What do you think?
Rate this book
Grand Pursuit: The Story of Economic Genius
The author of the groundbreaking bestseller A Beautiful Mind takes the reader on a journey of discovery—how the greatest invention of modern times, economics, has changed the lives of every single human being. In a sweeping narrative, the author of the megabestseller A Beautiful Mind takes us on a journey through modern history with the men and women who changed the lives of every single person on the planet. It’s the epic story of the making of modern economics, and of how economics rescued mankind from squalor and deprivation by placing its material fate in its own hands rather than in Fate. Nasar account begins with Charles Dickens and Henry Mayhew observing and publishing the condition of the poor majority in mid-nineteenth-century London, the richest and most glittering place in the world. This was a new pursuit. She describes the often heroic efforts of Marx, Engels, Alfred Marshall, Beatrice and Sydney Webb, and the American Irving Fisher to put those insights into action—
576 pages, Hardcover
First published September 13, 2011
290 people are currently reading
3376 people want to read
About the author
Sylvia Nasar
18 books299 followersSylvia Nasar was born to a German mother and Uzbek father. Her family immigrated to the United States in 1951, then moved to Ankara, Turkey in 1960. She graduated from Antioch College in 1970, and earned a masters' degree in economics at New York University in 1976. For four years, she did research with Nobel Laureate Wassily Leontief. She is currently the Knight Chair in Business Journalism at Columbia University. Her husband is economist Darryl McLeod. They have three children and live in Tarrytown, New York.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 199 reviews
June 1, 2013
"No. The master narrative of High Liberalism is mistaken factually. ... A political philosophy based on fairy tales about what happened in history or what humans are like is going to be less than useless. It is going to be mischievous. ... Anyone who after the 20th century still thinks that thoroughgoing socialism, nationalism, imperialism, mobilization, central planning, regulation, zoning, price controls, tax policy, labor unions, business cartels, government spending, intrusive policing, adventurism in foreign policy, faith in entangling religion and politics, or most of the other 19th-century proposals for governmental action are still neat, harmless ideas for improving our lives is not paying attention." - Deirdre McCloskey, "Factual Free-Market Fairness."
The defining feature of this book is its insufferability. The author strung together hundreds of pages of run on sentences and stuffy prose about the arbitrarily selected "geniuses" who supposedly should be credited with "ending poverty." All thanks for this accomplishment, caused at its heart by deregulation of a global bourgeoisie granted liberty and dignity are instead lavished upon contributors to the two deadening hands of the state, the welfare and regulatory bureaucracies. Including Fisher, Shumpeter, and Friedman to the mix was a welcome change of pace, but Nasar fails to explain how "escaping Malthus' trap" would have halted in the absence of their academic discoveries, which remain obscure and irrelevant to all outside the economics-nerd blogosphere.
For a book appearing to promise a weighty and illuminating discussion of a "Grand Pursuit," I was surprised that 90% of this book consisted of gossip about the private lives of each intellectual, with experiences sometimes tangentially related to their observations, sometimes not. Unlike a book which could mingle abstract ideas with a practical historical survey of the recent past's many anachronisms, like Banquet at Delmonico's, Nasar cannot maintain a coherent narrative or keep unbearable boredom at bay.
Q: "Would you rather: Rewatch Fast & Furious 6, or read another chapter of this book?"
A: Tough question. As Keynes said, "In the long run we are all dead." At least F&F 6 would have a modicum of entertainment, in the "so bad it's good" sense.
The defining feature of this book is its insufferability. The author strung together hundreds of pages of run on sentences and stuffy prose about the arbitrarily selected "geniuses" who supposedly should be credited with "ending poverty." All thanks for this accomplishment, caused at its heart by deregulation of a global bourgeoisie granted liberty and dignity are instead lavished upon contributors to the two deadening hands of the state, the welfare and regulatory bureaucracies. Including Fisher, Shumpeter, and Friedman to the mix was a welcome change of pace, but Nasar fails to explain how "escaping Malthus' trap" would have halted in the absence of their academic discoveries, which remain obscure and irrelevant to all outside the economics-nerd blogosphere.
For a book appearing to promise a weighty and illuminating discussion of a "Grand Pursuit," I was surprised that 90% of this book consisted of gossip about the private lives of each intellectual, with experiences sometimes tangentially related to their observations, sometimes not. Unlike a book which could mingle abstract ideas with a practical historical survey of the recent past's many anachronisms, like Banquet at Delmonico's, Nasar cannot maintain a coherent narrative or keep unbearable boredom at bay.
Q: "Would you rather: Rewatch Fast & Furious 6, or read another chapter of this book?"
A: Tough question. As Keynes said, "In the long run we are all dead." At least F&F 6 would have a modicum of entertainment, in the "so bad it's good" sense.
December 1, 2014
-De muchas ideas, que principalmente explican las cosas en retrospectiva, y de muchas voluntades.-
Género. Ensayo.
Lo que nos cuenta. Desde mediados del siglo XIX hasta comienzos del XXI, repaso de la vida e ideas, económicas principalmente (pero también muy sociales, políticas e incluso personales), de varios de los referentes y líderes de opinión de sus respectivas épocas, como Dickens, Marx, Keynes, Schumpeter, Hayek y Friedman entre otros, con la intención de mostrar la evolución del pensamiento económico en paralelo a la situación histórica (y no siempre en la misma dirección).
¿Quiere saber más del libro, sin spoilers? Visite:
http://librosdeolethros.blogspot.com/...
Género. Ensayo.
Lo que nos cuenta. Desde mediados del siglo XIX hasta comienzos del XXI, repaso de la vida e ideas, económicas principalmente (pero también muy sociales, políticas e incluso personales), de varios de los referentes y líderes de opinión de sus respectivas épocas, como Dickens, Marx, Keynes, Schumpeter, Hayek y Friedman entre otros, con la intención de mostrar la evolución del pensamiento económico en paralelo a la situación histórica (y no siempre en la misma dirección).
¿Quiere saber más del libro, sin spoilers? Visite:
http://librosdeolethros.blogspot.com/...
December 1, 2014
-De muchas ideas, que principalmente explican las cosas en retrospectiva, y de muchas voluntades.-
Género. Ensayo.
Lo que nos cuenta. Desde mediados del siglo XIX hasta comienzos del XXI, repaso de la vida e ideas, económicas principalmente (pero también muy sociales, políticas e incluso personales), de varios de los referentes y líderes de opinión de sus respectivas épocas, como Dickens, Marx, Keynes, Schumpeter, Hayek y Friedman entre otros, con la intención de mostrar la evolución del pensamiento económico en paralelo a la situación histórica (y no siempre en la misma dirección).
¿Quiere saber más del libro, sin spoilers? Visite:
http://librosdeolethros.blogspot.com/...
Género. Ensayo.
Lo que nos cuenta. Desde mediados del siglo XIX hasta comienzos del XXI, repaso de la vida e ideas, económicas principalmente (pero también muy sociales, políticas e incluso personales), de varios de los referentes y líderes de opinión de sus respectivas épocas, como Dickens, Marx, Keynes, Schumpeter, Hayek y Friedman entre otros, con la intención de mostrar la evolución del pensamiento económico en paralelo a la situación histórica (y no siempre en la misma dirección).
¿Quiere saber más del libro, sin spoilers? Visite:
http://librosdeolethros.blogspot.com/...
December 1, 2014
-De muchas ideas, que principalmente explican las cosas en retrospectiva, y de muchas voluntades.-
Género. Ensayo.
Lo que nos cuenta. Desde mediados del siglo XIX hasta comienzos del XXI, repaso de la vida e ideas, económicas principalmente (pero también muy sociales, políticas e incluso personales), de varios de los referentes y líderes de opinión de sus respectivas épocas, como Dickens, Marx, Keynes, Schumpeter, Hayek y Friedman entre otros, con la intención de mostrar la evolución del pensamiento económico en paralelo a la situación histórica (y no siempre en la misma dirección).
¿Quiere saber más del libro, sin spoilers? Visite:
http://librosdeolethros.blogspot.com/...
Género. Ensayo.
Lo que nos cuenta. Desde mediados del siglo XIX hasta comienzos del XXI, repaso de la vida e ideas, económicas principalmente (pero también muy sociales, políticas e incluso personales), de varios de los referentes y líderes de opinión de sus respectivas épocas, como Dickens, Marx, Keynes, Schumpeter, Hayek y Friedman entre otros, con la intención de mostrar la evolución del pensamiento económico en paralelo a la situación histórica (y no siempre en la misma dirección).
¿Quiere saber más del libro, sin spoilers? Visite:
http://librosdeolethros.blogspot.com/...
April 6, 2017
Economics Through the Lens of Personality: An Accessible History
It’s well known that Thomas Carlyle, a 19th century British historian, is credited with first calling economics “the dismal science.” What’s much less widely appreciated is that this derogatory label was well justified when he set the phrase down on paper in 1849.
Until well into the 19th century, as Sylvia Nasar shows so clearly in Grand Pursuit, economics was, indeed, dismal. The gloomy predictions of Thomas Malthus dominated discussions about the economy, and then Charles Dickens and other social reformers got into the act in mid-century, decrying the deplorable conditions of the poor and the heartless assumption that their lot could never improve. Karl Marx, writing in the same era, differed only in that he asserted their lives would be better only after a revolution because capitalism would never refrain from rank exploitation.
It was only in the 1880s that economics, gradually coming into its own as a field of study, came to view the economy not as static but as a dynamic process that evolved as the productivity of labor increased. An English economist named Alfred Marshall set out to understand the field in this new way but never succeeded in his quest. He “discovered that an ingenious mechanism of competition encouraged business owners to make constant, incremental improvements in productivity that accumulated over time and, simultaneously, compelled them to spread the gains in the form of higher wages or lower prices.” Marshall’s thinking held sway for many years. Then, in the following decade, there emerged a remarkable figure who moved the center of gravity in the discussion far to the left: a woman named Beatrice Webb.
Of all the brilliant men and women Nasar portrays in Grand Pursuit, Beatrice Webb is clearly her favorite. Born Beatrice Potter, one of nine sisters, she was brilliant, beautiful, and wealthy. She joined the Fabian Socialist circle whose stars were Sidney Webb and H.G. Wells, eventually marrying Sidney, a gnomish little man who seems to have taken his place in her shadow. Working from a Marxist perspective, Beatrice invented the concept of the welfare state, Marx’s own disdain for the idea notwithstanding. She “showed that destitution was preventable and that providing education, sanitation, food, medical, and other forms of in-kind assistance would increase private sector productivity and wages more than taxing would decrease it.” The Webbs and Wells also cofounded the London School of Economics.
The next major figure in Nasar’s account was Irving Fisher, an American economist who held forth at Yale for decades, lionized by his peers and the public alike. Fisher “was the first to realize how powerfully money affected the real economy and to make the case that government could increase economic stability by managing money better. By pinpointing a single common cause for the seemingly opposite ills of inflation and deflation, he identified a potential instrument — control of the money supply — that government could use to moderate or even avoid inflationary booms or deflationary depressions.” However, brilliant though Fisher undoubtedly was, it was he who famously proclaimed, just three days before the crash in October 1929, “Stock prices have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau.” Fisher lost a fortune he’d blithely invested on margin in stocks.
Nasar focuses next on the Austrian school, dwelling largely on the ups and downs of Joseph Schumpeter’s career. Friedrich Hayek, the darling of the Right, receives less attention. His views remained only briefly in vogue and have apparently been greatly misunderstood by the latter-day “conservatives” who profess to sit at his feet (and whom Hayek himself despised). Schumpeter was more influential, serving for a time as Minister of Finance in the post-World War I Austrian government and occupying key academic positions in Great Britain and the United States. He “focused on the human element. For him, development depended primarily on entrepreneurship . . . In contrast to Marx’s automaton capitalist . . ., the entrepreneur distinguished himself by a willingness to ‘destroy old patterns of thought and action’ and redeploy existing resources in new ways.” Echoes of Schumpeter’s thinking continue to feature prominently in contemporary economic discussions.
Nasar devotes considerable attention to John Maynard Keynes, who was by all accounts the dominant figure in world economics for decades. She dismisses the notion that Keynes’ contribution was to advnace the concept of deficit spending. “Beatrice Webb, Winston Churchill, and Herbert Hoover had all embraced deficit spending before Keynes,” she writes. In fact, the principal reason why his General Theory of Economics represented such a major advance for the field ”was Keynes’ proof that it was possible for a free market economy to settle into states in which workers and machines remained idle for prolonged periods of time — that there were depressions that, unlike the garden-variety ones, were not brief and didn’t end of their own accord as a result of falling prices and interest rates.” Keynes argued that monetary policy — increasing or decreasing the money supply — wasn’t sufficient. Fiscal policy changes were required: “cutting taxes and letting bsinesses and individuals keep more of their income so that they could spend it. Or, better yet, having the government spend more money directly, since that would guarantee that 100 percent of it would be spent rather than saved.”
More recent economic icons such as Joan Robinson (Keynes’ Communist protege) and Milton Friedman figure in Nasar’s account of developments in the field after Keynes. However, she reserves her most respectful treatment for the brilliant Indian economic thinker, Amartya Sen. Born in Dhaka in 1933 in what is today Bangladesh, Sen holds an endowed chair at Harvard. Much of his work — and a major reason why he won the Nobel in economics in 1998 — concerns the technical concept of “social choice,” which I find abstract, confusing, and purely of academic interest. But Sen’s widely quoted studies of the causes of famine are anything but abstract, and his concern for the poor distinguishes his ethical approach to economics. Of all those described at length in Grand Pursuit, Sen is the only one still living.
Sylvia Nasar, an econ0mist herself, previously wrote A Beautiful Mind, a biography of the extraordinary mathematician John Nash. Grand Pusuit is a worthy successor to A Beautiful Mind, as it is to Robert Heilbroner’s similar effort, The Worldly Philosophers, now a classic which I recall reading as a teenager.
(From www.malwarwickonbooks.com)
It’s well known that Thomas Carlyle, a 19th century British historian, is credited with first calling economics “the dismal science.” What’s much less widely appreciated is that this derogatory label was well justified when he set the phrase down on paper in 1849.
Until well into the 19th century, as Sylvia Nasar shows so clearly in Grand Pursuit, economics was, indeed, dismal. The gloomy predictions of Thomas Malthus dominated discussions about the economy, and then Charles Dickens and other social reformers got into the act in mid-century, decrying the deplorable conditions of the poor and the heartless assumption that their lot could never improve. Karl Marx, writing in the same era, differed only in that he asserted their lives would be better only after a revolution because capitalism would never refrain from rank exploitation.
It was only in the 1880s that economics, gradually coming into its own as a field of study, came to view the economy not as static but as a dynamic process that evolved as the productivity of labor increased. An English economist named Alfred Marshall set out to understand the field in this new way but never succeeded in his quest. He “discovered that an ingenious mechanism of competition encouraged business owners to make constant, incremental improvements in productivity that accumulated over time and, simultaneously, compelled them to spread the gains in the form of higher wages or lower prices.” Marshall’s thinking held sway for many years. Then, in the following decade, there emerged a remarkable figure who moved the center of gravity in the discussion far to the left: a woman named Beatrice Webb.
Of all the brilliant men and women Nasar portrays in Grand Pursuit, Beatrice Webb is clearly her favorite. Born Beatrice Potter, one of nine sisters, she was brilliant, beautiful, and wealthy. She joined the Fabian Socialist circle whose stars were Sidney Webb and H.G. Wells, eventually marrying Sidney, a gnomish little man who seems to have taken his place in her shadow. Working from a Marxist perspective, Beatrice invented the concept of the welfare state, Marx’s own disdain for the idea notwithstanding. She “showed that destitution was preventable and that providing education, sanitation, food, medical, and other forms of in-kind assistance would increase private sector productivity and wages more than taxing would decrease it.” The Webbs and Wells also cofounded the London School of Economics.
The next major figure in Nasar’s account was Irving Fisher, an American economist who held forth at Yale for decades, lionized by his peers and the public alike. Fisher “was the first to realize how powerfully money affected the real economy and to make the case that government could increase economic stability by managing money better. By pinpointing a single common cause for the seemingly opposite ills of inflation and deflation, he identified a potential instrument — control of the money supply — that government could use to moderate or even avoid inflationary booms or deflationary depressions.” However, brilliant though Fisher undoubtedly was, it was he who famously proclaimed, just three days before the crash in October 1929, “Stock prices have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau.” Fisher lost a fortune he’d blithely invested on margin in stocks.
Nasar focuses next on the Austrian school, dwelling largely on the ups and downs of Joseph Schumpeter’s career. Friedrich Hayek, the darling of the Right, receives less attention. His views remained only briefly in vogue and have apparently been greatly misunderstood by the latter-day “conservatives” who profess to sit at his feet (and whom Hayek himself despised). Schumpeter was more influential, serving for a time as Minister of Finance in the post-World War I Austrian government and occupying key academic positions in Great Britain and the United States. He “focused on the human element. For him, development depended primarily on entrepreneurship . . . In contrast to Marx’s automaton capitalist . . ., the entrepreneur distinguished himself by a willingness to ‘destroy old patterns of thought and action’ and redeploy existing resources in new ways.” Echoes of Schumpeter’s thinking continue to feature prominently in contemporary economic discussions.
Nasar devotes considerable attention to John Maynard Keynes, who was by all accounts the dominant figure in world economics for decades. She dismisses the notion that Keynes’ contribution was to advnace the concept of deficit spending. “Beatrice Webb, Winston Churchill, and Herbert Hoover had all embraced deficit spending before Keynes,” she writes. In fact, the principal reason why his General Theory of Economics represented such a major advance for the field ”was Keynes’ proof that it was possible for a free market economy to settle into states in which workers and machines remained idle for prolonged periods of time — that there were depressions that, unlike the garden-variety ones, were not brief and didn’t end of their own accord as a result of falling prices and interest rates.” Keynes argued that monetary policy — increasing or decreasing the money supply — wasn’t sufficient. Fiscal policy changes were required: “cutting taxes and letting bsinesses and individuals keep more of their income so that they could spend it. Or, better yet, having the government spend more money directly, since that would guarantee that 100 percent of it would be spent rather than saved.”
More recent economic icons such as Joan Robinson (Keynes’ Communist protege) and Milton Friedman figure in Nasar’s account of developments in the field after Keynes. However, she reserves her most respectful treatment for the brilliant Indian economic thinker, Amartya Sen. Born in Dhaka in 1933 in what is today Bangladesh, Sen holds an endowed chair at Harvard. Much of his work — and a major reason why he won the Nobel in economics in 1998 — concerns the technical concept of “social choice,” which I find abstract, confusing, and purely of academic interest. But Sen’s widely quoted studies of the causes of famine are anything but abstract, and his concern for the poor distinguishes his ethical approach to economics. Of all those described at length in Grand Pursuit, Sen is the only one still living.
Sylvia Nasar, an econ0mist herself, previously wrote A Beautiful Mind, a biography of the extraordinary mathematician John Nash. Grand Pusuit is a worthy successor to A Beautiful Mind, as it is to Robert Heilbroner’s similar effort, The Worldly Philosophers, now a classic which I recall reading as a teenager.
(From www.malwarwickonbooks.com)
December 1, 2014
-De muchas ideas, que principalmente explican las cosas en retrospectiva, y de muchas voluntades.-
Género. Ensayo.
Lo que nos cuenta. Desde mediados del siglo XIX hasta comienzos del XXI, repaso de la vida e ideas, económicas principalmente (pero también muy sociales, políticas e incluso personales), de varios de los referentes y líderes de opinión de sus respectivas épocas, como Dickens, Marx, Keynes, Schumpeter, Hayek y Friedman entre otros, con la intención de mostrar la evolución del pensamiento económico en paralelo a la situación histórica (y no siempre en la misma dirección).
¿Quiere saber más del libro, sin spoilers? Visite:
http://librosdeolethros.blogspot.com/...
Género. Ensayo.
Lo que nos cuenta. Desde mediados del siglo XIX hasta comienzos del XXI, repaso de la vida e ideas, económicas principalmente (pero también muy sociales, políticas e incluso personales), de varios de los referentes y líderes de opinión de sus respectivas épocas, como Dickens, Marx, Keynes, Schumpeter, Hayek y Friedman entre otros, con la intención de mostrar la evolución del pensamiento económico en paralelo a la situación histórica (y no siempre en la misma dirección).
¿Quiere saber más del libro, sin spoilers? Visite:
http://librosdeolethros.blogspot.com/...
May 22, 2013
In her preface, Nasar describes Grand Pursuit as “the story of an idea that was born in the Golden Age before World War I,” the grand pursuit of “turning economics into an instrument of mastery” that could drive prosperity, rather than the “dismal science” that cautioned against government or even voluntary social intervention. Although she gives a glimmer of the ideas of such founders of classical economics as Adam Smith, Thomas Robert Malthus, David Ricardo, John Stuart Mill, the focus is on their successors from the Victorian Age to present: Marx-Engels, Alfred Marshall, John Maynard Keynes, Joseph Schumpeter, Friedrich Hayek. Milton Friedman gets little space, and the great critic of centralized planning seminal in the free-market movement, Ludwig Von Mises, has some scattered mentions.
The blurbs of praise inside the cover run the gamut from the far-left Mother Jones and more moderate left The Nation to center-right publications such as the Economist and the Wall Street Journal, promising a balanced view of modern economics. I’d say more “middle-of-the-road.” Nasar tips her hand to her own biases fairly early on, when for instance she claimed that Mother-of-the-Welfare-State Beatrice Webb “showed” that the welfare state could cure poverty and was “more likely to raise than be a drag to economic growth.” (Not claimed or argued but showed.) Nasar’s no fan of the free market, but no fan of Soviet-style central planning either. Her triumphalist narrative and blue skies epilogue can sometimes sound downright Candide-like, and certainly marks her as a champion of the status quo--from reviews seemingly the cause of annoyance to both socialists and libertarians alike who’d challenge her assumptions. I’ve also read complaints in the (few) negative reviews about this being a popular economics book, one not deep enough to merit the attention of an economics major.
Well, except how many of us can say that? I took one course in Macroeconomics in college, and have read some books, and some excerpts of the works, of some of the thinkers listed above. As a general reader interested in history, economics and politics, I found the book valuable and fascinating. Especially given Nasar wasn’t shy about giving us the sweep of history as a whole, including literary figures from Jane Austen to Virginia Woof when they tied into the story. Certainly I’d heard of Marx, Keynes and Hayek, and knew something of their lives and ideas, but I’d never known about Beatrice Webb, for instance, who Nasar credits as tremendously important in creating the modern Welfare State. Nobel-prize winner in Economics Robert Solow called Grand Pursuit a “colorful, even exciting series of vignettes involving important protagonists in the history of economic thought.” Well, economic thought between 1850 and 1950, primarily, but I do think the book enormously entertaining and well worth the read.
The blurbs of praise inside the cover run the gamut from the far-left Mother Jones and more moderate left The Nation to center-right publications such as the Economist and the Wall Street Journal, promising a balanced view of modern economics. I’d say more “middle-of-the-road.” Nasar tips her hand to her own biases fairly early on, when for instance she claimed that Mother-of-the-Welfare-State Beatrice Webb “showed” that the welfare state could cure poverty and was “more likely to raise than be a drag to economic growth.” (Not claimed or argued but showed.) Nasar’s no fan of the free market, but no fan of Soviet-style central planning either. Her triumphalist narrative and blue skies epilogue can sometimes sound downright Candide-like, and certainly marks her as a champion of the status quo--from reviews seemingly the cause of annoyance to both socialists and libertarians alike who’d challenge her assumptions. I’ve also read complaints in the (few) negative reviews about this being a popular economics book, one not deep enough to merit the attention of an economics major.
Well, except how many of us can say that? I took one course in Macroeconomics in college, and have read some books, and some excerpts of the works, of some of the thinkers listed above. As a general reader interested in history, economics and politics, I found the book valuable and fascinating. Especially given Nasar wasn’t shy about giving us the sweep of history as a whole, including literary figures from Jane Austen to Virginia Woof when they tied into the story. Certainly I’d heard of Marx, Keynes and Hayek, and knew something of their lives and ideas, but I’d never known about Beatrice Webb, for instance, who Nasar credits as tremendously important in creating the modern Welfare State. Nobel-prize winner in Economics Robert Solow called Grand Pursuit a “colorful, even exciting series of vignettes involving important protagonists in the history of economic thought.” Well, economic thought between 1850 and 1950, primarily, but I do think the book enormously entertaining and well worth the read.
August 16, 2020
For most of this book, I struggled to draw all of the disparate threads together that Sylvia Nasar had put in this book of economic history. She writes about thinkers from Karl Marx to Milton Friedman, and spans a fairly large time period (mid 1800s - late 1900s) and mainly went back and forth between Europe and the United States. Why did I struggle? Probably because I am not that smart. Economics is not my forte, and the continual movement between different people, with different theories, in different places, at different times, made it confusing for me to follow along. Thankfully, towards the end, I was able to realize that she had, more or less, tried to demonstrate how one person's thoughts influenced the next person, and so on down the line.
There are many economists that she highlights, but if there is a major character in this book, it is John Maynard Keynes, brilliant British economist that operated from WWI to WWII. Keynes was especially instrumental in arranging economic agreements between the U.S. and U.K. in the midst of WWII. Keynes also was open to reevaluating and then changing his thinking on economic theory in order to meet the demands of the situation. Keynes came to advocate for a more involved and active government in regards to preventing/pulling out of a depression.
For some reason, Nasar brings Friedman into the narrative but then just as quickly moves on from him. She reviews his formative years, his basic agreement with the principles that Keynes was propounding, and then indicates that he later on moved drastically away from those principles and advocated for a much more laissez-faire approach, but this is not really elaborated, and she does not return to him in later years. I thought he was going to be a bigger presence in the book.
Nasar writes well, and indeed much of this book is biographical in nature as she delves into the youth and education of the economists that she writes about. And politics of course is involved, especially with someone like Marx, or Joan Robinson who was a strong Communist sympathizer and excuse-maker. Her prose is good, and the writing quality is high. An example from page 363: "By 1941, self-identified Keynesians were scattered around the wartime bureaucracy in Washington like raisins in a cake."
The final chapter does deal with an Indian economist, Amartya Sen. But that is the only chapter that highlights someone who is not either in Europe or the United States. I would have been interested to see her include some important economists in Latin America, China, Japan, and Africa. But I did understand why she kept the Sen chapter for last, as she wanted to show the evolution in economic theory that came from people like Thomas Malthus and John Stuart Mill and moved forward in time. Too bad I am not smart enough to understand all of it!
There are many economists that she highlights, but if there is a major character in this book, it is John Maynard Keynes, brilliant British economist that operated from WWI to WWII. Keynes was especially instrumental in arranging economic agreements between the U.S. and U.K. in the midst of WWII. Keynes also was open to reevaluating and then changing his thinking on economic theory in order to meet the demands of the situation. Keynes came to advocate for a more involved and active government in regards to preventing/pulling out of a depression.
For some reason, Nasar brings Friedman into the narrative but then just as quickly moves on from him. She reviews his formative years, his basic agreement with the principles that Keynes was propounding, and then indicates that he later on moved drastically away from those principles and advocated for a much more laissez-faire approach, but this is not really elaborated, and she does not return to him in later years. I thought he was going to be a bigger presence in the book.
Nasar writes well, and indeed much of this book is biographical in nature as she delves into the youth and education of the economists that she writes about. And politics of course is involved, especially with someone like Marx, or Joan Robinson who was a strong Communist sympathizer and excuse-maker. Her prose is good, and the writing quality is high. An example from page 363: "By 1941, self-identified Keynesians were scattered around the wartime bureaucracy in Washington like raisins in a cake."
The final chapter does deal with an Indian economist, Amartya Sen. But that is the only chapter that highlights someone who is not either in Europe or the United States. I would have been interested to see her include some important economists in Latin America, China, Japan, and Africa. But I did understand why she kept the Sen chapter for last, as she wanted to show the evolution in economic theory that came from people like Thomas Malthus and John Stuart Mill and moved forward in time. Too bad I am not smart enough to understand all of it!
January 31, 2012
This is a popularly oriented book on economic history - in particular by way of a historical look at economists and their times. The premise is to look at the thinkers who developed our ways of thinking about how economic thinking can be used to improve the lots of people through intentional activity -- through intentional economics policies. The immediate mode of discussion is to focus on particular thinkers and their times and from that construct a larger narrative of the story of economic policy. Chapters focus on Marx, Marshall, Beatrice and Sidney Webb, Keynes, Hayek, Robinson, and Schumpeter.
The author is the author of "A Beautiful Mind" about John Nash and his madness. She is a terrific writer. I read that book too and enjoyed it (I'll add a review here shortly). I also liked the movie, although it was quite different and not as good as the book.
While I enjoyed the book, I did not enjoy it as much as I thought I would because I have already read quite a bit concerning most of these people. There was little new about Marx. The chapter on Alfred Marshall was very good. I really enjoyed the chapter on the Webb and learned much from them. The role of Keynes was well presented, but without much new material. The material on Hayek was very good and I learned much about his development during and after the war. There are numerous tidbits to enjoy and large bunches of memorable stories - such as how Milton Friedman developed the US government's payroll tax scheme -- which is at odds with his later positions on the role of government in the economy. The material on Schumpeter was interesting concerning his pre-economist days but is not as informative about his classic works. The Samuelson chapter was also good, especially in how he came to write his famous introductory economics text.
If you have not read much about 19th and 20th century economic history and economists, this is a good volume to start with. It had less materials than I had hoped to engage readers with more background in this material. Compared with Justin Fox's "Myth of the Rational Market", which is also a more popularly oriented book, it comes across as a bit too general.
It was a quick read and I did not feel I had wasted my time.
The author is the author of "A Beautiful Mind" about John Nash and his madness. She is a terrific writer. I read that book too and enjoyed it (I'll add a review here shortly). I also liked the movie, although it was quite different and not as good as the book.
While I enjoyed the book, I did not enjoy it as much as I thought I would because I have already read quite a bit concerning most of these people. There was little new about Marx. The chapter on Alfred Marshall was very good. I really enjoyed the chapter on the Webb and learned much from them. The role of Keynes was well presented, but without much new material. The material on Hayek was very good and I learned much about his development during and after the war. There are numerous tidbits to enjoy and large bunches of memorable stories - such as how Milton Friedman developed the US government's payroll tax scheme -- which is at odds with his later positions on the role of government in the economy. The material on Schumpeter was interesting concerning his pre-economist days but is not as informative about his classic works. The Samuelson chapter was also good, especially in how he came to write his famous introductory economics text.
If you have not read much about 19th and 20th century economic history and economists, this is a good volume to start with. It had less materials than I had hoped to engage readers with more background in this material. Compared with Justin Fox's "Myth of the Rational Market", which is also a more popularly oriented book, it comes across as a bit too general.
It was a quick read and I did not feel I had wasted my time.
May 18, 2013
My friend is absolutely right on many problems of this book - the lack of real analysis, pretty obvious and horrible biases, etc. "...the author just skims through the whole thing, telling us what the general population chose to remember about each economist." But I guess her complaint here is exactly the point of the book. It simply wants to introduce what the author thinks we (general pop) would want to know about these men and women. And I decide to continue reading because of the same reason.
One thing that initially held my interest is the "big argument" put forward by the author. I guess she tries to show the transition from the age of helplessness, of fate and predetermination, to the age of self-improvement, control of one's circumstances (thus "Grand Pursuit"). Still, she completely 'forgets' to examine the former period, keeps talking superficially about the latter, and thus making the comparison-argument very disappointing. Connections and development of different ideas, schools of thoughts are no where to be found. I don't see how the world is built up and up but only its fragments. And sometimes I get irritated by how wordy the book is.
If you want deeper knowledge of these economic thoughts, it is important to find another book. I am already looking at other materials to complete my understanding.
Still Grand Pursuit, for me, is an ok glimpse of these economists. There are certain little details of these economists' lives that I appreciate, especially in the first half of the book. And... I cannot help imagining that society of intellectuals... That time period sounds more exciting than ever. [I have personal issues, just like in Midnight in Paris if anyone knows this film]
2 stars
One thing that initially held my interest is the "big argument" put forward by the author. I guess she tries to show the transition from the age of helplessness, of fate and predetermination, to the age of self-improvement, control of one's circumstances (thus "Grand Pursuit"). Still, she completely 'forgets' to examine the former period, keeps talking superficially about the latter, and thus making the comparison-argument very disappointing. Connections and development of different ideas, schools of thoughts are no where to be found. I don't see how the world is built up and up but only its fragments. And sometimes I get irritated by how wordy the book is.
If you want deeper knowledge of these economic thoughts, it is important to find another book. I am already looking at other materials to complete my understanding.
Still Grand Pursuit, for me, is an ok glimpse of these economists. There are certain little details of these economists' lives that I appreciate, especially in the first half of the book. And... I cannot help imagining that society of intellectuals... That time period sounds more exciting than ever. [I have personal issues, just like in Midnight in Paris if anyone knows this film]
2 stars
November 9, 2011
This is hands down the finest book on the actual study of economics that I have ever read. It is a layperson's book. It puts things in perspective. It lays the groundwork to understand when people go on about Keynesianism and Milton Friedman and Monetism and explains who thought up what and who's done what in whose name and lays out the basic principles of everyone and does a wonderful jo of justifying the actual study of economics - important, since there are a lot of haters and Economists have made a lot of mistakes in the past.
It's a daunting book, not short, and sometimes goes too far into who was raised where and went to what school and has lots of color that is mildly interesting but often irrelevant, but it spins a damn fine yarn, and taught me more about economics than I have learned in the past 20 years since I got my undergrad econ degree.
It's a book for the curious, patient, interested layperson. If you want to hold your own in a dinner conversation about Schumpeter, Hakek or Marshall, or not sound like a complete tool when you talk about economic policy and politics, read this book. Please.
It's a daunting book, not short, and sometimes goes too far into who was raised where and went to what school and has lots of color that is mildly interesting but often irrelevant, but it spins a damn fine yarn, and taught me more about economics than I have learned in the past 20 years since I got my undergrad econ degree.
It's a book for the curious, patient, interested layperson. If you want to hold your own in a dinner conversation about Schumpeter, Hakek or Marshall, or not sound like a complete tool when you talk about economic policy and politics, read this book. Please.
October 16, 2019
Elfogult vagyok ezekkel a nagy, olvasmányos, népszerűsítő szakmunkákkal, amelyek egy komplett tudományág áttekintését tűzik ki célul, mert szükség van rájuk ebben a tudásdeficites világban. (Még akkor is, ha sok közülük részleteiben vitatható, vagy leegyszerűsítő is.) Az meg csak a hab a tortán, amikor egy olyan erőteljes szépírói vénával megáldott személy kezéből kerülnek ki, mint amilyen Sylvia Nasar. A Nagy Hajsza a közgazdasági eszme történetével foglalkozik – itt máris érdemes megtorpanni egy pillanatra, ugyanis a közgazdasági eszmét Nasar világosan el kívánja különíteni magától a közgazdaságtantól, mert míg utóbbi „a gazdasági rendszerrel, vagyis a javak megtermelésével, elosztásával, értékelésével és fogyasztásával foglalkozik” (Wikipédia), addig a közgazdasági eszme több és kevesebb is ennél: Nasar azt a hitet érti alatta, hogy a közgazdaságtannal való foglalkozás alkalmas lehet arra, hogy megoldjuk a társadalom problémáit. A különbség tetemes.
Vegyük például e könyv kiindulópontját, a Jane Austen-regények Angliáját. Ebben a korszakban már létezik közgazdaságtan, hisz Adam Smith már megteremtette – de ezzel együtt mégis mindenki szilárdan hiszi, hogy a javak összmennyisége korlátozott, így aki béresnek született, az élete fogytáig béres is marad. Ebből következik a Malthus-féle gondolat a népességnövekedésről: hogy a javak mennyisége akkor sem változik, ha több szegény születik, ergo ennek a több szegénynek ugyanannyi javból arányosan kevesebb jut majd, olyannyira, hogy a végén biza éhen is halnak páran közülük. Ez ellen pedig nincs mit tenni, ez egyfajta természettörvény, Föld Anyácska racionális válasza a túlnépesedésre, törődjünk bele*. Azonban (hála az Úrnak) akadtak, akik nem elégedtek meg ennyivel, hanem szilárdan hitték, hogy a világ gazdaságán való töprenkedés, illetve az ebből levont következtetések gyakorlatba ültetése akár még jobb hellyé is teheti ezt a bolygót. És szilárdan hitték azt is, hogy amennyiben a kormányok és vállalkozók felelősségteljesen viselkednek (akár maguktól, akár mert a körülmények erre kényszerítik őket), oktatásba és jóléti intézkedésekbe invesztálnak, akkor a rendelkezésre álló javak összmennyisége akár exponenciálisan is megnövekedhet, így kikeveredhetünk végre Malthus csapdájából. Hogy ez mennyire forradalmi gondolat volt, azt egész egyszerűen nem lehet túlhangsúlyozni. És eme gondolat kiötlői a hősei ennek a könyvnek.
Nasar módszere, hogy a közgazdaságtan meghatározó figuráinak portréiból építi fel a szöveget, így két legyet üt egy csapásra: 1.) bebizonyítja, hogy a közhiedelemmel ellentétben a közgazdászok bizony legkevésbé sem unalmas figurák. Ez a Schumpeter például! Ő aztán nagy franc volt! 2.) megteremti a lehetőségét annak, hogy egy olvasmányos keretben rajzolódjon ki az a hihetetlenül érdekes ív, ami az ipari forradalom „kegyetlen kapitalizmusától” (lásd Dickens akármelyik művét) a jóléti állam kialakulásán és a Nagy Világválságon át napjainkig vezet. Ez az ív persze bővelkedik kudarcokban és fájdalmas tévedésekben, de kétségkívül akadnak eredmények is – elég arra gondolni, hogy az 1800-as évek első felében Anglia népességének majd 90 %-a olyan béres volt, aki egy egyszobás kunyhóban lakott egész családjával, miközben kevesebb kalóriához jutott, mint egy mai vadászó-gyűjtögető törzs tagja az Amazonas mentén. Körülbelül a római rabszolgák életszínvonalán élt – ami a várható élettartamán is meglátszott –, és esélye sem volt, hogy számottevően változtathasson sorsán. Ehhez képest azért mára történt némi előrelépés, még ha nem is dőlhetünk elégedetten hátra. Persze az, hogy ezek a gondolkodók változtatták-e meg a negatív tendenciákat, vagy egyszerűen csak elméleteik követték az átalakulást, ami nélkülük is végbement volna, lehet vita tárgya – de ettől függetlenül nagyon izgalmas, és időnként igazán felemelő történet rajzolódik ki e könyv lapjain arról, ami a minket leginkább érintő dolog azok közül, amihez egy fikarcnyit sem konyítunk: a gazdaságról.
Megjegyz.: Hogy valami rosszat is mondjak, ami indokolja az egy csillag levonást: 1.) egy (sokkal**) figyelmesebb korrektort megérdemelt volna a kötet. Némelyik hiba egyszerűen csak megmosolyogtató – például az egyik fejezetben valamiért bizonyos random mondatok dőlt betűvel vannak írva –, mások viszont idegesítőek. Egy szakmunkában amúgy is jobban kell vigyázni az ilyesmire, mint mondjuk a szépirodalomban – egy elütött szám itt komplett állítások tényszerűségét megkérdőjelezheti. 2.) Nasar néha mintha túl sokat időzne főhőseinek életeseményeinek taglalásánál. Aminek megvan az a – nyilván kalkulált – előnye, hogy élő személyeket és működő atmoszférát teremt, de bizonyos fejezetekben talán túlzásba van vivődve.
* Ez a fajta fatalizmus amúgy Marxtól sem volt idegen, hiszen az életszínvonal javulása az ő elképzelései szerint sem képes enyhíteni a sokkot, amit a városok népességrobbanása okoz. Így ő is amondó volt, hogy közgazdasági válasz nem adható a kérdésre – a problémát csak a forradalom oldhatja meg.
** Sokkal-sokkal.
Vegyük például e könyv kiindulópontját, a Jane Austen-regények Angliáját. Ebben a korszakban már létezik közgazdaságtan, hisz Adam Smith már megteremtette – de ezzel együtt mégis mindenki szilárdan hiszi, hogy a javak összmennyisége korlátozott, így aki béresnek született, az élete fogytáig béres is marad. Ebből következik a Malthus-féle gondolat a népességnövekedésről: hogy a javak mennyisége akkor sem változik, ha több szegény születik, ergo ennek a több szegénynek ugyanannyi javból arányosan kevesebb jut majd, olyannyira, hogy a végén biza éhen is halnak páran közülük. Ez ellen pedig nincs mit tenni, ez egyfajta természettörvény, Föld Anyácska racionális válasza a túlnépesedésre, törődjünk bele*. Azonban (hála az Úrnak) akadtak, akik nem elégedtek meg ennyivel, hanem szilárdan hitték, hogy a világ gazdaságán való töprenkedés, illetve az ebből levont következtetések gyakorlatba ültetése akár még jobb hellyé is teheti ezt a bolygót. És szilárdan hitték azt is, hogy amennyiben a kormányok és vállalkozók felelősségteljesen viselkednek (akár maguktól, akár mert a körülmények erre kényszerítik őket), oktatásba és jóléti intézkedésekbe invesztálnak, akkor a rendelkezésre álló javak összmennyisége akár exponenciálisan is megnövekedhet, így kikeveredhetünk végre Malthus csapdájából. Hogy ez mennyire forradalmi gondolat volt, azt egész egyszerűen nem lehet túlhangsúlyozni. És eme gondolat kiötlői a hősei ennek a könyvnek.
Nasar módszere, hogy a közgazdaságtan meghatározó figuráinak portréiból építi fel a szöveget, így két legyet üt egy csapásra: 1.) bebizonyítja, hogy a közhiedelemmel ellentétben a közgazdászok bizony legkevésbé sem unalmas figurák. Ez a Schumpeter például! Ő aztán nagy franc volt! 2.) megteremti a lehetőségét annak, hogy egy olvasmányos keretben rajzolódjon ki az a hihetetlenül érdekes ív, ami az ipari forradalom „kegyetlen kapitalizmusától” (lásd Dickens akármelyik művét) a jóléti állam kialakulásán és a Nagy Világválságon át napjainkig vezet. Ez az ív persze bővelkedik kudarcokban és fájdalmas tévedésekben, de kétségkívül akadnak eredmények is – elég arra gondolni, hogy az 1800-as évek első felében Anglia népességének majd 90 %-a olyan béres volt, aki egy egyszobás kunyhóban lakott egész családjával, miközben kevesebb kalóriához jutott, mint egy mai vadászó-gyűjtögető törzs tagja az Amazonas mentén. Körülbelül a római rabszolgák életszínvonalán élt – ami a várható élettartamán is meglátszott –, és esélye sem volt, hogy számottevően változtathasson sorsán. Ehhez képest azért mára történt némi előrelépés, még ha nem is dőlhetünk elégedetten hátra. Persze az, hogy ezek a gondolkodók változtatták-e meg a negatív tendenciákat, vagy egyszerűen csak elméleteik követték az átalakulást, ami nélkülük is végbement volna, lehet vita tárgya – de ettől függetlenül nagyon izgalmas, és időnként igazán felemelő történet rajzolódik ki e könyv lapjain arról, ami a minket leginkább érintő dolog azok közül, amihez egy fikarcnyit sem konyítunk: a gazdaságról.
Megjegyz.: Hogy valami rosszat is mondjak, ami indokolja az egy csillag levonást: 1.) egy (sokkal**) figyelmesebb korrektort megérdemelt volna a kötet. Némelyik hiba egyszerűen csak megmosolyogtató – például az egyik fejezetben valamiért bizonyos random mondatok dőlt betűvel vannak írva –, mások viszont idegesítőek. Egy szakmunkában amúgy is jobban kell vigyázni az ilyesmire, mint mondjuk a szépirodalomban – egy elütött szám itt komplett állítások tényszerűségét megkérdőjelezheti. 2.) Nasar néha mintha túl sokat időzne főhőseinek életeseményeinek taglalásánál. Aminek megvan az a – nyilván kalkulált – előnye, hogy élő személyeket és működő atmoszférát teremt, de bizonyos fejezetekben talán túlzásba van vivődve.
* Ez a fajta fatalizmus amúgy Marxtól sem volt idegen, hiszen az életszínvonal javulása az ő elképzelései szerint sem képes enyhíteni a sokkot, amit a városok népességrobbanása okoz. Így ő is amondó volt, hogy közgazdasági válasz nem adható a kérdésre – a problémát csak a forradalom oldhatja meg.
** Sokkal-sokkal.
August 17, 2023
This book is on progress made by great economists in formulating sound policy over the centuries starting in the early industrial revolution days to the modern era. Sylvia Nasar is optimistic in the epilogue over how the lessons of the past will be applied to the present. What she fails to see is how some people never learn anything like Donald Trump with his America First protectionism. Trump put tariffs on imports like Barilla pasta and did not take in account how other nations will retaliate. Many Trump states received tariffs on their products and this is how trade wars start. The Hawley-Smoot tariff act of the 1930s cost us international trade opportunities as trade barriers were put in place by other nations. Politicians unlike economists see political expediency as a greater priority than sound policy formed over the years. I did find the book interesting on the whole though.
October 29, 2014
At it best, this book offers illuminating explanations of a wide variety of economic ideas. At its worst it dives into the most boring trivialities. Nasar thinks it's more important or interesting to describe Beatrice Potters love life than to engage with her ideas. Half of all the quotations Nasar picks are utterly irrelevant for the overarching storyline. One could say that Nasar gives convincing sketches of the contexts from which these thinkers arise, but I don't agree with this. There are exceptions to this rule. Nasar manages to explain the economic doctrines of the better-known theorists, such as Keynes (unemployment/inflation), Schumpeter (the business cycle and innovation) and Sen (critique on the utilitaristic premises of economics), and has to say some interesting thing or two about the more forgotten figures such as Joan Robinson ('Stalins trophy intellectual') and Richard Kahn (came up with the idea of the so-called 'Keynesian multiplier'). Some chapters read as downright character assassinations and the references to literary passages, undoubtly intended as mere illustrations, are so artificially written that they only annoy the reader. This book could have been great, but instead the author decided to 'impress' her readers with Victorian intrigues and an overload of uninteresting biographical details. However: the research is sound. The main thesis of the book is that by having applied clever macro-economic policies, by adjusting refined instruments, the general material well-being of humankind has been improved. This stands in contrast with the Malthusian view of cyclical death and despair, caused by overpopulation and the treatment of economics as 'the dismal science'. Real wages can be raised by education, crusades against unemployment, monetary management, advancing human rights, etc. The other side of the medal is that radical ideas and policies are excluded from Nasars framework, following the arguments from Fukuyama and his followers. The Fukuyama-influence is tangible in this work, although he's never mentioned. According to Nasar, the capitalistic modes of production are the only ones that can improve the conditions of living. We know this, according to the subtext of this book, since alternative systems, such as in communistic China and the Soviet-Union, have failed and didn't deliver. Forced collectivisations under Mao led to the atrocious famines, planning in the Soviet-Union led to a sharp decrease in productivity in the agricultural sector and scarcity among some classes. Nasar writes with a scientifical mindset: if economic theories prove to be incorrect, incomplete or vague, then they have to be shaped to the new surrounding realities. Marx, for example, is dismissed with the observation that real wages don't necessary have to fall under the reign of the bourgeoisie that strives to minimize costs (rent, labour, materials) and maximize gains (profits). In this regard it becomes clear why she chose for this set of thinkers: they all have written about favourable climates for investments, entrepeneurship and businesses. The question remains whether Nasar succeeds in her mission. Is thinking about alternative systems not necessary to keep capitalism vital and limit the unwanted social effects? A lot of authors she hails as 'economic geniuses' are themselves influenced by more radical theories. In my opinion, Nasars mind is a bit too closed. We need to come up with new models and new ideas and in unconventional times like these, unconventional approaches maybe can open new perspectives on the seemingly universal themes, such as scarcity, trade and production.
April 21, 2019
This is a book that has sat on my shelf for the last year or so and only comes down whenever I can’t think of anything else to do, so to say, I’ll dip into any one of these sumptuously written details of the most influential economic theorists at the point of reckoning for each in their brilliant careers.
This is how this book should be read. Don’t attempt it from beginning to end, like trying to eat a box of chocolate in one sitting. Instead take your time with each chapter. Three things about the author that amaze me. 1. Research - how did she know Hoover was walking down a Paris street and bumped into Keynes (just endless details like these that fill every paragraph). How did she depict the character of Schumpeter so exactly? I feel as if I know the guy now. 2. Writing - for a book that could appear to be a dry neoliberal argument and nothing more, it’s actually a very finely crafted piece of writing in its own right. I obviously need to read more of what Sylvia Nasar has written. I almost felt, in parts, especially the descriptions of luxurious European buildings and enviously cultured elites, that I could have been listening to the meticulous literary voice of Ian MacEwan. 3. Biography - obviously, she excels at the fine art of biography.
Economists and mathematicians. Creative individual genius. Flawlessly detailed writing. Like Ayn Rand. But in pursuit of biography rather than fiction - but then again, where do you draw the line?
This is how this book should be read. Don’t attempt it from beginning to end, like trying to eat a box of chocolate in one sitting. Instead take your time with each chapter. Three things about the author that amaze me. 1. Research - how did she know Hoover was walking down a Paris street and bumped into Keynes (just endless details like these that fill every paragraph). How did she depict the character of Schumpeter so exactly? I feel as if I know the guy now. 2. Writing - for a book that could appear to be a dry neoliberal argument and nothing more, it’s actually a very finely crafted piece of writing in its own right. I obviously need to read more of what Sylvia Nasar has written. I almost felt, in parts, especially the descriptions of luxurious European buildings and enviously cultured elites, that I could have been listening to the meticulous literary voice of Ian MacEwan. 3. Biography - obviously, she excels at the fine art of biography.
Economists and mathematicians. Creative individual genius. Flawlessly detailed writing. Like Ayn Rand. But in pursuit of biography rather than fiction - but then again, where do you draw the line?
February 14, 2013
Well written and woven together nicely, but ultimately fairly short on economics. It's kind of like reading the wikipedia pages of all the characters involved. I found some of the choices she chose to highlight to be curious (starting around the time of Marx, rather than Smith. Much time dedicated to Beatrice Webb, and a few others). All in all, an enjoyable book but nothing new.
February 28, 2025
I was thinking about giving this book four stars but thought I should bump its rating up since this is a book with incredible insights. Truly something everyone interested in the history of economics should read for a (relatively) brief primer. A mixture of biography, history, and surprisingly little economics, “Grand Pursuit” is accessible to everyone. It is definitely among the most fascinating and well-written economics books I’ve read- one that I would certainly recommend to anyone interested in learning more about the discipline.
There are some confusing structural choices made by Nasar, particularly in regard to chronology and focus. I don’t believe this is a greatly “objective” book, and clearly some creative liberties were taken to streamline the story. Personally, I wish there were more chapters on post-WWII economics, especially because Nasar only briefly touches on Milton Friedman’s influence. It’s obviously not for lack of material; the financial crisis alone could probably fill up several chapters. Overall, these are comparably minor gripes and I think you should overlook them when choosing to read this book.
There are some confusing structural choices made by Nasar, particularly in regard to chronology and focus. I don’t believe this is a greatly “objective” book, and clearly some creative liberties were taken to streamline the story. Personally, I wish there were more chapters on post-WWII economics, especially because Nasar only briefly touches on Milton Friedman’s influence. It’s obviously not for lack of material; the financial crisis alone could probably fill up several chapters. Overall, these are comparably minor gripes and I think you should overlook them when choosing to read this book.
August 11, 2023
Lives of economists have never been so interesting. The combination of a purely chronological narrative (which meant economists and their ideas kept on interacting with each other, which is what happened in real life anyway but which boosted the narrative for me) and multiple perspective of each economist's life helped a lot in appreciating the good and bad aspects of each of them. Reading about their economic conclusions a few paragraphs after their romantic hardships also made sure they remained human. A good book all around.
April 11, 2023
read this for class and only finished it for the amartya sen portion. you can tell this was written by a white woman because the unnecessary comparisons between London and Kolkata were terrible. also the random list of Bengali stereotypes and saying our traditional attire is pajamas… however, the other parts were cool to read as an econ major
July 23, 2023
For anyone who wants a primer on the great economists in history, their theories, and the contexts in which they were developed.
July 22, 2022
Grand pursuit: The story of economic genius by Sylvia Nasar
Most history books I read talked about wars, natural and anthropogenic disasters, social movements, or scientific breakthroughs. I also read many books about modern finance and economics, but this is the first book I read that lays out beautifully the history of economics as a discipline written by Sylvia Nasar, author of John Nash’s famous biography, turned Hollywood production - “A beautiful Mind”.
Economics as a serious discipline started in England with Adam Smith, David Recardo, and Thomas Malthus. the trio laid the foundations of free market capitalism, production, population and labor theories. But their analysis predicted that labor wages are fixed and cannot possibly improve to provide a decent life for the proletariats due to the corroding effect of population growth, a.k.a., Malthusianism, hence the inevitability of a police state to ensure “everyone know their place”. European, especially the Victorian English, were indoctrinated in a caste system of the gentility and the commons described in Jane Austin and Charles Dickens novels.
Enters Karl Marx, who also agreed with capitalist economists that labour wages will always be fixed, hence the only way for salvation of the masses is a sweeping victory of “workers of the world united” in their class warfare against the aristocracy, the bourgeoisie and their police state. Radicalism/Marxism became a powerful call to arms across Europe until it finally succeeded a few decades later in Bolshevik Russia.
Enters Alfred Marshal who predicted that both liberals and radicals are wrong. Marshal discovered that wages were in fact increasing, especially for productive workers and skilled professionals and he expected that the trend will continue due to overall increase in the ratio of economic productivity (Output per worker). He prophetically predicted that advancement in technology and education will create a prosperous middle and working class, like which the world has never seen before.
Enters the aristocratic married couple economists, Beatrice Potter and Sidney Webb who believed in Alfred Marshal’s prediction and formed the 1st economic development think tank in history with the purpose of influencing government policy to alleviate poverty through public funded education, healthcare and social support. Most of the social reforms completed by the British government in the turn of the century trace their origins to their work.
In the late 19th century a huge wave of currency deflation enriched creditors at the expense of farmers and businesses, only to be succeeded in the early 20th century by a massive wave of inflation that whipped out the savings of bond holders. Alfred Marshal thought such calamities are random fluctuations, but Joseph Schumpeter, John Maynard Keynes, and Irving Fisher understood the role government monetary policy played. It’s not random, it’s man-made albeit ignorantly so. In fact, government responsibility to dampen such cycles through monetary and fiscal tools became known as Keynesian economics, while Schumpeter coined the term “destructive creation” to applaud the role these cycles played in weeding out inefficiency to make room for innovative entrepreneurs.
Unlike the determinism of natural sciences, the economy is chaotic and not amenable to precise mathematical modeling, but in the 1960’s and 70’s, advancement in computers provided a tool to develop econometric simulation models to measure the temporal effects of government policies and economic trends. The first such model, however, was developed decades earlier, long before any computer was in sight, by the American economist Irving Fisher using a hydraulic system of pipes, pots and valves! I saw one of Fisher's models personally in the British museum of natural history in 2004 and my wife had to drag me out after spending a long time toying with it. Three years later, I worked with a consultant in Dubai using a computerized version to test a proposed government policy. Fisher was the first economist to understand the inherent lags and delays in economic systems and the need for temporal analysis to model them.
Finally, as economists of the 19th century grappled with the question of capitalism, early 20th century economists grappled with the question of stabilizing the economic cycle to avoid great depressions to the point that some of them sought inspiration in the Soviet central planning experiment. Finally, the Indian Noble winning economist Amartya Sen, advanced the argument from pure financials measured in GDP terms to human development measured in health and education as well as income. He is the founding father behind the UN human development index.
A great book.
Most history books I read talked about wars, natural and anthropogenic disasters, social movements, or scientific breakthroughs. I also read many books about modern finance and economics, but this is the first book I read that lays out beautifully the history of economics as a discipline written by Sylvia Nasar, author of John Nash’s famous biography, turned Hollywood production - “A beautiful Mind”.
Economics as a serious discipline started in England with Adam Smith, David Recardo, and Thomas Malthus. the trio laid the foundations of free market capitalism, production, population and labor theories. But their analysis predicted that labor wages are fixed and cannot possibly improve to provide a decent life for the proletariats due to the corroding effect of population growth, a.k.a., Malthusianism, hence the inevitability of a police state to ensure “everyone know their place”. European, especially the Victorian English, were indoctrinated in a caste system of the gentility and the commons described in Jane Austin and Charles Dickens novels.
Enters Karl Marx, who also agreed with capitalist economists that labour wages will always be fixed, hence the only way for salvation of the masses is a sweeping victory of “workers of the world united” in their class warfare against the aristocracy, the bourgeoisie and their police state. Radicalism/Marxism became a powerful call to arms across Europe until it finally succeeded a few decades later in Bolshevik Russia.
Enters Alfred Marshal who predicted that both liberals and radicals are wrong. Marshal discovered that wages were in fact increasing, especially for productive workers and skilled professionals and he expected that the trend will continue due to overall increase in the ratio of economic productivity (Output per worker). He prophetically predicted that advancement in technology and education will create a prosperous middle and working class, like which the world has never seen before.
Enters the aristocratic married couple economists, Beatrice Potter and Sidney Webb who believed in Alfred Marshal’s prediction and formed the 1st economic development think tank in history with the purpose of influencing government policy to alleviate poverty through public funded education, healthcare and social support. Most of the social reforms completed by the British government in the turn of the century trace their origins to their work.
In the late 19th century a huge wave of currency deflation enriched creditors at the expense of farmers and businesses, only to be succeeded in the early 20th century by a massive wave of inflation that whipped out the savings of bond holders. Alfred Marshal thought such calamities are random fluctuations, but Joseph Schumpeter, John Maynard Keynes, and Irving Fisher understood the role government monetary policy played. It’s not random, it’s man-made albeit ignorantly so. In fact, government responsibility to dampen such cycles through monetary and fiscal tools became known as Keynesian economics, while Schumpeter coined the term “destructive creation” to applaud the role these cycles played in weeding out inefficiency to make room for innovative entrepreneurs.
Unlike the determinism of natural sciences, the economy is chaotic and not amenable to precise mathematical modeling, but in the 1960’s and 70’s, advancement in computers provided a tool to develop econometric simulation models to measure the temporal effects of government policies and economic trends. The first such model, however, was developed decades earlier, long before any computer was in sight, by the American economist Irving Fisher using a hydraulic system of pipes, pots and valves! I saw one of Fisher's models personally in the British museum of natural history in 2004 and my wife had to drag me out after spending a long time toying with it. Three years later, I worked with a consultant in Dubai using a computerized version to test a proposed government policy. Fisher was the first economist to understand the inherent lags and delays in economic systems and the need for temporal analysis to model them.
Finally, as economists of the 19th century grappled with the question of capitalism, early 20th century economists grappled with the question of stabilizing the economic cycle to avoid great depressions to the point that some of them sought inspiration in the Soviet central planning experiment. Finally, the Indian Noble winning economist Amartya Sen, advanced the argument from pure financials measured in GDP terms to human development measured in health and education as well as income. He is the founding father behind the UN human development index.
A great book.
April 3, 2023
I found the biographical bits fascinating and the interactions between the different economists, their ideas and history very interesting. The last section seemed to lose its focus. It almost felt like an add on to make the book long enough or the detail was left out to make the book shorter.
I would give 5 stars for the first 80% and 3 stars for the last 20%.
I would give 5 stars for the first 80% and 3 stars for the last 20%.
January 4, 2023
This book can serve equally well as an excellent introduction to the history of economic thought for the reader approaching the subject or as an enjoyable compendium, for the student of economics, of (most of) the main characters that shaped the evolution of economic thinking since the mid-C19.
Nasar is a skilful writer and the narrative flows easily. She draws on biographical material to interlace the life experiences of these thinkers and the broader historical events that shaped their intellectual challenges, with clear and lucid descriptions of their theoretical contributions which will be easily understood by any reader new to economics.
The focus is on the development of "modern macroeconomics", i.e. not the economics of individual product markets or the firm, but the economics of the whole economy seen as a single living entity that humans increasingly come to believe can be managed towards optimal ends (long-run growth in well-being, full employment, stable prices, absence of severe recessions).
Hence, unlike the rare courses in the history of economic thought offered by our universities, Nassar does not start all the way back with the mercantilist gold-hoarding ideas of Munn (1571-1641) or the money-as-blood-in-veins Grollier-clock ideas of Quesnay (1694-1774). Nor does she start with the division of labour in Adam Smith's labour theory of value. Instead she starts with Marx and Engels and moves on through Marshall, the Potters, Fisher, Schumpeter, Hayek; spends much time on Keynes, distinguishing his post-WW1 period with his deeper involvement during WW2; and finishes with Samuelson (the author of the most widely used economics textbook in the 1970s and 80s) and Sen's unique approach.
If I have a niggle, I missed a discussion of the iconic debate between the Bullionists (Ricardo et al) and the Anti-Bullionists (Bosanquet et al) in Britain at the start of C19 -- which should be considered an important part of the "macroeconomic" formulation of monetary theory, and an early echo of today's debate over the use of "quantitive easing" by central banks. Nassar briefly touches upon Jacob Viner, which would have been the obvious entry point as he was the author of the seminal book on that debate (originally published in 1937).
Nasar is a skilful writer and the narrative flows easily. She draws on biographical material to interlace the life experiences of these thinkers and the broader historical events that shaped their intellectual challenges, with clear and lucid descriptions of their theoretical contributions which will be easily understood by any reader new to economics.
The focus is on the development of "modern macroeconomics", i.e. not the economics of individual product markets or the firm, but the economics of the whole economy seen as a single living entity that humans increasingly come to believe can be managed towards optimal ends (long-run growth in well-being, full employment, stable prices, absence of severe recessions).
Hence, unlike the rare courses in the history of economic thought offered by our universities, Nassar does not start all the way back with the mercantilist gold-hoarding ideas of Munn (1571-1641) or the money-as-blood-in-veins Grollier-clock ideas of Quesnay (1694-1774). Nor does she start with the division of labour in Adam Smith's labour theory of value. Instead she starts with Marx and Engels and moves on through Marshall, the Potters, Fisher, Schumpeter, Hayek; spends much time on Keynes, distinguishing his post-WW1 period with his deeper involvement during WW2; and finishes with Samuelson (the author of the most widely used economics textbook in the 1970s and 80s) and Sen's unique approach.
If I have a niggle, I missed a discussion of the iconic debate between the Bullionists (Ricardo et al) and the Anti-Bullionists (Bosanquet et al) in Britain at the start of C19 -- which should be considered an important part of the "macroeconomic" formulation of monetary theory, and an early echo of today's debate over the use of "quantitive easing" by central banks. Nassar briefly touches upon Jacob Viner, which would have been the obvious entry point as he was the author of the seminal book on that debate (originally published in 1937).
March 23, 2024
(The English review is placed beneath the Russian one)
Прочитав эту книгу во второй раз я продолжаю придерживаться того же мнения которое появилось у меня после прочтения книги в первый раз: книга будет скорее интересна тем читателям, кто увлечён экономикой и кому интересна биографии знаменитых экономистов XX века в контексте того периода. Я не могу с абсолютной уверенностью сказать, чего в книге больше – экономики или истории. Думаю всё же, что тут больше исторической составляющей, ибо автор пытался показать, в каких условиях зарождались знаменитые экономические теории XX века. По этой причине читатель должен быть уже знаком с этими теориями, которые прославили этих экономистов. А это в свою очередь означает, что книга совершенно не подходит в качестве изучения этих самых экономических теорий. Более того, если читатель совершенно не разбирается в экономике и не в курсе сути этих теорий, то я думаю, такому читателю будет довольно скучно всё это читать. Пускай книга и выглядит больше исторической, но учитывая формат книги – отдельные и не связанные друг с другом отрывки из жизни великих экономистов – книга изначально подразумевается в качестве экономической, а не исторической. И вот в качестве дополнительной литературы к классическому учебнику по экономике, эта книга подходит идеально. Я даже могу порекомендовать читать эту книгу параллельно с учебником по экономике. Именно поэтому я так сильно акцентирую на этом. В книге больше истории, но, тем не менее, книга всё же по экономике.
Второй важный момент, это формат книги. Автор не стала пересказывать биографии людей на фоне истории XX века, а показывает лишь отдельные фрагменты, которые в подавляющем большинстве своём описывают биографию людей в то время, когда они были уже взрослыми и вполне сформировавшимися личностями, которые начали свой профессиональный путь и который как раз и сделает их знаменитыми навесь мир. К примеру, автор описывает жизнь Карла Маркса в Лондоне, но ничего не говорит о предыдущей части его жизни. И так по всем биографиям выбранных автором людей.
К сожалению, мне особо запомнилась только первая история, т.е. биографический очерк Карла Маркса, когда автор пишет, что хоть Маркс и писал постоянно о рабочих фабрик и заводов, однако за всю свою жизнь был только один раз на заводе (или даже ни одного, ибо я в точности уже не помню). Тем не менее, я не увидел в книге особо сильной критики Маркса. Увы, но автор пишет в довольно нейтральном или плоском или даже унылом стиле, скорее просто фиксируя факты, нежели как-то комментируя. Хотя и причислить эту книгу к разряду а-ля Википедия тоже нельзя. Я допускаю, что такое мнение сформировалось у меня отчасти благодаря моей слабой заинтересованности данной темой.
Третий момент, это интересный вывод, который напрашивается после прочтения первой половины книги. Вопросом бедности, проблемами рабочих, а также других уязвимых групп занимались многие экономисты того времени, а не только Карл Маркс, как это может кому-то показаться. Не только Маркс пытался исправить (повысить) жизненный стандарт рабочих того времени. Это интересный момент в книге и это также самый увлекательный момент. Т.е. где-то после середины книги интерес читателя, с моей точки зрения, подвергнется проверке на его удержание, ибо увлекательность книги и её понятность для неспециалиста пойдёт на убыль из-за чего к концу книги доберутся не многие, а только те, кто сохранит интерес и понимание того о чём пишет автор.
Having read this book for the second time, I continue to adhere to the same opinion that I had after reading the book for the first time: the book will be rather interesting to those readers who are interested in economics and who are interested in biographies of famous economists of the XX century in the context of that period. I can't say with absolute certainty what is more in the book - economics or history. I think that there is more of a historical component because the author tried to show under what conditions the famous economic theories of the 20th century were born. For this reason, the reader should already be familiar with the theories that made these economists famous. This means that the book is not at all suitable as a study of these very economic theories. Moreover, if the reader is completely ignorant of economics and is not aware of the essence of these theories, then I think that such a reader will be quite bored reading it all. Although the book looks more historical, given the format of the book - separate and unrelated passages from the lives of great economists - the book is initially meant to be economic, not historical. And so, as a supplementary read to a classic economics textbook, this book fits perfectly. I can even recommend reading this book alongside an economics textbook. That is why I emphasize it so much. There is more history in the book, but nevertheless, the book is still an economics book.
The second important point is the format of the book. The author did not retell the biographies of people against the background of the history of the XX century but shows only separate fragments, which overwhelmingly describe the biography of people at a time when they were already adults and fully formed individuals who began their professional path and which will make them famous all over the world. For example, the author describes the life of Karl Marx in London but says nothing about the previous part of his life. And so it is with all the biographies of the people chosen by the author.
Unfortunately, I only remembered the first story, i.e., the biographical sketch of Karl Marx, when the author writes that although Marx wrote constantly about factory workers, he had only been in a factory once in his entire life (or not even once, because I don't remember exactly). Nevertheless, I did not see any particularly strong criticism of Marx in the book. Alas, the author writes in a neutral, flat, or dull style, simply recording facts rather than commenting in any way. However, one cannot classify this book as a la Wikipedia either. I admit that I formed this opinion partly due to my weak interest in the subject.
The third point is an interesting conclusion that emerges after reading the first half of the book. The issue of poverty, the problems of workers, and other vulnerable groups was addressed by many economists of the time, not only Karl Marx, as it may seem to some. It wasn't just Marx who tried to fix (raise) the standard of living of the workers of the time. This is an interesting point in the book, and it is also the most fascinating point. I mean that somewhere after the middle of the book, the reader's interest, from my point of view, will be tested for its retention because the fascination of the book and its comprehensibility for a non-specialist will go down, because of which not many people will get to the end of the book, but only those who will retain interest and understanding of what the author writes about.
Прочитав эту книгу во второй раз я продолжаю придерживаться того же мнения которое появилось у меня после прочтения книги в первый раз: книга будет скорее интересна тем читателям, кто увлечён экономикой и кому интересна биографии знаменитых экономистов XX века в контексте того периода. Я не могу с абсолютной уверенностью сказать, чего в книге больше – экономики или истории. Думаю всё же, что тут больше исторической составляющей, ибо автор пытался показать, в каких условиях зарождались знаменитые экономические теории XX века. По этой причине читатель должен быть уже знаком с этими теориями, которые прославили этих экономистов. А это в свою очередь означает, что книга совершенно не подходит в качестве изучения этих самых экономических теорий. Более того, если читатель совершенно не разбирается в экономике и не в курсе сути этих теорий, то я думаю, такому читателю будет довольно скучно всё это читать. Пускай книга и выглядит больше исторической, но учитывая формат книги – отдельные и не связанные друг с другом отрывки из жизни великих экономистов – книга изначально подразумевается в качестве экономической, а не исторической. И вот в качестве дополнительной литературы к классическому учебнику по экономике, эта книга подходит идеально. Я даже могу порекомендовать читать эту книгу параллельно с учебником по экономике. Именно поэтому я так сильно акцентирую на этом. В книге больше истории, но, тем не менее, книга всё же по экономике.
Второй важный момент, это формат книги. Автор не стала пересказывать биографии людей на фоне истории XX века, а показывает лишь отдельные фрагменты, которые в подавляющем большинстве своём описывают биографию людей в то время, когда они были уже взрослыми и вполне сформировавшимися личностями, которые начали свой профессиональный путь и который как раз и сделает их знаменитыми навесь мир. К примеру, автор описывает жизнь Карла Маркса в Лондоне, но ничего не говорит о предыдущей части его жизни. И так по всем биографиям выбранных автором людей.
К сожалению, мне особо запомнилась только первая история, т.е. биографический очерк Карла Маркса, когда автор пишет, что хоть Маркс и писал постоянно о рабочих фабрик и заводов, однако за всю свою жизнь был только один раз на заводе (или даже ни одного, ибо я в точности уже не помню). Тем не менее, я не увидел в книге особо сильной критики Маркса. Увы, но автор пишет в довольно нейтральном или плоском или даже унылом стиле, скорее просто фиксируя факты, нежели как-то комментируя. Хотя и причислить эту книгу к разряду а-ля Википедия тоже нельзя. Я допускаю, что такое мнение сформировалось у меня отчасти благодаря моей слабой заинтересованности данной темой.
Третий момент, это интересный вывод, который напрашивается после прочтения первой половины книги. Вопросом бедности, проблемами рабочих, а также других уязвимых групп занимались многие экономисты того времени, а не только Карл Маркс, как это может кому-то показаться. Не только Маркс пытался исправить (повысить) жизненный стандарт рабочих того времени. Это интересный момент в книге и это также самый увлекательный момент. Т.е. где-то после середины книги интерес читателя, с моей точки зрения, подвергнется проверке на его удержание, ибо увлекательность книги и её понятность для неспециалиста пойдёт на убыль из-за чего к концу книги доберутся не многие, а только те, кто сохранит интерес и понимание того о чём пишет автор.
Having read this book for the second time, I continue to adhere to the same opinion that I had after reading the book for the first time: the book will be rather interesting to those readers who are interested in economics and who are interested in biographies of famous economists of the XX century in the context of that period. I can't say with absolute certainty what is more in the book - economics or history. I think that there is more of a historical component because the author tried to show under what conditions the famous economic theories of the 20th century were born. For this reason, the reader should already be familiar with the theories that made these economists famous. This means that the book is not at all suitable as a study of these very economic theories. Moreover, if the reader is completely ignorant of economics and is not aware of the essence of these theories, then I think that such a reader will be quite bored reading it all. Although the book looks more historical, given the format of the book - separate and unrelated passages from the lives of great economists - the book is initially meant to be economic, not historical. And so, as a supplementary read to a classic economics textbook, this book fits perfectly. I can even recommend reading this book alongside an economics textbook. That is why I emphasize it so much. There is more history in the book, but nevertheless, the book is still an economics book.
The second important point is the format of the book. The author did not retell the biographies of people against the background of the history of the XX century but shows only separate fragments, which overwhelmingly describe the biography of people at a time when they were already adults and fully formed individuals who began their professional path and which will make them famous all over the world. For example, the author describes the life of Karl Marx in London but says nothing about the previous part of his life. And so it is with all the biographies of the people chosen by the author.
Unfortunately, I only remembered the first story, i.e., the biographical sketch of Karl Marx, when the author writes that although Marx wrote constantly about factory workers, he had only been in a factory once in his entire life (or not even once, because I don't remember exactly). Nevertheless, I did not see any particularly strong criticism of Marx in the book. Alas, the author writes in a neutral, flat, or dull style, simply recording facts rather than commenting in any way. However, one cannot classify this book as a la Wikipedia either. I admit that I formed this opinion partly due to my weak interest in the subject.
The third point is an interesting conclusion that emerges after reading the first half of the book. The issue of poverty, the problems of workers, and other vulnerable groups was addressed by many economists of the time, not only Karl Marx, as it may seem to some. It wasn't just Marx who tried to fix (raise) the standard of living of the workers of the time. This is an interesting point in the book, and it is also the most fascinating point. I mean that somewhere after the middle of the book, the reader's interest, from my point of view, will be tested for its retention because the fascination of the book and its comprehensibility for a non-specialist will go down, because of which not many people will get to the end of the book, but only those who will retain interest and understanding of what the author writes about.
May 28, 2014
This is a tough book to review. On the one hand, I immensely enjoyed learning about the various thinkers that Nasar brings to that table. I had vague recollections of Alfred Marshall and Paul Samuelson from my college classes, but truly knew nothing about Joseph Schumpeter coming in. Nasar certainly helps provide an accessible entry into the economic history world.
That said, this is a book that was almost doomed to meet its expectations or thesis. The economic thinkers, while all important (though Joan Robinson makes no sense to include), were picked arbitrarily. A true popular book about economic history cannot ignore Adam Smith or Malthus in the way Nasar does. Similarly, the premise is that a collection of intellectuals through the years were able to determine that man could escape what seemed like an inevitable condition. Nasar makes it a point of human pride that these thinkers have gotten us this far. They certainly have, but there is plenty more to be done, and in the end Nasar ties to end on a point of hope but it all turns into muddle. I found myself thinking more about Joan Robinson's strange embrace of Communism than Sen's emphasis on "well-being" as having some non-economic factors. In that sense too, Nasar's unwillingness to be hemmed in chronologically hurts the book a little bit, since I found myself struggling to remember economic conditions (like post-WWI) that were mentioned in a previous chapter, even though those conditions apply to the current thinker's chapter.
In the end, each economist here deserves their own biography. And that's where Nasar excels: her discussion of their personal stories is well told, even if occasionally she places more emphasis there than on the actual economics. A good book, but one I think could be replaced on the bookshelf for economic history.
That said, this is a book that was almost doomed to meet its expectations or thesis. The economic thinkers, while all important (though Joan Robinson makes no sense to include), were picked arbitrarily. A true popular book about economic history cannot ignore Adam Smith or Malthus in the way Nasar does. Similarly, the premise is that a collection of intellectuals through the years were able to determine that man could escape what seemed like an inevitable condition. Nasar makes it a point of human pride that these thinkers have gotten us this far. They certainly have, but there is plenty more to be done, and in the end Nasar ties to end on a point of hope but it all turns into muddle. I found myself thinking more about Joan Robinson's strange embrace of Communism than Sen's emphasis on "well-being" as having some non-economic factors. In that sense too, Nasar's unwillingness to be hemmed in chronologically hurts the book a little bit, since I found myself struggling to remember economic conditions (like post-WWI) that were mentioned in a previous chapter, even though those conditions apply to the current thinker's chapter.
In the end, each economist here deserves their own biography. And that's where Nasar excels: her discussion of their personal stories is well told, even if occasionally she places more emphasis there than on the actual economics. A good book, but one I think could be replaced on the bookshelf for economic history.
September 6, 2011
In the era of huge national deficits and concerns over a balanced budget, Ms. Nasar’s book couldn’t be more timely. Grand Pursuit, is the story of the science of economics – and how the human race has benefited (and suffered) as a result of the beliefs concerning government actions and its effects.
The book opens in the year 1842 in Charles Dickens’ London. Dickens himself set out to awaken men’s souls to the hardships of the working class in the hopes that something would be done to ease their plight. Nasar shows us how two schools of thought (socialism and capitalism) emerged and how, over time, they were tweaked and molded to serve various countries’ interests.
Nasar’s writing style is simply wonderful. She takes on the history of a science and makes a fascinating story out of it. Not only does she have a mastery of the subject, her research on the time periods she covers is so thorough, it enables her to connect people. places and events in a compelling and readable manner.
One thing that came across in Grand Pursuit was how reactionary the application of the science has been throughout history. In my opinion, the problem with this is that our system is so complex, those that seek to influence the direction of an economy must be aware of all the variables in place (a virtual impossibility) before taking action. At best, we can hope that our lawmakers and fiscal policy setters have a real understanding of economics before they fiddle with anything. Seeing our legislators appeal to the public for approval on budget cuts or tax increases, makes me doubtful that they have such an understanding (because the public, certainly does not). Perhaps Grand Pursuit will become required reading in high school. One can only hope…
The book opens in the year 1842 in Charles Dickens’ London. Dickens himself set out to awaken men’s souls to the hardships of the working class in the hopes that something would be done to ease their plight. Nasar shows us how two schools of thought (socialism and capitalism) emerged and how, over time, they were tweaked and molded to serve various countries’ interests.
Nasar’s writing style is simply wonderful. She takes on the history of a science and makes a fascinating story out of it. Not only does she have a mastery of the subject, her research on the time periods she covers is so thorough, it enables her to connect people. places and events in a compelling and readable manner.
One thing that came across in Grand Pursuit was how reactionary the application of the science has been throughout history. In my opinion, the problem with this is that our system is so complex, those that seek to influence the direction of an economy must be aware of all the variables in place (a virtual impossibility) before taking action. At best, we can hope that our lawmakers and fiscal policy setters have a real understanding of economics before they fiddle with anything. Seeing our legislators appeal to the public for approval on budget cuts or tax increases, makes me doubtful that they have such an understanding (because the public, certainly does not). Perhaps Grand Pursuit will become required reading in high school. One can only hope…
November 13, 2011
Sylvia Nasar has written a brilliant and very interesting book about economic history from Marx to the present. A Grand Pursuit is about two concerns (1) what do we do with the poor? and (2) how do we deal with the ups and downs of the economy that cause such disruption in the world? Both topics are front and center in our present situation.
Nasar deals with these questions by telling about people, like Marx, Beatrice (NOT Beatrix) Potter Webb, Schumpeter, Hayek, and most especially Maynard Keynes. She tells about their lives and how they worked to find answers to these questions. It's a tribute to the book that Nasar keeps things pretty even between liberal and conservative ideas, except that she can't help expressing her disdain for Karl Marx. Beatrice Potter was particularly interesting; I didn't realize she and her husband Sidney were the "inventors" (for lack of a better word) of the modern "cradle to grave" welfare state which is in evidence in Britain, indeed most of Europe, today.
I can find only minor points to disagree with. She didn't spend as much time on Milton Friedman (one of my favorites) as I would like, and she spent too much time Joan Robinson and a chapter on Amyarta Sen, mostly, I suspect, as a nod to "diversity." I've done quite a bit of reading in economic history and I have never found a history so compelling. If you want to understand how we got to our present economic situation, and the differences between the two ways of thinking about how to solve our current economic mess, this book will be enlightening. Yes, and interesting.
Nasar deals with these questions by telling about people, like Marx, Beatrice (NOT Beatrix) Potter Webb, Schumpeter, Hayek, and most especially Maynard Keynes. She tells about their lives and how they worked to find answers to these questions. It's a tribute to the book that Nasar keeps things pretty even between liberal and conservative ideas, except that she can't help expressing her disdain for Karl Marx. Beatrice Potter was particularly interesting; I didn't realize she and her husband Sidney were the "inventors" (for lack of a better word) of the modern "cradle to grave" welfare state which is in evidence in Britain, indeed most of Europe, today.
I can find only minor points to disagree with. She didn't spend as much time on Milton Friedman (one of my favorites) as I would like, and she spent too much time Joan Robinson and a chapter on Amyarta Sen, mostly, I suspect, as a nod to "diversity." I've done quite a bit of reading in economic history and I have never found a history so compelling. If you want to understand how we got to our present economic situation, and the differences between the two ways of thinking about how to solve our current economic mess, this book will be enlightening. Yes, and interesting.
October 28, 2020
This book is a whirlwind history of economics from the turn of the 18th century, beginning with Marx and Engels, and ending in the 1970's with Amaratya Sen. Nasar does a wonderful job of weaving the personal narratives of modern economic masters with evolving world history. But the real biography is of modern economic theory. Detailing the circumstances: political and cultural; personal and public, that underlie the births of economics greatest insights, Nasar takes the reader from a time when economists condemned 9 of 10 people to abject poverty to world where the economic prosperity for all is tied to the well being of the most penurious. A monumental (if overlooked) feat for mankind, and a herculean effort for the author.
At times the book attempted too much. Sacrificing in depth explanation of economic concepts for narrative cohesion, our interaction with the major work of the personalities often feels incomplete. After reading this book my overall knowledge of economics is not much greater than it was when I started. While it is clear that the men and women portrayed changed the field of economics it is not always clear how. A conceptual economic introduction would have gone a long way and is something I would recommend for an even better reading experience. Overall I was left wanting more, though with a bibliography like Nasar's I am well equipped to delve further into the field. Perhaps that is the point.
At times the book attempted too much. Sacrificing in depth explanation of economic concepts for narrative cohesion, our interaction with the major work of the personalities often feels incomplete. After reading this book my overall knowledge of economics is not much greater than it was when I started. While it is clear that the men and women portrayed changed the field of economics it is not always clear how. A conceptual economic introduction would have gone a long way and is something I would recommend for an even better reading experience. Overall I was left wanting more, though with a bibliography like Nasar's I am well equipped to delve further into the field. Perhaps that is the point.
Read
December 2, 2011"This beautifully written book deals with economic thought about macroeconomics since the mid-1800s through the lives of the great economists. The book also includes non-economists such as Beatrice Potter Webb, who is generally regarded as the inventor of the British welfare state (with encouragement from a then-young politician named Winston Churchill). I particularly liked the book because I learned a great deal about two University of Chicago faculty members whom I came to know well as a young law professor, Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek. By the way, I found it interesting that Friedman was regarded as a Keynesian when he worked in FDR's Treasury Department in the 1930s. (And incidentally the life and role of John Maynard Keynes is treated brilliantly in Nasar's book.) Many of our graduates will have seen the 2001 film A Beautiful Mind, which is based on the life of the mathematical economist John Forbes Nash (a Nobel Prize winner known for the Nash Equilibrium); that film was based on a book of the same name by Sylvia Nasar, the author of the book I am recommending here." - Kenneth Dam
February 24, 2023
"I chose protagonists who were instrumental in turning economics into an instrument of mastery...Thanks in no small part to such trustees, the notion that the nine parts of mankind could free itself from its age-old fate took hold during the Victorian era in London. From there, it spread outward like ripples in a pond until it had transformed societies around the globe. It is still spreading." -- Grand Pursuit, Sylvia Nasar
Nasar possesses the gift of summary and synthesis, but her book is unbalanced, leaning far too heavily into the autobiographies - and scandals - of her varied geniuses, and investing far too little into the economic theories they were advocating.
Nasar possesses the gift of summary and synthesis, but her book is unbalanced, leaning far too heavily into the autobiographies - and scandals - of her varied geniuses, and investing far too little into the economic theories they were advocating.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 199 reviews