I thought it would maybe be a better idea discussing this book here than /pol/ or /lit/. So, I've been reading this for a class, I was exposed to and had read parts of this book beforehand, but sitting down and reading this, I find it puzzling the author just seems to champion general liberal economic policies? I'm not denying his credibility, and I understand his point isn't that it is simply "better", as I find most people with similar ideas tend to think, but important for a meritocratic democratic system in particular to flourish.
His data seems solid, even though I have yet to look at a lot of his source materials not included word for word in the book. But I would just like to hear other peoples takes on it, it seems to be pretty well taken in modern economic readings, I am admittedly rather pro-market though, so I have my own biases when reading.
I have not read all of it (as I don't own a copy) but it is my understanding that he shows it himself that one of the biggest factors of wealth inequality is land ownership/rent. How does he adress the housing issue?
>>58156871
I have not read the book as of yet. A friend tells me it has one of the easiest introductions to an economics book and that it is a must read, but I've been putting off his advice. I cannot help you, though I am sure the lovely people at /his/ can.
>>58156871
I should add, in particular, I find his advocation of "The United States should invest heavily in education so that as many people as possible can attend college." (306) Typical contemporary liberal thought that I do not find has any sound backing and stands in complete opposition to common sense.
>>58156939
yup, The first part of the book explains the concepts of economics he uses in the book. It's very beginner friendly.
>>58156939
OP here, his introduction and I think first chapter are really good summaries of the history of economics with their related history, Malthus, Ricardo and Adams he sums up and explains really well. But I'd also recommend the Wealth of Nations of course, it really is not a dry read, I always enjoy it.
>>58156930
If I remember correctly, heavy taxation on inheritance was what he prescribed against rent, in particular its inheritance.
I listened to it as an audiobook. It's probably not the best way because the text version relies on tables (that don't translate well to audio) and charts (referred to by number, there's a pdf of all of them somewhere) quite a lot.
Can confirm that it is beginner friendly. Even if it's well within your preexisting knowledge you shouldn't skip the first part of the book.
The criticism of it I've read doesn't seem to extend far beyond labeling it """""""marxism"""""" and leaving it at that
>>58157573
http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/05/economist-explains is a decent summary of what the book will discuss
>>58157573
That's a shame, while I think the author may have a leftist bias, he's also French, I cannot be too surprised, and every French person even one trying to be lofty, spiritual and above the world seems to hold socialist tendencies, but I do not think he's a "Marxist". Obviously in as much as any modern economist has been exposed to Marxian philosophy to some extent, especially Europeans.
