What do you think?
Rate this book
So, You Wish to Learn All About Economics?: A Text on Elementary Mathematical Economics
Down with Adam Smith! Away with the foolish professors who claim economics is "the dismal science," chained to a calculus of "scarce resources"! The only economics worth knowing is the science of increasing mankind's power over nature at increasing rates, in accordance with natural law as expressed in the Book of Genesis.
LaRouche puts economics back where it belongs, so that every citizen can master for himself the fundamental principles that made the United States an industrial and agricultural superpower--from the advanced standpoint required to run a 21st-century fusion-power economy.
The present "Second Great Depression" is completely unnecessary. There is no need for the 1931-style financial collapse that faces the Trans-Atlantic region today.
The rapidly developing nations of the world are using the ideas in this book to create, spread and share a prosperous future. Should the United States decide to join them in applying the ideas in this book, the future of civilization will be of unlimited potential.
LaRouche puts economics back where it belongs, so that every citizen can master for himself the fundamental principles that made the United States an industrial and agricultural superpower--from the advanced standpoint required to run a 21st-century fusion-power economy.
The present "Second Great Depression" is completely unnecessary. There is no need for the 1931-style financial collapse that faces the Trans-Atlantic region today.
The rapidly developing nations of the world are using the ideas in this book to create, spread and share a prosperous future. Should the United States decide to join them in applying the ideas in this book, the future of civilization will be of unlimited potential.
- GenresEconomics
210 pages, Kindle Edition
First published February 1, 1984
4 people are currently reading
72 people want to read
About the author
Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr.
298 books23 followersLyndon Hermyle LaRouche, Jr. (born September 8, 1922) is a controversial American political activist and founder of the LaRouche movement. He has written on economic, scientific, and political topics, as well as on history, philosophy, and psychoanalysis.
LaRouche was a presidential candidate eight times between 1976 to 2004, running once for his own U.S. Labor Party and campaigning seven times for the Democratic Party nomination.
In 1988 he was sentenced 15 years in jail for conspiracy to commit mail fraud and tax code violations, and was released in 1994 on parole.
LaRouche was a presidential candidate eight times between 1976 to 2004, running once for his own U.S. Labor Party and campaigning seven times for the Democratic Party nomination.
In 1988 he was sentenced 15 years in jail for conspiracy to commit mail fraud and tax code violations, and was released in 1994 on parole.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
June 25, 2022
An uninteresting book. LaRouche explains various pieces of geometry which he then deduces policies from. At least, he claims to. In reality this geometry is only tangentially related to his economics. For example, he points out that certain chemical reactions cannot be triggered without a certain “energy flux density”. “Energy flux density” is described using a knife, which has no more energy than its wielder yet can be used to apply a greater force. From this LaRouche deduces that “energy flux density”, measured per person or per kilometre, is very important for economics but total energy is not. I don’t think I have to point, out why the idea of “energy flux density” per kilometre is not very insightful.
I don’t know about the “Limits to growth” but LaRocuhe’s critique of Marx reveals no understanding even of his most basic concepts. LaRouche claims Marx copied his idea of “labour power” from Leibniz. He then defines “labour power” as an increase in the productivity of labour. He then says Marx misdefined “labour power” as “skill level”. One of these is a coefficient and one is an idea as old as language! Calling a rise or fall in the productivity of labour a power is not a theory or even an idea. Putting raw data in a table and ladling a series of numbers a “power” is not a brilliant theoretical innovation of Leibniz, no matter how much LaRouche wants it to be. The idea of a “skill level”, aka just skill, is not a real idea either. Hunter-gatherers knew people could be skilled or unskilled at things. Calling skill a “power” is not a move of genius, no matter how much LaRouche wants it to be. In fact, Marx didn’t define his idea of “labour power” as the productivity of labour or as the “skill level” of labour. “Labour power” was a name given to the idea that the ability to do labour and actual labour are different things which can be treated separately by economic science. This was important for solving some issues with the theory of value. But LaRouche says Marx “bitterly” “envied and hated” the people who came up with this brilliant innovation.
In fact, LaRouche seems to be plagiarising from Von Mises. Both deduce their systems largely from definitions they introduce along the way while claiming to start from an unshakable axiom. For LaRouche, the definition of a circle, for Mises, the perception of action. LaRouche even talks about deducing parts of his system from his own definition of “work”. LaRouche is a little more honest though. He admits, proudly declares even, that from now on “work” shall be defined differently, then deduces policies from the definition he just decreed. And this he calls “science”. He even says Leibniz was not able to do this as well as him because Leibniz didn’t have modern science. He then accuses physicists of confusing the legal and scientific idea of a “law” in creating three laws of thermodynamics. This is because they could’ve decided to formulate them differently. Deduce them from the definition of a circle, for example. No doubt another brilliant innovation no actual scientist could come up with!
I don’t know about the “Limits to growth” but LaRocuhe’s critique of Marx reveals no understanding even of his most basic concepts. LaRouche claims Marx copied his idea of “labour power” from Leibniz. He then defines “labour power” as an increase in the productivity of labour. He then says Marx misdefined “labour power” as “skill level”. One of these is a coefficient and one is an idea as old as language! Calling a rise or fall in the productivity of labour a power is not a theory or even an idea. Putting raw data in a table and ladling a series of numbers a “power” is not a brilliant theoretical innovation of Leibniz, no matter how much LaRouche wants it to be. The idea of a “skill level”, aka just skill, is not a real idea either. Hunter-gatherers knew people could be skilled or unskilled at things. Calling skill a “power” is not a move of genius, no matter how much LaRouche wants it to be. In fact, Marx didn’t define his idea of “labour power” as the productivity of labour or as the “skill level” of labour. “Labour power” was a name given to the idea that the ability to do labour and actual labour are different things which can be treated separately by economic science. This was important for solving some issues with the theory of value. But LaRouche says Marx “bitterly” “envied and hated” the people who came up with this brilliant innovation.
In fact, LaRouche seems to be plagiarising from Von Mises. Both deduce their systems largely from definitions they introduce along the way while claiming to start from an unshakable axiom. For LaRouche, the definition of a circle, for Mises, the perception of action. LaRouche even talks about deducing parts of his system from his own definition of “work”. LaRouche is a little more honest though. He admits, proudly declares even, that from now on “work” shall be defined differently, then deduces policies from the definition he just decreed. And this he calls “science”. He even says Leibniz was not able to do this as well as him because Leibniz didn’t have modern science. He then accuses physicists of confusing the legal and scientific idea of a “law” in creating three laws of thermodynamics. This is because they could’ve decided to formulate them differently. Deduce them from the definition of a circle, for example. No doubt another brilliant innovation no actual scientist could come up with!
March 5, 2025
The invisible hand is a scam, the invisible brain runs the show, and LaRouche is here to burn the whole economic circus down.
Ah yes, the ever-elusive quest to understand economics—a field where the “invisible hand” (which, fun fact, was not Adam Smith’s invention but got way more hype than it deserved) is allegedly guiding the free market, yet somehow always seems to be guiding your money straight into someone else’s pockets.
Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr.’s So, You Wish to Learn All About Economics? promises to teach the reader elementary mathematical economics, and—credit where it’s due—it does attempt that. But let’s be real, this is no mainstream economics textbook. Instead of regurgitating the usual supply-demand curves and GDP worship, LaRouche goes full-blown conspiracy economist, slamming British free-market ideology, Keynesian nonsense, and basically anyone who ever thought the economy should be left to “correct itself” (spoiler: it never does).
The Invisible Hand vs. The Invisible Brain
Now, about that invisible hand—popularized by stock market gambler David Ricardo, who figured out that predicting economic trends was way more profitable than actually producing anything useful. But let’s be honest, if there is an invisible hand running the market, then it’s controlled by an even more powerful force: the invisible brain. You know, the one sitting in a boardroom at BlackRock, Vanguard, or some central bank, adjusting interest rates and manipulating markets while the rest of us pretend it’s all just “market forces” at play.
Economics for the People (Or Not)
LaRouche doesn’t just argue that mainstream economics is flawed—he torches the entire discipline with a flamethrower. He rejects the idea that economies should be modeled on simple supply-demand mechanics, instead advocating for a “physical economy” approach where real productivity (not speculation) determines value. Basically, he thinks Wall Street’s casino economics is a scam. And you know what? He’s not wrong.
As George Carlin put it:
“The game is rigged, and nobody seems to notice. Nobody seems to care.”
LaRouche, on the other hand, notices—and he definitely cares. Maybe a little too much, because at times the book reads less like an economics text and more like a manifesto against the British financial oligarchy.
Final Verdict: Should You Read It?
If you’re looking for a standard intro to economics, this book will not give you that. If you enjoy dense mathematical theory wrapped in fiery economic philosophy, then sure, give it a shot. But be prepared: this isn’t bedtime reading—it’s a deep dive into LaRouche’s worldview, complete with historical tangents and a good dose of anti-free-market ranting.
As Carlin also said:
“It’s a big club, and you ain’t in it.”
LaRouche’s book is his way of showing you why you’re not in the club—and why the invisible brain controlling the invisible hand is making damn sure it stays that way.
Ah yes, the ever-elusive quest to understand economics—a field where the “invisible hand” (which, fun fact, was not Adam Smith’s invention but got way more hype than it deserved) is allegedly guiding the free market, yet somehow always seems to be guiding your money straight into someone else’s pockets.
Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr.’s So, You Wish to Learn All About Economics? promises to teach the reader elementary mathematical economics, and—credit where it’s due—it does attempt that. But let’s be real, this is no mainstream economics textbook. Instead of regurgitating the usual supply-demand curves and GDP worship, LaRouche goes full-blown conspiracy economist, slamming British free-market ideology, Keynesian nonsense, and basically anyone who ever thought the economy should be left to “correct itself” (spoiler: it never does).
The Invisible Hand vs. The Invisible Brain
Now, about that invisible hand—popularized by stock market gambler David Ricardo, who figured out that predicting economic trends was way more profitable than actually producing anything useful. But let’s be honest, if there is an invisible hand running the market, then it’s controlled by an even more powerful force: the invisible brain. You know, the one sitting in a boardroom at BlackRock, Vanguard, or some central bank, adjusting interest rates and manipulating markets while the rest of us pretend it’s all just “market forces” at play.
Economics for the People (Or Not)
LaRouche doesn’t just argue that mainstream economics is flawed—he torches the entire discipline with a flamethrower. He rejects the idea that economies should be modeled on simple supply-demand mechanics, instead advocating for a “physical economy” approach where real productivity (not speculation) determines value. Basically, he thinks Wall Street’s casino economics is a scam. And you know what? He’s not wrong.
As George Carlin put it:
“The game is rigged, and nobody seems to notice. Nobody seems to care.”
LaRouche, on the other hand, notices—and he definitely cares. Maybe a little too much, because at times the book reads less like an economics text and more like a manifesto against the British financial oligarchy.
Final Verdict: Should You Read It?
If you’re looking for a standard intro to economics, this book will not give you that. If you enjoy dense mathematical theory wrapped in fiery economic philosophy, then sure, give it a shot. But be prepared: this isn’t bedtime reading—it’s a deep dive into LaRouche’s worldview, complete with historical tangents and a good dose of anti-free-market ranting.
As Carlin also said:
“It’s a big club, and you ain’t in it.”
LaRouche’s book is his way of showing you why you’re not in the club—and why the invisible brain controlling the invisible hand is making damn sure it stays that way.
March 9, 2025
I didn’t get it. La Rouche believed he was much more intelligent than he really was. If I had a discussion with him about this book challenging his ideas, I believe he would be condescending towards me. The concepts presented in this book are not novel or revolutionary, they are confusing and ought to be simplified.
March 7, 2010
Forget your Economics Studies read this!!!!
October 9, 2012
الترجمة أحيانا سيئة بس الكتاب كويس
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews