What do you think?
Rate this book
The Progress Illusion: Reclaiming Our Future from the Fairytale of Economics
We live under the illusion of as long as GDP is going up and prices stay low, we accept poverty and pollution as unfortunate but inevitable byproducts of a successful economy. In fact, the infallibility of the free market and the necessity of endless growth are so ingrained in the public consciousness that they seem like scientific fact. Jon Erickson asks, why? With the planet in peril and humanity in crisis, how did we get duped into believing the fairytale of economics? And how can we get past the illusion to design an economy that is socially just and ecologically balanced?
In The Progress Illusion , Erickson charts the rise of the economic worldview and its infiltration into our daily lives as a theory of everything. Drawing on his own experience as a young economist inoculated in the 1980s era of “greed is good,” Erickson shows how pseudoscience came to dominate economic thought. He pokes holes in the conventional wisdom of neo-classical economics, illustrating how flawed theories about financial decision-making and maximizing efficiency ignore human psychology and morality. Most importantly, he demonstrates how that thinking shaped our politics and determined the course of American public policy. The result has been a system that perpetually concentrates wealth in the hands of a few, while depleting the natural resources on which economies are based.
While the history of economics is dismal indeed, Erickson is part of a vigorous reform effort grounded in the realities of life on a finite planet. This new brand of economics is both gaining steam in academia and supporting social activism. The goal is people over profit, community over consumption, and resilience over recklessness. Erickson shows crafting a new economic story is the first step toward turning away from endless growth and towards enduring prosperity.
In The Progress Illusion , Erickson charts the rise of the economic worldview and its infiltration into our daily lives as a theory of everything. Drawing on his own experience as a young economist inoculated in the 1980s era of “greed is good,” Erickson shows how pseudoscience came to dominate economic thought. He pokes holes in the conventional wisdom of neo-classical economics, illustrating how flawed theories about financial decision-making and maximizing efficiency ignore human psychology and morality. Most importantly, he demonstrates how that thinking shaped our politics and determined the course of American public policy. The result has been a system that perpetually concentrates wealth in the hands of a few, while depleting the natural resources on which economies are based.
While the history of economics is dismal indeed, Erickson is part of a vigorous reform effort grounded in the realities of life on a finite planet. This new brand of economics is both gaining steam in academia and supporting social activism. The goal is people over profit, community over consumption, and resilience over recklessness. Erickson shows crafting a new economic story is the first step toward turning away from endless growth and towards enduring prosperity.
272 pages, Paperback
Published December 1, 2022
10 people are currently reading
282 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews
November 11, 2022
The Dismal Science, aka economics, is both the most critical to modern society and its weakest, most disorganized science. To read Jon Erickson’s The Progress Illusion, economics has never been science-driven, but rather personality driven. Erickson is an economist of a particular flavor – ecological economist, which either makes him part of the solution or particularly frustrated – or both.
Erickson describes the history of economics as entirely personality driven. Every era has had its economics superstar, whose theories turn economics on its head and point it in a new direction. The new approach worms its way in to government statistics, economic theory, and unfortunately, major decisions, until the next superstar points out its weaknesses and posits yet another new way. It’s a neverending cycle, because, as every economist knows, the theory is always inadequate and incomplete. Just as every economic model is invalid. They never reflect the real world, and have essentially no reliable predictive power.
Economics looks very different when presented as a series of star turns, rather than a theory continually enhanced. The names of the superstars are familiar: Adam Smith, Malthus, Mill, Henry George, Keynes, Hayek, Galbraith, Friedman – every one of them has led economics his own way. And yet, Erickson says, at no point has economics taken account of the costs involved in the illusion we call the economy. It has never incorporated the effects of pollution, climate change, depletion and robbing the Earth of its assets without compensation. It doesn’t even count housework or volunteering as contributing any value.
Rather, economics has gone out of its way to minimize the effects: “Agriculture, the part of the economy that is sensitive to climate change, accounts for just three percent of national output. This means there is no way to get a very large effect on the US economy.” This bit of unrestrained ignorance comes from the highly respected Professor William Nordhaus of Yale, who tried to turn the world into a cost-benefit model, and thereby miseducated thousands of economists to be.
The reason individuals can shift economics around to their way of thinking is that economics has yet to discover its own scientific basis. There is nothing that applies in all cases. There are no universal truths in economics. Erickson cites JK Galbraith that “economic ideas are always and intimately a product of their own time and place; they cannot be seen apart from the world they interpret.” This is fashion, not science.
It’s also largely a(nother) white man’s discipline. Erickson is delighted to quote Joan Robinson of the UK (He gives her the only exclamation point in the book), who said: “The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.” The misogyny seems just to be icing on the cake of a science that revels in its sloppy refusal to be scientific. Clearly, Erickson is in her camp.
Despite its glaring weaknesses, economics has made itself so important, the current age has been referred to as the Econocene, long before environmentalists renamed it the Anthropocene. Economism (coined by Lenin in 1899) rules society, and its rules are simply market logic, as far as that goes. We are obsessed with economics, and it is a false god.
Today’s would-be economists learn that the market solves everything. That any issue can be resolved by adapting the price. This is called neoliberalism, and it is bringing the world to its knees. Worse perhaps, universities only teach capitalism vs state socialism; you’d never know there were any other possibilities.
For today’s economists, it is all about growth. They teach that you can grow your way out of anything. Their prescription for overheated economies as well as recessions is more growth, Erickson says. Easy money and more growth mean entrepreneurs will come up with new ways to reduce pollution! But they don’t say that it will result in far more fossil fuel consumption because it is safer. We mine minerals better now, so we mine more of them. We find more uses for fossil fuels now, so we burn more. We have a better handle on health, so populations increase and consume more. The rules of the market say so. The planet suffers with every percent of growth.
Growth attitude has rationalized everything it has come up against. “Depletion, pollution and extinction were not simply market failures, but rather market features,” Erickson says. To alleviate poverty (without harming the rich), countries must grow 3-5% annually. This is not only unattainable, but totally misguided. He says Earth’s wealth comes mostly from photosynthesis, not the transfers of paper money. “Economics clings to growth as the solution to the very problems created by growth.” This vicious circle is the foundation of the science.
The way it has worked for last thousand years is more like what Cambridge economist Ha-Joon Chang says: “Once poor people are persuaded that their poverty is their own fault, that whoever has made a lot of money must deserve it and that they too could become rich if they tried hard enough, life becomes easier for the rich.” The USA is the poster child for this approach, as voters flooded the polls for a populist whose priority was more income for billionaires like him. They continue to preach the trickle-down effect, which has been proven worthless for centuries.
Erickson minces no words: “I am convinced that economics as currently taught and practiced throughout the world is a planetary path to ruin.” And “An economics born of and simultaneously ignorant of power and privilege reinforces that oppression […] The fiction of ‘free’ markets as the organizing principle of democratic societies is the ultimate hypocrisy of Econ 101.”
(Econ 101 is the introductory course to college economics. Erickson says it is the single most chosen course of all, and writing the next textbook for it is a primary goal for economists. It means automatic millions every year, until the next superstar writes a newer one.)
The nonsense in economics is plentiful. Erickson cites a study by a Harvard professor who concluded that cigarette smoking be subsidized rather than taxed, because cigarettes save the government massive amounts of money when smokers die younger than current life expectancy. The whole discipline continues to employ a straw man — homo economicus — who makes rational decisions, always in his favor and best interests, and always in a timely fashion to take the most advantage of circumstances. All economists know this is fantasy: that consumers wait too long, move incorrectly and decide against their own best interests all the time. It is only rarely that they come out ahead. Yet economics continues to model the world this way. Erickson says “the education of the economist is complete when all ethical or scientific qualms are set aside.” And homo economicus is a mandatory concept in it.
Regarding the planet, sustainability is a nonstarter if everything is focused on more growth. Real sustainability can only come with a refocus on community and the environment. And it appears that only the few ecological economists bend that way.
They cling to the UN’s Bruntland Commission and its report For The Common Good as the only realistic approach to surviving unending growth, which, given a finite planet, is self-evidently impossible anyway. That report called for capitalism to start paying its own way with taxes for depletion and pollution, building more self-sufficiency instead of global supply chains, and reducing military spending. It means recognizing unpaid work, such as housework, which is worth about $40,000 a year per household. This kind of thinking would totally reshape economics and economic theory, not to mention make it more comprehensive and accurate. Because none of this is counted in the stats used by every nation, to measure its performance and budget for the next period.
It has been left to a small band of ecological economists to try to get their science to recognize its inadequacy to do what it says it does: accurately reflect the way the world works. So, Erickson says, shouldn’t the environment incorporate the economy instead the economy incorporating the environment? When things are this upside down, the road to real value is very, very long. And steep. He says it has to do with the evolution of education. Its Judeo-Christian roots make all “natural resources” God’s gift to Man, and therefore outside the calculation. This same worldview has corrupted law, ethics and the market society as well, he says.
Erickson is part of gang called E4A (Economists for the Anthropocene), which promotes the scientific inclusion of all relevant data, particularly the totally ignored environmental aspects. This book serves as a great foundation for its need. Erickson’s no-nonsense refusal to succumb to orthodox economics is not just easy and a pleasure to read, but also a penetrating and thoroughly rational look at the contradiction he has been living for decades. He has always been an environmentalist, and his chosen career’s suppression of it has caused this explosion of a polemic. And as you can see – eminently quotable.
The Progress Illusion could have been even more critical. It could for example have taken on Stephen Pinker and his unsubstantiated cup overflowing view of economics. But the way Erickson has structured and executed here makes attacking the Pinkers of the world (including his naïve acolyte Bill Gates) almost a trivial pursuit. This book hits hard enough for everyone.
David Wineberg
(The Progress Illusion, Jon Erickson, December 2022)
If you liked this review, I invite you to read more in my book The Straight Dope. It’s an essay collection based on my first thousand reviews and what I learned. Right now it’s FREE for Prime members, otherwise — cheap! Reputed to be fascinating and a superfast read. And you already know it is well-written. https://www.amazon.com/Straight-Dope-...
Erickson describes the history of economics as entirely personality driven. Every era has had its economics superstar, whose theories turn economics on its head and point it in a new direction. The new approach worms its way in to government statistics, economic theory, and unfortunately, major decisions, until the next superstar points out its weaknesses and posits yet another new way. It’s a neverending cycle, because, as every economist knows, the theory is always inadequate and incomplete. Just as every economic model is invalid. They never reflect the real world, and have essentially no reliable predictive power.
Economics looks very different when presented as a series of star turns, rather than a theory continually enhanced. The names of the superstars are familiar: Adam Smith, Malthus, Mill, Henry George, Keynes, Hayek, Galbraith, Friedman – every one of them has led economics his own way. And yet, Erickson says, at no point has economics taken account of the costs involved in the illusion we call the economy. It has never incorporated the effects of pollution, climate change, depletion and robbing the Earth of its assets without compensation. It doesn’t even count housework or volunteering as contributing any value.
Rather, economics has gone out of its way to minimize the effects: “Agriculture, the part of the economy that is sensitive to climate change, accounts for just three percent of national output. This means there is no way to get a very large effect on the US economy.” This bit of unrestrained ignorance comes from the highly respected Professor William Nordhaus of Yale, who tried to turn the world into a cost-benefit model, and thereby miseducated thousands of economists to be.
The reason individuals can shift economics around to their way of thinking is that economics has yet to discover its own scientific basis. There is nothing that applies in all cases. There are no universal truths in economics. Erickson cites JK Galbraith that “economic ideas are always and intimately a product of their own time and place; they cannot be seen apart from the world they interpret.” This is fashion, not science.
It’s also largely a(nother) white man’s discipline. Erickson is delighted to quote Joan Robinson of the UK (He gives her the only exclamation point in the book), who said: “The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.” The misogyny seems just to be icing on the cake of a science that revels in its sloppy refusal to be scientific. Clearly, Erickson is in her camp.
Despite its glaring weaknesses, economics has made itself so important, the current age has been referred to as the Econocene, long before environmentalists renamed it the Anthropocene. Economism (coined by Lenin in 1899) rules society, and its rules are simply market logic, as far as that goes. We are obsessed with economics, and it is a false god.
Today’s would-be economists learn that the market solves everything. That any issue can be resolved by adapting the price. This is called neoliberalism, and it is bringing the world to its knees. Worse perhaps, universities only teach capitalism vs state socialism; you’d never know there were any other possibilities.
For today’s economists, it is all about growth. They teach that you can grow your way out of anything. Their prescription for overheated economies as well as recessions is more growth, Erickson says. Easy money and more growth mean entrepreneurs will come up with new ways to reduce pollution! But they don’t say that it will result in far more fossil fuel consumption because it is safer. We mine minerals better now, so we mine more of them. We find more uses for fossil fuels now, so we burn more. We have a better handle on health, so populations increase and consume more. The rules of the market say so. The planet suffers with every percent of growth.
Growth attitude has rationalized everything it has come up against. “Depletion, pollution and extinction were not simply market failures, but rather market features,” Erickson says. To alleviate poverty (without harming the rich), countries must grow 3-5% annually. This is not only unattainable, but totally misguided. He says Earth’s wealth comes mostly from photosynthesis, not the transfers of paper money. “Economics clings to growth as the solution to the very problems created by growth.” This vicious circle is the foundation of the science.
The way it has worked for last thousand years is more like what Cambridge economist Ha-Joon Chang says: “Once poor people are persuaded that their poverty is their own fault, that whoever has made a lot of money must deserve it and that they too could become rich if they tried hard enough, life becomes easier for the rich.” The USA is the poster child for this approach, as voters flooded the polls for a populist whose priority was more income for billionaires like him. They continue to preach the trickle-down effect, which has been proven worthless for centuries.
Erickson minces no words: “I am convinced that economics as currently taught and practiced throughout the world is a planetary path to ruin.” And “An economics born of and simultaneously ignorant of power and privilege reinforces that oppression […] The fiction of ‘free’ markets as the organizing principle of democratic societies is the ultimate hypocrisy of Econ 101.”
(Econ 101 is the introductory course to college economics. Erickson says it is the single most chosen course of all, and writing the next textbook for it is a primary goal for economists. It means automatic millions every year, until the next superstar writes a newer one.)
The nonsense in economics is plentiful. Erickson cites a study by a Harvard professor who concluded that cigarette smoking be subsidized rather than taxed, because cigarettes save the government massive amounts of money when smokers die younger than current life expectancy. The whole discipline continues to employ a straw man — homo economicus — who makes rational decisions, always in his favor and best interests, and always in a timely fashion to take the most advantage of circumstances. All economists know this is fantasy: that consumers wait too long, move incorrectly and decide against their own best interests all the time. It is only rarely that they come out ahead. Yet economics continues to model the world this way. Erickson says “the education of the economist is complete when all ethical or scientific qualms are set aside.” And homo economicus is a mandatory concept in it.
Regarding the planet, sustainability is a nonstarter if everything is focused on more growth. Real sustainability can only come with a refocus on community and the environment. And it appears that only the few ecological economists bend that way.
They cling to the UN’s Bruntland Commission and its report For The Common Good as the only realistic approach to surviving unending growth, which, given a finite planet, is self-evidently impossible anyway. That report called for capitalism to start paying its own way with taxes for depletion and pollution, building more self-sufficiency instead of global supply chains, and reducing military spending. It means recognizing unpaid work, such as housework, which is worth about $40,000 a year per household. This kind of thinking would totally reshape economics and economic theory, not to mention make it more comprehensive and accurate. Because none of this is counted in the stats used by every nation, to measure its performance and budget for the next period.
It has been left to a small band of ecological economists to try to get their science to recognize its inadequacy to do what it says it does: accurately reflect the way the world works. So, Erickson says, shouldn’t the environment incorporate the economy instead the economy incorporating the environment? When things are this upside down, the road to real value is very, very long. And steep. He says it has to do with the evolution of education. Its Judeo-Christian roots make all “natural resources” God’s gift to Man, and therefore outside the calculation. This same worldview has corrupted law, ethics and the market society as well, he says.
Erickson is part of gang called E4A (Economists for the Anthropocene), which promotes the scientific inclusion of all relevant data, particularly the totally ignored environmental aspects. This book serves as a great foundation for its need. Erickson’s no-nonsense refusal to succumb to orthodox economics is not just easy and a pleasure to read, but also a penetrating and thoroughly rational look at the contradiction he has been living for decades. He has always been an environmentalist, and his chosen career’s suppression of it has caused this explosion of a polemic. And as you can see – eminently quotable.
The Progress Illusion could have been even more critical. It could for example have taken on Stephen Pinker and his unsubstantiated cup overflowing view of economics. But the way Erickson has structured and executed here makes attacking the Pinkers of the world (including his naïve acolyte Bill Gates) almost a trivial pursuit. This book hits hard enough for everyone.
David Wineberg
(The Progress Illusion, Jon Erickson, December 2022)
If you liked this review, I invite you to read more in my book The Straight Dope. It’s an essay collection based on my first thousand reviews and what I learned. Right now it’s FREE for Prime members, otherwise — cheap! Reputed to be fascinating and a superfast read. And you already know it is well-written. https://www.amazon.com/Straight-Dope-...
October 20, 2023
Erickson herein primarily answers this question: is it possible for the author of an academic nonfiction book to include way too much of his own personal life narrative? Why yes, yes it is.
Instead of this read Katherine Hayhoe's Saving Us and Michael Mann's Next Climate War. Hayhoe has written the best environmental action manual and Mann fully explains the realistic politics and economics of climate.
Erickson's last chapter blueprint for a new economy is non-rigorous flimflam and wishfull imagining. He's frustrated that his "lifetime of advocating for incremental change" hasn't reduced carbon emissions, nor been adopted broadly anywhere. He pines for Occupy Wall Street to have become something. He doesn't want to look for technology solutions like BECCS. As with Holthaus' Future Earth, he does active harm by proposing societal changes that well informed people would reject (for themselves and their progeny) and that make uninformed voters pull out the pitchforks against elites stealing their trucks and raising their gas prices.
Erickson really wants to come off as a good guy.. speaking early for the climate and providing supportive analysis behind Bernie's green new deal. And heck, he's achieved a lot more writing and documentary film-making than I have. But his light blog website oversells his CV, framing him as a policy academic, and positioning this as his first sole-authored book.
Why did macro and micro economics develop the way they did? “The short answer: a wealthy elite has always liked this model a lot.” (P38) well, yeah, um, duh. But Erikson does rigorous map the development of the field through Marshall, Mankiw and Walras between 1880-1950, and shows alternatives like Henry George’s Progress and Poverty. But i personally didn’t need the details of this history of economics, though perhaps more than I wanted his personal academic history which consumed all of chapter one. More than 30% through, I’m just frustrated by the slow meandering start.
On p73, I learned that FDR devalued the dollar by 60% when adjusting the gold standard in 1944 at the start of Bretton Woods. This suggests that traditional mercantilism was the source of 1950s prosperity, which is not how I’ve ever heard it before. The Austrian school of von Mises and von Hayak was apparently at least partly in response to this, and the battle with Keynes still persists today.
The author is my age, but his style is wrong for me.. much more academic than popular/entertaining, yet the endnotes are a classic format, of primarily older paper sources. Not sure why.. but it makes him feel much older to me.
For claiming a mathematical "photographic memory", Erickson makes some mistakes visible even to me. He cites in first in passing and then in depth on pg96, a 1997 study valuing "nature" at $33T (endnote#10 in ch1), which I remember as valuing "nature's services to humanity" and aiming to show a rediculously high number to start a discussion. The study specified the value of environmental services annually, at a rate (at the time, if I remember right) near the level to the total global gdp. Not the value of the asset, the value of the annual service. This would value the asset itself at many times the value of gdp, but no one discussed this.
He also hallucinates enemies, lumping Karl Popper in with the Austrian economic school, mislabeling him a Libertarian.
Author notes that his early research focused on the destinction of "fundamental commodities" on which the entire system rests vs services built on top of these that might contribute more value to gdp, but are impossible without the commodity. This would extend very validly to semiconductors/compute, our decaying industrial base, and human development of skill (for say medicine or education) but the author limits himself at food, and doesn't extend this idea, which is key to national security and a potent criticism of the conventional economics he decries. FFS, he is writing during a corona pandemic where the government is considering invoking the defense production act for vaccines and medical PPE.
On p128 I'm now two-thirds finished, and finally our long plodding historical journey through economics has arrived at the time of our shared childhood, with Sagan (Cosmos) and Quinn (Ishmael) making heartwarming appearances. Yet his paragraphs just wander, and I still haven't found the book's thesis, and neither has the guy who borrow this same paper copy from the library and jotted frustrated pencil note. This reviewer and i could both only scream WTF on p142, where Erikson slides in that we need a "hard break from the past" of economic growth, colonialism and technology. Why? Well, because at this moment we've not reduced global carbon emissions, even though he does conceed that we more than doubled global "energy productivity" in the 15yrs up to 2014. Um. He even disagrees that Herman Daly's praise of efficiency is inadequate, and that everyone's frugality is necessary. And here we fall from 3 stars to two, because as soon as he turns voting citizens against his policies, then his advocacy becomes a negative for environmentalism. And his beloved green new deal would become a pariah.
The 5 pages on COVID (p149-154) are a perfect sample of how to 'cover a very important topic' without saying even one single thing of lasting value, concluding only that it presents an opportunity for his "new economy", which turns out to be a very shallow visit to psychology and neurobiology, around a screed against some tyranny that makes us as a society choose anti-climate consumerism, because of "human nature". Again I nod along with pencil reviewer's doubt whether author's roman catholic upbringing included enough caregiver love.
The forward was contributed by the icon to the field Herman Daly, who died in 2022 and is appropriately praised in various sections. I wish Erickson good fortune as he strives to match the impact and quality of his mentor over his remaining career.
Instead of this read Katherine Hayhoe's Saving Us and Michael Mann's Next Climate War. Hayhoe has written the best environmental action manual and Mann fully explains the realistic politics and economics of climate.
Erickson's last chapter blueprint for a new economy is non-rigorous flimflam and wishfull imagining. He's frustrated that his "lifetime of advocating for incremental change" hasn't reduced carbon emissions, nor been adopted broadly anywhere. He pines for Occupy Wall Street to have become something. He doesn't want to look for technology solutions like BECCS. As with Holthaus' Future Earth, he does active harm by proposing societal changes that well informed people would reject (for themselves and their progeny) and that make uninformed voters pull out the pitchforks against elites stealing their trucks and raising their gas prices.
Erickson really wants to come off as a good guy.. speaking early for the climate and providing supportive analysis behind Bernie's green new deal. And heck, he's achieved a lot more writing and documentary film-making than I have. But his light blog website oversells his CV, framing him as a policy academic, and positioning this as his first sole-authored book.
Why did macro and micro economics develop the way they did? “The short answer: a wealthy elite has always liked this model a lot.” (P38) well, yeah, um, duh. But Erikson does rigorous map the development of the field through Marshall, Mankiw and Walras between 1880-1950, and shows alternatives like Henry George’s Progress and Poverty. But i personally didn’t need the details of this history of economics, though perhaps more than I wanted his personal academic history which consumed all of chapter one. More than 30% through, I’m just frustrated by the slow meandering start.
On p73, I learned that FDR devalued the dollar by 60% when adjusting the gold standard in 1944 at the start of Bretton Woods. This suggests that traditional mercantilism was the source of 1950s prosperity, which is not how I’ve ever heard it before. The Austrian school of von Mises and von Hayak was apparently at least partly in response to this, and the battle with Keynes still persists today.
The author is my age, but his style is wrong for me.. much more academic than popular/entertaining, yet the endnotes are a classic format, of primarily older paper sources. Not sure why.. but it makes him feel much older to me.
For claiming a mathematical "photographic memory", Erickson makes some mistakes visible even to me. He cites in first in passing and then in depth on pg96, a 1997 study valuing "nature" at $33T (endnote#10 in ch1), which I remember as valuing "nature's services to humanity" and aiming to show a rediculously high number to start a discussion. The study specified the value of environmental services annually, at a rate (at the time, if I remember right) near the level to the total global gdp. Not the value of the asset, the value of the annual service. This would value the asset itself at many times the value of gdp, but no one discussed this.
He also hallucinates enemies, lumping Karl Popper in with the Austrian economic school, mislabeling him a Libertarian.
Author notes that his early research focused on the destinction of "fundamental commodities" on which the entire system rests vs services built on top of these that might contribute more value to gdp, but are impossible without the commodity. This would extend very validly to semiconductors/compute, our decaying industrial base, and human development of skill (for say medicine or education) but the author limits himself at food, and doesn't extend this idea, which is key to national security and a potent criticism of the conventional economics he decries. FFS, he is writing during a corona pandemic where the government is considering invoking the defense production act for vaccines and medical PPE.
On p128 I'm now two-thirds finished, and finally our long plodding historical journey through economics has arrived at the time of our shared childhood, with Sagan (Cosmos) and Quinn (Ishmael) making heartwarming appearances. Yet his paragraphs just wander, and I still haven't found the book's thesis, and neither has the guy who borrow this same paper copy from the library and jotted frustrated pencil note. This reviewer and i could both only scream WTF on p142, where Erikson slides in that we need a "hard break from the past" of economic growth, colonialism and technology. Why? Well, because at this moment we've not reduced global carbon emissions, even though he does conceed that we more than doubled global "energy productivity" in the 15yrs up to 2014. Um. He even disagrees that Herman Daly's praise of efficiency is inadequate, and that everyone's frugality is necessary. And here we fall from 3 stars to two, because as soon as he turns voting citizens against his policies, then his advocacy becomes a negative for environmentalism. And his beloved green new deal would become a pariah.
The 5 pages on COVID (p149-154) are a perfect sample of how to 'cover a very important topic' without saying even one single thing of lasting value, concluding only that it presents an opportunity for his "new economy", which turns out to be a very shallow visit to psychology and neurobiology, around a screed against some tyranny that makes us as a society choose anti-climate consumerism, because of "human nature". Again I nod along with pencil reviewer's doubt whether author's roman catholic upbringing included enough caregiver love.
The forward was contributed by the icon to the field Herman Daly, who died in 2022 and is appropriately praised in various sections. I wish Erickson good fortune as he strives to match the impact and quality of his mentor over his remaining career.
Currently reading
April 26, 2023I'm only on the first chapter, but already this book feels like a breath of fresh air. Most econ-focused books I've read talk down to the reader with a hint of contempt for anyone who does not already understand or share their economic worldview.
Instead, Erickson takes the reader on a journey into the world of economics training, explaining what he likes, and what he sees as flaws. It's already a fun and informative read, and I'm looking forward to zooming through this.
Instead, Erickson takes the reader on a journey into the world of economics training, explaining what he likes, and what he sees as flaws. It's already a fun and informative read, and I'm looking forward to zooming through this.
August 30, 2024
Chapter 1 delivers a sumptuous, blistering critique of (invariably brain-dead) economists, and the book is worth reading for that alone.
The middle two-thirds are largely one long history lesson; useful knowledge, but perhaps not helpful in delivering what the title promises.
The ending picks up a bit, and the prose is more than effective - like in Chapter 1, albeit not exhibiting original thought - just what one wishes were obvious to a lot more people - it's still quote-worthy:
"Separating the economy from energy and material flows fails any scientific scrutiny, yet dominates the pedagogy and practice of economics. This isolated discipline confuses paper money and digital transfers with wealth, whereas most of Earth's true wealth is derived from photosynthesis.
Economics clings to growth as the solution to the very problems created by growth. And the model of rational man central to economic models and policy advice outright ignores modern behavioural sciences and common sense alike.
Economics has become what Peter Brown called "an orphan discipline"; its intellectual parents died long ago, yet the untethered child roams the halls of academia, doing great harm."
"An Economics at home with the sciences would see the production as a physical transformation of Earth's materials and energy from the sun, consistent with the laws of thermodynamics. It would recognise that the pace, distribution and scale of this transformation affects the wellbeing of all life."
Etc.
The middle two-thirds are largely one long history lesson; useful knowledge, but perhaps not helpful in delivering what the title promises.
The ending picks up a bit, and the prose is more than effective - like in Chapter 1, albeit not exhibiting original thought - just what one wishes were obvious to a lot more people - it's still quote-worthy:
"Separating the economy from energy and material flows fails any scientific scrutiny, yet dominates the pedagogy and practice of economics. This isolated discipline confuses paper money and digital transfers with wealth, whereas most of Earth's true wealth is derived from photosynthesis.
Economics clings to growth as the solution to the very problems created by growth. And the model of rational man central to economic models and policy advice outright ignores modern behavioural sciences and common sense alike.
Economics has become what Peter Brown called "an orphan discipline"; its intellectual parents died long ago, yet the untethered child roams the halls of academia, doing great harm."
"An Economics at home with the sciences would see the production as a physical transformation of Earth's materials and energy from the sun, consistent with the laws of thermodynamics. It would recognise that the pace, distribution and scale of this transformation affects the wellbeing of all life."
Etc.
December 6, 2024
That’s what I’ve been saying this whole time ! The Middlebury College economics department is an abomination.
January 19, 2025
A good introduction to an idea, but lacking substance.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
March 11, 2025
It’s a good introduction to ecological economics but lacks the depth needed for a truly compelling argument.
December 6, 2022
This is, in my view, one of the best general audience economics books, ranking alongside Prosperity Without Growth and Doughnut Economics as one of the must-read texts for anyone trying to get to grips with alternative conceptualisations of the economy from the mainstream economic narratives. Prof Erickson has played a huge role in the intellectual development of ecological economics and its application in society, and this book is full of excellent insightful little stories from the history of ecological economics from someone who actually experienced them; such as the discussions in Santiago around Costanza et al.'s 1997 paper on valuing the planet, accused of operationalising neoliberal values in ecological economics at the same time as riots were occurring outside the conference following the arrest of Pinochet. Prof Erickson's summary of the history of how alternative economic paradigms have been deliberately squeezed out of being represented in neoclassical economics under the influence of vested interests is a particular highlight; including the astonishing story of how land was omitted from the neoclassical production function under the deliberate influence of the US Robber Barons. Prof Erickson also reflects on teaching ecological economics, and I actually took one of the lectures he describes in the book and used it as a template for one of my own. But perhaps the best feature of the book is that Prof Erickson represents one of those rare academics who writes accessibly and beautifully; it reads like a piece of top-class fiction, whilst actually being rammed full of insight and deep expertise.
June 25, 2023
Solid overview, but nothing spectacular, of some alternatives to the neo-Keynesian "consensus."
First, the politics. I’d rate Erickson a left-liberal. By that, on economics, finance and related issues, he rejects neoliberalism, but appears to likely want to raise new economic edifices on a post-Keynesian (NOT neo-Keynesian, which is neoliberalism and you need to remember that!) basis. That said, there’s no indication he years for a post-capitalist neo-leftism.
Second? He makes clear that ecological environmentalists like himself are NOT environmental economists, who are basically … neoliberals! (And wolves in sheep’s clothing, one might add.)
Third, as I’ve long known, Smith’s “invisible hand” wasn’t all that in Smith’s own words. Those are (in part) later interpretations, and Erickson adds that Smith was a MORAL PHILOSOPHER and points to “A Theory of Moral Sentiments” coming nearly 20 years before “Wealth of Nations.” (I would go, and have gone, further. To the degree the “invisible hand” IS Smith’s own idea [and it is, to a fair degree] it’s based on an Enlightenment Deism that was politically, philosophically and scientifically demolished by two world wars, relativity theory and quantum physics. Bur, that’s why I’m a leftist of some sort and not a left-liberal.)
First, the politics. I’d rate Erickson a left-liberal. By that, on economics, finance and related issues, he rejects neoliberalism, but appears to likely want to raise new economic edifices on a post-Keynesian (NOT neo-Keynesian, which is neoliberalism and you need to remember that!) basis. That said, there’s no indication he years for a post-capitalist neo-leftism.
Second? He makes clear that ecological environmentalists like himself are NOT environmental economists, who are basically … neoliberals! (And wolves in sheep’s clothing, one might add.)
Third, as I’ve long known, Smith’s “invisible hand” wasn’t all that in Smith’s own words. Those are (in part) later interpretations, and Erickson adds that Smith was a MORAL PHILOSOPHER and points to “A Theory of Moral Sentiments” coming nearly 20 years before “Wealth of Nations.” (I would go, and have gone, further. To the degree the “invisible hand” IS Smith’s own idea [and it is, to a fair degree] it’s based on an Enlightenment Deism that was politically, philosophically and scientifically demolished by two world wars, relativity theory and quantum physics. Bur, that’s why I’m a leftist of some sort and not a left-liberal.)
December 21, 2022
Erickson, an ecological economist at the University of Vermont, blends his critique of the mainstream approach to economics with personal anecdotes of his own intellectual journey through the field. Academic economics has taken an abstract, mathematical path that Erickson and others claim is increasingly unmoored from the experiences of real people and physical limits of our environment. Erickson skillfully blends elements of economic theory and history with insights from fellow economists as well as theologians, ecologists, and others. The Progress Illusion is an ambitious book that sets out to ground economics within the natural sciences and "study production as a physical transformation of Earth's materials and energy from the Sun, consistent with the laws of thermodynamics." Although that sounds daunting, Erickson's prose is accessible to a non-technical audience. Fans of Kate Raworth's "Doughnut Economics" and the work of economist Herman Daly will enjoy the book, as will newcomers to the field of ecological economics. Highly recommended!
August 25, 2023
Interesting book! Talks about ecological economics, which is a view on economics that abandons growth-at-all-costs in favor of growth in a way that is sustainable for the environment, given that resources are finite. Lots of stuff in here that I’ve read elsewhere (humans aren’t rational, wealth disparities are growing, etc) but some new stuff as well.
One interesting way of phrasing what ecological economics is about is when “economic decisions are based on emotions, personal values, and cultural influences, rather than a Vulcan-like analysis of marginal utility”. However, the most interesting summary was from an RFK speech in 1968 at the University of Kansas, where he said GDP measures “everything, except that which makes life worthwhile”. A bit of rhetorical flair there (GDP measures my Saturday oat milk cappuccinos and those definitely make life worthwhile), but thought-provoking nonetheless.
One interesting way of phrasing what ecological economics is about is when “economic decisions are based on emotions, personal values, and cultural influences, rather than a Vulcan-like analysis of marginal utility”. However, the most interesting summary was from an RFK speech in 1968 at the University of Kansas, where he said GDP measures “everything, except that which makes life worthwhile”. A bit of rhetorical flair there (GDP measures my Saturday oat milk cappuccinos and those definitely make life worthwhile), but thought-provoking nonetheless.
May 5, 2022
I am a biased reviewer seeing as I am a student of Jon's, but I thoroughly enjoyed this book. The history and current state of economic practice in the U.S. was illuminating and the writing was clear with relatable examples. There were many parts that I wanted to take and show to people in my life who are devout believers in a capitalistic system--to show them the gaps, contradictions, and opportunity for reform.
September 25, 2023
You have to go into this prepared with the fact that the intro covers the history of how unbridled capitalism was sold to the world through the pseudoscience of econ 101. It's boring, infuriating, but necessary to know. Then we get to the counter culture of eco, feminist, and other non 101 economic theories (ones based in actual science). Finally, we end at today with movements setting the stage but the desperate need for all of us to act.
March 27, 2024
Part history of neoliberal economics, part manifesto, The Progress Illusion is an urgent plea for an economy that does not devour the planet. Read my full review at https://inquisitivebiologist.com/2024...
September 30, 2024
Good intro to an alternative view on modern economics, very environment based though not very differentiated. Very aggressive writing style, basically a rant about neoclassical economics paired with the author's path towards ecological economics.
January 20, 2023
Finished. Good explanation of how the lunacy of economics not rooted in environmental, biological and geophysical realities has led us to our current plight.
September 17, 2024
a towering read
Phenomenal history of economics and exposê of the brutal ignorance of neoliberalism.
I learned a lot as a non-economist. Highly recommended.
Phenomenal history of economics and exposê of the brutal ignorance of neoliberalism.
I learned a lot as a non-economist. Highly recommended.
September 17, 2024
A good historical timeline of economic theory and the founding of ecological economics, written by a first-generation ecological economist.
January 1, 2024
We love a book that doesn’t lie
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews