Free Market: The History of an Idea

by Jacob Soll

From a MacArthur “Genius,” an intellectual history of the free market, from ancient Rome to the twenty-first century After two government bailouts of the US economy in less than twenty years, free market ideology is due for serious reappraisal. In Free Market, Jacob Soll details how we got to this current crisis, and how we can find our way out by looking to earlier iterations of free market thought. Contrary to popular narratives, early market theorists believed that states had an important role in building and maintaining free markets. But in the eighteenth century, thinkers insisted on free markets without state intervention, leading to a tradition of ideological brittleness. That tradition only calcified in the centuries that followed. Tracing the intellectual evolution of the free market from Cicero to Milton Friedman, Soll argues that we need to go back to the origins of free market ideology in order to truly understand it—and to develop new economic concepts to face today’s challenges.

Genres: Economics, History, Nonfiction, Philosophy, Politics, Finance, Audiobook

336 pages, Hardcover

First published September 6, 2022

About the author

Jacob Soll is professor of history and accounting at the University of Southern California.

He received a B.A. from the University of Iowa, a D.E.A. from the École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales in Paris, France, and a Ph.D. from Magdalene College, Cambridge University. He has been awarded numerous prestigious prizes including two NEH Fellowships, the Jacques Barzun Prize, a Guggenheim Fellowship, and, in 2011, the MacArthur Fellowship.

Soll’s first book, Publishing The Prince (2005), examines how Machiavelli's work was popularized and influenced modern political thought. It won the Jacques Barzun Prize from the American Philosophical Society. In his second book, The Information Master (2009), Soll investigates how Louis XIV's famous finance minister Jean-Baptiste Colbert fused financial management and library sciences to create one of the first modern information states.

His most recent book, The Reckoning: Financial Accountability and the Rise and Fall of Nations (2014), presents a sweeping history of accounting and politics, drawing on a wealth of examples from over a millennia of human history to reveal how accounting can used to both build kingdoms, empires and entire civilizations, but also to undermine them. It explains the origins of our own financial crisis as deeply rooted in a long disconnect between human beings and their attempts to manage financial numbers. The Reckoning, reviewed in major newspapers and publications around the world, has sold more than 60,000 copies worldwide, and has been translated into five languages.

His new books include Free Market: The History of an Idea (Basic Books), an analysis of classical philosophy, natural law, history and contemporary economic culture; a history of libraries and Enlightenment (Yale University Press); and the first English edition of Jean-Baptiste Colbert’s economic writings (Anthem).

Soll has been a correspondent for the Boston Globe, and a regular contributor to the New York Times, Politico, the New Republic, PBS, Salon.com and the Chronicle of Higher Education.

He is currently meeting with political and financial leaders across the globe to promote accounting standards and financial transparency.



Recent journal and chapter publications include:





• “Jean Baptiste Colbert: Accounting and the Genesis of a State Archive in Early

Modern France,” Proceedings of the British Society, forthcoming 2017.



• “From Virtue to Surplus: Jacques Necker’s Compte Rendu (1781) and the

Origins of Modern Political Discourse,” Representations 134 (216), pp. 29-63.



• “The Grafton Method, or the Science of Tradition,” in Ann Blair and Anja-Silvia

Goeing, eds., For the Sake of Learning: Essays in Honor of Anthony Grafton, 2

vols. (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 2, pp. 1019-1032.



• “Intellectual History and the History of the Book,” in Richard Whatmore and

Brian Young, eds. A Companion to Intellectual History, (Chichester: John Wiley

And Sons/Blackwell, 2016), pp. 72-82.

Reviews

[Venky · Rating 5 out of 5]

The inextricably linked duo of “Free Market” and “The Invisible Hand”, are, arguably, solid contenders, for two of the most misinterpreted, miscomprehended, misapplied and mismanaged phrases in the lexicon of economics and political philosophy. Professor of Philosophy, History and Accounting at the University of Southern California, Jacob Soll, in his upcoming work “Free Market: The History of An Idea” makes a bold attempt to set the record straight by weaving a fascinating chronology of the events birthing the notion of free markets. The case of characters aiding Soll in his endeavour make up for an electric and eclectic mix. Franciscan monks, Roman Statesmen, English monarchs, French philosophers and Italian guild participants all joust and jostle with and against one another as they provide incremental shape to an idea that has held the imagination of an entire globe in literal thrall.

‘Free Markets’ begins with a rousing chapter on the thoughts and proclamations of Cicero, the renowned Roman statesman. Cicero was of the unshakeable belief that if men of privilege and stature focused on agriculture, and in the process, exchanged goods in a moralistic and righteous fashion, the markets would need no intervention and would function like clockwork thereby leading to a prosperous republic. The influence of Cicero’s works on Adam Smith, the pioneer of the “Invisible Hand” theory is unmissable.

Two centuries after Cicero was decapitated under the orders of Mark Antony and his head (along with his hands) nailed on the Rostra in the Forum Romanum, the free market theory was provided an eschatological twist, courtesy Saint Augustine. Bringing a distinctly Christian appeal to his economic thoughts, Saint Augustine decreed that there was a ‘higher power’ that regulated all wealth. All that was required for people transacting with one another was to ‘enter’ God’s system and fulfill the necessary exchange. God’s grace would take over the rest. The Franciscan monk Peter John Olivi foretold the law of diminishing marginal utility by proposing that increased access to and consumption of a good would lead to the product diminishing in value.

Soll’s book is a wonderful tapestry whose warp and woof is splendidly and contentedly discernible. The reader traipses along the less trodden path from the medieval to modern, but without the accompanying botherations of either fatigue or frustration. While Soll traces the journey of the free market idea by referring to the works of a plethora of lambent and ignominious personalities, the reader cannot but notice his undisguised admiration for Jean Baptiste Colbert, the Prime Minister of the eccentric Sun King of France, Louis XIV. Colbert’s philosophies and practices formed the precursor for the introduction of the field of development economics. Colbert’s State would assist commerce and industry attain a competitive edge. He was firm in his belief that for business to function unhindered, the internal market of France needed to be freed, and the necessary infrastructure constructed. Colbert’s unparalleled vision led to the establishment of industries such as the Gobelins tapestry works and the Saint- Gobain glassworks. Colbert also anticipated the now ubiquitous and sprawling Special Economic Zones by welcoming investors into France, luring them with state pay and even enticing them with the prospects of monopolies to commence new industries and introduce novel technologies.

Colbert’s works were published in his memoirs titled ‘Commercial Code.’ Co-authored with Jacques Savary, a trade expert, this stellar publication earned Colbert a relief portrait along with 23 of the great law givers in the gallery of the US House of Representatives. Colbert now shares rarefied space with the likes of Justinian, Lycurgus and Thomas Jefferson.

Before ending with an almost jeremiad of sorts that has at its epicentre, marauding free market mavens of the likes of Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman, Soll also gives his readers a sneak peek into the works of lesser known economists such as Pierre le Pesant, sieur de Boisguilbert, and Jean Domat. Boisguilbert wedged the theory of pacifism into the machinery of free market by contending that conflicts created famines, eviscerated agriculture, exacerbated taxes, before undermining trade.

An economist guild titled the free market physiocrats, led by the fire brand French economist Francois Quesnay virulently railed against the advancement of industry by advocating the cause of agriculture. Quesnay, whose thoughts were echoed later on by a host of other economists such as Thomas Malthus, David Ricardo and Adam Smith himself (with some variations) was a rabid agrarian advocate. Labelling merchants “idiots” and terming industry itself as “sterile”, Quesnay attempted to upend the wisdom of Colbert by proposing taxes on traders and exemptions from all levies for the farming community. Quesnay termed all nonagricultural products “destructive” and classified manufactured goods as falling under the ambit of a “sterile class”. Wholeheartedly concurring with the philosophy of Quesnay, Adam Smith opined that wealth stemmed from agriculture and the basis of any industrial wealth production was agricultural surplus.

Soll ends his book with a plea to exercise a great degree of common sense while furthering the cause of free markets. There is a need for private enterprises to work in tandem with the Government for the furtherance of any economy. Most industries would need state support in the form of government contracts, as was the case with Apple and Microsoft initially and social welfare programmes, the classic example of which being Amazon’s early use of the US Postal service and McDonald’s reliance on Medicaid.

Abhorring jargon and staying away from avoidable ‘econspeak’, “Free Market” is a compelling read for the expert and rustic alike

(Free Market: The History of an Idea by Jacob Soll is published by Basic Books and will be available for sale beginning 6th September 2022. Thank you Net Galley for the Advance Reviewer Copy).

[Aaron Brown · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very much needed corrective to the almost constant misunderstanding and mythmaking behind the free market, its history, its purpose and its applications. This book needs to be on a lot of bookshelves because so many people pretend they know something about this topic but do not. The free market and its history are one of the mostly sorely misunderstood subjects in our culture and discourse. College do not teach this well. Mr. Soll provides an excellent corrective here. It is a fascinating survey of the free market's rich intellectual history and how fundamental it is to human growth and happiness. Essential reading.

[Matt · Rating 2 out of 5]

My review of this book is forthcoming in Reason Magazine.

[Jeff · Rating 5 out of 5]

Deep And Fascinating Exposition Of The History Of An Idea. Soll is a Professor of History and Accounting, and I'm just a college grad who had ECON 101 as an 18 yo HS Senior / college freshman who then went on to discuss the Austrian/ Chicago schools of economics (Friedman, Hayak, von Mises (who actually does *not* get mentioned in this book, unlike the first two), etc) with various libertarian (of both "l" and "L" levels) fellow activists and Party officials, back in the former life where I did those things.

So I'm not going to debate the specifics of Soll's commentaries here, though I do think that there is room for those more dedicated to true pure free markets to do so - I'm just blatantly nowhere near qualified to do it. :)

What I *can* say about this book is that it truly is a deep and fascinating exposition of the history of economic thought regarding what a market is and how it does/ should operate. With von Mises being the only notable exception (discounting also economists who are still alive), Soll takes us on a journey from pre-history through Cicero and the beginning of the Roman Empire (and fall of the Roman Republic) to St Augustine to Machiavelli and the Italians into the rise of the Dutch and then England and France (where we eventually get... who else... Adam Smith... ;) ) and the other Enlightenment philosophers and from there to America and eventually through the post WWII era and into Keynes, Friedman, and Hayak. Entire libraries have been filled over the centuries talking about the lives and theories of many of these men, and Soll does a good job of showing their thoughts and how at times they were shaped by the world around these men while never delving so deep as to become a treatise specifically on any one person or their contributions to the field. He also manages to avoid most academic and professional economist terms and instead writes in a manner that is more easily accessible to most any reader with so much as a middle school/ high school level of historical knowledge.

Ultimately this is a book that seems destined to become required reading for many ECON 102/ 103 ish classes, and really should be read by anyone seeking to have a general understanding of one of the most discussed foundational issues in modern economics. Very much recommended.

[Feng Ouyang · Rating 2 out of 5]

Jacob Soll’s "Free Market: The History of an Idea" ambitiously retraces the intellectual development of the free market concept and its complex relationship with society and governance. While Soll, a professor of history and philosophy, offers valuable contributions to the historical narrative, his broader attempt to deliver a sweeping verdict against free-market theories ultimately falls short. The book, rich in historical recounting, suffers from critical analytical flaws and logical inconsistencies that limit its academic credibility.

The historical trajectory presented in the book divides into three stages. First, during the Roman Republic and Dark Ages, economic activity was subordinated to political and moral concerns. Roman statesman Cicero, for instance, held a suspicious view of merchants, emphasizing that economic endeavors must serve civic virtue. This attitude persisted through medieval times, with rulers and theologians favoring "pure production" over trade, while the Catholic Church heavily suppressed interest-bearing loans.

In the second phase, with the rise of maritime exploration and the Renaissance, market activities gained prominence. The Industrial Revolution further accelerated economic dynamism, but strong government interventions remained the norm. Nations sought to preserve agriculture as a fundamental value-creating sector while suppressing industry and trade to avoid destabilization. Protectionist policies aimed to strengthen national standing in global competition.

The third phase, emerging in the eighteenth century, saw the formation of free-market theory. Adam Smith and contemporaries developed ideas around the division of labor and market exchange, while other economic perspectives, such as utilitarianism and Keynesianism, continued to offer competing frameworks. Britain’s global dominance facilitated the spread of free-market ideals, which later took root in the United States.

Despite this coherent historical outline, Soll’s broader argument—that free-market ideology deviates dangerously from Western traditions and has engendered modern crises—remains weakly substantiated. He condemns modern proponents such as Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman, blaming them for inequality and financial instability. His prescription for returning to a Cicero-inspired vision of economic subordination to civic virtue lacks sufficient logical or empirical support.

One major deficiency is Soll’s portrayal of economics as mere ideology rather than a discipline grounded in empirical and logical debate. While this might hold for ancient economic ideas, it fails to account for the evolution of modern economic science. Soll simplifies complex developments, often focusing narrowly on a single thinker or school of thought, thus ignoring the coexistence of competing theories and the multifaceted interactions between ideas, policy, and outcomes.

Furthermore, Soll misses critical socio-political factors influencing economic theory, such as Britain’s democratic traditions and Protestant values that promoted individualism and decentralized economic power. His narrative implies that free-market thought prevailed primarily due to Britain's imperial dominance, a perspective that overlooks deeper cultural and institutional drivers.

The omission of major debates among economists further weakens the book. The intense, decades-long arguments between Keynes and Hayek, or critiques by Milton Friedman regarding Keynesian assumptions about consumer behavior, are not given sufficient attention. These debates demonstrate that economic theories rose to prominence through rigorous contestation that demonstrated their intellectual merit, not merely by historical happenstance.

Soll also fails to evaluate theories based on their empirical results. By attributing phenomena like economic inequality or the 2008 financial crisis solely to free-market policies, without considering broader contributing factors, he oversimplifies complex economic realities. His method of associating free-market theory with right-wing extremism further detracts from the book’s academic integrity, introducing politicized attacks rather than objective critique.

In terms of misrepresentation, Soll portrays free-market advocates as denying any role for government, which is inaccurate. Free-market theorists recognize essential government roles in addressing market failures such as monopolies, enforcing contracts, and managing externalities. Soll’s assertion that market failures disprove free-market theory overlooks the fact that these problems are well-studied within the theory itself.

His conflation of domestic free-market policy with international free trade is similarly problematic. International trade operates without a global regulatory authority comparable to domestic governance, complicating simplistic comparisons between national and global markets. While domestic free markets rely on established legal systems, enforceable contracts, and regulatory bodies to function effectively, international trade occurs in a fragmented environment lacking a universal enforcement mechanism. Thus, the analogy between the two not only overlooks fundamental structural differences but also obscures the fact that international trade inherently involves a higher degree of government intervention and negotiation to address risks, ensure fairness, and stabilize transactions between sovereign nations.

When judging a policy, it is crucial to clearly define the intended goals. In this regard, Soll's book conflates different objectives that guide economic policymaking, resulting in significant logical confusion. Free-market theories primarily focus on economic productivity and efficiency. Their objective is to maximize overall output rather than to address social concerns such as wealth distribution or national security. Societies, however, pursue a multitude of goals beyond economic productivity. These additional aims are typically supported through separate political or social policies rather than through free-market mechanisms alone. Therefore, criticizing free-market policies for failing to resolve economic inequality is not a fair assessment, as inequality mitigation is not their primary objective.

In contrast, economic theories that advocate for greater government intervention often aim to address broader objectives like reducing inequality, enhancing international competitiveness, or achieving greater social cohesion. Comparing these interventionist policies directly with free-market approaches, without acknowledging the difference in underlying goals, leads to an unfair and misleading evaluation.

This conflation becomes particularly problematic when Soll critiques American free-market policies by simultaneously highlighting two alleged failures: the high level of economic inequality in the United States and the country's slower economic growth compared to China, where the government exercises considerable economic control. This line of critique overlooks a key fact: China itself exhibits even greater economic inequality than the United States. By switching between different evaluative objectives—sometimes emphasizing growth, other times emphasizing equality—without maintaining a consistent standard, Soll undermines the coherence of his argument and misrepresents the complexities involved in evaluating economic systems.

The book’s attempt to use historical evolution as evidence against free-market theories is also flawed. Economic theories must be assessed based on their logical coherence and empirical results, not historical primacy.

Soll’s portrayal of Adam Smith, focusing heavily on Smith’s skepticism of merchant selfishness, is particularly misleading. While it is true that Smith recognized the dangers of unchecked merchant behavior and stressed the importance of moral standards, this interpretation is not a novel revelation but a well-established understanding among scholars. Soll presents it as if it undermines the foundational arguments of free-market theory, yet he fails to provide new evidence or insights that challenge the core principles Smith advocated, such as the benefits of market competition and the invisible hand mechanism. Thus, his reinterpretation of Smith adds little to the existing academic discourse and does not substantiate his broader critique of free-market thought. Similarly, Soll’s limited treatment of Keynes ignores critical practical challenges to Keynesianism, including the well-documented difficulty of reversing deficit spending during periods of economic expansion.

Key omissions further weaken the work. Major examples like Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, which demonstrated that twentieth-century America was not consistently dominated by free-market thinking, are conspicuously absent. The New Deal represented a significant expansion of government intervention in the economy, challenging the notion that free-market principles have been the prevailing norm in American policy throughout modern history. Additionally, the book largely overlooks the policy legacies of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, whose administrations showcased the application and adaptation of free-market principles in response to economic stagnation and inflation. These historical cases would have provided critical context for understanding the ebb and flow of economic ideologies over time. Furthermore, the exclusion of influential free-market scholars like Thomas Sowell, who has made substantial contributions to connecting free-market theories with social and economic policy debates, further narrows the intellectual scope of the narrative and undermines the book's attempt at a comprehensive critique.

Conversely, Soll's inclusion of Ayn Rand among free-market thinkers is a problematic categorization that politicizes the economic discussion. Rand was a novelist and philosopher, not an economist, and her contributions centered on political philosophy and cultural commentary rather than economic analysis. Her advocacy for individualism and opposition to collectivism resonate with some free-market ideas, but they do not constitute a foundational contribution to economic theory. By presenting Rand as a representative figure of free-market economics, Soll introduces unnecessary political coloring into what should be an objective and empirical evaluation. This move distorts the intellectual tradition of free-market thought, which is grounded in rigorous economic debate, and shifts the focus toward ideological and political controversies.

Finally, Soll’s portrayal of China as an alternative model is misleading. Although China’s GDP growth is impressive, its per capita income remains modest, and its levels of inequality are comparable to or higher than those in the United States. Countries like Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan, all of which embraced freer market systems during similar stages of development, achieved comparable or better results without the same level of government control. Moreover, China's recent economic troubles largely stem from its extensive government interventions, challenging Soll’s optimistic depiction.

In sum, "Free Market: The History of an Idea" offers an engaging historical narrative but falls short as a credible critique of free-market economics. Soll’s selective presentation, logical inconsistencies, omission of critical debates, and politicization of intellectual traditions severely limit the book’s academic contribution. While the historical material is valuable, readers should approach Soll’s broader conclusions with caution and seek additional sources to gain a fuller understanding of the development and realities of free-market thought.

By the way, for an insightful and balanced review of the book, see the New York Times' analysis here: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/08/bo....

[Daniel Gusev · Rating 4 out of 5]

A philosophical discourse in the origins of free market ideas - rooted in the Roman speeches of Cicero (On Duty) borrowing from Greek Stoicism: reliant on institutional development as a function to sustain debate to keep a system balanced: whether it’s based on phisiocratical principles or that based on trade and finance as catalysing tools of wealth creation.

Soll narrates an interesting story as to how moral justifications of wealth creation informed development of entire systems of government (Colbert) or audit functions to keep them running smoothly (Dutch VOC or accounting books sponsored by Colbert, no matter they allowed the very Renaissance cities of Italy to flourish centuries before).

[Thom DeLair]

I've never read a book that so carefully walks through the evolution of free trade economic thinking. It begins in the Roman Republic with Cicero and ends with Milton Freedman in the late twentieth century. Like most economic history nonfiction, there is a sharp divide between the idealism from conservatives who promote free trade and the realities of history. Soll, like the rest of them, shows that governments and institutions play a huge role in developing markets. The free market can not exist unless a government or institution has the ability to enforce that. It's very easy and concise reading.

Below are some other books that, if interested in this book, relate closely but use more academic language.

[Sean Macaulay · Rating 5 out of 5]

A fascinating scholarly examination of the bedrock idea of modern libertarianism, especially the noble lineage of free market thought going back to the stoics and great thinkers like Cicero. Finding fresh insights into the likes of Adam Smith is no easy feat, and a courageous one too, I'd argue, given the hyena pack onslaught by partisan hacks on this book. It's almost as if the right-wing think tanks unleashed their gauleiters in group chat formation.

This is a nuanced study of the evolution of free market thought into zealotry over the centuries, and -- sacrilege, I know -- some of the limitations of an untrammeled free market. A bold book and a pertinent one given Argentina's recent election of Milei.

[Armen Shirvanian]

My interview with Professor Jacob Soll on "Free Market" for The Armen Show:

http://www.armenshirvanian.com/podcas...

[Logan · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book was bad. Soll could not keep the thread. He begins with Cicero and Rome and calls the slave based Roman oligarchy and monarchy a free market. Then he tells us that the serfdom of the middle ages is a free market. And so on down the line of history. He says everyone has practiced free markets and they're bad. Except, every example he gives is about government intervention in the economy.

I suppose he was trying to tell how the idea evolved, but its confusing and just silly to try and say that an economy based on slavery or where the government has granted a monolopy to a company is a free market.

The funny thing is, he mentions several times when governments deregulate and the economy picks up but then he talks about how the government got involved again and that's free market thinking.

He only spends the last 30 pages of his 388 pages discussing modern free market theory and dismisses it out of hand because its proponents have fans in the far right and also worked for the government, so they're hypocrites.

This was a bad book and a waste of time, even if you agree with Soll that capitalism is the worst. The writing was poor, the research was spotty, the contentions were specious, and it wasn't exploring an idea as much as a personal vendetta against anyone who thinks any form of capitalism is a good way to organize an economy. There are much better books argue with logic against free markets, don't waste your time on this one.

[B · Rating 4 out of 5]

Soll traces the origin of the “free market” idea to the Roman times, its subsequent development through the Middle Ages, and its multiple distortions since the 18th century, before ending with its most recent versions under the Austrian, Chicago and libertarian schools of thoughts where the varying hues of oversimplified laissez-faire approach with extensive deregulation of industries and expansion of private property defined it more than anything else.

Comprehensive in its scope, albeit a bit superficial in its exploration and mechanical in writing style, the first part of Soll’s “tour” analyses the idea of free market first through Cicero’s stance of idealistic stoic morality (through common bond of goodwill) where the aristocratic farmer class would form the bulk of the economy (through virtuous philosophical trade”) while also acting as disinterested public servants, and rein in the rather contemptable merchant class. It is interesting that 18 centuries on, and another great thinker in the name of Adam Smith would take on a very similar stance arguing that “if elite, educated men focused on agriculture and exchanged goods righteously and ethically, the market would work on its own,” all the while, not unlike Cicero, embracing slavery, elite parliamentarianism, and the landowning oligarchy of his times.

Soll then aptly points out how the virtue of civic morality was replaced by divine and the spiritual reward in the afterlife (as was the state by the church) which in turn was slowly replaced by the secular concepts of utility and personal choice of the Renaissance humanists and beyond, how the attitudes changed about merchants (the burgeoning class of burghers), how the wealth was perceived (it was only with St. Augustine that it the church stopped condemning wealth outright!) and delves into philosophical differences among early and late Christian and scholastic thinkers (such as Saint Thomas Acquinas, Francis of Assisi, and Ockham among many lesser known ones) and their related orders (Dominican, Franciscan etc.)

I was surprised to learn that some of the basic economic concepts I thought to have been discovered later and by economists, were actually conceived by these earlier thinkers --for example a Scottish monk by the name of Scotus explained the workings of the market purely from a secular perspective, or a Franciscan monk Olivi talked of the law of diminishing marginal utility long before the 18th century.

Soll provides a similarly compelling account of different schools of thought in 17th and 18th centuries (Jansenists versus absolutists, early industrialists versus agrarian-oriented physiocrats –incredibly the latter were living in some form of self-denial, oblivious to the exponential power of innovative technologies that made manufacturing and commerce far superior to agriculture!) Perhaps one could sympathize with the physiocrats to a certain extent, however. Even Adam Smith himself was an ardent believer in traditional agrarian British parliamentary society!

The book also provides a detailed overview of the statist mercantilist policies that were used by England, the Netherlands, France (here, the visionary Colbert, the pioneer of “development economist” who despite Louis XIV manages to transform a sluggish French economy into a powerhouse gets a deserved chapter), and the US in order to protect their nascent domestic industries well into the 20th century, and then discard them just as quickly to profess free-trade from the newly gained position of power.

Just as a side note, I found it rather amusing how a few of the great thinkers mentioned in the book would go to great lengths to justify some immoral theories through the use of their outstanding rhetorical capabilities. The famous Dutch humanist Grotius for example, composed a treatise justifying the Dutch wanton plundering of Spanish and Portuguese ships on rather shaky moral basis, in effect, sanctioning piracy. Even worse, he makes an apology for slavery. Another such controversial figure was the English philosopher Petty, who praised laissez-faire policies, whilst believing the English state to have a “moral prerogative to conquer the Irish lands and take their lands” because the Irish were not “productive enough.” Locke, however, takes the cake. We all know him as the main advocate of private property. Apparently, he meant that to apply only to “Christian” societies: “societies that were not already property and contract societies would have to become part of such a society through force.” In other words, “decency and civility” was reserved only for the “select ones.”

The author highlights how the state -contrary to what we are led to believe in current times, held an important role in most versions of the free market ideas, and that even the Godfather of the classical economics Adam Smith was skeptical of an economy left to be controlled only by merchants alone. Indeed, Smith was deeply suspicious of industry and private corporations as potential enemies of society.

Soll does emphasize that the current rigid free market approach has to be reformed to regain its respectability as an economic thought --China, for example, followed a Colbert-like absolutist capitalism, and adapted to the subtleties of present-day economics’ demands by leaving some role for the state. Great observation, but he fails to follow this up with specific suggestions, and, in my opinion, naively finds comfort by yearning for a return to Cicero’s way of thinking where “more important than riches were the principles of living in harmony with nature, cultivating learning and friendship, and doing the hard work of ethical stewardship.”

A few excerpts:

“The US and other democracies with liberal economies often fail to acknowledge that we are in an essentially abusive relationship with free market thought, looking to it for wealth creation and innovation while living and reliving endless cycles of deregulation, dangerous levels of debt, bankruptcies, frauds, and crashes followed by government bailouts, growing monopolies, wealth inequality, and political instability.”

“O tempora, o mores!” (Cicero on Catiline’s financial greed and corruption)

“Our virtues are usually vices in disguise.” (De La Rochefoucauld)

“Self-interest, blamed for our misdeeds, often deserves credit for our good actions.” (De La Rochefoucauld)

[Casey · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good book, providing a detailed history of economic theory prior to Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations. The author, economic historian and philosopher Jacob Soll, presents Smith’s work not as the genesis of modern economic thought but rather as a late 18th century culmination of western economic philosophy. Starting with its origins in the Ancient World, Soll traces the philosophic study of market forces through the Middle Ages, Renaissance, and Enlightenment. The wide range of economic theories he describes demonstrate a constant strain between the realities of human nature and the attempts to create perpetuating economic growth. Soll argues that Smith, rather than introducing a new form of libertarian free trade, was actually piecing together a symbiosis between market forces and rationale intervention by enlightened leaders. The book ends with a lengthy narrative of the post-Smith economic theories of free markets and their divergence from Smith’s work when understood in its historical context. A great book for understanding the many concepts of a free market. Recommended for anyone wanting to improve their knowledge of basic market dynamics.

[Megan Tee · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book has issues, it has factual errors. I thought the most ridiculous ones were the ones about James II's daughter Mary and Mary's sister Anne became James II's sister and Mary's daughter. But yet, there is a lot of soundness to his arguments, he made a pretty accurate representation of the thought of Machiavelli, Grotius, Hobbes, Smith, Ricardo, even gave me an insight to Mill that I have literally never seen before, like who knew about Socialism. As a book, it is incredibly ambitious in scope, two thousand years, a whole new way of seeing things. It has its mistakes, and yet, there is much for me to chew about and think about. If anything, it did what it wanted to do, it challenged what my vision of the free market was, which was self-regulating mechanism, that was complicated when I first began to study political economy you know the ironic tension where many countries used mercantilism to pull up the ladder by promoting free trade, yeah, that's it. And where did we go, any state intervention at all is socialism. The conclusion is there is no model, not when so many were historically contingent and a battle of ideas

[Jatan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Soll breezily traces the intellectual history of free market thought from Cicero to Friedman via medieval and Enlightenment Europe as well as 20th century USA.

I particularly enjoyed the discussion of Colbertian industrial policy in early 17th century France followed by the emergence of physiocratic thought after the devastating Franco-British wars towards the end of that century. These ideas, along with Hume’s empiricism, were the major influences on Adam Smith — who, the book argues compellingly, is an inappropriate poster child of modern free market economics.

[Jonah James · Rating 2 out of 5]

There were elements of a good book here, but Soll's total commitment to pushing a thesis ultimately ruins it. He does not understand the economists and intellectuals he attempts to critique and passes over-thinkers and data that would be inconsistent with Soll's central message. The most offensive part of this book is the author's lack of academic rigor. On multiple occasions, he incorrectly assigns beliefs, quotes, and ideas to various people. It goes far enough in some places, especially regarding Hayek and von Mises, to border on turning into willful slander.

[Randy · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very interesting history about the deep historical root of free market, can be used as a summary of the thoughts of many important figures, such as Cicero, Colbert, Smith, Ricardo, Marshall, Robinson, Keynes, Hayek, Friedman, to name a few. I totally agree with the author's attitude that economics (and other social sciences) is much messier that the physical sciences, and it's dangerous to ignore facts which contradict one's beliefs.

[Charlie Haviland · Rating 3 out of 5]

An interesting look at the use of markets throughout much of human history. Unfortunately I can’t really recommend the audiobook since I found the narrator’s voice to be very uninteresting and I struggled to pay attention at times

[Varad · Rating 2 out of 5]

My review of the book for The Washington Examiner:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op...


VM
Wednesday 3/8/23

[S · Rating 3 out of 5]

great run through of history, at times it felt like it got stuck on some topics, loved the constant quoting, I wished the conclusion was more radical/nuanced

[Nate Campbell · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very good history of the free market ideal. Heavy on the Christian influence of market forces and activities. Well written and researched. Enjoyable book.

[Miguel · Rating 5 out of 5]

In a lecture I watched with Soll, he complained that he was being review-bombed by some of the GMU folks - I gave a quick perusal and only saw the Reason dude give their usual free-market spiel. Regardless, I enjoyed this 'alternative take' on markets and the quite deep historical aspects that Soll was able to highlight here.