What do you think?
Rate this book
Naked
Naked Economics: Undressing the Dismal Science
Naked Economics makes up for all of those Econ 101 lectures you slept through (or avoided) in college, demystifying key concepts, laying bare the truths behind the numbers, and answering those questions you have always been too embarrassed to ask. For all the discussion of Alan Greenspan in the media, does anyone know what the Fed actually does? And what about those blackouts in California? Were they a conspiracy on the part of the power companies? Economics is life. There's no way to understand the important issues without it. Now, with Charles Wheelan's breezy tour, there's no reason to fear this highly relevant subject. With the commonsensical examples and brilliantly acerbic commentary we've come to associate with The Economist, Wheelan brings economics to life. Amazingly, he does so with nary a chart, graph, or mathematical equation in sight—certainly a feat to be witnessed firsthand.
Economics is a crucial subject. There's no way to understand the important issues without it. Now, with Charles Wheelan's breezy tour, there's also no reason to fear it.
Economics is a crucial subject. There's no way to understand the important issues without it. Now, with Charles Wheelan's breezy tour, there's also no reason to fear it.
260 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2002
About the author
Charles Wheelan
20 books468 followersCharles Wheelan is a senior lecturer and policy fellow at the Rockefeller Center at Dartmouth College. He joined the Dartmouth faculty fulltime in June of 2012.
Wheelan’s most recent book, Naked Statistics: Stripping the Dread from the Data, was released by W.W. Norton in January of 2013. Three weeks later, it reached the New York Times bestseller list for hardback nonfiction. The San Francisco Chronicle called it a “brilliant, funny new book.” The New York Times described Wheelan as “the Dave Barry of the coin-flipping set.”
From 2004 to 2012, Wheelan was a senior lecturer in public policy at the Harris School of Public Policy at the University of Chicago. He taught several courses on understanding the policy process for Master’s students. For the 2004-05 academic year, he was voted Professor of the Year in a Non-Core Course by the Harris School student body.
In the fall of 2005, Wheelan created and taught the inaugural International Policy Practicum (IPP), in which 12 students studied economic reform in India for an academic term followed by a 10-day trip to Bangalore and Delhi to meet with economists, politicians, educators, civic leaders, and other experts. Subsequent IPPs have visited Brazil; Jordan and Israel; Turkey; Cambodia; and Rwanda and Madagascar.
In March of 2009, Wheelan ran unsuccessfully for Congress as the representative from the Illinois 5th District in the special election to replace Rahm Emanuel. In its editorial assessing the race, the Chicago Sun-Times wrote, “Voters will find a ballot filled with impressive and thoughtful candidates . . . especially Charlie Wheelan, a University of Chicago lecturer who combines a razor-sharp mind with a boatload of charm and an impressive expertise in economics and foreign policy. We expect great things from Wheelan in the future.”
Prior to joining the faculty at the University of Chicago, Wheelan was Director of Policy and Communications for Chicago Metropolis 2020, a business-backed civic group promoting healthy regional growth in the Chicago area.
From 1997 to 2002, Wheelan was the Midwest correspondent for The Economist. His story on America’s burgeoning ex-convict population was the August 10, 2002, cover story. He has written freelance articles for the Chicago Tribune, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and other publications.
Wheelan’s first book, Naked Economics: Undressing the Dismal Science, was published by W.W. Norton & Company in 2002. The book, an accessible and entertaining introduction to economics for lay readers, was released in paperback in September 2003 and is now published in 13 languages, including Arabic and Hebrew. The Chicago Tribune described Naked Economics as “clear, concise, informative and (gasp) witty.”
In 2007, Naked Economics was selected by 360 Degrees of Reading as one of the 360 books that every college bound student should read, alongside authors ranging from Sophocles to Malcolm X. Naked Economics was also selected as one The 100 Best Business Books of All Time by 800-CEO-READ.
Wheelan is also the author of 10 ½ Things No Commencement Speaker Has Ever Said and An Introduction to Public Policy, a comprehensive textbook on public policy published by W.W. Norton in November of 2010.
Wheelan holds a Ph.D. in public policy from the University of Chicago, a Master’s in Public Affairs from Princeton University, and a B.A. from Dartmouth College. He lives in Chicago with his wife and three children.
Wheelan’s most recent book, Naked Statistics: Stripping the Dread from the Data, was released by W.W. Norton in January of 2013. Three weeks later, it reached the New York Times bestseller list for hardback nonfiction. The San Francisco Chronicle called it a “brilliant, funny new book.” The New York Times described Wheelan as “the Dave Barry of the coin-flipping set.”
From 2004 to 2012, Wheelan was a senior lecturer in public policy at the Harris School of Public Policy at the University of Chicago. He taught several courses on understanding the policy process for Master’s students. For the 2004-05 academic year, he was voted Professor of the Year in a Non-Core Course by the Harris School student body.
In the fall of 2005, Wheelan created and taught the inaugural International Policy Practicum (IPP), in which 12 students studied economic reform in India for an academic term followed by a 10-day trip to Bangalore and Delhi to meet with economists, politicians, educators, civic leaders, and other experts. Subsequent IPPs have visited Brazil; Jordan and Israel; Turkey; Cambodia; and Rwanda and Madagascar.
In March of 2009, Wheelan ran unsuccessfully for Congress as the representative from the Illinois 5th District in the special election to replace Rahm Emanuel. In its editorial assessing the race, the Chicago Sun-Times wrote, “Voters will find a ballot filled with impressive and thoughtful candidates . . . especially Charlie Wheelan, a University of Chicago lecturer who combines a razor-sharp mind with a boatload of charm and an impressive expertise in economics and foreign policy. We expect great things from Wheelan in the future.”
Prior to joining the faculty at the University of Chicago, Wheelan was Director of Policy and Communications for Chicago Metropolis 2020, a business-backed civic group promoting healthy regional growth in the Chicago area.
From 1997 to 2002, Wheelan was the Midwest correspondent for The Economist. His story on America’s burgeoning ex-convict population was the August 10, 2002, cover story. He has written freelance articles for the Chicago Tribune, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and other publications.
Wheelan’s first book, Naked Economics: Undressing the Dismal Science, was published by W.W. Norton & Company in 2002. The book, an accessible and entertaining introduction to economics for lay readers, was released in paperback in September 2003 and is now published in 13 languages, including Arabic and Hebrew. The Chicago Tribune described Naked Economics as “clear, concise, informative and (gasp) witty.”
In 2007, Naked Economics was selected by 360 Degrees of Reading as one of the 360 books that every college bound student should read, alongside authors ranging from Sophocles to Malcolm X. Naked Economics was also selected as one The 100 Best Business Books of All Time by 800-CEO-READ.
Wheelan is also the author of 10 ½ Things No Commencement Speaker Has Ever Said and An Introduction to Public Policy, a comprehensive textbook on public policy published by W.W. Norton in November of 2010.
Wheelan holds a Ph.D. in public policy from the University of Chicago, a Master’s in Public Affairs from Princeton University, and a B.A. from Dartmouth College. He lives in Chicago with his wife and three children.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,304 reviews
January 9, 2012
A highly ideological piece masquerading as a non-controversial introduction to economics. Wheelan proclaims that economics is amoral and apolitical, and then goes on to give very detailed political descriptions about what government should be. He also seems attached to the false dichotomy of 'free' markets vs. communist state economies - though he does recognize that the neoconservative vision that markets will operate efficiently without government is, as he puts it, 'nonsense.'
I wanted to read this book in part because it has been so well read by many people my age, many who draw their primary arguments about economics and politics from Wheelan and others like him. Thus far, it has reinforced my impression that economists tend to lack any understanding/analysis of power in their work, and furthermore, that they could all stand to study a little ethics and anthropology, as well as some non behavioristic/deterministic psychology. There is little sense of the way cultural norms and social institutions shape human action, or the possibility for truly deeper understandings of human motivations for action beyond simple strivings for 'utility.' Yes, he tries to provide a definition for 'utility' beyond simply maximizing wealth, but all of his examples tend to flatten utility down to a question of price.
I actually finally put the book down because it was getting too annoying. Probably the most annoying argument, for me, was the standard 'sweatshops are good for people because otherwise they wouldn't have jobs.' The inadequate reasoning in such a statement has always baffled me. It assumes that what people need are jobs. This, in fact, is not the case. People need food and shelter and a decent quality of life. It so happens that currently, having a job is the predominant way many people gain access to food, shelter, and a decent quality of life. But sometimes - like for many people who work for close to little pay - a job does not in fact help one gain access to this, and instead traps one into a cycle of ever-tightening dependency on your employer while you live an increasingly impoverished and increasingly controlled life. Is this better than being impoverished but independent? I tend to think not.
I wanted to read this book in part because it has been so well read by many people my age, many who draw their primary arguments about economics and politics from Wheelan and others like him. Thus far, it has reinforced my impression that economists tend to lack any understanding/analysis of power in their work, and furthermore, that they could all stand to study a little ethics and anthropology, as well as some non behavioristic/deterministic psychology. There is little sense of the way cultural norms and social institutions shape human action, or the possibility for truly deeper understandings of human motivations for action beyond simple strivings for 'utility.' Yes, he tries to provide a definition for 'utility' beyond simply maximizing wealth, but all of his examples tend to flatten utility down to a question of price.
I actually finally put the book down because it was getting too annoying. Probably the most annoying argument, for me, was the standard 'sweatshops are good for people because otherwise they wouldn't have jobs.' The inadequate reasoning in such a statement has always baffled me. It assumes that what people need are jobs. This, in fact, is not the case. People need food and shelter and a decent quality of life. It so happens that currently, having a job is the predominant way many people gain access to food, shelter, and a decent quality of life. But sometimes - like for many people who work for close to little pay - a job does not in fact help one gain access to this, and instead traps one into a cycle of ever-tightening dependency on your employer while you live an increasingly impoverished and increasingly controlled life. Is this better than being impoverished but independent? I tend to think not.
June 1, 2007
Why did the chicken cross the road? To maximize his utility!
If you like this joke as much as I do, congratulations! You're an uber-nerd, and this is the perfect book for you. If you don't like the joke, stay away from my parties. Either way, this book is a very thorough, very clear explanation of a good foundation of economic principles, written with the non-Economists among us in mind. Why are tariffs bad? In what ways are sweatshops good? Why does everyone care so much about interest rates, and how do they affect me? These are the kinds of questions Wheelan addresses, but not in a stuffy, boring, academic "here's where the supply curve meets the demand curve" kind of way. Naked Economics is the economics professor with a few drinks in him, explaining these concepts in plain English with amusing anecdotes and relevant examples. He explains why certain things in the real world work as they do, why others should but don't, and what people and governments can do to address them. Kudos to Wheelan for spreading the Economics love, and, for the rest of you, read up. I'll be testing you the next time I see you.
If you like this joke as much as I do, congratulations! You're an uber-nerd, and this is the perfect book for you. If you don't like the joke, stay away from my parties. Either way, this book is a very thorough, very clear explanation of a good foundation of economic principles, written with the non-Economists among us in mind. Why are tariffs bad? In what ways are sweatshops good? Why does everyone care so much about interest rates, and how do they affect me? These are the kinds of questions Wheelan addresses, but not in a stuffy, boring, academic "here's where the supply curve meets the demand curve" kind of way. Naked Economics is the economics professor with a few drinks in him, explaining these concepts in plain English with amusing anecdotes and relevant examples. He explains why certain things in the real world work as they do, why others should but don't, and what people and governments can do to address them. Kudos to Wheelan for spreading the Economics love, and, for the rest of you, read up. I'll be testing you the next time I see you.
May 8, 2012
يتطرّق الكتاب إلى بعض من أكثر المفاهيم تأثيراً في الاقتصاد ، و لكنه يُبسّط الرواسخ المعقّدة أو يتخطّاها بالكامل . يُغطي كل فصل موضوعات يمكن أن تؤلف في كل منها كتاباً كاملاً .
ثمّة نقاط ثانويّة في كل فصلٍ تُشكل كل منها الآن حياة مهنيّة أكاديميّة كاملة . لايحتاج المرء أن يتكبّد العناء لكي يُدرك عظمة شئٍ ما ،
فهذا الكتاب غير موجّه لمحدودي الفهم بل موجّه للأذكياء ممن لم يدرسوا الاقتصاد من قبل . إن معظم الأفكار المهمّة التي يقوم عليها علم الاقتصاد تستتر خلف مجموعة من الأغطية التي تنطوي على كثيرٍ من التعقيد و التي متى أزحناها عنها نجدُ هذه الأفكار بدهيّة في الأصل وهذا هو المقصود بـ " الاقتصاد عارياً " !
- لاينبغي أن تقتصِر قراءة علم الاقتصاد على الخبراء فحسب . يجبُ أن تتوفّر كتابات عن هذا العلم يستمتع بقراءتها الناس تماماً مثلما يستمتعون بقراءاتهم عن الحرب الأهليّة أو السّيرة الذّاتيّة لأحد المشاهير *
- يبقى الكثير من مواطنينا يُعانون من الأميّة الاقتصاديّة !*
- لماذا جعل الاقتصاد انهيَار الاتحاد السوڤييتي أمراً حتميّاً ؟
لأن توزيع الموارد بدون نظام تسعير أمر غاية في الصعوبة على المدى البعيد .*
- ماهي الفوائد الاقتصاديّة التي يمنحها المدخنون لغير المدخنين ؟ يموت المدخنين مبكّراً ، و هذا يوفّر مزيداً من التأمين الاجتماعي و مزيداً من المعاشات الحكوميّة لنا جميعاً ! *
- لماذا يُعد منح الموظفات إجازات رعاية الطفل أمراً تتضرّر منه الأخريات ؟ لأن أرباب العمل تنموا لديهم نزعة تفرقة ضد المرأة أثناء عمليّة التعيين !*
- مُعظم طلاب الجامعة الأكثر نبوغاً ممن لديهم نهم للمعرفة يُعانون أثناء دراستهم لمادة ( اقتصاد ١٠١ ) *
- علم الاقتصاد يخبرنا عن مشاكل سياسيّة .*
- خلق الاقتصاد الأمريكي ملايين الوظائف الجديدة في العقد الماضي ، كل هذا دون أن تحاول الحكومة تقسيم ساعات العمل على الأفراد !*
- معظم الأفكار الاقتصاديّة المهمّة أفكارٌ بدهيّة ، فهي تستمد قوتها من منطقيّتها و قدرتها على استيعاب المشاكل اليوميّة .*
- لايتلقى الأفراد فاتورة عن كل مايُسبّبونه من ضررٍ بالبيئة و لكن المجتمع هو الذي يتلقاها في صورة تلوّث للهواء و احتباس حراري و زحف عمراني *
- يقدم لنا علم الاقتصاد مجموعة التحليليّة الفعّالة ، التي ليست بالضرورة معقّدة بل يمكن استخدامها لإعادة النظر في الأحداث التاريخيّة *
- علم الاقتصاد كمثل الجاذبيّة الأرضيّة تتجاهله و مع ذلك تجد نفسك داخله تواجه بعض المشكلات *
- يطرح الاقتصاديّون سؤالاً مجازيّاً : من يُطعم باريس ؟ الغرض منه جذب الانتباه إلى هذا الفيضزمن الأحداث اليوميّة التي تصرف الأذهان عن تقعيل الاقتصاد الحديث .*
- إن الاقتصاد هو فن الاستفادة القصوى من الحياة . *
- جون برنارد شو . يُقدّر البنك الدولي على أن نصف سكان العالم يعيشون على أقل من دولارين يومياً *
- زيادة المنفعة ليست مرادفة للأنانيّة *
- إن هناك عدداً لا نهائياً من الأشياء التي قد نقوم بعملها في أي وقت !*
- يتضمّن أي قرار نتخذه نوعاً من سياسة الاستبداد الـ trade-off . *
- قد نتنازل اليوم عن منفعة مقابل منفعة في المستقبل .*
- الحياة عبارة عن مجموعة من سياسات الاستبدال و كذلك حال علم الاقتصاد !*
- إن كل واحدٍ منا يُوازن - دون أن يدري - بين الفائدة من وراء كل شئ يفعله و بين ما يتكلّفه لفعل هذا الشئ .*
- ضع في اعتبارك أن الأشياء التي تمدُّنا بالمنفعة لا يجبُ أن تكون بالضرورة سِلعاً ماديّة !* التكلفة الحقيقة لسلعةٍ ما هي مقدار ما يجب أن تتنازل عنه من أشياء !*
- أي نشاط تجاري يحاول زيادة أرباحه ( أي العائد بعد طرح تكلفة إنتاجه ) .*
- يجب أن تقرّر الشركات ماذا ستنتج و كيف و أين ستنتجه ، و كميّة ماستنتجه و السعر الذي ستبيعُ به ذلك المنتج .*
- الفروق الضئيلة في الموهبة قد تتضخم إلى فروق عملاقة في الأجور *
- إن وجود الدافع قد يكون أفضل قليلاً من مجرد المنافسة *
- اقتصاد السوق قوة فعالة لتحويل حياتنا للأفضل *
- الطريقة الوحيدة التي تجني بها أيّة شركة أرباحاً هي : توزيع السلع التي يريد المستهلك شراءها .*
- الأرباح هي المحرّك لأكثر أعمالنا قيمة *
- السُّوق لايهتم بالأخلاقيّات !*
- السوق مثله مثل المناورة الحربيّة ، فهو قوّة فعّالة تستمد طاقتها من مُساندة القويّ و الذكي هو الذي يقتنص الفرَص !*
- الوظيفة الأساسيّة لأي نظام اقتصاديّ هي تحديد من سيحصل على ماذا ؟ *
- لأننا نستخدم الأسعار لتوزيع السلع ، ف��لكثير من الأسواق تصحّح أخطاءها ذاتياً *
-إذا استقرّت الأسعار في نظام السوق فسوف تجد الشركات الخاصّة طريقاً آخر للمنافسَة *
-إن كل تعامل داخل السُّوق يعودُ بالمكسب على جميع الأطراف *
-عبارة جون كيندي الشهيرة " الحياة ليست عدلاً " كذلك الرأسماليّة ليست عدلاً في بعض ملامحها المهمة .*
- علاقة اقتصاد السوق بعلم الاقتصاد تُشبه تماماً علاقة الديمقراطيّة بالحكومة * الأسواق تتفِق مع وجهات نظرنا في الحريّة الفرديّة *
-حينما تحكّمت الحكومات الشيوعيّة في القرن الـ ٢٠ في اقتصاديّاتها بواسطة التحكم بحياة المواطنين فسَد الاقتصاد و المواطن معاً *
- الصراع الاقتصادي في القرن العشرين كان بين الشيوعيّة و الرأسماليّة و فازت الرأسمالية *
- إن المعركة الأساسيّة للاقتصاد في القرن الـ ٢١ ستكون حول كيفيّة تحرير أسواقنا من القيود !*
June 8, 2015
منذ مدة وأنا أحاول الولوج إلى عالم الإقتصاد البحت، خاصة بعد اشتغالي بالإقتصاد السلوكي behavioural economic والذي تخالف أطروحاته و غالب أفكاره الإقتصاد التقليدي من حيث سلوك الإنسان المتوقع.
وكلما سمعت مصطلحات الإقتصاديين أو مررن بها شعرت بجهلي من جهة، وبحاجتي على فهم هذا العلم من جهة أخرى.
وقد هداني الله لهذاالكتاب كمقدمة ومدخل لفهم الإقتصاد (بالإضافة إلى كتب أخرى وفيديوهات) أرجو من الله أن تكون كافية ووافية لمهتم غير متخصص مثلي.
يعرض الكتاب (الإقتصاد عاريا) لمفاهيم عديدة وكثيرة من تلك التي يكثر تكرارها في معرض الحديث عن العالم وأحواله واضطراباته أو تقدمه أو تخلفه. ويعرض الكاتب للمسائل عرض صحفي بارع، فلا ينفك ينقلك من مثال إلى مثال، ومن نموذج توضيحي إلى نموذج حتى تصلك الفكرة التي يناقشها، كما يعتمد على أقوال توضيحية لأبرز مفكري الإقتصاد، بالإضافة إلى استثارة أسئلة شيقة تستفز عقل القاريء لمزيد من التفكر والفهم.
وفي نهاية المطاف تجد أن الإقتصاد ليس شهادة ومهنة، بل هو طريقة لفهم الحياة من خلال طرح أسئلة أشد أعمقا عن الأمور التي تبدو أكثر بداهة.
أظن أن الكتاب يحتاج إلى تنسيق وتبويب أفضل، ويشكر لدار كلمات عربية حسن ترجمتها وجمال صياغتها.
وكلما سمعت مصطلحات الإقتصاديين أو مررن بها شعرت بجهلي من جهة، وبحاجتي على فهم هذا العلم من جهة أخرى.
وقد هداني الله لهذاالكتاب كمقدمة ومدخل لفهم الإقتصاد (بالإضافة إلى كتب أخرى وفيديوهات) أرجو من الله أن تكون كافية ووافية لمهتم غير متخصص مثلي.
يعرض الكتاب (الإقتصاد عاريا) لمفاهيم عديدة وكثيرة من تلك التي يكثر تكرارها في معرض الحديث عن العالم وأحواله واضطراباته أو تقدمه أو تخلفه. ويعرض الكاتب للمسائل عرض صحفي بارع، فلا ينفك ينقلك من مثال إلى مثال، ومن نموذج توضيحي إلى نموذج حتى تصلك الفكرة التي يناقشها، كما يعتمد على أقوال توضيحية لأبرز مفكري الإقتصاد، بالإضافة إلى استثارة أسئلة شيقة تستفز عقل القاريء لمزيد من التفكر والفهم.
وفي نهاية المطاف تجد أن الإقتصاد ليس شهادة ومهنة، بل هو طريقة لفهم الحياة من خلال طرح أسئلة أشد أعمقا عن الأمور التي تبدو أكثر بداهة.
أظن أن الكتاب يحتاج إلى تنسيق وتبويب أفضل، ويشكر لدار كلمات عربية حسن ترجمتها وجمال صياغتها.
July 17, 2022
٤.٥
ألقيت على عتق الكاتب حملا ثقيلا، إذ حمّلته عبء الإبانة عن علم الاقتصاد وآلية عمله، وأثقلت عليه بتهديده أنها الفرصة الأخيرة التي سأمنحها لعلم الاقتصاد، إذ يعد المجال الوحيد -وهذه من النوادر- الذي لا ينال اهتمامي لجمود مصطلحاته وثقل محاضراته على نفسي، إلا أن الكاتب أجاد فكان كتابه مقدمة دسمة تصلح للمؤلفة قلوبهم -أمثالي- في بيان الأسس وتقريب الصورة.
وقد صدق الكاتب وعده بألا يتضمن هذا الكتاب مخططات أو رسوما بيانية، أو كما ذكر بأنه لن يفعل كما يفعله من يُسأل عن الجو بالخارج فيجيب بدرجة الحرارة، بل بوصف هذه الحرارة وبيان آثارها وطبيعتها.
ابتداء: أ��تذر للعم ماركس، وللرفيق أنجلز الذي لم تمض على قراءة كتابه إلا أسابيع معدودة، إذ وإن بدت الاشتراكية أشهى وأقرب للمثالية على الورق، فإن الرأسمالية تبدو أكثر واقعية ونفعا على الأرض.
الكتاب جيد، ويتحدث بلغة واقعية..
وأغلب ما ذكره مهم وأساسي، لكنني أخطأت السؤال والبحث، فمنطقة تساؤلاتي تدور حول صورة معينة في مجال الاقتصاد أبحث عن إجابة تفصيلية في بيانها، وهي تكون المال والعملة النقدية وكيف حلت محل الذهب والفضة ونحوها من الأثمان، ثم ما هي آلية عمل البنوك المركزية، وفكرة التضخم في النقد، وضخ الأموال..إلخ، وهو وإن أشار إلى بعضها هنا، إلا أنه أجاب عنها باستفاضة في كتابه الآخر “المال عاريا” والذي سيكون هدفي القادم بعون الله.
يذكر الكاتب أنه بينما كان جدار برلين يهدم، اتخذ رئيس شركة كوكاكولا في أوروبا قرار توزيع الصودا مجانا عبر ثغرات في الجدار، والذي أدى لخسارة مؤقتة مقابل منفعة كبرى على المدى البعيد، إذ شقت كوكاكولا طريقها مبكرا في ألمانيا الشرقية وكونت لها سوقا قوية هنالك بالفعل.
لم تقم الشركة حينها بعمل إنساني، وإنما كانت تسعى إلى القيام بنشاط تجاري، وتوسيع نطاق سوق كوكاكولا العالمية، وإسعاد المساهمين. وهذا هو جوهر الرأسمالية: تحديد وترتيب الحوافز بطريقة تجعل الأفراد الذين يعملون لمصلحتهم الخاصة يحسّنون مستوى معيشة معظم أفراد المجتمع -وإن لم يكن جميعهم-.
بصراحة: ما أجمل القراءة من الطرف المقابل.. نعم، المقابل. وذلك لأن قوام الاقتصاد على المال والمنفعة، التي هي قوام الرأسمالية، الغول الحالي للبشرية، وبفهم مآلات بعض قوانينها التي تبدو معادية للإنسان -لاسيما الفقير-، يتبين لك ما يخفيه عنك جدار الحاضر، ففي الوقت الذي يبدو فيه أن كثيرا من الأسس التي يقوم عليها الاقتصاد العالمي يتنامى في ظل استغلال رغباتنا، والانتفاع من محفزاتنا ودوافعنا، هذا الاستغلال الذي يظهر بادي الرأي جشعا -وهو كذلك-، إلا أن انعدامه كما يحول بيننا وبين جشع التاجر، فإنه يقضي على المنافع التي نتجت عن جشعه وحرصه -التطور في الأدوات والصناعة، ورغد العيش، إلخ-.
وسأرسم لك مشهدا يتضح به الحديث:
“أ” من الناس مستور الحال أصيب بمرض ما.
شركة الأدوية “س” توصلت لدواء هذا المرض لكنها طرحته بسعر تكلفة عالي جدا لا يستطيعه “أ”.
كلفة التصنيع قليلة، وثمن الدواء الفعلي عشر أعشار هذا المبلغ، وصاحب الشركة مقتدر يكفيه ١٪ من أرباحها..
ما تبدو عليه الصورة أن تلك الشركة شريرة، وأن هذا العالم مادي -وهو كذلك-، وأن هذا العالم صنع ليتمتع فيه الأثرياء بكل مقومات العيش بل والترف.
على الجانب الآخر من المشهد:
لو لم تقم شركة الأدوية “س” بالحصول على براءة اختراع لبعض أدويتها وضمان احتكارها، لما قامت بضخ كل تلك الاستثمارات الضخمة من أجل ابتكار الدواء ابتداء، فالتكلفة الحقيقية للدواء ليست في ثمن تصنيعه بل ما أنفق في الأبحاث والدراسات الكثيرة التي يمثل الفشل فيها نسبة ٩٠٪ والتي لا سبيل لتعويضها إلا عن طريق هذا الدواء الناجح.
من هنا كان هذا المثال مصداق ما ذكره بول كروجمان: “إن العولمة التي يحركها السعي للربح لا الإنسانية، قد قدمت من الخير لكثير من الناس ما يفوق ما فعلته جميع المعونات الأجنبية والقروض الميسرة من الحكومات ذات النيات الحسنة والوكالات الدولية” ثم أضاف آسفا: “لكنني -بحكم الخبرة- أدرك أنني بقولي هذا قد ضمنت لنفسي سيلا من خطابات الكراهية”.
يبدو كلامه مقبولا ومفهوما، فالخطط التي تعمل على تحفيز البشر واستغلال دوافعهم وتطلعاتهم، هي ما يدفعهم للعمل وتحسين المعيشة أكثر مما تفعله المعونات الخيرية. وهو رأي إيسترلي الذي يميل لإقامة مشاريع صغيرة مناسبة لسياقات الدول الفقيرة وذات منافع قابلة للقياس على مساعدتها بمعونات خيرية، فالدول الفقيرة -كما ذكر الكاتب- كالناس الفقيرة، عادة ما يكون لها عادات بالغة السوء تحول بينهم وبين الانتفاع بالمساعدات على المدى الطويل.
نعم، ما يدور بذهنك عن خيانتي لكتاب الرفيق أنجلز بعد هذا الكتاب يبدو صحيحا، لكن الرأسمالية تؤكد لي أنها أكثر عقلانية، وتملك الكثير من المبررات مقابل شعارات ومثالية النظم الشيوعية، وأتفق معك على أن هنالك الكثير من الحلول أو لنقل الضوابط التي تساهم في تقليل الفجوة بين الطبقات والتي أغفلها النظام الحالي، وأن ما ذكره الأستاذ ليس مبررا لجشع التجار واستغلالهم، لكن على الأقل أكسبني فهما واقعيا لآلية العمل ضمن مظلة علم الاقتصاد ومبرراته.
كما أن لسان حاله هو: أن طبيعة عمله ساهمت بشكل واضح وغير قابل للطعن في التطور المذهل الذي وصل إليه حالنا اليوم، حتى أضحت معايير الفقر مبنية على عوامل لم يحلم بها أثرياء القرن السابق كالكهرباء، وامتلاك سيارة، والحصول على التعليم، ونحوه.
فإن تسبب في حرمان الحداد من لقمة عيشه لتطور الأدوات والصناعات في هذا المجال، فقد ساهم في دخول الآلات لبيته وتوفير الوقت له في تعلم ما قد ينفعه ويعود على أسلوب حياته بالرخاء والاستقرار.
أظن أن تفاوت آرائنا من الرأسمالية يشبه ترددنا في إعطاء المتسول مالا؛ انطلاقا من قيمنا وتعاليمنا، أو منعه؛ حفاظا على مصالح كبرى تصب في المنفعة العامة لمجتمعنا.
وهذا الحديث يذكرني بنقاش أزلي بيني وبين أحد أخوالي عن أزمة ما يدعى بـ”المصلحة والمقاصد” في السياسة وما هو الضابط الذي يضمن للمواطن عدم بطش الدولة باسم المصلحة العامة وضمان بقاء الأنظمة التي يحفظ بها حال الناس.. والذي أكد لي أن حديث الضوابط هو الحديث الذي سيظل مطروحا ما بقي البشر ومجتمعاتهم، وأننا نكاد نتفق على القيم الكبرى، لكننا نختلف في حد الضوابط وآلية العمل والتطبيق.
يجيب هذا الكتاب على أسئلة من قبيل:
-لماذا دفع صاحب الكرسي الذي بجانبي في الطائرة ثمنا مختلفا عما دفعته؟
-أهمية الحوافز وعلاقتها بـ”معضلة السجين”؟
-لماذا يستطيع بلد إرسال رجل إلى سطح القمر بينما ينام فيه بعض الناس في الشوارع؟
-لماذا تمارس شركة الأدوية الجشع في المنتجات الطبية التي قد تنقذ المرضى؟
-لماذا ينتبه العالم لخبر اصطدام طائرة بجبل كليمنجارو -على قلة الإصابات- بينما تقتل الملاريا في دول العالم الثالث مليون شخصا دون أن يأبه لهم أحد؟
-لماذا وحينما نسافر لأقصى الأرض نفضل “ماكدونالدز” على المطاعم الأخرى التي قد تقدم أفضل شطائر لحم في تلك المنطقة؟
-لماذا يتقاضى لاعب الكرة أضعاف ما يتقاضاه روبرت سولو الحاصل على جائزة نوبل في الاقتصاد؟
-هل يفقد شخص وظيفته مقابل حصول آخر عليها؟
-لماذا يبدو ثمن علاج كلبي أرخص من ثمن علاجي مع تساوي المواد والكلفة التصنيعية؟
-كيف نقيس مستوى معيشة الفرد؟
-هل ارتفاع سعر الدجاجة عن الأمس مدعاة للشكوى؟
-ما الذي يعنيه ارتفاع أو انخفاض قيمة العملة؟
-هل مصانع السخرة هي السبب في تدني أجور العمال في البلدان الفقيرة؟ وهل المقاطعة هي الحل؟
-هل تلوث البيئة والاحتباس الحراري ووإلخ نتاج عولمة التجارة؟
-هل التبرعات الخيرية هي الطريقة المثلى لمساعدة البلدان الفقيرة؟
-ما الحياة من وجهة النظر الاقتصادية؟
اقتباسات على هيئة خلاصات اقتصادية:
-يتضمن كل قرار نتخذه نوعا من المقايضة، فلربما قايضنا تحقيق المنفعة الآن بتحقيق منفعة ما في المستقبل. إن الحياة تقوم على المقايضات، وكذلك الاقتصاد.
-لا أقول إن السوق مجرد من الأخلاقيات، وإنما لا يأبه لها. فالسوق يكافئ فكرة الندرة، والتي لا ترتبط بالقيمة بأي شكل من الأشكال.
-لا يقدم السوق المنتجات التي نحتاج إليها، وإنما التي نريد شراءها، وهذا فارق بالغ الأهمية.
-إن كلا من الرأسمالية والشيوعية يتحكم في توزيع السلع، لكن النظام الرأسمالي يفعل ذلك من خلال الأسعار، أما السوفييتيون فكانوا يفعلون ذلك من خلال الانتظار في الطوابير (قطع اللحم من حظ الأوائل في الطابور).
-لا يمنحنا علم الاقتصاد إجابة صحيحة، بل يمنحنا وحسب إطارا تحليليا للتفكير في الأسئلة المهمة.
-الوظائف توجد وقتما قدم شخص سلعة أو خدمة جديدة، أو وجد طريقة أفضل أو أرخص لتقديم سلعة أو خدمة قديمة -وهي حقيقة تدحض مخاوف السياسيين من تأثير المهاجرين واللاجئين على قطاع الوظائف-.
-الثروة النسبية -حجم فطيرتي مقارنة بحجم فطيرة جاري- عامل محدد مهم للمنفعة.
-إن اختيار الأسهم يشبه إلى حد كبير محاولة اختيار أقصر طابور دفع في متجر البقالة.
-مستوى معيشة الفرد يتوقف على مقدار السلع والخدمات التي يمكنه أن يحصل عليها، لا على السعر الذي يظهر على ماكينة تسجيل النقود.
-ليس هناك من مبرر حقيقي للشكوى من ارتفاع سعر الدجاج عن الأمس، فقد تقلص عدد الساعات التي كان على المرء أن يقضيها في العمل ليتمكن من شراء دجاجة اليوم (ثلاثين دقيقة) عن الأمس (ساعتين وسبع وثلاثين دقيقة) = تقليص الوقت مقابل ارتفاع السعر.
-العملة الضعيفة تخدم المصدّرين وتعاقب المستوردين.
-مستوى معيشتنا ارتفع؛ لأننا استطعنا التركيز على ما نحسن صنعه من مهام ونتاجر في غيره.
-ينبغي أن لا نخلط بين السبب والتأثير. ليست مصانع السخرة المتسببة في تدني الأجور في البلدان الفقيرة، وإنما هي البلدان التي لا تقدم للعمال إلا بدائل قليلة.
-من لم يكن اشتراكيا قبل بلوغه الثلاثين فلا قلب له، ومن ظل اشتراكيا بعد تخطيه الثلاثين فلا عقل له.
-لدى الاقتصاديين: الحياة هي تعظيم المنفعة لا تعظيم الدخل.
مشكلة الكتاب -وهل نجا منها كتاب؟- أنه مصبوغ برؤى وأفكار وثقافة صاحبه، والذي يبدو لي أنه رجل أمريكي ليبرالي أبيض، يدعم الرأسمالية، ويحرك مخاوفه في الدفاع والتبرير ما يحرك الأمريكي من دوافع وهموم، وهذا النمط نمط مناسب تماما في ظني لتبني شرح الاقتصاد الحالي، لأنه نتاج الرجل الأمريكي الأبيض ….إلخ، فمن الجيد فهمه ضمن إطاره، لكن ما الذي تمنيته؟ أن أقرأ لوجهات نظر أخرى أثناء القراءة، لأنه يسهل انطلاء المبررات علي والتأثر بنظرة الكاتب لأميتي التامة في باب الاقتصاد وأسراره، ولهيمنة الرأسمالية نظاما وثقافة، مما يعني هيمنة مبادئها ومبرراتها مقابل ضعف وجهة النظر المقابلة.
هل أصاب الكاتب في كثير من أطروحاته؟
نعم، من زاوية نظر اقتصادية..
لكن من قال بأننا نرى العالم من تلك الزاوية فقط؟
ألقيت على عتق الكاتب حملا ثقيلا، إذ حمّلته عبء الإبانة عن علم الاقتصاد وآلية عمله، وأثقلت عليه بتهديده أنها الفرصة الأخيرة التي سأمنحها لعلم الاقتصاد، إذ يعد المجال الوحيد -وهذه من النوادر- الذي لا ينال اهتمامي لجمود مصطلحاته وثقل محاضراته على نفسي، إلا أن الكاتب أجاد فكان كتابه مقدمة دسمة تصلح للمؤلفة قلوبهم -أمثالي- في بيان الأسس وتقريب الصورة.
وقد صدق الكاتب وعده بألا يتضمن هذا الكتاب مخططات أو رسوما بيانية، أو كما ذكر بأنه لن يفعل كما يفعله من يُسأل عن الجو بالخارج فيجيب بدرجة الحرارة، بل بوصف هذه الحرارة وبيان آثارها وطبيعتها.
ابتداء: أ��تذر للعم ماركس، وللرفيق أنجلز الذي لم تمض على قراءة كتابه إلا أسابيع معدودة، إذ وإن بدت الاشتراكية أشهى وأقرب للمثالية على الورق، فإن الرأسمالية تبدو أكثر واقعية ونفعا على الأرض.
الكتاب جيد، ويتحدث بلغة واقعية..
وأغلب ما ذكره مهم وأساسي، لكنني أخطأت السؤال والبحث، فمنطقة تساؤلاتي تدور حول صورة معينة في مجال الاقتصاد أبحث عن إجابة تفصيلية في بيانها، وهي تكون المال والعملة النقدية وكيف حلت محل الذهب والفضة ونحوها من الأثمان، ثم ما هي آلية عمل البنوك المركزية، وفكرة التضخم في النقد، وضخ الأموال..إلخ، وهو وإن أشار إلى بعضها هنا، إلا أنه أجاب عنها باستفاضة في كتابه الآخر “المال عاريا” والذي سيكون هدفي القادم بعون الله.
يذكر الكاتب أنه بينما كان جدار برلين يهدم، اتخذ رئيس شركة كوكاكولا في أوروبا قرار توزيع الصودا مجانا عبر ثغرات في الجدار، والذي أدى لخسارة مؤقتة مقابل منفعة كبرى على المدى البعيد، إذ شقت كوكاكولا طريقها مبكرا في ألمانيا الشرقية وكونت لها سوقا قوية هنالك بالفعل.
لم تقم الشركة حينها بعمل إنساني، وإنما كانت تسعى إلى القيام بنشاط تجاري، وتوسيع نطاق سوق كوكاكولا العالمية، وإسعاد المساهمين. وهذا هو جوهر الرأسمالية: تحديد وترتيب الحوافز بطريقة تجعل الأفراد الذين يعملون لمصلحتهم الخاصة يحسّنون مستوى معيشة معظم أفراد المجتمع -وإن لم يكن جميعهم-.
بصراحة: ما أجمل القراءة من الطرف المقابل.. نعم، المقابل. وذلك لأن قوام الاقتصاد على المال والمنفعة، التي هي قوام الرأسمالية، الغول الحالي للبشرية، وبفهم مآلات بعض قوانينها التي تبدو معادية للإنسان -لاسيما الفقير-، يتبين لك ما يخفيه عنك جدار الحاضر، ففي الوقت الذي يبدو فيه أن كثيرا من الأسس التي يقوم عليها الاقتصاد العالمي يتنامى في ظل استغلال رغباتنا، والانتفاع من محفزاتنا ودوافعنا، هذا الاستغلال الذي يظهر بادي الرأي جشعا -وهو كذلك-، إلا أن انعدامه كما يحول بيننا وبين جشع التاجر، فإنه يقضي على المنافع التي نتجت عن جشعه وحرصه -التطور في الأدوات والصناعة، ورغد العيش، إلخ-.
وسأرسم لك مشهدا يتضح به الحديث:
“أ” من الناس مستور الحال أصيب بمرض ما.
شركة الأدوية “س” توصلت لدواء هذا المرض لكنها طرحته بسعر تكلفة عالي جدا لا يستطيعه “أ”.
كلفة التصنيع قليلة، وثمن الدواء الفعلي عشر أعشار هذا المبلغ، وصاحب الشركة مقتدر يكفيه ١٪ من أرباحها..
ما تبدو عليه الصورة أن تلك الشركة شريرة، وأن هذا العالم مادي -وهو كذلك-، وأن هذا العالم صنع ليتمتع فيه الأثرياء بكل مقومات العيش بل والترف.
على الجانب الآخر من المشهد:
لو لم تقم شركة الأدوية “س” بالحصول على براءة اختراع لبعض أدويتها وضمان احتكارها، لما قامت بضخ كل تلك الاستثمارات الضخمة من أجل ابتكار الدواء ابتداء، فالتكلفة الحقيقية للدواء ليست في ثمن تصنيعه بل ما أنفق في الأبحاث والدراسات الكثيرة التي يمثل الفشل فيها نسبة ٩٠٪ والتي لا سبيل لتعويضها إلا عن طريق هذا الدواء الناجح.
من هنا كان هذا المثال مصداق ما ذكره بول كروجمان: “إن العولمة التي يحركها السعي للربح لا الإنسانية، قد قدمت من الخير لكثير من الناس ما يفوق ما فعلته جميع المعونات الأجنبية والقروض الميسرة من الحكومات ذات النيات الحسنة والوكالات الدولية” ثم أضاف آسفا: “لكنني -بحكم الخبرة- أدرك أنني بقولي هذا قد ضمنت لنفسي سيلا من خطابات الكراهية”.
يبدو كلامه مقبولا ومفهوما، فالخطط التي تعمل على تحفيز البشر واستغلال دوافعهم وتطلعاتهم، هي ما يدفعهم للعمل وتحسين المعيشة أكثر مما تفعله المعونات الخيرية. وهو رأي إيسترلي الذي يميل لإقامة مشاريع صغيرة مناسبة لسياقات الدول الفقيرة وذات منافع قابلة للقياس على مساعدتها بمعونات خيرية، فالدول الفقيرة -كما ذكر الكاتب- كالناس الفقيرة، عادة ما يكون لها عادات بالغة السوء تحول بينهم وبين الانتفاع بالمساعدات على المدى الطويل.
نعم، ما يدور بذهنك عن خيانتي لكتاب الرفيق أنجلز بعد هذا الكتاب يبدو صحيحا، لكن الرأسمالية تؤكد لي أنها أكثر عقلانية، وتملك الكثير من المبررات مقابل شعارات ومثالية النظم الشيوعية، وأتفق معك على أن هنالك الكثير من الحلول أو لنقل الضوابط التي تساهم في تقليل الفجوة بين الطبقات والتي أغفلها النظام الحالي، وأن ما ذكره الأستاذ ليس مبررا لجشع التجار واستغلالهم، لكن على الأقل أكسبني فهما واقعيا لآلية العمل ضمن مظلة علم الاقتصاد ومبرراته.
كما أن لسان حاله هو: أن طبيعة عمله ساهمت بشكل واضح وغير قابل للطعن في التطور المذهل الذي وصل إليه حالنا اليوم، حتى أضحت معايير الفقر مبنية على عوامل لم يحلم بها أثرياء القرن السابق كالكهرباء، وامتلاك سيارة، والحصول على التعليم، ونحوه.
فإن تسبب في حرمان الحداد من لقمة عيشه لتطور الأدوات والصناعات في هذا المجال، فقد ساهم في دخول الآلات لبيته وتوفير الوقت له في تعلم ما قد ينفعه ويعود على أسلوب حياته بالرخاء والاستقرار.
أظن أن تفاوت آرائنا من الرأسمالية يشبه ترددنا في إعطاء المتسول مالا؛ انطلاقا من قيمنا وتعاليمنا، أو منعه؛ حفاظا على مصالح كبرى تصب في المنفعة العامة لمجتمعنا.
وهذا الحديث يذكرني بنقاش أزلي بيني وبين أحد أخوالي عن أزمة ما يدعى بـ”المصلحة والمقاصد” في السياسة وما هو الضابط الذي يضمن للمواطن عدم بطش الدولة باسم المصلحة العامة وضمان بقاء الأنظمة التي يحفظ بها حال الناس.. والذي أكد لي أن حديث الضوابط هو الحديث الذي سيظل مطروحا ما بقي البشر ومجتمعاتهم، وأننا نكاد نتفق على القيم الكبرى، لكننا نختلف في حد الضوابط وآلية العمل والتطبيق.
يجيب هذا الكتاب على أسئلة من قبيل:
-لماذا دفع صاحب الكرسي الذي بجانبي في الطائرة ثمنا مختلفا عما دفعته؟
-أهمية الحوافز وعلاقتها بـ”معضلة السجين”؟
-لماذا يستطيع بلد إرسال رجل إلى سطح القمر بينما ينام فيه بعض الناس في الشوارع؟
-لماذا تمارس شركة الأدوية الجشع في المنتجات الطبية التي قد تنقذ المرضى؟
-لماذا ينتبه العالم لخبر اصطدام طائرة بجبل كليمنجارو -على قلة الإصابات- بينما تقتل الملاريا في دول العالم الثالث مليون شخصا دون أن يأبه لهم أحد؟
-لماذا وحينما نسافر لأقصى الأرض نفضل “ماكدونالدز” على المطاعم الأخرى التي قد تقدم أفضل شطائر لحم في تلك المنطقة؟
-لماذا يتقاضى لاعب الكرة أضعاف ما يتقاضاه روبرت سولو الحاصل على جائزة نوبل في الاقتصاد؟
-هل يفقد شخص وظيفته مقابل حصول آخر عليها؟
-لماذا يبدو ثمن علاج كلبي أرخص من ثمن علاجي مع تساوي المواد والكلفة التصنيعية؟
-كيف نقيس مستوى معيشة الفرد؟
-هل ارتفاع سعر الدجاجة عن الأمس مدعاة للشكوى؟
-ما الذي يعنيه ارتفاع أو انخفاض قيمة العملة؟
-هل مصانع السخرة هي السبب في تدني أجور العمال في البلدان الفقيرة؟ وهل المقاطعة هي الحل؟
-هل تلوث البيئة والاحتباس الحراري ووإلخ نتاج عولمة التجارة؟
-هل التبرعات الخيرية هي الطريقة المثلى لمساعدة البلدان الفقيرة؟
-ما الحياة من وجهة النظر الاقتصادية؟
اقتباسات على هيئة خلاصات اقتصادية:
-يتضمن كل قرار نتخذه نوعا من المقايضة، فلربما قايضنا تحقيق المنفعة الآن بتحقيق منفعة ما في المستقبل. إن الحياة تقوم على المقايضات، وكذلك الاقتصاد.
-لا أقول إن السوق مجرد من الأخلاقيات، وإنما لا يأبه لها. فالسوق يكافئ فكرة الندرة، والتي لا ترتبط بالقيمة بأي شكل من الأشكال.
-لا يقدم السوق المنتجات التي نحتاج إليها، وإنما التي نريد شراءها، وهذا فارق بالغ الأهمية.
-إن كلا من الرأسمالية والشيوعية يتحكم في توزيع السلع، لكن النظام الرأسمالي يفعل ذلك من خلال الأسعار، أما السوفييتيون فكانوا يفعلون ذلك من خلال الانتظار في الطوابير (قطع اللحم من حظ الأوائل في الطابور).
-لا يمنحنا علم الاقتصاد إجابة صحيحة، بل يمنحنا وحسب إطارا تحليليا للتفكير في الأسئلة المهمة.
-الوظائف توجد وقتما قدم شخص سلعة أو خدمة جديدة، أو وجد طريقة أفضل أو أرخص لتقديم سلعة أو خدمة قديمة -وهي حقيقة تدحض مخاوف السياسيين من تأثير المهاجرين واللاجئين على قطاع الوظائف-.
-الثروة النسبية -حجم فطيرتي مقارنة بحجم فطيرة جاري- عامل محدد مهم للمنفعة.
-إن اختيار الأسهم يشبه إلى حد كبير محاولة اختيار أقصر طابور دفع في متجر البقالة.
-مستوى معيشة الفرد يتوقف على مقدار السلع والخدمات التي يمكنه أن يحصل عليها، لا على السعر الذي يظهر على ماكينة تسجيل النقود.
-ليس هناك من مبرر حقيقي للشكوى من ارتفاع سعر الدجاج عن الأمس، فقد تقلص عدد الساعات التي كان على المرء أن يقضيها في العمل ليتمكن من شراء دجاجة اليوم (ثلاثين دقيقة) عن الأمس (ساعتين وسبع وثلاثين دقيقة) = تقليص الوقت مقابل ارتفاع السعر.
-العملة الضعيفة تخدم المصدّرين وتعاقب المستوردين.
-مستوى معيشتنا ارتفع؛ لأننا استطعنا التركيز على ما نحسن صنعه من مهام ونتاجر في غيره.
-ينبغي أن لا نخلط بين السبب والتأثير. ليست مصانع السخرة المتسببة في تدني الأجور في البلدان الفقيرة، وإنما هي البلدان التي لا تقدم للعمال إلا بدائل قليلة.
-من لم يكن اشتراكيا قبل بلوغه الثلاثين فلا قلب له، ومن ظل اشتراكيا بعد تخطيه الثلاثين فلا عقل له.
-لدى الاقتصاديين: الحياة هي تعظيم المنفعة لا تعظيم الدخل.
مشكلة الكتاب -وهل نجا منها كتاب؟- أنه مصبوغ برؤى وأفكار وثقافة صاحبه، والذي يبدو لي أنه رجل أمريكي ليبرالي أبيض، يدعم الرأسمالية، ويحرك مخاوفه في الدفاع والتبرير ما يحرك الأمريكي من دوافع وهموم، وهذا النمط نمط مناسب تماما في ظني لتبني شرح الاقتصاد الحالي، لأنه نتاج الرجل الأمريكي الأبيض ….إلخ، فمن الجيد فهمه ضمن إطاره، لكن ما الذي تمنيته؟ أن أقرأ لوجهات نظر أخرى أثناء القراءة، لأنه يسهل انطلاء المبررات علي والتأثر بنظرة الكاتب لأميتي التامة في باب الاقتصاد وأسراره، ولهيمنة الرأسمالية نظاما وثقافة، مما يعني هيمنة مبادئها ومبرراتها مقابل ضعف وجهة النظر المقابلة.
هل أصاب الكاتب في كثير من أطروحاته؟
نعم، من زاوية نظر اقتصادية..
لكن من قال بأننا نرى العالم من تلك الزاوية فقط؟
October 10, 2008
Apart from news articles, the last time I read any book on economics was high school. I found Naked Economics explained how Western (primarily US) economic systems worked in very simple, easy to understand language. Particularly in these troubled times, learning how the Federal Reserve and other government agencies try to tweak the economy to encourage fairness and stability. He is unabashedly pro-trade and explains his stance well, which helped me to understand it, though I can't say he addressed all my concerns.
I did have questions after reading the book because I wasn't sure where an economy like Syria fit into his description. (He's an American economist so I wasn't particularly expecting otherwise.) Private banks have only been legalized in the past couple of years, and though there is a healthy and thriving economy, it does not depend nearly so much on interest rates as the US economy does. Most businesses are small to medium sized. What are the strengths and weaknesses of such an economy? What are the benefits and drawbacks of large foreign investments? (Syria is undergoing a construction boom fueled primarily by Gulf companies.) I have a laywoman's ideas but I would have liked to hear the opinions of someone with more economic expertise. I'd also like to know what he thinks of the Islamic bank movement, and how it changes (or doesn't change) the rules of economic behavior? Wheelan fulfills my expectations but somehow I'm still hungry for more knowledge.
I did have questions after reading the book because I wasn't sure where an economy like Syria fit into his description. (He's an American economist so I wasn't particularly expecting otherwise.) Private banks have only been legalized in the past couple of years, and though there is a healthy and thriving economy, it does not depend nearly so much on interest rates as the US economy does. Most businesses are small to medium sized. What are the strengths and weaknesses of such an economy? What are the benefits and drawbacks of large foreign investments? (Syria is undergoing a construction boom fueled primarily by Gulf companies.) I have a laywoman's ideas but I would have liked to hear the opinions of someone with more economic expertise. I'd also like to know what he thinks of the Islamic bank movement, and how it changes (or doesn't change) the rules of economic behavior? Wheelan fulfills my expectations but somehow I'm still hungry for more knowledge.
July 8, 2007
"Charles Wheelan Tells It Like It Is" would be an equally appropriate title for this fucking awesome overview on all things economic in this world. As someone who's read more than a few of the popular economics books currently glutting the market, and as a economics major in college, I was skeptical that this book could teach me anything I didn't already know or entertain me with wry anecdotes. What surprised me was actually that: the wry anecdotes and useful explanations such as what "fast-track authority" or "human development index"actually mean.
Less Freakanomics-y (quirky case studies) and more a broad overview of how economics applies to everything in our, well, economy, reading this book was the mental equivalent of cabinet refacing. All of the explanations were already there in my head but just needed to be re-articulated in a clever, clear writing style a la The Economist. From explaining the economic structures of the most basic transaction to those of the financial markets, Wheelan forced me to rack my brain for the left-wing rebuttals to his logical explanations of why trade protectionism is bad, why sweatshops are good (the problem with sweatshops apparently is that there aren't enough of them), and why a growing economic pie really is important to the small slice eaters. Try as I might, I couldn't argue with most of his points. They were clear, simple, interesting, and thankfully humorously self-deprecating.
Once I realized that I was going to give this book a full goodreads review, I found myself picking up my pad and pen every other page to try and appropriate some small revelation as my own. Perhaps I was learning by example as this book is chock full of thrilling (yes, thrilling) examples of the pioneering work of a multitude of visionary economists. A truly good read.
Less Freakanomics-y (quirky case studies) and more a broad overview of how economics applies to everything in our, well, economy, reading this book was the mental equivalent of cabinet refacing. All of the explanations were already there in my head but just needed to be re-articulated in a clever, clear writing style a la The Economist. From explaining the economic structures of the most basic transaction to those of the financial markets, Wheelan forced me to rack my brain for the left-wing rebuttals to his logical explanations of why trade protectionism is bad, why sweatshops are good (the problem with sweatshops apparently is that there aren't enough of them), and why a growing economic pie really is important to the small slice eaters. Try as I might, I couldn't argue with most of his points. They were clear, simple, interesting, and thankfully humorously self-deprecating.
Once I realized that I was going to give this book a full goodreads review, I found myself picking up my pad and pen every other page to try and appropriate some small revelation as my own. Perhaps I was learning by example as this book is chock full of thrilling (yes, thrilling) examples of the pioneering work of a multitude of visionary economists. A truly good read.
November 23, 2017
Sometimes I think it is a fool’s errand to study economics and hope for enlightenment. Much economics knowledge is too simple for that goal—for example, the relationship of supply and demand to prices. Such facts are easy to grasp through direct personal experience. But beyond that, actual enlightenment never comes, because, as everybody knows, economics is not a science. Economists can’t even analyze the past with any precision or unanimity, much less the future. Because I thought highly of the explanations of monetary policy in Charles Wheelan’s "Naked Money," I hoped that by reading this book I would at least move further down the curve toward enlightenment. But even the best writers cannot spin straw into gold.
It’s not that "Naked Economics" is a bad book. It is very well and engagingly written, and funny to boot. The problem, for me, is that all the knowledge here is the first type—easy knowledge, mostly suitable for those totally unfamiliar with the basic building blocks of economics, such as (smart) elementary or high school students. For them, this book would be valuable. For someone who already knows the basics, and is hoping for deeper insight, you will be disappointed. You’ll at least get a refresher, though, and you’ll be treated to direct talk, such as that about Asian sweatshops: “One of two things must be true. Either (1) workers take unpleasant jobs in sweatshops because it is the best employment option they have; or (2) Asian sweatshop workers are persons of weak intellect who have many more attractive job offers but choose to work in sweatshops instead.”
Sure, I might quibble with the book here and there. Some of Wheelan’s policy prescriptions are dubiously supported, and some of his facts are wrong. He confuses the existence of the administrative state with the rule of law. It is not true that the now-canceled Superconducting Super Collider particle accelerator was located in Texas because George H.W. Bush was President—that decision was made in the 1980s, and if a politician mattered, it was the corrupt Democratic Speaker of the House, Jim Wright. Nor did Arthur Laffer originate the idea that tax cuts might increase revenue—that idea was well known to Calvin Coolidge, who carefully tested it in practice. It is also not true that “trading [securities] on any information not available to the public is against the law.” But none of these minor problems erode Wheelan’s basic analysis
The book does not answer any of my deeper questions, though, which tend to revolve around whether the received wisdom is true at all. For example, I have never been able to understand why a sharp distinction is drawn between “consumption” and “investing,” when often they seem to ultimately amount to much the same thing. Wheelan says, “consider a family that has a spare $1,000 and is deciding between buying a big-screen television and squirreling the money away in an investment fund. . . . Choosing the investment makes capital available to firms that build plants, conduct research, train workers. These investments are the macro equivalents of a college education; they make us more productive in the long run and therefore richer. Buying the television, on the other hand, is current consumption. It makes us happy today but does nothing to make us richer tomorrow.” Leaving aside that many college educations do not make us more productive (e.g., getting a major in Latino Studies), why is this true? Isn’t it true that buying the TV provides $1,000 to those involved in manufacturing and selling it, thereby enabling them to “build plants, conduct research, train workers,” and if nobody bought TVs, none of those things would happen, at least in the TV industry? Putting the money in your mattress, or burning it, makes it unavailable for productive use, but buying things makes it available, just like putting it an “investment fund.” Wheelan seems to try to address this by claiming that “Yes, money spent on the a television keeps the workers employed at the television factory. But if the same money were invested, it would create jobs somewhere else, say for scientists in a laboratory or workers on a construction site, while also making us richer in the long run.” Why is that? Don’t the manufacturers and sellers of TVs also, if they “build plants, conduct research, train workers,” also hire scientists and construction workers? It seems to me that there is not nearly as clear a dividing line as is commonly represented between spending that “makes us richer in the long run” and spending that doesn’t.
Similarly, and of more political impact today, what of international free trade and comparative advantage? The orthodox view of the role and effect of comparative advantage in international trade is straightforward, and Wheelan offers it. “[International] trade is good for consumers. We pay less for shoes, cars, electronics, food, and everything else that can be made better or more cheaply somewhere else in the world (or is made more cheaply in this country because of foreign competition). Our lives are made better in thousands of little ways that have a significant cumulative effect.” Moreover, such trade is also good for poor countries—the implicit argument being that it’s our moral duty, even at our own cost, to make that possible. And being richer also means the environment is treated better, another implicit moral duty. Yes, “trade creates losers,” often permanent losers, but on average, we are all better off, both now and even more so in the long run, and that’s the way it needs to be.
This view is subject to a variety of technical criticisms, many centering around the simplifications and assumptions that underlie it, as well as such things as the effect of technology and of diminishing vs. increasing returns to scale. And it does not answer why some other rich countries, to a greater or lesser degree, engage in activities that cut against a free market. Yes, it is true that the poorest countries are harmed by their own protectionism, because it prevents them from offering what little they have to offer, and thereby becoming richer. But how about Japan, China, and many other countries, which use a range of anti-competitive devices to benefit their own people, ranging from overt ones such as currency manipulation (the yuan) and subsidies (Airbus), to less overt devices, such as China making Boeing build a factory in China to access the Chinese market, transferring critical intellectual property? We don’t seem to do anything like that. We just try to make sure cheap goods flow to the masses, and, not coincidentally, the powerful are able to acquire abroad cheaper goods to sell at a profit to those masses.
These are important questions, and little public attention seems to be paid to them in most quarters, other than Trumpian mumblings (now quashed by Jared and Ivanka) and places like The American Conservative and the new American Affairs. Presumably that is because neoliberal Democrats and Chamber of Commerce Republicans like it that way. But I have a more overarching inquiry, though few answers. It revolves around an unaddressed question: what does “better off” mean, given we are told making us collectively “better off” is the role and goal of exalting international free trade above any other interest?
Implicit in the orthodox argument Wheelan offers is that any aggregate increase in wealth, measured by GDP, is adequate justification for taking the action that leads to the increase. This is subject to two obvious skirmishing attacks. First, as Wheelan acknowledges, the result is that some people are not better off. Arguably, any action should be required to be Pareto optimal—making no one person worse off. Of course, that argument is easily countered—if the increase in aggregate wealth creates enough wealth to also compensate the person worse off, by so doing aggregate wealth can be increased while keeping conditions of Pareto optimality (ignoring transactions costs, in a Coasian manner). Second, and more subtly, even if Pareto optimality is achieved, inequality may be increased. Where, as in modern America, social mobility is sclerotic and freezing fast, with the ruling classes becoming ever more wealthy and insular, increasing inequality is a social harm. That does not imply any specific remedy, certainly not an increase in forced redistribution, but it is something that should concern us.
After the skirmishing, though, there is a more existential battle to be fought. The orthodox argument implies that the goal of our society, and thus the goal of our public policy, is an economy, a social structure, that allows the most disposable income for each person. That can’t be right. Yes, we all want more money, but the only people who always benefit from constantly rising incomes are the government (because it gets more money in real terms) and the ruling classes in general—especially the tech elites, Apple, Amazon, and so forth, who manage, through a variety of devices, to accrue ever-greater wealth to themselves. (Not to mention that, as is well known, most Americans haven’t had any real increase in income in decades, although that fact does not directly relate to the inherent worth of the goal.) The rest of us, it seems to me, may or may not be actually benefit from more money. At the extreme, for example, if I buy fentanyl with my extra money and inject it, we are all worse off.
Perhaps this is an example of bounded rationality, most on display at this Christmas season. If you go to any store, there is an infinite range of goods on offer. Yet does the ability to buy 5% more of these goods, or of the vast majority of those goods, really improve the lives of the purchasers? Probably not. And to the extent the purchase price goes overseas, as it often does, no American benefits at all—the Chinese-American current account balance just gets a little more out of whack, and American sovereignty erodes a little bit more too. On the other hand, being able to buy 5% more healthcare, or a 5% better car, is a real improvement in most people’s lives. Being able to buy 5% more education is also, as long as that education is actually a form of human capital improvement. More money is sometimes better. But is it always better? The answer has to be “no.” Thus, there must be some limiting principle by which we admit that some increases in per capita wealth do not benefit society. This suggests that if international free trade has costs, sometimes those costs are not outweighed by the benefits, contrary to Wheelan’s claim of universality. What, precisely, that implies for public policy, I am not sure. Yet.
A related question is what are the real, as opposed to apparent, benefits of constant aggregate growth? If it’s just enabling people to get fatter and buy more cheap, disposable goods, and for old people (who have the lowest poverty rate and second-highest per capita income of any age group) to leech transfer payments from the young so they can take constant (foreign) luxury cruises, these are dubious benefits. On the other hand, wealth allows us to fix problems, at least in theory. More wealth means more cures for disease, or for environmental problems, and as Wheelan points out, richer people are more willing to care about collective action problems such as environmental damage. But it seems to me that which of these buckets collect the increased wealth is the critical question, and it is not at all clear that the first bucket, worthless consumption, isn’t by far the bigger collector. (And that relates to my first question above—is “consumption” really sharply distinct from “investment”?)
Really, these questions boil down to philosophical questions. What makes a better society—one with more stuff, and more ability to buy more stuff? Or something else? Along the same lines, what makes a strong society, and a strong country? Lots of tchotchkes being bought and stuck in the closet after Christmas? Certainly, it’s not one where we invest in creating intellectual property, and due to the recent innovation of cheap communications, that IP is used to enrich other countries at our expense, as Richard Baldwin notes in "The Great Convergence." Is some degree of autarky beneficial, even at the cost of a somewhat reduced disposable per capita income? And there are many more questions along the same lines.
My own impulse, certainly, is to throw up my hands in despair at the complexity of answering these questions (and all this is just scratching the surface—there are many, many, other relevant principles, from the velocity of money to exchange rates). It is possible that I am just being obtuse, and that all my questions have easy answers that the right person could, if he would sit down with me, deliver quickly and effectively. I doubt it, though. I think that economists don’t want to address these questions, because they lead us into a morass of uncertainty. And not just any uncertainty, but an uncertainty that threatens to undermine the chokehold of the cross-party ruling class on the fruits of our society.
I suspect that, as with all Gordian Knot questions, approaching these questions on a policy basis from a relatively general level, and implementing policies at that level, without trying to tease out every thread, makes the most sense. So, for example, Congress could simply mandate that within five years, 50% of microprocessors in any consumer electronic device sold in the United States, and 100% of those in defense devices, be produced exclusively within the United States by American-owned companies. Such devices would become considerably more expensive—but my bet is that we’d be a stronger country as a result. Tim Cook won’t like that. But as they say, that’s a feature, not a bug. (Actually, on a micro level, we have already done this in the firearms industry, by making it nearly impossible to import small arms for the civilian market, ensuring a strong and growing domestic industry. Yay!) That doesn’t mean we need to create a new mercantilism (not to be confused with Keynesian “neo-mercantilism”). It does mean that we need to look to our own interests, because foreigners, and Tim Cook, certainly won’t.
It’s not that "Naked Economics" is a bad book. It is very well and engagingly written, and funny to boot. The problem, for me, is that all the knowledge here is the first type—easy knowledge, mostly suitable for those totally unfamiliar with the basic building blocks of economics, such as (smart) elementary or high school students. For them, this book would be valuable. For someone who already knows the basics, and is hoping for deeper insight, you will be disappointed. You’ll at least get a refresher, though, and you’ll be treated to direct talk, such as that about Asian sweatshops: “One of two things must be true. Either (1) workers take unpleasant jobs in sweatshops because it is the best employment option they have; or (2) Asian sweatshop workers are persons of weak intellect who have many more attractive job offers but choose to work in sweatshops instead.”
Sure, I might quibble with the book here and there. Some of Wheelan’s policy prescriptions are dubiously supported, and some of his facts are wrong. He confuses the existence of the administrative state with the rule of law. It is not true that the now-canceled Superconducting Super Collider particle accelerator was located in Texas because George H.W. Bush was President—that decision was made in the 1980s, and if a politician mattered, it was the corrupt Democratic Speaker of the House, Jim Wright. Nor did Arthur Laffer originate the idea that tax cuts might increase revenue—that idea was well known to Calvin Coolidge, who carefully tested it in practice. It is also not true that “trading [securities] on any information not available to the public is against the law.” But none of these minor problems erode Wheelan’s basic analysis
The book does not answer any of my deeper questions, though, which tend to revolve around whether the received wisdom is true at all. For example, I have never been able to understand why a sharp distinction is drawn between “consumption” and “investing,” when often they seem to ultimately amount to much the same thing. Wheelan says, “consider a family that has a spare $1,000 and is deciding between buying a big-screen television and squirreling the money away in an investment fund. . . . Choosing the investment makes capital available to firms that build plants, conduct research, train workers. These investments are the macro equivalents of a college education; they make us more productive in the long run and therefore richer. Buying the television, on the other hand, is current consumption. It makes us happy today but does nothing to make us richer tomorrow.” Leaving aside that many college educations do not make us more productive (e.g., getting a major in Latino Studies), why is this true? Isn’t it true that buying the TV provides $1,000 to those involved in manufacturing and selling it, thereby enabling them to “build plants, conduct research, train workers,” and if nobody bought TVs, none of those things would happen, at least in the TV industry? Putting the money in your mattress, or burning it, makes it unavailable for productive use, but buying things makes it available, just like putting it an “investment fund.” Wheelan seems to try to address this by claiming that “Yes, money spent on the a television keeps the workers employed at the television factory. But if the same money were invested, it would create jobs somewhere else, say for scientists in a laboratory or workers on a construction site, while also making us richer in the long run.” Why is that? Don’t the manufacturers and sellers of TVs also, if they “build plants, conduct research, train workers,” also hire scientists and construction workers? It seems to me that there is not nearly as clear a dividing line as is commonly represented between spending that “makes us richer in the long run” and spending that doesn’t.
Similarly, and of more political impact today, what of international free trade and comparative advantage? The orthodox view of the role and effect of comparative advantage in international trade is straightforward, and Wheelan offers it. “[International] trade is good for consumers. We pay less for shoes, cars, electronics, food, and everything else that can be made better or more cheaply somewhere else in the world (or is made more cheaply in this country because of foreign competition). Our lives are made better in thousands of little ways that have a significant cumulative effect.” Moreover, such trade is also good for poor countries—the implicit argument being that it’s our moral duty, even at our own cost, to make that possible. And being richer also means the environment is treated better, another implicit moral duty. Yes, “trade creates losers,” often permanent losers, but on average, we are all better off, both now and even more so in the long run, and that’s the way it needs to be.
This view is subject to a variety of technical criticisms, many centering around the simplifications and assumptions that underlie it, as well as such things as the effect of technology and of diminishing vs. increasing returns to scale. And it does not answer why some other rich countries, to a greater or lesser degree, engage in activities that cut against a free market. Yes, it is true that the poorest countries are harmed by their own protectionism, because it prevents them from offering what little they have to offer, and thereby becoming richer. But how about Japan, China, and many other countries, which use a range of anti-competitive devices to benefit their own people, ranging from overt ones such as currency manipulation (the yuan) and subsidies (Airbus), to less overt devices, such as China making Boeing build a factory in China to access the Chinese market, transferring critical intellectual property? We don’t seem to do anything like that. We just try to make sure cheap goods flow to the masses, and, not coincidentally, the powerful are able to acquire abroad cheaper goods to sell at a profit to those masses.
These are important questions, and little public attention seems to be paid to them in most quarters, other than Trumpian mumblings (now quashed by Jared and Ivanka) and places like The American Conservative and the new American Affairs. Presumably that is because neoliberal Democrats and Chamber of Commerce Republicans like it that way. But I have a more overarching inquiry, though few answers. It revolves around an unaddressed question: what does “better off” mean, given we are told making us collectively “better off” is the role and goal of exalting international free trade above any other interest?
Implicit in the orthodox argument Wheelan offers is that any aggregate increase in wealth, measured by GDP, is adequate justification for taking the action that leads to the increase. This is subject to two obvious skirmishing attacks. First, as Wheelan acknowledges, the result is that some people are not better off. Arguably, any action should be required to be Pareto optimal—making no one person worse off. Of course, that argument is easily countered—if the increase in aggregate wealth creates enough wealth to also compensate the person worse off, by so doing aggregate wealth can be increased while keeping conditions of Pareto optimality (ignoring transactions costs, in a Coasian manner). Second, and more subtly, even if Pareto optimality is achieved, inequality may be increased. Where, as in modern America, social mobility is sclerotic and freezing fast, with the ruling classes becoming ever more wealthy and insular, increasing inequality is a social harm. That does not imply any specific remedy, certainly not an increase in forced redistribution, but it is something that should concern us.
After the skirmishing, though, there is a more existential battle to be fought. The orthodox argument implies that the goal of our society, and thus the goal of our public policy, is an economy, a social structure, that allows the most disposable income for each person. That can’t be right. Yes, we all want more money, but the only people who always benefit from constantly rising incomes are the government (because it gets more money in real terms) and the ruling classes in general—especially the tech elites, Apple, Amazon, and so forth, who manage, through a variety of devices, to accrue ever-greater wealth to themselves. (Not to mention that, as is well known, most Americans haven’t had any real increase in income in decades, although that fact does not directly relate to the inherent worth of the goal.) The rest of us, it seems to me, may or may not be actually benefit from more money. At the extreme, for example, if I buy fentanyl with my extra money and inject it, we are all worse off.
Perhaps this is an example of bounded rationality, most on display at this Christmas season. If you go to any store, there is an infinite range of goods on offer. Yet does the ability to buy 5% more of these goods, or of the vast majority of those goods, really improve the lives of the purchasers? Probably not. And to the extent the purchase price goes overseas, as it often does, no American benefits at all—the Chinese-American current account balance just gets a little more out of whack, and American sovereignty erodes a little bit more too. On the other hand, being able to buy 5% more healthcare, or a 5% better car, is a real improvement in most people’s lives. Being able to buy 5% more education is also, as long as that education is actually a form of human capital improvement. More money is sometimes better. But is it always better? The answer has to be “no.” Thus, there must be some limiting principle by which we admit that some increases in per capita wealth do not benefit society. This suggests that if international free trade has costs, sometimes those costs are not outweighed by the benefits, contrary to Wheelan’s claim of universality. What, precisely, that implies for public policy, I am not sure. Yet.
A related question is what are the real, as opposed to apparent, benefits of constant aggregate growth? If it’s just enabling people to get fatter and buy more cheap, disposable goods, and for old people (who have the lowest poverty rate and second-highest per capita income of any age group) to leech transfer payments from the young so they can take constant (foreign) luxury cruises, these are dubious benefits. On the other hand, wealth allows us to fix problems, at least in theory. More wealth means more cures for disease, or for environmental problems, and as Wheelan points out, richer people are more willing to care about collective action problems such as environmental damage. But it seems to me that which of these buckets collect the increased wealth is the critical question, and it is not at all clear that the first bucket, worthless consumption, isn’t by far the bigger collector. (And that relates to my first question above—is “consumption” really sharply distinct from “investment”?)
Really, these questions boil down to philosophical questions. What makes a better society—one with more stuff, and more ability to buy more stuff? Or something else? Along the same lines, what makes a strong society, and a strong country? Lots of tchotchkes being bought and stuck in the closet after Christmas? Certainly, it’s not one where we invest in creating intellectual property, and due to the recent innovation of cheap communications, that IP is used to enrich other countries at our expense, as Richard Baldwin notes in "The Great Convergence." Is some degree of autarky beneficial, even at the cost of a somewhat reduced disposable per capita income? And there are many more questions along the same lines.
My own impulse, certainly, is to throw up my hands in despair at the complexity of answering these questions (and all this is just scratching the surface—there are many, many, other relevant principles, from the velocity of money to exchange rates). It is possible that I am just being obtuse, and that all my questions have easy answers that the right person could, if he would sit down with me, deliver quickly and effectively. I doubt it, though. I think that economists don’t want to address these questions, because they lead us into a morass of uncertainty. And not just any uncertainty, but an uncertainty that threatens to undermine the chokehold of the cross-party ruling class on the fruits of our society.
I suspect that, as with all Gordian Knot questions, approaching these questions on a policy basis from a relatively general level, and implementing policies at that level, without trying to tease out every thread, makes the most sense. So, for example, Congress could simply mandate that within five years, 50% of microprocessors in any consumer electronic device sold in the United States, and 100% of those in defense devices, be produced exclusively within the United States by American-owned companies. Such devices would become considerably more expensive—but my bet is that we’d be a stronger country as a result. Tim Cook won’t like that. But as they say, that’s a feature, not a bug. (Actually, on a micro level, we have already done this in the firearms industry, by making it nearly impossible to import small arms for the civilian market, ensuring a strong and growing domestic industry. Yay!) That doesn’t mean we need to create a new mercantilism (not to be confused with Keynesian “neo-mercantilism”). It does mean that we need to look to our own interests, because foreigners, and Tim Cook, certainly won’t.
August 27, 2018
" إن معظم الأفكار المهمة التي يقوم عليها علم الاقتصاد تستتر خلف مجموعة من الأغطية التي تنطوي على كثير من التعقيد، والتي متى أزحناها عنها، نجد هذه الأفكار بدهية في الأصل، وهذا هو المقصود بالاقتصاد عارياً "
تسود فكرة عند كثير من القراء أن الاقتصاد علم جاف وكئيب، وقد يكون هذا حقا في كثير من الأحايين. فالكتابات الاقتصادية -غالباً- ما تكون مليئة بالمعادلات الرياضية المعقدة والجداول والرسوم البيانية الغامضة. هذا الكتاب الرائع يحاول تغيير هذه الصورة النمطية للاقتصاد بجعله أكثر تشويقاً وقرباً من حياتنا اليومية.
~~~
كتاب أوصي به، وبشدة.
December 1, 2019
بعد قراءة العديد من الكتب التي تنقد الاقتصاد الرأسمالي، فقد قرأت هذا الكتاب والذي يشرح النظام الاقتصادي الرأسمالي من وجهة نظر رأسمالية
كتاب جيد لتطلع. أنصح بقرائته
كتاب جيد لتطلع. أنصح بقرائته
March 21, 2016
علاقتى بعلم الاقتصاد علاقة مرتبكة لا تسير على خط واحد
لكن يسودها فى الأغلب علاقة ضجر وجفاء
بدأ الأمر فى سنة 2009 كنت وقتها تلميذا فى السنة الجامعية الأولى من كلية التجارة قسم اللغة الانجليزية ...الأستاذ الذى كان يشرح لنا المادة كان عجوزا تخطى السبعين من عمره بمراحل ...بذىء اللسان جدا ..لا يتورع عن السب والشتم أن تجرأ طالب وسأله عن نقطة ما لا يفهمها ..فكان أغلبنا يكتفى بالسكوت...بعد أسابيع انقطعت انا تماما عن حضور هذه المحاضرات الباردة واكتفيت بالعكوف الكامل على الكتاب الذى ندرسه
... فى وقتها كنا ندرس
مرجعا أجنبيا عن مبادىء الاقتصاد اسمه
Principles of Economics
لأستاذ شهير من جامعة هارفارد إسمه
N. Gregory Mankiw
كان ب 200 جنيه وقتها :))
مع رفضى فى سنة اولى حضور أية دروس خصوصية جامعية إللى كنت شايفها ' عيب '...عيب أن حد كبير وفى جامعة ياخد درس ...ومع سوء شرح الدكتور ... ومع جهلى التام بمعنى كلمة اقتصاد وقتها من الأساس وأيضا ضعفى فى اللغة الإنجليزية ...كانت المذاكرة من المرجع الأجنبى أشبه بالانتحار ....فاكر كويس انى كنت بذاكر عدد مهول من الساعات .....لكن هذا الانتحار كان انتحارا لذيذا فهو قد ساهم وقتها فى تقوية لغتي الانجليزية ...
.فى آخر سنة أولى وقع تحت ايدى كتاب الاقتصاد عاريا مترجما للعبقري
Wheelan
الكتاب ده كان بمثابة طوق نجاة ...سعادتى به لا توصف
لأول مرة أشعر إننى افهم ما أقرأه فى كتاب
Mankiw
بسهولة ومن غير حاجة إلى الترجمة الحرفية وصناعة وقواميس خاصة بطريقة مرهقة للغاية
انتهيت من كتاب ' الاقتصاد عاريا ' وبدأت فى كتاب دروس مبسطة فى الاقتصاد لميرفى ثم دليل المبتدئين الشامل فى علم الاقتصاد
وهو واحد من أهم الكتب المترجمة عن علم الاقتصاد واكثرها متعة فى نظرى
ثم كتاب ' اقتصادنا ' لمحمد باقر الصدر وهو كتاب بالغ الأهمية أيضا
بغض النظر عن ان كاتبه شيعى ' مخرف ' لكن كتابه هذا مهم جدا وفريد فى بابه احقاقا للحق
-----------
الكتاب مهم جدا فى نظرى ويسد خانة فى المكتبة العربية حتى وإن كان مترجما
مجرد رؤيتي للكتاب بغلافه الأخضر المميز يبعث فى نفسى سعادة كبيرة وذكريات جميلة بعد هذه السنوات
لكن يسودها فى الأغلب علاقة ضجر وجفاء
بدأ الأمر فى سنة 2009 كنت وقتها تلميذا فى السنة الجامعية الأولى من كلية التجارة قسم اللغة الانجليزية ...الأستاذ الذى كان يشرح لنا المادة كان عجوزا تخطى السبعين من عمره بمراحل ...بذىء اللسان جدا ..لا يتورع عن السب والشتم أن تجرأ طالب وسأله عن نقطة ما لا يفهمها ..فكان أغلبنا يكتفى بالسكوت...بعد أسابيع انقطعت انا تماما عن حضور هذه المحاضرات الباردة واكتفيت بالعكوف الكامل على الكتاب الذى ندرسه
... فى وقتها كنا ندرس
مرجعا أجنبيا عن مبادىء الاقتصاد اسمه
Principles of Economics
لأستاذ شهير من جامعة هارفارد إسمه
N. Gregory Mankiw
كان ب 200 جنيه وقتها :))
مع رفضى فى سنة اولى حضور أية دروس خصوصية جامعية إللى كنت شايفها ' عيب '...عيب أن حد كبير وفى جامعة ياخد درس ...ومع سوء شرح الدكتور ... ومع جهلى التام بمعنى كلمة اقتصاد وقتها من الأساس وأيضا ضعفى فى اللغة الإنجليزية ...كانت المذاكرة من المرجع الأجنبى أشبه بالانتحار ....فاكر كويس انى كنت بذاكر عدد مهول من الساعات .....لكن هذا الانتحار كان انتحارا لذيذا فهو قد ساهم وقتها فى تقوية لغتي الانجليزية ...
.فى آخر سنة أولى وقع تحت ايدى كتاب الاقتصاد عاريا مترجما للعبقري
Wheelan
الكتاب ده كان بمثابة طوق نجاة ...سعادتى به لا توصف
لأول مرة أشعر إننى افهم ما أقرأه فى كتاب
Mankiw
بسهولة ومن غير حاجة إلى الترجمة الحرفية وصناعة وقواميس خاصة بطريقة مرهقة للغاية
انتهيت من كتاب ' الاقتصاد عاريا ' وبدأت فى كتاب دروس مبسطة فى الاقتصاد لميرفى ثم دليل المبتدئين الشامل فى علم الاقتصاد
وهو واحد من أهم الكتب المترجمة عن علم الاقتصاد واكثرها متعة فى نظرى
ثم كتاب ' اقتصادنا ' لمحمد باقر الصدر وهو كتاب بالغ الأهمية أيضا
بغض النظر عن ان كاتبه شيعى ' مخرف ' لكن كتابه هذا مهم جدا وفريد فى بابه احقاقا للحق
-----------
الكتاب مهم جدا فى نظرى ويسد خانة فى المكتبة العربية حتى وإن كان مترجما
مجرد رؤيتي للكتاب بغلافه الأخضر المميز يبعث فى نفسى سعادة كبيرة وذكريات جميلة بعد هذه السنوات
June 30, 2018
The book is an interesting primer on economics. It is no doubt ideological but the author has given strong arguments for the ideological position he has taken. The book, however, is limited as it is only good for understanding market based economy. It doesn't shed light on feudalism and tribal societies economics and the complex socio-political and economic relations such societies wield. Apart from such limitations, the book convincingly give arguments for free trade, globalization and market based capitalist system. It doesn't touch on 'exploitation' and merely brushes it away by calling the more skilled earn more profit than the less skilled. The place where I live, the landowner who inherits his agricultural land makes money while his tenants toil for a far lower sum. The question of the skill and ability doesn't matter here. Here it is all about inheritance! The author takes the assumption that everyone starts from zero and develop skills in life which will decide his/her income -countries included- He misses the point that it is about their inheritance advantage too. A family/country already rich is more likely to remain rich and the same holds for poor families/countries.
If you like to learn about GDP, financial markets, monetary and fiscal policies, human capital etc. this is a good book to start with.
If you like to learn about GDP, financial markets, monetary and fiscal policies, human capital etc. this is a good book to start with.
January 7, 2023
DNF
this is for school and i most definitely do not feel like finishing it😍😍
this is for school and i most definitely do not feel like finishing it😍😍
October 2, 2014
Scariest book I've read in a while. Econ for people who never took Econ in school, what were we thinking?! A good read for anyone, a must read for young adults. Start investing, kids.
October 23, 2015
UPDATE (06/08/13):
I reread Charles Wheelan's Naked Economics, revisiting it now about four years later. It is still one of my favorite books, but I do have a more modest perspective of it now. I'll try to provide a better summary of Wheelan's book than I did four years ago.
A market economy is really just a name for the transaction of buying and selling goods and services, and the scarcer the goods and services and the more demand, the more people are willing to pay for them. This explains in part why LeBron James makes more money than I do. There are fewer people who play basketball exceptionally well than can teach, which is what I do (and remember, teachers are not paid on a sliding scale where the better teachers make more for their outstanding performance). So LeBron James's skills are scarcer, mine are not. Note, by the way, this is not making a value judgment. It is an explanation of the pay disparity. And it is unlikely that the demand would be there for LeBron James's basketball talents were we living in the 18th century, in which case I would have more human capital than someone who can put a ball in a hoop.
Human capital, by the way, is often neglected when thinking about practical economic matters. Here is a rough way to determine your human capital. Consider your work experience, in the different fields in which you've worked. Consider also the degrees you have. Consider also your had and soft skills: Hard skills for a poet, for example, would be knowing how to compose a sonata, whereas soft skills would be something like being a good public speaker (a little more difficult to determine, but which you might think you have abilities with). And consider your life experience: Where have you gone? What have you done? What kind of person does this reveal? Add all that together--work experience, educational experience, life experience, and skills. Now think of the jobs you would best be able to be of service to given your experience and skills. And ask yourself these questions: Is there a demand for more people in these professions or is this profession bloated? How would I compare, in terms of my experience and skills, with other people who would also be looking for these jobs? And if any of these jobs require examinations, compare your examination score to the average, another important determining factor. This is a rough and rocky way to measure your human capital, essentially, for better or for worse, your economic worth. Unfortunately, for many workers vis-a-vis the economy, it is difficult for people to find new jobs if they lose old ones because they don't have very much human capital (that is, their experiences and skills just aren't valued economically).
There are other important lessons in this book, but if you take away any two, for my money, it'd be the ones above: what a market economy is and what human capital is. Your interests may vary.
REVIEW AS OF (09/03/09):
The book promised a good explanation of economics, and it delivered. Author Charles Wheelan conveyed the basics of economic theory and discussed the myriad ways in which economic theory has direct and indirect impacts on everyone's lives. Especially enjoyable were his demonstrations backed by the data that without good government and good regulatory policy, a good, functioning economy is impossible; there can be no good economics without good government. Wheelan also argues for certain social policy positions, and any reader is likely to disagree with him at some points and for seemingly good reasons. However, Wheelan makes clear that these are his positions and that social issues that converge with economic issues are always up for debate. Indeed, that's all part of the dynamism of social and economic life generally. Yeah, read this book. It's a humdinger.
I reread Charles Wheelan's Naked Economics, revisiting it now about four years later. It is still one of my favorite books, but I do have a more modest perspective of it now. I'll try to provide a better summary of Wheelan's book than I did four years ago.
A market economy is really just a name for the transaction of buying and selling goods and services, and the scarcer the goods and services and the more demand, the more people are willing to pay for them. This explains in part why LeBron James makes more money than I do. There are fewer people who play basketball exceptionally well than can teach, which is what I do (and remember, teachers are not paid on a sliding scale where the better teachers make more for their outstanding performance). So LeBron James's skills are scarcer, mine are not. Note, by the way, this is not making a value judgment. It is an explanation of the pay disparity. And it is unlikely that the demand would be there for LeBron James's basketball talents were we living in the 18th century, in which case I would have more human capital than someone who can put a ball in a hoop.
Human capital, by the way, is often neglected when thinking about practical economic matters. Here is a rough way to determine your human capital. Consider your work experience, in the different fields in which you've worked. Consider also the degrees you have. Consider also your had and soft skills: Hard skills for a poet, for example, would be knowing how to compose a sonata, whereas soft skills would be something like being a good public speaker (a little more difficult to determine, but which you might think you have abilities with). And consider your life experience: Where have you gone? What have you done? What kind of person does this reveal? Add all that together--work experience, educational experience, life experience, and skills. Now think of the jobs you would best be able to be of service to given your experience and skills. And ask yourself these questions: Is there a demand for more people in these professions or is this profession bloated? How would I compare, in terms of my experience and skills, with other people who would also be looking for these jobs? And if any of these jobs require examinations, compare your examination score to the average, another important determining factor. This is a rough and rocky way to measure your human capital, essentially, for better or for worse, your economic worth. Unfortunately, for many workers vis-a-vis the economy, it is difficult for people to find new jobs if they lose old ones because they don't have very much human capital (that is, their experiences and skills just aren't valued economically).
There are other important lessons in this book, but if you take away any two, for my money, it'd be the ones above: what a market economy is and what human capital is. Your interests may vary.
REVIEW AS OF (09/03/09):
The book promised a good explanation of economics, and it delivered. Author Charles Wheelan conveyed the basics of economic theory and discussed the myriad ways in which economic theory has direct and indirect impacts on everyone's lives. Especially enjoyable were his demonstrations backed by the data that without good government and good regulatory policy, a good, functioning economy is impossible; there can be no good economics without good government. Wheelan also argues for certain social policy positions, and any reader is likely to disagree with him at some points and for seemingly good reasons. However, Wheelan makes clear that these are his positions and that social issues that converge with economic issues are always up for debate. Indeed, that's all part of the dynamism of social and economic life generally. Yeah, read this book. It's a humdinger.
February 9, 2017
"One of the fallacies of poverty is that developing countries are poor because they have rapid population growth. In fact, the causal relationship is best understood going the other direction:Poor people have many children because the cost of bearing and raising children is low. Birth control, no matter how dependable,works only to the extent that families prefer fewer children. As a result, one of the most potent weapons for fighting population growth is creating better economic opportunities for women,which starts by educating girls. Taiwan doubled the number of girls graduating from high school between 1966 and 1975.Meanwhile, the fertility rate dropped by half. In the developed world, where women have enjoyed an extraordinary range of new economic opportunities for more than a half century, fertility rates have fallen near or below replacement level, which is 2.1 births per woman."
April 17, 2020
"الاقتصاد هو فن الإستفادة القصوى من الحياة."
كتاب ممتاز فى طريقة العرض والشرح، ويتعامل مع الاقتصاد كمشكلات واقعية وليست كمصطلحات اقتصادية معقدة، مما يكمن القارئ من أن يفهم اكبر المشكلات الاقتصادية بشكل بسيط.
الشئ السلبي فى الكتاب أن أغلب الفصول غير مقسمة إلى موضاعات أو إلى نقاط فرعية داخل كل فصل مما يسبب التشتت، وخصوصا أن الكاتب يستدل بالكثير من المشكلات الواقعية ويذكر أسبابها والاراء المختلفة عنها وأقوال علماء الاقتصاد داخل الفصل الواحد.
كتاب ممتاز فى طريقة العرض والشرح، ويتعامل مع الاقتصاد كمشكلات واقعية وليست كمصطلحات اقتصادية معقدة، مما يكمن القارئ من أن يفهم اكبر المشكلات الاقتصادية بشكل بسيط.
الشئ السلبي فى الكتاب أن أغلب الفصول غير مقسمة إلى موضاعات أو إلى نقاط فرعية داخل كل فصل مما يسبب التشتت، وخصوصا أن الكاتب يستدل بالكثير من المشكلات الواقعية ويذكر أسبابها والاراء المختلفة عنها وأقوال علماء الاقتصاد داخل الفصل الواحد.
March 15, 2015
الكتاب رائع وفكرته جديده وطلبه اقتصاد لو درسوه بجانب التحليل الجزئي وال��لي هيحل ليهم مشاكل في الفهم كتير
عيبه من وجهة نظري في 3 حاجات
اولا عنوانه كان المفروض يكون
how American economy works.
ثانيا عدم اجود اي اطار مفاهبمي للكتاب
ثالثا تبني اراء بل والدفاع المستميت عن مدرسة شيكاغو(اليبراليه الجديدة)
عيبه من وجهة نظري في 3 حاجات
اولا عنوانه كان المفروض يكون
how American economy works.
ثانيا عدم اجود اي اطار مفاهبمي للكتاب
ثالثا تبني اراء بل والدفاع المستميت عن مدرسة شيكاغو(اليبراليه الجديدة)
September 3, 2015
I would like to thank my AP Economics teacher for recommending such a piece of shit :) It was a time well spent!
January 29, 2008
Great primer on the often dull world of economics. No charts, calculus, or arcane math, lots of good examples of problems and issues that we all are affected by but don't have much understanding of. Things like the Fed, interest rates, trade balances, taxes, etc are covered and made easy to process. My biggest problem is the lack of discussion of things like outsourcing, debt, and currency issues and how they are actually affecting our economy. I'd like to see a book that is not so theoretical or hush hush about these kinds of issues. Aside from that, a good book that will leave you a little smarter then when you began.
December 5, 2018
كتاب ممتع وظريف وعظيم الفائدة، يتسم كاتبه بخفّة الظلّ والقدرة المدهشة على تقديم الاقتصاد -الذي غالبا ما يهرب المبتدئون منه لكونه معقدا ومملا وغير مفهوم- في قالب طريف وبسيط ومُسلٍّ، يُنصح به بشدة كبداية للقراءة في علم الاقتصاد.
December 31, 2013
لتحميل الكتاب مجانا
http://www.hindawi.org/kalimat/books/...
http://www.hindawi.org/kalimat/books/...
December 11, 2020
I may or may not have just skimmed it instead of reading it.
May 4, 2021
Isn’t it fascinating that an emotionless discipline like economics can make people so incensed that they send economists hate mail? This is just one of the fun tidbits I learned from this compelling deep dive into basic economics. The book is full of anecdotes, studies, and examples (including the 2007 recession) that bring economics to life and make it approachable, interesting, and provocative.
For some reason Econ 101 was not a required course in the Humanities Department 😂 and I am pleased to have finally rectified that gap in my college education via this wonderful book. (I underlined passages, jotted down ideas for further reading, fell asleep mid-sentence, and furiously scribbled questions and rebuttals, all of which made it feel very much like a college course). Warning: since I have no professor to whom I can direct my questions and rebuttals, I will now be seeking out and cornering economists at parties.
For some reason Econ 101 was not a required course in the Humanities Department 😂 and I am pleased to have finally rectified that gap in my college education via this wonderful book. (I underlined passages, jotted down ideas for further reading, fell asleep mid-sentence, and furiously scribbled questions and rebuttals, all of which made it feel very much like a college course). Warning: since I have no professor to whom I can direct my questions and rebuttals, I will now be seeking out and cornering economists at parties.
December 28, 2017
Книжка про те, наскільки економіка пронизує наше життя і про те, що це не завжди про гроші, але також про utility, наше бажання отримати якнайбільше користі. Одна з тез автора, що бажанням utility можна маніпулювати і досягати ефекту швидше, аніж закликаючи людей до праведності.
Інша теза - попри загальну нерівність, яка існує/існуватиме, загалом суспільства багатшають і з цього користаємо ми всі, бо рівень комфорту загалом підвищується.
Автор наводить десятки прикладів, жартів і маленьких історій, від чого тест дробиться і часом стає важко зрозуміти основну думку, але читається напрочуд легко і цікаво
Інша теза - попри загальну нерівність, яка існує/існуватиме, загалом суспільства багатшають і з цього користаємо ми всі, бо рівень комфорту загалом підвищується.
Автор наводить десятки прикладів, жартів і маленьких історій, від чого тест дробиться і часом стає важко зрозуміти основну думку, але читається напрочуд легко і цікаво
August 4, 2014
If you are like me, you have a vague sinking feeling from not having the gumption to pick up, let alone complete, Thomas Piketty's Capital in the Twenty-First Century. You know somewhere deep down inside that an impressive tome by an erudite French economist would be just the ticket to help you thoughtfully contribute to the conversation at that gathering of MBAs, or progressives, or rich relatives that you somehow find yourself attending over the year. But you also know that, given the choice between plowing your way through the Picketty text and doing most anything else that is even remotely stimulating, reading a 577 page treatise on the finer points of political economy will lose out every time.
It is in this sort of everyday occurrence of semi-rational people facing tradeoffs about how to allocate their scarce resources that Wheelan's Naked Economics finds its voice. The book lucidly describes the key points of neoclassical economic thought in an informative, well-reasoned, and even entertaining way. This is not a towering achievement of pioneering research; most ideas presented have been around for centuries. This is not a gripping tale of powerful economic structures that perpetuate an unjust world order; the book mainly describes the economic principles that undergird policy decisions that generally engender mainstream approval. And this is not a dense, academic text requiring a careful read--eyes strained, hunched over a desk with a pen in hand; it is a light, yet illuminative, overview of concepts that are all too often obfuscated by social science technocrats.
This book isn't destined to live on as a classic of economic thought, and that's OK. It succeeds wonderfully in what it sets out to do: presenting some very important ideas in a way that doesn't put you to sleep. So, quit beating yourself up for not living up to your self-image as a refined, self-educated intellectual, and read a book that you will enjoy and will teach you something new. Naked Economics is a good place to start.
It is in this sort of everyday occurrence of semi-rational people facing tradeoffs about how to allocate their scarce resources that Wheelan's Naked Economics finds its voice. The book lucidly describes the key points of neoclassical economic thought in an informative, well-reasoned, and even entertaining way. This is not a towering achievement of pioneering research; most ideas presented have been around for centuries. This is not a gripping tale of powerful economic structures that perpetuate an unjust world order; the book mainly describes the economic principles that undergird policy decisions that generally engender mainstream approval. And this is not a dense, academic text requiring a careful read--eyes strained, hunched over a desk with a pen in hand; it is a light, yet illuminative, overview of concepts that are all too often obfuscated by social science technocrats.
This book isn't destined to live on as a classic of economic thought, and that's OK. It succeeds wonderfully in what it sets out to do: presenting some very important ideas in a way that doesn't put you to sleep. So, quit beating yourself up for not living up to your self-image as a refined, self-educated intellectual, and read a book that you will enjoy and will teach you something new. Naked Economics is a good place to start.
April 9, 2009
If you are interested in learning about economics but find the topic somewhat confusing and boring, this book breaks down the major concepts in a way that makes it interesting and understandable. Wheelan is a witty and sarcastic man which added greatly to his stories and real life examples he used when supporting topics within economics. I am highly interested in developmental economics and his chapter on this topic broke down common misconceptions that people may have about developing countries and why they have problems with their economies.
October 22, 2015
This is a fantastic economic primer which skillfully introduces the reader to the most important economic concepts in a humorous and mostly detached manner. There are of course some minor things that I would take issue with, especially some simplified categorizations - but I trust that Wheelan is quite aware of this and has not done this in order to shoehorn any of his own ideas, but rather to make life simpler for the reader. I'm now working my way through more complex books on economics, which I wouldn't be able to had I not read this book first.
January 16, 2014
بسبب طبيعة عملي، قرأتُ كثيراً في علم الإقتصاد وفي الحقيقة لم أجد كتاباً ببساطة ومتعة وخفة هذا الكتاب. هو جميل لدرجة أنك قد تقرأه من أجل المتعة وحسب. هو ليس كتاباً شاملاً في الإقتصاد إنما يقدّم مجموعة من الأمثلة الإقتصادية في سلوك السوق.. وكيفية سير الأمور مع سياسة الإقتصاد المفتوح. هو بحق كتاب لطيف. أحب تلك النوعية من الكتب التي تقدّم لك المعلومة بحس لا بأس به من الفكاهة..
September 16, 2020
ظننت أن الكتاب سيكون مقدمة جيدة في الاقتصاد للمبتدئين، لكن وجدته دعاية خفية للرأسمالية وكأن الاقتصاد= رأسمالية، الكتاب عبارة عن "سواليف" حول الاقتصاد وبعض مبادئه، يتطرق إليها بطريقة تسطيحية وبسيطة على الرغم من وجود بعض الحقائق المثيرة للاهتمام.
أخيرا، الاقتصاد عاريا كتاب سهل قراءته في جلسة واحدة لكنه مضيعة للوقت لفهم الاقتصاد وعلاقته بالإنسان بعيدا عن الإيديولوجيا
أخيرا، الاقتصاد عاريا كتاب سهل قراءته في جلسة واحدة لكنه مضيعة للوقت لفهم الاقتصاد وعلاقته بالإنسان بعيدا عن الإيديولوجيا
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,304 reviews