What do you think?
Rate this book
The Truth About Markets: Why Some Nations Are Rich But Most Remain Poor
Capitalism faltered at the end of the 1990s as corporations were rocked by fraud, the stock-market bubble burst and the American business model – unfettered self-interest, privatization and low tax – faced a storm of protest. But what are the alternatives to the mantras of market fundamentalism? Leading economist John Kay unravels the truth about markets, from Wall Street to Switzerland, from Russia to Mumbai, examining why some nations are rich and some poor, why ‘one-size-fits-all’ globalization hurts developing countries and why markets can work – but only in a humane social and cultural context. His answers offer a radical new blueprint for the future.
479 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2003
32 people are currently reading
1471 people want to read
About the author
John Kay
67 books180 followersI was born in Edinburgh, Scotland in 1948, and completed my schooling and undergraduate education in that city: I am fortunate to have lived most of my life in beautiful places. I went to the University of Edinburgh to study mathematics. But, after taking a subsidiary course in economics, I decided that I wanted to be an economist. The notion that one might understand society better through the application of rigorous and logical analysis excited me – and it still does. After graduating from Edinburgh, I went to Nuffield College, Oxford. I worked there under James Mirrlees, who was in due course to win the Nobel Prize for his contributions to economic theory.
On Mirrlees’s advice, I applied for and to my astonishment got a permanent teaching post in the University of Oxford at the embarrassingly early age of 21. Oxford is a collegiate university – members of the faculty generally have both University and College appointments. This post carried with it a fellowship at St John’s College, an association which I have maintained and enjoyed ever since. Through the 1970s I developed a conventional academic career, publishing in academic journals, and writing my first book Concentration in Modern Industry (with Leslie Hannah, an economic historian colleague). My particular interests were in public finance and industrial organisation.
But my rationale for studying economics had, from the beginning, been concerned for application. My career began to change direction when I was asked to join a group to review the structure of the British tax system. This group was established under the auspices of a newly established think tank, the Institute for Fiscal Studies, and was headed by James Meade, another economist who had achieved the ultimate distinction of a Nobel prize. Meade’s rigour was as demanding as that of Mirrlees, (both delivered it with extraordinary personal charm). But the most important effect of my experience with the Meade Committee was that I began to develop a taste for the popular exposition of economic concepts.
In this vein, I wrote (with Mervyn King, now Governor of the Bank of England) a more personal account of issues in taxation, The British Tax System which ran through five editions.
Pursuing these interests, I moved from Oxford and joined the Institute for Fiscal Studies as its first research director. Soon after I became Director of the Institute. IFS developed into (and remains) one of Britain’s leading think tanks, respected and feared by policymakers and journalists for its fiercely independent analysis of fiscal issues.
After seven years, I decided it was time to move on. The success of IFS had been built on serious economics accompanied by a commitment to popularisation and application. If this could be done for public policy issues, could the same be done in the area of business policy? This was the thinking that led me to accept a chair at the London Business School in 1986 and, at the same time, to establish a consulting company, London Economics.
Over the next few years, the application of economics to business issues became my intellectual focus. During this period, London Economics grew rapidly, largely on the back of the wave of privatisation and regulatory change in Britain in the 1980s. By 1991, managing the company had become a major responsibility. I revised my arrangements with London Business School. My new contract was as Visiting Professor but my job as executive chairman of London Economics took the larger part of my time. London Economics grew until, by its tenth anniversary, its annual turnover exceeded £10m with offices in three continents and assignments in over sixty countries.
London Economics gave me insights into the business world. These came both through consultancy work with major corporations and first hand observation of the growth and development of a small business. Other activities have enriched my more scholarly work by broadening the experi
On Mirrlees’s advice, I applied for and to my astonishment got a permanent teaching post in the University of Oxford at the embarrassingly early age of 21. Oxford is a collegiate university – members of the faculty generally have both University and College appointments. This post carried with it a fellowship at St John’s College, an association which I have maintained and enjoyed ever since. Through the 1970s I developed a conventional academic career, publishing in academic journals, and writing my first book Concentration in Modern Industry (with Leslie Hannah, an economic historian colleague). My particular interests were in public finance and industrial organisation.
But my rationale for studying economics had, from the beginning, been concerned for application. My career began to change direction when I was asked to join a group to review the structure of the British tax system. This group was established under the auspices of a newly established think tank, the Institute for Fiscal Studies, and was headed by James Meade, another economist who had achieved the ultimate distinction of a Nobel prize. Meade’s rigour was as demanding as that of Mirrlees, (both delivered it with extraordinary personal charm). But the most important effect of my experience with the Meade Committee was that I began to develop a taste for the popular exposition of economic concepts.
In this vein, I wrote (with Mervyn King, now Governor of the Bank of England) a more personal account of issues in taxation, The British Tax System which ran through five editions.
Pursuing these interests, I moved from Oxford and joined the Institute for Fiscal Studies as its first research director. Soon after I became Director of the Institute. IFS developed into (and remains) one of Britain’s leading think tanks, respected and feared by policymakers and journalists for its fiercely independent analysis of fiscal issues.
After seven years, I decided it was time to move on. The success of IFS had been built on serious economics accompanied by a commitment to popularisation and application. If this could be done for public policy issues, could the same be done in the area of business policy? This was the thinking that led me to accept a chair at the London Business School in 1986 and, at the same time, to establish a consulting company, London Economics.
Over the next few years, the application of economics to business issues became my intellectual focus. During this period, London Economics grew rapidly, largely on the back of the wave of privatisation and regulatory change in Britain in the 1980s. By 1991, managing the company had become a major responsibility. I revised my arrangements with London Business School. My new contract was as Visiting Professor but my job as executive chairman of London Economics took the larger part of my time. London Economics grew until, by its tenth anniversary, its annual turnover exceeded £10m with offices in three continents and assignments in over sixty countries.
London Economics gave me insights into the business world. These came both through consultancy work with major corporations and first hand observation of the growth and development of a small business. Other activities have enriched my more scholarly work by broadening the experi
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 27 of 27 reviews
October 5, 2010
Has occasional dry swaths, but overall an enjoyable, balanced, and learned read that draws from the expected sources (Milton Friedman, Adam Smith, Hayek) as well as the unexpected (John Rawls, Clifford Geertz, Arthur Miller, Jean-François Lyotard, Middlemarch). It's mocking where appropriate (Bloomberg Television, Who Moved My Cheese?), and wry ("Ronald Reagan was not much interested in algebraic topology: but the intellectual influences on him, when finally disentangled, can be traced back to those fixed-point theorems"). Kay appreciates the strengths of market-oriented solutions and is pro-prosperity, but also highly critical of Friedman's "American Business Model", which is really just a mirage anyway. (The ABM has four prongs: self-interest rules, market fundamentalism, the minimal state, and low taxation.) Successful markets that create prosperity always depend on the institutions (legal, governmental, cultural, social) that underpin them. I.e., markets are "embedded." This is why you can't superimpose free-ish markets on poor countries and expect results. Interesting discussion of rationality vs. adaptation. (It turns out economic rationality is a mirage, too.) Extremely comprehensive bibliography.
June 19, 2013
A great myth debunker
When I was a university student majoring in economics, it had been very puzzling that why a hairdresser from India earns well below his counterpart from US even though their works and capabilities are by and large identical. Later I could understand the relationship between input and output is not straightforward. What is important is the function, as you learned in math classes.
Input turn to output only after it goes through a function. A function consists of rule of law, work ethics, social institutions, education, and political stability. It is easy to increase input, yet output does not go hand in hand with input. It is too complex to emulate. That’s why natural resources can be curse for failed countries and economic aids are wasted more often than not. Only small number of countries of non-western countries could have successfully managed to modernise their functions. Functions are different from each other, yet they are functioning well in its own way.
In this sense, there are no emerging countries but re-emerging ones. John Kay is a great economist who humbly admits even economist does not understand how to make economy tick.
When I was a university student majoring in economics, it had been very puzzling that why a hairdresser from India earns well below his counterpart from US even though their works and capabilities are by and large identical. Later I could understand the relationship between input and output is not straightforward. What is important is the function, as you learned in math classes.
Input turn to output only after it goes through a function. A function consists of rule of law, work ethics, social institutions, education, and political stability. It is easy to increase input, yet output does not go hand in hand with input. It is too complex to emulate. That’s why natural resources can be curse for failed countries and economic aids are wasted more often than not. Only small number of countries of non-western countries could have successfully managed to modernise their functions. Functions are different from each other, yet they are functioning well in its own way.
In this sense, there are no emerging countries but re-emerging ones. John Kay is a great economist who humbly admits even economist does not understand how to make economy tick.
February 8, 2018
The title of the book is misleading. I expected detailed examples of how different kinds of markets work. Instead this book is a tirade against American capitalism. This book is thin on theories, science and case studies and abound in opinion. The author has a particularly bad habit of name dropping a few economists without explaining their theories with enough depth.
As some one who understands a little bit of economics, I felt like the book treats me as an idiot. Its at best a bad pop-economics introduction book.
November 11, 2016
This future classic was completed in 2002, following the collapse of the Internet stock market bubble and the Enron / WorldCom scandals.
John Kay can be forgiven if he erroneously thought that “The Truth About Markets” would be some sort of epitaph for the failed “market fundamentalism” / “shareholder value” / “greed is good” era. We now know that, alas, he was at best delivering a palate-cleanser of the kind you get served at fancy restaurants after the appetizers.
He perhaps did not fully realise that the widespread direct and indirect ownership of assets had by the turn of the century turned asset prices into a primary target of government policy, and that all asset prices (stocks, bonds, housing, collectibles), by dint of having embedded themselves into the balance sheet of the banking system and the entitlements of an ageing population, would become the object of unprecedented support from central banks and policymakers, alongside Wall Street, the City and the CEOs he blames for their ascent.
Regardless, this book has stood the test of time.
There is a rich literature, chiefly academic literature, which seeks to explain that the most important differentiator between successful and unsuccessful states lies in the existence of robust, pluralistic institutions (some official and some unofficial) that serve to support the functioning of markets and societies. This literature is often convincing, but is usually very narrowly focused and quite often attempts to explain too wide a range of developments along simple axes. Acemoglu and Robinson, for example, wrote a 500 page book about the interplay between inclusive versus extractive political institutions and inclusive versus extractive economic institutions. My favorite Mancur Olson has written extensively on this topic too: he differentiates between spontaneous markets and markets that are fostered by governments, the latter being the ones that make countries rich. And so on. These, otherwise fantastic, contributions, are mere models, however.
John Kay goes one further than these pioneers, in that he dares to make some enemies:
First, he adopts the language of the statists, to unmask the “democratically elected,” state-appointed experts who are meant to take consideration of the long term consequences of their decisions and are meant to internalize the externalities of markets. In truth, he says, they are guaranteed to fail, because once the decision has been made about the best possible plan, centrally-planned systems inherently do not accept criticism. Any failure is attributed to the insufficient implementation of the plan, rather than the plan the experts designed. Democracy is not a sufficient condition for economic success. Direct democracy, in that it undermines specialization, even less so. More to the point, a democratic mandate for a policy does not make it good economic policy. Both the UK and the French approach to energy generation are considered here as examples of how not to do business and they provide truly illuminating “proof by contradiction” of the author’s view.
The opposite view, that markets alone provide the solution, because they represent the result of billions of decisions and billions of adaptations by billions of agents is also unmasked as naïve, among other things because a lot of the most important things in our lives you cannot necessarily buy or sell or insure against. Tradable markets are often a side-show in our life. You cannot buy and sell organs is what our society believes at the moment, for instance. The things we can trade, besides, can become casinos, like the market for foreign exchange which is 300 times larger than the needs that arise from international trade. Perhaps even more importantly, many markets by their very construction will never become perfectly competitive (for example, electricity distribution in a small country) and therefore a market solution may by construction be imperfect.
My favorite analogy, however (and in this case it does not suffer from the “fallacy of composition“ argument that undermines the “Schwabian wife” economics), is that the same way a teacher is fully expected to take his students’ interests in mind, all while he is earning the salary to pay for his own kids’ milk, a corporation must first have a duty to its customers, all while taking care of its employees and shareholders.
Care is additionally taken to tell you how we got here and how we get stuck in the ways we’re doing things: it’s because as economic agents we would be foolish to do anything other than to adapt to our immediate, narrow, environment. When in Rome, do as Romans do. So when in Greece, evade tax, when in Russia, bribe. When in the US, presumably, make a donation to the Clinton foundation (he does not actually say that in the book, I just thought I’d stir the pot)
And no, I have not succeeded in condensing a 300 page book into 4 paragraphs, you’ll have to buy the book and read it yourself!
The best thing about the book, however, is that it succeeds in defining the terms of the debate.
John Kay recognizes that the answers to economic issues are a matter of taste. Market fundamentalists may prefer the lower overall growth / wealth that will ensue in the absence of government and redistributionists may prefer a lower growth / wealth if it is more equitably distributed. These are not differences that economics will ever resolve and economists should refrain from conflating this debate with economics.
If growth and prosperity is what you want, however, the argument is made very persuasively that it’s best to carve a course down the middle of the road. The lists of countries at the beginning of the book are provided as (very compelling) evidence and the rest of the book successfully explains why it's worth it to do the work, rather than default to a doctrinaire approach.
The book is not perfect. I really wish the author did not refer to the right-wing setup as the “ABM,” which stands for “American Business Model” because it not only dates the book, it actually turns it into a bit of a polemic. Also, the idea of “embedded markets,” which the author sets out as the nirvana we need to reach, is not fully developed. In choosing to explain his favorite set-up of “embedded markets” via the example of higher education, the author has actually made a poor choice (though obviously we have the benefit of 15 years of hindsight in observing US higher education is in crisis, rather than a role model “embedded market”). And, needless to say, in picking a “middle of the road” direction that is not “clear and simple” (yes, I’m quoting Mencken again) he is extremely unlikely to make a set of choices that will match any particular reader’s perfectly. I, for instance, take issue with his attitude toward the markets we are fortunate enough to be able to trade, to say nothing about his scorn for those who participate in them.
Regardless, it takes some doing to generate passion for the middle road.
It is this passion that elevates “The Truth about Markets,” a comprehensive, clear and detailed book, to the status of masterpiece.
John Kay can be forgiven if he erroneously thought that “The Truth About Markets” would be some sort of epitaph for the failed “market fundamentalism” / “shareholder value” / “greed is good” era. We now know that, alas, he was at best delivering a palate-cleanser of the kind you get served at fancy restaurants after the appetizers.
He perhaps did not fully realise that the widespread direct and indirect ownership of assets had by the turn of the century turned asset prices into a primary target of government policy, and that all asset prices (stocks, bonds, housing, collectibles), by dint of having embedded themselves into the balance sheet of the banking system and the entitlements of an ageing population, would become the object of unprecedented support from central banks and policymakers, alongside Wall Street, the City and the CEOs he blames for their ascent.
Regardless, this book has stood the test of time.
There is a rich literature, chiefly academic literature, which seeks to explain that the most important differentiator between successful and unsuccessful states lies in the existence of robust, pluralistic institutions (some official and some unofficial) that serve to support the functioning of markets and societies. This literature is often convincing, but is usually very narrowly focused and quite often attempts to explain too wide a range of developments along simple axes. Acemoglu and Robinson, for example, wrote a 500 page book about the interplay between inclusive versus extractive political institutions and inclusive versus extractive economic institutions. My favorite Mancur Olson has written extensively on this topic too: he differentiates between spontaneous markets and markets that are fostered by governments, the latter being the ones that make countries rich. And so on. These, otherwise fantastic, contributions, are mere models, however.
John Kay goes one further than these pioneers, in that he dares to make some enemies:
First, he adopts the language of the statists, to unmask the “democratically elected,” state-appointed experts who are meant to take consideration of the long term consequences of their decisions and are meant to internalize the externalities of markets. In truth, he says, they are guaranteed to fail, because once the decision has been made about the best possible plan, centrally-planned systems inherently do not accept criticism. Any failure is attributed to the insufficient implementation of the plan, rather than the plan the experts designed. Democracy is not a sufficient condition for economic success. Direct democracy, in that it undermines specialization, even less so. More to the point, a democratic mandate for a policy does not make it good economic policy. Both the UK and the French approach to energy generation are considered here as examples of how not to do business and they provide truly illuminating “proof by contradiction” of the author’s view.
The opposite view, that markets alone provide the solution, because they represent the result of billions of decisions and billions of adaptations by billions of agents is also unmasked as naïve, among other things because a lot of the most important things in our lives you cannot necessarily buy or sell or insure against. Tradable markets are often a side-show in our life. You cannot buy and sell organs is what our society believes at the moment, for instance. The things we can trade, besides, can become casinos, like the market for foreign exchange which is 300 times larger than the needs that arise from international trade. Perhaps even more importantly, many markets by their very construction will never become perfectly competitive (for example, electricity distribution in a small country) and therefore a market solution may by construction be imperfect.
My favorite analogy, however (and in this case it does not suffer from the “fallacy of composition“ argument that undermines the “Schwabian wife” economics), is that the same way a teacher is fully expected to take his students’ interests in mind, all while he is earning the salary to pay for his own kids’ milk, a corporation must first have a duty to its customers, all while taking care of its employees and shareholders.
Care is additionally taken to tell you how we got here and how we get stuck in the ways we’re doing things: it’s because as economic agents we would be foolish to do anything other than to adapt to our immediate, narrow, environment. When in Rome, do as Romans do. So when in Greece, evade tax, when in Russia, bribe. When in the US, presumably, make a donation to the Clinton foundation (he does not actually say that in the book, I just thought I’d stir the pot)
And no, I have not succeeded in condensing a 300 page book into 4 paragraphs, you’ll have to buy the book and read it yourself!
The best thing about the book, however, is that it succeeds in defining the terms of the debate.
John Kay recognizes that the answers to economic issues are a matter of taste. Market fundamentalists may prefer the lower overall growth / wealth that will ensue in the absence of government and redistributionists may prefer a lower growth / wealth if it is more equitably distributed. These are not differences that economics will ever resolve and economists should refrain from conflating this debate with economics.
If growth and prosperity is what you want, however, the argument is made very persuasively that it’s best to carve a course down the middle of the road. The lists of countries at the beginning of the book are provided as (very compelling) evidence and the rest of the book successfully explains why it's worth it to do the work, rather than default to a doctrinaire approach.
The book is not perfect. I really wish the author did not refer to the right-wing setup as the “ABM,” which stands for “American Business Model” because it not only dates the book, it actually turns it into a bit of a polemic. Also, the idea of “embedded markets,” which the author sets out as the nirvana we need to reach, is not fully developed. In choosing to explain his favorite set-up of “embedded markets” via the example of higher education, the author has actually made a poor choice (though obviously we have the benefit of 15 years of hindsight in observing US higher education is in crisis, rather than a role model “embedded market”). And, needless to say, in picking a “middle of the road” direction that is not “clear and simple” (yes, I’m quoting Mencken again) he is extremely unlikely to make a set of choices that will match any particular reader’s perfectly. I, for instance, take issue with his attitude toward the markets we are fortunate enough to be able to trade, to say nothing about his scorn for those who participate in them.
Regardless, it takes some doing to generate passion for the middle road.
It is this passion that elevates “The Truth about Markets,” a comprehensive, clear and detailed book, to the status of masterpiece.
March 30, 2023
An interesting read on economics. It is interesting and includes exciting case studies, but the title of the book is a bit misleading since the question "why some nations are rich and the most remain poor" is not answered. The book is more about why it is impossible to answer this question. As well it aged a bit, it would be nice to have the author's views on global economic processes after the 2008 meltdown, the covid crisis etc. But overall an interesting book.
September 22, 2019
John Kay’s book indeed analyses the true reasons why some countries are rich while most remain poor. However, it also explains, in basic terms, the fundamental principles of modern economic theory - both micro and macro.
Even though this edition is already 15 years old, the drivers behind successful and rich countries remain more topical than ever: strong, independent economic and political institutions inside ethical and civil societies.
Real life examples from successful (and not so successful) countries are presented in Chapter 23.
Economic principles are mentioned early on in the book and are revisited throughout: general equilibrium, Pareto efficiency, perfect competition, moral hazard, competitive advantage, adverse selection, asymmetric information among others.
The author is a big proponent of market economies ; economies characterised by disciplined pluralism and incentive compatibility.
Main ingredients for market economies to succeed are autonomous management teams combined with strong audit and accountability.
A few examples are presented where the above don’t always hold in other economic models (for example Redistributive Market Liberalism or American Business Model).
There are also instances where even market economies fail to safeguard the same principles that define them. Likely there are self correction mechanisms.
This book is a good introduction to various economic models and principles. It may be dated but most of points covered are still relevant today.
Even though this edition is already 15 years old, the drivers behind successful and rich countries remain more topical than ever: strong, independent economic and political institutions inside ethical and civil societies.
Real life examples from successful (and not so successful) countries are presented in Chapter 23.
Economic principles are mentioned early on in the book and are revisited throughout: general equilibrium, Pareto efficiency, perfect competition, moral hazard, competitive advantage, adverse selection, asymmetric information among others.
The author is a big proponent of market economies ; economies characterised by disciplined pluralism and incentive compatibility.
Main ingredients for market economies to succeed are autonomous management teams combined with strong audit and accountability.
A few examples are presented where the above don’t always hold in other economic models (for example Redistributive Market Liberalism or American Business Model).
There are also instances where even market economies fail to safeguard the same principles that define them. Likely there are self correction mechanisms.
This book is a good introduction to various economic models and principles. It may be dated but most of points covered are still relevant today.
Read
January 16, 2016Excellent overview of economic principles, the minds that have shaped them and good examples of how they have mainfested themselves in the now global economy. Succinctly explained and I particularly appreciated the way Kay drew on lifes of ordinary people in widely differing situations; from Sweden and Switzerland to India and sub saharan Africa; how come some are so poor and others so rich and how little rich natural resources have to do with it and often they act as a hinderance rather than a benefit. I highly recommend this for a good grounding in how the market economy functions, where it has and always will go wrong and some insight into how to do something about it just as it says on the cover!
February 25, 2011
You might think this is going to be a dry non-fictional text-book about economics from the title, but you are wrong. It was informative without being heavy. Kay uses everyday anecdotes to deftly explain the complex world of macro-economics in a way that normal folk like can have the "a-ha" moment of revelation. I had attempted this book not out of my love for economics, but because I had no formal education in it. This book is especially good for covering the basic workings of the global market - risks, securities, economic theories, etc. I highly recommend it to any non-finance person as a fun and informative read.
July 6, 2015
Kay argues that the relative wealth or poverty of nations is dependent on the presence of an evolved social and cultural capital or networks, and that absent this economic policy prescriptions, such as the Washington Consensus, will fail. There is much truth in this although, despite his protestations, Kay is attacking a straw man to a large extent; a week of reading the Wall Street Journal is no more evidence of the ubiquity of belief in the American Business Model than reading the Mirror or Guardian proves that the onward march of socialism continues apace. This is a long, rambling, unfocused, but almost always interesting book which is well worth reading.
Read
April 14, 2016So the truth about markets is ... that there is no easy truth about markets. That, in a nutshell, is the essential argument. Along the way, there is a plethora of lessons on economics, technical terms, tables & graphs. I like 'embedded markets' and 'obliquity' as concepts, but don't like the way Kay glosses over the excesses of imperialism.
November 24, 2012
Great book,
The reason some nations are rich but most remain poor is because of the institutions (social, political, economic and cultural) that they have developed over the years.
Great overview of Economics and the challenges faced by economists.
The reason some nations are rich but most remain poor is because of the institutions (social, political, economic and cultural) that they have developed over the years.
Great overview of Economics and the challenges faced by economists.
March 4, 2017
A very well written analysis of free markets, both the successes and failures. John Kay is one of the most astute and readable modern UK economists. In interesting read whatever your political viewpoint.
March 18, 2020
I'm quite disappointed. I found the book to be simply an analysis of the "market economy". Kay is obviously very smart and put a lot of research into this book but he doesn't communicate his ideas in a very comprehensible way. I got to the end of the book and was like, what have I actually learnt from the book? The answer is I'm not quite sure. This is definitely not a book for lay people but for people with a rich background in Economics. I find 'Why Nations Fail' by Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson to be a better read as to why some nations are rich while most remain poor. This is a 2-star book for me.
June 28, 2024
A good multi perspective break down on the state of capitalism in the 90s. I thoroughly found the examples given to be refreshing and not too overly technical. Reform and discussion on the American Business Model as well as the discussion surrounding classical and neoclassical theories were profound and much needed given the complex maze of modern economics.
February 10, 2021
Typical economic book. Lots of vague economic theories.
December 13, 2021
Wooden prose, poor explanations. Avoid.
February 20, 2017
If one is to read a single economics book to read it should be Wealth of Nations. This should be the second :)
John Kay points out limitations of economics. Explains how it's a flawed tool, but it's better than nothing. He is very skeptical of idea of 'efficient markets' improving everything, etc. He hints how Adam Smith was unjustly claimed by the economists.
John Kay points out limitations of economics. Explains how it's a flawed tool, but it's better than nothing. He is very skeptical of idea of 'efficient markets' improving everything, etc. He hints how Adam Smith was unjustly claimed by the economists.
October 28, 2015
Now looking in retrospect, what I find most interesting about this book is that it denudes economics from ideology. Economics and its tools are portrayed as human inventions, rather than a battle between the good and the evil.
Is it perfectly ideology-free? No. But as the discussion of complex subjects presents the most prolific grounds for biases, no economics discussion will ever be ideology-free.
Yet, John Kay successfully avoid his ideology turns into rhetoric. "Rhetoric obscures the truth" (Verissimo).
It is not a book for beginners, maybe for persistents (or sttuborns). But you will be better off after reading it.
I highly recommend it.
Is it perfectly ideology-free? No. But as the discussion of complex subjects presents the most prolific grounds for biases, no economics discussion will ever be ideology-free.
Yet, John Kay successfully avoid his ideology turns into rhetoric. "Rhetoric obscures the truth" (Verissimo).
It is not a book for beginners, maybe for persistents (or sttuborns). But you will be better off after reading it.
I highly recommend it.
April 4, 2019
A rather good book which gives a foundation to economic theories and thinkers of the ‘American business mode’ and liberalism in the markets. I would hardly say this exploited the trust of the markets, and only alludes to the idea of why some nations are rich and some are poor. Gave me a further understanding of the economy and it’s pluralist functions as a whole, but is disappointing as does not cover much on different theories of international inequality and doesn’t put forward a clear theory of international inequality.
September 29, 2010
My title, The Truth About Markets:Their Genius, Their Limits, Their Follies did not appear in GR listing.
This title is cpw 2003. My guess, my title is the UK edition.
(Thanks to Lobstergirl, I now have my title up above and the UK edition is buried). 9-28-2010.
This title is cpw 2003. My guess, my title is the UK edition.
(Thanks to Lobstergirl, I now have my title up above and the UK edition is buried). 9-28-2010.
October 17, 2013
One can't go wrong understanding reality the way that Mr. Kay does.
This book contains line after line of trenchent, lucid explanations about markets and human activity.
Follow his columns in the Financial Times to stay wiser.
This book contains line after line of trenchent, lucid explanations about markets and human activity.
Follow his columns in the Financial Times to stay wiser.
Read
June 23, 2008lumayan...
May 5, 2009
It was a hard read, but I learned why certain nations are poor and others are rich. The author is very well educated.
Want to read
February 16, 2010mas aldo, pinjeeeeeeeeeeeeeeemmm..!!! bole bole bole???
Read
February 21, 2010Culture and Prosperity : Why Some Nations Are Rich but Most Remain Poor by John Kay (2005)
April 8, 2012
learnt so much and was the perfect accompaniment to my economics a level. John Kay is a brilliant coherent writer - just wish i wasn't so useless to understand some of the more complex parts!
December 18, 2017
Lucid reminder that we line in a world of rules, many of which are impefectly understood.
Displaying 1 - 27 of 27 reviews