar Gavin Kennedy argues). It is also forgivable that he leaves out he American School of the 19th century, the German Historical School, the Austrian School, the post-Veblen American Institutionalist School, the controversy between the banking school and the currency school, and all that cloudy pre-modern stuff. It is less forgivable that he ends with the invention of macroeconomics in the 30s, and then closes with a non-sequitur about Schumpeter, focusing on basically an asterisk in Schumpeter's career. In earlier editions, Heilbroner had a final chapter about contemporary thought, but for some reason he removed that after the 1970s and put Schumpeter in. The absence of a chapter on marginalism and the notorious marginal utility/marginal productivity concepts is also strange.

-The lack of graphical or mathematical content leaves the discussion of Marshall fairly empty.

It must be noted that this is a genre populated mainly by bad books. Heilbroner's may be wittier and a breezier read than many of these, but it still leaves a lot to be desired. It should be balanced with other, less selective treatments. (less)

like · see review

May 04, 2010 Shawn rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: economics-business, philosophy

A good historical overview of the development of economics. The major fault is that it completely misses out on Austrian economics and public choice and thus misses vital pieces of understanding economics. He is dismissive of Hayek, in the brief mention he even gets, and doesn't even mention Mises or Friedman. The latter is understandable given his more contemporary timeline; nevertheless, Friedman is a central figure in 20th century economics and his absence is regrettable. Heilbroner is too Ke...more

like · see review

Dec 02, 2009 Keely rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: non-fiction, history, reviewed

Read as an audiobook.

As far as I know, this is an excellent and amusing introduction to economics. I certainly enjoyed the breadth and depth to which Heilbroner explored the topic, arguing intelligently for how, why, and when economics came about, and the tracing its strange, wavering history through the politics, war, and geography of the modern world.

The inclusion of not only scientists and revolutionaries but satirists, idealists, religious fanatics, armchair hobbyists, and social theorists h...more

3 likes · like · see review

title link	preview: The Worldly Philosophers
avg rating	preview: The Worldly Philosophers Goodreads rating: 4.07 (1991 ratings)
small image	preview: click here [close]
med image	preview: click here [close]
BBCode	[url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/82120.The_Worldly_Philosophers?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book][img]http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1347680878l/82120.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/82120.The_Worldly_Philosophers?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book]The Worldly Philosophers by Robert L. Heilbroner[/url]

The Worldly Philosophers

Friend Reviews

Lists with This Book

Community Reviews

new topic
Discuss This Book

combine
Other Editions (28)

Genres

Readers also enjoyed similar books

About Robert L. Heilbroner

Books by Robert L. Heilbroner

Share This Book

Share This Book on Your Website

Trivia About The Worldly Philo...