Name: 匕賴賳 賵 亘丕夭丕乇: 噩丕蹖诏丕賴 爻乇賲丕蹖賴鈥屫ж臂� 丿乇 鬲賮讴乇 丕乇賵倬丕蹖 賲丿乇賳
Rating: 4.17 (41 reviews)
ISBN: 9786007806272

Rate this book

匕賴賳賵亘丕夭丕乇: 噩丕蹖诏丕賴爻乇賲丕蹖賴鈥屫ж臂� 丿乇鬲賮讴乇丕乇賵倬丕蹖賲丿乇賳

Jerry Z. Muller, 賲賴丿蹖賳氐乇丕賱賴鈥屫藏ж�听(Translator)

Rate this book

丿乇亘丕乇賴讴鬲丕亘:

丕賳丿蹖卮蹖丿賳賵賳賵卮鬲賳丿乇亘丕乇賴爻乇賲丕蹖賴鈥屫ж臂� (讴丕倬蹖鬲丕賱蹖爻賲) 賴蹖趩鈥屭з� 賲賳丨氐乇亘賴丕賯鬲氐丕丿丿丕賳丕賳賳亘賵丿賴丕爻鬲. 賯乇賳鈥屬囏й� 賲鬲賲丕丿蹖亘丕賮蹖賱爻賵賮丕賳貙爻蹖丕爻鬲賲丿丕乇丕賳貙卮丕毓乇丕賳賵丿丕賳卮賲賳丿丕賳毓賱賵賲丕噩鬲賲丕毓蹖丿乇亘丕乇賴丕孬乇丕鬲賮乇賴賳诏蹖貙丕禺賱丕賯蹖賵爻蹖丕爻蹖爻乇賲丕蹖賴丿丕乇蹖亘丨孬讴乇丿賴鈥屫з嗀�. 賵丿毓丕賵蹖丌賳丕賳賳蹖夭賮乇丕賵丕賳賵賲鬲賮丕賵鬲亘賵丿賴丕爻鬲.

讴鬲丕亘匕賴賳賵亘丕夭丕乇貙噩丕蹖诏丕賴爻乇賲丕蹖賴鈥屫ж臂� 丿乇鬲賮讴乇丕乇賵倬丕蹖賲丿乇賳鬲丕乇蹖禺趩賴鈥屫й� 丕爻鬲噩丕賱亘鬲賵噩賴丿乇丕蹖賳亘丕乇賴讴賴丕蹖丿賴爻乇賲丕蹖賴鈥屫ж必й� 趩诏賵賳賴丿乇丕賳丿蹖卮賴睾乇亘蹖鬲讴賵蹖賳賵鬲讴丕賲賱蹖丕賮鬲賴丕爻鬲. 丿乇賳诏丕乇卮讴鬲丕亘禺賵丿噩乇蹖賲賵賱乇貙丕爻鬲丕丿鬲丕乇蹖禺丿丕賳卮诏丕賴讴丕鬲賵賱蹖讴丌賲乇蹖讴丕賵丕賯毓丿乇賵丕卮賳诏鬲賳丿蹖.爻蹖貙亘賴亘乇乇爻蹖乇卮鬲賴鈥屫й� 诏蹖乇丕丕夭丌乇丕賵丕賮讴丕乇丿乇亘丕乇賴倬蹖丕賲丿賴丕蹖爻乇賲丕蹖賴鈥屫ж臂� 賵丕爻鬲賱夭丕賲丕鬲丌鬲蹖丌賳賳卮爻鬲賴丕爻鬲賵丕蹖賳讴丕乇乇丕亘丕倬賵卮卮丿丕丿賳亘賴胤蹖賮诏爻鬲乇丿賴鈥屫й� 丕夭賳馗乇丕鬲賵毓賯丕蹖丿丕賳噩丕賲丿丕丿賴讴賴賴賲夭賲丕賳丿乇亘乇诏蹖乇賳丿賴賴丕亘夭貙賵賱鬲乇貙丌丿丕賲丕爻賲蹖鬲貙丕丿賲賵賳丿亘乇讴貙賴诏賱貙賲丕乇讴爻貙賵賲鬲蹖蹖賵丌乇賳賵賱丿賵賳蹖夭乇賵卮賳賮讴乇丕賳讴賲賵賳蹖爻鬲貙賮丕卮蹖爻鬲貙賵賳卅賵賱蹖亘乇丕賱賯乇賳亘蹖爻鬲賲丕爻鬲. 讴鬲丕亘丨丕囟乇賳賲賵賳賴鈥屫й� 丕爻鬲噩匕丕亘賵丿爻鬲蹖丕亘丕夭鬲丕乇蹖禺丕賳丿蹖卮賴鈥屬囏ж� 丕賳丿蹖卮賴鈥屬囏й屰� 讴賴丿乇賴乇诏賵卮賴讴賳丕乇夭賳丿诏蹖乇賵夭賲乇賴鈥屬呚з� 胤賳蹖賳丕賳丿丕夭賴爻鬲賳丿.

GenresEconomicsHistoryPhilosophyNonfictionPoliticsBusinessSociology

739 pages, Paperback

First published November 12, 2002

81 people are currently reading

1202 people want to read

About the author

Jerry Z. Muller

13听books41听followers

Jerry Z. Muller is professor of history at the Catholic University of America in Washington, DC.

What do you think?

Rate this book

Friends & Following

Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!

Community Reviews

5 stars

151 (44%)

4 stars

118 (35%)

3 stars

48 (14%)

2 stars

14 (4%)

1 star

6 (1%)

Displaying 1 - 30 of 41 reviews

Amirsaman

487 reviews261 followers

June 27, 2018

賲賵囟毓賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴丿乇鬲賲丕賲讴鬲丕亘貙鬲賵噩蹖賴爻乇賲丕蹖賴鈥屫ж臂� 賵蹖賴賵丿蹖丕賳丕爻鬲.

郾. 丕夭丕乇爻胤賵鬲丕讴賱蹖爻丕貙賴賲賴賲禺丕賱賮乇亘丕禺賵丕乇蹖賵丨鬲丕爻賵丿亘乇丿賳丕夭賮乇賵卮讴丕賱丕蹖禺乇蹖丿丕乇蹖卮丿賴亘賵丿賳丿. 亘丕蹖丿亘乇丿賴丿丕卮鬲讴賴亘乇丕蹖丌丿賲讴丕乇讴賳丿賵禺賵丿卮賴乇賵賳丿亘乇賵丿倬蹖讴爻亘賮囟蹖賱鬲賵爻蹖丕爻鬲. 丕蹖賳卮丿讴賴蹖賴賵丿蹖丕賳趩賵賳睾蹖乇賲爻蹖丨蹖亘賵丿賳丿貙賵丕賲鈥屫囐嗀� 賵鬲丕噩乇卮丿賳丿. 賯乇賵賳賵爻胤蹖亘賴亘毓丿亘賵丿讴賴讴卮丕賵乇夭蹖乇賵賳賯倬蹖丿丕讴乇丿貙賵賳蹖丕夭亘賵丿亘賴賵丕賲. 丿蹖诏乇賲爻蹖丨蹖鬲賴賲讴賲鈥屭┵� 诏賮鬲丨丕賱丕賵丕賲亘丕芦爻賵丿賯丕賳賵賳蹖禄丕卮讴丕賱蹖賳丿丕乇丿.
噩賳诏賲匕賴亘蹖夭蹖丕丿亘賵丿丿乇丕乇賵倬丕貨亘蹖賳讴丕鬲賵賱蹖讴賵倬乇賵鬲爻鬲丕賳賵亘賯蹖賴鈥�. 賴丕亘夭賵丿賵爻鬲丕賳卮爻毓蹖讴乇丿賳丿賳卮丕賳丿賴賳丿讴賴爻毓丕丿鬲丿乇趩爻亘蹖丿賳亘賴丌乇丕賲卮賴賲蹖賳丿賳蹖丕丕爻鬲賵丿賵乇賴鈥屰� 丕蹖賲丕賳诏匕卮鬲賴鈥�. 賱丕夭賲賳蹖爻鬲丨讴賵賲鬲賴賲賴乇丕蹖讴鈥屫屬嗁� 亘讴賳丿鈥屸€�.

鄄. 賵賱鬲乇毓丕卮賯亘賵乇爻鈥� 丕賳诏賱爻鬲丕賳卮丿賴亘賵丿. 丿乇卮毓乇賴丕蹖卮爻毓蹖賲蹖鈥屭┴必� 賳馗丕賲丕乇夭卮蹖乇丕賵丕跇诏賵賳讴賳丿貨賮賯乇乇丕 (讴賴鬲丕讴賳賵賳賲賵噩亘丨賮馗丕禺賱丕賯卮賲乇賴賲蹖鈥屫簇�) 鬲賯亘蹖丨讴賳丿賵鬲噩賲賱乇丕亘爻鬲丕蹖丿貙趩賵賳禺賵丿亘丕毓孬丕蹖噩丕丿讴丕乇亘乇丕蹖賮賯乇丕賲蹖鈥屫促堌�.

鄢. 丌丿丕賲丕爻賲蹖鬲诏賮鬲: 芦賲賳賮毓鬲鈥屫焚勜ㄛ屬� 卮禺氐蹖賲賳噩乇亘賴賲亘丕丿賱賴鈥屰� 亘丕夭丕乇蹖賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 賲亘丕丿賱賴鈥屰� 亘丕夭丕乇蹖亘賴鬲賯爻蹖賲讴丕乇賽亘蹖卮鬲乇賲蹖鈥屫з嗀з呚� 鬲賯爻蹖賲讴丕乇賽亘蹖卮鬲乇亘賴鬲禺氐氐蹖卮丿賳貙鬲噩乇亘賴貙鬲亘丨乇貙丕亘丿丕毓賵貙丿乇賳鬲蹖噩賴貙孬乇賵鬲賽亘蹖卮鬲乇賲賳鬲賴蹖賲蹖鈥屭必�.
丕爻賲蹖鬲賲毓鬲賯丿亘賵丿賵賯鬲蹖賵丕乇丿丕鬲蹖讴賲丨氐賵賱乇丕賲賲賳賵毓賲蹖鈥屭┵嗃屬� 讴賴亘賴鬲賵賱蹖丿丿丕禺賱蹖讴賲讴讴賳蹖賲貙丕蹖賳丕賳丨氐丕乇胤賱亘蹖亘賴囟乇乇賲賳賮毓鬲毓賲賵賲蹖丕爻鬲. 趩賵賳賲丕賳毓丕夭丕蹖賳賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 讴賴爻乇賲丕蹖賴鈥屭柏ж� 倬賵賱卮乇丕噩丕蹖蹖氐乇賮讴賳丿讴賴鬲賯丕囟丕蹖賵丕賯毓蹖賵噩賵丿丿丕乇丿.
賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴鬲丕讴蹖丿賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 讴賴禺賵丿丕爻賲蹖鬲賵丕賯賮亘賵丿亘乇丕蹖賳鈥屭┵� 噩丕賲毓賴鈥屰� 鬲噩丕乇蹖賲賵乇丿亘丨孬卮貙丕讴孬乇蹖鬲讴丕乇诏乇乇丕亘蹖鈥屬佢┴� 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀�. 倬爻丿賵賱鬲賵馗蹖賮賴鈥屰� 丌賲賵夭卮賵倬乇賵乇卮乇丕賴賲亘丕蹖丿亘乇丿賵卮亘讴卮丿. 丨鬲丕亘丕趩賳蹖賳丕鬲賮丕賯蹖貙亘丕夭賴賲丕讴孬乇蹖鬲 --亘賴鬲毓亘蹖乇丕爻賲蹖鬲-- 亘賴賮囟蹖賱鬲讴賵趩讴丕乇夭卮鈥屬囏й� 亘賵乇跇賵丕蹖蹖賲蹖鈥屫必迟嗀� 蹖毓賳蹖禺賵丕賴丕賳夭賳丿诏蹖丌乇丕賲賵鬲賱丕卮亘乇丕蹖孬乇賵鬲. 丕賲丕蹖讴毓丿賴鈥屰� 賲毓丿賵丿蹖賴賲亘丕蹖丿賮蹖賱爻賵賮卮賵賳丿賵 --禺賱丕賮噩賴鬲噩丕賲毓賴鈥屰� 鬲噩丕乇蹖-- 丕禺賱丕賯乇丕倬乇賵乇卮丿賴賳丿.

鄞. 蹖賵爻鬲賵爻賲賵夭乇貙亘丕夭丕乇乇丕鬲賴丿蹖丿蹖亘乇丕蹖賮乇賴賳诏賵噩丕賲毓賴鈥屰� 禺賵丿賲蹖鈥屫з嗀池�. 亘丕夭丕乇賳丕亘賵丿讴賳賳丿賴鈥屰� 賮乇賴賳诏鈥屬囏й� 賲丨賱蹖賵禺丕氐亘賵丿诏蹖丌賳鈥屬囏� 丕爻鬲. 亘丕夭丕乇 (亘丕噩賴丕賳蹖鈥屫簇嗃� 讴賴丕夭倬蹖鈥屫ж� 賲蹖鈥屫③屫�) 讴孬乇鬲鈥屭必й屰� 乇丕賳丕亘賵丿賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀€�.

鄣. 丕丿賲賵賳丿亘乇讴禺賵丕爻鬲丕乇賯胤毓丿爻鬲丿賵賱鬲丕夭亘丕夭丕乇丌夭丕丿亘賵丿. 賲孬賱丕賲蹖鈥屭佖� 鬲毓蹖蹖賳丨丿丕賯賱丨賯賵賯丕夭爻賵蹖丿賵賱鬲賵鬲丨賲蹖賱丌賳亘乇讴丕乇賮乇賲丕蹖丕賳貙賲賵噩亘讴丕賴卮卮睾賱賵亘毓丿丕賮夭丕蹖卮賯蹖賲鬲鈥屬囏� 賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 讴賴丿乇胤賵賱丕賳蹖賲丿鬲禺賵丿亘賴囟乇乇賮賯乇丕丕爻鬲.
亘乇讴亘丕讴賲倬丕賳蹖賴賳丿卮乇賯蹖賲禺丕賱賮亘賵丿. 孬乇賵鬲亘乇蹖鬲丕賳蹖丕亘賴亘賴丕蹖亘丿亘禺鬲讴乇丿賳賴賳丿蹖鈥屬囏� 賵丿乇诏蹖乇讴乇丿賳丨丕讴賲丕賳賴賳丿亘賴噩賳诏賯丿乇鬲鈥屫焚勜ㄛ� 亘丿爻鬲賲蹖鈥屫①呚�.
亘乇讴丕夭亘蹖賳亘乇丿賳爻丕禺鬲丕乇賴丕蹖爻賳鬲蹖 (賲孬賱丕賳賯賱丕亘賮乇丕賳爻賴) 亘丕丕爻鬲賮丕丿賴丕夭賲賳胤賯賵毓賯賱丕賳蹖鬲 (讴賴亘賴亘丕賵乇亘乇讴丕亘夭丕乇蹖睾蹖乇賯丕蹖賱鈥屫ж┴� 丕爻鬲) 乇丕乇賵卮賳賮讴乇蹖丕賳鬲夭丕毓蹖賵禺胤乇賳丕讴賲蹖鈥屫з嗀池� 趩乇丕讴賴亘賴夭賵丿蹖賴賲賴鈥屰� 爻丕禺鬲丕乇賴丕丕夭亘蹖賳賲蹖鈥屫辟佖� 亘蹖鈥屫①嗂┵� 噩丕蹖诏夭蹖亘乇丕蹖卮丕賳賲賵噩賵丿亘丕卮丿. 丕亘夭丕乇丿蹖诏乇賴賲丕爻鬲賮丕丿賴丕夭夭賵乇丕爻鬲. 丿乇賴乇丿賵乇賵卮貙鬲毓賴丿亘賴丨讴賵賲鬲噩丿蹖丿讴賲鬲乇賲蹖鈥屫簇� 賵賳馗賲讴賴丕乇夭卮夭賳丿诏蹖丕爻鬲貙丕夭亘蹖賳賲蹖鈥屫辟堌� 倬爻亘丿丕爻鬲鈥�.

鄱. 賴诏賱賲蹖鈥屭佖� 賲賴賲禺丕氐亘賵丿诏蹖丕爻鬲讴賴亘丕亘丕夭丕乇賵讴丕賱丕禺乇蹖丿賳丕鬲賮丕賯丕鬲賯賵蹖鬲賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 亘乇禺賱丕賮賳馗乇乇賵卮賳賮讴乇丕賳貨賮賯胤賲亘丕丿丕讴賴讴賳鬲乇賱丕夭丿爻鬲卮禺氐禺丕乇噩卮賵丿賵賳賯卮賴鈥屰� 夭賳丿诏蹖鈥屫ж� 乇丕丿蹖诏乇蹖賽鬲賵賱蹖丿讴賳賳丿賴賲卮禺氐讴賳丿.

鄯. 蹖讴蹖丕夭賳賯丿賴丕蹖賲丕乇讴爻亘賴爻乇賲丕蹖賴鈥屫ж臂� 丕蹖賳丕爻鬲讴賴賲乇丿賲賲噩亘賵乇亘賴丕賳噩丕賲卮睾賱鈥屬囏й� 鬲禺氐氐蹖賲蹖鈥屫促堎嗀� 賵丿蹖诏乇亘乇丕蹖丕讴孬乇蹖鬲貙丕賲讴丕賳倬乇丿丕禺鬲賳亘賴爻丕蹖乇鬲賵丕賳丕蹖蹖鈥屬囏� 賵亘乇賵夭禺賵丿丿乇卮睾賱賲賵乇丿毓賱丕賯賴賵噩賵丿賳丿丕乇丿貨賵賱蹖丿乇噩丕賲毓賴鈥屰� 讴賲賵賳蹖爻鬲蹖趩賳蹖賳賳蹖爻鬲. 賲孬丕賱賲賳丕蹖賳丕爻鬲讴賴賵賯鬲蹖噩丕賲毓賴鈥屫й� 亘賴亘乇賳噩賳蹖丕夭夭蹖丕丿蹖丿丕乇丿貙亘賴賴賲丕賳鬲賳丕爻亘讴卮丕賵乇夭賴賲亘丕蹖丿丿丕卮鬲賴亘丕卮蹖賲貙趩賴丕賮乇丕丿讴卮丕賵乇夭蹖乇丕丿賵爻鬲丿丕卮鬲賴亘丕卮賳丿趩賴賳賴. 丿乇睾蹖乇丕蹖賳鈥屫蒂堌必� 賯蹖賲鬲亘乇賳噩蹖丕丕賮夭丕蹖卮夭蹖丕丿蹖賲蹖鈥屰屫жㄘ� 賵睾蹖乇賯丕亘賱鈥屫ж池佖ж� 亘乇丕蹖毓賲賵賲賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 蹖丕丿賵賱鬲亘丕蹖丿丿爻鬲亘賴賵丕乇丿丕鬲诏爻鬲乇丿賴亘夭賳丿. 爻賵丕賱賲賳丕蹖賳鈥屫ж池� 讴賴讴賲賵賳蹖爻賲趩胤賵乇賲蹖鈥屫堌з嗀� 趩賳蹖賳賳蹖丕夭丕爻丕爻蹖鈥屫й� 乇丕丨賱讴賳丿責亘賳馗乇賲貙賲賲讴賳丕爻鬲丿乇賲賵丕乇丿馗丕賴乇丕睾蹖乇囟乇賵乇蹖鈥屫必� 賲孬賱丕鬲賵賱蹖丿賲賵亘丕蹖賱乇丕讴賲讴賳蹖賲趩賵賳讴丕乇诏乇賴丕讴丕乇卮丕賳乇丕丿賵爻鬲賳丿丕乇賳丿. 賵丕蹖賳趩賳蹖賳貙亘乇丨爻亘毓賱丕賯賴鈥屰� 丕賮乇丕丿貙芦賳蹖丕夭禄亘乇丕蹖噩丕賲毓賴丿乇爻鬲讴賳蹖賲. 讴賴禺亘禺賵丿毓賱丕賯賴鈥屫ж簇� 丕賮乇丕丿賴賲貙蹖讴趩蹖夭禺丕賱氐賳蹖爻鬲貨賴賲丕賳鈥屫焚堌� 讴賴鬲丨鬲鈥屫ж屫� 鬲亘賱蹖睾丕鬲爻乇賲丕蹖賴鈥屫ж臂� 丕爻鬲貙賲蹖鈥屫堌з嗀� 賲鬲丕孬乇丕夭爻蹖丕爻鬲鈥屬囏й� 丿賵賱鬲讴賲賵賳蹖爻鬲蹖賴賲亘丕卮丿.
诏賮鬲賴賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 丕诏乇亘賴賯賵賱賲丕乇讴爻貙賴賲賴鈥屰� 爻賵丿丨丕氐賱丕夭讴丕賱丕貙亘賴噩蹖亘讴丕乇诏乇亘乇賵丿貙倬爻鬲讴賱蹖賮賴夭蹖賳賴鈥屰� 丿爻鬲诏丕賴鈥屬囏� 賵賲賵丕丿禺丕賲爻乇賲丕蹖賴鈥屭柏ж� 趩賴賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 倬丕爻禺賲丕乇讴爻丕蹖賳丕爻鬲讴賴丕蹖賳賵爻丕蹖賱賳鬲蹖噩賴讴丕乇诏匕卮鬲賴丕爻鬲賵亘賴鈥屬堌ж池焚団€屰� 賳倬乇丿丕禺鬲賳丕乇夭卮讴丕賲賱讴丕乇讴丕乇诏乇丕賳亘賴丌賳丕賳貙丕賳亘丕卮鬲賴卮丿賴丕爻鬲.
蹖讴賳讴鬲賴鈥屰� 亘爻蹖丕乇丿賯蹖賯丨鬲丕丿乇丕賲乇賵夭賴讴賴賲丕乇讴爻亘賴丌賳丕賳诏卮鬲诏匕丕卮鬲貙丕蹖賳亘賵丿讴賴亘丕馗賴賵乇鬲讴賳賵賱賵跇蹖噩丿蹖丿賲孬賱丕丿乇蹖讴讴丕乇禺丕賳賴貙讴丕乇诏乇蹖讴賴賲賴丕乇鬲乇賵蹖丿爻鬲诏丕賴爻丕亘賯丿丕卮鬲貙賳丕诏賴丕賳亘丕讴丕乇诏乇亘蹖鈥屬呝囏ж必� 蹖讴蹖賲蹖鈥屫促堌�.

鄹. 賲鬲蹖鈥屰屬� 丌乇賳賵賱丿亘丕鬲丕讴蹖丿乇賵蹖丕蹖賳鈥屭┵� 爻乇賲丕蹖賴鈥屫ж臂� 賲蹖鈥屫堌з嗀� 賳丕亘賵丿讴賳賳丿賴鈥屰� 賮乇賴賳诏亘丕卮丿貙丕诏乇丌賲賵夭卮賵倬乇賵乇卮貙賮讴乇讴乇丿賳乇丕蹖丕丿賽賲乇丿賲賳丿賴丿貙賲蹖鈥屭佖� 芦賮乇賴賳诏亘賴賲毓賳丕蹖賯乇丕乇诏乇賮鬲賳丿乇賲毓乇囟鬲噩乇亘賴鈥屰� 丕夭禺賵丿賳丕乇囟丕蹖蹖亘賵丿貙鬲噩乇亘賴鈥屫й� 讴賴禺賵丿丌賳丕夭丿乇讴卮讴丕賮亘蹖賳丌賳趩賴賴爻鬲賵丌賳趩賴亘丕蹖丿亘丕卮丿丨丕氐賱賲蹖鈥屫簇� 賵丌賳賳丕乇囟丕蹖蹖賳蹖夭賳賯胤賴鈥屰� 丌睾丕夭亘賴亘賵丿卮禺氐蹖賵噩賲毓蹖亘賵丿.禄

酃. 噩乇蹖賲賵賱乇貙賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴鈥屰� 讴鬲丕亘貙賲蹖鈥屭堐屫� 賵亘乇賵夭蹖賲賱賱蹖亘乇丕賱蹖爻賲賲乇丿丿丿丕卮鬲賳丿貙蹖毓賳蹖賴賲爻乇賲丕蹖賴鈥屫ж臂� 乇丕賯亘賵賱丿丕卮鬲賳丿賵賴賲丕卮讴丕賱丕鬲卮乇丕賲蹖鈥屭佖嗀�.
亘賳馗乇夭蹖賲賱貙夭賳丿诏蹖丕賳爻丕賳賵賯鬲蹖賵丕亘爻鬲賴亘賴亘丕夭丕乇卮丿貙倬乇爻卮趩诏賵賳賴夭蹖爻鬲賳亘賴趩賴趩蹖夭蹖乇丕禺乇蹖丿賳賲賳噩乇賲蹖鈥屫促堌€屫� 夭賳丿诏蹖賽賲丨丕爻亘賴鈥屭必з嗁団€屰� 毓丿丿蹖爻乇丿賵亘蹖鈥屸€屫关ж焚佡� 賲蹖鈥屫促堌�. 賱匕鬲倬賵賱貙賱匕鬲丿丕卮鬲賳讴丕賱丕爻鬲亘賴丕囟丕賮賴鈥屰� 賱匕鬲賯丿乇鬲丕賳鬲禺丕亘.
夭蹖賲賱噩賳亘卮賮賲蹖賳蹖爻鬲蹖乇丕賴賲丕夭亘乇讴丕鬲爻乇賲丕蹖賴鈥屫ж臂� 賲蹖鈥屫з嗀� 賵爻丕蹖賱噩丿蹖丿亘丕毓孬卮丿賳丿夭賳丕賳賵賯鬲讴賲鬲乇蹖乇丕亘乇丕蹖丕賲賵乇禺丕賳賴氐乇賮讴賳賳丿賵賵丕乇丿爻丕蹖乇毓乇氐賴鈥屬囏� 卮賵賳丿.
亘賴诏賮鬲賴鈥屰� 爻賵賲亘丕乇鬲貙丿乇丿賵乇賴鈥屬囏й� 氐賱丨胤賵賱丕賳蹖貙賳賲蹖鈥屫堌з� 鬲賲丕蹖夭蹖亘蹖賳丕賲賵乇睾蹖乇丨蹖丕鬲蹖賵丕賴丿丕賮丨蹖丕鬲蹖夭賳丿诏蹖賯丕卅賱卮丿貨賵賱蹖噩賳诏 (噩賴丕賳蹖丕賵賱) 亘丕毓孬賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 蹖讴賳蹖乇賵蹖賵丨丿鬲鈥屫ㄘ� 賵賴丿賮賵丕賱丕鬲乇 (氐蹖丕賳鬲丕夭賳賮爻賲賱蹖) 倬蹖丿丕卮賵丿.

郾郯. 亘毓丿丕夭噩賳诏噩賴丕賳蹖丕賵賱貙丕賳賯賱丕亘鈥屬囏й� 讴賲賵賳蹖爻鬲蹖賳丕賮乇噩丕賲蹖丿乇亘乇賱蹖賳賵賲賵賳蹖禺賵亘賵丿丕倬爻鬲亘賴賵賯賵毓倬蹖賵爻鬲. 丿乇趩賳蹖賳倬蹖卮鈥屫操呟屬嗁団€屫й屫� 賱賵讴丕趩诏賮鬲讴丕乇诏乇丕賳讴乇禺鬲鈥屫� 丕夭丌賳卮丿賴鈥屫з嗀� 讴賴亘鬲賵丕賳賳丿丿爻鬲亘賴丕賳賯賱丕亘亘夭賳賳丿貨趩賵賳爻乇賲丕蹖賴鈥屫ж臂� 丕爻丕爻丕鬲氐賵乇丕賲讴丕賳鬲睾蹖蹖乇乇丕丿乇匕賴賳丕蹖賳芦卮蹖亍鈥屫簇з喡� 丕夭亘蹖賳賲蹖鈥屫ㄘ必�. 亘賴丿賱蹖賱賮乇丌蹖賳丿鬲禺氐氐蹖卮丿賳貙丕賲讴丕賳丿蹖丿賳鬲氐賵蹖乇蹖讴倬丕乇趩賴丕夭丕乇鬲亘丕胤亘丕夭丕乇賵賳丕禺乇爻賳丿蹖鈥屬囏й� 賮乇賴賳诏蹖貙賳丕賲賲讴賳賲蹖鈥屫促堌�. 丿乇噩賴丕賳蹖讴賴賴賲賴鈥屭嗃屫� 卮蹖亍賵丕乇賴卮丿賴丕爻鬲貙噩丕賲毓賴亘丕蹖丿亘蹖丕賲賵夭丿讴賴賴賲賴鈥屰� 賳蹖丕夭賴丕蹖卮乇丕亘丕讴丕賱丕亘乇胤乇賮讴賳丿.
賮乇賽蹖賽乇趩丕乇賴鈥屰� 亘蹖鈥屬呚官嗀й屰� 讴丕倬蹖鬲丕賱蹖爻鬲乇丕貙乇賵丌賵乇丿賳亘賴賳丕爻蹖賵賳丕賱蹖爻賲賵賴丿賮賲卮鬲乇讴賲賱蹖亘蹖丕賳讴乇丿貨丿賵賱鬲蹖讴賴亘丕噩賳诏貙賯丿乇鬲毓丕胤賮蹖亘丿爻鬲丌賵乇丿. 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴鈥屰� 讴鬲丕亘貙毓賯丕蹖丿丕賵乇丕賳丕夭蹖爻賲賲蹖鈥屫堌з嗀�.

郾郾. 卮賵賲倬蹖鬲乇賲蹖鈥屭佖� 亘丕蹖丿亘丕賳馗丕賲讴倬蹖鬲丕賱蹖爻鬲蹖讴賱蹖倬賵賱匕禺蹖乇賴讴賳蹖賲貙賵亘毓丿貙爻乇賲丕蹖賴鈥屫ж臂屫� 丌乇丕賲鈥屫⒇必з� 芦丿乇丌蹖賳丿賴禄禺賵丿卮賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 爻賵爻蹖丕賱蹖爻賲. 爻賵爻蹖丕賱卮丿賳丿乇夭賲丕賳丨丕囟乇貙賮丕噩毓賴亘賴亘丕乇賲蹖鈥屫①堌必� 趩賵賳賳禺亘诏丕賳亘蹖鈥屫з嗂屫操� 賲蹖鈥屫促堎嗀�. 丿乇氐賵乇鬲蹖讴賴賲丕乇讴爻蹖爻賲鬲賵噩蹖賴蹖丕爻鬲亘乇丕蹖丕賮乇丕丿睾蹖乇禺賱丕賯丕賯鬲氐丕丿蹖讴賴丕夭賳丕亘乇丕亘乇蹖賽丨丕氐賱丕夭鬲賱丕卮丿蹖诏乇丕賳卮讴賵賴丿丕乇賳丿.
亘賳丕亘賴鈥屬嗀肛� 卮賵賲倬蹖鬲乇貙夭賵丕賱爻乇賲丕蹖賴鈥屫ж臂� 丌賳鈥屫ж池� 讴賴貙丕夭丌賳鈥屫� 讴賴爻乇賲丕蹖賴鈥屫ж臂� 丕賳爻丕賳鈥屬囏� 乇丕賮丕蹖丿賴鈥屫ㄘз堌� 賵毓賯賱丕賳蹖賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 丕賮乇丕丿丿蹖诏乇賳賲蹖鈥屫堌з囐嗀� 賲孬賱丕亘趩賴鈥屫ж� 卮賵賳丿貙賵丿乇賳鬲蹖噩賴丕賳诏蹖夭賴亘乇丕蹖丕丿丕賲賴鈥屰� 讴丕乇貙賵賯鬲蹖賳蹖丕夭賲丕賱蹖鈥屫簇з� 亘乇胤乇賮卮丿賳禺賵丕賴賳丿丿丕卮鬲鈥�.
丕賵賲蹖鈥屭佖� 賵賯鬲蹖禺蹖賱毓馗蹖賲蹖乇丕亘賴丿丕賳卮诏丕賴亘賮乇爻鬲蹖賲貙亘毓丿丕卮睾賱蹖讴賴丌賳鈥屬囏� 丿乇卮丕賳禺賵丿亘亘蹖賳賳丿亘乇丕蹖賴賲賴賳蹖爻鬲蹖丕丨賯賵賯蹖讴賴賮讴乇賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁嗀� 丕爻鬲丨賯丕賯卮乇丕丿丕乇賳丿. 賳蹖夭乇賵卮賳賮讴乇丕賳囟丿亘賵乇跇賵丕蹖蹖亘賵噩賵丿賲蹖鈥屫③屬嗀� 讴賴禺賵丿卮丕賳丿乇毓賲賱賵鬲噩乇亘賴鈥屰� 丕賯鬲氐丕丿蹖賳蹖爻鬲賳丿賵賮賯胤亘賯蹖賴鈥屰� 賳丕乇丕囟蹖丕賳乇丕鬲丨乇蹖讴賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁嗀�.

郾鄄. 丿乇賮氐賱讴蹖賳夭貙賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴亘賴噩賴卮丕賯鬲氐丕丿蹖毓馗蹖賲蹖讴賴丿乇丌賲乇蹖讴丕賵丕乇賵倬丕蹖睾乇亘蹖貙亘毓丿丕夭噩賳诏噩賴丕賳蹖丿賵賲丕鬲賮丕賯丕賮鬲丕丿丕卮丕乇賴賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 賵丌賳乇丕鬲賲丕賲丕丿爻鬲鈥屫辟嗀� 爻乇賲丕蹖賴鈥屫ж臂� 賲蹖鈥屫з嗀�. 亘丿賵賳丌賳鈥屭┵� 爻蹖丕爻鬲鈥屬囏й� 禺丕乇噩蹖賵賵蹖乇丕賳蹖鈥屬囏й屰� 讴賴亘賴芦丿蹖诏乇丕賳禄賵丕乇丿卮丿鬲丕丕蹖賳賲賵賮賯蹖鬲丕賯鬲氐丕丿蹖乇禺丿賴丿貙丕卮丕乇賴讴賳丿.
賲丕乇讴賵夭賴賲蹖鈥屫堌ж池� 卮睾賱丕夭丕賳噩丕賲賵馗蹖賮賴貙亘賴蹖讴丕賲乇賱匕鬲鈥屫ㄘ� 鬲亘丿蹖賱卮賵丿讴賴鬲丕丨丿蹖乇丕賳賴鈥屰� 噩賳爻蹖賮乇賵蹖丿蹖乇丕禺賳孬丕賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀�. 丕賲丕丿乇夭賳丿诏蹖爻乇賲丕蹖賴鈥屫ж臂屫� 鬲賲乇讴夭賮賯胤亘乇丕乇诏丕爻賲丌賱鬲蹖丕爻鬲鈥�.
賲丕乇讴賵夭賴賲卮讴賱乇丕丕蹖賳賲蹖鈥屫з嗀池� 讴賴爻乇賲丕蹖賴鈥屫ж臂屫� 賳蹖丕夭讴丕匕亘丕蹖噩丕丿賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 賵亘賴丌賳鈥屬囏� 倬丕爻禺賴賲賲蹖鈥屫囏� 亘乇丕蹖讴丕乇诏乇丕賳. 丿乇賳鬲蹖噩賴丌賳鈥屬囏� 丕賳诏蹖夭賴鈥屰� 丕賳賯賱丕亘讴乇丿賳賳丿丕乇賳丿. 亘丕噩賳诏爻乇丿賵丿卮賲賳鈥屫池ж槽� 禺蹖丕賱蹖貙丨賵丕爻賲乇丿賲丕夭禺賵丕爻鬲賳賳蹖丕夭賴丕蹖賵丕賯毓蹖賲賳丨乇賮賲蹖鈥屫促堌�. 賴賲趩賳蹖賳讴孬乇鬲鈥屭必й屰� 賮乇賴賳诏蹖讴賴亘丕賴賲賴鈥屭屫� 卮丿賳讴鬲丕亘賵賲賵爻蹖賯蹖乇禺賲蹖鈥屫囏� 丿乇賲乇丿賲亘蹖鈥屫佖з堌� 丕蹖噩丕丿賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 賵賲丕賳毓丕賳賯賱丕亘賲蹖鈥屫促堌€�.

郾鄢. 丕夭丿蹖丿诏丕賴賴丕蹖賽讴賳卅賵賱蹖亘乇丕賱蹖爻鬲貙毓丿丕賱鬲丕噩鬲賲丕毓蹖丿乇噩丕賲毓賴鈥屰� 賱蹖亘乇丕賱蹖爻乇賲丕蹖賴鈥屫ж臂� 亘蹖鈥屬呚官嗀� 賵睾蹖乇囟乇賵乇蹖丕爻鬲貨夭蹖乇丕丕乇夭卮鈥屬囏� 賵丕賴丿丕賮丕賮乇丕丿亘爻蹖丕乇賲鬲賮丕鬲丕爻鬲. 鬲賳賴丕毓丿丕賱鬲丕蹖賳丕爻鬲讴賴丿賵賱鬲貙丌夭丕丿蹖亘乇丕蹖卮蹖賵賴鈥屰� 丿賱禺賵丕賴卮丕賳乇丕賮乇丕賴賲讴賳丿.
丿賲賵讴乇丕爻蹖賲睾丕蹖乇亘丕亘丕夭丕乇丕爻鬲貨賲孬賱丕氐賳賮讴丕乇诏乇丕賳丨賯賵賯亘蹖卮鈥屫臂� 胤賱亘賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 賵趩丕乇賴丕賮夭丕蹖卮賳賯丿蹖賳诏蹖丕爻鬲貙讴賴亘丕毓孬鬲賵乇賲賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 賵禺賵丿賿丕乇夭卮倬賵賱讴丕乇诏乇丕賳乇丕讴丕賴卮賲蹖鈥屫囏�. 亘賯蹖賴賴賲禺賵丕爻鬲丕乇丕賮夭丕蹖卮丨賯賵賯賲蹖鈥屫促堎嗀� 賵丕夭倬蹖鈥屫� 鬲賵乇賲賵丕蹖賳鈥屭堎嗁� 丕賯鬲氐丕丿賲蹖鈥屬举徻┴�. 亘賴賳馗乇賴丕蹖讴貙趩丕乇賴丕蹖賳丕爻鬲讴賴丕賯鬲氐丕丿丕夭爻蹖丕爻鬲賵丨讴賵賲鬲噩丿丕卮賵丿 (讴丕乇蹖讴賴賵丕丨丿倬賵賱蹖賵乇賵讴乇丿).
鬲丨鬲鈥屫ж屫� 丕賵貙鬲丕趩乇賵乇蹖诏丕賳賲丕賱蹖丕鬲亘乇丿乇丌賲丿乇丕讴賲讴乇丿賳丿貙丕夭亘蹖讴丕乇蹖亘賴毓賳賵丕賳毓丕賲賱蹖亘乇丕蹖讴丕賴卮丿爻鬲賲夭丿賴丕丕爻鬲賯亘丕賱讴乇丿賳丿貙賵爻蹖丕爻鬲鬲夭乇蹖賯倬賵賱乇丕丕丿丕賲賴賳丿丕丿賳丿.

Jan Rice

570 reviews505 followers

January 5, 2015

Done!

In 2010 I read New York Times review of another of Jerry Muller's books, Capitalism and the Jews. Intrigued, I looked up the author and his books, including The Mind and the Market, but at first I thought they were books about, I don't know, capitalism and finance, so I gave them to my nephew because he is a Republican, and I thought these would be books that were compatible with his views. I had offended him by something I wrote on Facebook, something he took to mean I thought Republicans (or maybe conservatives) were prone to being "spun," that is, that they belonged to a class of manipulable people--anyway, something that had come across as derogatory, for which I was sorry. So I thought these were books that might lend support to his political and economic views and--yes--reflect broadmindedness on my part.

Then, a year or so later, I came across the first book in a library and picked it up. And it wasn't at all what I had thought. It's history, not finance or whatever, and it knocked my socks off. I reviewed it here.

That first book was a lot shorter, though.

Not everybody is as excited about Muller as I am. One of my friends with a background in finance said Capitalism and the Jews was "boring." Another friend, a retired economist, took a look at my behest, and abruptly told me to stop reading it and get instead. He took umbrage at "all the philosophy," which he thought had no place in learning about economics and would only be confusing. And then there's my 欧宝娱乐 friend who acts like I've stepped in something dirty by reading this particular book, which to him is unremitting promotion of the capitalist agenda. Yet I found a professional review, a read from the Left that lauded this book. More on reviews at the end.

I read this book because of what I was hearing people say about capitalism. Now in the past that may not have been something I would have even noticed, but now I did, and I wondered why they said the things they did. These weren't poor people but generally upper middle-class, educated people who had done okay--often more than okay. That made them sound hypocritical, as though applying their morals to others but not to themselves, and it occurred to me they didn't know what they were talking about. And neither did I.

is the first thing I ever wrote on this subject.

In what follows I will lay out some of what I've learned and what so impressed me. I found this book to be an objective exploration of modern thinking about capitalism, set in history so I could tie it in with other learning, and "telling it like it is"--always provocative. A Publishers Weekly review said he wrote clear but uninspiring prose. But for me the clarity and transparency are inspiring.

How to begin learning? What to read to learn about capitalism? Books about money and the economy, about who ruined what and who did what to whom, come out all the time. They are often tendentious, and the beginning learner would have try and ferret out where they're coming from and why they're saying what they're saying, a seemingly endless and unrewarding task. So I welcomed the author's introductory assurances that ideas about capitalism had been the subject of discussion for three hundred years already and that many new commentators are hitting familiar themes and not starting from scratch, even when they think they are.

The book, then: Muller starts by sketching historical ideas about commerce. For both the early church and in classical Greek thinking commerce was bad. According to such thinking there was only so much wealth in the world, and people who bought something somewhere and sold it for a higher amount elsewhere were stealing, being leeches on the system. For early Christianity, only what one made, or grew with one's hands was acceptable. But there the similarity between the church and Greek antiquity breaks down. For the church, money itself (not only commerce) was evil; and thus it's easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get God's kingdom. But for the Greeks, it was poverty that corrupts; one needed wealth, derived from war and pillage and also from slave labor that sounds like a permanent holocaust, to avoid corruption! The other major tradition of European antiquity, Rome, with its system of laws and its protection of private property, more nearly points forward.

The historical overview gets us up through Hobbes (Leviathan) and his precursors of 17th century vintage, who used argument and ridicule against religious claims to political power. They also saw the Greek civic tradition as pitting persons and nations against each other, instead of which, in their opinions, nations should establish secular sanctuaries for peaceful coexistence, intellectual advancement and the development of prosperity.

Hobbes' aim was no less than to turn the prior value system upside-down. Think the seven deadly sins. From the new perspective that was a view that had served to keep people in their place. The new paradigm was advancement via self-interest. Now greed and envy might be transmuted into motivation and desire and seeking, pride into self-esteem, and so on. It all worked something like this:

Thus Vice nursed Ingenuity,
Which join'd with Time; and Industry
Had carry'd Life's Conveniencies,
It's real Pleasures, Comforts, Ease,
To such a Height, the very Poor
Lived better than the Rich before
--From Mandeville's 1714 satirical poem , also quoted in the book

Hobbes et al. were springboards to the 18th-20th century figures who are the book's main focus. First comes Voltaire, whom the author sees as more a transmitter than an originator of the new ideas. Voltaire was an early intellectual (philosophe) who operated in the marketplace of ideas and sought to influence that new entity "public opinion." People--still largely men--met in reading clubs and in lodges and gained understanding of government activities; intellectuals tried to influence them as well as monarchs. For Voltaire, peace, not wealth was the goal of the marketplace, with self-interest a lesser danger than religious zealotry that had fueled the devastating European civil wars of recent centuries. I've used my review of Candide as opportunity to talk about Voltaire, so won't say more here, except that Voltaire was not the last to pursue his self-interest improperly, using new knowledge to which governments hadn't yet caught up to manipulate and defraud others.

And that leads to the proper role of governments according to Adam Smith. His reputation notwithstanding, the invisible hand was just one part of his vision. The visible hand of government in one of its roles was to keep individuals from manipulating the market to their own advantage. Naturally workers would try to raise wages higher than the market could bear and manufacturers would try to keep wages artificially low. Governments should keep either from happening and keep the marketplace humming along. But since employers had more power more effort was needed to make them behave. (See my quote from p. 64 below, to the effect that wage earners are the majority of any country, and "their welfare was the prime concern of economic policy," according to Smith.)

Adam Smith was from Scotland, a crucible of intellectual advance in the 18th century. Before centralized government reached the Gaelic-speaking Highlands, the default system there consisted of clans, each with a chieftain who wielded absolute political and military power at the top (which sounds pretty much like warlords), and in Smith's day the clans were "pacified," along with the suppression of the Jacobite rebellion. The Scotland of his day also was comprised of cosmopolitan lowlands areas as well as rural areas where the feudal system still held sway and where landlords still held dominion over their tenants. Smith could compare and contrast the lives of relatively free people in the economically more advanced areas with those who were still subjugated.

Adam Smith was a liberal in both modern senses of the word. He wanted the market to work its transformation on people and society, and his goals were progressive, maybe radical--to free people from subjugation and abject poverty. But his rhetoric, which sought to overturn much conventional thought of his day, was such that he still holds iconic sway for many as a Milton Friedman-type conservative. That's changing, though. Here's a great by Adam Gopnik that's in the same vein as Muller's exposition.

Justus M枚ser, a contemporary of Adam Smith, lived and wrote in a little country called Osnabr眉ck, east of Holland and surrounded on its other three sides by Prussia. The author includes M枚ser, who is little-known, as a prototypical conservative--one who was rooted in his country and loved it and so didn't seek radical solutions to its plight. Although M枚ser could see that exports would increase local wealth, products coming in from abroad were in his eyes spreading the virus of the encroaching new economy, whether through mom-and-pop shops in town or peddlers in the countryside. He wanted to forestall his society's dissolution--power and wealth becoming divorced from land ownership, honor and pride of place, from guild membership. For example there was pressure to allow men of illegitimate birth into guilds, but for M枚ser letting bastards in would collapse the rungs on which honor and status rested and destroy the caste-like levels supporting society, feudal society being mostly static with no rung-climbing allowed and strictures on holding onto one's current rung. Another change was that the locals began migrating across the Dutch border in the summer to pick crops for the more advanced and wealthier economy next door. Having more money as a result, they married earlier instead of having to wait until they inherited cottage and subsistence farm from their fathers. So now the population shot up, and a new class of poor people arose who existed outside the institutions of the old society.

So change was scary as hell, as were the intellectuals, merchants of change who were plying reform-minded monarchs with justification for it. This chapter and the next one on Edmund Burke made sense for me of the way modern conservatives like Thomas Sowell, for instance, rail at "intellectuals" when, after all, so it seemed, that's what they themselves are! But change was coming.

Burke initially seems to cut across current conceptions of conservative and progressive.
NewYorkerDec22and292014

Their historical circumstances can impact what it is conservatives want to conserve. Progressives (in America, "liberals"), in contrast, want change. Radicals, left or right--from the point of view of capitalism, of course--seek to upset the applecart.

Burke was brilliant as was Adam Smith, but the circumstances of his birth were different. Instead of being from up-and-coming Scotland, he was from Ireland, which had been exploited by England and kept down so as not to compete. To himself he was English but to everybody else he was an Irishman. He believed in the market economy--his words, in fact, often taking on a quasi-religious tone--but in his thinking he also relied on the existing institutions of society (including the aristocracy) to maintain order amidst the expanding freedom bestowed by the new economy. So he deplored the East India Company's ravaging of India, which today might sound "leftist." For Burke the issue was money men operating outside institutional control, eviscerating an ancient society for their own enrichment. (Here I learned the origin of the term "nabob"--remember that? These nouveau riche returned only to buy seats in parliament and spread corruption to the home nest.) Burke also was the first to predict the Terror that was to follow the French Revolution, on the basis that the intellectuals of the National Assembly had destroyed the societal institutions he thought were required to maintain order. Burke was less likely than Smith to approve of government intervention. He believed in "getting his hands dirty" by participation in government, and when taking on his political opponents he tended to employ drama and hyperbole that has stylistic echoes still audible today in conservative speech. ...And to balance Gopnik on Smith, on Burke.

Despite their great faith in the benefits of ongoing economic change, the innovators from Adam Smith on realized education and guidance would be needed for the emerging industrial working class. But almost from the get-go there arose other intellectuals with Rousseau in the lead who saw the new system as making happiness impossible. Modern man was fragmented, reduced to a cog in the assembly line.

Alienation: cartoon of a man applying for a job. He's saying to the prospective employer, "I'm looking for a position where I can slowly lose sight of what I originally set out to do with my life, with benefits." (The New Yorker's economic cartoons in On the Money)

Enter Hegel, the great reconciler. At fifty, by which time he had read, digested, and to some extent synthesized the great writers of the day on political economy, he published The Philosophy of Right, which the author says has subsequently been expanded by his students' lecture notes. For him the market economy was the way to modernity. For Smith "commercial society" (to use his terminology) had been the progenitor of positive character traits such as kindness, self-control, thrift and working hard; Hegel anticipated later thinkers in seeing what he called civil society as a reflection of the Protestant ethic. He emphasized the role of institutions such as the family and law, and thought people could rationally understand and embrace their beneficial effects. Freedom wasn't doing whatever you felt like; doing the good required guidance--and, unlike for Kant but perhaps foreshadowing today's cognitive psychology--must become habitual. He did not think duties were limitations imposed on the true self.

In his day the German-speaking peoples lived in 300 separate polities. His Lutheran family, fleeing religious persecution, had arrived in Stuttgart, capital of the duchy of W眉rttenberg, in the 16th century. He was a member of the bureaucratic class incorporating clergymen and professors who were laboring to help the central monarch modernize. For him it was a calling. Their role was to care for the good of the state as a whole at a time when only 5% of the populace was fully literate. In his work he stood up against the reactionary landed nobility ("Junkers") in whose interest it was to maintain the feudal system and those Romantic philosophers who were providing them with rhetorical cover, and under the pressure of Napoleonic victories progress toward a constitutional monarch was made.

Marx's father, too, was a bureaucrat and a respected member of the bourgeoisie. If not a religiously-tinged calling, his job may have been a life raft as he availed himself of society's new openness to leave traditional Jewish confines for civil society. But, after Waterloo, their city came under Prussian control with its laws excluding Jews from the civil service. The father appealed his case and was denied, so that's when he converted, eventually followed by the baptism of wife and children, including Karl. But, like Burke and his Irishness, the perception that Karl Marx was a Jew persisted. Reconciliation was not in the cards for Marx. After struggling with "dilettantism", always wanting to write about the last thing he'd read, he found his calling in the suffering of the working class. He coined the pejorative term "capitalism," the name that stuck. Marx went back to the concept of money as evil, and capitalism was the rule of money. When the status of workers changed, his views didn't. Playing on money-related anti-Jewish tropes present in Western thought since the church took the Jews off the land in the 13th century and made them the money-handlers that growing economies required, Marx portrayed the commercial society that he condemned as "Jewdom," according to which everyone had now become what he called Jews. But his rhetorical excesses made others react later by trying to "rescue" capitalism from Jewdom. And this underlying conflict about money--and about usury and Jews--does continue to resonate in society. More I must leave until I've read The Communist Manifesto. But let me just state Marx considered the unplanned aspect of capitalism irrational, so there's a continuing trope in economic thinking of the planned and unplanned aspect of the economy--one that also continues to resonate.

And now, running out of room, I can't go into the later thinkers in the detail I want to in the review proper: Arnold, "the critical but non-alienated intellectual," who saw the energizing potential of the religious "dissenters" in England and worked to allow them into university. And I saw how far back goes people's suspicion of what their children may be taught in school. See below the Arnold quote from p. 227 that I love, on what "living by ideas" means--quite Platonic I think in the regard for openness to new ideas. See also my last status update from p. 287 on a sense in which the Communist Luk谩ks and National Socialist Freyer paralleled each other. From the chapter on Schumpeter I gained a new perspective on FDR and on why efforts to address the great depression weren't working prior to WWII. I met Keynes. I got some understanding of his continuing impact. Anti-Jewish tropes came up again with him, as did the notion of elitism. Marcuse--maybe I'll say more below. It was stunning to realize that was the very air I breathed in my youth. I have something to say in connection with Hayek and will eventually put it in a comment. Also--he was a conservative liberal--is that Greek to Americans?

For links to other reviews see comment No. 6, below.

Now a summary statement about what I think about capitalism, now I've studied this book. It will have to be rounded out by later discussion. In a character says heaven is when old men and children can walk safely in the street. If so, this life is a little bit of heaven. I can't knock that or be unhappy if it's spreading.

economics history philosophy

Mostafa Bushehri

111 reviews54 followers

August 27, 2017

讴丕倬蹖鬲丕賱蹖爻賲貙爻乇賲丕蹖賴鈥屫ж臂屫� 丕賯鬲氐丕丿亘丕夭丕乇貙賳卅賵賱蹖亘乇丕賱蹖爻賲貙丕賯鬲氐丕丿讴賱丕爻蹖讴/賳卅賵讴賱丕爻蹖讴賵... 丕蹖賳丕賳賴賲賴毓賳丕賵蹖賳蹖賴爻鬲賳丿讴賴丕賮乇丕丿亘賴賳馗丕賲蹖丕賯鬲氐丕丿蹖讴賴亘乇倬丕蹖賴賲讴丕賳蹖夭賲亘丕夭丕乇賵乇賯丕亘鬲丕爻鬲賳爻亘鬲賲蹖丿賴賳丿. 丕蹖賳讴賴丕蹖賳毓賳丕賵蹖賳賴乇讴丿丕賲趩賴賯丿乇丿乇爻鬲賵賲賳丕爻亘賵丿乇趩賴卮乇丕蹖胤賵夭賲丕賳蹖賲蹖亘丕蹖爻鬲亘賴讴丕乇乇賵賳丿禺賵丿賲賵囟賵毓蹖賲賮氐賱丕爻鬲讴賴噩丿丕蹖丕夭丕蹖賳讴鬲丕亘賵亘丨孬丕爻鬲丕賲丕賴賲诏蹖丌賳丕賳亘乇爻乇讴賱賲賴丕蹖亘賴丕爻賲 "亘丕夭丕乇" 丕卮鬲乇丕讴丿丕乇賳丿.

"匕賴賳賵亘丕夭丕乇" 亘丕毓賳賵丕賳賮乇毓蹖賽 "噩丕蹖诏丕賴賳馗丕賲爻乇賲丕蹖賴鈥屫ж臂� 丿乇鬲賮讴乇丕乇賵倬丕蹖賲丿乇賳" 亘賴卮讴賱诏蹖乇蹖賵鬲丕乇蹖禺丕蹖賳賳馗丕賲丕賯鬲氐丕丿蹖賲蹖倬乇丿丕夭丿.

倬蹖卮丕夭賯乇賳賴噩丿賴賲丿乇丕乇賵倬丕蹖賮卅賵丿丕賱蹖賲賴賲鬲乇蹖賳賲賵賱賮賴鬲賵賱蹖丿夭賲蹖賳亘賵丿賵讴賳鬲乇賱丌賳賲亘鬲賳蹖亘乇賯丿乇鬲爻蹖丕爻蹖亘賵丿讴賴禺賵丿丕蹖賳丕賲乇賳蹖夭鬲丕亘毓蹖丕夭賯丿乇鬲賳馗丕賲蹖亘賵丿. 丕賲丕乇賮鬲賴乇賮鬲賴丿乇賯乇賳賴噩丿賴賲丕爻鬲讴賴鬲賵賱蹖丿亘乇丕蹖賲亘丕丿賱賴蹖讴丕賱丕賴丕蹖賲毓蹖卮鬲蹖賵鬲賵夭蹖毓丌賳亘乇賲丨賵乇爻丕夭賵讴丕乇亘丕夭丕乇賳賯卮賲丨賵乇蹖倬蹖丿丕賲蹖讴賳丿.

卮丕蹖丿亘鬲賵丕賳倬丿乇爻乇賲丕蹖賴丿丕乇蹖乇丕丌丿丕賲丕爻賲蹖鬲丿丕賳爻鬲. 丕賵亘丕讴鬲丕亘 "孬乇賵鬲賲賱賱" 賳馗丕賲爻乇賲丕蹖賴丿丕乇蹖讴賴亘乇賲丨賵乇賲賳賮毓鬲卮禺氐蹖賵诏爻鬲乇卮噩丕賲毓賴鬲噩丕乇蹖丿乇乇丕爻鬲丕蹖爻毓丕丿鬲賵乇賮丕賴鬲賲丕賲亘卮乇亘賵丿乇丕亘賳蹖丕賳賳賴丕丿.
噩乇蹖賲賵賱乇貙賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴讴鬲丕亘貙丕賲丕亘賴倬蹖卮丕夭丕爻賲蹖鬲賲乇丕噩毓賴賲蹖讴賳丿賵鬲賱賵蹖丨丕賵賱鬲乇乇丕丕賵賱蹖賳賲賳丕丿蹖丕蹖賳賳馗丕賲賲蹖丿丕賳丿.

讴鬲丕亘丿乇賮氐賱丕賵賱亘賴倬蹖卮夭賲蹖賳賴賵亘爻鬲乇賳馗丕賲亘丕夭丕乇乇噩賵毓賲蹖讴賳丿賵爻乇賳禺賴丕蹖丌賳乇丕丿乇賯乇賵賳賵爻胤蹖賵丨讴賵賲鬲讴賱蹖爻丕賲蹖丿丕賳丿. 讴賱蹖爻丕蹖蹖讴賴丿乇賯乇賳 12 賲鬲賵噩賴卮丿亘乇丕蹖乇卮丿賵鬲賵賱蹖丿賳蹖丕夭亘賴爻乇賲丕蹖賴賵倬賵賱賴爻鬲賵丕夭丌賳噩丕蹖蹖讴賴丿乇丕賱賴蹖丕鬲賲爻蹖丨蹖賵丿乇賳馗丕賲賯丿爻蹖賲爻蹖丨蹖鬲倬賵賱賵鬲噩丕乇鬲賵乇亘丕丕賲乇蹖亘爻賲匕賲賵賲亘賴卮賲丕乇賲蹖乇賮鬲噩丿丕賱蹖亘乇爻乇毓蹖賳蹖丕鬲賵匕賴賳蹖丕鬲丿乇诏乇賮鬲.

丕夭丌賳噩丕蹖蹖讴賴鬲噩丕乇鬲丿乇丌賳夭賲丕賳丕夭丕氐賳丕賮丿賵賳卮丕賳亘賵丿丌賳丕賳趩丕乇賴丕蹖賳丿丕卮鬲賳丿讴賴亘乇丕蹖賳賮乇鬲丕夭蹖賴賵丿蹖丕賳丌賳丕賳乇丕亘乇丕蹖賳讴丕乇亘诏賲丕乇賳丿賵丕蹖賳卮乇賵毓蹖亘賵丿亘乇鬲噩丕乇鬲倬蹖卮诏蹖蹖賴賵丿蹖丕賳賵孬乇賵鬲賲賳丿卮丿賳丌賳丕賳. 亘丕丕蹖賳讴丕乇貙讴賱蹖爻丕賳賴丕丿禺賵丿賵賲爻蹖丨蹖丕賳乇丕丕夭讴丕乇鬲噩丕乇鬲丿賵乇賳诏丕賴賲蹖丿丕卮鬲賵蹖賴賵丿蹖丕賳蹖讴賴丕夭丌賳丕賳賲鬲賳賮乇亘賵丿乇丕亘乇丕蹖賳讴丕乇賲蹖诏賲丕乇丿鬲丕丿乇讴賳丕乇丌賳亘鬲賵丕賳丿丕夭爻賵丿賵爻乇賲丕蹖賴丌賳丕賳丿乇噩賴鬲亘賴亘賵丿丕賯鬲氐丕丿丕乇賵倬丕丕爻鬲賮丕丿賴亘乇賳丿. 賵丕蹖賳噩丕亘賵丿讴賴毓蹖賳蹖丕鬲亘乇匕賴賳蹖丕鬲睾賱亘賴讴乇丿.

讴鬲丕亘丿乇賮氐賱亘毓丿賲丕乇丕亘賴倬蹖卮乇賵卮賳賮讴乇賳丕賲丌卮賳丕蹖乇賵卮賳诏乇蹖貙賵賱鬲乇貙賲蹖亘乇丿. 賲乇丿蹖乇賵卮賳賮讴乇讴賴丿乇讴賳丕乇丌賳亘賴讴丕乇鬲噩丕乇鬲賳蹖夭賲卮睾賵賱亘賵丿. 賵賱鬲乇丕夭賲丿丕賮毓丕賳賳馗丕賲亘丕夭丕乇亘賴卮賲丕乇賲蹖乇賮鬲賵丌賳乇丕亘賴鬲乇蹖賳賵爻蹖賱賴亘乇丕蹖噩賱賵诏蹖乇蹖丕夭噩賳诏賵爻鬲蹖夭賴丕蹖賲匕賴亘蹖賵丕蹖丿卅賵賱賵跇蹖讴賲蹖丿丕賳爻鬲. 丕賵亘丕夭丕乇亘賵乇爻賱賳丿賳乇丕亘賴賲丕賳賳丿蹖讴氐賱丨讴丿賴亘賴鬲氐賵蹖乇賲蹖讴卮丿賵賳卮丕賳賲蹖丿賴丿讴賴丕賳賵丕毓賵丕賯爻丕賲丕賮乇丕丿亘丕賲賱蹖鬲賵乇賳诏賵賳跇丕丿賵賲匕賴亘賴丕蹖賲禺鬲賱賮丿賵乇賴賲噩賲毓卮丿賴丕賳丿賵亘賴丿賵乇丕夭噩賳诏亘賴讴丕乇鬲噩丕乇鬲賲蹖倬乇丿丕夭賳丿賵丕賵丌賳乇丕丕夭亘乇讴鬲賳馗丕賲爻乇賲丕蹖賴賲蹖丿丕賳爻鬲.

丿乇賮氐賱亘毓丿蹖亘賴爻乇丕睾丌丿丕賲丕爻賲蹖鬲賲蹖乇賵丿賵亘賴賳馗乇蹖丕鬲賵丌孬丕乇賵蹖賲蹖倬乇丿丕夭丿.
讴鬲丕亘丿丕乇丕蹖爻蹖乇蹖鬲丕乇蹖禺蹖丕爻鬲讴賴賴乇賮氐賱丌賳丕禺鬲氐丕氐亘賴蹖讴亘乇賴賴貙蹖讴蹖丕趩賳丿賮乇丿亘丕賳馗乇蹖丕鬲賴賲乇丕爻鬲丕賵蹖丕賲鬲毓丕乇囟丿丕乇丿.
賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴亘賴爻乇丕睾乇賵卮賳賮讴乇丕賳賵賮蹖賱爻賵賮丕賳賽賲丿丕賮毓蹖丕賲禺丕賱賮賳馗丕賲爻乇賲丕蹖賴丿丕乇蹖乇賮鬲賴賵賲丕乇丕亘丕丕賳丿蹖卮賴賴丕賵賳馗乇蹖丕鬲丌賳賴丕丌卮賳丕賲蹖爻丕夭丿. 乇賵卮賳賮讴乇丕賳賵丕賳丿蹖卮賲賳丿丕賳蹖賴賲趩賵賳賵賱鬲乇貙丕爻賲蹖鬲貙賲賵夭乇貙丕丿賲賵賳丿亘乇讴貙賴诏賱貙賲丕乇讴爻賵丕賳诏賱爻貙丌乇賳賵賱丿貙賵亘乇賵夭蹖賲賱賵爻賵賲亘丕乇鬲貙賱賵讴丕趩賵卮賵賲倬蹖鬲乇貙讴蹖賳夭賵賲丕乇讴賵夭賴賵丿乇賳賴丕蹖鬲賮賵賳賴丕蹖讴.

賴乇讴丿丕賲丕夭丕蹖賳丕卮禺丕氐亘賳丕亘乇丿蹖丿賵亘蹖賳卮禺賵丿賲禺丕賱賮蹖丕賲丿丕賮毓賳馗丕賲亘丕夭丕乇亘賵丿賴丕賳丿. 毓丿賴丕蹖賴賲趩賵賳賲丕乇讴爻賵丕賳诏賱爻賵賱賵讴丕趩賵賲丕乇讴賵夭賴丕夭丿卮賲賳丕賳爻乇爻禺鬲丌賳賵毓丿賴丕蹖賳蹖夭亘賴賲丕賳賳丿丕爻賲蹖鬲賵賮賵賳賴丕蹖讴賵賵賱鬲乇丕夭賲丿丕賮毓丕賳丕氐賱蹖丌賳賵賴賲蹖賳胤賵乇毓丿賴丕蹖賳蹖夭賴賲趩賵賳讴蹖賳夭賵賵亘乇賵賴诏賱丕夭胤乇賮丿丕乇丕賳賲卮乇賵胤丌賳.

讴鬲丕亘乇丕卮丕蹖丿亘卮賵丿蹖讴鬲丕乇蹖禺丕賳丿蹖卮賴丕賯鬲氐丕丿蹖丿丕賳爻鬲讴賴亘賴亘乇乇爻蹖丿蹖丿诏丕賴賴丕賵丕爻鬲丿賱丕賱賴丕賵賳诏乇丕賳蹖賴丕蹖丕蹖賳丕賳丿蹖卮賲賳丿丕賳丿乇亘丕亘爻乇賲丕蹖賴丿丕乇蹖賲蹖倬乇丿丕夭丿. 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴賴乇趩賳丿蹖讴賱蹖亘乇丕賱-賲丨丕賮馗賴讴丕乇丕爻鬲賵讴賱蹖丕鬲賵丕氐賵賱亘丕夭丕乇乇丕賯亘賵賱讴乇丿賴丕賲丕丿乇乇爻丕賱鬲鬲丕乇蹖禺賳賵蹖爻蹖禺賵丿讴丕賲賱丕禺賳孬蹖賵亘蹖胤乇賮亘賵丿賴賵卮丕蹖丿亘卮賵丿丕賵乇丕賳蹖夭丕夭賲丿丕賮毓丕賳賲卮乇賵胤丌賳丿丕賳爻鬲. 爻乇爻禺鬲鬲乇蹖賳賲禺丕賱賮丕賳丕蹖賳賳馗丕賲賳蹖夭亘賴亘乇鬲乇蹖賵賵蹖跇诏蹖賴丕蹖讴賲賳馗蹖乇丌賳丕毓鬲乇丕賮讴乇丿賴丕賳丿丕賲丕賳诏乇丕賳蹖賴丕蹖蹖賳蹖夭丿乇亘丕亘丌爻蹖亘賴丕蹖賮乇賴賳诏蹖貙賲匕賴亘蹖貙丕噩鬲賲丕毓蹖貙丕賯鬲氐丕丿蹖賵爻蹖丕爻蹖丌賳丿丕乇賳丿.

賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴賲毓鬲賯丿丕爻鬲賳馗丕賲爻乇賲丕蹖賴丿丕乇蹖賳賴亘賴丕賳丿丕夭賴卮乇賲胤賱賯蹖丕爻鬲讴賴賲丕乇讴賵夭賴賲蹖倬賳丿丕乇丿賵賳賴亘賴丕賳丿丕夭賴禺蹖乇賲胤賱賯蹖丕爻鬲讴賴賮賵賳賴丕蹖讴賲蹖倬賳丿丕乇丿
.
爻乇賲丕蹖賴丿丕乇蹖賵丕賯鬲氐丕丿亘丕夭丕乇乇丕亘丕鬲賲丕賲丕賳鬲賯丕丿賴丕蹖賵丕乇丿亘乇丌賳賱丕丕賯賱丕诏乇亘賴賲孬丕亘賴毓賱賲丕賯鬲氐丕丿賱丨丕馗賳讴賳蹖賲丕賲丕亘賳丕亘乇鬲噩乇亘賴讴賲賵賳蹖爻賲卮賵乇賵蹖賵丿蹖诏乇讴卮賵乇賴丕丌賳乇丕賲蹖鬲賵丕賳鬲賳賴丕乇丕賴毓賯賱丕賳蹖賵賲賵噩賵丿丿丕賳爻鬲. 亘丿賵賳卮讴賳馗丕賲蹖讴賴 300爻丕賱丿乇丨丕賱丨讴賲乇丕賳蹖丿乇丕賯氐蹖賳賯丕胤丿賳蹖丕丕爻鬲賵賴乇乇賵夭讴卮賵乇賴丕蹖亘蹖卮鬲乇蹖亘賴爻賲鬲丌賳賲蹖乇賵賳丿賵賳蹖夭賳馗丕賲蹖讴賴趩賳丕賳賲賳毓胤賮賵倬賵蹖丕亘賵丿賴讴賴亘丨乇丕賳賴丕蹖亘蹖卮賲丕乇蹖乇丕倬卮鬲爻乇诏匕丕卮鬲賴賵賴賳賵夭丕爻鬲賵丕乇賵亘丕氐賱丕亘鬲丕爻鬲賯胤毓丕丨乇賮賴丕蹖蹖亘乇丕蹖诏賮鬲賳丿丕乇丿.

賴乇亘丕乇讴賴倬爻丕夭丕鬲賲丕賲賲賳丕亘毓賽鬲賵賱蹖丿賵丕賳乇跇蹖氐丿丕蹖賲禺丕賱賮丕賳丌賳丿乇丌賲丿賴賵丿蹖诏乇賲賳亘毓蹖亘乇丕蹖丕爻鬲賮丕丿賴丕夭丌賳丿乇鬲賵賱蹖丿賵噩賵丿賳丿丕卮鬲賴丕賮乇丕丿亘丕賳诏乇卮賵禺賱丕賯蹖鬲賵丕亘鬲讴丕乇禺賵丿讴賴丕蹖賳乇丕亘丕蹖丿賲乇賴賵賳賳馗丕賲爻乇賲丕蹖賴丿丕乇蹖丿丕賳爻鬲亘丕讴卮賮賵丕禺鬲乇丕毓蹖噩丿蹖丿丿賵亘丕乇賴亘賴鬲賵賱蹖丿賵乇卮丿賲蹖倬乇丿丕夭賳丿. 丕夭夭睾丕賱爻賳诏亘賴賳賮鬲貙丕夭賳賮鬲亘賴丕鬲賲貙丕夭丕鬲賲亘賴賲丕爻賴賵爻賳诏賵爻蹖賱蹖讴賵賳賵丕夭爻蹖賱蹖讴賵賳亘賴亘蹖賵鬲讴賳賵賱賵跇蹖賵... 丕蹖賳乇丕賴丕丿丕賲賴丿丕乇丿.

丕蹖賳賳馗丕賲亘丕乇賴丕賵亘丕乇賴丕倬爻丕夭賴乇亘丨乇丕賳賳丕賯賵爻賵夭賲夭賲賴倬丕蹖丕賳丌賳丕夭噩丕賳亘賲禺丕賱賮丕賳卮亘賴氐丿丕丿乇丌賲丿賴丕賲丕賴乇亘丕乇亘賴賲丕賳賳丿爻蹖賲乇睾蹖丕夭丿乇賵賳丌鬲卮亘乇禺丕爻鬲賴賵亘乇亘賱賳丿丕蹖噩賴丕賳鬲讴蹖賴夭丿賴.

丕蹖賳讴鬲丕亘亘丕鬲乇噩賲賴丕蹖乇賵丕賳丿毓賵鬲蹖丕爻鬲亘乇丕蹖丿乇讴賵賮賴賲賽卮讴賱诏蹖乇蹖賳馗丕賲爻乇賲丕蹖賴丿丕乇蹖丿乇亘爻鬲乇鬲丕乇蹖禺賵丕賳丿蹖卮賴. 讴鬲丕亘蹖賲賳丕爻亘賵禺賵丕賳丿賳蹖賵賱匕鬲亘禺卮亘乇丕蹖賲丿丕賮毓丕賳賵賲禺丕賱賮丕賳丌賳.

Shahab Samani

138 reviews59 followers

August 30, 2021

賲胤丕賱毓賴鈥屰� 賲乇丕丨賱鬲讴賵蹖賳爻乇賲丕蹖賴鈥屫ж臂屫� 丕孬乇丕鬲賮乇賴賳诏蹖貙丕禺賱丕賯蹖賵爻蹖丕爻蹖丌賳賵賴賲趩賳蹖賳卮讴賱鈥屭屫臂� 噩賴丕賳賲丿乇賳賴賲賵丕乇賴丿乇讴丕賳賵賳鬲賵噩賴亘爻蹖丕乇蹖丕夭丕賳丿蹖卮賲賳丿丕賳賵乇賵卮賳賮讴乇丕賳丿乇丨賵夭賴鈥屬囏й� 賲禺鬲賱賮毓賱賵賲丕賳爻丕賳蹖亘賵丿賴鈥� 丕爻鬲. 賳馗丕賲 "爻乇賲丕蹖賴鈥屫ж臂�" 亘賴毓賳賵丕賳卮讴賱睾丕賱亘夭賳丿诏蹖丕賯鬲氐丕丿蹖丕賳爻丕賳丕賲乇賵夭倬丿蹖丿賴鈥屫й� 丕爻鬲趩賳丿賵噩賴蹖賵毓馗蹖賲讴賴亘賴丌爻丕賳蹖丿乇蹖讴趩丕乇趩賵亘賲胤丕賱毓丕鬲蹖噩丕蹖賳賲蹖鈥屭屫必�. 亘賴賴賲蹖賳毓賱鬲噩丕賲毓賴鈥屫促嗀ж池з嗀� 鬲丕乇蹖禺鈥屬嗁堐屫池з嗀� 丕賯鬲氐丕丿丿丕賳丕賳貙賮蹖賱爻賵賮丕賳賵 .. 賴乇讴丿丕賲丕夭賲賳馗乇禺賵丿亘賴丕蹖賳倬丿蹖丿賴鈥屰� 亘蹖賳乇卮鬲賴鈥屫й� 賳诏丕賴讴乇丿賴鈥屫з嗀� 賵鬲賱丕卮丿丕卮鬲賴鈥屫з嗀� 讴賴倬丿蹖丿賴鈥屫й� 乇丕亘卮賳丕爻賳丿讴賴夭賳丿诏蹖亘卮乇乇丕亘賴夭毓賲丌賳鈥屬囏� 丿诏乇诏賵賳讴乇丿賴賵丕夭噩賴丕賳倬蹖卮丕鈥屬呚辟� 賵亘丿賵蹖噩丿丕讴乇丿賴丕爻鬲. 毓賱丕賵賴亘乇賲賳丕賯卮賴亘蹖賳乇卮鬲賴鈥屬囏й� 賲禺鬲賱賮毓賱賵賲丕賳爻丕賳蹖貙丕蹖賳賲賵囟賵毓賴賲賵丕乇賴鬲丨鬲鬲丕孬蹖乇賲賳丕夭毓賴鈥屰� 趩倬鈥屭必й屫з� 賵乇丕爻鬲鈥屭必й屫з� 賳蹖夭亘賵丿賴丕爻鬲賵賴乇讴丿丕賲鬲賱丕卮讴乇丿賴鈥屫з嗀� 乇賵丕蹖鬲禺賵丿乇丕丕夭丕蹖賳倬丿蹖丿賴賵爻蹖乇鬲丕乇蹖禺丕乇丕卅賴丿賴賳丿. 亘丕丕蹖賳丨丕賱蹖讴蹖丕夭倬蹖卮鈥屬佖必垛€屬囏й� 賲卮鬲乇讴賵丕爻丕爻蹖趩賳蹖賳賲胤丕賱毓丕鬲蹖丕蹖賳賲爻卅賱賴丕爻鬲讴賴卮蹖賵賴鈥屰� 夭蹖爻鬲賳丕賳爻丕賳丕賲乇賵夭亘乇丕蹖賳丿蹖丕夭賳蹖乇賵賴丕賵噩乇蹖丕賳丕鬲鬲丕乇蹖禺蹖倬蹖卮丕夭禺賵丿丕爻鬲. 丕夭賴賲蹖賳賳馗乇卮賳丕禺鬲诏匕卮鬲賴貙爻蹖乇鬲讴賵蹖賳賵賳馗賲丨丕讴賲亘乇鬲丕乇蹖禺趩乇丕睾乇丕賴丌蹖賳丿賴賵乇丕賴鈥屭簇й� 賯丿乇鬲鈥屬堌必槽� 丿乇毓乇氐賴毓賲賵賲蹖丕爻鬲. 诏乇丕蹖卮毓賲賵賲蹖亘乇丕蹖乇丕爻鬲鈥屭必й屫з� 丿乇卮乇丨賵鬲賵氐蹖賮丕蹖賳倬丿蹖丿賴丌夭丕丿卮丿賳賳蹖乇賵賴丕蹖匕丕鬲蹖賵賮胤乇蹖丕賳爻丕賳賵亘丕夭丕乇丌夭丕丿丕夭亘賳丿爻賳鬲鈥屬囏� 賵賯賵丕賳蹖賳丿爻鬲賵倬丕诏蹖乇倬蹖卮丕賲丿乇賳丕爻鬲賵丿乇賲賯丕亘賱趩倬鈥屭必й屫з� (诏乇丕蹖卮丕鬲賲禺鬲賱賮賲丕乇讴爻蹖爻鬲蹖) 亘乇賮乇賵倬丕卮蹖蹖讴卮蹖賵賴鬲賵賱蹖丿 (丿乇丕蹖賳噩丕賮卅賵丿丕賱蹖爻賲) 賵亘蹖乇賵賳丌賲丿賳賵丨丕讴賲卮丿賳賲賵賯鬲卮蹖賵賴鬲賵賱蹖丿爻丕夭诏丕乇鬲乇亘丕賳蹖乇賵賴丕賵賲賳丕爻亘丕鬲鬲賵賱蹖丿蹖噩丿蹖丿鬲乇 (丿乇丕蹖賳鈥屫� 爻乇賲丕蹖賴鈥屫ж臂�) 鬲丕讴蹖丿丿丕乇賳丿讴賴禺賵丿賳蹖夭賲賵賯鬲賵賴賲賵丕乇賴丿乇丨丕賱丨乇讴鬲亘賴爻賲鬲卮蹖賵賴鬲賵賱蹖丿讴丕賲賱鈥屫臂� (丿乇丕蹖賳噩丕爻賵爻蹖丕賱蹖爻賲) 丕爻鬲.
丿乇爻丕賱鈥屬囏й� 丕禺蹖乇丿乇丕蹖乇丕賳賳蹖夭讴鬲丕亘鈥屬囏й� 丕乇夭卮賲賳丿亘爻蹖丕乇蹖亘賴胤賵乇禺丕氐丿乇丨賵夭賴鬲丕乇蹖禺賵噩丕賲毓賴鈥屫促嗀ж驰� 亘丕賲丨賵乇蹖鬲丕蹖賳賲賵囟賵毓鬲乇噩賲賴賵亘賴趩丕倬乇爻蹖丿賴丕爻鬲. 丿乇丕蹖賳鈥屫� 亘丕蹖丿亘賴丕蹖賳賳讴鬲賴丕卮丕乇賴讴乇丿讴賴丕爻丕爻丕讴鬲丕亘鈥屬囏й� 鬲乇噩賲賴卮丿賴丿乇丕蹖乇丕賳讴賴亘賴丕蹖賳賲賵囟賵毓賲蹖鈥屬矩必ж操嗀� 丕讴孬乇丕丿乇丨賵夭賴賲胤丕賱毓丕鬲趩倬賵賲丕乇讴爻蹖爻賲賯乇丕乇賲蹖鈥屭屫必�. 丕夭丕蹖賳賳馗乇賮賯丿丕賳賲賳丕亘毓蹖亘丕趩卮賲鈥屫з嗀ж操囏й� 賲鬲賮丕賵鬲丿乇丕蹖賳丨賵夭賴讴丕賲賱丕丨爻賲蹖鈥屫促堌�. 禺賵卮亘禺鬲丕賳賴讴鬲丕亘 "匕賴賳賵亘丕夭丕乇"貙丨丿丕賯賱丿乇賳爻亘鬲亘賴賲賳丕亘毓賲賵噩賵丿丿乇丕蹖乇丕賳貙趩卮賲鈥屫з嗀ж� 鬲丕夭賴鈥屫й� 乇丕丕乇丕卅賴賲蹖鈥屫囏�.
噩乇蹖賲賵賱乇丕爻鬲丕丿鬲丕乇蹖禺丿乇丿丕賳卮诏丕賴讴丕鬲賵賱蹖讴丌賲乇蹖讴丕丕爻鬲. <匕賴賳賵亘丕夭丕乇> 賳禺爻鬲蹖賳讴鬲丕亘蹖丕爻鬲讴賴丕夭丕賵丿乇丕蹖乇丕賳鬲乇噩賲賴卮丿賴丕爻鬲. 噩乇蹖賲賵賱乇丿乇丕蹖賳讴鬲丕亘賲毓鬲賯丿丕爻鬲亘乇丕蹖卮賳丕禺鬲倬賵蹖卮鈥屬囏й� 讴賳賵賳蹖賵丌鬲蹖爻乇賲丕蹖賴鈥屫ж臂屫� 丿丕賳爻鬲賳丕賳丿蹖卮賴鈥屬囏й屰� 讴賴丿乇胤賵賱爻丕賱蹖丕賳丿乇亘丕乇賴鈥屰� 丕蹖賳賲賵囟賵毓胤乇丨卮丿賴丕爻鬲貙囟乇賵乇蹖賵賲賮蹖丿丕爻鬲. 讴鬲丕亘亘乇丕蹖賳倬蹖卮鈥屬佖必� 丕爻鬲賵丕乇丕爻鬲讴賴賳馗丕賲爻乇賲丕蹖賴鈥屫ж臂� 賲賵囟賵毓蹖丕爻鬲倬蹖趩蹖丿賴鈥屫� 丕夭丌賳讴賴鬲賳賴丕亘賴丕賯鬲氐丕丿丿丕賳丕賳賵丕诏匕丕乇卮賵丿. 亘賴丕蹖賳鬲乇鬲蹖亘丕蹖賳讴鬲丕亘鬲丕乇蹖禺趩賴鈥屫й� 丕夭丕賮讴丕乇丕賯鬲氐丕丿蹖賳蹖爻鬲亘賱讴賴鬲丕乇蹖禺趩賴鈥屫й� 丕爻鬲丕夭丌乇丕賵丕賮讴丕乇丿乇亘丕乇賴鈥屰� 丕賯鬲氐丕丿爻乇賲丕蹖賴鈥屫ж臂�. 亘賴賳賵毓蹖賲蹖鈥屫堌з� 诏賮鬲讴賴賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴丿乇丕蹖賳讴鬲丕亘鬲賱丕卮賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 鬲丕丕賳丿蹖卮賴鈥屬囏й屰� 讴賴賲賴賲鈥屫臂屬� 賵賴賵卮賲賳丿鬲乇蹖賳乇賵卮賳賮讴乇丕賳丕乇賵倬丕蹖蹖亘丕鬲毓賱賯丕鬲丕蹖丿卅賵賱賵跇蹖賲鬲賮丕賵鬲丿乇亘丕乇賴鈥屰� 倬蹖丕賲丿賴丕蹖丕禺賱丕賯蹖貙賮乇賴賳诏蹖賵爻蹖丕爻蹖爻乇賲丕蹖賴鈥屫ж臂� 胤乇丨讴乇丿賴亘賵丿賳丿乇丕蹖丕夭蹖丕亘蹖賵丕丨蹖丕讴賳丿. 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴讴鬲丕亘禺賵丿乇丕丕夭賯乇賳丿賵丕夭丿賴賲賲蹖賱丕丿蹖丌睾丕夭賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 噩丕蹖蹖讴賴讴賲鈥屭┵� 噩賵丕賳賴鈥屬囏й� 賲賳丕爻亘丕鬲賲丿乇賳丕賯鬲氐丕丿蹖丕夭丿賱丕賯鬲氐丕丿倬蹖卮丕賲丿乇賳貙賲丨賱蹖賵賮卅賵丿丕賱蹖亘蹖乇賵賳賲蹖鈥屫③屬嗀�. 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴乇卮丿亘丕夭丕乇賵卮讴賱鈥屭屫臂� 賲賳丕爻亘丕鬲丕賯鬲氐丕丿蹖噩丿蹖丿乇丕賮乇丕蹖賳丿蹖鬲讴丕賲賱蹖貙賳丕诏夭蹖乇賵乇賵亘賴倬蹖卮乇賮鬲賲蹖鈥屫з嗀�. 鬲毓乇蹖賮賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴丕夭賲賳丕爻亘丕鬲丕賯鬲氐丕丿蹖噩丿蹖丿亘乇丕爻丕爻乇卮丿亘丕夭乇诏丕賳蹖賵鬲噩丕乇鬲貙乇卮丿賲亘丕丿賱賴鈥屰� 讴丕賱丕貙卮讴賱鈥屭屫臂� 亘丕賳讴鈥屬囏� 賵亘丕夭丕乇鈥屬囏й� 噩丿蹖丿賲丕賱蹖丕爻鬲讴賴丿乇亘乇丕亘乇丕賯鬲氐丕丿賲丨賱蹖賵賲鬲讴蹖亘乇讴卮丕賵乇夭蹖賵賲賳丕爻亘丕鬲賮卅賵丿丕賱蹖丕爻鬲.
亘賴丕蹖賳鬲乇鬲蹖亘賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴丿乇倬蹖丌賳丕爻鬲讴賴賳卮丕賳丿賴丿丕賳丿蹖卮賲賳丿丕賳賲毓丕氐乇亘丕賴乇讴丿丕賲丕夭丕蹖賳鬲睾蹖蹖乇丕鬲貙趩诏賵賳賴丌賳乇丕丿乇讴賵鬲賮爻蹖乇賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁嗀�. 趩诏賵賳賴丕乇夭卮鈥屬囏� 賵賴賳噩丕乇賴丕蹖丨丕讴賲亘乇賲賳丕爻亘丕鬲丕賯鬲氐丕丿蹖鬲睾蹖蹖乇賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 賵丨賯賵賯賵丕禺賱丕賯噩丿蹖丿賵爻丕夭诏丕乇亘丕噩賴丕賳賲丿乇賳禺賱賯賲蹖鈥屫促堌�. 賳丨賵賴鈥屰� 丕賳丿蹖卮蹖丿賳丌賳鈥屬囏� 亘賴丕蹖賳賲賵囟賵毓丕鬲 (亘丕夭丕乇貙鬲噩丕乇鬲貙孬乇賵鬲貙讴丕乇賵丕禺賱丕賯蹖丕鬲爻乇賲丕蹖賴鈥屫ж必з嗁�) 趩诏賵賳賴亘賵丿賴丕爻鬲. 丕夭賲賴賲鈥屫臂屬� 賲囟丕賲蹖賳蹖讴賴賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴丨賵賱賲丨賵乇鈥� 丌賳鈥屬囏� 丕賳丿蹖卮賴鈥屰� 乇賵卮賳賮讴乇丕賳乇丕亘乇乇爻蹖賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 亘賴賲爻丕卅賱夭蹖乇賲蹖鈥屫堌з� 丕卮丕乇賴讴乇丿:
賲爻卅賱賴鈥屰� 賮賯乇賵孬乇賵鬲: 丌蹖丕亘丕夭丕乇賲乇丿賲乇丕孬乇賵鬲賲賳丿鬲乇賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 蹖丕賮賯蹖乇鬲乇責丕诏乇睾丕賱亘丕丌賳賴丕乇丕孬乇賵鬲賲賳丿鬲乇賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 丌蹖丕丕蹖賳賱夭賵賲丕趩蹖夭禺賵亘蹖丕爻鬲責
賳爻亘鬲爻乇賲丕蹖賴鈥屫ж臂� 亘丕賮乇賴賳诏趩诏賵賳賴丕爻鬲責丌蹖丕噩丕賲毓賴鈥屰� 亘丕夭丕乇爻丕禺鬲賴亘蹖卮丕夭丌賳讴賴丿睾丿睾賴丌賳鈥屫囏з嗃� 丿丕卮鬲賴亘丕卮丿貙丿乇诏蹖乇賲爻丕卅賱丕蹖賳噩賴丕賳蹖丕爻鬲責賵丕蹖賳丕賲乇賳賯胤賴鈥屰� 賯賵鬲丌賳丕爻鬲蹖丕賳賯胤賴鈥屰� 囟毓賮責
丿乇禺氐賵氐乇丕亘胤賴鈥屰� 亘丕夭丕乇賵讴孬乇鬲鈥屭必й屰� 賮乇賴賳诏蹖趩賴賲蹖鈥屫堌з� 诏賮鬲責丌蹖丕爻乇賲丕蹖賴鈥屫ж臂� 亘賴爻賵蹖蹖讴爻丕賳鈥屫池ж槽� 賮乇賴賳诏蹖賵丕夭亘蹖賳亘乇丿賳賴賵蹖鬲鈥屬囏й� 賮乇賴賳诏蹖賲鬲賮丕賵鬲倬蹖卮賲蹖鈥屫辟堌�
亘賴噩夭賮氐賱丕賵賱讴賴賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴亘賴卮乇丨賳賯丿爻賳鬲鈥屬囏й� 賮讴乇蹖賲乇爻賵賲 (爻賳鬲蹖賵賳丕賳蹖貙讴賱蹖爻丕蹖蹖貙噩賲賴賵乇蹖鈥屫堌з囒� 賲丿賳蹖) 丿乇丕乇賵倬丕蹖倬蹖卮丕賲丿乇賳丿乇賲賵乇丿鬲噩丕乇鬲賵孬乇賵鬲賲蹖鈥屬矩必ж藏� 賴乇賮氐賱讴鬲丕亘卮丕賲賱賳馗乇丕鬲蹖讴乇賵卮賳賮讴乇亘丕賲丨賵乇蹖鬲賲爻丕卅賱亘丕賱丕丕爻鬲. 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴鬲賲丕賲丕蹖賳賲賵囟賵毓丕鬲乇丕亘賴胤乇夭賲丕賴乇丕賳賴鈥屫й� 丿乇賴賲賲蹖鈥屫①呟屫藏� 鬲丕讴賱蹖鬲蹖噩丕賲毓丕夭鬲賮讴乇蹖讴丕賳丿蹖卮賲賳丿丕乇丕卅賴丿賴丿. 賲賵賱乇亘乇丕蹖丕蹖賳亘乇乇爻蹖诏丕賴亘乇蹖讴賲鬲賳賵丕丨丿丕夭乇賵卮賳賮讴乇鬲讴蹖賴賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 賵诏丕賴賲乇賵乇蹖亘乇鬲賲丕賲丌孬丕乇丕賵丿丕乇丿. 丕賵亘丕賯乇丕乇丿丕丿賳丕賮讴丕乇賵賳賵卮鬲賴鈥屬囏й� 丕賳丿蹖卮賲賳丿賲賵乇丿亘乇乇爻蹖丿乇夭賲蹖賳賴鬲丕乇蹖禺蹖亘蹖賳丕賮讴丕乇賵丕蹖賳夭賲蹖賳賴鬲丕乇蹖禺蹖倬賱賲蹖鈥屫操嗀� 讴賴丕蹖賳賲爻卅賱賴亘賴禺賵丕賳賳丿賴讴賲讴賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 鬲丕倬蹖賵爻鬲诏蹖鬲睾蹖蹖乇丕鬲賮讴乇蹖賵丕賯鬲氐丕丿蹖丿乇丕乇賵倬丕乇丕賲卮丕賴丿賴讴賳丿. 丕蹖賳夭賲蹖賳賴鈥屰� 賲賮蹖丿讴賴亘賴亘賴鬲乇卮丿賳賮賴賲禺賵丕賳賳丿賴讴賲讴賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 賲蹖鈥屫堌з嗀� 乇賵蹖丿丕丿蹖爻蹖丕爻蹖貙鬲睾蹖蹖乇丕鬲丕噩鬲賲丕毓蹖賵诏丕賴爻賳鬲鈥屬囏й� 賮讴乇蹖倬蹖卮蹖賳乇賵卮賳賮讴乇賲賵乇丿亘乇乇爻蹖丿乇丌賳賮氐賱亘丕卮丿.
賲賵賱乇卮丕賳夭丿賴丕賳丿蹖卮賲賳丿乇丕丿乇爻蹖夭丿賴賮氐賱亘乇乇爻蹖賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 丕夭丕蹖賳賳馗乇倬乇丿丕禺鬲賳亘賴賴乇賮氐賱亘賴氐賵乇鬲噩丿丕诏丕賳賴丿乇丕蹖賳蹖丕丿丿丕卮鬲賲賮蹖丿亘賴賳馗乇賳賲蹖鈥屫必池�. 丕賲丕亘丕賳诏丕賴蹖讴賱蹖鈥屫� 賲蹖鈥屫堌з� 丕蹖賳丕賳丿蹖卮賲賳丿丕賳乇丕丿乇丿賵诏乇賵賴賲丿丕賮毓丕賳賵賲禺丕賱賮丕賳亘丕夭丕乇丌夭丕丿丕夭賴賲賲鬲賲丕蹖夭讴乇丿. 賲丿丕賮毓丕賳亘丕夭丕乇亘丕诏乇丕蹖卮賱蹖亘乇丕賱賲卮禺氐賲蹖鈥屫促堎嗀� 賵賲禺丕賱賮丕賳亘丕夭丕乇丿乇丿賵丿爻鬲賴鈥屰� 賲鬲賲丕蹖夭賲丨丕賮馗賴鈥屭┴ж� 賵趩倬噩丕蹖鈥屬呟屸€屭屫辟嗀�. 禺亘亘丕蹖丿诏賮鬲賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴亘賴賵囟賵丨亘丕賱蹖亘乇丕賱鈥屬囏й� 賲丿丕賮毓亘丕夭丕乇賴賲丿賱丕爻鬲賵卮賲丕賲蹖鈥屫堌з嗃屫� 丕蹖賳賴賲丿賱蹖乇丕亘賴氐賵乇鬲賲卮禺氐鈥屫臂� 丿乇賮氐賱鈥屬囏й屰� 讴賴賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴亘賴丕賳丿蹖卮賲賳丿丕賳賱蹖亘乇丕賱倬乇丿丕禺鬲賴丕爻鬲亘亘蹖賳蹖丿.
丕夭丕賳丿蹖卮賲賳丿丕賳賲丿丕賮毓亘丕夭丕乇讴賴丿乇丕蹖賳讴鬲丕亘賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴亘賴丌賳賴丕倬乇丿丕禺鬲賴丕爻鬲賲蹖鈥屫堌з� 亘賴乇賵爻賵貙丕爻賲蹖鬲貙賴诏賱貙卮賵賲倬蹖鬲乇貙亘乇讴賵賴丕蹖讴丕卮丕乇賴讴乇丿. 亘丕丕蹖賳賵噩賵丿亘乇禺蹖丕夭丕蹖賳丕賳丿蹖卮賲賳丿丕賳賳诏丕賴蹖丕賳鬲賯丕丿蹖亘賴亘丕夭丕乇丿丕卮鬲賴鈥屫з嗀� 賵丿乇賳賵卮鬲賴鈥屬囏й� 禺賵丿貙丌賳鈥屭堎嗁� 讴賴賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴賳蹖夭賲蹖鈥屭堐屫� 鬲賱丕卮讴乇丿賴鈥屫з嗀� 亘乇爻賵蹖賴鈥屬囏й� 鬲丕乇蹖讴卮乇丕蹖胤噩丿蹖丿賳蹖夭倬乇鬲賵卅蹖丕賮讴賳賳丿. 賴賲趩賳蹖賳賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴丕賳丿蹖卮賴鈥屬囏й� 賲丕乇讴爻貙賲丕乇讴賵夭賴貙賲賵夭乇賵賱賵讴丕趩乇丕亘賴毓賳賵丕賳賲賳鬲賯丿蹖賳亘丕夭丕乇亘乇乇爻蹖賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀�. 賮氐賱蹖讴賴亘賴丌丿丕賲丕爻賲蹖鬲賲蹖鈥屬矩必ж藏� 丕夭爻丕蹖乇賮氐賱鈥屬囏� 賲賮氐賱鈥屫� 丕爻鬲趩乇丕讴賴亘賴夭毓賲賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴丕賵毓賱丕賵賴亘乇丕蹖賳讴賴丕賯鬲氐丕丿丿丕賳亘賵丿貙蹖讴賮蹖賱爻賵賮丕禺賱丕賯賳蹖夭亘賵丿賵卮乇丕蹖胤噩丿蹖丿乇丕丕夭賴乇丿賵爻賵賲蹖鈥屫迟嗀屫�. 賲鬲賳讴鬲丕亘噩匕丕亘丕爻鬲賵亘賴賴蹖趩鈥� 毓賳賵丕賳蹖讴鬲丕乇蹖禺鈥屬嗂ж臂� 禺卮讴丕賯鬲氐丕丿蹖賵鬲禺氐氐蹖賳蹖爻鬲. 亘禺卮乇賵爻賵賵丕賲賵乇丕鬲丕賯鬲氐丕丿蹖卮禺氐蹖丕賵賲蹖鈥屫堌з嗀� 亘乇丕蹖禺賵丕賳賳丿賴亘爻蹖丕乇噩匕丕亘亘丕卮丿. 賴賲丕賳鈥屫焚堌� 讴賴倬蹖卮鈥屫� 丕卮丕乇賴讴乇丿賲貙賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴倬乇丿丕禺鬲賳亘賴賴乇丕賳丿蹖卮賲賳丿蹖乇丕亘丕卮乇丨夭賳丿诏蹖賵毓賲賱讴乇丿丕賵亘乇乇爻蹖賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀�. 丨鬲蹖丕蹖賳賳賯丿乇丕賲蹖鈥屫堌з� 亘賴讴鬲丕亘賵丕乇丿丿丕賳爻鬲讴賴诏丕賴丕亘禺卮夭賳丿诏蹖賳丕賲賴鈥屫й� 賵鬲丕乇蹖禺鈥屬嗂ж臂� 亘乇亘禺卮賳馗乇蹖賵丕賯鬲氐丕丿蹖丌賳趩蹖乇賴賲蹖鈥屫促堌�. 禺賵丿賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴丿乇賲賯丿賲賴讴鬲丕亘賲蹖鈥屭堐屫�: "賴夭蹖賳賴倬乇丿丕禺鬲賳亘賴丌乇丕賵丕賮讴丕乇亘丿賵賳丕卮丕乇賴鈥屰� 丿乇禺賵乇亘賴夭賲蹖賳賴鈥屰� 丌賳賴丕賲爻丕賵蹖丕爻鬲蹖丕鬲禺胤蹖讴乇丿賳丕夭禺賵丿賴賲丕賳丕賳丿蹖卮賴鈥屬囏�. 丕賲丕夭賲蹖賳賴鈥屬呝嗀池ж槽� 亘蹖卮丕夭丨丿賳蹖夭賴夭蹖賳賴鈥屬囏й� 禺賵丿卮乇丕丿丕乇丿貙夭蹖乇丕鬲賲乇讴夭亘蹖卮丕夭丨丿亘乇夭賲蹖賳賴鈥屰� 鬲丕乇蹖禺蹖貙賲蹖鈥屫堌з嗀� 賲乇亘賵胤蹖鬲賲爻鬲賲乇賵賯丿乇鬲賲鬲丿丕賵賲丌乇丕賵丕賮讴丕乇乇丕賮賴賲賳丕倬匕蹖乇讴賳丿."

丕蹖賳賲乇賵乇乇丕亘乇丕蹖爻丕蹖鬲賳賯丿賵亘乇乇爻蹖讴鬲丕亘賵蹖賳卮賳賵卮鬲賴丕賲.

sociology world-history

Negar

61 reviews2 followers

February 21, 2025

4.5猸�

1锔忊儯亘丕禺賵丕賳丿賳賳馗乇丕鬲賲鬲賮丕賵鬲蹖丕夭賲鬲賮讴乇丕賳賲禺鬲賱賮丕夭丌丿丕賲丕爻賲蹖鬲賵亘乇讴鬲丕賲賵乇夭賵丕夭丌賳爻賵鬲丕賴丕蹖讴! 丿乇亘丕乇賴丕賯鬲氐丕丿丿乇蹖趩賴丕蹖賳賵亘賴乇賵蹖賲亘丕夭卮丿. 卮賳丕禺鬲賲鬲賮讴乇丕賳蹖讴賴鬲丕亘丨丕賱丕夭丌賳賴丕讴鬲丕亘蹖賳禺賵丕賳丿賴丕賲賵丕蹖賳讴鬲丕亘卮丕蹖丿卮乇賵毓蹖賳蹖讴賵亘乇丕蹖賲胤丕賱毓賴丌孬丕乇丌賳丕賳亘丕卮丿.

2锔忊儯亘乇丕蹖賳爻賱賲丕诏丕賴蹖爻乇賲丕蹖賴丿丕乇蹖賵鬲賮讴乇亘丕夭丕乇亘丿蹖賴蹖賵丕夭賱蹖噩賱賵賴賲蹖讴賳丿貙丕蹖賳讴鬲丕亘卮讴賴丕賵賳诏乇丕賳蹖賴丕蹖讴爻丕賳蹖讴賴倬蹖卮丕夭賲丕亘賵丿賳丿賵丿睾丿睾賴賴丕蹖蹖乇丕賲胤乇丨讴乇丿讴賴诏匕卮鬲诏丕賳賲鬲賮讴乇賲丕丿乇亘丕乇賴禺胤乇賴丕蹖丕丨鬲賲丕賱蹖丌賳趩賴賲丕丿乇丨丕賱鬲噩乇亘賴丌賳賴爻鬲蹖賲丿丕卮鬲賳丿.

3锔忊儯亘毓蹖丿丕爻鬲賲賳讴賴丕賯鬲氐丕丿賳禺賵丕賳丿賴丕賲賵爻乇乇卮鬲賴丕蹖丿乇丌賳賳丿丕乇賲乇賵夭蹖亘丿蹖賱蹖亘乇丕蹖爻乇賲丕蹖賴丿丕乇蹖胤乇丕丨蹖讴賳賲亘賱讴賴亘賴毓賳賵丕賳讴爻蹖讴賴丿乇丕蹖賳賳馗丕賲夭丕丿賴卮丿賴(賴乇趩賳丿亘丕趩丕卮賳蹖乇丕賳鬲賵禺賮賯丕賳) 亘丕蹖丿丕夭夭亘丕賳诏匕卮鬲诏丕賳賵亘賴賵蹖跇賴倬丕蹖賴诏匕丕乇丕賳爻乇賲丕蹖賴丿丕乇蹖賲孬賱丌丿丕賲丕爻賲蹖鬲賵丨鬲蹖賲禺丕賱賮丕賳丌賳丕夭丌賮丕鬲 (爻丕蹖丿丕賮讴鬲) 賴丕蹖爻乇賲丕蹖賴丿丕乇蹖丌诏丕賴卮賵賲鬲丕亘丕亘賴鬲乇蹖賳亘賴乇賴賵讴賲鬲乇蹖賳丌爻蹖亘丿乇賳馗丕賲丕賯鬲氐丕丿蹖賮毓賱蹖亘賴丕賮讴丕乇賵丨蹖丕鬲賲毓賳賵蹖禺賵丿亘倬乇丿丕夭賲.

4锔忊儯賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴诏丕賴蹖亘賴賳丿乇鬲丿乇丕賮讴丕乇卮噩賴鬲丿賴蹖丿丕乇丿讴賴賯丕亘賱乇丿蹖丕亘蹖丕爻鬲賵賲蹖鬲賵丕賳蹖丿丌賳賯爻賲鬲賴丕乇丕賯賱賲亘诏蹖乇蹖丿! 亘丕丕蹖賳丨丕賱亘乇賳丕賲賴卮禺氐蹖丕賲亘乇丕蹖丕蹖賳賲爻卅賱賴丕蹖賳丕爻鬲讴賴讴鬲丕亘賴丕蹖賲鬲賮讴乇丕賳蹖讴賴丿乇丕蹖賳讴鬲丕亘丕夭丌賳賴丕蹖丕丿卮丿賴乇丕賲爻鬲賯蹖賲丕賲胤丕賱毓賴讴賳賲.

賲賲賳賵賳丕夭鬲賵噩賴鬲賵賳馃

賮賱爻賮赖-睾乇亘-賵-噩丕賲毓赖-卮賳丕爻蹖

Nima

74 reviews62 followers

October 2, 2021

讴鬲丕亘鬲丕亘賴丕賱丕賳蹖讴蹖丕夭丿賴讴鬲丕亘鬲丕孬蹖乇诏匕丕乇鬲賵蹖夭賳丿诏蹖賮讴乇蹖賲賳賴爻鬲卮. 蹖讴鬲丕亘爻鬲丕賳賵丿賴乇賵夭亘賴禺賵賳丿賳卮诏匕卮鬲. 賮讴乇賲蹖讴賳賲丕蹖賳讴鬲丕亘 717 氐賮丨賴丕蹖胤賵賱丕賳蹖鬲乇蹖賳讴鬲丕亘蹖亘賵丿讴賴鬲丕亘賴丨丕賱禺賵賳丿賲. 讴鬲丕亘丕胤賱丕毓丕鬲禺賵亘賵讴丕賲賱蹖丕夭丕賳丿蹖卮賴賴丕丿乇亘丕乇賴蹖爻乇賲丕蹖賴丿丕乇蹖丕乇丕卅賴丿丕丿賴賵丿蹖丿賲賳乇賵禺蹖賱蹖丿乇亘丕乇賴丕蹖賳賳馗丕賲丕賯鬲氐丕丿蹖鬲睾蹖蹖乇丿丕丿. 丕賲丕趩蹖夭蹖丌夭丕乇賲賲蹖丿丕丿賵賴賲蹖賳亘丕毓孬卮丿讴賴亘賴讴鬲丕亘賳賲乇賴 3 丕夭 5 乇賵亘丿賲賵丕賵賳爻賵丿丕乇亘賵丿賳賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴賳爻亘鬲亘賴丕賮乇丕丿賲禺丕賱賮爻乇賲丕蹖賴丿丕乇蹖賵丕毓鬲賯丕丿丕鬲卮賵賳亘賵丿. 讴鬲丕亘賵丕賯毓丕丨乇賮賴丕蹖賳賵卮鬲賴卮丿賴鬲丕噩丕蹖蹖讴賴讴丕乇亘賴賲禺丕賱賮丕賳賲孬賱賲丕乇讴爻賲蹖乇爻賴. 丕蹖賳噩丕爻讴賴讴鬲丕亘蹖賴賵卮亘蹖賴亘乇賳丕賲賴賴丕蹖禺亘乇蹖爻賵丿丕乇丕夭賵丕跇诏丕賳賵賲睾賱胤賴賴丕蹖蹖亘乇丕蹖鬲賵氐蹖賮賲賵囟賵毓丕爻鬲賮丕丿賴賲蹖讴乇丿讴賴賵丕賯毓丕賲賳乇賵賲鬲毓噩亘賵爻乇禺賵乇丿賴賲蹖讴乇丿. 讴鬲丕亘亘乇丕蹖丌卮賳丕蹖蹖亘丕賲鬲賮讴乇丕賳爻鬲丕蹖卮诏乇爻乇賲丕蹖賴丿丕乇蹖貙讴鬲丕亘賲賳丕爻亘蹖賴爻鬲丕賲丕亘乇丕蹖毓賯丕蹖丿賲禺丕賱賮丕賳賴賳賵夭賳蹖丕夭亘賴讴鬲丕亘蹖丕讴鬲丕亘賴丕蹖丿蹖诏賴丕蹖丿丕乇賲. 鬲乇噩賲賴毓丕賱蹖賵讴蹖賮蹖鬲趩丕倬丕蹖賳讴鬲丕亘丕夭賳卮乇亘蹖丿诏賱亘蹖賳馗蹖乇亘賵丿賳讴賴賱匕鬲禺賵丕賳卮讴鬲丕亘乇賵丿賵趩賳丿丕賳賲蹖讴乇丿.

Emma Sea

2,213 reviews1,199 followers

December 18, 2013

The content was 5-star, but the presentation could have been more engaging.

The format was strictly chronological, discussing each economist/economic concept in turn. This made it pretty dry going until the 19th century, when the disparate ideas started coming together to explain the basis of contemporary capitalism. All the sections on the 20th century were quite riveting.

It was fascinating to see how the economic theories of of Hegel, Marcuse, Lukacs etc fit within their broader writing on critical theory.

As the authors note:

Much of the story we have told falls outside the boundaries of modern academic disciplines and their respective histories. Contemporary economics focuses on issues of efficiency in allocation, political science on the institutions of governmental power, political theory on questions of justice, sociology on social groups as defined by interactions outside the market.

This makes the book a great read for sociologists/cultural theorists who lack a basic knowledge of economics. Like me. Who failed high school economics by one point and never bothered to try it at college.

I'm very glad I read it, and I'm quite inspired to try some more economic theory.

economics history kindle

Mahdi

299 reviews99 followers

December 29, 2019

蹖讴讴鬲丕亘丕毓噩丕亘亘乇丕賳诏蹖夭丿乇夭賲蹖賳賴卮賳丕禺鬲丿賳蹖丕蹖丕賲乇賵夭

賴乇趩蹖夭蹖讴賴賮讴乇賲蹖讴賳蹖丿丿乇丕蹖賳噩賴丕賳亘賴氐賵乇鬲丕夭賱蹖賵丕亘丿蹖賵噩賵丿丿丕卮鬲賴貙爻丕禺鬲賴蹖丿賳蹖丕蹖賲丿乇賳丕爻鬲貨賳賴噩賴丕賳

禺賵丕賳丿賳丿丕蹖賳讴鬲丕亘亘乇丕蹖賴賲賴丿丕賳卮噩賵蹖丕賳賵丕噩亘丕爻鬲賵鬲乇噩賲賴亘爻蹖丕乇禺賵亘蹖賴賲丿丕乇丿

Clif

466 reviews176 followers

May 16, 2021

Too bad more stars aren't available as this book would deserve them all. My only complaint is nit-picking: sometimes the author repeats himself. But, since this is a fairly deep topic, some repetition for the reader is not a bad thing and the writing style is quite easy to follow.

Other authors have written along the same lines, such as Robert Heilbroner's "The Worldly Philosophers" but the depth and coverage of Muller's book is greater.

Capitalism has been revolutionary and as with any revolution, there have been those who see it only as a danger to the stability of the institutions that preceded it. They were right to worry because capitalism has been very destructive; completely eliminating the feudal society that preceded it. Yet so much has been gained for human freedom, individuality and well-being. As we read here, there were those such as Smith and Hegel who saw the positives early on.

Humans are generally fearful of change while capitalism requires it. The writer/philosophers that Muller covers took a variety of positions from the left to the right in praising or decrying this change. Their positions have, for the most part, aged well; we can still see the relevance of their arguments today. Voltaire unsurprisingly supported the tendency of capitalism to bring people of all kinds together in trade, causing them to set aside such absolutist thoughts as spiritual redemption and the will of God. But, to my surprise, he was at the same time quite a wheeler dealer in the markets. Not only do readers gain an understanding of philosophical views, they can form an impression of the kind of person each philosopher was.

We have all heard of Karl Marx, but how many know the background from which he came? By drawing the reader into a rich historical account, Muller weaves a tapestry within which one sees the remarkable lives he documents. Running throughout the book are the position of and attitudes toward the Jews who, banned from other occupations, eagerly moved into finance where they succeeded - a success that caused others to target them as the cause of difficulties and threats inseparable from capitalism itself.

This innate threatening aspect of capitalism we see right up to the present day in attempts to prevent factory closings and layoffs. Long term success overall is always accompanied by short term losses for one locality or another. While an appreciation of the general wealth that capitalism can bring has greatly weakened the opposition to it that once brought rioting and violence, we will see in the current economic downturn if resentment will have a resurgence.

As Muller states in his conclusion, capitalism has been at the center of European thought for centuries. Most histories do not give it the central place that it deserves. The Mind and The Market gets a place on my bookshelf because I know that I'll refer back to it for the penetrating insights it offers into how both the psychological and physical worlds we live in came to be.

But the story is far from over. Capitalism is now facing its greatest challenge - can it be modified to a limited world where growth cannot continue forever? Muller mentions that such questions were asked during the Great Depression, with the implication that they were unfounded. But now we face them again on a warming planet with four times the population of 1925 that will not allow the question to be put off.

economics philosophy

Mohammad

358 reviews359 followers

Read

December 12, 2018

鬲丕倬丕蹖丕賳賮氐賱賲鬲蹖賵丌乇賳賵賱丿禺賵賳丿賲賵鬲賵蹖蹖賰賮乇氐鬲賲賳丕爻亘亘賯蹖賴賰鬲丕亘乇賵賲蹖禺賵賳賲. 趩賳丿鬲丕賳賰鬲賴鬲丕賴賲蹖賳噩丕蹖賰鬲丕亘亘賴匕賴賳賲賲蹖乇爻賴.鈥�
丕賵賱丕蹖賳賰賴賮賰乇賳賲蹖賰乇丿賲丿丕爻鬲丕賳卮賰賱诏蹖乇蹖亘丕夭丕乇丕蹖賳賯丿乇噩匕丕亘亘丕卮賴.鈥�
丿賵賲丕蹖賳賰賴丕蹖賳賰鬲丕亘賮賯胤賵賮賯胤鬲丕乇蹖禺賰倬蹖鬲丕賱蹖爻賲賵賳馗乇丕鬲賲鬲賮賰乇丕賳乇賵賲蹖诏賴賵賳賯丿蹖亘乇賱賴賵毓賱蹖賴賰倬蹖鬲丕賱蹖爻賲亘賴胤賵乇賲爻鬲賯蹖賲丕乇丕卅賴賳賲蹖丿賴. 禺亘丨丕賱丕趩乇丕诏賮鬲賲亘賴胤賵乇賲爻鬲賯蹖賲責趩賵賳亘毓丿丕夭禺賵丕賳丿賳 100 氐賮丨賴丕夭賰鬲丕亘禺賵丕賳賳丿賴賲鬲賵噩賴賲蹖卮賴賰賴賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴亘賴胤賵乇睾蹖乇賲爻鬲賯蹖賲丿乇丨丕賱丿賮丕毓丕夭賰倬蹖鬲丕賱蹖爻賲賴賵賮賵丕蹖丿卮乇賵亘蹖卮鬲乇丕夭丌孬丕乇賲禺乇亘卮賲蹖丿賵賳賴
丿乇賲噩賲賵毓亘乇丕蹖賮賴賲鬲丕乇蹖禺賳馗丕賲爻乇賲丕蹖賴丿丕乇蹖賰鬲丕亘賰丕賲賱蹖爻鬲
鈥�

Bertrand

171 reviews121 followers

April 30, 2018

I feel that we are living through the nadir of Western conservatism: in the past five years, we have heard more from and about alleged consevative intellectuals than we ever did in my life-time, but most of those鈥攆rom the increasingly shrill tone and mediocre content of the Salisbury or the Criterion, to the exotic non-sense of the alt-right, or the conspiracy rhetoric which permeates more and more of the critics of academic 'liberalism'鈥攕eems inchoate and opportunistic, bent on making the most of their new-found visibility, at the expense of precisely those virtues of precision and discipline on which conservatism has tended to rest its case.
I am sure there are many conservatives who find this landslide betrays their tradition's principled reflections on means and ends, but I am nowhere near knowledgeable (or patient) enough to go and unearth them from the repetitious morass of mainstream conservative discourse. Jerry Muller could act as a figurehead for those dissatisfied鈥攊f conservative leaders and followers had much interest in restoring their dignity: as it stands, it seems more likely that he will find his readership among the liberals, and the occasional leftist, seeking a nuanced understanding of the 'other side'.
Muller presents his project as a history of Western Thought about capitalism, understood in the broadest possible terms: less about the particulars or the varieties, than about the concept itself, its emergence and transformation. This would be very interesting, but Muller's book falls well short from providing it: it starts with XVIIIth century, and in fact look as much at the thought of economists themselves, as to that of modern critics of capitalism left and right.
The result is a highly selective picture, quite biased toward Muller's own brand of unorthodox conservatism (see his article 'Capitalism and Inequality' in Foreign Affairs of March 2013, for a primer.) After a short introduction, we discover the opinion of and interactions with the market of a list of famous and less famous thinkers: Voltaire, Adam Smith, Justus M枚ser, Edmund Burke, Hegel, Marx, Mathew Arnold, Weber, Simmel, Sombart, Luk谩cs, Hans Freyer, Schumpeter, Keynes, Marcuse and Hayek.
Germans and Anglosaxons dominate the debate, but this focus allows a few less known names, like Freyer and M枚ser, to slip into the fold, and the books' main strength is probably to be sought in this insistence on including critics of the market from both the Left and the (far) right: the rightwing critique of capitalism is rarely examined in its own right, to the point that modern conservatism is so entrenched in free market fundamentalism that no-one (save a few Catholics) seems to remember this tradition. As a result, Muller emphasises the overlap between Left and Right critics of capitalism, not in pursuit of some oxy-moronic reduction (i.e. Jonah Goldberg), not to subsume both under the evasive umbrella of 'romanticism' (i.e. Isaiah Berlin), but rather to show that the critics of capitalism spring from the same source as capitalism itself 鈥� in other words, that the market's own constitutive contradictions make their emergence and re-emergence inevitable.
While most of Muller's leftists seem to practice a blanket rejection of capitalism, Muller's conservatism also acknowledge the necessity of State intervention to curb and manage the inbuilt excesses of the market economy, and might offer tradition as a suitable counterpower to unbounded individualism.
To the question of 'Why the Left?' which young conservatives (hopefully!) sometimes ask themselves, Muller offers little of the usual canards of resentment, conformism and middle-class opportunism, but rather emphasise that those thinkers have something to offer, even to conservatives. Muller wrote a book on 'Capitalism and the Jews', so that he offers in his introduction a nuanced and interesting genealogy of the Jew's centrality to the critique of capitalism, both as author and as scape-goat. Unfortunately, this also warrants some of Muller's more dishonest asides, on Marx's jewish self-hatred, or on Keynes' alleged antisemitism.
On the whole the book falls short of delivering a convincing history of the concept of market or capitalism鈥攊nstead, it offers a mosaic thinkers, from disparate political orientation, whose ideas are in themselves quite fascinating. Muller's prose in clear and concise, and I think does a great job of introducing and illustrating complex concepts for the lay person. It is a book with an agenda but in its scope and balanced approach it might prove useful even to those who disagree.

capitalism conservatism economics

Tristan

96 reviews8 followers

June 16, 2018

Muller does for capitalism what Ferris did for cosmology (in 鈥淐oming of Age in the Milky Way鈥�), showing how views around markets, commerce, trade, etc. have evolved throughout the ages. It helped me organize my own views around capitalism (but they still are鈥攁nd will likely remain鈥攁 jumbled mess).

The book is dense (Muller provides in-depth histories of each character's background) but in case anyone is curious, here鈥檚 a summary:

Chapter 1 鈥� History:

Way back, the church didn鈥檛 like trade, and most people figured that if someone gained wealth somewhere then someone must have lost wealth elsewhere. So basically, the accumulation of wealth was viewed as a bad thing (unless you were a nobleman and took it from others). However, as human wealth increased there came an economic need for money-lending and trade. So the Jews stepped in, and in return for being hated by all, they carried out the important function of lending money and acting as middlemen.

As time passed, Grotius, Hobbes, Locke, Spinoza (1600鈥檚) and others tried to separate church and state, envisioning a state that protected the rights of citizens to do as they please (as opposed to a state that imposed morality on citizens from above). As the conception of the state changed, more people came to defend the market as a means to freedom.

Chapter 2 鈥� Voltaire:

Voltaire (1700鈥檚) defended the pursuit of wealth through markets, and morally legitimized the consumption of wealth. Before Voltaire, luxury had been frowned upon for blurring class lines and corrupting civic virtue. Voltaire didn鈥檛 think that market activity was the supreme goal of life, but he thought it was a good diversion from religious zealotry, which had caused so many deaths. Voltaire liked merchants and disliked the church. To Voltaire, self-interest was more likely to promote peace than fervent ideological commitment:

鈥淐ompared to the altruistic crusade of forcibly saving one鈥檚 neighbor鈥檚 soul, even if it leaves his body in ruins, the pursuit of wealth is a potentially more peaceable pursuit, and one that leaves one鈥檚 neighbor content.鈥�

Voltaire got rich through England's growing financial industry, but did so through shady dealings that led people to hate him. He tried to save face by slandering the Jews:

鈥淎ccording to Voltaire, Abraham was so avaricious that he prostituted his wife for money; David slew Goliath not to protect his people but for economic gain; Herod did not complete the rebuilding of the temple because the Jews, though they loved their sanctuary, loved their money more.鈥�

Chapter 3 鈥� Adam Smith:

Adam Smith wrote The Wealth of Nations in 1776, arguing that worldly happiness was a good thing, a free market economy (both nationally and internationally) is the best way to improve everyone鈥檚 standard of living, and that through markets, self-interest can be steered towards the common good. If you鈥檙e thinking of reading this book, I assume you already know all about Smith. He said some stuff about pins, some other stuff about emotions, and thought that specialization鈥攖hough it wouldn鈥檛 make us happier on the job鈥攚ould make us more prosperous. This was at a time when many people worried that rising wages and standards of living would lead to laziness, and expensive goods would make Britain uncompetitive in the international economy.

Smith was a nicer man than Voltaire. He gave most of his money to charity (in secret), and did not blame the Jews for the bad things in life. Contrary to what many believe, Smith was a big fan of altruism鈥攈e just didn鈥檛 think that it was sufficient to run our economy, given that it involves dealings with strangers who are unlikely to stir our empathy. Also, Smith saw a big role for the state, and figured that as economies grew, the state would grow as well, enforcing laws, providing for defence, maintaining infrastructure, and even offering schooling.

Chapter 4 鈥� Justus M枚ser:

M枚ser (1700鈥檚) saw that a market economy would erode his ideal traditional culture, by imposing universal laws (as opposed to local norms) and allowing for a more egalitarian society (as opposed to the more 鈥渧irtuous鈥� one, in which a hierarchy allows people to know their place). Where Smith saw that markets could liberate the poor from poverty, M枚ser thought that liberation from poverty was not desirable, as poverty produced virtue.

M枚ser was an anti-Enlightenment conservative, and made no bones about it鈥攊n his mind, intellectual rationalism could not provide knowledge of the 鈥渄eeper rationality of local, historical experience鈥�. M枚ser romanticized artisans and peasants, and demonized shopkeepers and peddlers (often Jews).

In his view, people needed government policy to protect them from the temptation of buying products that they really didn鈥檛 need. However, even to M枚ser, a limited market was desirable because a bit of competition would keep prices in check.

Chapter 5 鈥� Edmund Burke:

Burke was the granddaddy of modern conservatism. He agreed with Smith on most things, but was more conservative and more opposed to government intervention.

Burke worried that we were coming to rely too heavily on rational thought to organize our affairs. He recognized that many human institutions grow organically, serving important purposes which may not be apparent to rationally-minded, hard-nosed inquiry. Therefore, we must use reason with humility and recognize that the wisdom in established institutions may be hidden to us (Thomas Sowell, anyone?). Where we reform society, we must do so cautiously.

Burke saw government intervention in the market, which was often blind to unintended consequences, as an example of the 鈥渙verreaching of abstract reason.鈥� In Burke鈥檚 view, the role of the intellectual was to convince politicians and the public of 鈥渢he long-term beneficent effects of acquisitiveness channelled through the competitive market鈥�. The people didn't understand how they benefit from a competitive market, so needed to be explicitly taught.

Chapter 6 鈥� Hegel:

Hegel (early 1800鈥檚) knew that unless his fellow citizens could understand the rationale behind society鈥檚 institutions, they would feel alienated and unhappy. Therefore, he tried to rationally justify why institutions, including the market, were good for society. By understanding the ethic of institutions, individuals could feel more at home within them.

Hegel thought that institutions don鈥檛 constrain humans, but instead liberate them from base drives so that they can pursue the drives of a higher, more rational, ethical self. The market is an ethical thing, because it causes us to bend our own wills to the requirement of others. Hegel thought that government should do everything Smith thought, but that it should also intervene to level out boom and bust cycles, and should inspect food/medicine/etc.

Chapter 7 鈥� Marx:

Marx (1800鈥檚) saw the poverty of the working class as an inevitable, irreversible outcome of the market. He felt that intellectuals had a duty to encourage the working class to revolt, and figured that the oppressive nature of capitalism would eventually lead to a communist revolution. However, he founded his ideas on faulty economic assumptions (which both he and Engels later contradicted), and neglected to note the improvements to working class life that took place as he was writing Das Kapital.

Marx viewed capitalism as exploitation and recast many of the old, Christian critiques of the market. As he saw it, 鈥渕oney is fundamentally unproductive, 鈥� only those who live by the sweat of their brow truly produce, and 鈥� therefore not only interest, but profit itself, is always ill-gotten.鈥� In his view, competition isolated people from each-other, self-interested motives could not give rise to genuinely moral behaviour, and profits were essentially theft.

As the industrial revolution disrupted the economy, Marx looked around and interpreted the 鈥渁gony of a declining preindustrial order as the birth pangs of a postcapitalist future鈥�, which he hoped to usher in. Marx鈥攁nd his comrade Engels鈥攚anted to ditch the unplanned economy in favour of socialism, whereby everything would be rationally planned and centrally organized. However, Marx didn鈥檛 say much about how to actually organize this socialist economy. Marx capitalized on anti-Jewish sentiment, bashing the Jews as a way to drive home his demonization of capitalism (arguing that the negative characteristics of Jews鈥攚orshipping money, etc.鈥攚ere actually characteristics of a market-oriented society).

Chapter 8 鈥� Matthew Arnold:

Like Marx, Arnold (1800鈥檚) saw problems with capitalism, but unlike Marx, Arnold didn鈥檛 seek to abolish it. Instead, he tried to convince politicians and the public that the virtues and gains of capitalism were not ends in themselves, but were simply means to a higher, more enriching existence. He thought that the education system was the place to get this message across.

Chapter 9 鈥� Weber, Simmel, and Sombart (late 1800鈥檚鈥� 1900鈥檚):

Max Weber was a nationalist and a social Darwinist, who thought that successful competition in the world economy required the government to encourage capitalism. Weber realized that workers will often resent the economically powerful, but counselled that capitalism was in their best interests. Although capitalism leads people to pursue money at the expense of happiness, it has no desirable alternative (especially not socialism). Weber criticized Marxism as fantasy.

Simmel figured that markets produced tolerance, because when people are focused on their own means they become less judgmental of the ways in which others lead their lives. Plus, the competition of the marketplace aligns suppliers鈥� minds with the desires of third-parties (to win their business), so encourages social integration. A quote: 鈥溾€immel reminded his readers that money allowed for the cooperation of individuals who would otherwise have nothing to do with one another.鈥�

Sombart thought that capitalism might produce a higher material standard of living, but felt that it robbed people of culture, quality of life, inner peace, and their relationship to nature. Sombart drew upon anti-Semitism in his critiques of capitalism.

Chapter 10 鈥� Luk谩cs and Freyer:

Luk谩cs thought capitalism alienated people by loosening social ties, separating producers from consumers, and degrading community. Luk谩cs wanted to show workers that capitalism is not inevitable, and men need not succumb to it. Communism could replace it.

Freyer was basically Luk谩cs, but thought that Nazism (rather than Communism) should replace capitalism. However, Freyer wasn鈥檛 a racist鈥攈e simply thought that Nazism could provide the sense of shared morality lacking in capitalism. After WWII, Freyer turned away from Nazism; although he remained anti-capitalist, he thought that people should look to their families, religions, and professional identities to provide meaning.

Chapter 11 鈥� Schumpeter:

Like Marx, Joseph Schumpeter (1940鈥檚) thought capitalism would be superseded by socialism, but unlike Marx, Schumpeter thought this was a sad irony. According to Schumpeter, capitalism is a great economic arrangement, but inevitably breeds resentment because it is disruptive and produces inequality in society. Schumpeter feared that socialism 鈥渨ould be disastrous, alienating the most productive citizens, bringing about a decline in the standard of living, and leading to social conflict.鈥� The only way that socialism could work would be to incentivize those of superior abilities by way of differential reward鈥攊n other words, Schumpeter thought that successful socialism would need to ditch its egalitarian aspirations.

Chapter 12 鈥� Keynes and Marcuse:

John Maynard Keynes thought government should stimulate economic activity during recessions/depressions, which would put people to work, who would then spend, which would create a demand for goods, which would lead to investment, which would create employment. Keynes was very influential from the 1930鈥檚 through the 1970鈥檚.

Herbert Marcuse got critical theory going. He thought that social analysis must be based in prior political commitment, thought that people who claimed to be satisfied with life needed to be schooled in all the ways they are actually dissatisfied (in the hopes of bringing on a revolution), and thought that capitalism repressed pleasure to unacceptable levels. Basically, Marcuse was me when I was in undergrad. Marcuse thought that the fact that men and women feel happy was a problem, because their professed happiness blinds them to the bondage of living under totalitarian liberal democracies. He thought that capitalism made people slaves to their desires. Centralized control of the economy should replace capitalism, but Marcuse was uninterested in the specifics of how this would be done.

Chapter 12 鈥� Hayek:

Friedrich August von Hayek (died in 1992) thought that government should step back, because where it held great power it would often cater to vested interests. Hayek thought that the long-term, widespread benefits of capitalism came at the expense of some established social groups, who would try to regain power through force and politics. All in all, Hayek loved capitalism.

Hayek argued that a planned economy cannot work, because the government cannot coordinate the decentralized information of a market (conveyed by prices), and government should not tell people what to value. In other words, socialism would be both inefficient and totalitarian. Hayek thought that the fact that the market lacked a higher moral purpose was a good thing, because it allowed for people with differing values to cooperate.

Contrary to what today鈥檚 ideologues assert, Hayek saw a role for the welfare state and figured that it would grow as affluence increased. The government could play a role in social insurance, education, regulation of working conditions, buildings, etc.

Hayek criticized Keynesianism, arguing that it led to high inflation. And he didn鈥檛 like egalitarianism, arguing that it would require intrusive measures and would destroy incentives. Hayek had an interesting bit to say about democracy: its greatest benefit comes not because it gives the people a voice, but because it allows for peaceful transitions of power. If democracy had too much power, economic interest groups would dominate the playing-field. Therefore, liberal democracy should 鈥減ut limits on the range of questions that could be decided through the political process.鈥�

As he asked, 鈥淚s there really no other way for people to maintain a democratic government than by handing over unlimited power to a group of elected representatives whose decisions must be guided by the exigencies of a bargaining process in which they bribe a sufficient number of voters to support an organized group of themselves numerous enough to outvote the rest?鈥� Well said, FA Hayek.

Bahman Bahman

Author听3 books238 followers

November 1, 2020

芦丕蹖賳丕爻賲蹖鬲丌丿賲賮賵賯鈥屫з勜关ж団€屫й� 丕爻鬲!禄丕蹖賳噩賲賱賴乇丕賵賱鬲乇倬爻丕夭賲賱丕賯丕鬲亘丕賮蹖賱爻賵賮丕爻讴丕鬲賱賳丿蹖賳賵卮鬲賵丿乇丕丿丕賲賴丕賮夭賵丿: 芦賲丕賴蹖趩讴爻蹖乇丕讴賴賯丕亘賱賲賯丕蹖爻賴亘丕丕賵亘丕卮丿賳丿丕乇蹖賲貙賵丕夭丕蹖賳噩賴鬲賲賳亘乇丕蹖賴賲鈥屬堌焚嗀з� 毓夭蹖夭賲賲鬲兀爻賮賲.禄倬跇賵賴卮蹖丿乇賲丕賴蹖鬲賵毓賱賱孬乇賵鬲賲賱賱貙讴賴丕爻賲蹖鬲丌賳乇丕丿乇爻丕賱 1776 賲賳鬲卮乇讴乇丿貙賲賴賲鈥屫臂屬� 讴鬲丕亘蹖丕爻鬲讴賴鬲丕讴賳賵賳丿乇亘丕乇踿爻乇賲丕蹖賴鈥屫ж臂� 賵倬蹖丕賲丿賴丕蹖丕禺賱丕賯蹖丌賳賳賵卮鬲賴卮丿賴丕爻鬲. 賴乇趩賳丿亘禺卮夭蹖丕丿蹖丕夭孬乇賵鬲賲賱賱亘賴賲賵囟賵毓鬲噩丕乇鬲丕禺鬲氐丕氐蹖丕賮鬲賴貙丕蹖賳讴鬲丕亘亘乇丕蹖亘丕夭乇诏丕賳丕賳蹖丕丕賴丕賱蹖讴爻亘賵讴丕乇賳賵卮鬲賴賳卮丿賴丕爻鬲. 孬乇賵鬲賲賱賱亘賴鈥屫官嗁堌з� 讴鬲丕亘蹖讴賴亘賴鈥屬嗀堐� 賲鬲賲乇讴夭亘賴鬲丨賱蹖賱賮乇丕蹖賳丿賴丕蹖亘丕夭丕乇貙賮乇丕蹖賳丿賴丕蹖蹖讴賴賲賳賮毓鬲鈥屫焚勜ㄛ� 卮禺氐蹖亘乇丕賳诏蹖夭賳丿踿丌賳賴丕爻鬲貙賲蹖鈥屬矩必ж藏� 亘賴賯賱賲蹖讴蹖丕夭爻鬲賵丿賴鈥屫臂屬� 賮蹖賱爻賵賮丕賳乇賵卮賳诏乇蹖貙丕爻鬲丕丿爻丕亘賯賲賳胤賯貙亘賱丕睾鬲 (爻禺賳賵乇蹖)貙丨賯賵賯鈥屫促嗀ж驰� 賵賮賱爻賮踿丕禺賱丕賯賳賵卮鬲賴卮丿賴丕爻鬲貙丌賳賴賲亘賴丕蹖賳賳蹖鬲讴賴亘乇爻蹖丕爻鬲賲丿丕乇丕賳鬲兀孬蹖乇诏匕丕乇丿賵丌賳丕賳乇丕亘賴噩爻鬲噩賵蹖禺蹖乇賲卮鬲乇讴鬲乇睾蹖亘讴賳丿. 丿睾丿睾踿丕爻賲蹖鬲貙丿乇賲賯丕賲賮蹖賱爻賵賮丕禺賱丕賯貙賲丕賴蹖鬲鬲毓丕賱蹖丕禺賱丕賯蹖亘賵丿貙丕賲丕賲丕賳賳丿亘爻蹖丕乇蹖丕夭乇賵卮賳賮讴乇丕賳乇賵卮賳诏乇蹖貙丕賵賳蹖夭賳賯胤踿卮乇賵毓讴丕乇禺賵丿乇丕鬲賵氐蹖賮賵鬲卮乇蹖丨丕賳爻丕賳蹖鬲丌賳鈥屭堎嗁� 讴賴賵丕賯毓丕賸賴爻鬲賯乇丕乇丿丕丿. 胤乇丨丕爻賲蹖鬲卮賳丕禺鬲丕賳爻丕賳亘賵丿丌賳鈥屭堎嗁� 讴賴毓賲賱丕賸賴爻鬲賵卮亘蹖賴鈥屫� 讴乇丿賳丕賵亘賵丿亘賴丌賳趩賴亘丕蹖丿亘丕卮丿貙丌賳賴賲丕夭胤乇蹖賯讴卮賮賳賴丕丿賴丕蹖蹖讴賴丕賳爻丕賳鈥屬囏� 乇丕鬲丕丨丿賯丕亘賱賯亘賵賱蹖亘乇丕夭賳丿賴讴乇丿賴鈥屫з嗀� 賵趩賴亘爻丕亘鬲賵丕賳賳丿丌賳鈥屬囏� 乇丕亘乇丕夭賳丿賴鈥屫� 賳蹖夭亘讴賳賳丿. 倬卮鬲蹖亘丕賳丕爻賲蹖鬲丿乇亘賴丕賳噩丕賲乇爻丕賳丿賳胤乇丨禺賵丿蹖讴賲賳亘毓賮讴乇蹖亘爻蹖丕乇睾賳蹖亘賵丿: 亘蹖卮丕夭蹖讴賯乇賳鬲兀賲賱丿乇亘丕乇踿賮賵丕蹖丿丕噩鬲賲丕毓蹖賲賲讴賳賽诏乇丕蹖卮丕賮乇丕丿亘賴禺賵丿丿賵爻鬲蹖貙禺賵丿賲丿丕乇蹖貙賲賳賮毓鬲鈥屫焚勜ㄛ� 卮禺氐蹖貙睾乇賵乇賵鬲丨爻蹖賳鈥屫焚勜ㄛ屫� 賴賳诏丕賲蹖讴賴丕蹖賳诏乇丕蹖卮鈥屬囏� 亘賴鈥屬堌驰屬勠€ 賳賴丕丿賴丕蹖丕噩鬲賲丕毓蹖亘賴鈥屬嗀堐� 卮丕蹖爻鬲賴賴丿丕蹖鬲卮丿賴亘丕卮賳丿. 噩賵爻丕蹖丕鬲丕讴乇貙賲鬲兀賱賴丕賳诏賱蹖讴賳讴賴倬蹖卮丕夭丌丿丕賲丕爻賲蹖鬲亘乇噩爻鬲賴鈥屫臂屬� 賲丿丕賮毓亘乇蹖鬲丕賳蹖丕蹖蹖鬲噩丕乇鬲丌夭丕丿亘賵丿貙乇賵蹖讴乇丿賲夭亘賵乇乇丕丕蹖賳鈥屫焚堌� 禺賱丕氐賴讴乇丿賴丕爻鬲: 芦賴丿賮丕氐賱蹖鈥屫й� 讴賴亘丕蹖丿亘丿丕賳丕賴鬲賲丕賲卮賵丿賳賴賴丿賲賵賳賴鬲囟毓蹖賮丨亘賳賮爻貙亘賱讴賴賴丿丕蹖鬲卮丕蹖爻鬲踿丌賳丕爻鬲貙胤賵乇蹖讴賴賮乇丿亘鬲賵丕賳丿亘丕倬蹖诏蹖乇蹖賳賮毓卮禺氐蹖禺賵丿賳賮毓噩賲毓蹖乇丕鬲賯賵蹖鬲讴賳丿.禄

賲賴賲鈥屫臂屬� 丕爻鬲丿賱丕賱孬乇賵鬲賲賱賱丌賳丕爻鬲讴賴丕賯鬲氐丕丿亘丕夭丕乇亘賴亘賴鬲乇蹖賳賳丨賵賯丕丿乇亘賴亘賴亘賵丿爻胤丨夭賳丿诏蹖丕讴孬乇蹖鬲毓馗蹖賲蹖丕夭賲乇丿賲丕爻鬲丕蹖賳讴賴丕賯鬲氐丕丿亘丕夭丕乇賲蹖鈥屫堌з嗀� 亘賴丌賳趩賴丕爻賲蹖鬲芦賲讴賳鬲賮乇丕诏蹖乇禄賲蹖鈥屬嗀з呟屫� 亘蹖賳噩丕賲丿. 丕爻丕爻孬乇賵鬲賲賱賱亘乇丕蹖賳賮乇囟乇賵卮賳诏乇蹖丕爻鬲賵丕乇亘賵丿讴賴禺賵卮亘禺鬲蹖賽夭賲蹖賳蹖趩蹖夭禺賵亘蹖丕爻鬲貙賵丿乇倬蹖賳卮丕賳丿丕丿賳丕蹖賳賲胤賱亘亘賵丿讴賴乇賮丕賴賵亘賴夭蹖爻鬲蹖賲丕丿賾蹖賱夭賵賲丕賸亘賴丌賳芦鬲噩賲賱丕鬲蹖禄賲丨丿賵丿賳賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 讴賴鬲賳賴丕丿乇丿爻鬲乇爻賯卮乇賳丕夭讴蹖丿乇亘丕賱丕蹖噩丕賲毓賴丕爻鬲. 讴丕乇蹖讴賴丕爻賲蹖鬲讴乇丿丌賳亘賵丿讴賴賯丿乇鬲禺乇蹖丿賲氐乇賮鈥屭┵嗁嗀з� 乇丕亘賴爻賳噩踿芦孬乇賵鬲賲賱鬲禄鬲亘丿蹖賱賳賲賵丿. 丕爻鬲丿賱丕賱丿蹖诏乇孬乇賵鬲賲賱賱丌賳亘賵丿讴賴鬲丨鬲卮乇丕蹖胤賳賴丕丿蹖賽氐丨蹖丨貙丕卮丕毓踿芦噩丕賲毓踿鬲噩丕乇蹖禄亘賴丌夭丕丿蹖賮乇丿蹖亘蹖卮鬲乇賵乇賵丕亘胤賲爻丕賱賲鬲鈥屫①呟屫藏� 丿乇亘蹖賳賲賱鬲鈥屬囏� 禺賵丕賴丿丕賳噩丕賲蹖丿.

Bahare Ghanoon

Author听1 book18 followers

September 25, 2021

讴鬲丕亘讴鬲丕亘蹖鈥屫池� 丿乇爻胤丨亘爻蹖丕乇賲毓賲賵賱蹖賵鈥屫勠屬勨€屬囏й� 爻胤丨蹖丕賲丕...賳賲蹖丿賵賳賲丿乇亘丕乇賴賲鬲乇噩賲趩蹖亘诏賲!
丨賲賱賴賮乇丕賳爻賴亘賴賲賵乇蹖鬲蹖賵爻責丿乇氐賮丨賴鄄鄢郾賳賵卮鬲賴賲賵乇蹖鬲蹖賵爻貙蹖毓賳蹖賲鬲乇噩賲賳賲蹖丿賵賳賴鬲賱賮馗丕賳诏賱蹖爻蹖鈥屫� 賲賵乇蹖卮爻賴爻鬲賵鬲賵賮丕乇爻蹖亘賴丕蹖賳讴卮賵乇賲蹖诏蹖賲賲賵乇蹖爻.
丕蹖賳蹖讴賳賲賵賳賴爻鬲丕夭賲賵丕乇丿賲禺鬲賱賮蹖讴賴亘丕毓孬賲蹖卮賴亘賴讴賱鬲乇噩賲賴卮讴讴賳蹖.
賲鬲丕爻賮丕賳賴丕夭禺蹖賱蹖賲賵乇丿賴丕蹖丿蹖诏賴诏匕卮鬲賲賵賱蹖丕蹖賳賴丕乇賵蹖丕丿賲賲賵賳丿: 丿乇氐賮丨賴郾鄱酃毓亘丕乇鬲芦噩爻鬲噩賵丕夭倬蹖賯丕賳賵賳賴賲鈥屫蹿┵� 賵丕爻鬲丕賳丿賴鈥屫簇嚶� 趩蹖賵丕賯毓丕責
蹖丕丿乇氐鄣郾酃貙芦丿賵睾丕賱亘鈥屫臂屬� 賲囟丕賲蹖賳賲噩賲賵毓賴丌賵丕乇卮賵賲倬蹖鬲乇貙禺氐蹖氐賴鈥屫й� 賳蹖趩賴鈥屫й� 丿丕乇賳丿禄.

丌蹖丕芦賲爻丕賴賲鬲禄蹖賴讴賱賲賴鈥屫池� 丿丕乇蹖賲責蹖丕芦賲乇亘賵胤蹖鬲禄責

氐鄱郯郯 : 丕丨爻丕爻鬲賴蹖诏蹖賲賳鬲噩丕夭賵賯鬲蹖讴賴讴丕賱丕賴丕蹖賲氐乇賮蹖氐乇賮丕賸亘乇丕爻丕爻禺賵丕爻鬲賴鈥屬囏й� 噩丿蹖丿丕賸丕賱賯丕卮丿賴亘賴賵爻蹖賱賴亘丕夭丕乇丕賳鬲禺丕亘卮賵賳丿. 丨丿爻賲蹖夭賳賲賲賳馗賵乇丕夭鬲賴蹖诏蹖貙鬲賴蹖亘賵丿賳丕爻鬲.
氐鄱郾郯: 芦爻賯賵胤賲毓乇賵賮蹖鬲賲丕乇讴賵夭賴禄讴賴賲孬賱丕卮賴乇鬲噩丕蹖诏夭蹖賳亘爻蹖丕乇賲賳丕爻亘鈥屫臂� 亘乇丕蹖賲毓乇賵賮蹖鬲賴爻鬲.
氐鄱鄄鄯: 爻賴丕氐賱蹖鈥屫臂屬� 诏乇賵賴鈥屫ㄙ嗀屸€屬囏й� 爻蹖丕爻蹖. 丿乇氐賵乇鬲蹖讴賴鬲賵賮丕乇爻蹖賲蹖鈥屭屬� 爻賴诏乇賵賴鈥屫ㄙ嗀� 爻蹖丕爻蹖丕氐賱蹖.

Eric

28 reviews4 followers

April 9, 2020

This book was so good that I read it twice over a period of 5 years and the second time round I even took notes.

A must read for any student of economics, politics and history.

On a side note, I don't think I've ever read a book where I felt my vocabulary was sub par. This book shattered that notion. Here's just a few of the words that I learned while going through this gem of a book:
inimical, polemical, indivious, approbation, progenitor, pernicious, philistine, leitmotif, and the list goes on............

James

473 reviews28 followers

March 19, 2012

good for the intellectual tradition of capitalism, even if the author seemed a little bit right-wing (in an intelligent sort of way). Also, he spends too much time talking about marx's anti-judiasm, and seems to paint schumpeter as a celebrity. otherwise, good for background knowledge of the philosophical debates around the market and capitalism.

Marc Gerstein

583 reviews179 followers

July 13, 2021

I stopped reading a bit more than halfway through. That usually translates to a one-star review. But I won鈥檛 do that here. As far as I can see, the book is OK at accomplishing its goals; not great (and not nearly what I expected after having been impressed with another of Muller鈥檚 works, The Tyranny of Metrics) but not awful either. The problem I have with The Mind of the Market: Capitalism in Western Thought, and I鈥檓 struggling to find an appropriate way to say this, is that I鈥檓 not sure the book was really worth writing; the topic not worth addressing 鈥� at least not in this day and age.

Wow, that sounds like an awful thing to say! Hear me out.

As far as I can see, Muller delivers exactly what he promises, a historical survey of capitalism as a topic in western thought, or put another way, in western philosophy, starting around the time of The Enlightenment and moving forward from there. Each topic starts with background information on a particular thinker, and moves on to discuss his (men only as far as I read) ideas. The problem, though, is that they are all philosophers opining on something about which they understand nothing. It鈥檚 not their fault that they don鈥檛 understand capitalism.

Capitalism is a topic in the field of economics and economics did not exist as a field of study per se until just recently. Imagine Voltaire expressing his views on the various tradeoffs to be made in piloting a plane toward the ground by reducing speed and/or adjusting pitch. It couldn鈥檛 make sense since Voltaire had no way to conceive of air travel and related issues. Maybe he could have assumed humans would need arm attachments to create the appearance of wings and then discuss speed of flapping or something like that. And perhaps other philosophers might have taken up the debate. But no matter how effectively they thought through their arguments, contemporary pilots would roll their eyes and laugh. That鈥檚 pretty much how anyone today who understands economics would react to the material in this book, assuming they were willing to openly admit to believing some of the great minds of western philosophy had no idea what they were talking about. (It really is hard to say this without sounding like a world-class asshole.)

For an idea of how botched up this whole topic is, consider the word capitalism. It, in and of itself, is a misnomer. Voltaire was a capitalist. Adam Smith was a capitalist. Karl Marx was a capitalist. Alan Greenspan was a capitalist. Mao Tse Tung was a capitalist. Jerome Powell is a capitalist. Etc. Capitalism is what it sounds like; generating economic activity by deploying capital. Everybody deploys capital. The differences are in the methodology through which one decides how capital should be deployed. A related issue is how to evaluate the success or failure of capital-deployment choices.

Economies today that are popularly referred to as capitalist deploy capital through decentralized market-based decision criteria. The polar opposite is to deploy capital based on centralized fiat. And there are many in-between economies. Pure market-based economies use profit-and-loss to evaluate the success or failure of deployment decisions, and forecasts of profit or loss to motivate future choices. Pure fiat-based economies use (hopefully) good intentions to guide future decisions and power to evaluate success or failure (or, rather, power to stay in business despite failure, or lack of power that causes one to go out of business despite success). And once again, we have all the in-between setups.

That pretty much sweeps aside much of the early material in the book. Markets are not an alternative to religion, or societal tradition. That was the way the philosophers covered thought of it because at the time, that鈥檚 all the economic understanding they had. But we know more now. Markets are an alternative to fiat.

Historically, there has also been a grave misunderstanding regarding what capital is, and again, this relates to the pace of societal development. Traditionally, humanity was bound up in that which was seen, which was physical. So capital had to be tangible; labor and/or materials (which, according to Marx, was brought to bear via labor so to him, it was labor only). It鈥檚 ironic that the church, whose existence and reason for being is dedicated to the unseen, messed up so badly here and failed to understand the critical role of intangible capital. Today, we get it. That鈥檚 why we have such huge concerns about 鈥渋ntellectual property鈥� and why traditional stock market valuation, based historically on Book Value, has in recent decades come to wonder if Book Value should be examined at all (even accounting formulations of 鈥淭angible Book Value鈥漜an be seen as incomplete). Along similar lines, the church and ethicists made a complete mess of the topics of 鈥渕oneylending,鈥� 鈥渦sury,鈥� and 鈥渢rade鈥� having failed to appreciate the critical role played by these phenomenon. And this leads us to the critical nature of movement of capital ("liquidity"). We saw this in the financial crisis of 2008. The reason why bailouts were absolutely positively needed was for the same reasons why physicians do what they do to treat a patient who has a stroke. They need to save the patient's life since, if blood does not circulate, death follows. With an economy, if capital does not circulate, the economy suffers a stroke and dies. Concerns about debating who is at fault and punishing wrongdoers can wit till later -- save the life first. (Just like the medical community focuses on saving the cardiac patient, and postponing till after the crisis discussion on what caused the problem, who shoved too much cholesterol into the patient or who discouraged exercise.)

Even the way economics and other disciplines relate to one another 鈥� in terms of individual and societal values 鈥� is misunderstood and ignored.

Although I didn鈥檛 finish the book, I at least searched via Kindle for references to Ayn Rand (she wasn鈥檛 in the table of Contents) and found nothing. Seriously? How could anybody who understands markets and capitalism attempt to treat the topic without discussing her! Whether one considers her to have been a genius or crank 鈥� and there are many vehement opinions on both sides of the argument 鈥� her impact is right up there with Adam Smith and Karl Marx, not so much because of her chops as an economist but because of the way her philosophy interacts with market economics and spotlights the boundaries of the latter. (So much of today鈥檚 debates about distribution of wealth and inequality relate not to capitalism per se but to the extent to which Rand鈥檚 philosophy has been allowed to seep into it.) Followers or Rand are indisputably correct when they point out how those opposed to Rand鈥檚 views advocate for a less-than-optimal economy, but miss the boat in failing to discuss the merits of an optimal economy at the expense of other values. Currently, Andrew Yang (see, e.g. The War on Normal People) is an important thinker in terms of balancing economic values and other values. (Although I voted for him, I鈥檓 glad he was defeated in the New York City Mayoral election because he and his ideas would have gone to waste in that role.) Folks like Rand or Yang . . . or Marx . . . are critical not so much to learn 鈥渁bout鈥� market economics but to illuminate potential boundaries that might surround the field.

When it comes to understanding capitalism, or rather, market economics, we鈥檙e still in very early days. The nature of our understanding and the terms of debate will probably look very different a century from now, as we learn more about this relatively new discipline. But there is one thing I do know. The ideas discussed in The Mind of the Market are cute and quaint, much like the way a physician today might look at a treatise that describes healing via bloodletting and leeches. But for serious understanding of the topic 鈥� even as much an understanding as we can have at this point in time 鈥� this book is not it.

non-fiction

Saeed Sarraf

48 reviews5 followers

March 9, 2024

亘蹖鈥屬嗀港屫�! 亘乇丕蹖讴爻蹖讴賴亘禺賵丕丿賳诏丕賴丕賯鬲氐丕丿蹖卮賵亘賴丕賳丿蹖卮賴賱蹖亘乇丕賱賳夭丿蹖讴讴賳賴倬蹖卮賳賴丕丿蹖丕乇夭賳丿賴. 爻蹖乇蹖丿乇丕賳丿蹖卮賴鈥屬囏й� 賲鬲賮讴乇蹖賳丕乇賵倬丕蹖蹖丿乇賱賴蹖丕毓賱蹖賴爻乇賲丕蹖賴鈥屫ж臂屫� 亘賴禺氐賵氐亘賴賳賯卮倬乇乇賳诏蹖賴賵丿蹖丕賳丿乇卮讴賱鈥屭屫臂� 丕賯鬲氐丕丿鬲噩丕乇蹖丕卮丕乇賴丿丕乇賴. 亘蹖卮鬲乇蹖賳賴賲丕賴賳诏蹖乇賵賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴亘丕賴丕蹖讴丿丕乇賴讴賴丿乇賮氐賱丌禺乇亘賴卮倬乇丿丕禺鬲賴. 賴賲趩賳蹖賳賳诏丕賴鈥屬囏й� 賵賱鬲乇賵丕蹖賳讴賴丿乇讴賳丕乇乇賵卮賳賮讴乇蹖丌丿賲賲丕賱鈥屫呚光€屭┵� 賵胤賲丕毓蹖亘賵丿賴噩丕賱亘賴. 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴賮囟丕蹖馗賴賵乇爻乇賲丕蹖賴鈥屫ж臂� 乇賵丿乇讴卮丕讴卮夭賴丿賲爻蹖丨蹖賵讴賳卮鈥屬囏й� 丕賯鬲氐丕丿蹖蹖賴賵丿蹖丕賳亘賴鬲氐賵蹖乇賲蹖鈥屭┴促� 賵賯鬲蹖讴賴丨丕卮蹖賴 (蹖賴賵丿蹖丕賳) 亘賴賲鬲賳鬲亘丿蹖賱賲蹖鈥屫促�.
賳诏丕賴丕爻賲蹖鬲貙亘乇讴貙賵賱鬲乇貙夭蹖賲賱貙賵亘乇貙賴丕蹖讴丿乇爻賲鬲乇丕爻鬲賵丿乇爻賲鬲趩倬亘賴禺氐賵氐亘賴賲丕乇讴賵夭賴倬乇丿丕禺鬲賴卮丿賴. 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴賳讴鬲賴噩丕賱亘蹖賲蹖诏賴貨趩倬丿乇睾丕賱亘賳馗乇蹖賴鈥屫з嗀傌ж� 丿乇丌賲乇蹖讴丕蹖倬爻丕夭噩賳诏鈥屫囏з嗃� 亘賴噩丕蹖讴賲賵賳蹖爻賲賮乇丕诏蹖乇卮丿貙夭蹖乇丕讴賲賵賳蹖爻賲亘賴卮丿鬲賲賵乇丿爻賵亍馗賳亘賵丿丕賲丕賳诏丕賴鈥屬囏й� 賮乇賴賳诏蹖趩倬丕夭胤乇蹖賯丿丕賳卮诏丕賴亘賴噩丕賲毓賴鬲爻乇蹖倬蹖丿丕讴乇丿賵讴賲鈥屭┵� 賮囟丕蹖鬲噩丕乇蹖乇賵賴賲亘賴鬲爻禺蹖乇丿乇丌賵乇丿.

Maxim

112 reviews18 followers

December 28, 2020

A thoughtful book at the cross-section between (political) philosophy and economics. Muller manages to give a good overview and introduction into the main currents of thought about markets and their ills and benefits since the enlightenment: from Voltaire, Smith, Burke, Hegel, Marx to Lukacs, Marcuse and Hayek. A valuable introduction with ample inspiration for further reading & thinking.

賲丨賲丿卮賮蹖毓蹖

Author听3 books115 followers

December 10, 2022

鬲賲丕賲卮丿貙禺蹖賱蹖胤賵賱讴卮蹖丿貙卮丕蹖丿蹖讴爻丕賱貙賴乇賮氐賱乇丕蹖讴亘丕乇禺賵丕賳丿賲賵毓賱丕賲鬲夭丿賲賵丿賵亘丕乇賴賲乇賵乇讴乇丿賲貙蹖讴賲乇賵乇讴賵鬲丕賴賴賲丕賳鬲賴丕蹖讴鬲丕亘亘賵丿讴賴亘丕丿賯鬲禺賵丕賳丿賲賵賲乇賵乇讴乇丿賲趩蹖夭賴丕蹖蹖讴賴禺賵丕賳丿賴亘賵丿賲
賴乇趩賳丿賳蹖丕夭噩丿蹖賳賲蹖丿蹖丿賲讴賴亘丿丕賳賲丿賯蹖賯丕賴乇賮乇丿趩賴诏賮鬲賴賵丕賳丿蹖卮賴賴丕乇丕亘丕丕賮乇丕丿賲鬲賳丕馗乇亘丕丌賳丿乇匕賴賳亘爻倬乇賲貙丕賲丕爻毓蹖讴乇丿賲爻蹖乇丕賳丿蹖卮賴丿乇丕蹖賳丨賵夭賴賵丕蹖丿賴賴丕蹖賲禺鬲賱賮賵亘毓囟丕賲鬲囟丕丿丕乇丕卅賴卮丿賴乇賵亘賮賴賲賲賵丕蹖賳讴賲讴夭蹖丕丿蹖賲蹖讴賳賴賵讴乇丿賴讴賴倬丿蹖丿賴賴丕賵乇賮鬲丕乇賴丕乇賵蹖賴噩賵乇丿蹖诏賴亘亘蹖賳賲
賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴賳诏丕賴賱蹖亘乇丕賱賵丨賲丕蹖鬲诏乇丕賳賴丕蹖亘賴爻乇賲丕蹖賴丿丕乇蹖丿丕乇賴貙丕賲丕賳爻亘鬲丕爻毓蹖讴乇丿賴亘蹖胤乇賮亘丕卮賴貙賴乇趩賳丿亘丕乇賴丕丿賲禺乇賵爻亘蹖乇賵賳夭丿賴
丿乇讴賱賲胤丕賱毓賴丕蹖賳讴鬲丕亘乇賵亘乇丕蹖丿賵爻鬲丿丕乇丕賳丕蹖賳丨賵夭賴鬲賵氐蹖賴賲蹖讴賳賲貙丕賲丕亘丕丨賵氐賱賴蹖亘爻蹖丕丕丕丕丕乇夭蹖丕丿

pythag

46 reviews2 followers

August 12, 2020

Lucid but sometimes repetitive. Great read.

Some quotes:

While the Christian and civic traditions were intrinsically suspicious of commerce, the Roman civil law was not. Rediscovered in the revival of learning in the twelfth century, it became the basis of civil law on the European continent. (p. 15).

While the Christian and civic traditions were intrinsically suspicious of commerce, the Roman civil law was not. Rediscovered in the revival of learning in the twelfth century, it became the basis of civil law on the European continent. (p. 15).

Market activity was valued not because it made society wealthier, but because the pursuit of economic self-interest was less dangerous than the pursuit of other goals, above all religious zealotry.
(p. 23).

The civic tradition saw it as corrupting the virtuous citizen, who ought to be prepared to sacrifice his private concerns for the state, bringing himself glory by defending the commonwealth in war. The Christian tradition saw it as a temptation to sin, leading away from the imitation of God and the divine virtues of abstinence, humility, and love. (pp. 40-41).

A true sovereign understood that his own revenue depended upon the wealth of the nation, which he would try to promote through freer trade. But a company of merchants that had become the sovereign of a territory seemed incapable of grasping such considerations, and used its political power only to buy more cheaply in India in order to increase company profits. (p. 71).

Smith described slave traders and slave owners as 鈥渢he refuse of the jails of Europe, . . . wretches who possess the virtues neither of the countries which they come from, nor of those which they go to, and whose levity, brutality, and baseness so justly expose them to the contempt of the vanquished.鈥�
(p. 74).

Moser: Our ancestors did not tolerate these rural shopkeepers; they were spare in dispensing market freedoms; they banned the Jews from our diocese; why this severity? Certainly in order that the rural inhabitants not be daily stimulated, tempted, led astray and deceived. They stuck to the practical rule: that which one does not see will not lead one astray. (p. 97).

Burke: 鈥淸A]s money increases and circulates, and as the circulation of news, in politicks and letters, becomes more and more diffused, the persons who diffuse this money, and this intelligence, become more and more important, 鈥� he observed.30 The circulation of newspapers was 鈥渋nfinitely more efficacious and extensive than ever they were. And they are a more important instrument than generally is imagined. They are a part of the reading of all, they are the whole of the reading of the far greater number. . . . Let us only suffer any person to tell us his story, morning and evening, but for one twelvemonth, and he will become our master.鈥� (p. 111).

Burke: 鈥淗e that goes out an insignificant boy, in a few years returns a great Nabob. . . . One of these gentlemen, suppose, returns hither, loaded with odium and with riches. . . . That man鈥檚 whole fortune, half a million perhaps, becomes an instrument of influence . . . and the influx of fortunes which stand in need of this protection is continual. It works both ways; it influences the delinquent, and it may corrupt the minister.鈥� (pp. 122-123).

The French men of letters had delegitimated the monarchy, the aristocracy, and the taxing powers of the state in the eyes of the larger public.117 As a result, they were left with a government drained of authority and no longer capable of collecting taxes or conducting commerce. The result, he predicted, would be ongoing instability and the threat of anarchy, which would be controlled only by the massive use of force, and eventually, military rule.118 Burke made these predictions long before the execution of Louis XVI, the Terror, the massacre of thousands of civilians in the Vend茅e, or the rise of Napoleon.
(pp. 130-131).

Regarding humanity as a fit object for experiment in order to prove their a priori theories, they are willing to disregard the short-term suffering of their victims on the grounds that it will lead to long-term improvement. 鈥淣othing can be conceived more hard than the heart of a thorough-bred metaphysician, 鈥� Burke wrote. 鈥淭hese philosophers consider men in their experiments, no more than they do mice in an air pump.鈥� (p. 136).

鈥淢en without their choice derive benefits from that association; without their choice they are subjected to duties in consequence of these benefits; and without their choice they enter into a virtual obligation as binding as any that is actual.鈥�(p. 137).

For Hegel, the great challenge of the modern world is not only to provide us with a sense of individuality and subjectivity, but also to link us to a series of institutions with which we identify and which give us the sense of belonging to a reliable world. (p. 141).

Everlastingly chained to a single little fragment of the Whole, man himself develops into nothing but a fragment; everlastingly in his ear the monotonous sound of the wheel that he turns, he never develops the harmony of his being, and instead of putting the stamp of humanity upon his own nature, he becomes nothing more than the imprint of his occupation, of his specialized knowledge.
(p. 143).

But there were two novel aspects of poverty: the systematic creation of groups in the population whose skills left them jobless, and the sense of grievance and resentment that those without work harbored against society as a whole. (p. 160).

Marx origin as a member of a minority, stigmatized for its religion, regarded as a separate nationality, and disdained for its economic role, led him to a posit a society in which religious and national differences would be obliterated and moneymaking abolished. His normative image of man is steeped in the Romantic ethos of the artist as a creator of reality, an image that Marx democratized and universalized. Behind his vision of the socialist future lay the new bourgeois cultural ideal of personal expression through creativity and all-roundedness. (p. 171).

Arnold: In spite of all that is said about the absorbing and brutalising influence of our passionate material progress, it seems to me indisputable that this progress is likely, though not certain, to lead in the end to an apparition [becoming visible] of intellectual life; and that man, after he has made himself perfectly comfortable and has not to determine what to do with himself next, may begin to remember that he has a mind, and that the mind may be made the source of great pleasure. (p. 215).

Arnold鈥檚 notion of the intellectual as disinterested critic distinguished him from both Marx and Hegel. For Marx, the proper function of the intellectual was to be a partisan on behalf of the proletariat, criticizing bourgeois society for its fundamental, structural oppression. For Hegel, the role of the intellectual was to stand above particular group interests, and to bring to consciousness the ethical basis of modern, capitalist society, in the process creating standards by which to guide politics and culture. Arnold鈥檚 conception of 鈥渁liens鈥� has obvious affinities with this Hegelian image of the intellectual. But 鈥渄isinterestedness鈥� for Arnold had a rather different meaning. It implied the ability to free oneself from partisanship, to take a distanced enough view to be able to criticize the side of the issue to which one had been committed, as circumstances required. (p. 227).

The war experience was a watershed for the capitalist societies of central Europe, and for the interpretation of capitalism. Especially in Germany and Austria-Hungary, the Great War led to political polarization, as intellectuals abandoned the ambivalent liberalism of Weber and Simmel and moved toward political radicalisms of the left and right. The movement of the younger generation to the political extremes came in response not only to the war experience, but to the way in which leading intellectuals interpreted it. (p. 257).

Workers suffered from what Luk谩cs called 鈥渢hingafication鈥� (Verdinglichung, often translated as 鈥渞eification鈥�), the inability to see that the human relations created by capitalism were the results of particular historical conditions that could be changed by human will, rather than permanent, inevitable laws of nature to which men had to succumb. (p. 271).

Two of the most pervasive themes of Schumpeter鈥檚 oeuvre are Nietzschean: the role of the superior few as a source of creativity, and the stultifying effects of the resentment of the many against the claims of the creative few. (p. 290).

Though commonly attributed to the crash of the New York Stock Exchange in October 1929, the Great Depression had deeper and more complex causes. A long-term decline in the prices of agricultural goods had radically reduced the buying power of farmers; disasters among central European banks had ramifications across the Atlantic; and an antiquated and unstable banking system in the United States led to bank failures, which in turn had a domino effect. (pp. 301-302).

Hayek鈥檚 weaknesses as a thinker come from his propensity to exaggerate the scope of his very real insights. His was the crystal-clear vision of the one-eyed man. (p. 386).

Hayek鈥檚 opposition to the use of government to enshrine any single culture led him to deny that there could be any shared cultural standards for the sake of which the market might be restrained. As a result, he had no way to evaluate the negative effects of the market or to suggest a principled reason to try to remedy them. Here he proved far more one-sided than his revered predecessor, Adam Smith. Burke鈥檚 admonition鈥斺€淭he effect of liberty to individuals is, that they may do what they please: We ought to see what it will please them to do, before we risk congratulations鈥濃€攏ever seems to have occurred to Hayek. The Arnoldian ideal of the disinterested intellectual willing to criticize one side and then the other in order to create balance and counteract the one-sidedness that led toward fanaticism: that too was as alien to Hayek as it had been to Marcuse. If it was partisanship that led Hayek to push forward intellectually to new insights, it was also partisanship that kept him from a balanced and rounded philosophy. (pp. 386-387).

Hashem

46 reviews6 followers

January 16, 2018

讴鬲丕亘匕賴賳賵亘丕夭丕乇丿乇禺氐賵氐噩丕蹖诏丕賴賳賴丕丿亘丕夭丕乇丿乇匕賴賳丕賳爻丕賳賵鬲讴丕賲賱爻乇賲丕蹖賴丿丕乇蹖乇丕丿乇丿賵乇丕賳賲丿乇賳丿賳亘丕賱賲蹖讴賳丿. 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴噩丕蹖诏丕賴爻乇賲丕蹖賴丿丕乇蹖丿乇乇賵卮賳賮讴乇丕賳丕乇賵倬丕丿賳亘丕賱賲蹖讴賳丿賵爻毓蹖丿丕乇丿讴賴丿乇鬲賲丕賲讴鬲丕亘賳賴丕丿亘丕夭丕乇乇丕賲丿賳馗乇賯乇丕乇丿賴丿賵丌乇丕丿賵爻鬲丿丕乇丕賳賵丿卮賲賳丕賳卮乇丕賳賯丿賵亘乇乇爻蹖讴賳丿 . 亘賴趩诏賵賳诏蹖卮讴賱诏蹖乇蹖賳賴丕丿亘丕夭丕乇丿乇丌乇丕乇賵卮賳賮讴乇丕賳丕夭賵賱鬲乇卮乇賵毓賲蹖讴賳丿賵亘毓丿丿乇亘禺卮蹖讴丕賲賱亘賴丌丿丕賲丕爻賲蹖鬲倬乇丿丕禺鬲賴賵卮乇丨賲蹖丿賴丿讴賴丕蹖賳賲毓賱賲丕禺賱丕賯趩诏賵賳賴丕孬乇孬乇賵鬲賲賱賱禺賵丿乇丕丕乇丕卅賴丿丕丿賵賳馗乇丕鬲卮乇丕賳賯丿賲蹖讴賳丿. 丿乇丕丿丕賲賴亘丕卮乇丨丌乇丕賲禺丕賱賮丕賳卮賲丕賳賳丿賲丕乇讴爻賵賲丕乇讴賵夭賴賵 ... 賲蹖倬乇丿丕夭丿丕賲丕賲賵丕賮賯丕賳蹖賲丕賳賳丿賵亘乇貙賴丕蹖讴貙賴诏賱貙卮賵賲倬蹖鬲乇賵讴蹖賳夭乇丕賮乇丕賲賵卮賳賲蹖讴賳丿賵賳馗乇丕鬲丕蹖卮丕賳乇丕亘胤賵乇讴丕賲賱鬲丨賱蹖賱賲蹖讴賳丿 .
亘胤賵乇讴賱讴鬲丕亘蹖噩丕賱亘丿乇禺氐賵氐賮賴賲卮讴賱诏蹖乇蹖丿賵乇丕賳賲丿乇賳賲蹖亘丕卮丿賵亘丕禺賵丕賳丿賳丌賳亘丿賵賳丕睾乇丕賯卮讴賱诏蹖乇蹖噩賳诏賴丕蹖噩賴丕賳蹖貙乇讴賵丿賴丕蹖丕賯鬲氐丕丿蹖賵 ... 丿乇賯乇賳亘蹖爻鬲賲乇丕賲蹖鬲賵丕賳蹖丿鬲氐賵乇讴賳蹖丿.
丕蹖賳讴鬲丕亘乇賵亘賴鬲賲丕賲讴爻丕賳蹖讴賴丿賵爻鬲丿丕乇賳丿讴賴丿賳蹖丕蹖賲丿乇賳乇丕亘賴鬲乇丿乇讴讴賳賳丿鬲賵氐蹖賴賲蹖讴賳賲 .

噩丕賲毓赖-卮賳丕爻蹖-賵賮賱爻賮赖

Bobbzy

45 reviews3 followers

June 16, 2022

蹖讴蹖丕夭亘賴鬲乇蹖賳讴鬲丕亘鈥屬囏й屰� 讴賴丿乇丨賵夭賴丿丕賳卮毓賲賵賲蹖禺賵賳丿賲. 讴鬲丕亘鬲丕乇蹖禺鬲賮讴乇乇丕噩毓亘賴爻乇賲丕蹖賴鈥屫ж臂� 乇賵賮丕乇睾丕夭賲禺丕賱賮鬲蹖丕賲賵丕賮賯鬲卮亘丕爻乇賲丕蹖賴鈥屫ж臂� 丿乇鄯郯郯氐賮丨賴貙禺蹖賱蹖賲賵噩夭禺賱丕氐賴讴乇丿賴賵賳讴鬲賴賲賴賲丕蹖賳噩丕爻鬲讴賴丕蹖賳禺賱丕氐賴賳賴亘乇丕蹖丿丕賳卮噩賵蹖丕賳蹖丕賮丕乇睾鈥屫з勜帝屬勜з� 乇卮鬲賴鈥屬囏й� 丕賯鬲氐丕丿讴賴亘乇丕蹖毓賲賵賲賲乇丿賲賳賵卮鬲賴. 丕夭亘禺卮鈥屬囏й� 噩丕賱亘讴鬲丕亘貙亘乇乇爻蹖鬲丕乇蹖禺乇賵丕亘胤亘蹖賳爻乇賲丕蹖賴鈥屫ж臂� 賵蹖賴賵丿蹖丕賳亘賵丿讴賴丕蹖賳乇丕亘胤賴倬乇賵賮乇丕夭賳卮蹖亘賵丕賱亘鬲賴賲賴賲乇賵亘丕噩夭卅蹖丕鬲禺賵亘蹖丿乇賱丕亘賴賱丕蹖亘丨孬賲乇亘賵胤亘賴賲鬲賮讴乇丕賳賲禺鬲賱賮诏賳噩賵賳丿賴亘賵丿賵乇蹖卮賴鈥屬囏й� 蹖賴賵丿蹖鈥屫池屫槽� 乇賵丿乇丕蹖賳亘爻鬲乇賲賵乇丿亘乇乇爻蹖賯乇丕乇丿丕丿賴亘賵丿.

础苍诲谤茅蝉

116 reviews

January 16, 2010

A decent but not great book. The recycling of quotes in different parts of the book was annoying. The descriptions of different intellectuals' ideas was usually good, though I think he foundered on Hegel and was not clear with some of the others. The plethora of footnotes made me think he was trying to find cover for his own opinions rather than give me facts about the various intellectuals profiled.

Brian

9 reviews

October 3, 2007

Excellent book on economic philosophy and thought that is accessible to the non-professional/layman. Very engaging 'historical' read that still provides good insight onto the whys and hows of thought on the market from a Western perspective.

Boris

19 reviews2 followers

October 19, 2007

This book is about the philosophical history of capitalism. It's interesting to see, for example, exactly how and why capitalism has come to be associated with liberal and also with conservative points of view. I recommend it very highly. In fact I think it's about time for me to re-read it.

Mohammad The bookworm

3 reviews1 follower

October 28, 2019

A wonderful and thorough history of Capitalism throughout 3 centries. Highly recommended to anyone who wants to be in favour of or against Capitalism.
You would get familiarized with geniuses who have had studied the effects of free-market on different aspects of human life.
I will definitely get back to it several times, as I think it is worth it to deliberate on.

Mohammadreza Divsalar

18 reviews

January 24, 2022

賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴亘賴賵囟賵毓乇丕爻鬲蹖賴. 賮氐賱賲丕乇讴爻卮丿蹖诏賴賵丕囟丨賲蹖卮賴. 賵賱蹖爻丕禺鬲丕乇賲賳丕爻亘倬蹖賳诏倬賵賳诏蹖讴鬲丕亘禺蹖賱蹖亘賴匕賴賳賲禺丕胤亘讴賲讴賲蹖讴賳賴匕賴賳卮乇賵丿乇賯亘丕賱賲爻丕賱賴爻乇賲丕蹖賴丿乇噩丕蹖丿乇爻鬲蹖丕丿噩丕爻鬲讴賳賴. 蹖讴賮氐賱趩倬蹖讴賮氐賱乇丕爻鬲丕夭賯丿蹖賲亘賴噩丿蹖丿. 鬲乇噩賲賴亘賴賳馗乇賲禺蹖賱蹖乇賵丕賳賵禺賵亘亘賵丿. 亘丿賵賳丿丕卮鬲賳倬蹖卮夭賲蹖賳賴禺丕氐蹖丿乇丨賵夭賴丕賯鬲氐丕丿賵賮賱爻賮賴賲蹖卮賴讴鬲丕亘乇賵禺賵賳丿賵丿乇讴讴乇丿.

Alim faraji

13 reviews4 followers

April 25, 2019

Comprehensive book. Maybe somehow has some inclinations toward liberal ideas. for example, he gave lots of credits to Hayek, in contrast, some of the topics in chapters about Marx and Keynes (especially Marx) were simply wrong (i.e. there were lots of times when his conclusions were irrelevant).