What do you think?
Rate this book
Taking Economics Seriously
A leading economist's exploration of what our economic arrangements might look like if we applied basic principles without ideological blinders. There is nothing wrong with economics, Dean Baker contends, but economists routinely ignore their own principles when it comes to economic policy. What would policy look like if we took basic principles of mainstream economics seriously and applied them consistently? In the debate over regulation, for example, Baker—one of the few economists who predicted the meltdown of fall 2008—points out that ideological blinders have obscured the fact there is no “free market” to protect. Modern markets are highly regulated, although intrusive regulations such as copyright and patents are rarely viewed as regulatory devices. If we admit the extent to which the economy is and will be regulated, we have many more options in designing policy and deciding who benefits from it. On health care reform, Baker complains that economists ignore another basic marginal cost pricing. Unlike all other industries, medical services are priced extraordinarily high, far above the cost of production, yet that discrepancy is rarely addressed in the debate about health care reform. What if we applied marginal cost pricing—making doctors' wages competitive and charging less for prescription drugs and tests such as MRIs? Taking Economics Seriously offers an alternative Econ 101. It introduces economic principles and thinks through what we might gain if we free ourselves from ideological blinders and get back to basics in the most troubled parts of our economy.
- GenresEconomicsNonfiction
87 pages, Hardcover
First published April 30, 2010
1 person is currently reading
115 people want to read
About the author
Dean Baker
61 books140 followershttps://deanbakerpoetryandsongs.com
"Dean is a combination of thought and torment that has made him write more than a baker's dozen of fine poems.. he might produce a collection that could astound us all." - Irving Layton
Irving Layton is one of Canada's foremost poets, nominated twice for the Nobel Prize for Literature; teacher, friend and mentor to Leonard Cohen, and the man to whom Leonard dedicated his latest book.
My poetry has appeared in hundreds of literature magazines world wide, recorded, and online.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews
June 17, 2017
This book presents a refreshing perspective by someone who identifies with left-leaning political ideas. Baker tries pretty hard to approach some current economic issues under contemporary, realistic conditions. He thus does not rely on idealized conditions to put forward his arguments; instead, he tries to offer solutions that don't require any radical changes in human nature and/or in our basic political institutions (although it's possible to accuse him of being overly optimistic about certain state-based measures, it doesn't seem that it could be easy to justify a claim that his proposals are clearly unrealistic).
Baker recognizes that economics' foundations are fairly sound, as well as acknowledges the importance of incentives generated by different regulations and laws, and goes on to do what many economists shy away from doing, which is applying basic economic principles to healthcare (ch. 2) and banking (ch. 3). That's precisely what's refreshing about his arguments -- moreover, it's also an excellent example to show that one doesn't need to ignore or reject sound economic theory in order to keep one's ideological commitments (in fact, any reasonable person should readily recognize that it's ideology that has to adapt to the best theory and evidence available, and not the other way around; unfortunately, meeting this rather minimal requirement of being politically reasonable tends to be pretty hard for those who are deeply ideologically committed). The chapter on healthcare is the best one. There Baker basically argues that the US healthcare operates way above its marginal cost, making the system as a whole unreasonably expensive, and that this is due to things like licensing restrictions and drug patents. He then goes on to argue for a solution based on nothing more than applying to the healthcare system basic economic principles that make the strong case for free trade in general: there should be 1) more freedom for foreign, certified doctors to work in the US, as well as 2) more freedom to engage in what is called "medical tourism" (where people travel to other countries to get cheaper high quality medical treatment, and, finally, 3) Americans should be allowed to buy cheaper healthcare plans from other countries. Each of these measures, if effectively implemented, would press down the price of the American healthcare system without compromising its quality. Baker argues just as carefully in the next chapter, where he identifies five central problems with the current American banking system and proposes solutions for each problem. Even if you ultimately disagree with some of Baker's proposed solutions, as I do, you should admit that he makes a prima facie good case for them (meaning only that he makes a case that is worth carefully considering before rejecting).
There are three general points that have bothered me, though. First, Baker gives no reference for his claims. This doesn't necessarily mean that what he says is false or misleading, but mentioning the sources behind his research makes things easy for those who are interested on checking out the informations/data by themselves, as well as increases the confidence that the book was based on good research.
The second problem is that Baker dismisses too easily possible free market-based solutions -- i.e., solutions that aim at reducing or even eliminating certain regulations instead of just tweaking them. He seems to underestimate certain market-based proposals as well as to overestimate the predictable success of state-based attempts to correct the issues he deals with. At first sight, one might think that this is just a natural consequence of his commitment to approach the problems realistically. And I must admit that there are a lot of free market defenders that let ideology cloud their judgement, making them underestimate or ignore possible shortcomings with their preferred policy proposals. However, this doesn't mean that there are not more radical free market positions that are empirically well informed and worth taking into account. Admitting that the state currently has a strong presence in certain economic sectors doesn't automatically render any argument based on state regulation more plausibly sound or more realistic than any argument that advocates for less regulation (or in some cases no regulation at all). David Henderson expresses very nicely some of my impressions on this and other points of the book in his review, and I highly recommend anyone to read it: http://www.hoover.org/research/taking....
To be clear, I'm not suggesting Baker advocates for far-reaching inteventionist policies or something like that, and one should easily realize this by reading the brief description I have given of his argument for free trade of healthcare professionals and services. Rather, my criticism here is that Baker thinks that the problems at hand are just a matter of picking the right regulatory structure, dismissing at the outset possibly viable alternatives that don't depend on state regulation (or that depend on it on a substantially lesser degree). In case this is still not clear enough, I'll just suggest again reading Henderson's review. I think he makes pretty clear what I'm trying to say here.
Finally, the last problem is a rather minor one: at times Baker clearly lets his progressive bias speak, especially when he appears to be talking about conservatives in general, which presumably includes not only conservative politicians but also reasonable, well meaning individuals. Not only progressives constitute internally diverse groups.
These problems with the book have made me lower my rating. Even though I have given it 3 stars, my actual rating would be around 3,5 stars. It's really well worth the read, whatever your political preference might be. Finally, I'll just wrap up with this very nice quote from the last chapter, which is basically a call to reason for Baker's fellow progressives:
"Still, while progressives should support government interventions that are needed in order to level the playing field, they should not view an increased role for government as an end in itself. The idea of government bureaucrats directing major areas of the economy and individuals’ lives does not generally resonate well with Americans.
Thinking clearly about the roles of the government and the market may lead progressives in unexpected directions. The best solutions will often involve a greater role for the market. This is certainly the situation with prescription drugs, where government-granted patent monopolies have turned a product that is inherently cheap into one that can be incredibly expensive for consumers. The result is exactly what economic theory predicts: enormous amounts of rent-seeking and corruption. We end up paying thousands of dollars for drugs that would cost a few dollars per prescription in a free market, and we cannot trust either the research or our doctors, because we know that experts may be influenced by drug company payments. The solution—the economic arrangement that advances societal wellbeing—in this case lies with the market, and progressives should happily embrace this path." (pp. 84-5)
Baker recognizes that economics' foundations are fairly sound, as well as acknowledges the importance of incentives generated by different regulations and laws, and goes on to do what many economists shy away from doing, which is applying basic economic principles to healthcare (ch. 2) and banking (ch. 3). That's precisely what's refreshing about his arguments -- moreover, it's also an excellent example to show that one doesn't need to ignore or reject sound economic theory in order to keep one's ideological commitments (in fact, any reasonable person should readily recognize that it's ideology that has to adapt to the best theory and evidence available, and not the other way around; unfortunately, meeting this rather minimal requirement of being politically reasonable tends to be pretty hard for those who are deeply ideologically committed). The chapter on healthcare is the best one. There Baker basically argues that the US healthcare operates way above its marginal cost, making the system as a whole unreasonably expensive, and that this is due to things like licensing restrictions and drug patents. He then goes on to argue for a solution based on nothing more than applying to the healthcare system basic economic principles that make the strong case for free trade in general: there should be 1) more freedom for foreign, certified doctors to work in the US, as well as 2) more freedom to engage in what is called "medical tourism" (where people travel to other countries to get cheaper high quality medical treatment, and, finally, 3) Americans should be allowed to buy cheaper healthcare plans from other countries. Each of these measures, if effectively implemented, would press down the price of the American healthcare system without compromising its quality. Baker argues just as carefully in the next chapter, where he identifies five central problems with the current American banking system and proposes solutions for each problem. Even if you ultimately disagree with some of Baker's proposed solutions, as I do, you should admit that he makes a prima facie good case for them (meaning only that he makes a case that is worth carefully considering before rejecting).
There are three general points that have bothered me, though. First, Baker gives no reference for his claims. This doesn't necessarily mean that what he says is false or misleading, but mentioning the sources behind his research makes things easy for those who are interested on checking out the informations/data by themselves, as well as increases the confidence that the book was based on good research.
The second problem is that Baker dismisses too easily possible free market-based solutions -- i.e., solutions that aim at reducing or even eliminating certain regulations instead of just tweaking them. He seems to underestimate certain market-based proposals as well as to overestimate the predictable success of state-based attempts to correct the issues he deals with. At first sight, one might think that this is just a natural consequence of his commitment to approach the problems realistically. And I must admit that there are a lot of free market defenders that let ideology cloud their judgement, making them underestimate or ignore possible shortcomings with their preferred policy proposals. However, this doesn't mean that there are not more radical free market positions that are empirically well informed and worth taking into account. Admitting that the state currently has a strong presence in certain economic sectors doesn't automatically render any argument based on state regulation more plausibly sound or more realistic than any argument that advocates for less regulation (or in some cases no regulation at all). David Henderson expresses very nicely some of my impressions on this and other points of the book in his review, and I highly recommend anyone to read it: http://www.hoover.org/research/taking....
To be clear, I'm not suggesting Baker advocates for far-reaching inteventionist policies or something like that, and one should easily realize this by reading the brief description I have given of his argument for free trade of healthcare professionals and services. Rather, my criticism here is that Baker thinks that the problems at hand are just a matter of picking the right regulatory structure, dismissing at the outset possibly viable alternatives that don't depend on state regulation (or that depend on it on a substantially lesser degree). In case this is still not clear enough, I'll just suggest again reading Henderson's review. I think he makes pretty clear what I'm trying to say here.
Finally, the last problem is a rather minor one: at times Baker clearly lets his progressive bias speak, especially when he appears to be talking about conservatives in general, which presumably includes not only conservative politicians but also reasonable, well meaning individuals. Not only progressives constitute internally diverse groups.
These problems with the book have made me lower my rating. Even though I have given it 3 stars, my actual rating would be around 3,5 stars. It's really well worth the read, whatever your political preference might be. Finally, I'll just wrap up with this very nice quote from the last chapter, which is basically a call to reason for Baker's fellow progressives:
"Still, while progressives should support government interventions that are needed in order to level the playing field, they should not view an increased role for government as an end in itself. The idea of government bureaucrats directing major areas of the economy and individuals’ lives does not generally resonate well with Americans.
Thinking clearly about the roles of the government and the market may lead progressives in unexpected directions. The best solutions will often involve a greater role for the market. This is certainly the situation with prescription drugs, where government-granted patent monopolies have turned a product that is inherently cheap into one that can be incredibly expensive for consumers. The result is exactly what economic theory predicts: enormous amounts of rent-seeking and corruption. We end up paying thousands of dollars for drugs that would cost a few dollars per prescription in a free market, and we cannot trust either the research or our doctors, because we know that experts may be influenced by drug company payments. The solution—the economic arrangement that advances societal wellbeing—in this case lies with the market, and progressives should happily embrace this path." (pp. 84-5)
August 8, 2017
Short, easy to read and concise book. Very helpful to those who do not have an economics background. Baker breaks down the larger debate on regulation vs. deregulation into small and understandable snippets by relating bigger questions to more relatable experiences, such as medical insurance/tourism.
March 7, 2012
In terms of size and scope, this is less a book than a paper -- not even a long paper. I read it in about 90 minutes.
I think Dean Baker means two thing by his title: that there are large areas of the economy in which the logic of neo-classical economics is not pursued, health care and finance for example. We should not only wonder why this is the case but also push society to follow out the economizing aspect of markets in these sectors. Second, I think he means to show that, in practice, no one allows nor pushes for unregulated markets. Contemporary society is always a combination of markets and state regulation. To take economics seriously is to apply its economizing power where there is monopoly; and, to take economics seriously is to understand the markets actual limits relative to politics and therefore to become active in fighting for policies that produce more equitable flows of income.
To this Polanyi-esque analysis he adds his fundamental insight: conservatives accept regulation and they push for regulations that divert the flow of profits and benefits towards the rich. Progressive (whatever that means), he argues must do four things: not get caught in the ideology of free markets, ideologies that the free marketers and libertarians use as a subterfuge; must understand how conservatives use regulations to push wealth towards the rich; must understand how the presence of economic logic in certain sectors can help progressives to reach towards equality; and, must understand how to push for regulations that move society towards greater equality.
In sum, Dean is arguing that an understanding of the realities of actual markets helps us to shed a wasteful ideological warfare and get into the trenches of actual policy making.
It is concise and efficiently written. I wish he would slow down here and there. But if I work out some of the elements on my own, this could work well in an introductory course on capitalism.
Quotes:
"Deregulation can be a principled position held by true believers in a free market. But, to be fair, rarely does either side argue against regulation as such. The real issue is the structure of regulation and its impact on economic outcomes, especially income distribution." 11
"But as the above examples illustrate, no one is really talking about an unregulated market -- rather, we are all just talking about whom the regulation is designed to benefit. [A concern for an equitable] [d]istribution of income has never preceded [government intervention.]" 16
"Progressives have painted themselves into a corner by accepting a policy debate in which they are on one side and the market is on the other. This framing is both essentially wrong and a bad political move. Progressives must recognize that "market fundamentalism" does not exist. Conservative restructuring of the economy, not the natural workings of the market, caused the upward redistribution of income and wealth during the last three decades. Progressives must always point out ways in which conservatives use the government to bring about their desired outcomes." 83
"Still, while progressives should support government interventions that are needed in order to level the playing field, they should not view an increased role for government as an end in itself...."84
"Thinking clearly about the roles of the government and the market may lead progressives in unexpected directions. The best solutions will often involve a greater role for the market. This is certainly the situation with prescription drugs, where government-granted patent monopolies have turned a product that is inherently cheap into one that can be incredibly expensive for consumers." 84
I think Dean Baker means two thing by his title: that there are large areas of the economy in which the logic of neo-classical economics is not pursued, health care and finance for example. We should not only wonder why this is the case but also push society to follow out the economizing aspect of markets in these sectors. Second, I think he means to show that, in practice, no one allows nor pushes for unregulated markets. Contemporary society is always a combination of markets and state regulation. To take economics seriously is to apply its economizing power where there is monopoly; and, to take economics seriously is to understand the markets actual limits relative to politics and therefore to become active in fighting for policies that produce more equitable flows of income.
To this Polanyi-esque analysis he adds his fundamental insight: conservatives accept regulation and they push for regulations that divert the flow of profits and benefits towards the rich. Progressive (whatever that means), he argues must do four things: not get caught in the ideology of free markets, ideologies that the free marketers and libertarians use as a subterfuge; must understand how conservatives use regulations to push wealth towards the rich; must understand how the presence of economic logic in certain sectors can help progressives to reach towards equality; and, must understand how to push for regulations that move society towards greater equality.
In sum, Dean is arguing that an understanding of the realities of actual markets helps us to shed a wasteful ideological warfare and get into the trenches of actual policy making.
It is concise and efficiently written. I wish he would slow down here and there. But if I work out some of the elements on my own, this could work well in an introductory course on capitalism.
Quotes:
"Deregulation can be a principled position held by true believers in a free market. But, to be fair, rarely does either side argue against regulation as such. The real issue is the structure of regulation and its impact on economic outcomes, especially income distribution." 11
"But as the above examples illustrate, no one is really talking about an unregulated market -- rather, we are all just talking about whom the regulation is designed to benefit. [A concern for an equitable] [d]istribution of income has never preceded [government intervention.]" 16
"Progressives have painted themselves into a corner by accepting a policy debate in which they are on one side and the market is on the other. This framing is both essentially wrong and a bad political move. Progressives must recognize that "market fundamentalism" does not exist. Conservative restructuring of the economy, not the natural workings of the market, caused the upward redistribution of income and wealth during the last three decades. Progressives must always point out ways in which conservatives use the government to bring about their desired outcomes." 83
"Still, while progressives should support government interventions that are needed in order to level the playing field, they should not view an increased role for government as an end in itself...."84
"Thinking clearly about the roles of the government and the market may lead progressives in unexpected directions. The best solutions will often involve a greater role for the market. This is certainly the situation with prescription drugs, where government-granted patent monopolies have turned a product that is inherently cheap into one that can be incredibly expensive for consumers." 84
August 21, 2010
The name of this book is a little misleading, but the argument he makes is one this country really ought to have internalized by now.
The central thread of the book is that America is stuck waging a false debate between the 'free market' and regulation -- when in fact there is no such thing as a 'free market'. There are only markets with different ground rules, and without enforced rules, functioning markets are unthinkable. Because regulation is an ineradicable feature of our economy, the real question we should ask is whether to design the game in such a way to favor those who already control resources or whether we structure the game differently.
Baker faults liberals for letting conservative pundits control this conversation by recasting any shift in existing structures as 'big government' or 'government takeover.' But in reality, conservative and pro-industry policies are as dependent on government and regulation as liberal policies focused more on citizens or consumers.
As the financial crisis has demonstrated, large sectors of the US economy are unthinkable without the bailout, federal deposit insurance, and favorable monetary policy. The idea that the financial sector was ever deregulated is a smokescreen -- they just got government institutions that facilitated riskier transactions and larger concentrations of capital.
Similarly, for the market in creative products or medicines to work, we already depend on massive government institutions -- copyright and patent law. The notion that the free market apart from government exists is a hangover phantasma from cold-war era debates.
This country needs to recognize that there is no "free market" and to stop fighting over this false dichotomy -- the real issue is which regulations we choose. And Baker makes no attempt to hide his belief that conservatives abuse the rhetoric of deregulation while they consistently implement regulations that benefit the wealthiest and most consolidated interests in the county.
The central thread of the book is that America is stuck waging a false debate between the 'free market' and regulation -- when in fact there is no such thing as a 'free market'. There are only markets with different ground rules, and without enforced rules, functioning markets are unthinkable. Because regulation is an ineradicable feature of our economy, the real question we should ask is whether to design the game in such a way to favor those who already control resources or whether we structure the game differently.
Baker faults liberals for letting conservative pundits control this conversation by recasting any shift in existing structures as 'big government' or 'government takeover.' But in reality, conservative and pro-industry policies are as dependent on government and regulation as liberal policies focused more on citizens or consumers.
As the financial crisis has demonstrated, large sectors of the US economy are unthinkable without the bailout, federal deposit insurance, and favorable monetary policy. The idea that the financial sector was ever deregulated is a smokescreen -- they just got government institutions that facilitated riskier transactions and larger concentrations of capital.
Similarly, for the market in creative products or medicines to work, we already depend on massive government institutions -- copyright and patent law. The notion that the free market apart from government exists is a hangover phantasma from cold-war era debates.
This country needs to recognize that there is no "free market" and to stop fighting over this false dichotomy -- the real issue is which regulations we choose. And Baker makes no attempt to hide his belief that conservatives abuse the rhetoric of deregulation while they consistently implement regulations that benefit the wealthiest and most consolidated interests in the county.
Read
June 18, 2010The folks in the Tea Party need to read this book. Some very, very good ideas and a new look at what really needs to be de-regulated.There is nothing wrong with economics, Dean Baker contends, but economists routinely ignore their own principles when it comes to economic policy. What would policy look like if we took basic principles of mainstream economics seriously and applied them consistently?
In the debate over regulation, for example, Baker—one of the few economists who predicted the meltdown of fall 2008—points out that ideological blinders have obscured the fact there is no "free market" to protect. Modern markets are highly regulated, although intrusive regulations such as copyright and patents are rarely viewed as regulatory devices. If we admit the extent to which the economy is and will be regulated, we have many more options in designing policy and deciding who benefits from it. On health care reform, Baker complains that economists ignore another basic idea: marginal cost pricing. Unlike all other industries, medical services are priced extraordinarily high, far above the cost of production, yet that discrepancy is rarely addressed in the debate about health care reform. What if we applied marginal cost pricing—making doctors' wages competitive and charging less for prescription drugs and tests such as MRIs?
Taking Economics Seriously offers an alternative Econ 101. It introduces economic principles and thinks through what we might gain if we free ourselves from ideological blinders and get back to basics in the most troubled parts of our economy.
In the debate over regulation, for example, Baker—one of the few economists who predicted the meltdown of fall 2008—points out that ideological blinders have obscured the fact there is no "free market" to protect. Modern markets are highly regulated, although intrusive regulations such as copyright and patents are rarely viewed as regulatory devices. If we admit the extent to which the economy is and will be regulated, we have many more options in designing policy and deciding who benefits from it. On health care reform, Baker complains that economists ignore another basic idea: marginal cost pricing. Unlike all other industries, medical services are priced extraordinarily high, far above the cost of production, yet that discrepancy is rarely addressed in the debate about health care reform. What if we applied marginal cost pricing—making doctors' wages competitive and charging less for prescription drugs and tests such as MRIs?
Taking Economics Seriously offers an alternative Econ 101. It introduces economic principles and thinks through what we might gain if we free ourselves from ideological blinders and get back to basics in the most troubled parts of our economy.
September 14, 2012
Really a monograph, not a book, this short work makes best use of its pages.
Highlights the ways in which the concepts of economics have been misused in public discourse in the United States. Baker clearly delineates the ways in which "free market" vs "gov't interference" is a false dichotomy. The so-called free market advocates have never had a complaint about patents and copyrights, e.g., which represent major gov't interference in markets. Especially apropos is Baker's explanation of how modern corporations use these tools for "rent-seeking," the economist's term for a company's attempt to increase revenue by reappropriating it from somewhere else rather than by generating it through new sales or services.
Baker argues that it this "rent-seeking" behavior that has clogged the healthcare market and that what is needed is more free-market competition. He has some good ideas (e.g., Medicare recipients should be allowed to use their Medicare benefits as vouchers if they engage in "medical tourism") but I feel that he has fundamentally misunderstood the dynamics of healthcare. Healthcare "shoppers" don't look for bargains, as a rule: they look for the best care. For most people, "cheaper" implies "lower quality" when it comes to medical care. Given the choice between a doctor who charges $40 and a doctor who charges $100, the large majority of those seeking care will choose the higher-price service.
Definitely a work worth reading. Will enhance your understanding of the workings of politics and the economic system in the United States at this time.
Highlights the ways in which the concepts of economics have been misused in public discourse in the United States. Baker clearly delineates the ways in which "free market" vs "gov't interference" is a false dichotomy. The so-called free market advocates have never had a complaint about patents and copyrights, e.g., which represent major gov't interference in markets. Especially apropos is Baker's explanation of how modern corporations use these tools for "rent-seeking," the economist's term for a company's attempt to increase revenue by reappropriating it from somewhere else rather than by generating it through new sales or services.
Baker argues that it this "rent-seeking" behavior that has clogged the healthcare market and that what is needed is more free-market competition. He has some good ideas (e.g., Medicare recipients should be allowed to use their Medicare benefits as vouchers if they engage in "medical tourism") but I feel that he has fundamentally misunderstood the dynamics of healthcare. Healthcare "shoppers" don't look for bargains, as a rule: they look for the best care. For most people, "cheaper" implies "lower quality" when it comes to medical care. Given the choice between a doctor who charges $40 and a doctor who charges $100, the large majority of those seeking care will choose the higher-price service.
Definitely a work worth reading. Will enhance your understanding of the workings of politics and the economic system in the United States at this time.
September 3, 2012
I'll admit at first that I was initially worried this tiny little book would be an ideological pamphlet for promoting one political position against another. Until the final essay, I was generally wrong. This small read briefly an easily sums up the massive financial issues the Unites States currently experiences, and offers reasonable solutions or outcomes for each issue. I would wonder that every politician, right or left, should read this. I was rather disappointed by the final essay, briefly describing the fact that progressives need to get their act together and policy straight so they can reverse the political right's effect on the national economy. Otherwise, this was a decent and informative read that I would strongly recommend for anyone not familiar with current economic issues (which you should be).
February 2, 2014
It's not about regulation or deregulation, but about the structure of regulation and which interests it serves, Dean Baker argues. He shows how regulation has benefited corporate interests and how an approach closer to a free market and basic economic principles (pricing just above marginal cost for pharmaceutical, competition from immigration for doctors etc.) can benefit the nation in general, not just a few protected and powerful groups.
I was, however, slightly disappointed by this book. There aren't many new points in this book if you've read other books by Dean Baker. "The End of Loser Liberalism" is pretty much about the same subject, but more detailed and available as a free download.
I was, however, slightly disappointed by this book. There aren't many new points in this book if you've read other books by Dean Baker. "The End of Loser Liberalism" is pretty much about the same subject, but more detailed and available as a free download.
January 17, 2011
So when I'm stuck in a hotel room at 2am and can't sleep I tend to pick up texts discussing economic theory. 45 min later it did the trick. I was asleep, but I'd almost read the whole book anyway. Boston Review (with the help of MIT Press) publishes attractive little titles, and while, fiscally speaking, I lean to the right these books tend to lean to the left. With this said, Dean Baker makes some interesting claims on the nature of how political parties frame the debate regarding free markets and deregulation.
August 30, 2011
This is a great book that reads like a well-written pamphlet. Not a word is wasted, and there's no filler or length-padding. Ideas and arguments are presented logically and precisely. Baker quickly distills long-running multifaceted debates to their fundamental conflicts, inherent incentive structures and strategic games.
The section on health economics is particularly strong.
I wish other non-fiction authors could be as concise and incisive with their writing as Baker is in Taking Economics Seriously.
The section on health economics is particularly strong.
I wish other non-fiction authors could be as concise and incisive with their writing as Baker is in Taking Economics Seriously.
April 16, 2012
Tightly argued, cleanly written critique of the tangled up narratives that invoke economic language. Baker also provides suggestions on how to eliminate many of the bizarre, arbitrary things that individuals and corporations do (like patent hoarding, punitive copyright enforcement, gigantic per-capita health costs, etc.)
I really enjoyed it. Read it twice in less than 3 hours.
Hat tip to Naeem. Saw it in his reviews.
I really enjoyed it. Read it twice in less than 3 hours.
Hat tip to Naeem. Saw it in his reviews.
December 13, 2013
This is a wonderfully concise book; it can easily be read in an afternoon. That said, if you've already read Loser Liberalism or The Conservative Nanny State (or even if you follow Beat The Press), you probably won't take much away from it. Taking Economics Seriously is mostly the same ideas in a smaller package.
June 25, 2011
A really quick read, and very enjoyable. But then again it subscribes to my point of view. Nice to have some academic backup.
November 14, 2012
A bit of a ideological rant, but short and with some interesting and relevant examples of market failure and how our policy conversations are missing the mark..
October 14, 2022
Very short but interesting book with provoking ideas. I would like to read more by this author.
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews