What do you think?
Rate this book
Petit cours d'autodéfense en économie
Qu'est-ce que la dette publique ? D'où vient l'inflation ? Le profit est-il source de progrès ? Le chômage est-il un mal nécessaire ? L'Etat nuit-il à l'investissement ? Mystérieuse et confuse, l'économie est trop souvent mise hors de la portée du citoyen ordinaire, qui n'en fait pas moins les frais de ses crises.
Seuls les experts semblent autorisés à répondre à des questions dont dépend pourtant l'avenir de tous. Le Petit cours d'autodéfense en économie de Jim Stanford arrive à point nommé pour rompre ce déséquilibre. Par des synthèses claires, appuyées sur l'analyse critique de situations concrètes, ce livre démystifie avec soin les rouages du capitalisme, montrant que tous peuvent le comprendre. L'ouvrage est illustré par Charb, dessinateur satirique et directeur du journal Charlie Hebdo, et postfacé par Eric Pineault, professeur de sociologie économique à l'UQAM.
Seuls les experts semblent autorisés à répondre à des questions dont dépend pourtant l'avenir de tous. Le Petit cours d'autodéfense en économie de Jim Stanford arrive à point nommé pour rompre ce déséquilibre. Par des synthèses claires, appuyées sur l'analyse critique de situations concrètes, ce livre démystifie avec soin les rouages du capitalisme, montrant que tous peuvent le comprendre. L'ouvrage est illustré par Charb, dessinateur satirique et directeur du journal Charlie Hebdo, et postfacé par Eric Pineault, professeur de sociologie économique à l'UQAM.
494 pages, Broché
First published January 1, 2008
108 people are currently reading
1295 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 56 reviews
February 5, 2010
This book did exactly what I wanted...gave me a good basic understanding of what 'economics' and 'capitalism' are about. It touches on a very broad swath so doesn't go deeply into any one area but that is what I needed. I have a better understanding of why our capitalist structure is more prone to boom and bust cycles and how banks, government, the finance industry, and the consumer tie together in our own economy and the global economy.
August 13, 2011
This is a surprisingly measured explanation of capitalism. The author is an economist for the Canadian Auto Workers Union. His expertise lies in wealth redistribution and that's where the book's strengths are. His overview of its environmental impacts was too broad and even a bit too optimistic for my tastes. He's not anti-business or anti-growth, just very critical of profits being hoarded instead of invested to provide more jobs and better conditions for workers.
The chapter on globalization was particularly worthwhile-he offers multiple challenges to the dogma that trade makes everyone better off, without being dismissive of its benefits.
He left out footnotes and specific references because he wanted to keep the book simple & accessible, but I would have preferred it if he included them. I believe him and I'm sure he knows his stuff but it was sort of like a long editorial--you don't learn much if you're from his perspective and it's easily dismissed if you're not. However his intention was a broad overview from a grassroots, working class point of view and in that the book is a success. I wish he wrote my MACRO 101 textbook because he is pretty good at acknowledging pros & cons and clarifying the big picture with all its complexity.
The chapter on globalization was particularly worthwhile-he offers multiple challenges to the dogma that trade makes everyone better off, without being dismissive of its benefits.
He left out footnotes and specific references because he wanted to keep the book simple & accessible, but I would have preferred it if he included them. I believe him and I'm sure he knows his stuff but it was sort of like a long editorial--you don't learn much if you're from his perspective and it's easily dismissed if you're not. However his intention was a broad overview from a grassroots, working class point of view and in that the book is a success. I wish he wrote my MACRO 101 textbook because he is pretty good at acknowledging pros & cons and clarifying the big picture with all its complexity.
May 23, 2013
This book does a very good job of delivering on its title. It breaks down the economics of capitalism into manageable chunks, beginning small, and slowly widening its scope until it examines the entire global interaction. Occasionally over or under simplifies but treads the line quite well. The "political" cartoons dispersed throughout can and should be ignored.
Written by an author with a very clear (and oft expressed) view of capitalism's successes and failures but stays internally consistent with well laid-out criterion of how he assesses an economic structure.
Highly recommended for, well, everyone. As the author says, the economy is something everyone should have an understanding of.
Written by an author with a very clear (and oft expressed) view of capitalism's successes and failures but stays internally consistent with well laid-out criterion of how he assesses an economic structure.
Highly recommended for, well, everyone. As the author says, the economy is something everyone should have an understanding of.
November 16, 2020
This is an excellent book explaining different actors and dynamics in capitalism. This book provides an overview from the issues and possible ways to fix it. It could be considered to be anti-capitalist in some parts, despite enunciating clearly benefits and disadvantages of capitalism.
Some of the things discussed and that got my attention are the issues of environment, inequality, insecurity, and imbalance between the number of poor and rich people, issues that are in their worst nowadays.
Further to it, the commonly referred citation that "humans are greedy/individualist per nature" is refuted, and a counter-argument is made by the end, citing situations were the common good is more beneficial. This citation used as an argument in neoclassical economics is not necessarily the way to go on organizing the economy/society. Not that most neoliberal argument on economics is valid.
Strongly recommend this book!
Some of the things discussed and that got my attention are the issues of environment, inequality, insecurity, and imbalance between the number of poor and rich people, issues that are in their worst nowadays.
Further to it, the commonly referred citation that "humans are greedy/individualist per nature" is refuted, and a counter-argument is made by the end, citing situations were the common good is more beneficial. This citation used as an argument in neoclassical economics is not necessarily the way to go on organizing the economy/society. Not that most neoliberal argument on economics is valid.
Strongly recommend this book!
April 20, 2012
L'un des postulats de l'auteur est que "la science économique est une discipline essentiellement subjective, politique et chargée de valeurs". Son ouvrage est donc emprunt d'une vision et d'une orientation qui rend parfois difficile de savoir ce qui est de l'affirmation et ce qui est de l'analyse. Il n'en reste pas moins que cet ouvrage, comme le petit cours d'autodéfense intellectuel, donne des clefs pour comprendre un pan entier de notre quotidien et décrypter certains discours. L'écriture est simple, très didactique et explique progressivement les mécanismes économiques.
September 29, 2008
absolutely wonderful book, and so critically needed..
April 26, 2022
Şimdiye kadar okumak istediğim ve bu yıl fırsatını bulduğum bir kitabı bitirmiş bulunuyorum arkadaş..
Jim Stanford "Herkes için iktisat" kitabını ordotoks iktisattan tamamen farklı bakış açısıyla yazmış. Postmodernizmin sevdiğim yanlarından biri tek gerçek olarak bildiğimiz neredeyse herşeyin sadece bir bakış açısı olduğunu söylemesidir. Muhafazakar kesim ve kendi pozisyonunu korumaya çalışan menfaatçi topluluk bu fikri öyle kolay hazmedemez ve neredeyse hr fırsatta kendi gülünç argümanları ile geleneği savunurlar. Ama benim gibi anarşist biri için hepsi palavra be arkadaş. Zira herşey yalnızca bir bakış açısıdır. Şeylere hangi yönden yanaştığınıza göre farklı sonuçlar alacaksınız.
Kitaba gelince, daha öne de yazdığım gibi, olaylara farklı açıdan bakılmış bir ekonomi kitabı var karşımızda. Geleneksel ve karmaşık ekonomi anlayışını alt eden ve bizlere ekonomiyi yalnızca işverenlerin gözünden değil de işçilerin ve basit toplum insanının gözünden anlatan bir yapısı vardır kitabın. Geleneksel ve özellikle neoliberalist ekonomi dünyasının o işçiyi ezen ve işvereni neredeyse her zaman haklı gören bakış açısı sorgulanıyor. Ve ekonominin yalnızca takım elbiseli ve kendini bir şey zannedenlerin bileceği bir şey olmadığını, herkesin bilmeli olduğu bir bilim olduğunu söylüyor. Zira takım elbiseliler için yüzlerce işçinin işini kaybetmesi gibi bir olay yalnızca birtakım rakamdan ibaret. Onlar için Keynezyen ekonomiden neoloberal ekonomiye geçiş "emek pazarının esnekleştirilmesi"dir. Peki emek pazarının esnekleştirilmesi gerçekte nedir ? Bu işçiler için farklı bir anlama geliyor tabii. İşçiler için gerçek hiçbir haklarının olmadığı, sendikaların altının oyulduğu, mevsimlik işlerin önem kazandığı ve işçiye gerçek bir özgüven veren sabit emek hakkı yerine işçiyi depresyona sokan günlük kazancın olduğu anlamına geliyor. Yazar sonunda kapitalizmi bir okul çocuğunu sınava tutar gibi puanlama sistemine tabi kılıyor ve kapitalizmin sınavı geçmediği konusunda karar veriyor. Ayrıca yazar kapitalizmin derin eşitsizliğinin altını çizerek, market reyonlarının dolu olmasının parası az olanlar ve hiç parası olmayanlar için hiçbir anlamda iyi bir şey olmadığını söylüyor.
Ekonomiye farklı bakış açısı ile bakmak isteyenler için adeta bir başucu kitabı niteliğinde harika bir yapıt.
Jim Stanford "Herkes için iktisat" kitabını ordotoks iktisattan tamamen farklı bakış açısıyla yazmış. Postmodernizmin sevdiğim yanlarından biri tek gerçek olarak bildiğimiz neredeyse herşeyin sadece bir bakış açısı olduğunu söylemesidir. Muhafazakar kesim ve kendi pozisyonunu korumaya çalışan menfaatçi topluluk bu fikri öyle kolay hazmedemez ve neredeyse hr fırsatta kendi gülünç argümanları ile geleneği savunurlar. Ama benim gibi anarşist biri için hepsi palavra be arkadaş. Zira herşey yalnızca bir bakış açısıdır. Şeylere hangi yönden yanaştığınıza göre farklı sonuçlar alacaksınız.
Kitaba gelince, daha öne de yazdığım gibi, olaylara farklı açıdan bakılmış bir ekonomi kitabı var karşımızda. Geleneksel ve karmaşık ekonomi anlayışını alt eden ve bizlere ekonomiyi yalnızca işverenlerin gözünden değil de işçilerin ve basit toplum insanının gözünden anlatan bir yapısı vardır kitabın. Geleneksel ve özellikle neoliberalist ekonomi dünyasının o işçiyi ezen ve işvereni neredeyse her zaman haklı gören bakış açısı sorgulanıyor. Ve ekonominin yalnızca takım elbiseli ve kendini bir şey zannedenlerin bileceği bir şey olmadığını, herkesin bilmeli olduğu bir bilim olduğunu söylüyor. Zira takım elbiseliler için yüzlerce işçinin işini kaybetmesi gibi bir olay yalnızca birtakım rakamdan ibaret. Onlar için Keynezyen ekonomiden neoloberal ekonomiye geçiş "emek pazarının esnekleştirilmesi"dir. Peki emek pazarının esnekleştirilmesi gerçekte nedir ? Bu işçiler için farklı bir anlama geliyor tabii. İşçiler için gerçek hiçbir haklarının olmadığı, sendikaların altının oyulduğu, mevsimlik işlerin önem kazandığı ve işçiye gerçek bir özgüven veren sabit emek hakkı yerine işçiyi depresyona sokan günlük kazancın olduğu anlamına geliyor. Yazar sonunda kapitalizmi bir okul çocuğunu sınava tutar gibi puanlama sistemine tabi kılıyor ve kapitalizmin sınavı geçmediği konusunda karar veriyor. Ayrıca yazar kapitalizmin derin eşitsizliğinin altını çizerek, market reyonlarının dolu olmasının parası az olanlar ve hiç parası olmayanlar için hiçbir anlamda iyi bir şey olmadığını söylüyor.
Ekonomiye farklı bakış açısı ile bakmak isteyenler için adeta bir başucu kitabı niteliğinde harika bir yapıt.
May 31, 2023
The title is deceptive. This book's discussion of heterodox economics was more in-depth than I was expecting. And it's not short -- it's 400 pages long.
March 10, 2019
Clear and truly for everyone!
Would definitely recommend for people interested in learning the basics.
Would definitely recommend for people interested in learning the basics.
April 13, 2021
Jim Stanford says he took care to write this in plain language, and for a layperson without an economics background. Maybe I'm just not that great at understanding economic concepts, but I really had trouble understanding his explanations of these concepts in this book. I had to read it with my computer/smartphone open so that I could look up terms he used, and I felt he frequently gave his opinion on a concept before explaining the concept itself. I also felt he gave opinions without explaining the underlying concepts at all.
Overall, I found this book frustrating.
Overall, I found this book frustrating.
July 8, 2022
There are very few books I actually regret reading, but this is one of them.
I admire the idea of trying to make economics more accessible, but the book is a total failure in that attempt. It is so dry and needlessly focused on the surface functions of capitalism that it is both unreadably bland, and depressingly unaware of the the way the system actually works or what motivates it.
The proposed solutions to the unimaginably generous appraisal of capitalism's shortcomings are a hackneyed jumble of utopian social democratic drivel, that fail to mention revolution as even one of many paths to consider, and completely fail to consider the response that the capitalist class has always had, and will always have, to attempts at incremental reform. Like every white middle class "progressive", the author is deluded in thinking that capitalism can be overcome if only a better alternative can be persuasively presented. The failures of capitalism are not failures, they are the intended effect. A class of people who believe that the majority of humanity are subhuman tools for their enrichment, destined to suffer and undeserving of dignity, will never give in to demands for justice, even if it materially improves their own conditions, because supremacy and maximising inequality are the ultimate principle underlying capitalism.
I admire the idea of trying to make economics more accessible, but the book is a total failure in that attempt. It is so dry and needlessly focused on the surface functions of capitalism that it is both unreadably bland, and depressingly unaware of the the way the system actually works or what motivates it.
The proposed solutions to the unimaginably generous appraisal of capitalism's shortcomings are a hackneyed jumble of utopian social democratic drivel, that fail to mention revolution as even one of many paths to consider, and completely fail to consider the response that the capitalist class has always had, and will always have, to attempts at incremental reform. Like every white middle class "progressive", the author is deluded in thinking that capitalism can be overcome if only a better alternative can be persuasively presented. The failures of capitalism are not failures, they are the intended effect. A class of people who believe that the majority of humanity are subhuman tools for their enrichment, destined to suffer and undeserving of dignity, will never give in to demands for justice, even if it materially improves their own conditions, because supremacy and maximising inequality are the ultimate principle underlying capitalism.
December 10, 2020
Economics for Everyone (E4E) is book whose title can be read two ways: it is both an introduction for everyone to economics, but also a commentary on how the economy can serve everyone.
As an introductory treatise, the book starts out with the basics – work, tools and profit – and from there builds out a comprehensive picture of the modern, capitalist economic system as it is and has been since the advent of neoliberalism in the Thatcher / Reagan era. This is done in a systematic and structured approach, and explains jargon in way that is clear without being condescending. Unfortunately, as someone who’s studied the subject, I found myself wishing there was a Concise E4E written for those who would rather focus on the critique than the economics.
A central premise of the critique is that much of what is taught as economics is, in fact, not economics in general, but the economics of neoliberal capitalism. Non-capitalist economics such as Marxist and socialist economics are barely even discussed in academia, and a great deal of economics discussion takes for granted that there are things such as, for example, a natural rate of unemployment, when this is in fact a political decision. The reason that myth is perpetuated, Stanford argues, is that companies have owners, that paying staff is a major expense, and that having a population that is frightened of losing jobs means that the staff are less likely to demand better wages. To put it the other way around, it would be economically possible to have full employment, but if the employees are not frightened of losing their jobs, the employers will have to pay higher wages, reducing profits.
Another neoliberal myth is that government deficits are inherently bad. This myth has been used time and again, often to ensure that banks in wealthy countries continue to get interest payments from people in poor countries by ramming through austerity policies that result in widespread misery. To the contrary, Stanford argues, deficits can be used to turbo-charge growth by investing in education, healthcare and infrastructure, and those social benefits generate more than enough economic growth to cover the interest payments – as happened in China in the two decades at the end of the last century (and, although E4E doesn’t mention it, Britain in the late 1700s, when it had issued consuls – government debt – that amounted to more than 250% of GDP: the highest in recorded history.)
These points and others like them are well made, and important to raise. And, as Stanford says, and as many other have commented, the crash of 2008 was a signal that neoliberal capitalism was out of control; that economics was no longer serving the common good but rather protecting the fortunes of those who were already immensely wealthy; that the time was ripe for an alternative. Yet no alternative was available. There was no new narrative, no novel system. The 2008 crisis could have shifted the balance back to the common man but, because there was no alternative, failed to.
If anything, E4E shows why that moment was lost. The book concludes with two shopping lists. The first is a series of tweaks that could nudge, say, the USA to a system more like those of the Nordic countries, which have much more even distributions of wealth. The second list presents non-capitalist ownership structures: state owned enterprises, cooperatives and the like, that seek to maximise social outcomes other than private wealth creation (or “profit”).
The problem with the first list is that the developed democracies have each charted their own courses. It’s all very well saying “the Americans should…”, but if a population makes an informed and free choice to elect successive governments that do not offer non-private ownership structures, that is their choice. The fact that one American government after another has elected gloves-off capitalist governments, and that one Swedish government after another has elected socially democratic governments, does not indicate a malaise in the American system, but a legitimate democratic preference.[*]
The problem with the second list is that socialism has been tried and it simply did not work. Socialist Russia may have put a man in space before capitalist America, but Russians were queuing four hours for bread while Americans picked it up at the supermarket. While individual Russians in the socialist era made enormous contributions to areas such as theoretical physics, Americans invented microcomputers. When I first visited China in the mid-1980s, everyone received the same wage – and the same shitty service. There was no incentive to do better.
As to non-centralised ownership structures such as cooperatives, as E4E says, most legal systems effectively limit the purposes of corporate bodies to be profit-seeking or charitable. Shared ownership structures are indeed a difficult beast. But what Stanford fails to consider is that, of the 85% of people he estimates are in wage labour, a very large proportion are okay with top-down ownership. Not everyone wants to be an entrepreneur; not everyone wants the burden of responsibility that comes with ownership, even partial ownership.[†] Given how precarious life used to be, how many people died of famine, drought or disease, let alone the human-inflicted miseries of war and oppression, perhaps we are pre-programmed to be risk-averse.
The collective bargaining Stanford advocates also seems rooted in the past. Coal mines and factories – workplaces where thousands of workers were doing essentially identical jobs – are the places collective bargaining began. In the developed world, those jobs have been taken over by robots. The rest of the world does not lack labour laws, but rather enforcement.
This is not say that the current global system allocates wages in a fair way. Far from it: our global trading system fosters brutal exploitation – see Naomi Klein’s classic No Logo for more. But tweaking the system isn’t going to change anything.
I have a few ideas of my own on that: see my blog http://chrismaden.com/economics-for-e... if you'd like to read them.
As an introductory treatise, the book starts out with the basics – work, tools and profit – and from there builds out a comprehensive picture of the modern, capitalist economic system as it is and has been since the advent of neoliberalism in the Thatcher / Reagan era. This is done in a systematic and structured approach, and explains jargon in way that is clear without being condescending. Unfortunately, as someone who’s studied the subject, I found myself wishing there was a Concise E4E written for those who would rather focus on the critique than the economics.
A central premise of the critique is that much of what is taught as economics is, in fact, not economics in general, but the economics of neoliberal capitalism. Non-capitalist economics such as Marxist and socialist economics are barely even discussed in academia, and a great deal of economics discussion takes for granted that there are things such as, for example, a natural rate of unemployment, when this is in fact a political decision. The reason that myth is perpetuated, Stanford argues, is that companies have owners, that paying staff is a major expense, and that having a population that is frightened of losing jobs means that the staff are less likely to demand better wages. To put it the other way around, it would be economically possible to have full employment, but if the employees are not frightened of losing their jobs, the employers will have to pay higher wages, reducing profits.
Another neoliberal myth is that government deficits are inherently bad. This myth has been used time and again, often to ensure that banks in wealthy countries continue to get interest payments from people in poor countries by ramming through austerity policies that result in widespread misery. To the contrary, Stanford argues, deficits can be used to turbo-charge growth by investing in education, healthcare and infrastructure, and those social benefits generate more than enough economic growth to cover the interest payments – as happened in China in the two decades at the end of the last century (and, although E4E doesn’t mention it, Britain in the late 1700s, when it had issued consuls – government debt – that amounted to more than 250% of GDP: the highest in recorded history.)
These points and others like them are well made, and important to raise. And, as Stanford says, and as many other have commented, the crash of 2008 was a signal that neoliberal capitalism was out of control; that economics was no longer serving the common good but rather protecting the fortunes of those who were already immensely wealthy; that the time was ripe for an alternative. Yet no alternative was available. There was no new narrative, no novel system. The 2008 crisis could have shifted the balance back to the common man but, because there was no alternative, failed to.
If anything, E4E shows why that moment was lost. The book concludes with two shopping lists. The first is a series of tweaks that could nudge, say, the USA to a system more like those of the Nordic countries, which have much more even distributions of wealth. The second list presents non-capitalist ownership structures: state owned enterprises, cooperatives and the like, that seek to maximise social outcomes other than private wealth creation (or “profit”).
The problem with the first list is that the developed democracies have each charted their own courses. It’s all very well saying “the Americans should…”, but if a population makes an informed and free choice to elect successive governments that do not offer non-private ownership structures, that is their choice. The fact that one American government after another has elected gloves-off capitalist governments, and that one Swedish government after another has elected socially democratic governments, does not indicate a malaise in the American system, but a legitimate democratic preference.[*]
The problem with the second list is that socialism has been tried and it simply did not work. Socialist Russia may have put a man in space before capitalist America, but Russians were queuing four hours for bread while Americans picked it up at the supermarket. While individual Russians in the socialist era made enormous contributions to areas such as theoretical physics, Americans invented microcomputers. When I first visited China in the mid-1980s, everyone received the same wage – and the same shitty service. There was no incentive to do better.
As to non-centralised ownership structures such as cooperatives, as E4E says, most legal systems effectively limit the purposes of corporate bodies to be profit-seeking or charitable. Shared ownership structures are indeed a difficult beast. But what Stanford fails to consider is that, of the 85% of people he estimates are in wage labour, a very large proportion are okay with top-down ownership. Not everyone wants to be an entrepreneur; not everyone wants the burden of responsibility that comes with ownership, even partial ownership.[†] Given how precarious life used to be, how many people died of famine, drought or disease, let alone the human-inflicted miseries of war and oppression, perhaps we are pre-programmed to be risk-averse.
The collective bargaining Stanford advocates also seems rooted in the past. Coal mines and factories – workplaces where thousands of workers were doing essentially identical jobs – are the places collective bargaining began. In the developed world, those jobs have been taken over by robots. The rest of the world does not lack labour laws, but rather enforcement.
This is not say that the current global system allocates wages in a fair way. Far from it: our global trading system fosters brutal exploitation – see Naomi Klein’s classic No Logo for more. But tweaking the system isn’t going to change anything.
I have a few ideas of my own on that: see my blog http://chrismaden.com/economics-for-e... if you'd like to read them.
Read
July 8, 2013aside from kissing major feminist butt to the point of causing me to question his credibility, this union side economist (autoworkers union, hence the team approach with the feminists) has a take on the economy that is well outside the instruction inside universities. my economics classes were an indoctrination into chicago school/neoliberal viewpoints. I had read galbraith previously, which created an interest and what they teach is a completely different animal that is clearly lacking in balance.
when I find books that offer a different perspective I am eager to check them out. It's a little 70s, trying to suggest that the work of wives and mothers add to the conceptual economy - I'm not sure I buy that, but I'm learning about economists and ideas not mentioned in my courses and particularly relevant today, in light of the failure - once again - of the supply-side, trickle-down - ideas of the 80s.
Those ideas are failing across continents right now and I'm wondering when the world is planning on waking up from history.
when I find books that offer a different perspective I am eager to check them out. It's a little 70s, trying to suggest that the work of wives and mothers add to the conceptual economy - I'm not sure I buy that, but I'm learning about economists and ideas not mentioned in my courses and particularly relevant today, in light of the failure - once again - of the supply-side, trickle-down - ideas of the 80s.
Those ideas are failing across continents right now and I'm wondering when the world is planning on waking up from history.
January 20, 2014
Il s'agit d'un intéressant tour d'horizon du fonctionnement de l'économie capitaliste, de ses origines à aujourd'hui. Pour les gens n'ayant jamais touché à Marx, le livre permet de comprendre les concepts de bases décrits dans la première partie du Capital tout en apprenant sur le fonctionnement du système financier. L'auteur touche également à plusieurs concepts fréquemment entendu autour de l'économie, comme le PIB, le libre-échange, le développement, etc. L'auteur sait rendre compte de ses opinions et propose également en toute fin des pistes de solution, après avoir exposé le savoir nécessaire pour comprendre en quoi le capitalisme est destructeur et nuisible, malgré ses avantages (en innovation essentiellement). On demeure au final dans une perspective peu radicale mais très partageable ; l'ouvrage est un passe-partout intéressant pour initier son entourage avec la critique du capitalisme. Pour un livre introductif, un exposé de plusieurs idéologies alternatives aurait été à prévoir, chose absente ici.
June 23, 2012
J'ai mis du temps à lire ce livre. Je m'attendais à quelque chose du calibre de "Petit cours d'autodéfense intellectuel" de la même maison d'édition.
Je trouvais le livre un peu trop "de base" et un peu trop biaisé.
L'auteur faisait des affirmations qui étaient plutôt des opinions.
Mais je suis contente de l'avoir terminé. C'est un bon portrait d'ensemble de l'économie en générale et de l'économie en particulier. J'ai pu réviser certaines notions et en corrigé d'autres qui ont changé depuis mon cours d'économie au secondaire.
C'est complet, clair, simple à lire... Et ça déboulonne certains mythes avec lesquelles les économistes nous rabattent les oreilles régulièrement.
Je trouvais le livre un peu trop "de base" et un peu trop biaisé.
L'auteur faisait des affirmations qui étaient plutôt des opinions.
Mais je suis contente de l'avoir terminé. C'est un bon portrait d'ensemble de l'économie en générale et de l'économie en particulier. J'ai pu réviser certaines notions et en corrigé d'autres qui ont changé depuis mon cours d'économie au secondaire.
C'est complet, clair, simple à lire... Et ça déboulonne certains mythes avec lesquelles les économistes nous rabattent les oreilles régulièrement.
October 4, 2020
The first chapter had me interested, but it went downhill from there. It seemed like the author had something against modern-day capitalism and did not discuss the freedom and opportunities it can provide everyday people. He makes it seem like workers are oppressed and rely on protections provided by governments and/or unions, when in reality workers are free to find new jobs or improve in their skills sought by the labour market.
March 31, 2013
Jim Stanford, an economist in the research department of the Canadian Auto Workers, thinks economics is too important to be left to economists. So, he wrote this concise and readable book to provide nonspecialist readers with all the information they need to understand how capitalism works – and how it doesn’t.
November 1, 2016
Good counter point to a lot of the information out there. As the author says, if an economic system is good or not is based on your world view and what you think is important. He makes the case for capitalism as a system that has some good points but many problems. Worth the read.
December 22, 2017
Excellent book about capitalism and economic things. I recommend everybody that is interested in the economy to read that book.
December 24, 2019
Fantastic. Probably the single best non-textbook introduction to economics available. (Though it’s also better than like 95% of the intro level textbooks, too.)
Read
December 29, 2022Always take Econ through the labor studies dept <3
July 10, 2025
The book provides a decent overview on the way economies work both on the macro and micro scale in the modern world. Concepts on Fiscal and Monetary policies are explained well. As well as the role of Credit and Central Banks in the System.
I do think that the Author spends too much time talking "What most economist think" and how his view is different, The author loves using the term neo a lot for some reason neoclassic, neoliberal without defining them concretely, This is often distracting since in some cases as it borders on strawman arguments. It's also fairly obvious that the Author is more Keynesian and Leftist in his economic leanings, Which is important to consider when reading the book.
if I do have a criticism is the author's negative outlook on the concept of central bank independence, He argues for a democratic way of selecting them over the currently held norms of letting Central bankers do their work without political interference.
Not only do we have several examples throughout the world where this has led to disaster (Turkey, Argentina and Zimbawe), one must also question if the author believes a similar concept of democracy can be applied in the Justice, One can imagine the issues that would arise if Judges can be selected or dismissed if a certain decision is unpopular in the short term.
Overall its a good read for anyone trying to get into economics and I do like the recommendations suggested by the Author for a more environment conscious and a less profitable system of economics.
I do think that the Author spends too much time talking "What most economist think" and how his view is different, The author loves using the term neo a lot for some reason neoclassic, neoliberal without defining them concretely, This is often distracting since in some cases as it borders on strawman arguments. It's also fairly obvious that the Author is more Keynesian and Leftist in his economic leanings, Which is important to consider when reading the book.
if I do have a criticism is the author's negative outlook on the concept of central bank independence, He argues for a democratic way of selecting them over the currently held norms of letting Central bankers do their work without political interference.
Not only do we have several examples throughout the world where this has led to disaster (Turkey, Argentina and Zimbawe), one must also question if the author believes a similar concept of democracy can be applied in the Justice, One can imagine the issues that would arise if Judges can be selected or dismissed if a certain decision is unpopular in the short term.
Overall its a good read for anyone trying to get into economics and I do like the recommendations suggested by the Author for a more environment conscious and a less profitable system of economics.
December 27, 2020
Not the quickest read but quite thought-provoking. Naomi Klein on the book cover is a hint ;)
It's my first 'classical' book about the economy which affects my perception. Starts with a discussion of classic terms like wage labor, profit-seeking, general capitalism. Later on, moves to challenge capitalism more and more. There is a lot of critique of the free market, some of it valid but not backed up by examples. I wish the author talked more about the differences between Anglo-Saxon economies and the Nordic model, or even Germany. There is just a hint of it, instead, the author seems to be fun of China's economic model. Venezuela is also mentioned... The book does not mention the darker sides of those setups and is cherry-picking good outcomes of state-level investments. I think those arguments deserve better models.
Good read, especially if you're a liberal and favor the free-market. This will make you think and have interesting debates with the author in your head.
It's my first 'classical' book about the economy which affects my perception. Starts with a discussion of classic terms like wage labor, profit-seeking, general capitalism. Later on, moves to challenge capitalism more and more. There is a lot of critique of the free market, some of it valid but not backed up by examples. I wish the author talked more about the differences between Anglo-Saxon economies and the Nordic model, or even Germany. There is just a hint of it, instead, the author seems to be fun of China's economic model. Venezuela is also mentioned... The book does not mention the darker sides of those setups and is cherry-picking good outcomes of state-level investments. I think those arguments deserve better models.
Good read, especially if you're a liberal and favor the free-market. This will make you think and have interesting debates with the author in your head.
July 12, 2021
کتاب خیلی خوبی هست برای آشنایی با کاپیتالیزم و نحوه کارکردن اقتصاد در جهان امروز. نویسنده اولش خیلی واضح و روشن میگه که هیچ دیدگاه اقتصادی غیر سیاسیای وجود نداره و هرکسی غیر از این میگه دروغ میگه! خیلی از دیدگاههای موجود رو نقد میکنه مثل اینکه بازار آزاد اتوماتیک میتونه همه مسائل رو حل بکنه و دولت ریشه همه بدبختیها هست و باید کوچیک بشه. همانطور که خود نویسنده توی فصل آخر گفت، راهحل جایگزین مناسبی هنوز برای این سیستم پیدا نشده و قطعا سیستمی که هدفش ماکسیمم کردن منفعت شرکت خصوصی باشه، به صورت اتوماتیک باعث بهبود همه چی نمیشه. ولی طبق معمول شیطان در جزییات هست و هنوز سیستم جایگزین که بتونه تمام جزییات رو به صورت دقیق مدیریت کنه و این مشکلات رو نداشته باشه پیدا نشده. دولتها در خیلی از مسائل ولخرجیهای بیمورد کردن و انظباط شرکتهای خصوصی رو نداشتن. در کل به نظرم همین که بدونیم در چه دنیایی زندگی میکنیم و هدف فعلی اکثر سازمانها ماکسیمم کردن سود شرکت خصوصی هست و لاغیر خیلی چشم رو باز خواهد کرد.
July 16, 2019
This book is great if you’re looking to understand the modern economic system. It goes through its history, how it runs, and the basic concepts that are used.
What makes this book especially useful is it’s political aspect. Unlike mainstream economics which pretends to be a scientific fact, the author explains how the current economic system, and economists, are highly political and that they believe in capitalist free market ideology.
As a result, the book does a great job of explaining exactly what economics are and how it intersects with our daily lives, with society, and with the environment. It also helps to explain the problems with the capitalist economy and what alternatives are possible.
This is a must read.
What makes this book especially useful is it’s political aspect. Unlike mainstream economics which pretends to be a scientific fact, the author explains how the current economic system, and economists, are highly political and that they believe in capitalist free market ideology.
As a result, the book does a great job of explaining exactly what economics are and how it intersects with our daily lives, with society, and with the environment. It also helps to explain the problems with the capitalist economy and what alternatives are possible.
This is a must read.
May 17, 2023
very very essential reading for all! i still haven't quite wrapped my head around all the little details but i finally understand the overall structure of capitalism. "economics" was a big scary word and field before i read this but i can finally make sense of the world in relation to economics. excited to support my sister's endeavours in studying economics and finance in her undergrad and i hope she will find the notes i made in my copy useful. : )
also, for a seemingly boring topic (which it was for me evidently, it took me a year to get through this monstrosity), there are little funny comics throughout the book and the cover is quite pleasing to look at as well. the colourful font on the spine also makes it look like an appealing read!
also, for a seemingly boring topic (which it was for me evidently, it took me a year to get through this monstrosity), there are little funny comics throughout the book and the cover is quite pleasing to look at as well. the colourful font on the spine also makes it look like an appealing read!
June 11, 2019
Good, not great. This book had the potential to be a very useful resource but it's lacking something. More alternatives to capitalism perhaps? I believe we have to rethink the system as a whole as well, but his alternatives only refer to socialist structures (and differentiating between social-democratic and communist attempts). It's going to be tough to upend capitalism's hold on N.A. society. I would have liked to have seen ways in which we can infiltrate it with cooperative ideas and a greater mention of how much of the economy is NOT capitalist (e.g doing favours for a neighbour, bartering through Kijiji or similar, etc.).
November 4, 2020
A useful book, as it covers so many topics, you’re likely to find something worth reading up on. It defines many terms, though I am trying to wade through some more economics-based material (to get a better grasp on neoliberal economics) and this book left me ever-so-slightly disappointed. Just a tad, though. It is worth it especially if you want to have a holistic understanding of the economy from all angles big and small. You can skip around, read it through, and use its resources (like a glossary available to anyone online).
August 4, 2021
The first third was a little basic but that isn’t really a criticism for an introduction book. I enjoyed the critiques of orthodox economics which consistently show what utter nonsense it is. I found the second third which covered theories of money and credit, how the shadow banking system works etc much more illuminating. There was a lot I had heard of but didn’t really understand how it worked. Once you understand the nature of banking austerity policies make absolutely no sense. Suddenly the saying that public deficit is private surplus made sense.
September 16, 2017
It took me a couple of tries to make it through this book (I'm not a big non-fiction reader) but when I finally did, I felt much more informed with a basic understanding about the workings of economics and capitalism. It was interesting to have the perspective of a progressive economist rather than one who works for banks. I wanted more discussion of the Federal Reserve but other than that it felt like a good econ-for-beginners text.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 56 reviews