Principles of Economics

by Alfred Marshall

British economist Alfred Marshall (1842-1924) was one of the founders of the "neoclassical" school in which economists studied both wealth and human behavior to understand why we make the choices we do. First published in 1890, Principles of Economics stands as Marshall's most influential work. This abridged edition offers a general introduction to the study of economics, dealing mainly with normal conditions of industry, employment, and wages. It begins by isolating the primary relations of supply, demand, and price in regard to a particular commodity. Following his study of science, history, and philosophy, Marshall argues that, while fragmentary statistical hypotheses are used as temporary aids to dynamic economic concepts, the central idea of economics must be that of a living force and movement, and its main concern must be with human beings who are impelled, for better or worse, to change and progress.

Genres: Economics, Nonfiction, Philosophy, Classics, Business, Academic, Politics

319 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1890

About the author

Alfred Marshall was one of the most influential economists of his time. His book, Principles of Economics (1890), was the dominant economic textbook in England for many years. It brings the ideas of supply and demand, marginal utility, and costs of production into a coherent whole. He is known as one of the founders of economics.

Reviews

[Marcel Santos · Rating 4 out of 5]

ENGLISH

With this indisputable classic of economic literature, Alfred Marshall founds the so-called Neoclassical School of Economics. He also institutes Economics as an academic discipline and the economist as a profession. The book can be seen as a review and consolidation of the economic literature produced up to Marshall’s time, but it also introduces new concepts, many of them still used today. Topics are addressed with impressive didacticism, typical of the most dedicated professors.

Although Marshall starts out from simple and direct premises, built up by classical authors, he seeks to reconcile them with new ideas introduced by the authors of the so-called “Marginalist Revolution”, which had recently preceded him.

Marshall is undoubtedly a complex author. It is interesting to read the work bearing in mind characteristics of the author's personality, which point to some — rich — contradictions.

Marshall is a man of his time and place (a “Victorian”, as some put it), who reveals concepts and prejudices of his origins, although he also presents modern and progressive ideas.

While he makes it clear from the beginning of the work that the economist must be concerned with poverty (something that, with the exception of Marx, had not appeared in other great preceding economists), Marshall's Economics is typically an Economics based on the standpoint of the ruling class. He does not answer the question he posed at the beginning of the work on whether there must be poverty in order to have wealth, and he does not develop analytical instruments focused on understanding the production of poverty, as Marx had done (my review here: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...). On the contrary, Marshall's analytical focus is the perspective of the elite, which comes from both the classical and the marginalist legacy, developed as from the prosperity of England’s Industrial Revolution. This is clear in several passages when he states that poverty results in moral degeneracy and harms the development of nations. Though his analytical system is based entirely on freedom of competition and enterprise, he states that cooperation between human beings is also interesting and could bring superior results. Also notable is his apparent respect for the socialist thought — not in the sense that he admires it, but, as a sober and pondered thinker, he could see some merit in it underneath its flaws.

Marshall is seen as the founder of the enduring and highly influential Neoclassical School, as he sought to put the train of classical analysis of Adam Smith (https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...), David Ricardo (https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...), and Stuart Mill (https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...) on the track built by the fundamental new concepts introduced by the Marginalist Revolution of Gossen, von Thünen, Jevons (https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...), Menger (https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...), and Walras (https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...). Marshall does so by maintaining a fluid language style, analyzing economic themes one by one as the classics had done, but using the new fundamental premises of the marginalists. Though he was an outstanding mathematician, he commendably orients himself to exposition in clear, fluid language, leaving mathematical demonstrations to footnotes and to a final Mathematical Appendix. The laudable intention is to make the work intelligible to students and businessmen, rather than just talking to academics.

“Principles” is typically a work of microeconomics, given the narrowing of focus carried out by the marginalism, at the level of individual economic decisions. Marshall, however, does not completely endorse the standardization of a “homo œconomicus” as a model of economic decision maker, which serves to derive all economic conclusions, and which gained strength with the classics, especially John Stuart Mill. Marshall, however, recognizes that Mill considers the “human factor” of the economic agents — and not just feelingless decision-making units — later in his life. Marshall, in contrast, worked with economic decisions made in varied contexts, and for which the time factor is especially relevant.

Also very sober is his warning that his methodological choice is to work with pieces of reality. He clearly states that this method does not correspond to reality, though it’s valid to understand the micro phenomena and then extrapolate them to reality, thus the use of the “cœteris paribus” condition, and concepts of “representative company”, “normal profits”, “statical equilibrium”, and “normal prices”.

Some of the main concepts present in the work:

(1) Concept of Economics (the study of wealth) and its relationship with human activity and concern with poverty: are the poor a condition to have the rich? — a question he doesn't answer.

(2) He reaffirms the importance of demand in the definition of value and presents the most didactic explanation of marginal utility, though arguing that utility is not the only measure of value — the assessment of the circumstances of each case is key. In pondered conciliation of the classics with marginalists, he didactically sustains that marginal utility indeed governs value, though only in the short run. For the long run, the classics were right, as value is determined by the cost of production (which blade of scissors cuts a piece of paper?).

(3) He works with the concepts of economic equilibrium, but unlike Walras, who worked with the concept of general equilibrium, his analytical method is to recognize and assess equilibriums in each market according to their own characteristics.

(4) He introduces the concepts of consumer surplus, elasticity, representative firm, normal profits. He acknowledges the effects of large scale production: higher productivity and reduction in costs and prices.

(5) He introduces the “time” variable as one of the most important aspects of the economic analysis — he discusses the importance of the concept of intertemporal discount between immediate and future utilities, mentioning discount rates present in people's reasoning in their decision-making. He also works with the concept of opportunity cost.

(6) He discusses industrial organization and its relationship with development and the population, when he makes digressions on the importance or not of the proximity of a certain type of industry to the consumers, and the relationship with the then recent improvement of means of transport and communication.

Marshall defends that David Ricardo was in general more right than his critics thought when it comes to wages. Ricardo didn’t defend an inflexible “iron law of wages”. Ricardo explicitly considered that the relation between cost of living, wages, and labor offering depended on each society. But as he didn’t express himself too clearly and didn’t remind the readers about it that often, critics presumed that he defended that wages would always stay at the level of workers’ cost of living: if salaries grew, the number of workers would always immediately grow, reducing wages again.

Marshall puts the law of diminishing returns in contrast with the law of increasing returns: the former results from the part of Nature acting in production (raw materials from Nature), while the latter refers to the human part of it, i.e., labor and capital employed. Some industries, which don’t just extract primary products, have labor and capital overcoming Nature’s limitations, resulting in high productivity; in others, the two factors mentioned balance each other out, producing a constant return — and this relates to his concepts of “normal profits” and “representative company” (i.e., an “average” company).

For Marshall, under England’s then favorable economic conditions, an increase in population would lead to a more than proportional increase in the material means of production to satisfy needs, counting on easy access to foreign raw materials (though subject to possible commercial restrictions from those countries). This would result in an increase in industrial productivity, which in turn would generate wealth — though he recognizes this increase in population would not necessarily benefit those who don’t participate in this wealth.

Marshall also makes a series of moral considerations about a people having “nervous energy” to lead them to prosperity, about the importance of class variety and their organizational capacity – although the higher quality of education and entrepreneurial spirit of the elite is fundamental.

Marshall resorts to biology to assess classic theories of freedom of enterprise and competition in parallel with Darwin's theory of natural selection. Yet he introduces nuances and complexities that move the economic realm away from the simple idea of ​​survival of the fittest. On the other hand, he reinforces some dogmas and social prejudices of the dominant elites, such as the superiority of races (some mention to eugenics appears even if “en passant”).

Marshall is indeed a complex author, combining the classical theoretical framework, founded on the vision of individual freedom developed in a context of commercial development of England’s 18th and 19th centuries dominance, with concern for poverty and consideration of cooperativism as a positive economic modality. All these make reading this work instigating.

“Principles of Economics” was for a long time the reference work in Economics. The author makes the transition from the so-called “Political Economy” to “Economics” in this work, which had already been rehearsed by previous authors of the marginalism. Although it is considered an outdated work in many respects, it launched concepts that have survived, still finds loyal followers, and influences orthodox economic thought to this day.


PORTUGUÊS

Com este indiscutível clássico da literatura econômica, Alfred Marshall funda a chamada Escola Neoclássica de Economia. Marshall institui também a Economia como disciplina acadêmica e o economista como profissão. O livro pode ser visto como uma revisão e consolidação da literatura econômica produzida até a época de Marshall, mas também introduz novos conceitos, muitos deles utilizados até hoje. Os temas são abordados com uma didática impressionante, típica dos professores mais vocacionados.

Embora Marshall parta de premissas simples e diretas, construídas por autores clássicos, ele busca conciliá-las com as novas ideias trazidas pelos autores da chamada “Revolução Marginalista”, que o haviam precedido recentemente.

Marshall é, sem dúvida, um autor complexo. É interessante ler a obra tendo em vista características da personalidade do autor, que apontam para algumas — ricas — contradições.

Marshall é um homem do seu tempo e do seu lugar (um “Vitoriano”, como dizem alguns), que revela conceitos e preconceitos das suas origens, embora também apresente ideias modernas e progressistas.

Embora deixe claro desde o início da obra que o economista deve se preocupar com a pobreza (algo que, com exceção de Marx, não havia aparecido em outros grandes economistas anteriores), a Economia de Marshall é tipicamente uma Economia baseada no ponto de vista da classe dominante. Ele não responde à pergunta que fez no início da obra sobre se é preciso haver pobreza para haver riqueza, e não desenvolve instrumentos analíticos voltados para a compreensão da produção da pobreza, como havia feito Marx (minha resenha aqui: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...). Ao contrário, o foco analítico de Marshall é a perspectiva da elite, que vem tanto do legado clássico quanto do marginalista, desenvolvido a partir da prosperidade da Revolução Industrial na Inglaterra. Isso fica claro em várias passagens quando ele afirma que a pobreza resulta em degeneração moral e prejudica o desenvolvimento das nações. Embora seu sistema analítico seja totalmente baseado na liberdade de competição e iniciativa, ele afirma que a cooperação entre os seres humanos também é interessante e pode trazer resultados superiores. Também notável é seu aparente respeito pelo pensamento socialista — não no sentido de admiração, mas, como um pensador sóbrio e ponderado que era, ele podia ver algum mérito nesse pensamento por trás de seus defeitos.

Marshall é visto como o fundador da duradoura e altamente influente Escola Neoclássica, pois procurou colocar o trem da análise clássica de Adam Smith (https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...), David Ricardo (https ://www.goodreads.com/review/show/4442470588) e Stuart Mill (https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...) no trilho construído pelos novos conceitos fundamentais introduzidos pela Revolução Marginalista de Gossen, von Thünen, Jevons (https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...), Menger (https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...) e Walras (https:/ /www.goodreads.com/review/show/5205336344). Marshall o faz mantendo um estilo de linguagem fluido, analisando temas econômicos um a um como os clássicos haviam feito, mas usando as novas premissas fundamentais dos marginalistas. Embora fosse um matemático notável, ele orienta-se de forma louvável para exposições em linguagem clara e fluida, deixando as demonstrações matemáticas para notas de rodapé e para um Apêndice Matemático final. A louvável intenção é tornar a obra inteligível para estudantes e empresários, ao invés de apenas falar para acadêmicos.

“Princípios” é tipicamente uma obra de microeconomia, dado o estreitamento de foco levado a cabo pelo marginalismo, ao nível das decisões econômicas individuais. Marshall, porém, não endossa totalmente a padronização de um “homo œconomicus” como modelo de decisor econômico, que serve para derivar todas as conclusões econômicas, e que ganhou força com os clássicos, especialmente John Stuart Mill. Marshall, no entanto, reconhece que Mill considera o “fator humano” dos agentes econômicos – e não apenas como unidades de tomada de decisão insensíveis – mais tarde em sua vida. Marshall, ao contrário, trabalhou com decisões econômicas tomadas em contextos variados, e para os quais o fator tempo é especialmente relevante.

Também muito sóbrio é seu aviso de que sua escolha metodológica é trabalhar com pedaços da realidade. Ele claramente diz que o método não corresponde à realidade, mas é válido para entender os microfenômenos e depois extrapolá-los para a realidade, daí o uso frequente da condição “cœteris paribus”, e conceitos de “empresa representativa”, “lucros normais”, “equilibro estático” e “preços normais”.

Alguns dos principais conceitos presentes na obra:

(1) Conceito de Economia (o estudo da riqueza) e sua relação com a atividade humana e preocupação com a pobreza: o pobre é condição para ter o rico? - uma pergunta que ele não responde.

(2) Ele reafirma a importância da demanda na definição de valor e apresenta a explicação mais didática da utilidade marginal, embora defenda que a utilidade não é a única medida de valor — a avaliação das circunstâncias de cada caso é fundamental. Em conciliação ponderada dos clássicos com os marginalistas, ele sustenta didaticamente que a utilidade marginal de fato governa o valor, embora apenas no curto prazo. A longo prazo, os clássicos estavam certos, pois o valor é determinado pelo custo de produção (qual lâmina de uma tesoura corta um pedaço de papel?).

(3) Ele trabalha com os conceitos de equilíbrio econômico, mas ao contrário de Walras, que trabalhou com o conceito de equilíbrio geral, seu método analítico é reconhecer e avaliar os equilíbrios em cada mercado de acordo com suas características próprias.

(4) Ele introduz os conceitos de excedente do consumidor, elasticidade, firma representativa, lucros normais. Ele reconhece os efeitos da produção em larga escala: maior produtividade e redução de custos e preços.

(5) Apresenta a variável “tempo” como um dos aspectos mais importantes da análise econômica — discute a importância do conceito de desconto intertemporal entre utilidades imediatas e futuras, mencionando taxas de desconto presentes no raciocínio das pessoas em suas tomadas de decisão. Ele também trabalha com o conceito de custo de oportunidade.

(6) Discute a organização industrial e sua relação com o desenvolvimento e a população, ao fazer digressões sobre a importância ou não da proximidade de determinado tipo de indústria aos consumidores, e a relação com o então recente aperfeiçoamento dos meios de transporte e comunicação.

Marshall defende que David Ricardo estava em geral mais certo do que seus críticos pensavam quando se trata de salários. Ricardo não defendeu uma inflexível “lei de ferro dos salários”. Ricardo considerou explicitamente que a relação entre custo de vida, salários e oferta de trabalho dependia de cada sociedade. Mas como ele não se expressava com muita clareza e nem lembrava isso aos leitores com tanta frequência, os críticos presumiram que ele defendia que os salários ficariam sempre no nível do custo de vida dos trabalhadores: se os salários aumentassem, o número de trabalhadores sempre aumentaria, reduzindo os salários novamente.

Marshall coloca a lei dos rendimentos decrescentes em contraste com a lei dos rendimentos crescentes: a primeira resulta da parte da Natureza que atua na produção (matérias-primas da Natureza), enquanto a segunda se refere à parte humana dela, ou seja, trabalho e capital empregado. Algumas indústrias, que não extraem apenas produtos primários, possuem mão de obra e capital superando as limitações da Natureza, resultando em alta produtividade; em outros, os dois fatores mencionados se equilibram, produzindo um retorno constante — e isso se relaciona com seus conceitos de “lucros normais” e “empresa representativa” (ou seja, uma empresa “média”).

Para Marshall, nas condições econômicas então favoráveis ​​da Inglaterra, um aumento da população levaria a um aumento mais do que proporcional dos meios materiais de produção para satisfazer as necessidades, contando com o fácil acesso a matérias-primas estrangeiras (embora sujeito a possíveis restrições comerciais desses países ), o que resultaria em aumento da produtividade industrial, que por sua vez geraria riqueza — embora ele reconheça que esse aumento populacional não necessariamente beneficiaria aqueles que não participam dessa riqueza.

Marshall também faz uma série de considerações morais sobre um povo ter “energia nervosa” para conduzi-lo à prosperidade, sobre a importância da variedade de classes e sua capacidade de organização – embora seja fundamental a maior qualidade da educação e o espírito empreendedor da elite.

Marshall recorre à biologia para avaliar as teorias clássicas de liberdade de iniciativa e competição em paralelo com a teoria da seleção natural de Darwin. No entanto, ele apresenta nuances e complexidades que afastam o reino econômico da simples ideia de sobrevivência do mais apto. Por outro lado, reforça alguns dogmas e preconceitos sociais das elites dominantes, como a superioridade das raças (algumas menções à eugenia aparecem mesmo que “en passant”).

Marshall é, de fato, um autor complexo, combinando o arcabouço teórico clássico, fundado na visão de liberdade individual desenvolvida em um contexto de desenvolvimento comercial da dominação inglesa dos séculos XVIII e XIX, com a preocupação com a pobreza e a consideração do cooperativismo como modalidade econômica positiva. Tudo isso torna a leitura desta obra instigante.

“Princípios de Economia” foi por muito tempo a obra de referência em Economia. O autor faz a transição da chamada “Economia Política” para a “Economia” nesta obra, que já havia sido ensaiada por autores anteriores do marginalismo. Embora seja considerada uma obra ultrapassada em muitos aspectos, lançou conceitos que sobreviveram, encontra fiéis seguidores e influencia o pensamento econômico ortodoxo até os dias de hoje.

[Patrdr · Rating 4 out of 5]

Re-reading actually. There was a Cambridge saying, from the thirties I think, that 'it's all in Marshall'. It is interesting and helpful to go back and note both the insightful analytics and the presumptions, which sometimes cause me to cringe, of a Victorian Englishman; both are interesting in different ways.

He had a sharp mind and a big heart. He systemitized and developed the foundations of partial equilibrium microeconomics.

From a historircal perspective this helps to shed light on the development of the work of Keynes and his circle.

[John · Rating 3 out of 5]

Re-read and is not as bad as I previously laid out. It is an interesting beginning study into the relationship between economics and the study of human behavior. Reads like a policy piece and is very straightforward.

[May Ling · Rating 5 out of 5]

You can't really give this a bad mark since it's a seminal piece of economics. I think everyone that takes economics or wants to suggest they are economically bent ought to read it. It's fascinating to me that Marshall begins this piece with a concern for Political economy and the manner. Population at the time had exploded and he was really not so psyched about the way in which those that had money were able to manipulate. He felt that the tools that were available allowed for some of the worst characteristics.

He was also very leery of arguments at the time that described relatively better. He's like, yeah, I get people have stuff, but is it better? I mean mothers weren't displaced and their children weren't made to work in factories. People aren't really getting the promise of freedom even though we create more things than ever before. Is it really better? Fascinating...

I dig in like Chapter 2 he says "Thus though it is true that "money or "general purchasing power" or "command over material wealth,' is the center around which economic science clusters; this is so, not because money or material wealth is regarded as the main aim of human effort, nor even as affording the main subject- matter for the study of the economist, but because in this world of ours it is the one convenient means of measuring human motive on a large scale." He says just before that that whether this is a good or bad motive is something totally separate. This number just "is"..... that's pretty deep, if you ask me.


I'm kind of not into this concept in Chapter 2, but I kinda get where he's coming from. He says: "Services and other goods, which pass out of existence in the same instant they come into it, are, of course not a part of the stock of wealth. So like... in 2018, we've actually learned to monitize all that sh*t.... so perhaps a revision of... we can't yet price it, but if we could, that would also be valuable... might be in order?

Chapter III. He suggests that we do not create stuff, we are just reorganizers of things. The only thing we really produce are ideas. That's where it dovetails with my thought on innovation. Have to mull this over.

The grand finally at the end is where he comes up with this concept of aggregate supply and demand, but it's not so much math as it is just conceptual. It's cool though. He's kind of the first to think in terms of trying to calculate a true market clearing price. Props....

[Givemore · Rating 5 out of 5]

I re-read this book almost every year. This year i am reading it together with Marshal Memorials.Principles of Economics is a special classic book , with a five resounding five star rating, a bedrock of economics literature. Whats particularly ingenious and sagely, is Mr Marshal begins the book with a preliminary survey that considers the study of mankind , poverty ,ignorance, well being of mankind to make the best of their mental faculties as the foundation of the knowledge of economics . today i was just wondering if Mr Marshal had lived in this dot.com era he writes "The steam engine has relived them of much exhausting and degrading toil; wages have risen; education has improved and become more general; the railway and printing press have enabled members of the same trade in different parts of the country to communicate easily one another........"................" .....is it really possible that all should start in the world with a fair chance of leading a cultured life, free from pains of poverty and excessive mechanical toil....."

This preliminary survey is genuinely relevant and resonates with my personal African Background for Mr Marshal explains that the answer depends partly on the moral and political capabilities of human nature. From the African mind set , the politicians , who formulate economic policies , are corrupt, greedy and they loot the resources and spend them in developed nations on education, medical, leisure and the list goes on...

Chapter XIII Progress in Relation to Standards of Life , resonates with well with Standards of Life as meaning standards of activities adjusted to wants just to THINK OF a few Las Vegas Syndromes caused by a high level want of entertainment.

[Will Patrick · Rating 3 out of 5]

The foundational 1907 5th addition classic. Much remains the bedrock of the modern economic approach. Interesting while while much material is tidier today, certain succinct phrases have been lost in modern economics: taxes/poverty “checking” supply/demand, for example. Marshall’s 1907 reading of Malthus/Ricardo/Smith is neat, though later modelling makes neater. Contains rather problematic and antiquated discussions on race and gender, which have inevitably been proven wrong by modern econometrics.

[Marco Sán Sán]

Es increíble. Podría interpretarse como anacrónico, en terminología y activos tomados de forma literal, lo es. Pero si solo se presta atención a los desarrollos abstractos de los activos, es sumamente vigente, solido. Un paso necesario para entender la división entre marco y micro. Fascinante conocer a Marshall, y saber de dónde viene todo.

[John · Rating 5 out of 5]

What is the quote? Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it.
This book is of historical interest in the sense of archeologists making sense of the present. He was an awesome intellectual and moral agent. Times may have changed but one can still learn from Marshall.

[Matthias · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of the milestones of Economic thought. The single most foundational text for Microeconomics.

[Subjuntivo Subjuntivo]

I was bored, not enough value.

[Paul O'Leary · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a landmark work of economics disguised as a textbook from 1890. Actually, it's both. In truth, though, landmark mightn't be the most appropriate descriptive. More a monument. Or better, a mausoleum. This large tome represents all the knowledge that British economics offered and economists thought fit to encapsulate and bury as truth in 1890. Its place as THE great work of British economics between Mill and Keynes had few rivals and, despite Marshall's free enterprise leanings, no real competition. The cool Keynes thought Marshall a bit too preachy to be a proper economist. In fact, Marshall does wear his heart on his sleeve throughout this work. A reader is never far from the impression that Marshall is a caring man who believes the business man is a natural humanist bringing material benefit to employees and customers alike. Efficiency isn't bloodless greed, but material progress which truly benefits all. Against today's bleaker offerings on economics, this refreshes. Still, the age of Marshall is one where finance was fairly simplistic, trade was just that, and employment meant material production, and its ally, consumption. Though math was not a subject foreign to Marshall's talent, quality still reigned over quantity in his world. Marshall lauds the thinker, the achiever, and, to a lesser extend, the common worker. Marshall is less kind to those not economically employable, but Marshall's humanism emphasized that gospel of materialism would be moral if one tended to proper character, suitable education, and good thrifty economics. The mechanics of marginal utility would attend to the rest. Marshall has been credited with creating the concept of the consumer surplus. This is the remainder left over to a consumer when he purchased an item for less than he otherwise would have. What to do with this consumer surplus was worked out by his students, Keynes and Pigou. Actually, the last is a glib statement, but one not completely bereft of point. Marshall's was an age that worshipped enterprise, embraced a healthy suspicion of government interference, and believed that prosperity entailed moral responsibilities as well as rewards. By the author's last edition, these values were already receding into the twilight. If you're attracted to the classics, this is a must read. It stands proudly alongside Smith's Wealth of Nations, Paul Samuelson's '48 Economics and others as a work of great historical importance as well as present-day interest.
Just a word of warning: stick to the in-print Palgrave edition, which is complete with all appendices. Many others editions are cheaper, but also cheaply butchered of content.

[Desiree Finkbeiner · Rating 3 out of 5]

Written in a day when a man could actually participate in free enterprise without prying-over-involvement with government. Granted, this was from a European perspective. Marshall brings up morals, and the mental state of the lower class several times referring to the sciences of 'doctrinal' decision-making (or lack thereof) and how they affect economic climate. He also touches on how some enterprising capitalists take easy advantage of the lowly 'working class' and marks how there is a certain justification in paying low wages to the unskilled who are desperate to survive under those more educated and privileged (economic science is not for the uneducated). Nothing new under the sun.
Not much has changed since those days, except the means by which they collect data to make predictions, and of course, the government is now involved at every turn. Though a few conditions have improved for low-wage workers, the one thing that remains the same as in years past is this: So long as the 'poor' continue in their ignorance and unskilled state, they will be easily controlled by the thin carrot which dangles before them with strings attached while rich men get richer for having the data they need in their coffers for ultimate economic prediction and control.

[Frank Nemecek · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is another one that read again every so often. It's one of the great philosophical foundations for all economic thought.

It's hardly a quick read - largely because literary styles have changed so much over the past 200 years. However, it's still a book that I enjoy reading again and again.

[Alan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Classic. Not so readable today.

[Abhi · Rating 5 out of 5]

,l