The Big Three in Economics: Adam Smith, Karl Marx, and John Maynard Keynes

by Mark Skousen

History comes alive in this fascinating story of opposing views that continue to play a fundamental role in today's politics and economics. "The Big Three in Economics" traces the turbulent lives and battle of ideas of the three most influential economists in world Adam Smith, representing laissez faire; Karl Marx, reflecting the radical socialist model; and John Maynard Keynes, symbolizing big government and the welfare state. Each view has had a significant influence on shaping the modern world, and the book traces the development of each philosophy through the eyes of its creator. In the twenty-first century, Adam Smith's "invisible hand" model has gained the upper hand, and capitalism appears to have won the battle of ideas over socialism and interventionism. But author Mark Skousen shows that, even in the era of globalization and privatization, Keynesian and Marxian ideas continue to play a significant role in economic policy.

Genres: Economics, History, Nonfiction, Politics, Biography, Audiobook, Philosophy

264 pages, Hardcover

First published January 15, 2007

About the author

I am a professional economist, financial adviser, university professor, author and producer of FreedomFest, the largest annual gathering of free minds about liberty and freedom in the world. I edit the award-winning financial newsletter, Forecasts & Strategies (www.markskousen.com), and have authored many books on economics, finance, investing and Benjamin Franklin. I have been married to my wife Jo Ann for 35 years, and we have 5 children and 3 terrific grandsons.

Reviews

[Kevin · Rating 1 out of 5]

This author is completely duped by right wing folly. I am amazed that he supports supply side economics, in light of the failed Reaganomics era. See pages 48-49: "Supply creates its own demand." Really?? Does anyone, even from Reagan's administration still believe in trickle-down economics?? Then he goes on to try supporting him with misunderstood business statistics.

He blames 3rd World countries' inept economies on Marxism and "anticapitalist attitudes", while citing a "theory of imperialism and colonialism" - see pages 86-87. Wow, maybe he should look into the United Fruit Company and the CIA, just for starters. He might learn something about failed 3rd World economics and politics, not to mention external forces that made them feeble puppets.

Yet another example of his naivete, or total lack of understanding: Page 94 - He says "..capitalism...has liberated the worker from the chains of poverty, monopoly, war, and oppression.." Geez, maybe he should heed Dwight Eisenhower's warning of the coming military industrial complex, i.e. Lockheed Martin, and then see if capitalism doesn't thrive on war. Or how about our capitalist big wigs (starting w/Reagan) who eradicated the import tariff from 30% to 2%, thus enabling the export of all of our manufacturing jobs overseas, so they could earn higher profits??!! Now, we get to buy our favorite goods from Walmart, and see little tags that say "Made in China" on almost everything. How about those wages and benefits for Walmart employees anyway?? How does this guy believe himself??!!


-Microeconomics (the theory of supply & demand) vs. Macroeconomics (the theory of money and aggregate economic activity)

Keynes has my vote for best economic model based on free markets being kept in check by the government, the way it should be. It's hard to argue with 3 decades of unprecedented prosperity, based on his model from '46 until '80, when Reagan turned everything upside down. However, Keynes put too much emphasis on consumption, and not enough on saving. I also didn't like his disregard for monetary policy and wanted to spend and spend, creating deficits. (But we have spent our way out of depressions, but never in the history of the world has any country gotten out of a depression by means of tax cuts.) But Smith is too antequated, and the invisible hand is too far outdated, but does merit some basic truth. Marx is too far to the left and doesn't allow people to follow their individual spirit.

I think different times and different technologies call for different economies, so each theory has some merit at a certain time. Considering the economic havoc that 30 years of Reaganomics, Clintonomics and BushCo have wreaked, pure Adam Smith-style Laissez-faire clearly does not help a middle class economy thrive. It needs some regulations and government intervention to keep it under control. Where would General Motors and Chrysler and their entire supply chain be without the government bailout? Now they are profitable.

Again, Skousen goes on to defend Say on page 184: "Thus we return to the truism of Say's law: Supply (production) is more important than demand (consumption). Consumption is the effect, not the cause of prosperity. Production, saving and capital formation are the true cause." Wow, is this wrong! When people demand your product, what do you do? You produce more of it, sell more, then reinvest (your savings, to credit him a little here) in your company, hire more people, and stimulate the economy. You don't engage in Reagan-voodoo-supply side economics, and produce a lot of something, hoping people buy it! Why is there a drug war on our borders? Because the cartels know there is so much demand in the U.S. that they kill each other for the market! Demand creates supply, plain and simple. Capital formation (investments, etc.) are merely shifting money around, not actually "creating" wealth.

Did Milton Friedman have a little bit of "Socialism" in him? On page 194, he said about the Great Depression, "The government had acted ineptly...failing to counter deflationery forces and bank collapses."
So, in other words, he would have supported Bush's "socialism" when he rescued the "too big to fail" banks? Then Friedman says, "Far from the depression being a failure of the free-enterprise system, it was a tragic failure of government." So, if he refers to Bushco's cronies at Goldman Sachs and Wall Street, all in bed together, you could say that big money and bought off politicians (mostly republicans) are an example of government acting to create a depression. In that sense, Friedman is only right if you interpret government not pulling the reins at all, on a market that was allowed to be way too free, causing the rich to hoard their $ in Swiss bank accounts and squeezing the rest of us, thanks to Reagan and Bush tax cuts. Just as "Do-nothing Calvin Coolidge did in the '20s and Bush did in the '00s, letting Laissez-faire just run its course is a sure way to failure, crash & burn.
*Milton Friedman advised Augusto Pinochet of Chile to privatize social security, which helped lead to his fascist state, similar to what republicans want to do in the U.S.*

Geez, I was going to highlite and disect the passages toward the end, and criticize them, but to save time, I will simply declare that the last chapter is one total lie! I was going to give it 2 stars, just for the history of the evolution of economics, but in the last paragraph, where the author gloats about the endless benefits of free trade and privatizing Social Security, I had to demote this book to 1 star only. Thank God it's over!

[Amirography · Rating 2 out of 5]

Has anyone who have read this book been surprised to know that the author was a Trump voter?

[Rebecca Choong · Rating 1 out of 5]

For a book that claims to be objective, the big three in economics is decidedly biased against Marxism and portrays it in a very unflattering light (Devil imagery often used) whilst depicting Adam Smith as a saint-like creature.

An extract:
'Youthful followers become true believers, and it usually takes them years to grow out of their Marxist addiction. It happened to Robert Heilbroner, Mark Blaug, Whittaker Chambers and David Horowitz. I even saw it among my students at Robbins college, a decade after Soviet communism has collapsed and Marxism was supposedly dead... One student chose The Communist Manifesto. After reading it, he came to me and exclaimed with some emotion, "This is incredible! I must do my book report on this!" pointing to his well-marked copy. It was eerie. In my lectures, I did my best to counter Marxian doctrine, but it didn't matter. He was converted."

Terribly one-sided view which reads a propaganda rather than an academic analysis on how three great thinkers, philosophers and economists change the realm of economic thought and how their ideas are still relevant (or no longer relevant) in today's times.

[Karim Mattar · Rating 2 out of 5]

تخيل كدا ٣ معلمين كبار قاعدين ع القهوة وكل واحد بيشرح وجهة نظره الاقتصادية علشان تقرر في الأخر مين فيهم صح..
تخيلت خلاص؟ اهو ده فكرة الكتاب : D
الكتاب بيركز علي ٣ مدارس من الفكر الاقتصادي
أدم سميث والحرية الاقتصادية
كارل ماركس والرأسمالية
وأخيرا المفضل عندي.. جون مينارد كينز
الكتاب بيعرض شرح مبسط للفكر الاقتصادي لكل واحد مع نقد كل نظرية
بس مشكلة الكتاب الأساسية... ان ببساطة الكاتب نفسه متحيز لفكر معين!! وخصوصا ادم سميث وفكرة الحرية الاقتصادية
و ده اللي خلاني اعتبر الكتاب ده أقل من المتوسط لان الطبيعي خصوصا في الاقتصاد انك تكون "حيادي" سواء في تحليل او نقد النظرية الاقتصادية بشكل عام
نجمتين فقط من وجهة نظري المتواضعة
( وعلشان انا متحيز لأي كتاب في علم الاقتصاد :D )

[Jay · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fortunately, Skousen discusses dozens of other economists along with the Big Three. Funny to see all the 1-star reviews saying he wasn't "fair" to Marx. Yes, he was. Marxism is bad economics, in theory and in practice.

[Evan Dewangga · Rating 3 out of 5]

“The first human was Adam. The
first economist . . . was Adam Smith”

I feel fortunate to have prior knowledge of political spectrum (especially in the US) before reading this book. Clearly, Skousen is biased to the right, as he described Smith so eloquently, yet he depicted Marx and Keynes in a pejorative term. I mean, who cares if Keynes was homosexual or not, or the tragic death of Marx's daughters, which did not directly impacted Marx's works. Of course it's interesting trivia, but for me it's just a seasoning to paint Marx and Keynes as rather vicious, but I can't find those same sentiments in Smith. Smith is depicted as a flawless human being.

Biased, but at least it's not misleading. Moreover, it sparks the curiousity in me to learn more about economics, and despite the "right-leaning", I still enjoy the writing of Skousen. To be honest, I also have inclination to the right, but no, for rating book I keep my opinion for myself, and rate it objectively.

3.5 out of 5 stars.

[Mohammad Alloush · Rating 2 out of 5]

كتاب عن تاريخ الفكر الاقتصادى، كتاب تقليدي يقدم عرض شامل للمدارس الاقتصادية المعروفة،و يعتمد على التقسيم وفقا لتاريخ الفكر الاقتصادى لثلاثة محطات وثلاث زوايا للنظر، فيركز على من أسماهم ب "الثلاثة الكبار"، مشكلا منهم نقاط ارتكاز وانطلاق فى عرض الثلاثة خطوط الأساسية فى الفكر الاقتصادى.
فما بين آدم سميث وكارل ماركس وجون ماينارد كينز، يتحرك المؤلف عارضا لحياتهم وأفكارهم الرئيسية، محاولا استكشاف العلاقات الجدلية بينها وكيف انتهت لنا صورتها النهائية، د

[Brent Ranalli · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book actually delivers more than it promises: not only profiles of the life and economic thought of Smith, Marx, and Keynes, but also an adequate account of the development of economic thought in the interstices. It’s been a while since I read Hielbroner’s “Worldly Philosophers,” but if memory serves, Skousen has provided a more coherent narrative. And he also brings the story of the development of the economics profession up to date in the late twentieth century.

Overall the book is well-written, accessible, and entertaining, with a storyteller’s touch in painting portraits of the protagonists. The author is hardly neutral; his right-leaning sympathy with the Chicago and Austrian schools shines through. He is entitled to his biases (as Heilbroner to his left-leaning biases), but occasionally they get in the way of the author's job. A few of those instances are detailed below.

In enlisting Smith’s support against the idea of government artificially inflating wages above market levels (e.g., minimum wage laws) (p11), Skousen offers a quotation from the Wealth of Nations that the reader might easily interpret as saying that when government tries to raise wages, the net effect is to suppress them instead. If this is what Skousen intended, it is not only absurd, it is also nothing like what Smith meant. The plain sense of the Wealth of Nations quotation (and the larger passage it comes from in chapter 10 of book 1, and related passages in chapter 8 of and later in chapter 10) is that when government tries to control the wages of laborers, the object is usually to suppress them rather than inflate them. That is, Smith is pointing out that in his day it is usually the masters rather than the workingmen who hold the levers of power and use them to distort market prices. (Either way, Smith’s opinion is that wage controls are likely to be ineffectual as a policy measure--not counterproductive, but ineffectual--in the long run.)

For anti-government ideologues, the fact that Adam Smith worked as a customs commissioner is an embarrassing and inconvenient fact. Skousen tries to spin it as moral weakness--that even the great Adam Smith couldn’t resist the "lure of government office and job security" (17). Trouble is, for Smith this post was no sinecure. He took it very seriously, not only working hard, but (as Skousen notes) even burning most of his clothes when he discovered they had been imported illegally and urging others to do the same. For Smith, public service was an honorable calling. There is no contradiction with his philosophy, no irony, because Smith shared none of the “anti-government” prejudices of modern libertarians. In Smith’s vision of society, government was essential and had a positive role to play in checking the many distortions that private parties (e.g., guilds, monopolies, conspiracies of merchants, reckless bankers, etc.) introduced to the marketplace, as well as making public investments, providing a system of justice, etc., and refraining from introducing any unnecessary market distortions of its own.

Skousen’s discussion of Keynes is also somewhat marred; in his eagerness to score points he gets sloppy and fails to convince. For example, he gets hyberbolic in his denigration of the role of consumption either in causing or resolving recessions. If recessions are caused by producers's miscalculating "what consumers wish to buy, thus causing unsold goods to pile up" (185), how can consumer demand, the other side of the coin, fail to play an equal role? In his eagerness to refute the Keynesian school he asserts without the support of anything stronger than a thought experiment the equivalence of savings and investment, and then extols the virtues of "productive" savings/investment over "unproductive" consumption (186). Surely additional reflection will sober the reader: savings deposited in the bank might be recycled back into the economy as a small business loan, but they could just as easily be recycled as a mortgage loan that merely fuels a bubble--not productive. Similarly, a tax cut for the wealthy "saving" class that goes into the stock market is money gambled and likely lost in another speculative bubble, unless the increase in investment capital available to productive companies is balanced by an increase in consumer demand for those companies' offerings. Given the authors's biases, it is ironic and amusing to note that the thought experiment he offers to illustrate how savings and investment can create wealth--a perfectly good illustration--is, though artfully phrased, an example of PUBLIC sector investment (183-84).

All in all, it’s a book worth reading for the narrative it offers of the development of the profession.

[Sharof Hamroh]

DNF

Oh wow, it's terrible. As much as our guy Skousen worships and being fond of Adam Smith, as much he feels genuine loath for Karl Marx. Smith's doctrine of so-called comparative advantage has been proven wrong so many times, yet folks still push him forward as some kind of paragon we should reach. England itself had gotten "comparative advantage" in wool industry by means of protectionism, which liberals do hate. US first Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton had famously formulated path to economic success in his Report on the Subject of Manufacturers. It was protectionism. Not a single one of today's world leading economic powers has reached its prosperity by free trade. Don't get me wrong, it's not that deny benefits of the policy of liberation in some sectors of an economy. It does bear fine fruits. However, it's not an ultimate mean of progress.

Moving on to a Marx chapter. It totally felt like Skousen described diabolical creature as he recounted Karl Marx's life and works. I'm not a huge fan of Marx and communism, I may even say that I have certain disdain for communists, since I am from Uzbekistan, which happens to be a former colony of, first, Tsarist Russia, then USSR. Both periods had had devastating effect on us. Although, I don't refuse to recognize how Marx astutely felt flaws of capitalism. Marx's magnum opus Das Kapital was written in 1867. Yet problems of the Capitalism described by him has never been solved, neither we're -- a global society -- even close to any solution. That's why he is still so relevant and popular, not because he was a satan, as Skousen tried to picture him.

The end of rant.

[Void lon iXaarii · Rating 3 out of 5]

I was very happy to discover this book. In recent years it has been way too popular to write sensationalist, reactionary or critique books, so it was delightful to find a book that goes through the economic/life/society thinking (and actions) of the last couple of centuries with a focus on what works and constructive thinking. I usually dislike in books passages about the actual daily lives of thinkers/shakers of history but here they were brief and they actually had relevant points. One could however be excused if after going through it they felt that economics was quite a mess... so I wouldn't advise this one to somebody who hasn't gone through at least 3 fundamentals books... but then again by doing that people might risk being exposed to popular sensationalist thinking, so, on second though... yes, it would be okay :P As for the constant and cyclical debates: it's funny how they keep coming back, how different sides use the same event to argue contrary things. The bottom line is that these are really huge scale things and ones hard to test in human experience (Thomas Sowell's "A conflict of vision" comes to mind as touching on the deeper issue of the sides, but that's even tougher reading :P ). As for my personal side: I tend to lean on the original core economics concepts, the power of many people to make wise choices, without somebody telling them from a top what to do. I share Adam's Smith's amazement at how markets seem to produce more goods than those who state they want to, and after many books and thinking about it I lean more and more away from very complex arguments which seem to be endlessly debated and towards simple ones such as this one: every individual has information that no centralized power/government/group can reasonably assimilate/use and by his "small" every day activity he more truthfully reveals his values than even his own words and together people produce a more truthful direction than even the most well intended global intentions.

[Stacie · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read Alliance: The Inside Story of How Roosevelt, Stalin and Churchill Won One War and Began Another, and John Maynard Keynes was mentioned a few times, which piqued my interest to find out what that guy was all about. I decided to read about "the big three" since I really don't know much about economics. The question still remains...will I be more enlightened or more in the dark after finishing this book?

************************ And now I am done*********************

I honestly can't tell you if I know anything more about economics than I did before reading this book. To be honest, once Skousen started talking in algebraic form (Y=C+I) they kind of lost me. With that said, I felt Skousen did a great job of writing and laying out the ideas so that even the ignorant-to-economics-me could slightly understand.

Here is what I really enjoyed about the book...I enjoyed reading and learning about the philosophies and psychologies that were behind each man's economic thinking. I feel that so much of their theories are grounded in who they are and what their backgrounds are. So, it was that aspect that I enjoyed the most.

While I don't have a firm grasp on economics and don't actually feel like learning more, I do feel a bit better for having read this book. Plus, it was kind of an ego boost to the the "wow, you must be smart" looks I got when people saw me reading a book with the word "economics" on the front.

[Otto Lehto · Rating 3 out of 5]

Skousen's book is openly biased against Marx and Keynes and in favour of an idealized version of Adam Smith, in a way that makes some of the sections feel stilted.

But I enjoyed some of the history lessons and scholarship that went into the book. Unfortunately the author celebrates the victory of free market economics prematurely: after 2008-9, the clarion call of Lord Keynes and Marx the Moses is stronger than ever - partially because of the failure of free market advocates like Skousen to address their valid concerns - but also partially because of the perennial Romantic lure of socialism among the intelligentsia and among young people.

[Nomad Scry · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very clear and very informative, until I got to the Keynesian section and then I was just bottled by margins and other jargon. I think the author made a case against Keynesian economics at the end, but I'm not sure I understood correctly.

Despite that, this book provided the essential background information that I wanted, and I'd recommend it to any other jack of all trades interested in a smidgen of economics.

[Forest Collins · Rating 4 out of 5]

If you are looking for a good overview of economic theory and how it came about, plus some interesting biographical details on the three title economists, this lays it out in an interesting and engaging manner.

If economics and theory of this sort isn't your bag, move along, nothing to see here.

[وَادْفَل عَبدُ النَّاصِر · Rating 3 out of 5]

كتاب في تاريخ الفكر الاقتصادي، قسم من خلاله الكاتب تاريخ الفكر الاقتصادي إلى ثلاثة محطات وثلاث زوايا نظر، مركزا على من أسماهم الثلاثة الكبار، آدم سميث، كارل ماركس و جون ماينارد كينز، عارضا حيواتهم وأفكارهم الأساسية، يفتقر الكتاب إلى الموضوعية فقد ظهر الانحياز الكامل للكاتب لمدرسة الحرية الاقتصادية وعلى رأسها آدم سميث.

[AttackGirl · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great book !

Nice to see honest discussion of the diseased couch potato cheating hater Marx!

[Andrew · Rating 4 out of 5]

If uninspired to much more, The Big Three In Economics is a university level summation of major economists. Instead of taking a scientific approach that dictates which views are correct (i.e Horowitz and now Stieglitz), Skousen deals with the differing schools of economics, and only briefly asserts which view holds most weight. He puts the major three—Smith, Marx, and Keynes—into a progressive timeline.

Basically:

(Smith) the economic market is in constant progression to perfection, eliminating defects and imperfections (surrogate world leader: Alexander Hamilton)

(Marx) the economic market is in a constant progression into oppression of the masses and must be replaced by a communal system (surrogate world leader: Stalin)

(Keynes) the economic market is indifferent, and must be shaped by outside governing bodies to keep it in a constant progression in either direction (surrogate world leader: FDR and Reagan)

Also basically: 

Smith was correct in establishing basic capitalism, but incorrect in asserting that the market would always work for the good of its masses

Marx was correct in understanding that capitalism has defects that produce slavery, wage slavery, disturbing poverty, inflation, deflation, and the modern human capital markets to exploit labor, but incorrect that communal forms of government reduce real human hardship and oppression (i.e., the Soviet Union in macrocosm, and Jonestown in microcosm)

Keynes was correct in his belief that government can influence the economy (i.e. the Depression being caused by the Federal Reserve lowering interest rates), but also defective, as his views that the government running a deficit to create a welfare system as a temporary measure would stay temporary, or reduce real human oppression

This means:

Smith’s lasting legacy is that his “invisible hand” capitalist society decreased working hours and increased wages and freedom—but didn’t curtail what Keynes later called “involuntary unemployment”

Marx’s lasting legacy is the failure of the Soviet Union and his influence on Keynes

And Keynes’s lasting legacy was his hybridization of government and the economy, which worked out well for some generations (Truman through Kennedy), and disastrously for others (namely 2008 on); Keynes also created his own rival in Milton Friedman, who advocated the hybridization of the market and government in the opposite that Keynes did: where government works for business, as opposed to the public, which created corporate welfare in the same sense that Keynes created welfare for the poor (i.e. the Detroit bailouts)

This brings economists to modern times, 2008, Stieglitz, and the World Bank:

Do any of the three work in the modern framework of:

(1) America now being a service and capital (banking) economy instead of a goods economy?

(2) the prevalence of an interconnected world market that uses American capital as the stabilizing point for other currencies and foreign governments?

(3) the acceptance of hybrid government-economies being reliant on socialized economies that in turn don't produce enough capital to sustain themselves (i.e. the modern Nordic countries often sourced in the modern pro-socialist movement) and borrow endlessly from American capital to sustain themselves, even as the United States has difficulty sustaining its own capital (i.e. 2008)? In other words, in a modern America propped up on interest returns from hybrid socialist countries that endlessly borrow and can't repay their own principals, much less their interest?

(4) Duel welfare systems that support both non-working poor, and also prop up failed business?

(5) inequality between classes that has become akin to that of a past century British economy (namely due to points 3 and 4)?

(6) the Euro, Brexit, China-America gross product relations, the World Bank, and the economically unstable socialist countries becoming major world forces?

In his memoir on the financial crisis, former Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner argues that his reaction to 2008 was the opposite of Mellon’s during the Depression. He refused Smith (letting the market recover organically) and Marx (there were no mass socialized payments for the struggling American population), and only somewhat embraced Keynes (the largest bailout in history is government action to be sure, but he never advocated for major policy changes to stabilize markets in the years after the crash). Geithner, in a very real way, rejected the work of the most important economists. And during the crisis, his structure not only held, but survived. This wasn’t an economic system to replace those of peacetime; it was a reactionary measure to a crisis, and can only be seen as such. Also, the recovery process after 2008 has left the world economy with thousands of defects, but in a small way, Geithner still made it clear that rejecting old solutions to new problems is a viable option, and perhaps the only option.

In opposite, Stieglitz, a modern day rebuttal to Friedman, and a key figure in the creation of the World Bank, is the most outspoken of the modern economists. He argues for a continuation of Keynes that would include not only welfare for the poor, but also a Marx-ish (though not Marxist) redistribution of wealth. This seems to be the policy stance of most "progressive" politicians, and is quite popular among many voting constituencies. It is also, unfortunately, as simple minded of a solution as one would expect from an economist working through modern data with ideas that are nearly a century old.

Economics sits aside health and governance as one of the most dictating factors of a person’s life. Freedom is filtered through one’s economic status, and that dictates their actions and interactions from birth to death. As important as a nation’s (and world’s) economy is then, I find it disturbing that the basis for our modern economic structure rests in arguments as weak as those presented by the “big three”. At best, all three contributed framework for a stable economy, but none answered for an economy’s defects in a way that has lasted beyond that economists own immediate generation. Smith still haunts modern corporate America, but he doesn’t understand why it progressed so poorly (2008 being the biggest blow to his body of work yet). Marx still echoes through rhetoric of socialist politicians, but he would be disturbed to see the duel welfare states propping up both poor and rich, while the working class labors under similar problems that he advocated against. Keynes, with his belief that markets are indifferent, would inevitably find modern America fascinating: namely because he created it through FDR and Reagan. Still, Keynes realized at the time of his own death in 1946 that there was little else he could do to shape the world. He was intellectually bankrupted by the Depression, WWII, and FDR. Like Smith, had he lived to see 2008, his own faith in his life work would likely have collapsed entirely.

The main point that can be taken from a study of the past two centuries of major economists is this: they were products of their times, and an answer to the problems of their times. The world can be changed, and it changed constantly, but only by original ideas. It is unfortunate to hear modern economists and their surrogate politicians argue for policy that only somewhat worked a hundred years ago, isn't working now, and is even less likely to work in the future. (In economics, as with medical science, old answers rarely make new advancements.) There is likely to be no direct answers in antiquated pre-WWII forms of government and economics. The "big three" only found their status as such because they answered the questions of their times with new answers, not old ones. They built off their predecessors, but their concepts were original to their times and their worlds. If there is hope for a post-2008 economy that is as interconnected as ours, that hope won't be in looking to the past, but to using the past as inspiration for originality.

[Muhamed Sewidan · Rating 4 out of 5]

كتاب من أعظم ما قرأت ولكن فيه عدة ملاحظات:
1- الكاتب مايل اكتر للرأسمالية ولأدم سميث، ودا ممكن يخلى القارىء الساذج يتبنى الرأسمالية لمجرد ان كاتب وضع على مميزاتها الضوء اكثر.
2- الكتاب للأسف مش مبسط، ولكن على رغم من كونى مبتدىء فى علم الاقتصاد ولكن فهمت أشياء كثيرة وانوى قراءته مرة تانية بعد التعمق أكتر فى علم الاقتصاد

[Titus Hjelm · Rating 1 out of 5]

Lesson: Always, always check the author before buying an economics book. First, the good things. Credit for Skousen for being often heartwarmingly naive rather than aggressively malevolent like Thomas Sowell, for example. It makes the reading/listening a bit more bearable. Also, for me there was a silver lining in the sense that the book provided a glimpse into what a religious view of economics looks like. I mean religious both in the sense of treating neoclassical economics as an unquestioned object of faith (there's plenty of those), but also that the author writes from a position of faith. Hence the focus on thrift, which neatly dovetails with some interpretations of the Bible (though not the evangelical prosperity gospel). Anyway, although very bad in what it is actually supposed to do, this became sort of a primary source for me in the professional sense.

I'll not dwell too long in the negatives, because every sensible reader with a basic education can see through the bias in the book. I loved the section on Marx, especially, because it hardly discusses Marx's work at all, but faithfully reproduces the religious cold war accounts of Marxism as religion. The author seems to suggest, for example, that Marx was possessed by demons. That Marx's hair was unkempt and Keynes was gay are apparently scientifically important facts. :) I couldn't quite establish the author's own religious background, but if he went to Brigham Young University, that would explain a lot. Mormons were one of the most vocal cold war warriors.

First and foremost, the book is characterised by massive irony. It's ironic that Skousen talks about Marxism as religion, but then showcases the absolutely anti-scientific stance of treating neoclassical economics as scripture. He doesn't shy from saying when Marx was wrong (all of the time), or when Keynes was wrong (most of the time), but the measure is always laissez-faire economics. There is supreme irony in claiming that David Ricardo's problem was that he was detached from the real world and writing in 2007 claiming that under neoliberalism the world has become a better place for everyone. I'm glad the author cited the raving lunatic Dinesh D'Souza quite early on, so I didn't have to spend energy on figuring out whether he was being serious or not (he was). Overall, I got the sense that the author was writing this book 20 years too late. He was much more in conversation with Reagan era concerns than the world of neoliberal hegemony.

The comments on the book are much more educational than the book, really. I especially loved "Funny to see all the 1-star reviews saying he wasn't "fair" to Marx. Yes, he was. Marxism is bad economics, in theory and in practice". Of course, Marx wrote only about Capitalism, saying almost nothing about the organisation of a socialist economy. So much for intelligent debate. But that of course shows that some people write and read books like these in order to legitimate their political views, not because they are interested in the science. Fortunately, since 2008 economics has become more diverse, although the neoclassical orthodoxy still reigns supreme. Here's to hoping that books like these will be read as interesting curiosities from a bygone era.

[Eddie Osburn · Rating 1 out of 5]

YOOOOO This dude HATES Marx. Didn’t even objectively portray Marx’s position, just called Marx a piece of shit the whole time. Crazy way to present a book on economics, especially one that appears to present an unbiased view of three economic thinkers.

[Sriram Venugopal · Rating 5 out of 5]

I am reading this book for the second time after many years. It is amazing to see how relevant Adam Smith's model is even in today's times. Of all, I do like Adam Smith's economics view the most and I am glad author has the same view and he takes us through the 300 years of world history in economics to arrive at this point. The author rightfully attacks Marx both as a pathetic economist and a person. Keynes did play a big role during the recession years to revive the capitalist view. But there are lot of things like punishing savings mentality, unlimited monetary expansion, etc that I dont like about him. Sadly, many countries even today follow Keynesian model which would keep inflating the bubble that will burst one day.

[Sarah · Rating 1 out of 5]

I wish I would have read the reviews before I started reading this book. I was hoping to learn more about the history of economics and how these three men came to their beliefs on economy. The author is so biased that it totally takes away from the facts and Skousen just ends up bashing Marx as a stupid, hypocritical asshole. There was some good information but this book is too subjective for those who want to read history and facts and form their own opinions.

[Hamza Chera · Rating 4 out of 5]

A book that makes a good and brief introduction to the history of economics.

[AbdEl-Rahman · Rating 5 out of 5]

كتاب شيق وممتع جدا على عكس تصوري لعلم الاقتصاد والسبب في ذلك هو الترجمة الممتازة لذلك الكتاب، والتي جعلتني أتعجب لماذا لم تفز تلك الترجمة بأي جائزة ما (وأتمنى أن يكون ذلك ناجم عن تقصير مني في عدم البحث جيدا)
الشيء الثاني الذي يجعل الكتاب ممتع هو الطريقة البديعة (لاحظ أنها المرة الأولى التي استخدم فيها ذلك اللفظ!) التي أتبعها الكاتب للكتابة وهي طريقة تقسيم الفصول ذات نفسها لمجموعة من العناوين الجانبية وأيضا الطريقة في كتابة مجمل النظرية ثم شرحها على مهل في ذلك الفصل وأن الكتاب لا يغرق في المعادلات الحسابية والرسوم البيانية كما توقعت عن علم الإفتصاد، ولذا يعتبر مدخل ممتاز للقراءة في الاقتصاد.
الكتاب كما يقول العنوان يتناول أكبر أقتصاديين العالم حتى الآن أو قل يتناول أفضل اقتصاديون العالم في كل قرن فآدم سميث كان في القرن الثامن عشر ثم كارل ماركس في القرن التاسع عشر ثم كينز في القرن العشرين، وبالطبع يتخللهم العديد من الاقتصاديين قد تم ذكرهم ولكن بطريقة مختصرة.
يبدأ الكتاب بالحديث عن معجزة القرن الثامن عشر وهو آدم سميث بكتابه أو قل إنجيل الرأسماليين "ثروة الأمم" والذي تم نشره عام 1776 على ما أعت��د، وهو الكتاب الذي يعتبر الحد الفاصل في التاريخ الإقتصادي العالمي حيث قسم العالم ما بين عالم ما قبل ثروة الأمم وعالم ما بعده.
في كتابه يضع سميث قواعد الرأسمالية وينتقد النظام "الميركنتالي" والذي يدفع الدول للاستيلاء على الدول الأخرى كأمر حتمي لزيادة الثروة كما يدفع الدول على عدم الاستيراد إلا في المحدود، فهو نظام بدائي بحق "فالسياسات الميركانتيلية لا تعدو أن تكون محاكاة لإزدهار زائف وهي نفيد المحتكرين فقط ولا تفيد المستهلك وقصيرة النظر"
كذلك أن تراكم الذهب والفضة على عكس ما تقول الميركانتيلية لا تؤتي الثروات بل هو الاستثمار ويأتي ذلك الاستثمار عن طريق التجارة والتصدير وغيره، وضرب مثال شهير عن صناعة الدبابيس والمعطف الصوفي فالعمل المشترك بين فالعمال والتجار والرأسماليين على مستوى العالم سوف يخلق الإزدهار دون تدخل مركزي من الدوله فكل شيء محكم باليد الخفية.
هذه اليد الخفية التي تكلم عنها الناس كثيرا جدا من بعد آدم سميث إلا أن سميث ذات نفسه استخدم ذلك المصطلح مرات قليلة فقط في ثروة الأمم ويعني باليد الخفية هو أن أي شخص يسعى لمصلحته الذاتيه البحته ولكن يقاد بواسطة اليد الخفية لمصلحة المجتمع.
ثم استطرد الكاتب في الحديث عن اليد الخفية تلك اليد التي هي غالبا يد الله (لاحظ أن كلمة الله لم تذكر ولا مرة في ثروة الأمم).
إذا فسميث كان يشجع بحق الحرية الاقتصادية كما يوجد رسم بياني يوضح إرتفاع مستوى المعيشة في الدول التي تتبع سياستها لحرية اقتصادية أكبر.
وحبذ سميث كذلك بنجامين فرانكلين الإدخار.
واستمر هذا المذهب الكلاسيكي والذي كان شعاره أن الاقتصاد يسوده التناغم الطبيعي والحرية الاقتصادية، إلا أن جاء مالثوس عام 1798 بمقالة مفادها بأن الأرض لن تكفي حجات الإنسان وانه سيعيش على الكفاف لأن قدرة البشر على التكاثر تتجاوز قدرة الأرض على انتاج الكفاف الإنسان ثم إتباعهم لنموذج عدائي في توزيع الدخل، ولكنه قد أغفل عن التقدم التقني والزراعي، كذلك قد تم إثبات أن معدل الأطفال لكل أسرة ينخفض في الخمسين سنة الماضية كذلك كلما زاد الفرد ثراءا قلت رغبته في الإنجاب، ولكن من خلال رؤية مالثوس التشاؤمية لقب علم الاقتصاد بالعلم الكئيب.
وليس مالثوس بمفرده السبب في ذلك ولكن أيضا ريكاردو الذي أكد على النزاع الطبقي في توزيع الثروات وأتبعه في ذلك ستيوارت ميل وأصبح الاقتصاد علم فارق في المعادلات واللاوقعية حتي لقب بعلم السبورة.
فالاقتصاد السياسي لم يصبح البحث في طبيعة وأسباب الثروة بل أصبح البحث في القوانين المحددة لتوزيع ما ينتج بين الطبقات التي تعاونت في انتاجة، فالعمال عند ريكاردو هم آلات تنتج لصاحب العمل ويأخذون فقط ما يكفيهم من كفاف، وليس هذا فقط ما هيأ الوضع لقدوم ماركس ولكن كان يوجد خلل في فلسفة سميث الاقتصادية حيث لم يكن لديه مفهوما حقيقيا حول كيفية تحديد الأسعار وتكاليف العوامل الأنتاجية في السوق لتحقيق رغبات المستهلك.
فقال ساي قيمة السلع والخدمات تحدد بمنافعها.
فقال ماركس اللآليء ليست قيمة بل هي قيمة لأن الرجال يغوصون للحصول عليها، لذا قيمة المنتج بعدد ساعات العمل (نظرية القيمة في العمل).
ثم جاء ماركس الثوري بأفكاره الثورية التي قلبت الرأسمالية والاقتصاد رأس على عقب، وذلك بالطبع بمساعدة صديقه ورأسماله إنجلز فصدر أول كتاب مشترك بينهما كان يحمل اسم "نقد النقد النقدي" حيث كان يكن حقد دفين للرأسمالية فتقريبا ظل ماركس ينقد الرأسمالية أكثر من كلامه عن الشيوعية.
وماركس إعتمد في فلسفته على حتمية هيجل التاريخية أي أن الرأسمالية ستواجه شاءت أم أبت الاشتراكية كعدو لها وسينتج من ذلك الصراع جنة كارل ماركس وهي الشيوعية.
وسميث رأي أن سعي الافراد خلف مصالحهم تقود للخير على المجتمع بينما رأي ماركس عكس ذلك تماما فهي أنانيه وفوضوية، ورأي سميث أنها محكومة باليد الخفية التي توصلنا للمنفعة العامة ورأي ماركس أنها القبضة الحديدية التي تسحق العمال.
وماركس فلسفته معروفه في مطالبته بديكتاتورية بروليتارية شمولية وإلغاء القطاع الخاص لأنها سببا للجوع والصراع الطبقي وإلغاء النقود لأن النقود جعلت الرأسمالي جشع وأكثر طمعا فلم يعد ينظر لقيمة المنتج بل ينظر لجمع المال.
وذلك فقط ما قيل عن ماركس باستنثناء حياته وتنقلاته بين دول أوروبا بسبب أفكارة الجامحه ثم بعد ذلك يشن الكاتب هجوما لاذعا عن ماركس ويذكر كل ما قيل ضده كشخص أو كنظرية دون أن يذكر ردود الماركسيين على ذلك الهجوم، كذلك أدان الدول النامية لإتباعها الاشتراكية يوما ما وذلك بالطبع نقطة سوداء في ذلك الكتاب ولا أريد التوسع في الكلام عنها.
كذلك يحسب لماركس توقعه الممتاز في إزدهار الرأسمالية بين كل دول العالم وازدهار التجارة بينهم ولكن يحسب عليه إغفالة في أثر ذلك التقدم على العمال (الذين سيقودون ثورته الشيوعية على النظام الرأسمالي) من رخاء حتى اننا قد وصلنا إلى زمن أصبح في العمال أنفسهم رأسماليين في مشاريع أخرى!
ثم نجئ لواحدة من النظريات الثورية في علم الاقتصاد والتي تعرف بالثورة الحدية، فليس جهد العمال ولا وقت العمل هما ما يحددان للعمل قيمته بل هو المستهلك.
وماركس كان يرى أن العمال يستحقون الربح وليس فقط الريع ولكن يرى كلارك أن الرأسمالي هو من يستحق الربح الأكبر لأنه من يتحمل المخاطرات في بيع المنتج الخاص به ويتحمل مخاطرات أكثر من العمال أنفسهم، ولم تصمد إشتراكية ماركس أمام هذا الهجوم الذي امتلأ الكتاب به، والله أعلم بالحقيقة، حيث لم يذكر المؤلف دفاعا من الماركسيين.
وتخلل تلك الفترة حتى الكساد العالمي في الثلاثينيات العديد من الاقتصاديين أمثال فيشر وفبلين ولعل اشهرهم هما النمساويين ميزيس وهايك والذين تناولوا النقود كأي سلعة لذا زيادة الطلب عليها يقلل سعرها / قيمتها وقد حاولا وضع علاج لحالة الكساد الكبير تلك فقاموا بوضع حل سميثي كلاسيكي وهو خفض الأجور وتقليل تدخل الحكومة وتقليل الضرائب لذا لم يتم ذكرهما على نطاق واسع لأن الوضع كان شديد في البحث عن حل جذري، لذا الوضع كان مهيأ للكبير الثالث في علم الاقتصاد وهو كنز.
وكان الحل عند كنز للخروج من هذا الكساذ العظيم هو تماما عكس الحلول الكلاسيكية حيث شجعت نظرياته الحكومة على التدخل في الاقتصاد وهذا عكس تماما آدم سميث في الحرية الاقتصادية وزيادة الديون والضرائب التصاعدية، والرأسمالية عنده أمر غير مستقر لذا لم يتبع السياسه النقودية بل السياسة المالية.
ولعل الأمر المثير في نظريته هو حربه وحرب من بعده من الكنزيين أمثال سامويلسون على الإدخار وشجع على الاستهلاك، فالاستهلاك عنده أهم من الانتاج ذات نفسه.
وللخروج من الكساد يستلزم - عند كينز - زيادة الناتج الكلي أي عن طريق زيادة الاستثمار وزيادة الاستهلاك والذين يمتنعون في هذه الظروف خوفا من عدم تجدد دخولهم لذلك يأتي دور الحكومة فشجع كينز الحكومة على الانفاق ولو حتى أن تنفق بالعجز.
وبعدما مات كينز جاء سامويلسون ليطبق نظريات كينز بالرسم البياني وبالمعادلات، إلا أن سرعان ما اكتشف ان كينز كان على حق في المدى القصير فقط أو قل أوقات الكساد، جيث جاء مجموعه من الاقتصاديين على رأسهم بيجو وفريدمان وأعادوا النظام الاقتصادي الكلاسيكي لمساره مرة أخرى من خلال رفض نظرية كينز تماما فالادخار يؤدي للاستثمار على المدى البعيد، فمشكلة الكنزيين أنهم نظروا للمدخرات باعتبارها أموال ملقاة في أقبية البنوك، ويتم إثبات بأن السياسة النقدية لها دور كبير ليس كما قال كينز، لذلك يعود الاقتصاد مرة أخرى من رحلة استمرت ثلاثمائة سنة ليعظم شأن آدم سميث مرة أخرى.
وعلى الرغم من النقطة السوداء التي ذكرتها سابقاً وهي الهجوم الشرس على الماركسية وخلع المؤلف لرداء الحيادية وارتداءه لباس التعصب لأحد الأطراف، ولكني أدين للمؤلف على هذا العمل الممتاز المبسط في شرح تاريخ الاقتصاد بطريقة مختصرة، لذا لأ أمانع في إعطائه الخمس نجوم.

[Ujjwal Porwal · Rating 5 out of 5]

As someone who majored in Economics. There weren't any new concepts or ideas but this book really excelled in connecting the dots between those ideas. I really wished I should have found this book in college.

Gave a coherent story of the subject. The story of the subject as well as the bog thinkers. How ideas worked and how they failed.

The author was a bit biased towards capitalism and biased against socialism. I personally resonate with capitalist philosophy too but I wished the author should have painted a fact based story of Marx and his theory.

overall very nicely written. can't stop reading once started. Something very difficult to achieve in this genre.

[Alex Butt · Rating 1 out of 5]

Spoiler icon clicked - it’s a calamity.

Full of misinformation, intentional misinterpretations, painfully bias and lacks any objectivity. The author is clearly morally bankrupt with its homophobic undercurrents and claims that “capitalism...has liberated the worker from poverty, monopoly, war and oppression”. Where to begin?

Currently (March 2020 - London) in the midst of a coronavirus government advised lockdown and toilet paper shortage. Glad this book has one purpose.

[Gijs Limonard · Rating 3 out of 5]

Serviceable overview of the big three in economics; the writing is ok, not always that captivating; a lot of historical tidbits; as for the subject matter; dubbing economics the 'dismal science' is giving the whole sordid enterprise undue credit; it is not a science at all; it's a hotchpotch of math, sociology, psychology (in particular mass psychology), politics and perhaps most of all; fiction; the narratives that shape our collective choices in life, thereby distributing goods and services in a particular way in our societies.

[Kyle · Rating 1 out of 5]

A silly book that functions more as a polemic against Marx and a flimsy defense of classical economics than anything else. Shallow at best, right-wing brain-rotted at worst.

It fails utterly to address the mounting problems of supply side economics and capitalism generally and seems uninterested in doing so.

[Hosam · Rating 3 out of 5]

A good into book about modern theory of economics
It highlights life of Adam smith, Marx , and keneys
Although author is biased against marxism in some extent