What do you think?
Rate this book
On Classical Economics
Thomas Sowell's many writings on the history of economic thought have appeared in a number of scholarly journals and books, and these writings have been praised, reprinted, and translated in various countries around the world. The classical era in the history of economics is an important part of the history of ideas in general, and its implications reach beyond the bounds of the economics profession. On Classical Economics is a book from which students can learn both history and economics. It is not simply a Cook's tour of colorful personalities of the past but a study of how certain economic concepts and tools of analysis arose, and how their implications were revealed during the controversies that followed. In addition to a general understanding of classical macroeconomics and microeconomics, this book offers special insight into the neglected pioneering work of Sismondi—and why it was neglected—and a detailed look at John Stuart Mill's enigmatic role in the development of economics and the mysteries of Marxian economics. Clear, engaging, and very readable, without being either cute or condescending, On Classical Economics can enable a course on the history of economic thought to make a contribution to students’ understanding of economics in general--whether in price theory, monetary theory, or international trade. In short, it is a book about analysis as well as history.
320 pages, Hardcover
First published March 31, 2006
7 people are currently reading
598 people want to read
About the author
Thomas Sowell
88 books5,576 followersThomas Sowell is an American economist, social philosopher, and political commentator. He is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. With widely published commentary and books—and as a guest on TV and radio—he became a well-known voice in the American conservative movement as a prominent black conservative. He was a recipient of the National Humanities Medal from President George W. Bush in 2002.
Sowell was born in Gastonia, North Carolina and grew up in Harlem, New York City. Due to poverty and difficulties at home, he dropped out of Stuyvesant High School and worked various odd jobs, eventually serving in the United States Marine Corps during the Korean War. Afterward, he took night classes at Howard University and then attended Harvard University, where he graduated magna cum laude in 1958. He earned a master's degree in economics from Columbia University the next year and a doctorate in economics from the University of Chicago in 1968. In his academic career, he held professorships at Cornell University, Brandeis University, and the University of California, Los Angeles. He has also worked at think tanks including the Urban Institute. Since 1977, he has worked at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, where he is the Rose and Milton Friedman Senior Fellow on Public Policy.
Sowell was an important figure to the conservative movement during the Reagan era, influencing fellow economist Walter E. Williams and U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. He was offered a position as Federal Trade Commissioner in the Ford administration, and was considered for posts including U.S. Secretary of Education in the Reagan administration, but declined both times.
Sowell is the author of more than 45 books (including revised and new editions) on a variety of subjects including politics, economics, education and race, and he has been a syndicated columnist in more than 150 newspapers. His views are described as conservative, especially on social issues; libertarian, especially on economics; or libertarian-conservative. He has said he may be best labeled as a libertarian, though he disagrees with the "libertarian movement" on some issues, such as national defense.
Sowell was born in Gastonia, North Carolina and grew up in Harlem, New York City. Due to poverty and difficulties at home, he dropped out of Stuyvesant High School and worked various odd jobs, eventually serving in the United States Marine Corps during the Korean War. Afterward, he took night classes at Howard University and then attended Harvard University, where he graduated magna cum laude in 1958. He earned a master's degree in economics from Columbia University the next year and a doctorate in economics from the University of Chicago in 1968. In his academic career, he held professorships at Cornell University, Brandeis University, and the University of California, Los Angeles. He has also worked at think tanks including the Urban Institute. Since 1977, he has worked at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, where he is the Rose and Milton Friedman Senior Fellow on Public Policy.
Sowell was an important figure to the conservative movement during the Reagan era, influencing fellow economist Walter E. Williams and U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. He was offered a position as Federal Trade Commissioner in the Ford administration, and was considered for posts including U.S. Secretary of Education in the Reagan administration, but declined both times.
Sowell is the author of more than 45 books (including revised and new editions) on a variety of subjects including politics, economics, education and race, and he has been a syndicated columnist in more than 150 newspapers. His views are described as conservative, especially on social issues; libertarian, especially on economics; or libertarian-conservative. He has said he may be best labeled as a libertarian, though he disagrees with the "libertarian movement" on some issues, such as national defense.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews
February 16, 2009
It would be nice to have a succinct, clear explanation of the history of economic thought. This isn't that book. Sowell spends way too much time quoting the classical economists and jumping from topic to topic and date to date. It reminds me a little of a high school student's first attempt at writing a research paper. Instead of really taking the time to understand, organize, and summarize the material, Sowell seems to just regurgitate prior economists' written material in long strings of quotes. Here's a random excerpt from the bottom of page 70 to the top of 71, I quote at length within the brackets:
[The "intensity" of demand was defined as "the sacrifice which the demanders are able and willing to make in order to satisfy their wants. It is this species of demand alone which, compared with the supply, determines prices and values." The meaning of an increased demand in these terms was clear:
"Now this willingness, on the part of some of the demanders, to make a greater sacrifice than before, in order to satisfy their wants, is what I have called a greater intensity of demand. As no increase of price can possibly take place, unless the commodity be of such a nature as to excite in a certain number of purchasers this species of demand, and as this species of demand must always be implied whenever we speak of demand and supply as determining prices."
Samuel Baily phrased Malthus' theory even more directly in modern terms: "A disposition to give more for the quantity actually taken, or to buy more at the same rate" -- a shift outward of the demand schedule. Supply was similarly regarded by Malthus in schedule terms, as the "conditions of the supply," meaning the cost of production.]
Yes, that whole second paragraph was a block quote. That example illustrates the problem with so many quotes: it's impossible to follow the specific points being made, let alone the larger one. What the hell are any of those sentences actually saying? I found myself asking that question a lot.
Also, if 73% of a work is someone else's words, can it be considered original? There are 192 words in the excerpt above, 140 of them are from quotes. This example is by no means extraordinary. I'd be willing to guess that 40-50% of this entire book consists of Sowell cutting and pasting quotes from others. The other half is filler and set-ups to or explanations of the quotes. He also uses the exact same block quote on pages 85 and 123. He repeats another block quote on pages 29 and 116. Ridiculous and disappointing, especially from T-Money Sowell, one of my favorite authors.
The table of contents shows that Sowell starts with the classical economists' take on social philosophy, follows it with their views on micro and macro economics, then their methodology, and ends with random chapters on Sismondi, John Stuart Mill, and Marx, as well as a concluding chapter. It's so difficult to follow the layout even within a chapter that I won't retain much. This wasn't a project the author conceived, wrote, and published all in one effort--and it shows. This is more a jumbled collection of unrelated essays thrown together to fill a book. That approach is fine when each essay is discrete and unrelated to the others such as Sowell's much better "Controversial Essays". The problem arises when you try to pretend they are all related without any additional rewriting or tying-in of themes. Sowell salvages the effort somewhat with his final chapter in which he gives a summary of trends and themes. It is a welcome addition to this lackluster book because he avoids most of the quoting and uses his own words, which, as always, prove more than adequate.
Another major problem with this book is definitions and jargon. Apparently, few of the classical economists could agree on even some of the most basic and frequently used words such as revenue, demand, output, income, cost, and others. Richard Jones and Sismondi both deliberately did not give clear definitions to their words, I guess because they felt it limited their "inductive spirit" or killed the inquiry into the subject. So how is someone 200 years later supposed to understand what each author meant? It's difficult material and would be extremely time-consuming to sift through it all. Presumably, Sowell has spent a lifetime doing exactly that sort of sifting. Too bad he didn't deliver a concise summary of the definitions or topics. In fact, he directly contributes to the confusion! He discusses Say's Law 8 times before giving an explanation of the 6 major propositions involved with it. He never does give a layman's definition or take the time to explain its overall importance despite using the term literally dozens of times throughout the text. A "general glut" isn't explained until page 114 despite being used numerous times before that. "Hegelian" is never explained at all. I had to wikipedia it and learn about Georg Hegel on my own. Doesn't it make sense to explain a term when you FIRST use it? Sowell even admits that "classical" is a term without wide agreement. He defines it basically as the economists starting with Adam Smith and ending before Keynes; i.e. Smith is included, Keynes is not. It's the economists that rejected mercantilism and before the neo-classical or modern economists like Keynes. Without a common understanding of words, communication is nearly impossible. This book is filled with what Scientologists would call MU's (misunderstood words).
The jargon criticism isn't entirely Sowell's fault. It's a complicated subject with many different topics and issues. It is his fault that he didn't illuminate the subject well for casual readers. Only economic historians or those with an unusually devoted love of econ will enjoy this book or find it useful. To be fair, maybe if I read all the authors Sowell discusses or re-read this book, I might get more out of it. However, a cost/benefit analysis indicates to me that I should do neither.
Points that I learned as best as I can remember them:
1. The classical economists were by no means "conservatives". They challenged the orthodoxy of mercantilism often to their personal detriment.
2. The classical economists were generally for free-trade, classical liberalism, laissez-faire, and little government intervention.
3. Several of the classical economists were minorities. Adam Smith,
James Mill, John Stuart Mill, David Hume, and J.R. McCulloch were all Scottish at a time when "the whole wise English nation...will love to mortify a Scotchman." David Ricardo was of Jewish ancestry, and Jean-Baptiste Say was a Huguenot.
4. Say's law basically says that supply creates its own demand.
5. Mercantilism held that wealth was a fixed quantity throughout the world and that it was represented in gold. This encouraged mercantilists to insist upon a situation of net exports and that wealth was essentially competitive. This naturally led to a repression of wages, promotion of imperialism, and even slavery. Mercantilists only considered the wealthy or the property-holding classes when they spoke of a nation or wealth. They didn't consider the population at large. Adam Smith changed this conception into the one most people hold today, which is that a nation includes the population at large, and wealth refers to real goods and income.
6. Classical economists attacked slavery as a losing venture because it lacked the incentive of self-interest for the worker. Moreover, it focused on appropriating wealth instead of creating it. Smith believed that slave owners would only support it out of pride or some mental deficiency because it did not make sense economically.
7. Classical economists, particularly Smith, opposed deficit spending. They saw the heavier taxation made necessary by the large national debt as a disincentive to efficient production at home and a reason for some capital to move abroad. Ricardo and Smith both believed that deficit spending increased the danger of "wantonly" going to war. They both thought that if people had to immediately bear the full cost of war through taxes, there would be no (or at least much fewer) wars.
8. Nassau W. Senior started the shift from cost of production theories of value to utility theories of value. The latter is much more common today and holds that the marginal utility determines price.
9. Physics is a deductive science while chemistry is experimental. Economics is a combination of both. Group behavior is different than individual behavior, so one can't just study individuals and expect the same results from groups.
10. Malthus held that populations of people have a "tendency" to outpace subsistence or the food supply necessary to support the population. Tendency could have two possible meanings here. 1. Historical data reveals that populations actually do outpace subsistence. 2. It's theoretically possible that populations could outpace subsistence. Which did Malthus mean? Evidently he initially tried to claim the former. When empirical evidence contradicted this claim, he switched to the latter. (Maybe this is why some of these economists were loathe to clearly define their terms? It removes the wiggle room and makes some of their claims inaccurate.) And what does the latter really tell us? It's theoretically possible that populations could outpace subsistence, but many things are "theoretically possible." Admittedly, I haven't read Malthus, but this claim that is a non-claim seems worthless. In the movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" Ben Stein indicated that this type of Malthusian thinking was partially responsible for the holocaust.
11. Marx didn't think that capitalism would implode on itself from some major recession or economic failure. Rather, he thought that producers were always guessing at how much of which goods to supply and would inevitably guess incorrectly. This would lead to business cycles of increasing breadth (not depth or severity), and the working classes would finally revolt when their numbers were great enough.
12. The history of economics, like the history of ideas generally is shaped by great men, the masses, and circumstances. Sowell argues that some well-known economists contributed little to the lasting body of accepted knowledge while others, who contributed much original content are largely ignored. For example, Sowell says that Sismondi and Augustin Cournot are unfairly dismissed despite significant contributions way ahead of their times. John Stuart Mill and Karl Marx are much better known but contributed little or no lasting economic knowledge.
13. John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty" is widely misunderstood to be a call for general liberty for all men. Sowell believes it is more specific and elitist in that Mill urges liberty from social convention (as opposed to governmental legislation) for the greatest minds so that they can be free to explore and invent new ideas. They would then impress those ideas upon the masses.
14. Marx is widely misunderstood because few people take the time to understand him on his own terms. In other words, people don't fully appreciate the times in which Marx lived and the fact that he relied heavily on the Hegelian (from the German philosopher Georg Hegel) framework and logic. Words like "negation" and "contradiction" have very specific meanings for Marx that differ from our common understanding of them. Also, his three part "Das Kapital" builds on successive approximations. The assumptions he uses in vol. 1 are simplified, and he doesn't believe them to be true in reality. Vol. 3 contains all the complexities he believes exist in reality but it wasn't published until years after his death even though he wrote all three parts as a whole. One must read all of Marx to fully understand him, not just some parts.
15. John Stuart Mill was a prodigy and a genius. He was also devoted to Ricardo and an elitist. Sowell says, "He was like a track star running against the clock instead of against another track star. He was never pushed--either by the criticism or the competing theories of comparably able contemporaries--to reach his utmost potential." His own arrogance caused him to dismiss economists of his time who were toying with the idea of marginal utility. His stature in the field caused many to disregard the marginal utility economists for decades and delay the development of that theory. It would later re-emerge and gain acceptance while Mill and Ricardo's ideas would fall out of favor.
16. Marx's contributions to economics were limited. His appeal goes to something more primal or fundamental than reason. He is certainly an important figure, but not for his economic thinking, which empirically has not stood the test of time.
Memorable quotes:
"There cannot be a greater security for the continuance of peace than the imposing on ministers the necessity of applying to the people for taxes to support a war." - Ricardo
"Nothing is more useful than water: but it will purchase scarce anything; scarce anything can be had in exchange for it. A diamond, on the contrary, has scarce any value in use; but a very great quantity of other goods may frequently be had in exchange for it." - Adam Smith
"Yet, jarring as the phrase may be, from the standpoint of the economics profession Marx was, as Professor Paul Samuelson called him, 'a minor post-Ricardian.'"
"In the long run there are always people of comparable stature."
"Contributions depend not only on what was offered but also on what was accepted, and there is no major premise, doctrine, or tool of analysis in economics today that derived from the writings of Karl Marx."
"While free market economics is regarded by many today as an old conservative idea, it was in fact one of the most revolutionary concepts to emerge in the long history of ideas. For centuries, landmark intellectual figures from Plato to Machiavelli had discussed which principles wise thinkers might propose to guide personal, social, and political actions or which policies wise leaders might impose for the benefit of society in various ways...Even today, many have not yet grasped the full implications of self-equilibrating interactions or have not been able to accept the humbling thought that their own presumably superior wisdom and virtue might be superfluous, if not damaging."
[The "intensity" of demand was defined as "the sacrifice which the demanders are able and willing to make in order to satisfy their wants. It is this species of demand alone which, compared with the supply, determines prices and values." The meaning of an increased demand in these terms was clear:
"Now this willingness, on the part of some of the demanders, to make a greater sacrifice than before, in order to satisfy their wants, is what I have called a greater intensity of demand. As no increase of price can possibly take place, unless the commodity be of such a nature as to excite in a certain number of purchasers this species of demand, and as this species of demand must always be implied whenever we speak of demand and supply as determining prices."
Samuel Baily phrased Malthus' theory even more directly in modern terms: "A disposition to give more for the quantity actually taken, or to buy more at the same rate" -- a shift outward of the demand schedule. Supply was similarly regarded by Malthus in schedule terms, as the "conditions of the supply," meaning the cost of production.]
Yes, that whole second paragraph was a block quote. That example illustrates the problem with so many quotes: it's impossible to follow the specific points being made, let alone the larger one. What the hell are any of those sentences actually saying? I found myself asking that question a lot.
Also, if 73% of a work is someone else's words, can it be considered original? There are 192 words in the excerpt above, 140 of them are from quotes. This example is by no means extraordinary. I'd be willing to guess that 40-50% of this entire book consists of Sowell cutting and pasting quotes from others. The other half is filler and set-ups to or explanations of the quotes. He also uses the exact same block quote on pages 85 and 123. He repeats another block quote on pages 29 and 116. Ridiculous and disappointing, especially from T-Money Sowell, one of my favorite authors.
The table of contents shows that Sowell starts with the classical economists' take on social philosophy, follows it with their views on micro and macro economics, then their methodology, and ends with random chapters on Sismondi, John Stuart Mill, and Marx, as well as a concluding chapter. It's so difficult to follow the layout even within a chapter that I won't retain much. This wasn't a project the author conceived, wrote, and published all in one effort--and it shows. This is more a jumbled collection of unrelated essays thrown together to fill a book. That approach is fine when each essay is discrete and unrelated to the others such as Sowell's much better "Controversial Essays". The problem arises when you try to pretend they are all related without any additional rewriting or tying-in of themes. Sowell salvages the effort somewhat with his final chapter in which he gives a summary of trends and themes. It is a welcome addition to this lackluster book because he avoids most of the quoting and uses his own words, which, as always, prove more than adequate.
Another major problem with this book is definitions and jargon. Apparently, few of the classical economists could agree on even some of the most basic and frequently used words such as revenue, demand, output, income, cost, and others. Richard Jones and Sismondi both deliberately did not give clear definitions to their words, I guess because they felt it limited their "inductive spirit" or killed the inquiry into the subject. So how is someone 200 years later supposed to understand what each author meant? It's difficult material and would be extremely time-consuming to sift through it all. Presumably, Sowell has spent a lifetime doing exactly that sort of sifting. Too bad he didn't deliver a concise summary of the definitions or topics. In fact, he directly contributes to the confusion! He discusses Say's Law 8 times before giving an explanation of the 6 major propositions involved with it. He never does give a layman's definition or take the time to explain its overall importance despite using the term literally dozens of times throughout the text. A "general glut" isn't explained until page 114 despite being used numerous times before that. "Hegelian" is never explained at all. I had to wikipedia it and learn about Georg Hegel on my own. Doesn't it make sense to explain a term when you FIRST use it? Sowell even admits that "classical" is a term without wide agreement. He defines it basically as the economists starting with Adam Smith and ending before Keynes; i.e. Smith is included, Keynes is not. It's the economists that rejected mercantilism and before the neo-classical or modern economists like Keynes. Without a common understanding of words, communication is nearly impossible. This book is filled with what Scientologists would call MU's (misunderstood words).
The jargon criticism isn't entirely Sowell's fault. It's a complicated subject with many different topics and issues. It is his fault that he didn't illuminate the subject well for casual readers. Only economic historians or those with an unusually devoted love of econ will enjoy this book or find it useful. To be fair, maybe if I read all the authors Sowell discusses or re-read this book, I might get more out of it. However, a cost/benefit analysis indicates to me that I should do neither.
Points that I learned as best as I can remember them:
1. The classical economists were by no means "conservatives". They challenged the orthodoxy of mercantilism often to their personal detriment.
2. The classical economists were generally for free-trade, classical liberalism, laissez-faire, and little government intervention.
3. Several of the classical economists were minorities. Adam Smith,
James Mill, John Stuart Mill, David Hume, and J.R. McCulloch were all Scottish at a time when "the whole wise English nation...will love to mortify a Scotchman." David Ricardo was of Jewish ancestry, and Jean-Baptiste Say was a Huguenot.
4. Say's law basically says that supply creates its own demand.
5. Mercantilism held that wealth was a fixed quantity throughout the world and that it was represented in gold. This encouraged mercantilists to insist upon a situation of net exports and that wealth was essentially competitive. This naturally led to a repression of wages, promotion of imperialism, and even slavery. Mercantilists only considered the wealthy or the property-holding classes when they spoke of a nation or wealth. They didn't consider the population at large. Adam Smith changed this conception into the one most people hold today, which is that a nation includes the population at large, and wealth refers to real goods and income.
6. Classical economists attacked slavery as a losing venture because it lacked the incentive of self-interest for the worker. Moreover, it focused on appropriating wealth instead of creating it. Smith believed that slave owners would only support it out of pride or some mental deficiency because it did not make sense economically.
7. Classical economists, particularly Smith, opposed deficit spending. They saw the heavier taxation made necessary by the large national debt as a disincentive to efficient production at home and a reason for some capital to move abroad. Ricardo and Smith both believed that deficit spending increased the danger of "wantonly" going to war. They both thought that if people had to immediately bear the full cost of war through taxes, there would be no (or at least much fewer) wars.
8. Nassau W. Senior started the shift from cost of production theories of value to utility theories of value. The latter is much more common today and holds that the marginal utility determines price.
9. Physics is a deductive science while chemistry is experimental. Economics is a combination of both. Group behavior is different than individual behavior, so one can't just study individuals and expect the same results from groups.
10. Malthus held that populations of people have a "tendency" to outpace subsistence or the food supply necessary to support the population. Tendency could have two possible meanings here. 1. Historical data reveals that populations actually do outpace subsistence. 2. It's theoretically possible that populations could outpace subsistence. Which did Malthus mean? Evidently he initially tried to claim the former. When empirical evidence contradicted this claim, he switched to the latter. (Maybe this is why some of these economists were loathe to clearly define their terms? It removes the wiggle room and makes some of their claims inaccurate.) And what does the latter really tell us? It's theoretically possible that populations could outpace subsistence, but many things are "theoretically possible." Admittedly, I haven't read Malthus, but this claim that is a non-claim seems worthless. In the movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" Ben Stein indicated that this type of Malthusian thinking was partially responsible for the holocaust.
11. Marx didn't think that capitalism would implode on itself from some major recession or economic failure. Rather, he thought that producers were always guessing at how much of which goods to supply and would inevitably guess incorrectly. This would lead to business cycles of increasing breadth (not depth or severity), and the working classes would finally revolt when their numbers were great enough.
12. The history of economics, like the history of ideas generally is shaped by great men, the masses, and circumstances. Sowell argues that some well-known economists contributed little to the lasting body of accepted knowledge while others, who contributed much original content are largely ignored. For example, Sowell says that Sismondi and Augustin Cournot are unfairly dismissed despite significant contributions way ahead of their times. John Stuart Mill and Karl Marx are much better known but contributed little or no lasting economic knowledge.
13. John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty" is widely misunderstood to be a call for general liberty for all men. Sowell believes it is more specific and elitist in that Mill urges liberty from social convention (as opposed to governmental legislation) for the greatest minds so that they can be free to explore and invent new ideas. They would then impress those ideas upon the masses.
14. Marx is widely misunderstood because few people take the time to understand him on his own terms. In other words, people don't fully appreciate the times in which Marx lived and the fact that he relied heavily on the Hegelian (from the German philosopher Georg Hegel) framework and logic. Words like "negation" and "contradiction" have very specific meanings for Marx that differ from our common understanding of them. Also, his three part "Das Kapital" builds on successive approximations. The assumptions he uses in vol. 1 are simplified, and he doesn't believe them to be true in reality. Vol. 3 contains all the complexities he believes exist in reality but it wasn't published until years after his death even though he wrote all three parts as a whole. One must read all of Marx to fully understand him, not just some parts.
15. John Stuart Mill was a prodigy and a genius. He was also devoted to Ricardo and an elitist. Sowell says, "He was like a track star running against the clock instead of against another track star. He was never pushed--either by the criticism or the competing theories of comparably able contemporaries--to reach his utmost potential." His own arrogance caused him to dismiss economists of his time who were toying with the idea of marginal utility. His stature in the field caused many to disregard the marginal utility economists for decades and delay the development of that theory. It would later re-emerge and gain acceptance while Mill and Ricardo's ideas would fall out of favor.
16. Marx's contributions to economics were limited. His appeal goes to something more primal or fundamental than reason. He is certainly an important figure, but not for his economic thinking, which empirically has not stood the test of time.
Memorable quotes:
"There cannot be a greater security for the continuance of peace than the imposing on ministers the necessity of applying to the people for taxes to support a war." - Ricardo
"Nothing is more useful than water: but it will purchase scarce anything; scarce anything can be had in exchange for it. A diamond, on the contrary, has scarce any value in use; but a very great quantity of other goods may frequently be had in exchange for it." - Adam Smith
"Yet, jarring as the phrase may be, from the standpoint of the economics profession Marx was, as Professor Paul Samuelson called him, 'a minor post-Ricardian.'"
"In the long run there are always people of comparable stature."
"Contributions depend not only on what was offered but also on what was accepted, and there is no major premise, doctrine, or tool of analysis in economics today that derived from the writings of Karl Marx."
"While free market economics is regarded by many today as an old conservative idea, it was in fact one of the most revolutionary concepts to emerge in the long history of ideas. For centuries, landmark intellectual figures from Plato to Machiavelli had discussed which principles wise thinkers might propose to guide personal, social, and political actions or which policies wise leaders might impose for the benefit of society in various ways...Even today, many have not yet grasped the full implications of self-equilibrating interactions or have not been able to accept the humbling thought that their own presumably superior wisdom and virtue might be superfluous, if not damaging."
May 6, 2018
Sowell's eloquence is so great that even complex theories seem easy to understand. Many different interpretations of various economic problems have been set forth as the discussion of the book, each was discussed in how various economists treated the assumptions and dealt with the problem. The debates of the era that caused many ideas to be taken and others to be overlooked is a theme of this book. Sowell raises awareness on an extraordinary economist, Sismondi, who's ideas had to be rediscovered later on. An explanation of how Marx was misunderstood by Marxists was very insightful. Even more insightful was the evolution of the different interpretation of ideas. A slight defect of the book is that when referencing the classical problems, Sowell rarely mentions the theory in modern day's language, as in to what end the classical problem led current understanding. The book is more suitable if knowledge of more than basic economics is already known, only with prior knowledge of economics does this book have a lot of value.
December 16, 2016
To make a long review short, this is an educational piece but not an easy read. If you do not have an extremely good grasp on economics and economic terms, this is not a place to start. Thomas Sowell is a well-read economist and that is easily seen through his book which is full of references and direct quotes from early economic writings. If you are already well versed on economics and are looking for a book that summarizes some of the early thoughts and debates about classical economists, this may be just what you're looking for. If you are still in the early years of your economic knowledge looking to broaden it, you may want to start elsewhere with your classical economics education to avoid confusion due to specific terminology and a lack of explanation surrounding the classical concepts.
January 11, 2025
This is a good book, but you need to have a good understanding of economic thought before jumping in. Sowell is as good as it gets in trying to digest and simplify such material, but it took me a long time to get through it.
April 9, 2021
Be careful of books published on university-labeled publishing houses!
Reviewed in the United States on March 2, 2019
Verified Purchase
I have read now, all told, probably about two dozen of Thomas Sowell's books-- and they were all very good.
That is, until this one.
I actually purchased the book about 8 years ago, and it sat on my shelf for all of that time.
I tried to pick it up once several years ago, and could not get interested after about 50 pages. The same thing happened all over again when I picked it up several years later.
This book is probably for somebody who has finished an entire degree in Economics at a reasonably reputable University - - and that means that he will have read some of all of the pantheon of dead economists that are discussed here. It may even be that it is for a master's-level student.
But, it is not for the intelligent public, and that is because these debates are just too esoteric and the authors have been dead for too long for most people to know anything about.
The label on which this book was published (Yale University Press) was a giveaway of how intensely boring it would be. I don't think I have ever come so close to PERISHING OF BOREDOM, and nary a book by this author have I put down without finishing it.
Had that I known that 8 1/2 years ago, when I first purchased this book!
Most of Thomas Sowell's books are published by Basic Books, and so he is a known quantity to them and a predictably well-selling author for them. It's a publishing house mainly aimed at the intelligent public-- People who may not have been trained in a given topic, but would like to learn more about it and are not opposed to reading about "smart stuff."
But, this book was too boring even for them. (I myself have a persistent dilettante's interest in Economics, but this book was not suitable for a person like me.)
Verdict: NOT recommended. This is the first Thomas Sowell book that I have EVER given that recommendation.
Reviewed in the United States on March 2, 2019
Verified Purchase
I have read now, all told, probably about two dozen of Thomas Sowell's books-- and they were all very good.
That is, until this one.
I actually purchased the book about 8 years ago, and it sat on my shelf for all of that time.
I tried to pick it up once several years ago, and could not get interested after about 50 pages. The same thing happened all over again when I picked it up several years later.
This book is probably for somebody who has finished an entire degree in Economics at a reasonably reputable University - - and that means that he will have read some of all of the pantheon of dead economists that are discussed here. It may even be that it is for a master's-level student.
But, it is not for the intelligent public, and that is because these debates are just too esoteric and the authors have been dead for too long for most people to know anything about.
The label on which this book was published (Yale University Press) was a giveaway of how intensely boring it would be. I don't think I have ever come so close to PERISHING OF BOREDOM, and nary a book by this author have I put down without finishing it.
Had that I known that 8 1/2 years ago, when I first purchased this book!
Most of Thomas Sowell's books are published by Basic Books, and so he is a known quantity to them and a predictably well-selling author for them. It's a publishing house mainly aimed at the intelligent public-- People who may not have been trained in a given topic, but would like to learn more about it and are not opposed to reading about "smart stuff."
But, this book was too boring even for them. (I myself have a persistent dilettante's interest in Economics, but this book was not suitable for a person like me.)
Verdict: NOT recommended. This is the first Thomas Sowell book that I have EVER given that recommendation.
November 6, 2021
This book is a great overview of classical economics and includes chapters that focus on several important figures individually.
The amount of research that went into this is excellent.
While I don't totally agree with everything Sowell says, overall I felt like he treated all of the economists and ideas in the book with an impartial mindset, which is nice.
This is a relatively short and easy read, especially when broken up by the chapters, which are well-organized into sections to help you keep track of major ideas.
*disclaimer* read for school
The amount of research that went into this is excellent.
While I don't totally agree with everything Sowell says, overall I felt like he treated all of the economists and ideas in the book with an impartial mindset, which is nice.
This is a relatively short and easy read, especially when broken up by the chapters, which are well-organized into sections to help you keep track of major ideas.
*disclaimer* read for school
March 15, 2018
A very interesting read, but a lot of the terms weren't explained so this book isn't for people who don't know anything about economics.
July 19, 2025
I pretty much only learned how little I understand about economics.
That said, I know a little bit more about Say's law, general glut theorists, Malthusian population theory, the labor theory of value.
Sowell is a model writer, though I don't appreciate the amount of direct quotes he uses.
That said, I know a little bit more about Say's law, general glut theorists, Malthusian population theory, the labor theory of value.
Sowell is a model writer, though I don't appreciate the amount of direct quotes he uses.
April 25, 2008
Not exactly a page turner but very educational though Sowell's Basic Economics is probably an easier read and better choice for most. I have no doubt that many political and governmental philosophies would quickly fall out of favor, having been exposed for the unsustainable frauds they are, if more people understood the fundamentals of basic economics.
I would recommend this book for anyone who believes that (or wonders if) increased taxation, whatever the justification, results in increased prosperity for a government or it's people.
"Economics is a study of cause-and-effect relationships in an economy. It's purpose is to discern the consequences of various ways of allocating resources which have alternative uses. It has nothing to say about philosophy or values, anymore than it has to say about music or literature."
— Thomas Sowell (Basic Economics: A Citizens Guide to the Economy, Revised and Expanded)
"“The fact that the market is not doing what we wish it would do is no reason to automatically assume that the government would do better.”"
— Thomas Sowell
I would recommend this book for anyone who believes that (or wonders if) increased taxation, whatever the justification, results in increased prosperity for a government or it's people.
"Economics is a study of cause-and-effect relationships in an economy. It's purpose is to discern the consequences of various ways of allocating resources which have alternative uses. It has nothing to say about philosophy or values, anymore than it has to say about music or literature."
— Thomas Sowell (Basic Economics: A Citizens Guide to the Economy, Revised and Expanded)
"“The fact that the market is not doing what we wish it would do is no reason to automatically assume that the government would do better.”"
— Thomas Sowell
Read
December 14, 2008The book outlines some of the central ideas and their slippage in European economics from Adam Smith to John Maynard Keynes. I am not an economist and I found the presentation well organized and quite accessible.
May 7, 2012
Of course, Sowell begins with Adam Smith. What is it about Quesnay and the physiocrats in general that disqualifies them from the "classical" period?
July 31, 2013
A walk-through of the history and development of classical economics. Enough said. Sowell has better books out there.
Read
April 23, 2019dense read... i think not to be attempted by a layman without groundwork economic background.... i do understand he finds Malthus and Malthusian arguments irrelevant
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews