The Economics of Public Issues

by Roger LeRoy Miller, Daniel K. Benjamin, Douglass C. North

The Economics of Public Issues is a collection of brief, relevant readings that spark independent thinking and classroom discussions in principles of economics, public policy, and social issues courses. The Foundations of Economic Death by Bureaucrat; Ethanol Madness; Flying the Friendly Skies?; The Mystery of Wealth. S upply and Sex, Booze, and Drugs; Expanding Waistlines; Is Water Different?; Slave Redemption in Sudan; Smoking and Smuggling; Bankrupt Landlords, from Sea to Shining Sea. Labor (Why) Are Women Paid Less?; The Effects of the Minimum Wage; Immigration, Superstars, and Poverty; A Farewell to Jobs. Market Monopsony and Competition in Health Care; Big Oil, Big Oil Prices?; Contracts, Combinations, and Conspiracies; Coffee, Tea, or Tuition-Free?; College Costs (…and Costs and Costs); Keeping the Competition Out; Political Raising Less Corn and More Hell; Killer Cars and the Rise of the SUV; Crime and Punishment; The Graying of America; Heavenly Highway. Property Rights and the The Trashman Cometh; Bye-Bye, Bison; Smog Merchants; Greenhouse Economics. International Trade and Economic Free Trade, Less Trade, or No Trade?; The $750,000 Steelworker; The Lion, the Dragon, and the Future. For all readers interested in principles of economics, public policy, and social issues..

Genres: Economics, Nonfiction, Politics, Business, Textbooks, Economic Development, Public Policy

Paperback

First published December 1, 1961

About the author

Roger LeRoy Miller studied at the University of California at Berkeley and the University of Chicago. He has been on the staff of a number of universities, including the University of Washington; Clemson University; and the University of Miami School of Law, where he taught about intellectual property and entertainment law. A widely respected author, he has contributed to numerous periodicals, as well as publishing several textbooks.

Reviews

[Alice · Rating 1 out of 5]

I thought at first that this book was really simplistic. But, as I kept reading, I couldn't avoid the fact that the authors must be very ideologically-driven. There's no other rational explanation for their biases. Free market is God. That's all they know, and all that anyone else needs to know.

Here are some examples: 1. The chapter about overweight Americans comes to the conclusion that it's because of cigarette taxes. Taxes = bad. Um . . . while some adults may eat more when they quit smoking, how does this explain childhood obesity? Hello? 2. Water chapter - I actually agree that water should be priced higher in order to drive conservation. But, they have a whole chapter on water where they argue it should be privately sold at market rates and never once mention water pollution or public safety. Anyone who knows anything about water supply history knows that's the main reason why there are public water companies - because the private companies failed to protect public health and the government had to step in. 3. There's a chapter on health care. The authors state, with no supporting information or discussion, that higher health care costs = better care. Um . . . have they never heard the debate going on about this? Europeans don't have worse health care, printing it in a book doesn't make it a fact. 4. There's a chapter on auto efficiency standards where they argue government regulation is bad, without ever mentioning climate change (although it's mentioned later in the book). Did they think nobody would notice? They might be right, I can't believe many people will get this far before throwing the book in the trash.

I skimmed the last third. I just couldn't read it anymore. Yuck. I'd rate this zero stars, if I could.

[AHadavand · Rating 2 out of 5]

Very biased political and economic views throughout the book which is not a problem until you find flaws in the author's reasonings. Some chapters worth reading though.

[Deanna · Rating 2 out of 5]

Explains economic ideas fairly simply, but is also incredibly biased and tends to oversimplify very complicated issues/leave out the opposition argument.

[Andres Montero · Rating 5 out of 5]

Amazing introduction to world economics. Wish they taught me this book in high school.

[Harp Jeffers · Rating 1 out of 5]

I was assigned this textbook as part of a college economics class my sophomore year, specifically the economics of rural Alaska (I live in Alaska). I didn't originally write a review then; I was too busy arguing with my professor. I can confidently say, that, although this textbook gives some simplified overviews of basic economic concepts, it is incredibly biased and incredibly problematic in many ways. There were several times where I had to sit back and talk about it with my dorm-mate; we couldn't believe how awful some parts of it were.

For one, the text is very libertarian, pro-privatization, and very pro-free market which, while a popular economic position, is certainly not the only one, nor the only valid one. The writing brushes off any other economic theories/positions as ridiculous and unfounded, while failing to actually mention, lay out, or even properly refute opposing arguments. It is clear that we as readers are expected to take this specific economic ideology as gospel and preps us students to be incredibly biased against other political and economic ideas, quite disgraceful for a university that claims to want to teach us objective information.

In addition, there is one section that stood out to me as fairly racist, mostly in what it omits, but also the way in which it does so. On the page "The Origins of Institutions", the book explains colonization and the origin of government in the following manner: "In Australia, New Zealand, and North America, the colonists found geography and climates that were conducive to good health. Permanent settlement was attractive, so colonists created institutions to protect private property and curb the power of the state. When Europeans arrived in Africa and South America, however, they encountered tropical diseases, such as malaria and yellow fever, that produced high mortality rates. This discouraged permanent settlement and encouraged a mentality focused on extracting metals, cash-crops, and other resources. As a result, there were few incentives to promote democratic institutions or stable long-term property rights systems."

Basically, because southern continents were so disease-ridden, colonists couldn't form permanent settlements, and that's why those countries have to have all their resources extracted for European use...yeah. Colonization and privatization are inherently good, and Africa and South America were too disease-ridden to colonize properly, and they're awful to live in because they don't have democracy and private property protection. Definitely not racist at all. Nope. Definitely does not omit the horrors of colonization and genocide and economic exploitation inflicted by so-called civilized nations, nor the disease that Europeans themselves spread, killing off indigenous populations. Definitely does not ignore the deliberate exploitation and resource extraction that leaves these countries impoverished, and how leaders spreading democracy or boosting their countries often mysteriously perish before their dreams are realized (think Thomas Sankara).

I'm very shocked, especially since my university has a large indigenous population, and the very class this was required for is categorized as "Alaska Native Studies" (ANS) in the class catalogue. You'd think they'd steer clear of a textbook that promotes colonization, especially since they claim to support their indigenous students.

This isn't the only example of how horribly biased (and prejudiced) this textbook is, but it is one of the most egregious. Regardless, this textbook is not fit to guide any student into economic theory and deserves to be banished to an archive, where its biases and antiquated Eurocentric ideology can be treated with the professional critique it deserves.

[Justin · Rating 2 out of 5]

I read this for an ECON class that also didn't consider alternative viewpoints and assumed their word was gospel. There isn't much to say other than it was just boring. Some interesting topics were brought up, and the book would just describe the topic briefly before moving on at best, or provide an incredibly biased take without even touching on criticisms at worst.

Granted, some of the chapters were interesting to read about, I enjoyed the inclusion of statistics, and I feel like some valid points were made. That said, it really does not redeem the overall lack of nuance found anywhere within the text

[Amir · Rating 3 out of 5]

It's a great book for familiarize non- Economists to some Controversial concepts related with economy that distorted by parties and governments. the book Simultaneously about Economy and Politic.
my main problem with this book is in explanation of heavy Economic Ideas that tends to over- Simplification; which makes things OBVIOUS in the eyes of non- Economist reader.

[katie · Rating 1 out of 5]

yeah wtf, read this for a summer course and it’s incredibly biased and lacks a lot of the nuance necessary to really buoy the study of economics. also i will never forgive three men for writing a chapter about gender discrimination in the works place and using the term “mommy track” as an ostensible defense for the pay gap

[Nataly Delcid · Rating 3 out of 5]

talked a lot about pressung issues, but a bit too biased and often didn't take into account other economic perspectives. Good subject but also a bit of a boring read at times; could've used some editing.

[Nora Fischer · Rating 2 out of 5]

explains basic economic concepts. very biased with little acknowledgement of alternative views. oudated views - for example points out the current "good" effects of climate change and then discusses possible bad effects of it in the future. would not recommend for basic intro to econ textbook.

[Jerry · Rating 4 out of 5]

Insightful across a broad range of issues.

[Alireza Yoonesi · Rating 4 out of 5]

I wish there was a 3.5 score.

[Daisy · Rating 5 out of 5]

this book makes economics seem fun

[Richard · Rating 2 out of 5]

It's disturbing to think how many people read this book and take it as economic gospel. It's true to a point, but it gives short shrift to the opponents of their ideas, seriously limiting its academic usefulness. For instances, according to the authors the "excuses" against free trade all basically come down to "self-interest," keeping away competition to keep their wages and job secure...except the "smoke-screen" is equally true that people that are politically proponents of free trade often are so as a smoke screen to keep away competition to their corporate profits and market share. The chapter for free trade and the chapter supposedly about the arguments against free trade show that the writer could not even try to give fair credence to both, and that deficiency infects their analysis throughout. The weakest area of the argument for me is when it tries to say that endangered species, thinning forests, global warming and whatnot are not "market failures" but rather "government failures" because markets never fail, except the difference is merely rhetorical as the markets are merely created once government "define, enforce, and make transferable everything as property rights." So, up to that point, the market was perfect in setting the price when government left everything alone, and any action the government did was to warp prices. But all of a sudden, the prices are not accurate because the government hadn't done its part. So, if that's the case, how can we be sure that all prices are correctly set as the government is trusting the market to set prices and the last thing anybody wants is for central planning, however, if the government doesn't actively define the property rights of the pollution and the waste, then how is any price possibly accurate? You can call it a failure of the market or government, in the end, the system is a failure unless we know the quantity of everything (we don't) the effect on the environment of everything (we don't) and the amount that an environment can purify through its own systems of purification and the animal's reproductive capacity so we don't kill too many of them (we don't). Once the full scale of our ignorance is factored in, the simple fact that an Asimov level computer brain for a global government may someday be able to factor everything in, but until then, this is not a workable system.

[Q · Rating 2 out of 5]

7.24
The list goes on and on for the informational and logical atrocities the authors of this book have committed: never a direct evidence for any of their arguments; much appeal to supposed "common sense"; and under-your-nose disregard for the legitimate arguments from the opposing side as well as evidence-picking, which show the authors' absolute partiality against fact-based case-laying.

And this is a textbook, for goodness' sake! How do you think students with inadequate previous exposure to economics would begin thinking about the world around them after reading this?

I am more than disappointed.

A textbook would be best to not take a stance on controversial issues, but that is exactly what it appears to be set out to accomplish.
______

8.15

After a long hiatus from engaging with the unengaging contents of this book, I have finally returned to the lion's den and cleared out the last scraps of junk necessary for me to call this book finished.

Unfortunately, it's been long since I've cared about this book that all that I remember about it is how biased it was. But it is okay now. I actually might revisit this book some day, after I've gained much more knowledge on economics and feel more authorized to speak on the quality of the economic part of its contents.

But, for now, good-bye.

[Zak Patten · Rating 5 out of 5]

I recommend this book, which I am currently reading in my microeconomics class, to anyone interested in contemporary American politics. In a series of short chapters, the reader is confronted with the most fascinating questions (and answers) about what really drives all of the most important issues on today's political scene. Read "Death By Bureaucrat" or "Sex, Drugs, and Booze" and tell me this isn't the best textbook you've ever picked up. I dare you.

[Tomás · Rating 5 out of 5]

Amazing selection of diverse topics with a clear and straightforward style. Great introduction to economics through analysis of modern policy problems in American capitalism with international experience and perspective. There is an obvious ideological bias but the book does a great job of acknowledging two sides of an argument and ultimately making a case for the view an economist would hold. This book was easily the best part of my policy analysis class.

[Ava Anderson · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book lays out economic arguments behind a variety of issues, from obesity to airline safety, providing an interesting angle on the issues. However, I often found the explanations to be a bit simplistic, and when using this as a teaching tool, I think it's important to emphasize that the economic viewpoint is simply one way of examining an issue to reach a conclusion, not the "right" answer.

[Siddarth Gore · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very concise and to the point book if you are interested in how policy decisions by governments affect economics and vice versa. Though, for detailed analysis and nuances, you will have to refer some other books.

[David · Rating 4 out of 5]

One of my favorite economics reads. Douglass C. North was one of my professors.

[raihan · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read this for class, but it easily could've been a book for pleasure reading. Witty, funny, interesting.

[Jordan Munn · Rating 3 out of 5]

i actually read the fifth edition from 1980. It's pretty fun to see how the framing of issues has changed over time.

[Anum · Rating 5 out of 5]

Although this book oversimplifies certain issues while discussing public problems in economic contexts, it is a true eye opener. This book quite literally changed the way I viewed the world!

[Pat Murphy · Rating 4 out of 5]

More interesting than I expected. Kind of a serious Freakonomics.

[Josh Vick · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really solid review of many different public issues and the underlying economic principles that have helped them succeed or fail in their action.

[Elizabeth · Rating 3 out of 5]

The Economics of Public Issues by Roger LeRoy Miller, Douglass C. North, Daniel K. Benjamin – I read this in my college Econ class, and I remember it being dry but accessible. Happy Reading!

[Brad Ayers · Rating 4 out of 5]

Another one of my favorite books. Quick and simple read, can teach anyone the basis of economics-driven public policy approaches.

[Shannon · Rating 3 out of 5]

This class was much more valuable to me as a reporter than microeconomics would have been.

[Stephen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Concise, clear, and (if you know what to expect from economists) fairly scrupulous in its nonpartisan analysis. Of course, I read a very old edition and all that might have changed in revision.

The old edition is also interesting in light of *how many* of the public issues discussed are radically different now. And in many ways things are better, arguably because of economic liberalization. (Still waiting on the negative income tax though.)