What do you think?
Rate this book
Popular Economics: What the Rolling Stones, Downton Abbey, and LeBron James can teach you about economics
John Tamny use sports, movies, popular books, and well-known businesses to explain the basic principles of economics. He also shows that economic growth is a function of the political class getting taxes, regulation, trade, and monetary policy correct.
279 pages, Hardcover
First published April 13, 2015
64 people are currently reading
585 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 35 reviews
January 9, 2021
Коротко:
Это книга не про экономику. Это книга про ненависть к правительству и регулированию, умноженная на америкоцентрическую систему вселенной. Не тратьте своё время.
Длинно:
Автор книги утверждает, что разбирается в экономике, но при этом;
- считает, что в правительстве работают исключительно очень глупые люди, потому что были бы они умные - работали бы в Эппл, а не в правительстве;
- считает, что налоги - это рабство, штраф за то, что ты работаешь, не нужны, отменить;
- покупка дома - это плохо, ведь это расход капитала, а экономический рост возможен только при инвестициях в капитала. Но покупка айфона - это хорошо, ведь ты поддерживаешь бизнес;
- финансовый кризис 2008 - вовсе не финансовый, во всем виновато правительство. Нужно было оставить рынок в покое, тогда слабые компании сами умерли бы, рынок очистился, и всё восстановилось, а глупое и некомпетентное правительство всё испортило;
- Никсон, отвязав доллар от золота, был мудак, конечно, сделав страну слабее, а Рейган поднял экономику с колен;
- (книга 2015) американцы теперь стали скептичнее относиться к выборам, поэтому в 2016 обязательно выберут президентом того, кто приведет страну к экономическому процветанию.
Нет сил и смысла писать, почему это неправда. Просто лучше почитайте нормальные учебники по экономике, а книги и твиттер Тамни не читайте.
Это книга не про экономику. Это книга про ненависть к правительству и регулированию, умноженная на америкоцентрическую систему вселенной. Не тратьте своё время.
Длинно:
Автор книги утверждает, что разбирается в экономике, но при этом;
- считает, что в правительстве работают исключительно очень глупые люди, потому что были бы они умные - работали бы в Эппл, а не в правительстве;
- считает, что налоги - это рабство, штраф за то, что ты работаешь, не нужны, отменить;
- покупка дома - это плохо, ведь это расход капитала, а экономический рост возможен только при инвестициях в капитала. Но покупка айфона - это хорошо, ведь ты поддерживаешь бизнес;
- финансовый кризис 2008 - вовсе не финансовый, во всем виновато правительство. Нужно было оставить рынок в покое, тогда слабые компании сами умерли бы, рынок очистился, и всё восстановилось, а глупое и некомпетентное правительство всё испортило;
- Никсон, отвязав доллар от золота, был мудак, конечно, сделав страну слабее, а Рейган поднял экономику с колен;
- (книга 2015) американцы теперь стали скептичнее относиться к выборам, поэтому в 2016 обязательно выберут президентом того, кто приведет страну к экономическому процветанию.
Нет сил и смысла писать, почему это неправда. Просто лучше почитайте нормальные учебники по экономике, а книги и твиттер Тамни не читайте.
July 15, 2016
“Popular Economics” is a well-written, glib primer. In some ways, it’s a dumbed-down version of Henry Hazlitt’s “Economics In One Lesson,” or a severely dumbed-down version of Thomas Sowell’s “Basic Economics.” Its goal is to instruct those with little economics knowledge that John Tamny has all the answers. Actually, it’s to instruct them that John Tamny has one answer to all questions, which is that government is an atrocity, and one solution, which is that the government needs to stop interfering in economic activity.
This is true, certainly. Government is an atrocity, at least to the extent it purports to guide our economy. And Tamny delivers his message with clarity and verve. But “Popular Economics” suffers from two defects, one major, one minor. The major defect is common to popular works on economics, left and right—the book is too pat. It presents all its conclusions as both simple and obvious. No possibility of nuance or variation is admitted. No possible counter examples are introduced, discussed and rebutted. In Tamny’s world, as with any ideology, it is All So Very Clear. Ironically, this gives Tamny and his kind much in common with those they despise, the heralds of government action in the economy, such as Paul Krugman, to whom it also All So Very Clear.
The second defect is that the book has entirely too many sports analogies. Yes, given that LeBron James is cited in the subtitle, that’s probably to be expected. But nearly every page has a specific sports analogy, and if, like me, you know little about spectator sports and care less, these examples both don’t resonate and tend to be unclear (though the point is usually obtainable). Tamny would have done well not to limit his audience in this way.
Aside from these defects, though, the book is, as I say, very well-written and by no means irrational. 80% of what Tamny says is probably true and eminently supportable, although his support is usually limited to cherry picked examples and sports analogies; precise data is singularly lacking.
Tamny discusses four major topics: Taxes, Regulation, Trade and Money. In all sections, Tamny has some common threads. First, the “unseen”—what we don’t have because bad choices, mostly government choices, prevented investment that would have created more for our society. You can’t show the unseen, of course, but Tamny gives classic examples such as Henry Ford to show what can (and he says will) result from private reinvestment of capital not hampered by taxes and regulation. Second, supply creates its own demand—if one does not supply value, one cannot demand anything, and if one does supply value, one does so in order to demand (this is, of course, basically Say’s Law). Third, presumably in response to unstated objections to #2, money will always go to the most productive use, whether saved or spent, EXCEPT if it goes to the government, which by definition only destroys value. What matters is that private enterprise have access to capital, and government seizure reduces that capital, thus necessarily harming society.
I am somewhat of an economic ignoramus, so I won’t provide any counter-arguments to Tamny’s claims, though I’m sure it could be done. But I still don’t understand something. Tamny says that “Savers are an economy’s most valuable benefactors,” because they provide capital (through bank deposits and subsequent lending, or direct investment themselves) to producers. But sports stars and movie directors who blow their fortunes on women and coke “stripped themselves of wealth and the economy of the capital to create it.” How are these different? Don’t the women and coke dealers take the money and, ultimately, direct it to the same place that savers do? It’s not like wealth, as measured by money, is being destroyed. (Sure, you can destroy value—see Solyndra. But that’s not what’s happening here.) It seems to me this is a question of the velocity of money, which Tamny doesn’t discuss (and, anyway, it’s pretty clear that he rejects macroeconomics as whole).
As to taxes, Tamny lays out why taxes are merely a price placed on work, but also why high taxes on the rich also harm the middling and the poor (because the rich either leave high tax environments, as the Rolling Stones did, throwing all those working below them out of work, or cut back their production). He claims that lower government spending with deficits is better than higher government spending without deficits (i.e., deficits are irrelevant)—the problem is any government spending, which reduces capital available for private use. He wants the rich to hoard wealth, and therefore rejects estate taxes, since that hoarding makes capital available for private use—giving it to charity does not, and therefore harms society overall more than charitable donations would (the unspoken allegation is that charities are largely stupid money pits). And low taxes are good because they increase inequality, and that increases envy, and that increases the incentive to produce. Eduardo Saverin (the Facebook co-founder who reduced his tax bill by renouncing US citizenship) is a hero for keeping money out of the government’s hands and thereby benefiting US citizens. And to the extent we need taxes for core, legitimate government functions, a flat consumption tax is the way to go (unsurprisingly, Tamny loves Steve Forbes, and Forbes wrote the introduction to the book).
Tamny then attacks regulation. His basic point is that regulators are stupid and therefore can never hope to successfully regulate the smarter people who went into the productive side of whatever industry they’re in, which is where the regulators would be, if they weren’t stupid—as shown by they’re working for a government wage. “Those with talent generally seek employment with other talented people, where the work is stimulating and the compensation high.” Antitrust laws are similarly pointless, because antitrust regulators (who are stupid, in case the reader forgets) can’t possibly predict the future, as shown by Blockbuster and Betamax. (By antitrust laws Tamny means laws against monopoly—he seems unaware that there are a range of antitrust laws, many of which he might support, such as rules against price fixing).
The third section, on trade, is a generic lecture on comparative advantage (as shown by the example of LeBron James playing basketball and not football), “I, Pencil,” and the wonders of globalization. Tamny rejects calls for oil independence, claiming that resources will always be available on the market, and slyly notes that the risk of global warming is overstated, as shown by no diminution in the spiraling prices of waterfront real estate (such as that owned by Al Gore). While all this is true, Tamny is too optimistic about the joys of free trade and human rationality. Israel would do well to be oil independent, whatever Tamny says (and he specifically says Israel should put no effort into energy source acquisition), and Tamny’s claim that free trade prevents war between trading partners is utterly belied by history, including World War I.
The final section, on money, is a George Gilder-esque call for the gold standard to be restored, noting that dollar fluctuation makes calculating inflation and deflation impossible. It is also a demand for letting failure delineate the economy—Tamny totally rejects all government action to save failing companies, including all actions taken in the 2008 so-called financial crisis. And Tamny concludes optimistically that after Bush and Obama, people have certainly had it with government, so he predicts a coming boom as government is cut back in 2016 and after. But you certainly can’t accuse Tamny of pessimism.
As an introduction to what a certain view of the economy is, this book is excellent. But as an introduction to comparative economic thought, it is worthless. So it all depends on what you’re looking for.
This is true, certainly. Government is an atrocity, at least to the extent it purports to guide our economy. And Tamny delivers his message with clarity and verve. But “Popular Economics” suffers from two defects, one major, one minor. The major defect is common to popular works on economics, left and right—the book is too pat. It presents all its conclusions as both simple and obvious. No possibility of nuance or variation is admitted. No possible counter examples are introduced, discussed and rebutted. In Tamny’s world, as with any ideology, it is All So Very Clear. Ironically, this gives Tamny and his kind much in common with those they despise, the heralds of government action in the economy, such as Paul Krugman, to whom it also All So Very Clear.
The second defect is that the book has entirely too many sports analogies. Yes, given that LeBron James is cited in the subtitle, that’s probably to be expected. But nearly every page has a specific sports analogy, and if, like me, you know little about spectator sports and care less, these examples both don’t resonate and tend to be unclear (though the point is usually obtainable). Tamny would have done well not to limit his audience in this way.
Aside from these defects, though, the book is, as I say, very well-written and by no means irrational. 80% of what Tamny says is probably true and eminently supportable, although his support is usually limited to cherry picked examples and sports analogies; precise data is singularly lacking.
Tamny discusses four major topics: Taxes, Regulation, Trade and Money. In all sections, Tamny has some common threads. First, the “unseen”—what we don’t have because bad choices, mostly government choices, prevented investment that would have created more for our society. You can’t show the unseen, of course, but Tamny gives classic examples such as Henry Ford to show what can (and he says will) result from private reinvestment of capital not hampered by taxes and regulation. Second, supply creates its own demand—if one does not supply value, one cannot demand anything, and if one does supply value, one does so in order to demand (this is, of course, basically Say’s Law). Third, presumably in response to unstated objections to #2, money will always go to the most productive use, whether saved or spent, EXCEPT if it goes to the government, which by definition only destroys value. What matters is that private enterprise have access to capital, and government seizure reduces that capital, thus necessarily harming society.
I am somewhat of an economic ignoramus, so I won’t provide any counter-arguments to Tamny’s claims, though I’m sure it could be done. But I still don’t understand something. Tamny says that “Savers are an economy’s most valuable benefactors,” because they provide capital (through bank deposits and subsequent lending, or direct investment themselves) to producers. But sports stars and movie directors who blow their fortunes on women and coke “stripped themselves of wealth and the economy of the capital to create it.” How are these different? Don’t the women and coke dealers take the money and, ultimately, direct it to the same place that savers do? It’s not like wealth, as measured by money, is being destroyed. (Sure, you can destroy value—see Solyndra. But that’s not what’s happening here.) It seems to me this is a question of the velocity of money, which Tamny doesn’t discuss (and, anyway, it’s pretty clear that he rejects macroeconomics as whole).
As to taxes, Tamny lays out why taxes are merely a price placed on work, but also why high taxes on the rich also harm the middling and the poor (because the rich either leave high tax environments, as the Rolling Stones did, throwing all those working below them out of work, or cut back their production). He claims that lower government spending with deficits is better than higher government spending without deficits (i.e., deficits are irrelevant)—the problem is any government spending, which reduces capital available for private use. He wants the rich to hoard wealth, and therefore rejects estate taxes, since that hoarding makes capital available for private use—giving it to charity does not, and therefore harms society overall more than charitable donations would (the unspoken allegation is that charities are largely stupid money pits). And low taxes are good because they increase inequality, and that increases envy, and that increases the incentive to produce. Eduardo Saverin (the Facebook co-founder who reduced his tax bill by renouncing US citizenship) is a hero for keeping money out of the government’s hands and thereby benefiting US citizens. And to the extent we need taxes for core, legitimate government functions, a flat consumption tax is the way to go (unsurprisingly, Tamny loves Steve Forbes, and Forbes wrote the introduction to the book).
Tamny then attacks regulation. His basic point is that regulators are stupid and therefore can never hope to successfully regulate the smarter people who went into the productive side of whatever industry they’re in, which is where the regulators would be, if they weren’t stupid—as shown by they’re working for a government wage. “Those with talent generally seek employment with other talented people, where the work is stimulating and the compensation high.” Antitrust laws are similarly pointless, because antitrust regulators (who are stupid, in case the reader forgets) can’t possibly predict the future, as shown by Blockbuster and Betamax. (By antitrust laws Tamny means laws against monopoly—he seems unaware that there are a range of antitrust laws, many of which he might support, such as rules against price fixing).
The third section, on trade, is a generic lecture on comparative advantage (as shown by the example of LeBron James playing basketball and not football), “I, Pencil,” and the wonders of globalization. Tamny rejects calls for oil independence, claiming that resources will always be available on the market, and slyly notes that the risk of global warming is overstated, as shown by no diminution in the spiraling prices of waterfront real estate (such as that owned by Al Gore). While all this is true, Tamny is too optimistic about the joys of free trade and human rationality. Israel would do well to be oil independent, whatever Tamny says (and he specifically says Israel should put no effort into energy source acquisition), and Tamny’s claim that free trade prevents war between trading partners is utterly belied by history, including World War I.
The final section, on money, is a George Gilder-esque call for the gold standard to be restored, noting that dollar fluctuation makes calculating inflation and deflation impossible. It is also a demand for letting failure delineate the economy—Tamny totally rejects all government action to save failing companies, including all actions taken in the 2008 so-called financial crisis. And Tamny concludes optimistically that after Bush and Obama, people have certainly had it with government, so he predicts a coming boom as government is cut back in 2016 and after. But you certainly can’t accuse Tamny of pessimism.
As an introduction to what a certain view of the economy is, this book is excellent. But as an introduction to comparative economic thought, it is worthless. So it all depends on what you’re looking for.
January 2, 2015
√ "Americans have not run out of ideas, work ethic, or entrpreneurial spirit. Our Problem is the Government"
POPULAR ECONOMICS is a well-written, passionate book extolling the benefits of free-market forces to achieve an optimal allocation of resources, and allow the US economy to really roar. They author writes in an easy-to-understand style, and the book is well-organized. Each chapter covers a specific idea in the realm of regulation, economics, or taxation.
John makes a good case for low taxes: "Taxes are not only a price on work. They are also a price on the productive use of wealth." John points out the futility of raising taxes on the rich: "The rich are highly mobile, and they will put their capital to work in the most favorable environment." I thought the author's points were right on target.
The chapters on regulation were similarly passionate, but I don't think the author supported his points very soundly. For those who think there should be safety regulations on airplanes, the author argues that those regulations are not necessary, since a company that crashes its airplanes will soon go out of business: "In a wholly unregulated market, an airline with a poor reputation for safety would be out of business quickly."
I would have loved to see a discussion from both sides on the safety/regulation issue. Although the author didn't discuss building safety/fire regulations, I assume that he would likewise argue for elimination of all these regulations as well. If an airplane crashes, or a building collapses, this would help drive the company out of business, so really, no regulations are needed.
I couldn't help but think that the author's arguments for zero regulation are based on near-perfect information to the public. Of course, the public wouldn't patronize airlines that cut safety corners, but without inspections from regulators, how can the public really know which companies are cutting the corners? Do we really have to wait for crashes to get that information?
The author ridicules proponents of global warming by pointing out that many activists still live right on the coast. This seemingly contradicts claims of imminent ocean level increases. Also, the real estate market does not devalue coastal properties, so apparently real estate experts do not agree with the environmentalists.
The author's arguments against the global warming crowd struck me as very weak, and mostly ad hominem attacks. Arguing that global warming celebrities are inconsistent (or hypocrites) might win debate points, but I think most regular folks are interested in finding the truth of the matter, not scoring debate points or showing people up. John's points, assuming they are correct, only show that global warming is not a near-term catastrophe; it doesn't say anything about the effect long-term. It seems to me that the long-term effect is the issue, since the increase in temperature is so gradual. It would have been so much better to make substantive arguments on the merits, and include arguments from the other side.
In one surprising section, the author doesn't worry about how China and India are contributing so much to environmental pollution; rather, the United States should stay out of their affairs: "But no matter how much the United States reduces its own carbon emissions, the rising economies of Asia will more than make up for our reductions. And I say, good for them. It is obnoxious for rich Americans to dictate economy-sapping environmental policy to Chinese and Indians..." This strikes me as a pretty extreme write-off of the environmental damage being created. It seems to me this warrant a more serious response.
The chapter on outsourcing was excellent. The author points out that the reason that companies are so successful in creating wealth is because they can concentrate on doing what they do best. So, for example, Apple Computer concentrates on innovative designs, not the assembly line. American wages are high, because they offer huge benefits to the companies employing them: "American workers' high wages are an advantage for them. Wages are high precisely because investors value their productivity. Silicon Valley is one of the most expensive places in the world, and it is filled with workers who cost a great deal to employ."
√ All in all, I found POPULAR ECONOMICS to be an interesting read from the author's (apparently) libertarian, pure free-market perspective. Sometimes, the writing sounded a lot like a "cause" rather than economics. Of course, the author is free to only include his own perspective, but to me, it would have been a much more valuable book if it had included serious arguments from the opposition. For instance, it would have been instructive to have comments from airline safety experts respond to the idea of eliminating all government safety rules.
There is an extensive "Notes" section for reference at the rear of the book.
Review copy courtesy of Edelweiss.
POPULAR ECONOMICS is a well-written, passionate book extolling the benefits of free-market forces to achieve an optimal allocation of resources, and allow the US economy to really roar. They author writes in an easy-to-understand style, and the book is well-organized. Each chapter covers a specific idea in the realm of regulation, economics, or taxation.
John makes a good case for low taxes: "Taxes are not only a price on work. They are also a price on the productive use of wealth." John points out the futility of raising taxes on the rich: "The rich are highly mobile, and they will put their capital to work in the most favorable environment." I thought the author's points were right on target.
The chapters on regulation were similarly passionate, but I don't think the author supported his points very soundly. For those who think there should be safety regulations on airplanes, the author argues that those regulations are not necessary, since a company that crashes its airplanes will soon go out of business: "In a wholly unregulated market, an airline with a poor reputation for safety would be out of business quickly."
I would have loved to see a discussion from both sides on the safety/regulation issue. Although the author didn't discuss building safety/fire regulations, I assume that he would likewise argue for elimination of all these regulations as well. If an airplane crashes, or a building collapses, this would help drive the company out of business, so really, no regulations are needed.
I couldn't help but think that the author's arguments for zero regulation are based on near-perfect information to the public. Of course, the public wouldn't patronize airlines that cut safety corners, but without inspections from regulators, how can the public really know which companies are cutting the corners? Do we really have to wait for crashes to get that information?
The author ridicules proponents of global warming by pointing out that many activists still live right on the coast. This seemingly contradicts claims of imminent ocean level increases. Also, the real estate market does not devalue coastal properties, so apparently real estate experts do not agree with the environmentalists.
The author's arguments against the global warming crowd struck me as very weak, and mostly ad hominem attacks. Arguing that global warming celebrities are inconsistent (or hypocrites) might win debate points, but I think most regular folks are interested in finding the truth of the matter, not scoring debate points or showing people up. John's points, assuming they are correct, only show that global warming is not a near-term catastrophe; it doesn't say anything about the effect long-term. It seems to me that the long-term effect is the issue, since the increase in temperature is so gradual. It would have been so much better to make substantive arguments on the merits, and include arguments from the other side.
In one surprising section, the author doesn't worry about how China and India are contributing so much to environmental pollution; rather, the United States should stay out of their affairs: "But no matter how much the United States reduces its own carbon emissions, the rising economies of Asia will more than make up for our reductions. And I say, good for them. It is obnoxious for rich Americans to dictate economy-sapping environmental policy to Chinese and Indians..." This strikes me as a pretty extreme write-off of the environmental damage being created. It seems to me this warrant a more serious response.
The chapter on outsourcing was excellent. The author points out that the reason that companies are so successful in creating wealth is because they can concentrate on doing what they do best. So, for example, Apple Computer concentrates on innovative designs, not the assembly line. American wages are high, because they offer huge benefits to the companies employing them: "American workers' high wages are an advantage for them. Wages are high precisely because investors value their productivity. Silicon Valley is one of the most expensive places in the world, and it is filled with workers who cost a great deal to employ."
√ All in all, I found POPULAR ECONOMICS to be an interesting read from the author's (apparently) libertarian, pure free-market perspective. Sometimes, the writing sounded a lot like a "cause" rather than economics. Of course, the author is free to only include his own perspective, but to me, it would have been a much more valuable book if it had included serious arguments from the opposition. For instance, it would have been instructive to have comments from airline safety experts respond to the idea of eliminating all government safety rules.
There is an extensive "Notes" section for reference at the rear of the book.
Review copy courtesy of Edelweiss.
May 23, 2015
Popular Economics What the Rolling Stones, Downton Abbey, and LeBron James Can Teach You About Economics
By John Tamny
A short book report by Ron Housley
At last, a book to show us in a meaningful and memorable way how it really does matter that we allow our political rulers to use force against us!
It turns out that our very happiness and prosperity are directly controlled by the extent to which the State manipulates taxes, regulations, trade and money.
I am especially struck by the titles of the first 2 parts: (a)Taxes, and (b)Regulation. These are the same 2 concepts which drew the focus of Brook/Watkins in their “Free Market Revolution” — where they showed us that taxes are merely the implementation of altruism; and that regulations are merely the implementation of the notion that success is created by dishonesty.
Far too often, people go through life with only the most superficial (and wrong) understanding of how our economy works. Today we hear that “income inequality” is bad for our economy; and then we also hear that “income inequality” is essential for growth and prosperity. So which is it?!
Once you’ve read through Tamny’s book, you’ll have a new found respect for the value of “income inequality;” and you will come to clearly see how and why. You’ll see how “income inequality” is even good for “the little guy.”
The way you’ll come to see all this is by means of a few great stories. The story of ESPN is a crystal clear accounting of how funds from a super-wealthy investor allowed a new venture to survive and grow — an outcome that would never have come about had the State taxed way and squandered the spare $10-million that one rich investor could afford to gamble on the ESPN investment.
ESPN, as you know, went on to enrich many spin-offs and untold other business ventures. None of it would have been created if State coercion had seen to it that the rich man’s investment had been seized and his wealth “spread around” in the name of “income equality.”
It becomes all too clear that “income inequality” is absolutely needed for prosperity to develop in an economy.
The Mick Jagger story is no less instructive. The State (in this case, England) increased Mick’s taxes to such a high rate that he moved to another country — leaving behind a legion of support people (sound engineers, food caterers, marketing firms, landlords, printers, etc) seriously less well off. Rich people can afford to move; the non-rich who are left behind pay the price.
So, it is perceptibly clear that taxing the rich not only blocks the next ESPN, but also hurts the non-rich. And that is not to even mention the direct message to the non-rich: don’t bother trying, because the State will loot you.
Do you understand the argument which tell us that outsourcing a job to China can be good for everyone? Do you understand the real story of why Detroit is in shambles? Do you marvel when someone identifies a new interpretation from the facts, different from what you previous thought? Do you understand how a national goal for energy independence would result in ruin for most of us? Well, when you’ve read Tamny’s book, you’ll acquire a new clarity on all these matters.
A new clarity!
Are you among those who say: there would have been no housing boom (2001-2007) if the dollar had been strong and stable? Here’s a book that can result in clarity for you on questions like this. Do you think that it’s actually possible to SEE the connection between a strong dollar and the flow of money into areas fare more attractive than houses? Do you think that you have a good grasp of what it means to say that the dollar is “strong?”
You will find in these pages a succinct and incisive account of a financial “crisis,” showing you precisely in what way the “crisis” aspect of what happens is the aspect that only State force can provide. It is a lesson not taught in the government schools; it is a lesson unknown to the MainStreet Media and unknown to most of today’s politicians who rule over us.
The Hoover/Roosevelt Follies are today being replayed as the Bush/Obama Follies. Tamny’s final chapter must have made Amity Shlaes smile; he painted a dynamic picture of how State coercion creates and sustains a severe economic downturn.
A unique feature of today’s economy is the entrenchment of a “regulatory reign of terror,” which may very well tip us into the type of crisis that Saul Alinsky longed for: a system so overwhelmed by demands that it can no longer provide, that the subjects finally clamor for a dictator — since the subjects will be convinced that the State coercion was actually freedom. And so: they find themselves indoctrinated into believing that it was freedom (not force) that failed them and their economy.
John Tamny is one of the rational voices out there. Who will listen to him!!??
By John Tamny
A short book report by Ron Housley
At last, a book to show us in a meaningful and memorable way how it really does matter that we allow our political rulers to use force against us!
It turns out that our very happiness and prosperity are directly controlled by the extent to which the State manipulates taxes, regulations, trade and money.
I am especially struck by the titles of the first 2 parts: (a)Taxes, and (b)Regulation. These are the same 2 concepts which drew the focus of Brook/Watkins in their “Free Market Revolution” — where they showed us that taxes are merely the implementation of altruism; and that regulations are merely the implementation of the notion that success is created by dishonesty.
Far too often, people go through life with only the most superficial (and wrong) understanding of how our economy works. Today we hear that “income inequality” is bad for our economy; and then we also hear that “income inequality” is essential for growth and prosperity. So which is it?!
Once you’ve read through Tamny’s book, you’ll have a new found respect for the value of “income inequality;” and you will come to clearly see how and why. You’ll see how “income inequality” is even good for “the little guy.”
The way you’ll come to see all this is by means of a few great stories. The story of ESPN is a crystal clear accounting of how funds from a super-wealthy investor allowed a new venture to survive and grow — an outcome that would never have come about had the State taxed way and squandered the spare $10-million that one rich investor could afford to gamble on the ESPN investment.
ESPN, as you know, went on to enrich many spin-offs and untold other business ventures. None of it would have been created if State coercion had seen to it that the rich man’s investment had been seized and his wealth “spread around” in the name of “income equality.”
It becomes all too clear that “income inequality” is absolutely needed for prosperity to develop in an economy.
The Mick Jagger story is no less instructive. The State (in this case, England) increased Mick’s taxes to such a high rate that he moved to another country — leaving behind a legion of support people (sound engineers, food caterers, marketing firms, landlords, printers, etc) seriously less well off. Rich people can afford to move; the non-rich who are left behind pay the price.
So, it is perceptibly clear that taxing the rich not only blocks the next ESPN, but also hurts the non-rich. And that is not to even mention the direct message to the non-rich: don’t bother trying, because the State will loot you.
Do you understand the argument which tell us that outsourcing a job to China can be good for everyone? Do you understand the real story of why Detroit is in shambles? Do you marvel when someone identifies a new interpretation from the facts, different from what you previous thought? Do you understand how a national goal for energy independence would result in ruin for most of us? Well, when you’ve read Tamny’s book, you’ll acquire a new clarity on all these matters.
A new clarity!
Are you among those who say: there would have been no housing boom (2001-2007) if the dollar had been strong and stable? Here’s a book that can result in clarity for you on questions like this. Do you think that it’s actually possible to SEE the connection between a strong dollar and the flow of money into areas fare more attractive than houses? Do you think that you have a good grasp of what it means to say that the dollar is “strong?”
You will find in these pages a succinct and incisive account of a financial “crisis,” showing you precisely in what way the “crisis” aspect of what happens is the aspect that only State force can provide. It is a lesson not taught in the government schools; it is a lesson unknown to the MainStreet Media and unknown to most of today’s politicians who rule over us.
The Hoover/Roosevelt Follies are today being replayed as the Bush/Obama Follies. Tamny’s final chapter must have made Amity Shlaes smile; he painted a dynamic picture of how State coercion creates and sustains a severe economic downturn.
A unique feature of today’s economy is the entrenchment of a “regulatory reign of terror,” which may very well tip us into the type of crisis that Saul Alinsky longed for: a system so overwhelmed by demands that it can no longer provide, that the subjects finally clamor for a dictator — since the subjects will be convinced that the State coercion was actually freedom. And so: they find themselves indoctrinated into believing that it was freedom (not force) that failed them and their economy.
John Tamny is one of the rational voices out there. Who will listen to him!!??
August 2, 2016
right-wing trash
August 12, 2019
I was considering giving this book three stars, but I decided on two. I went through the first third of the book fairly quickly, but the rest seemed repetitive and dragged on. My dad told me that not every economics books should be taken as a fact. Each person has their own ideas and interpretations, so I took that into account as well. I’m not sure everything Tamny wrote about was logical, but I respect his opinions.
November 1, 2021
not bad. approachable. but bent to persuading to an idea rather than discussing straight, but I'm getting to understand that that's just how it works.
I'm also learning it's going to take several more books to have a good broad understanding of things ... or at least how people think about them.
I'm also learning it's going to take several more books to have a good broad understanding of things ... or at least how people think about them.
January 15, 2018
Tamny does an excellent job of providing various points of view on topics that people generally only see one side of. I don't concur with all of his opinions on these topics, but he is convincing and provides sound examples.
July 24, 2019
Valuable insight on the thought process and perspective of an economist, which can be highly counter-intuitive at first but is important to understand. The presence of real-world analogies, as indicated by the title, helps the concepts be relatable.
July 28, 2017
Very educational!
October 30, 2020
Excellent book, read this, Free to Choose and Unlimited Wealth, and you will have a better under of practical and real economics then 95% of the population.
February 3, 2022
I got some usefulness from this book. Not very entertaining , but enlightening and gained some knowledge into government interference in economy.
June 18, 2020
Книжка про економіку, вільний ринок, гроші і те, як влада впливає на це все. Капіталізм призвів до появи підприємців-інноваторів, які маючи креативне мислення та ідеї, готові ризикувати, змінюючи світ. Форд, Джобс, Цукерберг, Делл, Маск та сотні інших. Без їхніх винаходів ми не уявляємо сьогодні життя. Ці люди, які рухають вперед сучасну економіку, глобалізують світовий ринок, створюють робочі місця та дають можливість заробити мільйонам інших людей.
⠀
Коли ми говоримо про Apple, то це не означає лише головний офіс, який займається розробками нових продуктів. Ця компанія включає виробничі заводи, перукарів, рестораторів, фітнес тренерів, бухгалтерів, фінансистів, рекламщиків, всього й тут не перелічиш. І іхній успіх безпосередньо пов’язаний з успіхом Apple, з тими щоденними витратами, які роблять їхні працівники.
Економіка рухається лише тоді, коли гроші не лежать на місці. Саме їхній вільний рух допомагає реалізовувати ідеї.
Капітал - це не ціль, а важливий і необхідний інструмент її досягнення.
⠀
Яка ж роль в цьому органів влади?
За автором - негативна. Влада не створює, вона лише руйнує і паразитує на успішних людях. Всі ці податки, органи державного контролю, фінансові дотації неуспішним компаніям - гальмо на шляху до розвитку. Ринок має здатність до саморегуляції. Він жорстокий до неуспішних гравців, знищує тих, хто не може правильно розпорядитися наявними ресурсами, даючи дорогу розумним та працьовитим.
⠀
Найкраще, чим може домогти влада економіці - це не заважати, ринок сам все розставить на свої місця. Чи буде так колись? Хтозна. Допоки влада - це дорога до швидкого збагачення, корупція та протекціонізм обраних, навряд чи щось радикально зміниться.
November 17, 2015
This is a good summation of libertarian, free-market, Steve Forbesian economics. In other words, common sense.
Taxing is a drag on productivity. Corporate taxation is an especially dumb reduction in future growth. Uncle Sam doesn't create jobs. The sum of the federal budget is much more important than the size of the "deficit" (in other words, count spending the same--whether nor or as future interest--and reduce the total amount). Taxing capital gains makes growth-producing risk less likely. Wealth inequality is a sign of health in an economy. Saving money IS spending money (banks loan it out to others), so don't denigrate savers with absurdly low interest rates in order to encouraging spending. Job destruction is a long-term benefit. Government regulation doesn't work (those smart enough to be regulating are more likely using that intelligence in the marketplace to get ahead; those not capable enough are instead attempting to regulate others). Fear of monopolies is misplaced. Trade deficits are the sign of a productive economy. Outsourcing raises our standard of living. "Energy independence" is a goal that will sap our economy.
I could go on, but you get the point. If you want more info on any of the above statements, just ask. Tamny is so good that he even nearly brought me around to believing in the gold standard, mostly via his discussion of inflation. I still am not convinced that love of free markets should not extend to the currency market. Except perhaps that the dollar is the means by which the free market operates, so perhaps it needs to be a fixed standard. I'm honestly not sure.
Taxing is a drag on productivity. Corporate taxation is an especially dumb reduction in future growth. Uncle Sam doesn't create jobs. The sum of the federal budget is much more important than the size of the "deficit" (in other words, count spending the same--whether nor or as future interest--and reduce the total amount). Taxing capital gains makes growth-producing risk less likely. Wealth inequality is a sign of health in an economy. Saving money IS spending money (banks loan it out to others), so don't denigrate savers with absurdly low interest rates in order to encouraging spending. Job destruction is a long-term benefit. Government regulation doesn't work (those smart enough to be regulating are more likely using that intelligence in the marketplace to get ahead; those not capable enough are instead attempting to regulate others). Fear of monopolies is misplaced. Trade deficits are the sign of a productive economy. Outsourcing raises our standard of living. "Energy independence" is a goal that will sap our economy.
I could go on, but you get the point. If you want more info on any of the above statements, just ask. Tamny is so good that he even nearly brought me around to believing in the gold standard, mostly via his discussion of inflation. I still am not convinced that love of free markets should not extend to the currency market. Except perhaps that the dollar is the means by which the free market operates, so perhaps it needs to be a fixed standard. I'm honestly not sure.
March 22, 2017
Popular Economics: What the Rolling Stones, Downton Abbey, and LeBron James Can Teach You about Economics
This book was recommended to me by my Business School professor. Being a fan of her class and teaching, I had high expectations on this book. And it definitely exceeded my expectations.
The first thing which attracted me to this book was the title with stuff I like. Basketball, Economics and Downton Abbey ( Yes . Fan of Downton Abbey :) ). Considering I have little more leaning towards Conservative Libertarian philosophy, I liked many things mentioned in the book. Even though I do not agree with some of the opinions of the author mentioned in the book, I do agree with Author's high level statements about Free Markets and Small Government. Popular Economics is an easy read. It does not require any prior Economics or Finance knowledge. Author did an excellent job explaining and introducing so many concepts in an easy language to understand.
Even if you are supporter of Big Government and do not like Free market or Small Government theory , I strongly suggest you reading this book. The Author did a lot of research about so many famous persons, companies and events in the history. This book will introduce you to all those persons and events. You can draw your own conclusion after that even if you do not agree with the author.
I Would strongly recommend this book to anyone who has interest in Economics, Politics and Finance.
This book was recommended to me by my Business School professor. Being a fan of her class and teaching, I had high expectations on this book. And it definitely exceeded my expectations.
The first thing which attracted me to this book was the title with stuff I like. Basketball, Economics and Downton Abbey ( Yes . Fan of Downton Abbey :) ). Considering I have little more leaning towards Conservative Libertarian philosophy, I liked many things mentioned in the book. Even though I do not agree with some of the opinions of the author mentioned in the book, I do agree with Author's high level statements about Free Markets and Small Government. Popular Economics is an easy read. It does not require any prior Economics or Finance knowledge. Author did an excellent job explaining and introducing so many concepts in an easy language to understand.
Even if you are supporter of Big Government and do not like Free market or Small Government theory , I strongly suggest you reading this book. The Author did a lot of research about so many famous persons, companies and events in the history. This book will introduce you to all those persons and events. You can draw your own conclusion after that even if you do not agree with the author.
I Would strongly recommend this book to anyone who has interest in Economics, Politics and Finance.
February 3, 2016
Want to learn basic economics principles? Read John Tamny new book "Popular Economics: What the Rolling Stones, Downton Abbey and LeBron James can teach you about economics."
Popular Economics is able to teach anybody economics by using example taking to current events of popular shows, movies, and celebrities. He used an example of where LeBron James could make more money. John Tamny says that LeBron could make more money by staying and playing in the nba rather than opening up his own taco shop. John Tamny says that if lebron were to open up the taco shop and open the shop for 1 million dollars and the shop make 2 million accounts would say that he made profit but economist would say that he lost money because he is able to make more money by playing in the nba rather than opening his own taco shop. He would lose 18 million because he is able to make 20 million dollars by playing in the nba. The 18 million dollar lose is called economic lose.
The Only problem that I have with John Tamny and his book “Personal Economics” is that it is very one sided. Because John Tamny is a republican it is much more conservative. There is not many liberal ideas in the book.
Popular Economics is able to teach anybody economics by using example taking to current events of popular shows, movies, and celebrities. He used an example of where LeBron James could make more money. John Tamny says that LeBron could make more money by staying and playing in the nba rather than opening up his own taco shop. John Tamny says that if lebron were to open up the taco shop and open the shop for 1 million dollars and the shop make 2 million accounts would say that he made profit but economist would say that he lost money because he is able to make more money by playing in the nba rather than opening his own taco shop. He would lose 18 million because he is able to make 20 million dollars by playing in the nba. The 18 million dollar lose is called economic lose.
The Only problem that I have with John Tamny and his book “Personal Economics” is that it is very one sided. Because John Tamny is a republican it is much more conservative. There is not many liberal ideas in the book.
November 2, 2015
+ Simple, colorful take on the basics
+ not simplistic. You'll have to think
+ Tamny makes good on his promise
+ fun to read
Some notes:
Raising the price for something is not the same that as getting the pricethe seen vs. the unseen. Even if the government produces something good (Internet), it does so by taking from the private sector.Entrepreneurial endeavors need capital. Government does not produce capital, it competes for it. When the rich "hoard" their money, it becomes capital for othersImmigration is a good barometer for upward mobilityCheck receivedJob creation through job destructionMoney is simply a unit of measurement. Like In inch or a foot Government can't make us all equal, but it can make us all small
+ not simplistic. You'll have to think
+ Tamny makes good on his promise
+ fun to read
Some notes:
Raising the price for something is not the same that as getting the pricethe seen vs. the unseen. Even if the government produces something good (Internet), it does so by taking from the private sector.Entrepreneurial endeavors need capital. Government does not produce capital, it competes for it. When the rich "hoard" their money, it becomes capital for othersImmigration is a good barometer for upward mobilityCheck receivedJob creation through job destructionMoney is simply a unit of measurement. Like In inch or a foot Government can't make us all equal, but it can make us all small
October 25, 2015
I like this book. The chapter titles are cool. It reads like a real person talking about politics using actual life examples. I have to admit that I missed the Greek philosophers, though. Ancient wisdom gives a text a sense of passion and dedication, in the time spent researching, which is not the only way to impart dedication and passion, as we see in the modern prose and strong communication in this book.
I saw this quote on the interwebs yesterday: " If you want something, don't be a dreamer, dreamers dream on. Be a believer, believers go get it." People have the power, and some don't know how to use it. That's where education makes a difference, this book shows that it comes in different shapes, and that they fit like puzzle pieces.
I saw this quote on the interwebs yesterday: " If you want something, don't be a dreamer, dreamers dream on. Be a believer, believers go get it." People have the power, and some don't know how to use it. That's where education makes a difference, this book shows that it comes in different shapes, and that they fit like puzzle pieces.
June 18, 2015
This is a down to earth and easy to read economics book.
According to the author, the major economic ill has been the decoupling of the dollar. I found his argument enjoyable and food for thought.
However, he left a substantial amount unaccounted for. What about fractional reserve lending? What about governmental deficit spending? How do each of these contribute to the value of the dollar?
Crickets.
Effectively, the strength or weakness of the economy is simply a matter of the US president saying he wants strength or weakness. That's it. While I understand the desire to make the book accessible to those of us not conversant in economics or its lingo, this was just a bit too facile.
According to the author, the major economic ill has been the decoupling of the dollar. I found his argument enjoyable and food for thought.
However, he left a substantial amount unaccounted for. What about fractional reserve lending? What about governmental deficit spending? How do each of these contribute to the value of the dollar?
Crickets.
Effectively, the strength or weakness of the economy is simply a matter of the US president saying he wants strength or weakness. That's it. While I understand the desire to make the book accessible to those of us not conversant in economics or its lingo, this was just a bit too facile.
August 12, 2015
I get a sense Tamny is a bit more of a libertarian than I am. That's ok, a great read for even those that find economics perhaps less than interesting. He makes many points that go against the beliefs of most, as economists tend to do. He explains why one should not worry about trade deficits, why "inequality" is not a valid concern, why energy independence doesn't matter, and more. If you enjoy annoying people on the political left as much as I do this book needs to be in your home library.
September 12, 2015
I keep looking for the book I can hand to friends and relatives to help them understand how economics works in the real world. This one is entertaining, but still not the one. The writing suffers somewhat from what Steven Pinker called the "curse of knowledge", where experts trying to explain things to novices forget that they know a lot of things that novices do not. Also, Tamny is way more interested in sports than I am. A worthy read, nonetheless.
September 22, 2015
A good easy to understand primer on economics told in an engaging style that allows even those who know little about economics to understand the basic concepts of a global economy. My only complaint is that it is very one sided and tends not to show or even mention other viewpoints or if it does it dismisses them out of hand which is less then ideal way of proving your point to put it mildly thus only 3 stars instead of 4.
May 1, 2015
Popular Economics is essential economics presented in an interesting way. Everyone should read this book before voting. Our government is harming our economy with out of control spending, entitlements, bailouts, handouts, policies, regulations and taxes. Popular Economics explains the consequences in simple economic terms.
June 4, 2016
A book club title and it was successful in stimulating a lot of conversation. However, it came across as a too facile and glib. Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson and or Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics does a much better job.
Tamny does use a number of stories to demonstrate his points, but it comes across as a preaching lesson rather than providing deep insights.
Tamny does use a number of stories to demonstrate his points, but it comes across as a preaching lesson rather than providing deep insights.
May 25, 2015
This is an easy to read book for the non-economics major. It presents economics from the capitalist point of view explaining why high government spending is bad, low taxes are good and free trade makes the markets work.
January 17, 2016
An advocate of free markets and much less government interference with commerce, Tamny presents an entertaining overview of the less than ideal present condition of our economy. I would have been happy with many fewer sports analogies, but what the hey; it's a free country.
October 6, 2015
A great book to understand the economy. John Tamny looks at choices made in the past and the results. Not a fast read, it took me sometime to understand some of Tamny's conclusions.
Recommended reading
Recommended reading
May 26, 2016
A nice primer on free-market economics. Easy to read and uses spells out some clear arguments that I hadn't heard before. Good for beginners although obviously written with an agenda, for better or worse.
June 10, 2016
The ideas are good but the writing is poor - repetitive, repetitive and yes, repetitive. Plus most of the analogies are sports analogies, which don't work so well if you don't know the players. Disappointing.
August 10, 2015
I have read this whole book. It took me a bit to get into it. Overall a very good view of economics and how misunderstanding basic concepts of economics can prove to have effects on us all.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 35 reviews