A review of “The Vision of Léon Walras” (audiobook)

So I recently finished an audiobook about Léon Walras (pronounced “Valras”), a French economist who was alive from the years 1834 to 1910. I knew almost nothing about him before I listened to this audiobook about his work, I am sad to say. So I learned a lot from it, which was good for someone like me to know about. (Although I was basically an economics minor, I didn't hear Mr. Walras's name until well after I had graduated. So if you haven't heard of him, you're not alone – although I had heard some of his ideas before, I had never heard of him personally before I graduated.)

A review of “Frank Knight and the Chicago School” (audiobook)

So I recently finished listening to an audiobook about the American economist Frank Knight, who lived from 1885 to 1972. It was just called “Frank Knight and the Chicago School” – and as its title suggests, it was partly about the Chicago school of economics. It was a good audiobook, which spoke about both the philosophical and economic aspects of Mr. Knight’s work. But it also covered some other economists who were prominent in the Chicago school of economic thought.

A review of “The Austrian Case for the Free Market Process” (audiobook)

So I recently finished listening to an economics audiobook about Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich von Hayek. It was called “The Austrian Case for the Free Market Process.” This audiobook was the sequel to another audiobook called “Early Austrian Economics,” which I first listened to some years ago. One might have titled this audiobook “Later Austrian Economics,” except that applying the term “later” to this will no doubt be outdated before too long, if it isn’t already. Besides, “The Austrian Case for the Free Market Process” is probably a more exciting title, and may do more justice to the nature of the subject matter.

A review of “Monetarism and Supply Side Economics” (audiobook)

I recently finished listening to an audiobook called “Monetarism and Supply Side Economics.” In a way, it was almost like two audiobooks that happened to be combined together. The script for the “Monetarism” part had a different writer than the “Supply Side Economics” part. But these two schools come to similar conclusions about a number of issues, and they were both from the same general period in economic history. Thus, it makes sense to cover them together as they do here.

A review of “Thorstein Veblen and Institutionalism” (audiobook)

So I recently finished listening to an audiobook about the Norwegian-American economist Thorstein Veblen, who lived from 1857 to 1929. It was called “Thorstein Veblen and Institutionalism,” and it may have been as much about his “institutionalist” philosophy as it was about him.

A review of “Alfred Marshall and Neoclassicism” (audiobook)

So I recently finished an audiobook about Alfred Marshall, a British economist who lived from 1842 to 1924. This audiobook was called “Alfred Marshall and Neoclassicism.” As its title implies, it's also about an economic tradition called “neoclassicism” that Marshall helped to found. I knew almost nothing about him before I listened to this audiobook about his work; although I had heard of the neoclassical school of economics before, and already had respect for it.

A review of “The German Historical School of Economics” (audiobook)

So I recently finished an audiobook about “The German Historical School of Economics,” an important school for economic thought. They were active in the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries, and do not have a lot of modern counterparts. In fact, most economists today wouldn't touch them with a ten-foot pole.

A review of “The Classical Economists” (audiobook)

“The statesman, who should attempt to direct private people in what manner they ought to employ their capitals, would not only load himself with a most unnecessary attention, but assume an authority which could safely be trusted, not only to no single person, but to no council or senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it.”

– Adam Smith’s “The Wealth of Nations” (1776), Book IV, Chapter II

A review of “Keynes and the Keynesian Revolution” (audiobook)

“But this long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead. Economists set themselves too easy, too useless a task, if in tempestuous seasons they can only tell us, that when the storm is long past, the ocean is flat again.”

– John Maynard Keynes, in “A Tract on Monetary Reform” (1923), Chapter 3

I recently listened to an audiobook about the British economist John Maynard Keynes, who lived from 1883 to 1946. It was a good audiobook, which spoke of both his academic career and his political career. For example, he did some important diplomacy for the British government, and was responsible for some of the economic provisions of the Treaty of Versailles (the treaty that ended World War One). He also helped to secure some loans from the American government, which helped to improve his country's postwar economy somewhat – despite the interest rates which we imposed on this loan.

A review of “Struggle over the Keynesian Heritage” (audiobook)

So I recently listened to an audiobook called “Struggle over the Keynesian Heritage.” It was the sequel to an earlier audiobook called “Keynes and the Keynesian Revolution,” which covered the life and ideas of John Maynard Keynes, the great British economist. Whether one agrees or disagrees with him, Keynes was the most influential economist of the twentieth century. “Struggle over the Keynesian Heritage” is about the debate over Keynes’ ideas and legacy, among groups that call themselves “Keynesians.”

A review of Karl Marx's “Das Kapital” (audiobook)

“A commodity appears, at first sight, a very trivial thing, and easily understood. Its analysis shows that it is, in reality, a very queer thing, abounding in metaphysical subtleties and theological niceties.”

– Karl Marx’s “Das Kapital” (1867), Volume 1, Chapter 1, Section 4

Those who know me would not be surprised to hear that I’m not exactly a fan of Karl Marx. He has long struck me as a nutball who was wrong about virtually everything he said, and who had very little to contribute to economic science. Nonetheless, he is someone that is worth learning about anyway for someone who debates about economic issues. Many a liberal is a disciple of Karl Marx, and does not shy away from making Marxist arguments. Thus, knowing about Marxist arguments is helpful to anyone who wants to debunk them as I do.

Because of this, I have long thought about reading Karl Marx in the original German – reading his short work “The Communist Manifesto” in German, and even his much longer work “Das Kapital” in German. I’ve read “The Communist Manifesto” in English translation, as it turns out, and have even read parts of “Das Kapital” in English as well. But I have never yet spared the time to read all of “Das Kapital” in any language (even English). Thus, on the off-chance that I would never have the German to tackle this in the original, I acquired an audiobook about it some years ago which gives some basic background information about the book, and which helps to place Marxism as he conceived it into the context of the times – one of the best investments I’ve ever made, in my opinion.

A review of “Early Austrian Economics” (audiobook)

So I recently finished an audiobook about “Early Austrian Economics,” about the famous Austrian School in the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries. This is a school that has long been admired by conservatives, because they supported the idea that free markets reflect the subjective preferences of individuals (specifically consumers). Thus, they considered free markets to be a positive thing on this account. Their work was highly focused on economic science, but it did have obvious political implications as well, because of the insight that markets meet the demand of society, and satisfy its needs and wants.

A review of “Joseph Schumpeter and Dynamic Economic Change” (audiobook)

I recently finished listening to an audiobook about the Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter, who lived from 1883 to 1950. He eventually emigrated to the United States, and obtained U. S. citizenship. This was a good audiobook about him, and seemed to offer a good summation of his life's work. But I have somewhat mixed feelings about Joseph Schumpeter's ideas.

A review of “The Wealth of Nations: Adam Smith” (audiobook)

“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity, but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages.”

– Adam Smith’s “The Wealth of Nations” (1776), Book I, Chapter II

So I recently re-listened to an audiobook called “The Wealth of Nations: Adam Smith.” It is a modern discussion of this famous work, which is some five hours long. They do not attempt to give their listeners the entire text of “The Wealth of Nations,” since this would take far longer than five hours to do. But they do give a good summary of this famous work, and give the reader a good introduction to the book that created the new “economic science.”

A review of “The Communist Manifesto” (audiobook)

I once read “The Communist Manifesto” itself in English translation in 2012, because it is a shorter work that requires very little time commitment. I am not a fan of this work, and tend to find it a bit on the nutty side. Nonetheless, I'm glad that I read it, and took the time to think about its ideas. Some years ago, I acquired an audiobook about “The Communist Manifesto” which briefly discusses its main ideas, and gives some historical background about it as well. This is the audiobook that I will be reviewing here.

Karl Marx and the “labor theory of value”

One of the central tenets of Marxism is the "labor theory of value," which is the idea that the economic value of something is determined by the number of hours that it took to make it. It should be acknowledged that labor really is (at least partially) relevant in determining the value of something. Nonetheless, it seems safe to say that Karl Marx takes this theory far beyond the evidence. It is his extreme form of this theory that will receive a response here. He introduces this theory early in his work, in the very first section of the very first chapter of "Das Kapital" (his longest book):

Karl Marx

Quote from Marx about "labor theory of value"

"A use value, or useful article, therefore, has value only because human labour in the abstract has been embodied or materialised in it. How, then, is the magnitude of this value to be measured? Plainly, by the quantity of the value-creating substance, the labour, contained in the article. The quantity of labour, however, is measured by its duration, and labour time in its turn finds it standard in weeks, days, and hours." (Source: Karl Marx's "Das Kapital," Part 1, Chapter 1, Section 1, as translated into English at Marxists.org)

Marx and Engels

Even Marx presented some qualifications to his theory ...

There are several problems with this theory, and much has been written describing the many flaws of using it to describe value. I will not touch on all of these problems, but only on one of them - the one that I find the most interesting. It can be demonstrated with a qualification that Marx himself made to this theory. Even Karl Marx, the greatest proponent of the labor theory of value, qualified his theory with the idea that only those labor hours that were "socially necessary" should be counted as adding value. Marx's concept of "socia[l] necess[ity]" is not very well-defined, but his definition's meaning is clear enough to show that it contradicts his labor theory of value, attacking its very basis as an explanation.

Iron and Coal, painting from 1855-1860 (during Marx's lifetime) about the Industrial Revolution

Adam Smith and the Pin Factory

"The greatest improvements in the productive powers of labour, and the greater part of the skill, dexterity, and judgment, with which it is anywhere directed, or applied, seem to have been the effects of the division of labour. The effects of the division of labour, in the general business of society, will be more easily understood, by considering in what manner it operates in some particular manufactures."

- Opening lines of Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations" (Book I, Chapter I)

If your parents have ever divided household chores among you and your siblings, then you know what the division of labor is. So-and-so mops the floor, so-and-so does the vacuuming, and so-and-so cleans the toilets. (Lucky for them, huh?) The labor gets divided among multiple people, with each person getting a certain kind of task.

The concept is not a new one, and labor has been divided among several people for centuries. But it was not until comparatively recently that its advantages were systematically explained. The Scottish economist Adam Smith explained it well more than 200 years ago, and his words about its importance still have relevance today. There are advantages to dividing the labor, and these advantages have great importance for society. So with that in mind, I will now turn to what he said about this concept.

Adam Smith

Why Adam Smith is still relevant today

" ... every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain; and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest, he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it."

- Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations," Book IV, Chapter II

People still talk about Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations" to this day

People still talk to this day about an economics book that was published in 1776. And though the year I'm talking about is rightfully associated with America, this book was actually published by someone in the mother country that we were then at war with. Adam Smith (the author of this book) was a Scotsman, which meant that he was also British.

John Trumbull's Declaration of Independence

Historical note: Adam Smith sympathized with the American Revolution

But his views about the American Revolution were actually fairly sympathetic to the Patriot side. He favored giving the American colonies either representation in Parliament, or independence from the mother country. (For evidence of this, see this blog post.) Because I discussed this subject at length in my other blog post referenced above, I will not go into it further here. Instead, I will now launch into my discussion of his political and economic ideas, and how they apply to our world today.

Adam Smith

A few problems with “The Communist Manifesto”

"A spectre is haunting Europe - the spectre of communism. All the Powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this specter ... Where is the party in opposition that has not been decried as Communistic by its opponents in power? Where is the Opposition that has not hurled back the branding reproach of Communism, against the more advanced opposition parties, as well as against its reactionary adversaries? Two things result from this fact: I. Communism is already acknowledged by all European powers to be itself a power. II. It is high time that Communists should openly, in the face of the whole world, publish their views, their aims, their tendencies, and meet this nursery tale of the Spectre of Communism with a Manifesto of the party itself."

- Opening lines of "The Communist Manifesto" (1848)

I was recently told that I should write a blog post about why Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels were wrong - arguing not on values as I did in another post (though there is a place for that as well), but on facts and theories, challenging their dubious factual and theoretical claims.

Karl Marx

Friedrich Engels

In discussing problems with Marxism, where does one start?

To someone who's read and understood their book "The Communist Manifesto," that might seem easy - and in some ways, it is. But in trying to debunk it, I had one big problem: where to start. Despite "The Communist Manifesto" being a tiny book (which I read through in a day), it sometimes seems when I'm reading the book like its two authors were having a competition to see who could cram more fallacies into a small amount of space. And they both won.

Marx and Engels

Discussion of Marxist fallacies is practically a genre in its own right ...

I intend this blog post to be a short one, so I will only be able to summarize this book's problems. But if you're after a more thorough treatment of its fallacies, this is practically a genre in its own right, so there are lots of works to choose from.