What do you think?
Rate this book
The Economics Anti-Textbook: A Critical Thinker's Guide to Microeconomics
Mainstream textbooks present economics as an objective science free from value judgements; that settles disputes relatively easily by testing hypotheses; that applies a settled body of principles; and contains policy prescriptions supported by a consensus of professional opinion. The Anti-Textbook argues that this is a myth - one which is not only dangerously misleading but also bland and boring. It challenges the mainstream textbooks' assumptions, arguments, models and evidence. It puts the controversy and excitement back into economics to reveal a fascinating and a vibrant field of study - one which is more an 'art of persuasion' than it is a science.
The Anti-Textbook's chapters parallel the major topics in the typical text. They begin with a boiled-down account of them before presenting an analysis and critique. Drawing on the work of leading economists, the Anti-Textbook lays bare the blind spots in the texts and their sins of omission and commission. It shows where hidden value judgements are made and when contrary evidence is ignored. It shows the claims made without any evidence and the alternative theories that aren't mentioned. It shows the importance of power, social context, and legal framework.
The Economics Anti-Textbook is the students' guide to decoding the textbooks and shows how real economics is much more interesting than they let on.
The Anti-Textbook's chapters parallel the major topics in the typical text. They begin with a boiled-down account of them before presenting an analysis and critique. Drawing on the work of leading economists, the Anti-Textbook lays bare the blind spots in the texts and their sins of omission and commission. It shows where hidden value judgements are made and when contrary evidence is ignored. It shows the claims made without any evidence and the alternative theories that aren't mentioned. It shows the importance of power, social context, and legal framework.
The Economics Anti-Textbook is the students' guide to decoding the textbooks and shows how real economics is much more interesting than they let on.
320 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2010
33 people are currently reading
2163 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 - 29 of 29 reviews
December 13, 2010
This was a much better book than I could have hoped. Despite its title I was expecting it to be a bit like Filthy Lucre, that is, I was expecting it to have a title that sounded like it would say things that would make free markets sound less than the best of all possible worlds and then the content of the book would say that free markets really are as good as it gets.
Then I became worried that this might instead be a simple knee-jerk kind of drag them down and beat them up ‘capitalism is crapitalism’, bring on the revolution kind of book. It wasn’t really that either. If you are after a solid introduction to economics, but know that textbooks are a) too long and b) probably not going to tell you what you want to learn – then this really is the book for you.
It has (effectively) ten chapters – mostly in the order they would appear in a standard introductory Economics textbook. Each chapter starts with a ‘standard text’ version of the subject – you know, markets are great (no, I really mean that, just great) and then a section on what the textbooks don’t mention in their glowing assessments. This is rarely just throwing stones – but a rational explanation of some of the problems with core economic ideas (often related to advances in subjects like Behavioural Economics) and what that then means to the kinds of policy prescriptions that might grow out of standard Neoliberal economic theory.
The most interesting criticism for me of Neoliberal theory was around monopolies. Neoliberals tend to view monopolies as bad things – not something the government should actually do something about, but nonetheless, not an example of capitalism working at its competitive best either. However, this book points out that perhaps the best thing about capitalism is how innovative it is. The authors point out that to keep capitalism innovative there is a need to allow people to profit from their innovations. To do this we need to have patents and other such restrictions on people stealing your innovations – that is, we need to create effective monopolies. How long these government assisted monopolies should go on for is really up to society to decide. Clearly, it might not be reasonable for the descendants of the guy who invented the wheel to be still getting a cut of the profits from every BMW that is built, but the question really is where do we draw the line?
Neoliberals (or should I call them by their proper name - radical free market greedy people) also like to assume that markets are efficient (and government intervention is inefficient) on the basis of the assumption of perfect competition within markets. They know, of course, that markets are not perfectly competitive – for example, that there are externalities (we’ll get to those in a second) and asymmetric information available to people on either side of the competitive divide. If I am buying insurance, for instance, and you are selling it, there is a good chance that I may be hiding the fact that I spend my weekends BASE jumping, if you are thinking of employing me I am unlikely to answer the ‘tell me your greatest fault’ question in a way other than ‘I tend to devote too much energy to my job, even at the expense of my home life’. Asymmetric information is like putting sand in the gears of the engine of perfect competition. The problem is that while most textbooks may acknowledge this fact, they invariably see perfect competition as a reasonable approximation of how markets work; this book points out that this is a very optimistic assessment.
Externalities (or what Milton Friedman refers to as ‘neighbourhood effects’) are the main problem free markets face and are therefore of remarkable importance. While Friedman generally assumes these effects are more or less peripheral and generally can be (if not ignored) accounted for – this book points out they are ubiquitous and probably the major reason why ‘government interference’ (against Friedman’s core belief) makes markets more efficient, and not less.
Externalities work like this: you have a motorbike. You like to start it at 3am when the world is nice and quiet so you can hear that little baby ticking over and purring like a kitten, without any unnecessary and distracting sounds. But while you are twisting the throttle up and listening to her squeal, your neighbours may well be calling the police. They will say they were ‘just trying to sleep’ – but every good Neoliberal will be able to tell you this is yet another example of the ‘politics of envy’ by your neighbours.
Externalities are the negative effects your actions have on society, and which are not accounted for in the market price of that activity. So, in Nineteenth century Melbourne people would dump dead cattle into the Yarra (our main river and main source of drinking water for a long time) – this saved them the cost of otherwise disposing of the animal (a positive), but also helped cause typhoid in those silly enough to drink river water (a negative). Externalities like pollution, greenhouse gases, cancers from various industrial chemicals – are often not factored into calculations or paid for by those who profit most from their use. They are often referred to as 'market failures'. This is why there is so much talk of a carbon tax – as this is a way of getting those who benefit from the creation of externalities to pay a price for this benefit. A carbon tax is also a ‘market based solution’ – which is to say one that takes economics at its word (if you make something more expensive the market will have an incentive to avoid the cost and will therefore innovate). We will see if such belief is enough.
The stuff on trade and globalisation here is fascinating, and perhaps the bit of the book I learnt most from. It takes the standard view of the benefits of free trade – Ricardo’s comparative advantage – and explains how this is a ‘best of all possible world’s’ explanation of how trade works. I had better quickly explain . If you are China and I am Australia and you can make 100 TV or 20 Computer Games with 100 employees and I can make 10 TVs and 25 Computer Games with my 100 employees, it might be best all around for us to specialise and you to only make TVs and for me to only make Computer Games. That way there will be more of both TVs and Computer Games in the world and so that makes more people happy.
The criticisms presented here of this view are brilliant and not ones I have read elsewhere. Firstly, this view assumes things are going to remain pretty well static between China and me – it might be that I’ve just started out making TVs and if I am given a couple of years I might be making 200 TVs rather than my 10 now. By my not investing in developing this industry solely because China is already doing it, I could be making the world worse off in the long run. Also, because everyone who is already doing something will have an advantage over anyone just starting out, this idea implies no one should ever ‘just start out’. Of course, the market for computer games may well collapse and yet I’ve just put all my eggs into what has turned out to be a rather damaged basket.
But the most interesting criticism of free trade is around the question of how we measure ‘better off’. You see, Neoliberals always assume that more is better. Let’s say that CEO pay goes up 300 times in 30 years and the average Joe’s pay hardly goes up at all (that is, let’s assume exactly what has happened since 1980) – Neoliberals say this is fine as the average Joe isn’t worse off, so the fact that the CEO is a lot better off just means society (on balance) is also better off. (Yes, you can just hear ‘politics of envy’ yet again, can’t you?). Anyway, the same thing happens with free trade. Once upon a time there were people manufacturing things in first world countries – now there aren’t. Instead those low skilled jobs have been shipped overseas to places with no trade unions, no health and safety laws and ‘manned’ (so to speak) by children wering t-shirts with ‘plunder’ or ‘pillage’ written on them, I can’t remember which. But even if Ricardo’s comparative advantage was true and society as a whole was better off after free trade, the individuals displaced by this shift might be substantially worse off. And so it has proved in the first world (and possibly also in the third world over time) – with the rich getting richer and the poor doing very much worse.
This is a wonderful book. I found I would start off by agreeing with lots of the standard model and then suddenly feel my loyalties shift as the rose tints were removed from my eyes and shades of grey highlighted within the rest of the text.
Like I said, this book isn’t setting out to praise capitalism, but neither is it setting out to bury capitalism. It is just seeking to show that, ‘The deepest failure of economics is not its failure to shake off an obsolete and damaging rhetoric, but its failure to recognize the inescapably ideological character of its thought’. And so, yes, I would definitely recommend it.
Then I became worried that this might instead be a simple knee-jerk kind of drag them down and beat them up ‘capitalism is crapitalism’, bring on the revolution kind of book. It wasn’t really that either. If you are after a solid introduction to economics, but know that textbooks are a) too long and b) probably not going to tell you what you want to learn – then this really is the book for you.
It has (effectively) ten chapters – mostly in the order they would appear in a standard introductory Economics textbook. Each chapter starts with a ‘standard text’ version of the subject – you know, markets are great (no, I really mean that, just great) and then a section on what the textbooks don’t mention in their glowing assessments. This is rarely just throwing stones – but a rational explanation of some of the problems with core economic ideas (often related to advances in subjects like Behavioural Economics) and what that then means to the kinds of policy prescriptions that might grow out of standard Neoliberal economic theory.
The most interesting criticism for me of Neoliberal theory was around monopolies. Neoliberals tend to view monopolies as bad things – not something the government should actually do something about, but nonetheless, not an example of capitalism working at its competitive best either. However, this book points out that perhaps the best thing about capitalism is how innovative it is. The authors point out that to keep capitalism innovative there is a need to allow people to profit from their innovations. To do this we need to have patents and other such restrictions on people stealing your innovations – that is, we need to create effective monopolies. How long these government assisted monopolies should go on for is really up to society to decide. Clearly, it might not be reasonable for the descendants of the guy who invented the wheel to be still getting a cut of the profits from every BMW that is built, but the question really is where do we draw the line?
Neoliberals (or should I call them by their proper name - radical free market greedy people) also like to assume that markets are efficient (and government intervention is inefficient) on the basis of the assumption of perfect competition within markets. They know, of course, that markets are not perfectly competitive – for example, that there are externalities (we’ll get to those in a second) and asymmetric information available to people on either side of the competitive divide. If I am buying insurance, for instance, and you are selling it, there is a good chance that I may be hiding the fact that I spend my weekends BASE jumping, if you are thinking of employing me I am unlikely to answer the ‘tell me your greatest fault’ question in a way other than ‘I tend to devote too much energy to my job, even at the expense of my home life’. Asymmetric information is like putting sand in the gears of the engine of perfect competition. The problem is that while most textbooks may acknowledge this fact, they invariably see perfect competition as a reasonable approximation of how markets work; this book points out that this is a very optimistic assessment.
Externalities (or what Milton Friedman refers to as ‘neighbourhood effects’) are the main problem free markets face and are therefore of remarkable importance. While Friedman generally assumes these effects are more or less peripheral and generally can be (if not ignored) accounted for – this book points out they are ubiquitous and probably the major reason why ‘government interference’ (against Friedman’s core belief) makes markets more efficient, and not less.
Externalities work like this: you have a motorbike. You like to start it at 3am when the world is nice and quiet so you can hear that little baby ticking over and purring like a kitten, without any unnecessary and distracting sounds. But while you are twisting the throttle up and listening to her squeal, your neighbours may well be calling the police. They will say they were ‘just trying to sleep’ – but every good Neoliberal will be able to tell you this is yet another example of the ‘politics of envy’ by your neighbours.
Externalities are the negative effects your actions have on society, and which are not accounted for in the market price of that activity. So, in Nineteenth century Melbourne people would dump dead cattle into the Yarra (our main river and main source of drinking water for a long time) – this saved them the cost of otherwise disposing of the animal (a positive), but also helped cause typhoid in those silly enough to drink river water (a negative). Externalities like pollution, greenhouse gases, cancers from various industrial chemicals – are often not factored into calculations or paid for by those who profit most from their use. They are often referred to as 'market failures'. This is why there is so much talk of a carbon tax – as this is a way of getting those who benefit from the creation of externalities to pay a price for this benefit. A carbon tax is also a ‘market based solution’ – which is to say one that takes economics at its word (if you make something more expensive the market will have an incentive to avoid the cost and will therefore innovate). We will see if such belief is enough.
The stuff on trade and globalisation here is fascinating, and perhaps the bit of the book I learnt most from. It takes the standard view of the benefits of free trade – Ricardo’s comparative advantage – and explains how this is a ‘best of all possible world’s’ explanation of how trade works. I had better quickly explain . If you are China and I am Australia and you can make 100 TV or 20 Computer Games with 100 employees and I can make 10 TVs and 25 Computer Games with my 100 employees, it might be best all around for us to specialise and you to only make TVs and for me to only make Computer Games. That way there will be more of both TVs and Computer Games in the world and so that makes more people happy.
The criticisms presented here of this view are brilliant and not ones I have read elsewhere. Firstly, this view assumes things are going to remain pretty well static between China and me – it might be that I’ve just started out making TVs and if I am given a couple of years I might be making 200 TVs rather than my 10 now. By my not investing in developing this industry solely because China is already doing it, I could be making the world worse off in the long run. Also, because everyone who is already doing something will have an advantage over anyone just starting out, this idea implies no one should ever ‘just start out’. Of course, the market for computer games may well collapse and yet I’ve just put all my eggs into what has turned out to be a rather damaged basket.
But the most interesting criticism of free trade is around the question of how we measure ‘better off’. You see, Neoliberals always assume that more is better. Let’s say that CEO pay goes up 300 times in 30 years and the average Joe’s pay hardly goes up at all (that is, let’s assume exactly what has happened since 1980) – Neoliberals say this is fine as the average Joe isn’t worse off, so the fact that the CEO is a lot better off just means society (on balance) is also better off. (Yes, you can just hear ‘politics of envy’ yet again, can’t you?). Anyway, the same thing happens with free trade. Once upon a time there were people manufacturing things in first world countries – now there aren’t. Instead those low skilled jobs have been shipped overseas to places with no trade unions, no health and safety laws and ‘manned’ (so to speak) by children wering t-shirts with ‘plunder’ or ‘pillage’ written on them, I can’t remember which. But even if Ricardo’s comparative advantage was true and society as a whole was better off after free trade, the individuals displaced by this shift might be substantially worse off. And so it has proved in the first world (and possibly also in the third world over time) – with the rich getting richer and the poor doing very much worse.
This is a wonderful book. I found I would start off by agreeing with lots of the standard model and then suddenly feel my loyalties shift as the rose tints were removed from my eyes and shades of grey highlighted within the rest of the text.
Like I said, this book isn’t setting out to praise capitalism, but neither is it setting out to bury capitalism. It is just seeking to show that, ‘The deepest failure of economics is not its failure to shake off an obsolete and damaging rhetoric, but its failure to recognize the inescapably ideological character of its thought’. And so, yes, I would definitely recommend it.
July 18, 2018
This is a pretty decent guide to how the sperglord vision of Homo economicus and other ridiculous assumptions fall down in many ways.
I found a few faults with it though ... some of them are quite significant:
* I believe that, especially as utility is opened up neuropsychologically, "positive economics" (as opposed to "normative economics") is entirely possible. If the right terms are operationalized such and such a way, the research can be totally objective, though I will admit that choices of what is to be researched may reflect norms in a more strict sense.
* The text is internally incoherent with regard to population and economic growth. For instance, at one point, it speaks favorably of the growth rates of highly interventionist economies like Denmark; at another point it speaks of a need to switch from "empty-" to "full-world" economics, as defined by ecological economics. Can't have it both ways.
* Despite a somewhat left-wing orientation to the text, it strangely lauds capitalism for one thing in particular: innovation. This makes little sense on examination. Can you think of a major mathematician or painter or another such figure from the 20th century who was primarily in it for the money? Neither can I. "Innovation" was barely hampered across the board in the Soviet Union, despite government hostility towards free speech in general. In the politically neutral territory of mathematics and physical science, the Soviets excelled. Innovation is a product of the psychological traits of individuals (and small groups). What capitalism is good at doing in regard to innovation is commercializing it, harnessing it, even funding it, but not creating it outright.
* Sometimes the discussion of the standard theory is opaque. (This isn't entirely the authors' fault as it's meant to be a co-text to a standard micro text and to be honest I have fallen out of the practice of reading the blackboard voodoo.)
I still can't give this three stars because it really is above average. Ideally, I'd give it something like 3.75 stars but four stars will have to do.
I found a few faults with it though ... some of them are quite significant:
* I believe that, especially as utility is opened up neuropsychologically, "positive economics" (as opposed to "normative economics") is entirely possible. If the right terms are operationalized such and such a way, the research can be totally objective, though I will admit that choices of what is to be researched may reflect norms in a more strict sense.
* The text is internally incoherent with regard to population and economic growth. For instance, at one point, it speaks favorably of the growth rates of highly interventionist economies like Denmark; at another point it speaks of a need to switch from "empty-" to "full-world" economics, as defined by ecological economics. Can't have it both ways.
* Despite a somewhat left-wing orientation to the text, it strangely lauds capitalism for one thing in particular: innovation. This makes little sense on examination. Can you think of a major mathematician or painter or another such figure from the 20th century who was primarily in it for the money? Neither can I. "Innovation" was barely hampered across the board in the Soviet Union, despite government hostility towards free speech in general. In the politically neutral territory of mathematics and physical science, the Soviets excelled. Innovation is a product of the psychological traits of individuals (and small groups). What capitalism is good at doing in regard to innovation is commercializing it, harnessing it, even funding it, but not creating it outright.
* Sometimes the discussion of the standard theory is opaque. (This isn't entirely the authors' fault as it's meant to be a co-text to a standard micro text and to be honest I have fallen out of the practice of reading the blackboard voodoo.)
I still can't give this three stars because it really is above average. Ideally, I'd give it something like 3.75 stars but four stars will have to do.
January 28, 2012
This book is to undergrad econ what Howard Zinn's People's History of the United States is to U.S. History. It shares a more broad spectrum, arguing for what is not always a minority perspective rather what viewpoint is discarded by the corporations that write our textbooks. Having read Wendell Berry's Home Economics prior to this economic education, I now understand its neoclassical definition rather than Berry's linguistic one. I love economics and the art of its rhetoric.
I remember my confusion as a verdant college freshman on my first day of Econ101, listening intently as the professor explained what would generally be covered in the course. (I was disgusted by the lack of a submitted syllabus. That may of set my mood). It became plain to me that this "science" worked in a vacuum, void of the many variables referred to as irrelevant externalities that obviously affect the outcomes of these trusted models as he forced us to believe certain value judgements on page one while simultaneously denying they even existed therefore lacking all objectivity.
When I humbly inquired the reasons for its selective memory, I was condescendingly admonished and never even given an actual answer. Dissatisfied by the Professor's response, I quietly gathered my things as nearby students looked on nonplussed.
"I refuse to be institutionalized." I whispered and walked out. Finally a book that exclaims I am not crazy to disagree with John Nash's Game Theory norm.
I remember my confusion as a verdant college freshman on my first day of Econ101, listening intently as the professor explained what would generally be covered in the course. (I was disgusted by the lack of a submitted syllabus. That may of set my mood). It became plain to me that this "science" worked in a vacuum, void of the many variables referred to as irrelevant externalities that obviously affect the outcomes of these trusted models as he forced us to believe certain value judgements on page one while simultaneously denying they even existed therefore lacking all objectivity.
When I humbly inquired the reasons for its selective memory, I was condescendingly admonished and never even given an actual answer. Dissatisfied by the Professor's response, I quietly gathered my things as nearby students looked on nonplussed.
"I refuse to be institutionalized." I whispered and walked out. Finally a book that exclaims I am not crazy to disagree with John Nash's Game Theory norm.
December 19, 2017
There's little need to add anything of my own to the review written here:
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
I recommend this to anyone looking for a clear-sighted introduction to economics.
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
I recommend this to anyone looking for a clear-sighted introduction to economics.
Read
September 28, 20240/5 on the spice scale, unless you consider a complete takedown of Neoclassical Economics 101 extremely erotic (and who wouldn't?)
July 24, 2018
A staggering eye-opener from two economics professors. Probably the most unique economics book I've ever read, and one I wish they paired up with regular textbooks, as assigned reading in introductory courses. The book deals with laying bare the assumptions inherent in the economic models we are taught over and over in lower-year econ, that don't really correspond with the situation in the real world and how economists model the real world. It is very important because most people's, and some policymakers', understanding of economics is based on lower-year courses and they transmit what they swallowed from these courses wholesale.
An example of this is the widespread belief in 'the invisible hand' of the market, and that government interference to redistribute income through proportionate taxation and welfare adds to inefficiency in the economy. The authors reveal that this view of the inherent inefficiency of government clashes with Keynes' assumptions, built into standard macroeconomics, that markets naturally go through cycles of boom and bust due to irrational exuberance or pessimism among people. Thus according to Keynes, government intervention is actually necessary.
This book ultimately deals in showing how the real world functions opposite to the simple models of lower-year economics, so much so that what we are thought is just plain useless for our economic knowledge, economic judgments, economic decisions. Markets don't automatically lead to our maximal happiness, because of asymmetric information that leaves some to be market insiders, some outsiders. Demand-supply models of small firms that are price-followers ignore the reality of powerful corporations that get the environmental policy, public structures and emergency financial buyouts they require from the government. Externalities are a bigger, more central issue in the real world than textbooks make them sound. Textbooks emphasize that people are rational actors, capable of pursuing their own interests, whose central problem is getting more and more utility-- when through Arrow's theorem we know people are irrational, make mistakes, and people may value community ties just as much as more and more acquisition. Supply curves don't really exist outside of perfect competition models of intensely limited applicability, and firms don't really follow bogus U-shaped cost curves. And why should we assume that free trade is the greatest, even as it accrues the 'transitional cost' of destroying whole economic communities while rewarding a different area so much more without requiring the affable to repay the penalty? Is scarcity even the main problem of economics, which treats luxury utilities as equivalent to someone else's subsistence diet? Keynes, the authors say, didn't think so: Keynes thought basic needs of food and housing for all were economics' central problem. All this and more are covered in this wonderful book.
An example of this is the widespread belief in 'the invisible hand' of the market, and that government interference to redistribute income through proportionate taxation and welfare adds to inefficiency in the economy. The authors reveal that this view of the inherent inefficiency of government clashes with Keynes' assumptions, built into standard macroeconomics, that markets naturally go through cycles of boom and bust due to irrational exuberance or pessimism among people. Thus according to Keynes, government intervention is actually necessary.
This book ultimately deals in showing how the real world functions opposite to the simple models of lower-year economics, so much so that what we are thought is just plain useless for our economic knowledge, economic judgments, economic decisions. Markets don't automatically lead to our maximal happiness, because of asymmetric information that leaves some to be market insiders, some outsiders. Demand-supply models of small firms that are price-followers ignore the reality of powerful corporations that get the environmental policy, public structures and emergency financial buyouts they require from the government. Externalities are a bigger, more central issue in the real world than textbooks make them sound. Textbooks emphasize that people are rational actors, capable of pursuing their own interests, whose central problem is getting more and more utility-- when through Arrow's theorem we know people are irrational, make mistakes, and people may value community ties just as much as more and more acquisition. Supply curves don't really exist outside of perfect competition models of intensely limited applicability, and firms don't really follow bogus U-shaped cost curves. And why should we assume that free trade is the greatest, even as it accrues the 'transitional cost' of destroying whole economic communities while rewarding a different area so much more without requiring the affable to repay the penalty? Is scarcity even the main problem of economics, which treats luxury utilities as equivalent to someone else's subsistence diet? Keynes, the authors say, didn't think so: Keynes thought basic needs of food and housing for all were economics' central problem. All this and more are covered in this wonderful book.
August 28, 2019
Clearly written and logical, this book does an excellent job explaining the foundational myths of neoliberal economics. It gives a concise summary of nearly all of my university education in economics, and systematically works through all of the issues with what economic theory presents as facts. Hill takes the glaring problems that nagged me in the back of my mind throughout college and beyond, and lays them out in a simple yet decisive way. For example, the equating of money with utility/wellbeing, the myth of an efficiency-equity tradeoff, the unequal distributive effects of free trade, the effects of economic power on political outcomes and vice versa, and so much more.
Highly recommend for anyone with an econ degree, or anyone looking to understand more about why our system is so clearly failing but economists seem to think everything is A-Okay.
Highly recommend for anyone with an econ degree, or anyone looking to understand more about why our system is so clearly failing but economists seem to think everything is A-Okay.
July 31, 2011
A must read for anyone interested in economics. This is a pretty good starting point, and each chapter ends with a few references for more on the topic. The authors highlight not only and necessarily what they think is wrong with the economic theory as it is taught, but also highlight what introductory texts normally leave out. They spend a couple chapters debunking common neoliberal principles by comparing them to how economics actually operates in the real world. They also argue that the concerns that intro texts leave out are precisely the issues that matter most in economics. The book's treatment of these issues are well written, and wide in scope and breadth, and actually make current issues make sense.
January 8, 2020
Useful counterweight to the many lies-to-children told in proper undergraduate textbooks. And it is often useful to be reminded of the ideological nonsense that surrounds even mathematised fields.
But, read on its own, this won't tell you the power and generality of some economic results and risks confirmation bias. (In my teenage case it licenced my not bothering to do the maths, not allowing my own ideological nonsense to be shaken - but I don't expect you to be so vicious.)
But, read on its own, this won't tell you the power and generality of some economic results and risks confirmation bias. (In my teenage case it licenced my not bothering to do the maths, not allowing my own ideological nonsense to be shaken - but I don't expect you to be so vicious.)
December 20, 2016
It's a book that has been written with true spirit of scientist. If you think that there is something wrong with "market fundamentalism" school or their presentation of economics gives you no clue of why economics is called "dismal science", DO NOT miss this book.
February 2, 2017
A bit slow at points (but then, it is an economics text). He does do a pretty good job if presenting many of the inconsistencies that exist in the field of economics, as it is presented in beginner level text books. This text would not be suitable as a sole textbook; but it is good supplementary material.
May 21, 2017
Conceptually, I like this book a lot. I subscribe to the main ideas that real life economics are not at all like what you see in university textbooks, where nearly everything can be explained by the free market with its neat supply and demand curves, and where imperfect information, abuse of power and externalities either do not exist, or are treated to a quarter-page mention towards the end of the chapter. Personally, I believe that free markets like those from Adam Smith's and David Ricardo's books - with thousands of buyers and sellers, and with interchangeable products and services, where nobody is big enough to unilaterally influence market price and dynamics - do not exist. I also believe that when left unchecked, people (including - oh, surprise - entrepreneurs) have many incentives to abuse the market, as long as they can get away with it - thus free and unregulated markets eventually turn into monopolies. In short, I believe that preaching the virtues of free markets and the evils of regulation is as unrealistic, as is believing in complete regulation.
The book identifies certain simplifications and assumptions, which make economics textbook conceptually right while realistically wrong. For example, in real life it will be completely unrealistic to expect a firm's entire personnel to quite because the wage has been decreased by 1 cent or - even less realistic - that returning the wage to the equilibrium level will make workers return all of a sudden. Everyone that has ever looked for a job or for an employee knows how imperfect information keeps job vacancies for months, while the asymmetric labor market makes people work for less or more than their "real" value added.
Now, the reason for my 2-star rating is the book's overall style and content. While it is designed as an anti-textbook, it felt (to me) very much like a real one. I found it overly theoretical, with long descriptions, many references to academic work - but hardly any real-life examples. Thus, while it attacked the "right" enemy, I do not think it did it in a very convincing manner.
The book identifies certain simplifications and assumptions, which make economics textbook conceptually right while realistically wrong. For example, in real life it will be completely unrealistic to expect a firm's entire personnel to quite because the wage has been decreased by 1 cent or - even less realistic - that returning the wage to the equilibrium level will make workers return all of a sudden. Everyone that has ever looked for a job or for an employee knows how imperfect information keeps job vacancies for months, while the asymmetric labor market makes people work for less or more than their "real" value added.
Now, the reason for my 2-star rating is the book's overall style and content. While it is designed as an anti-textbook, it felt (to me) very much like a real one. I found it overly theoretical, with long descriptions, many references to academic work - but hardly any real-life examples. Thus, while it attacked the "right" enemy, I do not think it did it in a very convincing manner.
August 18, 2022
I liked the book, but be aware that it is NOT for complete beginners. It explicitly states that it is for Economics students and professionals. As such it's not exactly "entertaining". The style is *somewhat* academic and the information is densely packed into every page.
I'm no Economics professional, but I still wanted to read it, because the format was appealing: each chapter has a "what the standard textbooks say" section, followed by "we disagree or this is far from the whole picture". The former was sometimes difficult to digest, containing charts and models. The latter was always simpler to understand.
This book is NOT anti-capitalist or anti-free markets, but it does provide strong, coherent arguments why unfettered and unregulated capitalism doesn't lead to the best of all possible worlds. Not just rants or cherry-picked data, but actual logical arguments, and it raises many open-ended questions and leaves the reader to think about them.
The book demonstrates how most Econ models are just pure numbers and charts that pretend as if all economy and market participants were equally well-informed by perfect data, there was no power struggle or corruption of any kind, and no externalities (producer not bearing the cost of some of his activities, e.g. a factory dumping toxic waste downstream and avoiding responsibility). As if mom-and-pop stores could participate on equal footing with big megacorps. As if consumers only cared about the price and the product characteristics without caring about equity, fairness, and justice. These concepts are, of course, impossible to quantify or measure objectively, and so neoliberal economic mathematical models ignore them (understandably), but it doesn't mean they are NOT there and bear NO significance. They do a lot.
I didn't understand all of the text, but that's on me - the book gives a fair disclosure that it's not for complete newbies. Despite that, I can only highly recommend it.
I'm no Economics professional, but I still wanted to read it, because the format was appealing: each chapter has a "what the standard textbooks say" section, followed by "we disagree or this is far from the whole picture". The former was sometimes difficult to digest, containing charts and models. The latter was always simpler to understand.
This book is NOT anti-capitalist or anti-free markets, but it does provide strong, coherent arguments why unfettered and unregulated capitalism doesn't lead to the best of all possible worlds. Not just rants or cherry-picked data, but actual logical arguments, and it raises many open-ended questions and leaves the reader to think about them.
The book demonstrates how most Econ models are just pure numbers and charts that pretend as if all economy and market participants were equally well-informed by perfect data, there was no power struggle or corruption of any kind, and no externalities (producer not bearing the cost of some of his activities, e.g. a factory dumping toxic waste downstream and avoiding responsibility). As if mom-and-pop stores could participate on equal footing with big megacorps. As if consumers only cared about the price and the product characteristics without caring about equity, fairness, and justice. These concepts are, of course, impossible to quantify or measure objectively, and so neoliberal economic mathematical models ignore them (understandably), but it doesn't mean they are NOT there and bear NO significance. They do a lot.
I didn't understand all of the text, but that's on me - the book gives a fair disclosure that it's not for complete newbies. Despite that, I can only highly recommend it.
February 6, 2018
I read most of this during my Econ101 class, to get a better appreciation of economics outside of the neo-classical school that the lecturers taught. I felt like it gave me a more well-rounded view, but also helped to cement the concepts that appeared in my course. I like the tone and the pace of this book. I imagine for someone who isn't or hasn't taken an econ class, much of it wouldn't really be clear. It gives brief "textbook" versions of concepts, and it's not a bad introduction or summary, but to get the most out of this I think it needs to be read as a companion to another textbook.
I'd highly recommend anyone taking introductory economics to get a copy, and read it alongside the course textbook. It should encourage a more pluralistic, critical view of mainstream econ.
I'd highly recommend anyone taking introductory economics to get a copy, and read it alongside the course textbook. It should encourage a more pluralistic, critical view of mainstream econ.
December 23, 2025
Raises a lot of good questions and makes one think of economics in a more complex and nuanced way than the Economics 101 or Intermediate level. The teaching of economics really is too narrow in scope, although the deficiencies are often overstated in critiques. I thought this mostly did a decent job on that regard. I was also glad to see that many criticisms here had been entirely or partly remedied in the free online textbook (The Economy Core) used in my Economics 101 course. Other parts were things not really said in the course but things I had instinctively reasoned/thought/derived from the course. Some things were such I had thought of them.
July 5, 2017
Excellent exploration both of the problems with the narrow range of analystical approaches that mainstream economics teaching currently offers and of broader, richer ways of thinking about economics. This book offers a readable way into the orthodox and heterodox.
The chapter on factors of production felt a little rushed and poorly explained in parts, so one star dropped, but otherwise the explanations are lucid.
The chapter on factors of production felt a little rushed and poorly explained in parts, so one star dropped, but otherwise the explanations are lucid.
September 19, 2023
This was much better than I expected, mainly because it did not attempt to criticise the entire discipline of economics - which many other books try and fail to do -, but instead focussed on introductory economics textbooks. These are much easier, but no less important, to critique. I would recommend this book to anyone who is taking/has recently taken an intro to microeconomics course and would like to learn about the same material, but from a different perspective.
January 14, 2021
Standart bir mikro iktisat ders kitabı formatında, önce ana akım iktisatın konuları nasıl açıkladığını aktarıyor ve ardından yazarlar eleştirilerini yapıyorlar. İktisada giriş, mikro iktisat ve makro iktisat derslerini alan iktisat öğrencilerinin okumasını öneririm. Ders kitaplarında aktarılan bilgileri doğrudan kabul etmek yerine eleştirel bir şekilde öğrenmenizi sağlayacak bir kitap.
May 27, 2020
For those who are not trained economist, certain technical part might be difficult to grasp. Else, quite good book to understand the other side of neo-classical\market economy.
library-to-read
February 3, 2021If I can get through this, I can probably stop reading econ. Because I don't really have any good reason to care now, and probably won't after one more decent book.
March 22, 2021
Great read - made me think of times when I was a college student studying economics. Wish I had this book back then. The authors help you to ask the right questions about the most known theories.
June 18, 2023
Outstanding content presented in the most verbose unimaginative structure possible. Or maybe I just need to give this book to a friend who’s smarter than me…
November 19, 2013
The world we live in is a frictionless wonderland of free and fair markets, where all exchange is voluntary, everybody earns their marginal product, rising tides lift all boats, externalities are rare-to-nonexistent, and the Invisible Hand benevolently coordinates the human family’s aggregate selfishness and hunger for scarce resources into the Best of All Possible Worlds.
Or not.
In The Economics Anti-Textbook: A Critical Thinker's Guide to Microeconomics, Rod Hill and Tony Myatt, professors of economics at the University of New Brunswick (who self-describe as a "post-Keynesian" and a "European-style social democrat"), pull back the veil on the glittering “free” market utopia to reveal a morass of value judgments, hidden assumptions, and market fundamentalism dressed up as objective social science. These value judgments are not limited to the introductory textbooks that serve as the authors’ principle target. They are, as demonstrated by numerous textual examples (and evident from a cursory glance at the news cycle) “like a vise on the mind of economists [and policy-makers], who get tetchy when you present results that reveal the behavior of real people to be not as those textbooks assume” (qtd. P. 243), who balk at the suggestion that efficiency (as defined by the production of more and more stuff) may not be the be-all-end-all determinant of human happiness, that there may be such things as “equity costs” or pervasive externalities.
In this lucid, highly readable volume shows how the standard texts systematically oversell perfectly competitive markets, ignoring empirical evidence that suggests that such perfectly competitive markets are incredibly rare (if non-existent). It shows how the normative assumption of efficiency as a goal in and of itself squares neither with ecological imperatives nor with the empirical evidence of human nature and behavior. I was particularly interested in the chapters on the behavior of firms, the determination of wages, government, and “free” trade, as it is here that power and history reenter the picture most clearly. (I consider the almost total—and perhaps totally intentional—absence of any theory of power to be one of the chief failings of neoclassical economic doctrine.)
That said, if what a text leaves out is as telling as what it includes, then I was also intrigued by the almost total omission from this anti-textbook of Marxian economics. Perhaps it is because the authors wished to take on the neoclassicals on their own turf, preferring to cite Nobel Prize-winning economists such as Joseph Stiglitz and Kenneth Arrow to give their arguments more weight with other economists and with a Marx-phobic public. I found much here that seems totally consonant with Marxian analysis – for instance, a model of monopsony (“one-buyer,” so the demand-side counterpart to monopoly, “one-seller”) predicts that workers will be systematically paid less than their marginal product, a key Marxian insight. It might have been nice to make those kinds of connections explicit in the text.
On the other hand, I’m relatively familiar with Marxian economics already, it was fun and instructive for me to put the puzzle pieces together myself. And it’s likely enough that most of Hill & Myatt’s target audience—economics students and educated laypeople—share our society’s pervasive distaste for Marx (or rather, for the popular distortion of him and his work). A heavy Marxian presence in the text might have done more harm than good, whatever the value of that particular perspective (which I’m inclined to think is greater than many would like to admit).
In any event, it’s nice to know you don’t have to be a “godless communist” to mount a meaningful attack on market fundamentalism, that different perspectives are cognizant of the fact that the edifice of neoclassical orthodoxy needs to be condemned. With its well-written discussions of how and why, and what kinds of theories might serve as the foundations for saner economic policy, The Economics Anti-Textbook serves as a necessary addition/corrective to any standard Intro to Econ course. Highly recommended.
Or not.
In The Economics Anti-Textbook: A Critical Thinker's Guide to Microeconomics, Rod Hill and Tony Myatt, professors of economics at the University of New Brunswick (who self-describe as a "post-Keynesian" and a "European-style social democrat"), pull back the veil on the glittering “free” market utopia to reveal a morass of value judgments, hidden assumptions, and market fundamentalism dressed up as objective social science. These value judgments are not limited to the introductory textbooks that serve as the authors’ principle target. They are, as demonstrated by numerous textual examples (and evident from a cursory glance at the news cycle) “like a vise on the mind of economists [and policy-makers], who get tetchy when you present results that reveal the behavior of real people to be not as those textbooks assume” (qtd. P. 243), who balk at the suggestion that efficiency (as defined by the production of more and more stuff) may not be the be-all-end-all determinant of human happiness, that there may be such things as “equity costs” or pervasive externalities.
In this lucid, highly readable volume shows how the standard texts systematically oversell perfectly competitive markets, ignoring empirical evidence that suggests that such perfectly competitive markets are incredibly rare (if non-existent). It shows how the normative assumption of efficiency as a goal in and of itself squares neither with ecological imperatives nor with the empirical evidence of human nature and behavior. I was particularly interested in the chapters on the behavior of firms, the determination of wages, government, and “free” trade, as it is here that power and history reenter the picture most clearly. (I consider the almost total—and perhaps totally intentional—absence of any theory of power to be one of the chief failings of neoclassical economic doctrine.)
That said, if what a text leaves out is as telling as what it includes, then I was also intrigued by the almost total omission from this anti-textbook of Marxian economics. Perhaps it is because the authors wished to take on the neoclassicals on their own turf, preferring to cite Nobel Prize-winning economists such as Joseph Stiglitz and Kenneth Arrow to give their arguments more weight with other economists and with a Marx-phobic public. I found much here that seems totally consonant with Marxian analysis – for instance, a model of monopsony (“one-buyer,” so the demand-side counterpart to monopoly, “one-seller”) predicts that workers will be systematically paid less than their marginal product, a key Marxian insight. It might have been nice to make those kinds of connections explicit in the text.
On the other hand, I’m relatively familiar with Marxian economics already, it was fun and instructive for me to put the puzzle pieces together myself. And it’s likely enough that most of Hill & Myatt’s target audience—economics students and educated laypeople—share our society’s pervasive distaste for Marx (or rather, for the popular distortion of him and his work). A heavy Marxian presence in the text might have done more harm than good, whatever the value of that particular perspective (which I’m inclined to think is greater than many would like to admit).
In any event, it’s nice to know you don’t have to be a “godless communist” to mount a meaningful attack on market fundamentalism, that different perspectives are cognizant of the fact that the edifice of neoclassical orthodoxy needs to be condemned. With its well-written discussions of how and why, and what kinds of theories might serve as the foundations for saner economic policy, The Economics Anti-Textbook serves as a necessary addition/corrective to any standard Intro to Econ course. Highly recommended.
December 22, 2020
Üniversitede ilk iktisat dersini dinlerken bana" burada ne işim var benim, bu adam ne zaman bizim fikirlerimizi sormaya başlayacak acaba, hiç durmadan konuşuyor, sosyal bilimler dersinde miyiz, ilahiyat fakültesinde mi?" dedirten neo liberal ders kitapları yerine olması gereken eleştirel yaklaşımı sunan harika bir kitap.
Batı sözde herşeye eleştirel düşünce ile yaklaşır, ama bazı şeyler tartışmasızdır, mesela piyasa ekonomisi.
Eğer iktisat dersi alıyorsanız, kesinlikle okuyun, iktisat okumak istiyorsanız, kesinlikle okuyun.
Batı sözde herşeye eleştirel düşünce ile yaklaşır, ama bazı şeyler tartışmasızdır, mesela piyasa ekonomisi.
Eğer iktisat dersi alıyorsanız, kesinlikle okuyun, iktisat okumak istiyorsanız, kesinlikle okuyun.
April 21, 2016
This was a really a good, thought provoking book. I suggest it be the next book you read after finishing your microeconomics class (or read it beforehand if you really want to annoy your professor, haha).
The format of the book is a bit unique. The sequence of chapters tends to follow that of a typical intro level economics textbook. Each chapter begins with a fairly brief explanation of a concept as taught in most classrooms (printed in a somewhat unusual font). The second part of each chapter is referred to as the "Anti-text" and aims to debunk the typical lesson found in a standard economics textbook.
A few thoughts/ideas I found interesting:
- The possibility that the minimum wage demand curve could actually be curved and not straight. This means there could be more than one equilibrium point and introduce the possibility that minimum wage laws could serve to avoid a lower "wage trap" equilibrium point.
- The chapter on externalities was also good. It gets you thinking about a lot more than typically mentioned items such as pollution.
- Government is necessary to regulate markets where there is asymmetrical information between buyer/seller. I have typically considered myself a free market proponent, but they make good points in this regard.
-One of my favorite lines from the book (paraphrased): Markets can stay irrational longer than smart investors can stay solvent.
It wasn't the easiest read (at least not for me), but well worth the time. Oh, and be prepared for a little America bashing and Canada praising as both authors are from north of the border. :)
The format of the book is a bit unique. The sequence of chapters tends to follow that of a typical intro level economics textbook. Each chapter begins with a fairly brief explanation of a concept as taught in most classrooms (printed in a somewhat unusual font). The second part of each chapter is referred to as the "Anti-text" and aims to debunk the typical lesson found in a standard economics textbook.
A few thoughts/ideas I found interesting:
- The possibility that the minimum wage demand curve could actually be curved and not straight. This means there could be more than one equilibrium point and introduce the possibility that minimum wage laws could serve to avoid a lower "wage trap" equilibrium point.
- The chapter on externalities was also good. It gets you thinking about a lot more than typically mentioned items such as pollution.
- Government is necessary to regulate markets where there is asymmetrical information between buyer/seller. I have typically considered myself a free market proponent, but they make good points in this regard.
-One of my favorite lines from the book (paraphrased): Markets can stay irrational longer than smart investors can stay solvent.
It wasn't the easiest read (at least not for me), but well worth the time. Oh, and be prepared for a little America bashing and Canada praising as both authors are from north of the border. :)
February 11, 2013
One of the best books I've ever read, absolutely fantastic. Takes apart the textbook view of economics one piece at a time in a very easy to understand way. Brilliantly argued and I especially liked how every page or two had a question for your professor. Excellent book that I cannot recommend enough
December 22, 2017
A bit dry for my tastes. I liked economix much better in terms of being interesting. That being said, this book may have better information I was just couldn't find anything interesting the way the book was laid out (the section headings didn't interest me)
Want to read
December 2, 2010
Displaying 1 - 29 of 29 reviews