The Soros Lectures: At the Central European University

by George Soros

Five lectures George Soros recently delivered at the Central European University in Budapest - which he founded in 1991 - distill a lifetime of thinking on finance, capitalism and open society In a series of lectures delivered at the Central European University in October 2009, George Soros provided a broad overview of his thoughts on economics and politics. The lectures are the culmination of a lifetime of practical and philosophical reflection. In the first and second lecture, Soros discusses his general theory of reflexivity and its application to financial markets, providing insight into the recent financial crisis. The third and fourth lectures examine the concept of open society, which has guided Soros' global philanthropy, as well as the potential for conflict between capitalism and open society. The closing lecture focuses on the way ahead, closely examining the increasingly important economic and political role that China will play in the future. "The Budapest Lectures" presents these five seminal talks into one volume, which offers a condensed and highly readable summary of Soros' world view.

Genres: Economics, Finance, Business, Nonfiction, Politics, Philosophy

146 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 2010

About the author

George Soros is a Hungarian-American financier, businessman and notable philanthropist focused on supporting liberal ideals and causes. He became known as "the Man Who Broke the Bank of England" after he made a reported $1 billion during the 1992 Black Wednesday UK currency crises. Soros correctly speculated that the British government would have to devalue the pound sterling.

Soros is Chairman of Soros Fund Management, LLC.
As one of history’s most successful financiers, his views on investing and economic issues are widely followed.

Reviews

[Sam · Rating 5 out of 5]

Let me explain my understanding of The reflexivity concept by the fable that I learned when I was young. This is not Soro's story:

There's a family have a leopard as a pet in a village in Africa. The leopard is nice and plays with kids. The family has an enemy in another village, so the father decided to send the leopard to kill his enemy. The leopard carried the mission and when it back home, he killed the family too.

Soros suggested that people has "fallibility" because we never able to observe the total picture and our understanding are always biased. The fallibility works hand in hand with the Reflexivity to causes social problems including financial crisis and bubbles. That is his main part.

Besides the congitive function, Soros said that our mind also has the manipulative function. Knowledge comes toward our mind, while manupulation is from our mind toward the external world. Outcome of behaviour that is subject to these two functions becomes unpredictable. Whoo, I considered Communication as the way to manupulate, Soros put it in a deeper level.

Reflexivity contrasts to the Efficient Hypothesis in the finance theory. Soros recommended that supervision to the market by regulatory is a must. And it is the way to reduce shocks from crisis. Liquidity must be control too.

He further explained the problem of agency theory in political regime, and the visible hands behind the "invisible hand" of the market. He has a strong idea on the position of ethics in our soceity.
He suggested that the market and society/politics should not be treated in the same way. A real open socity should be based on public interest where market transaction and assumptions does not work.

Soros discribed a set of idea that is challenging to the fundamental of the finanical world assumptions and our soceity. An intersting book.

[Rahul Sibal · Rating 5 out of 5]

As always, the writings of an individual have to be separated from the individual. Rousseau took no responsibility for his wife, and children and essentially abandoned them, and yet his writings played a major role in the establishment of the enlightenment era, and eventually democracy. Ordinarily, except in rare instances, the messenger, and the message have to be separated. See the following review, for a more detailed discussion of this point - https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

This book is essentially, a transcription of a set of lectures that George Soros gave at the Central European University. Since, text is faster than video, I chose to read the book. The book is divided into 5 lectures, titled as follows:

A. Lecture One: The Human Uncertainty Principle
B. Lecture Two: Financial Markets
C. Lecture Three: Open Society
D. Capitalism versus Open Society
E. The Way Ahead.

The first lecture can be seen here - George Soros Lecture Series: General Theory of Reflexivity




Soros, through the book, essentially lectures on the human uncertainty principle, which, inter alia, includes the reflexivity principle. He then applies this principle to other domains, such as economics, and financial markets.

He focuses on a specific aspect of the human uncertainty principle - which is the reflexivity principle. The principle finds its origins in Karl Popper's earlier works on the verification of empirical truths, that scientific laws are hypothetical in character, and that their truth remains open to falsification. In other words, the ideologies that claim to be in possession of the ultimate truth are making a false claim, and therefore can only be imposed on the society by compulsion. I find the argument, very similar to Ambedkar's concept of Constitutional Morality - that any discipline or movement or theory which seeks to advance its truth or argument, without allowing contrary arguments , may it be through violence, or according to Ambedkar, even non-violent protests such as those by Gandhi - then they are against constitutional morality. In fact, Ambedkar's concept of Constitutional Morality can be understood to be a political manifestation of the underlying principle by Popper. It is as much about process, as it is about the final outcome. It prioritizes the process over the substantive ideal or result seeking to be achieved. Although Soros does not say this, it appears that the natural corollary of Popper's point is that equality can never be allowed to supersede freedoms. In other words, open dialogue and freedom of speech is a must, and cannot be sacrificed any cost, contrary to scenarios where the freedom of speech is subordinated to the ideal of equality (Communism), or to any other ideal (theocracy). This is not to say that freedom of speech is at odds with other values; rather in many cases societies which involve the freedom of speech, after undertaking such dialogue, consensually choose to pursue ideals such as equality and welfare, as can be seen in Scandinavian Democracies, the operative word being consensually.

On studying Popper's theory, Soros noticed a distinction between Popper's principles, and other domains specifically economics, which espoused perfect competition, and knowledge. This led him to question economics theory, and led him to develop the idea of fallibility and reflexivity, which he applied generally to his life, and to specifically to his trades in financial markets, and I would say with great success. His core idea, can be understood in terms of two simple propositions:

a. In situations, that have thinking participants, the participants view of the world is always partial, and distorted. - this is the principle of fallibility. - the participant will always have incomplete information, in his analysis.
b. That distorted views can influence, the situation to which they relate because distorted views lead to inappropriate actions. - this is the principle of reflexibility.

He gives, the example of treating drug addicts as criminals, as an example of faulty thinking- fallibility - distorted views, and that as a consequence, it results in improper action, which further exacerbates the problem - and results in an even poorer quality of treatment for DA. A similar view can be applied to stock markets, it is not merely the valuation of stock value that needs to be assessed independently (fundamental value analysis), but also the impact that demand and purchase (human action) have on the value of the stock, which further impacts the independent valuation of the stock. In other words, reason and reality are not "independent variables".

In other words, first we try to empirically assess reality for what it is, and naturally form incomplete views or models, we then take action on the basis of such models, with such actions being naturally imperfect, and those actions further shape reality, and the changing reality shape our views. In other words, our view affect our views. In his view, Reflexibility has been ignored, at the vain cost of certainty.

To first expound on 'fallibility', his argument is somewhat similar to "all models are bad and some less bad than the others". He additionally also argues that Hume was correct, and Descartes wrong, that reasoning is not independent of passion, of feelings and senses. I also subscribe to empiricism (and not rationalism), and in fact would refer to Antonio Damasio's work, a neuroscientist, who through this research argues that reason is not independent. He then proceeds to the more controversial topic of reflexibility. He explains the principle of reflexibility by contextualizing it in the background of "thinking PARTICIPANTS" - in other words, where the individual is not merely an observer but can also change reality, through his actions. Illustratively, examples would be political ideologies, economic theories, financial markets, medical diagnosis and so on. Here, it Is not merely observation, but also observation affecting reality, and reality in turn affecting observation. Therefore, this theory will generally be applicable to knowledge, that is "waiting to be discovered" - such as physics, and so on, where the formulation of theories describing reality has no impact on reality. Take the example of painter painting a portrait of a man/house, or a newton's law of gravity, where the formulation has no impact on the subject of the formulation.

To put it differently, human functions can be understood in terms of the cognitive function, and the manipulative/participating function. The cognitive function is basically the human attempt at assessing reality. The manipulative function is the attempt to change the situation according to our goals. In one of them, the direction of the causation is from the mind to the world, and in case of manipulative function, it is reverse. And both attempts will be imperfect, to quote Soros:

" This means that the cognitive function can’t produce enough knowledge to serve as the basis of the participants’ decisions. Similarly, the manipulative function can have an impact on the outcome but can’t determine it. In other words, the outcome is liable to diverge from the participants’ intentions. There is bound to be some slippage between intentions and actions, and further slippage between actions and outcomes. As a result, there is an element of uncertainty in both our understanding of reality and the actual course of events. "


Here is an interesting example of his analysis in the economic sphere:

"The simplest case is a real estate boom. The trend that precipitates it is that credit becomes cheaper and more easily available; the misconception is that the value of the collateral is independent of the availability of credit. As a matter of fact, the relationship between the availability of credit and the value of the collateral is reflexive. When credit becomes cheaper and more easily available, activity picks up and real estate values rise. There are
fewer defaults, credit performance improves, and lending standards are relaxed. So at the height of the boom, the amount of credit involved is at its maximum and a reversal precipitates forced liquidation, depressing real estate values."




There is much more to explain in terms of detail, subtlety, and exceptions but that is for the reader to gather from reading the book. The rest of the book, is Soros' application of the principle to macroeconomics, financial markets, financial regulation, capitalism, and most importantly open society. I will skip the chapter on financial markets, and jump to open society. Amazingly, Soros makes a point, which is very similar to what Einstein said, which is that Empiricism can't produce the arguments in favor of empiricism. What does it mean? Well, in contrast to the dogma of much of human history, the enlightenment with its focus on the cognitive function arose, and tried to focus on truth, in contrast to religion and values. It is in parallel, that we observed the incredible advances in physical and biological sciences, and also the establishment of relatively open societies in the form of democracies. The enlightenment was marked by an obsessive focus on determining truth over everything else. But that is exactly the weakness, or the flaw of the enlightenment philosophers such as Voltaire, Hume, Rousseau, and so on, they "assume" that society's first priority is truth, which is not necessarily the case, otherwise we wouldn't have "communism" [Former SU, and China] or "theocracies" [Iran/Saudi Arabia] with their intense focus on propaganda. In fact, an example could even be given of Singapore, with its single party system, where the focus was on economic growth [I would have loved to have witnessed an interaction between Soros, and the now deceased Lee Kuan Yew]. Or take even the case of the US [or even India] where people would rather be entertained than assess the truth [see Neil Postman's work]. In other words, empiricism seeks to prioritize truth/facts over values, but does not take into account that the argument for prioritization of empiricism over other values, itself comes from the domain of values. Einstein made a similar argument. With intellectual modesty, both Einstein and Soros categorize the prioritization of truth over all other values, and categorize such prioritization as their personal beliefs.

At the same time, he argues that not merely should we guard against the enlightenment fallacy, but also the post modern fallacy - that there is no truth, and that we are living in a post truth society. In fact, he calls this a bigger fallacy than the enlightenment fallacy, since there is an objective reality, which no matter how we deceive rselves, cannot be avoided - eventual death, body condition, and so on. You might rationalize by saying that your dead relative is still alive (life after death), also the truth is that he/she is dead (the objective reality). Similar analysis can be made anywhere else. For instance, Propaganda societies will eventually fall, or take the example of markets with weak fundamentals that are merely propped by investor action resulting in the formation of bubbles - such bubbles will eventually burst. Sooner or later reality will come to the fore, and you must acknowledge it. As someone who aligns himself towards utilitarianism, and empiricism, I agree.

He argues that, we must not make the enlightenment mistake of not acknowledging the manipulative function, but should also not accord the M function precedence over the cognitive function. He also discusses "positive" and "negative" feedbacks, which essentially increase and decrease the distance between reality, and views respectively. All I would say, that after reading the book, I will attempt to eliminate all positive feedback from my life.

What I do find slightly startling, is Soros' dependence on Popper. No doubt, Popper is a stalwart in the Philisophy of Science, but there are other figures in the Philosophy of Science who have taken contrary positions, and attempted to rebut Popper. I am not saying that one philosopher (such as Kuhn), is more correct than the other (Popper), but there is no explanation given behind why Popper's principles are given precedence over other philosophers of science.

Moving on to Soros, the person. If I were to ask the question, as to who has most reduced human suffering in the contemporary times? there exists at most, two realistic answers - either George Soros, or Bill Gates. There are strong arguments in favor of either. From a utilitarian perspective, he has invested 32 billion dollars, into establishing institutions, which would support the formation of open societies. Bill Gates on the other hand, focuses on apolitical issues, which are more ameliorative in nature, such as Malaria, vaccination and so on. One could say that political causes are as important as socio-economic causes. For instance, China witnessed huge costs in terms of socio-economic stagnation due to the wrong political leadership (Mao), similarly NGO efforts in the Continent have been significantly affected due to constant dictatorship regimes, civil wars and so on. As has been the trend in history, wealthy Jews who have contributed to democratic causes, have always been slandered against, with conspiracy theories. To this extent, the conspiracies theories about Soros are expected. Essentially, he made money from other traders, and used it for philanthropic causes. His warnings against unregulated capitalism, are not in any way, hypocritical. As a private participant he made money from markets and invested it in eastern europe and other places to help usher in Open Societies. I see nothing wrong in that. He makes the point, which I agree, with that you can't expect the private participants to change the rules. They can merely play within the rules. It is for the public participants to change the rules, and it is here the problem lies, the private participants pay the political actors to establish the rules that are beneficial for them although inimical to society. He rails that the amoral character of market fundamentalism which is applicable to the private sector has percolated into the social, legal, and political sectors. In other words, amoralism can only be applicable to the private participants, and it is necessary for political actors to make public regulations, that reflect the right values, and that benefit the society as a whole. In fact, there is an entire chapter in the book titled "Capitalism against Open Society"" He is truly a capitalist against UNREGULATED capitalism. I am looking forward to reading his other books.

[Edward Xiao · Rating 5 out of 5]

The book serves as a transcript to Soros' talks in 2009. In it, Soros lays out his frameworks for thinking about the the world and his theory of reflexivity. The idea is important but I'm not certain if it required the length of the book and could have likely been better structured to provide clarity. However, the book provides a view into Soros' thinking and his thought process which was a worthwhile tradeoff.

Some predictions are laid out in the book that have been proven to be untrue, however, in current times, it may serve that they were delayed and will be insightful to see if any will occur as cycles and pressures are tested in 2020 COVID crisis.

[Linda · Rating 3 out of 5]

As this book contains five lectures, which deal with different topics and are very different from each other, it is hard to give this book, so all the lectures, one rating. One main topic is the background of the 2008 financial crisis, the other is the open society. Both are centered around some economic theories he has which are rooted in philosophy. He kind of brings the two topics together in the last chapter, but still, the lectures have a very different focus.

The chapter on the open society I found fascinating. Using the two concepts of failability and reflexivity, this lecture, from 2009, gives a very interesting theory about the what we would now call the post-truth era. He describes that, already during the Bush administration, respecting the truth has become a handicap rather than a virtue - and how more actual this thought has become since Trump came to power. This chapter is a very interesting read, which I'd give a higher rating.

Not having an economic background, I found some other parts of his lectures hard to follow; some of the economic terms he used I'm not quite knowledgeable enough about. He compares his theories to what, according to him, the general theory is, but I'm not in a position to judge how new, true or sensible it is what he says.

Soros of course is known for his wealth, and his philanthropic endeavors. Still, after reading these lectures, I cannot help but wonder if it wouldn't be wise to take some more responsibility at the front, while making money, in stead of only when spending it. He calls market fundamentalism 'amoral' - which he clearly distinguished from immoral: a dollar is a dollar, no matter how you got it. I do think, however, that not caring how a dollar was made (he says moral reasons play no part in the decisions he took), is a form of immorality, because you knowingly, willingly, withdraw from any responsibility you have. This lack of 'taking your own responsibility' is repeated in his other ideas as well.

He tries to distinguish between the economic (do what is good for you) and public domain (do what is good for the public), and would have the role of authorities, supervising/monitoring, be limited to the public domain. However, he couldn't convince me at all that those can be separated in the way he states, or that they do not heavily influence each other. And also, he admits he's doing some things that serve his own interest, but rather sees it publicly supervised so it would serve the public's interest, and so it reads to me as: I'm doing it as long as no-one forbids me. These kind of thoughts seem too simple for me, and lower my rating of the book.

It's hard to rate a nonfiction book, because do you rate how well the ideas were worked out, how well they can convince you, or how well you agree with them? The book gave me plenty to think about, regardless of how much I agree or disagree, so I do recommend it. It might be even more appealing to those with an economic background.

A last note: the Dutch title, which makes the book sound more like a self-help book, doesn't at ALL reflect its contents. As the rest of the translation was good, I cannot help but think this was a publisher's decision - and a bad one, that is.

[David · Rating 1 out of 5]

George, a man who became self obscene rich, claim and gives speech all over the globe. And this book is about the speech he gave at Central EU University..Quick summary: i) He believes human are flawed, decisions are unwise, especially financial decisions and stock market decisions are flawed..He used a Flexivity term to describe as solution to make a better world due to human flaw, but environment has to be ii) Capitalism based...yet iii) Open Society is the basis to create Capitalism-enriched. First chapter he would think he is the philosopher and make you think his logic is legitimate such as what he called Behavior Finance...yet he bashed Bush for his barbaric act against Iraq and Middle East, yet he embraced Obama for his soft policy and peaceful foreign policy..As another summary: Soros is a thug who lives under the roof of two back to back evil regime: Bush and Obama on foreign policy and two rigged the country of USA financially by collaborating with the corporations and deep states...like a child who complain about father, but not the mother..yet his evil deeds continue under these two regime by funding massive freedom group, and to fuel foreign revolutions, so he can act as an economic killer to loot other countries' resources, and understanding how to belly flip foreign stock markets. His claim of Open Society based on his past horrible experience under Soviets and Germans make you feel sympathetic towards his "noble Cause"...but this is just facade that he does not want you to know he funded Ukraine revolution, anti-Trump women rally...this is his act is to directly fund revolutionary to create immediate effect of success...this goes against Prof Chua that US based fake democracy (not a pure democratic country based on the election process and also congressional decisions on many subjects)...cannot simply be exported to cast on Asian countries..since the cultural and political practice may not work...Check Open Society and you will find a lot secret ops that undergone to fuel foreign blood shed...

[Brian Godsey, now on thestorygraph · Rating 5 out of 5]

Six stars, if that were possible.

In 120 pages, this book managed to state most of my own theories about finance and political economy not held by the general public---markets are nowhere near efficient, financial bubbles are followed by irrational over-corrections, most people vote immorally to improve their own interests instead of for fairness or common good, the "invisible hand" exists but is not alone---and then takes all of the ideas several steps further, explaining how they work, what can be done, and what Soros himself has done to help it along.

I knew nearly nothing about Soros before I read this book, but I was curious based on some news articles, so I got this book. What I now know is that Soros is one of two ubiquitously famous financiers/investors---Warren Buffett being the other---who is entirely worthy of any and all respect people give him. The five lectures contained in this book prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Soros' analysis of past events is correct, and he makes an incredible argument for his future predictions and prescriptions. To top it off, Soros announces (in October 2009) the creation of a new institute intended to rigorously study the status quo of economic knowledge---which Soros says is flawed, or at least severely incomplete---from all angles, including Soros' theories, but not exclusively. To show that Soros means what he says, he started the institute and then abdicated all power over it. This is akin to Warren Buffett begging for the U.S. to raise the estate tax---which he has done. Both of these truly great men have repeatedly given up power, wealth, and opportunity for the common good, actions that are unfortunately rare.

Soros is my new idol; he may not be as successful with his investments as Buffett, but he's more aggressive in his fight for a better society.

[Steven · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good introduction to Soros. Brief and sensible. When you read through it you'll get the feeling of reading a master's thinking: there's that clarity that can pierce through any enigma. Be it international finance and politics, investment strategy, and so on, he made it look easy.

Many people wanna read his stuff to get investment advice but unfortunately he doesn't give much. Instead what he gave are quasi-philosophical concepts that he claimed to be derived from his famous mentor Karl Popper. To me his 'philosophy' just sounds like common sense. Nevertheless, probably that's what served him well all this time; a certain disrespect for the prevailing theories of the day (such as the efficient market hypothesis) and a belief in his own ideas. The rest is just gut instinct and brave risk taking. Perhaps that's his entire investment philosophy.

[A Mig · Rating 3 out of 5]

A good summary of Soros' philosophy, making me want to read more of his books.

Pompous at times (e.g. "Emboldened by my recent successes, I will go so far as to claim that my conceptual framework provides the correct interpretation of reality. That is a bold claim..."), it is quite possible that the whole philosophy is only backed by Soros' successes. As such, it should be seen as a biography and not as a silver bullet to solve socio-economical problems (and to become rich by the way).

[Niran Pravithana · Rating 2 out of 5]

หนังสือของโซรอสทุกเล่มมีคาแรกเตอร์เดียวกันหมด คือ กรูเขียนเพราะกรูอยากเขียน เมิงจะอ่านเข้าใจหรือไม่ก็เรื่องของเมิง
เนื้อหาดีหรือไม่ สรุปไม่ได้ เพราะเข้าใจยากจนไม่แน่ใจว่าสิ่งที่เข้าใจนั้นถูกต้องหรือเปล่า

[Edwin Setiadi · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a special one for me, not for the content but for the story on how I got the book: the physical book that I have is from none other than George Soros himself, albeit indirectly.

So in 2010 George Soros visited Indonesia, and he brought along several of this book to give away to few people that he met, as a good gesture. And one of those people who received the book was someone who doesn't know who Soros was, doesn't have a slight interest on him, but knew that I would probably appreciate the book.

Well, as a person who has a mild case (mild?) of tsundoku I finally read the book, 10 years later. And it's.... typical of Soros. I've read more books written by Soros that I would like to admit (three, three books), and every time I read his book I always have this hope that the next sentence would be the bomb that I've been waiting for, akin to his stature as a financial market legend.

But "da bomb" never happened, and this book - or more precisely this lectures - seems to be no exception. Soros is one of a kind hedge fund manager, with a brilliant trader's instinct, but he's not a good writer and a vague philosopher at best. But that is precisely what makes him human, and it can even be the antidote to the boogeyman, market-crashing, democracy-interrupting [misleading] enigma that is forever attached to his name. Hey, even Gordon Gekko has a soft side as shown towards the end of Wall Street 2 movie.

But then, just when I nearly wrapped up this book, there it was. Da bomb. Lecture 5 is so good it’s worth one additional star just for this chapter alone. It showed that in 2010 Soros could summarise in a clear manner the problems in international finance and politics since the days of the Bretton Woods up until the 2008 crisis and its aftermath. And the predictions that he made a decade ago in lecture 5? He nailed almost every single one of them. That’s the Soros that I’ve been waiting for, and I’m sure glad I stick with the book till the end.

[Michael Helm · Rating 4 out of 5]

These are transcripts or fixups of lectures given in 2009.
The lectures appear to be available on youtube now - I haven't watched them yet.
The book/lectures are a little dated, in that they are closely tied to the 2008 financial meltdown.
Some of the predictions made didn't come to pass.

On the useful side, it is a brief and easy to understand introduction to Soros' thinking and where he actually fits in. Only the first lecture, chapter one, where he describes his theory of reflexivity and how it works, is at all difficult. Reflexivity is very interesting and Soros sees it as a gap in the behavioral economists' theories in that they don't seem to take into account the distortions that human thinking and behavior have on markets. This is an interesting and productive viewpoint and worth looking at Kahneman &al again using ideas from Soros. I read Kahneman about Soros somewhere and Kahneman seemed to find him completely baffling.

Soros also has a deep debt to Karl Popper - something else that needs more attention.

[Joshua Cheong · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book expanded my view beyond the efficient market hypothesis and the neo-classical production function. The theory of reflexivity is one possible exploration of alternatives to economics - since my interaction with people from the Institute of New Economic Thinking which Soros and a few others founded, I am realising that a new era of economics in development which I believe would enable better pricing for private equity and venture capital funded assets.

[Josiah R · Rating 3 out of 5]

His talk on reflexivity was interesting and what I was most anxious to hear more about. But the lecture on Popper's open society was confusing. In fact I find the man confusing ... on the one hand, he was heavily influenced to believe in strong protection for individual rights due to his experiences with the Nazi and Soviet dictatorships, but appears to promote heavy-handed regulation as the solution to certain social problems, which seems like a remarkable contradiction.

[Orban · Rating 5 out of 5]

An eye opener book definitely.

Ideas, like the reflexivity were deep inside me in an unconscious way. Soros explained it well. I would recommend this book to those who would like to understand better the underlying forces shaping our markets. This book has opened doors for me.
It also helped me to clear the false accusations targeting Soros himself, which are obviously not true.

[Jane · Rating 5 out of 5]

Lucid, easy to read, and should be read by a majority of people to understand financial and political market interplay and current events in the context of the 2010 aftermath of the financial crisis. The first chapter is the densest and one should study/take notes to help make subsequent reading even more clear, but one will get meaning out of it in a casual read.

[Paul McKinlay · Rating 4 out of 5]

Heavy read that requires focus... but is short and broken up so manageable. Will re read some of the lectures again for sure. Interesting to read his predictions and suggestions from 10yrs ago and how they’ve played out

[Lew Mills · Rating 5 out of 5]

Cogent and concise analysis of global economics

Soros has a useful framework for understanding many economic and political problems. Some of his predictions still have value in 2020.

[Neil]

Rec by David Perell: "One of the most successful investors of the 20th century laid out his Karl Popper inspired investment philosophy in a series of lectures about the Open Society, reflexivity, capitalism, and the financial crisis."

[Karl · Rating 3 out of 5]

You can find the audio for free online. The one on reflexivity is genuinely good. The rest so and so.

[Pedro Polanco · Rating 4 out of 5]

Abstractions just compelling enough to warrant consideration of exploring, if not shifting, my societal paradigm

[MJ Jabarian · Rating 5 out of 5]

interesting introduction inside one of the greatest minds of the world of finance. Really enjoyed the audio.

[Muyu]

@2015-12-12 23:49:19

[Jacob Brown · Rating 1 out of 5]

No.

[Isha · Rating 2 out of 5]

Enkele interessante inhoudelijke punten maar de Nederlandse vertaling kon me niet bekoren

[Juan Díez · Rating 4 out of 5]

Tío que entiende la realidad

[Russ · Rating 3 out of 5]

Thought provoking. I don’t tend to agree that it is market fundamentalism that directly caused some of our current challenges, but I respect his arguments.

[Ran · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting models to think about for psychology, economics, and politics. Fallibility and reflexivity can be applied to a lot of scenarios as well. I think he personally missed the God part

[Mark · Rating 5 out of 5]

In a nutshell, Soros grants a succinct treatment on his personal perception towards the dynamics and operating basis of the financial markets and it's individual participants - in what is known as his theory of reflexivity.

He goes on to highlight his personal views (which in and of itself holds a certain volume of truth) on how the current operating philosophy, the preponderant consensus on modern market belief brought on by prolific lobbying and widespread propaganda, is inherently flawed and why his self conceived model is inextricably the better fit, given the global economy's current state of affairs.

The icing on the cake comes in the later quarter of the book, wherein Soros injects his personal judgement in unravelling the future of the world's economy. All in all, the book provides a robust treatment on his views in a very digestible package. Whether the master's record for prescience will manifest in reality once more remains foggy. But, it is clear that if finance fused together with a blend of philosophy and dialectics is palatable to your appetite, I can safely assure you that nothing but satisfaction awaits you in this book!

[Frank · Rating 3 out of 5]

Soros covers a variety of disciplines, from philosophy to economics to politics. Soros is no doubt a smart guy who's really thought through financial markets, as well as his own theories.

There was one point in the book where he went all "Spiderman" and mentioned how with great power and money comes great responsibility or something like that. While I agree that he's done some great things for great causes with his wealth and power, he was all about insider trading and short selling to GET his wealth and power. Despite this, his philanthropy is impressive overall.

Nevertheless, he has some good insights. Unfortunately, I'm not properly versed in financial market vocabulary to fully understand everything he's talking about, but this is well worth a read for those interested in free markets, bubbles, and ideas like "market fundamentalism."

[Kanti Brahma · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Soros Lectures blend the financial crises with philosophy. The concepts are simple and appeals your intellect. However, the reader requires to connect the dots with precision...otherwise there is fear of getting lost in the abstract parts of the lectures. A good read- provides logical insight into financial markets and open society. Clarifies how markets, open societies and politics get manipulated. The lectures concludes with some suggestions which needs further sharpening.

If you want to wear a regulator's hat---read this book will definitely be of value for you.