What do you think?
Rate this book
賮乇蹖亘 胤毓賲賴鈥屬囏�
噩賵乇噩 丕讴乇賱丕賮 賵 乇丕亘乇鬲 噩蹖賲夭 卮蹖賱乇貙 亘乇賳丿诏丕賳 噩丕蹖夭賴贁 賳賵亘賱 丕賯鬲氐丕丿貙 賲蹖鈥屭┵堌促嗀� 亘丕 丕卮丕乇賴 亘賴 讴丕爻鬲蹖鈥屬囏й� 毓賱賲 丕賯鬲氐丕丿 賲鬲毓丕乇賮貙 亘賴 夭亘丕賳蹖 賴賲賴鈥屬佡囐� 亘賴 賲亘丕丨孬蹖 丿乇 丨賵夭賴贁 丕賯鬲氐丕丿 亘倬乇丿丕夭賳丿 讴賴 鬲丕 讴賳賵賳 讴賲鬲乇 亘賴 丌賳賴丕 倬乇丿丕禺鬲賴 卮丿賴 丕爻鬲: 爻賵亍 丕爻鬲賮丕丿賴 賵 賮乇蹖亘讴丕乇蹖貙 丿爻鬲讴丕乇蹖 丿乇 賳馗丕賲 賲毓乇賮鬲蹖 毓賲賵賲 賲乇丿賲 亘乇丕蹖 賮乇蹖亘 丌賳賴丕 賵 鬲睾蹖蹖乇 乇賮鬲丕乇 賲乇丿賲 丿乇 噩賴鬲 丨賮馗 賲賳丕賮毓 氐丕丨亘丕賳 爻乇賲丕蹖賴 賵 賯丿乇鬲 丿乇 丕蹖賳 賮囟丕蹖 爻乇卮丕乇 丕夭 賮乇蹖亘 賵 賳蹖乇賳诏貙 丨鬲蹖 賲乇丿賲丕賳蹖 讴賴 丕夭 爻賱丕賲鬲 丕禺賱丕賯蹖 亘乇禺賵乇丿丕乇賳丿 賳蹖夭 鬲丨鬲 賮卮丕乇賽 賳馗丕賲賽 亘丕夭丕乇 賵 丕夭 爻乇 丕囟胤乇丕乇 賲噩亘賵乇賳丿 賴賲乇賳诏 噩賲丕毓鬲 卮賵賳丿.
丕讴乇賱丕賮 賵 卮蹖賱乇 亘丕 倬乇丿丕禺鬲賳 亘賴 倬丿蹖丿賴鈥屬囏й屰� 賴賲趩賵賳 賯賲丕乇貙 毓賲賱讴乇丿賽 賳馗丕賲 亘丕賳讴蹖 賵 讴丕乇鬲賴丕蹖 丕毓鬲亘丕乇蹖 賵 賲賵丕乇丿 賲鬲毓丿丿 丿蹖诏乇貙 賳卮丕賳 賲蹖鈥屫囐嗀� 讴賴 趩诏賵賳賴 丿爻鬲 賳丕賲乇卅蹖 亘丕夭丕乇 賵 鬲乇賮賳丿賴丕蹖 亘蹖鈥屫促呚ж� 氐丕丨亘丕賳 讴爻亘 賵 讴丕乇 讴賴 丿乇 賲賵賯毓蹖鬲賴丕蹖 賲禺鬲賱賮貙 丕夭 賲乇丕爻賲 鬲賵賱丿 诏乇賮鬲賴 鬲丕 禺乇蹖丿 禺丕賳賴 賵 禺賵丿乇賵 賵 賲乇丕爻賲 禺丕讴爻倬丕乇蹖 賲乇丿賲 乇丕 亘賴 爻賲鬲 禺乇蹖丿 讴丕賱丕賴丕蹖蹖 爻賵賯 賲蹖鈥屫囏� 讴賴 亘賴 丌賳 賳蹖丕夭蹖 賳丿丕乇賳丿 丿乇 賳賴丕蹖鬲 噩丕賲毓賴鈥屫й� 乇丕 賲蹖鈥屫池ж藏� 讴賴 亘賴 鬲毓亘蹖乇賽 賴賳乇蹖 丿蹖賵蹖丿 鬲丕乇賵貙 夭賳丿诏蹖 亘蹖卮鬲乇 丌丿賲賴丕蹖卮 亘蹖趩丕乇诏蹖 禺丕賲賵卮 丕爻鬲.
丕讴乇賱丕賮 賵 卮蹖賱乇 亘丕 倬乇丿丕禺鬲賳 亘賴 倬丿蹖丿賴鈥屬囏й屰� 賴賲趩賵賳 賯賲丕乇貙 毓賲賱讴乇丿賽 賳馗丕賲 亘丕賳讴蹖 賵 讴丕乇鬲賴丕蹖 丕毓鬲亘丕乇蹖 賵 賲賵丕乇丿 賲鬲毓丿丿 丿蹖诏乇貙 賳卮丕賳 賲蹖鈥屫囐嗀� 讴賴 趩诏賵賳賴 丿爻鬲 賳丕賲乇卅蹖 亘丕夭丕乇 賵 鬲乇賮賳丿賴丕蹖 亘蹖鈥屫促呚ж� 氐丕丨亘丕賳 讴爻亘 賵 讴丕乇 讴賴 丿乇 賲賵賯毓蹖鬲賴丕蹖 賲禺鬲賱賮貙 丕夭 賲乇丕爻賲 鬲賵賱丿 诏乇賮鬲賴 鬲丕 禺乇蹖丿 禺丕賳賴 賵 禺賵丿乇賵 賵 賲乇丕爻賲 禺丕讴爻倬丕乇蹖 賲乇丿賲 乇丕 亘賴 爻賲鬲 禺乇蹖丿 讴丕賱丕賴丕蹖蹖 爻賵賯 賲蹖鈥屫囏� 讴賴 亘賴 丌賳 賳蹖丕夭蹖 賳丿丕乇賳丿 丿乇 賳賴丕蹖鬲 噩丕賲毓賴鈥屫й� 乇丕 賲蹖鈥屫池ж藏� 讴賴 亘賴 鬲毓亘蹖乇賽 賴賳乇蹖 丿蹖賵蹖丿 鬲丕乇賵貙 夭賳丿诏蹖 亘蹖卮鬲乇 丌丿賲賴丕蹖卮 亘蹖趩丕乇诏蹖 禺丕賲賵卮 丕爻鬲.
400 pages, Hardcover
First published September 15, 2015
419 people are currently reading
5,187 people want to read
About the author
George A. Akerlof
24听books138听followersGeorge A. Akerlof is a Professor of Economics at the University of California, Berkeley, and 2001 Nobel Laureate in Economics.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 246 reviews
December 6, 2015
This book was not well-written, nor did it explain anything new about economics. If the field of economics wasn't so enamored with the greatness of free markets, despite its obvious shortcomings, maybe this book wouldn't have been written. But, it appears economists still largely think people act rationally, and there is some invisible hand guiding markets in the right direction, which is hard to believe given all the fraud that regularly occurs, not to mention the Great Recession. I would like to see more research in behavioral economics, which would likely show the pitfalls of deregulation and why a strong governmental influence on the economy can be a good thing.
December 14, 2015
I got to the end of this book and realized I'm not really sure what it's authors were actually arguing. They claim to be advocating a new mode of "equilibrium" (to use economics-speak), where the balance between supply and demand is replaced by a balance between "phishers" and "phools". It all makes sense intellectually but it felt unfinished. Let's grant this new model, for discussion's sake. How can we test its validity? What outcomes does it predict, where conventional models fail?
I also struggle a bit with the book's central hypothesis itself. I don't think they spent enough time exploring some potential objections. I'm not sure it's falsifiable at all, since one person's scam is another person's legitimate enjoyment. I suspect this defect, in particular, may be phatal.
I also struggle a bit with the book's central hypothesis itself. I don't think they spent enough time exploring some potential objections. I'm not sure it's falsifiable at all, since one person's scam is another person's legitimate enjoyment. I suspect this defect, in particular, may be phatal.
November 23, 2015
Did not finish, which is very rare for me for a nonfiction book. Would file what I did read under "not even wrong" - full of fairly obvious observations, and if you're interested in cognitive bias or advertising or fraud or finance etc. that the book covers, read something else about those things instead.
One star is maybe harsh, can imagine some people might get something out of it, but I was really unimpressed - and, most importantly, bored.
One star is maybe harsh, can imagine some people might get something out of it, but I was really unimpressed - and, most importantly, bored.
May 2, 2016
Bom livro para quem quer uma introdu莽茫o ao espa莽o para enganadores na economia. Um pouco de economia moderna, um pouco de publicidade, regula莽茫o e cogni莽茫o. Tudo para ilustrar como mercados desregulados e anarcocaptalismo invariavelmente d茫o espa莽o para muita gente ser enganada e grandes problemas. Algo que aparentemente os americanos ainda precisam aprender.
October 4, 2015
Was expecting more. Their thesis about phools who are phished by alcohol was weak and ancedotal. Their political bias was definitely on display. I have more to say and revise this review in the next day or so.
March 16, 2021
I had known about the existence of this book, as I have been reading lots and lots of books and papers on behavioral economics for the last two years, but was not planning on reading it. Not reading this book, written by two Nobel Prize laureates, in the field I鈥檝e been studying for so long, was a tough call to make.
鈥淭he time for changing subject has finally come鈥�, said I after reading my 33rd paper 鈥� all of them between January and February 2021. In fact, the intention was to read just 4 papers relating Behavioral Science to Antitrust, and then 鈥渃all it a day鈥�. I hardly knew how deluded I was! Once you start reading these papers you may never stop if you don鈥檛 have some self control, as the number of references that pique your curiosity seem only to grow. That was how 4 became 33 (I also read Oren Bar-Gill鈥檚 excellent book 鈥淪eduction by Contract鈥�, half of Herbert Simon鈥檚 groundbreaking book 鈥淎dministrative Behavior鈥�, and the first chapter of Paul Glimcher et al鈥檚 鈥淣euroeconomics鈥� in this period).
At least I could see the light at the end of the tunnel when I was reading Cass Sunstein鈥檚 papers on 鈥渟ludge鈥� near the end of my list. Sunstein explicitly mentioned this book when he brought his concept of 鈥渟ludge鈥� together with the authors鈥� concept of 鈥減hishing for phools鈥�. Done. This was the last straw 鈥� I definitely could not change subject before reading this last (I promise!) work on the matter.
Sludge, according to Sunstein, is basically the nudge for the bad; a factor in the environment, created with bad intent or not, that exploits a decision-maker鈥檚 cognitive failures by persuading him/her to do what is not necessarily good for him/her. Sunstein mainly exemplifies sludge as the excessive time wasted by the American public filling out forms with plenty of useless information, though he does not restrict the concept only to this type of situation.
In 鈥淧hishing for Phools鈥�, Akerlof and Shiller not only give good and actual examples of cognitive failures exploited by companies, with some of them leading to bad economic results (notably the 2008 crisis), but scale their importance since they are part of the functioning of the economy - the authors include 鈥減hishing for phools鈥� as a necessary and recognizable phenomenon in traditional economists鈥� so dear notion of 鈥渕arket equilibrium鈥�. Market equilibrium is a reality, but it is achieved including or due to such exploitation, to which economists should start paying more attention.
The book was clearly written with the intention of being readable by the greater public and the authors achieved this goal with variable success throughout the book. It鈥檚 both a pleasant and instructional read.
鈥淭he time for changing subject has finally come鈥�, said I after reading my 33rd paper 鈥� all of them between January and February 2021. In fact, the intention was to read just 4 papers relating Behavioral Science to Antitrust, and then 鈥渃all it a day鈥�. I hardly knew how deluded I was! Once you start reading these papers you may never stop if you don鈥檛 have some self control, as the number of references that pique your curiosity seem only to grow. That was how 4 became 33 (I also read Oren Bar-Gill鈥檚 excellent book 鈥淪eduction by Contract鈥�, half of Herbert Simon鈥檚 groundbreaking book 鈥淎dministrative Behavior鈥�, and the first chapter of Paul Glimcher et al鈥檚 鈥淣euroeconomics鈥� in this period).
At least I could see the light at the end of the tunnel when I was reading Cass Sunstein鈥檚 papers on 鈥渟ludge鈥� near the end of my list. Sunstein explicitly mentioned this book when he brought his concept of 鈥渟ludge鈥� together with the authors鈥� concept of 鈥減hishing for phools鈥�. Done. This was the last straw 鈥� I definitely could not change subject before reading this last (I promise!) work on the matter.
Sludge, according to Sunstein, is basically the nudge for the bad; a factor in the environment, created with bad intent or not, that exploits a decision-maker鈥檚 cognitive failures by persuading him/her to do what is not necessarily good for him/her. Sunstein mainly exemplifies sludge as the excessive time wasted by the American public filling out forms with plenty of useless information, though he does not restrict the concept only to this type of situation.
In 鈥淧hishing for Phools鈥�, Akerlof and Shiller not only give good and actual examples of cognitive failures exploited by companies, with some of them leading to bad economic results (notably the 2008 crisis), but scale their importance since they are part of the functioning of the economy - the authors include 鈥減hishing for phools鈥� as a necessary and recognizable phenomenon in traditional economists鈥� so dear notion of 鈥渕arket equilibrium鈥�. Market equilibrium is a reality, but it is achieved including or due to such exploitation, to which economists should start paying more attention.
The book was clearly written with the intention of being readable by the greater public and the authors achieved this goal with variable success throughout the book. It鈥檚 both a pleasant and instructional read.
November 11, 2016
Two of the world鈥檚 most famous behavioral economists are on a mission from God. Their task is critical. They must travel 239 years back in time, all the way to 1776, to introduce Adam Smith鈥檚 butcher, brewer and baker to their nemesis, the dreaded phisherman. If it all goes to plan, the economics profession, and the world at large, will be rescued from the touch of the invisible hand.
Somewhere in the time capsule, and while they are waiting for the synthesis between the Phishing Equilibrium and General Equilibrium to occur (chiefly through incantation of the Greek ph in lieu of the vulgar letter f), the two giants collide. They probably realize they don鈥檛 agree about much. Hank Paulson鈥檚 TARP was a phish in one guy鈥檚 view, but saved the world from a second Great Depression in the other鈥檚.
The biggest phish in the history of Finance, Quantitative Easing, is taboo, because George鈥檚 wife remains heavily involved.
Defeated, they jump back out of the capsule, only to discover that their writing powers have been reduced to those of a diligent high school student. In horror, and facing a deadline on a book promised years ago and pre-sold on Amazon six months ago, they take a leaf out of said student鈥檚 book and copy down from Wikipedia the biographies of some evil advertisers and snake oil salesmen.
It works! Joseph Stiglitz, Alan (couldn鈥檛 be) Blinder, Dani Rodrik and Laura Tyson pronounce the book a triumph. It works out less well for you, the reader, unless you are a precocious 17 year old and have never heard of the Keating Five.
In fairness, for that audience it鈥檚 probably a rather good intro to Alternative Economics. But this is not the seminal work I was expecting. It鈥檚 a laundry list of standard stuff the two authors could agree on. Probably decent assigned reading for the one or two lectures on 鈥渁lternative views鈥� that the Stephen Marglins of this world are invited to give to Freshmen in Economics.
AHA! That鈥檚 precisely what it is. No wonder they praise N. Greg Mankiw. They want a piece of the $350 each Economics Freshman in the land must fork out for his magnum opus.
October 12, 2015
Billed as highlighting the economics of manipulation and deception, this book provides, albeit with a slightly over-used 鈥榙evice鈥� a very interesting look at how we are being cheated by the invisible, free-market hand that many economists assure us works for our common good.
Can there be only winners or, for every winner must there be at least one losing counterpart? The authors must know their stuff, as you don鈥檛 get Nobel prizes (for economics) out of cereal packages. They provide a compelling view to often perceived wisdom, reinforcing perhaps many thoughts that mere mortals hold, or perceive; yet maybe we don鈥檛 have the power to change and those that hold the power have no desire to change鈥�
The authors鈥� central point is that as long as there is profit to be made, sellers will systematically exploit our psychological weaknesses and our ignorance through manipulation and deception. This is not a dry economics textbook, as many real world examples are offered up to highlight the contention made with a fair amount of humour. It manages to avoid being a tin foil hat-wearer鈥檚 vision of apocalypse and everything being controlled by a small cabal of the elite.
鈥淲e spend our money up to the limit, and then worry about how to pay the next month鈥檚 bills. The financial system soars, then crashes. We are attracted, more than we know, by advertising. Our political system is distorted by money. We pay too much for gym memberships, cars, houses, and credit cards. Drug companies ingeniously market pharmaceuticals that do us little good, and sometimes are downright dangerous,鈥� notes the book鈥檚 publicity material. Make no mistake, even though this is a comparatively jovial, lightweight book aimed clearly at the generalist, it is backed by serious minds, passing on a serious message with a serious level of research so there鈥檚 a lot for the non-generalist to get their teeth into, if they just will.
At times this book felt a little overwhelming, perhaps due to the over-use of the ph-device and some of its style, yet taken a chapter-at-a-time, in smaller chunks, it seemed a totally different book. Perceptions, perceptions! For those who care, there is a mass of reference notes and an extensive bibliography, so you can dig deeper through the source materials at will.
The authors note that they admire the free-market system but just don鈥檛 like how it is serving people, writing: 鈥淭he economic system is filled with trickery, and everyone needs to know that. We all have to navigate this system in order to maintain our dignity and integrity, and we all have to find inspiration to go on despite craziness all around us. We wrote this book for consumers, who need to be vigilant against a multitude of tricks played on them. We wrote it for businesspeople, who feel depressed at the cynicism of some of their colleagues and trapped into following suit out of economic necessity. We wrote it for government officials, who undertake the usually thankless task of regulating business. We wrote it for the volunteers, the philanthropists, the opinion leaders, who work on the side of integrity. And we wrote it for young people, looking ahead to a lifetime of work and wondering how they can find personal meaning in it.鈥�
Some of the stories featured will make you despair, such as how focussed people can be on gambling that slot machine players would continue feeding the machines in a casino, oblivious to a person lying on the floor suffering from a heart attack. Some of the stories will have your eyes wide open and on stalks. Some may just sap your will to live and make you want to find a cave and hide in it. Yet maybe, just maybe, there is hope鈥�?
If those who have it better in life are still worrying about making ends meet, how do those with nothing cope? You read stories about the poorest of the poor in some of the less-developed parts of the world and they appear to be relatively happy with what little they have; it seems unbelievable when viewed with our western, first-world eyes. The authors write: 鈥淢ost adults, even in rich countries, go to bed at night worried about how to pay the bills. Economists think that it is easy for people to spend according to a budget. But they forget that even if we are careful 99 per cent of the time, the remaining one per cent, when we act as if 鈥榤oney does not matter,鈥� can undo all that prior rectitude. And businesses are keenly aware of those one per cent moments. They target the events in our lives when love (or other motivations) trumps our budgetary caution. For some, this is an annual Christmas potlatch. For others, it occurs at rites of passage: such as weddings (where the wedding mags assure brides that the 鈥榓verage wedding鈥� costs almost one half of annual per capita GDP); funerals (where the parlour director carefully lays out the caskets to induce the choice, for example, of the Monaco 鈥榳ith Sea Mist polished finish, interior richly lined in 600 Aqua Supreme velvet, magnificently quilted and shirred鈥�); or births (where Babies 鈥淩鈥� Us will give a 鈥榩ersonal registry advisor鈥�).鈥�
So many examples are given that can have the effect of hitting you in the face with a hammer. How health clubs 鈥榤anipulate鈥� us to savings that cost us more, how we stuff nearly a third of our daily calorific intake in a single snack, how we felt adding an egg to a mix made is creative and how statistics can be presented to appear to show one thing whilst carefully ignoring what they should be telling. Remember all those wonderful statistics and ratings showing how securities are a slam-dunk investment? Remember how Enron was wallowing in profits? Statistics, accountancy sleight of hand, and much more besides. Who is the fool?
Overall the authors have put together a very good book. In an ideal world there鈥檇 be no need for such warnings, but our world is not ideal. It is a book that is capable of giving a lot and leaving many lasting impressions; albeit sadly for the wrong reasons (but that鈥檚 the purpose of this book, so don鈥檛 shoot the messenger).
Autamme.com
Can there be only winners or, for every winner must there be at least one losing counterpart? The authors must know their stuff, as you don鈥檛 get Nobel prizes (for economics) out of cereal packages. They provide a compelling view to often perceived wisdom, reinforcing perhaps many thoughts that mere mortals hold, or perceive; yet maybe we don鈥檛 have the power to change and those that hold the power have no desire to change鈥�
The authors鈥� central point is that as long as there is profit to be made, sellers will systematically exploit our psychological weaknesses and our ignorance through manipulation and deception. This is not a dry economics textbook, as many real world examples are offered up to highlight the contention made with a fair amount of humour. It manages to avoid being a tin foil hat-wearer鈥檚 vision of apocalypse and everything being controlled by a small cabal of the elite.
鈥淲e spend our money up to the limit, and then worry about how to pay the next month鈥檚 bills. The financial system soars, then crashes. We are attracted, more than we know, by advertising. Our political system is distorted by money. We pay too much for gym memberships, cars, houses, and credit cards. Drug companies ingeniously market pharmaceuticals that do us little good, and sometimes are downright dangerous,鈥� notes the book鈥檚 publicity material. Make no mistake, even though this is a comparatively jovial, lightweight book aimed clearly at the generalist, it is backed by serious minds, passing on a serious message with a serious level of research so there鈥檚 a lot for the non-generalist to get their teeth into, if they just will.
At times this book felt a little overwhelming, perhaps due to the over-use of the ph-device and some of its style, yet taken a chapter-at-a-time, in smaller chunks, it seemed a totally different book. Perceptions, perceptions! For those who care, there is a mass of reference notes and an extensive bibliography, so you can dig deeper through the source materials at will.
The authors note that they admire the free-market system but just don鈥檛 like how it is serving people, writing: 鈥淭he economic system is filled with trickery, and everyone needs to know that. We all have to navigate this system in order to maintain our dignity and integrity, and we all have to find inspiration to go on despite craziness all around us. We wrote this book for consumers, who need to be vigilant against a multitude of tricks played on them. We wrote it for businesspeople, who feel depressed at the cynicism of some of their colleagues and trapped into following suit out of economic necessity. We wrote it for government officials, who undertake the usually thankless task of regulating business. We wrote it for the volunteers, the philanthropists, the opinion leaders, who work on the side of integrity. And we wrote it for young people, looking ahead to a lifetime of work and wondering how they can find personal meaning in it.鈥�
Some of the stories featured will make you despair, such as how focussed people can be on gambling that slot machine players would continue feeding the machines in a casino, oblivious to a person lying on the floor suffering from a heart attack. Some of the stories will have your eyes wide open and on stalks. Some may just sap your will to live and make you want to find a cave and hide in it. Yet maybe, just maybe, there is hope鈥�?
If those who have it better in life are still worrying about making ends meet, how do those with nothing cope? You read stories about the poorest of the poor in some of the less-developed parts of the world and they appear to be relatively happy with what little they have; it seems unbelievable when viewed with our western, first-world eyes. The authors write: 鈥淢ost adults, even in rich countries, go to bed at night worried about how to pay the bills. Economists think that it is easy for people to spend according to a budget. But they forget that even if we are careful 99 per cent of the time, the remaining one per cent, when we act as if 鈥榤oney does not matter,鈥� can undo all that prior rectitude. And businesses are keenly aware of those one per cent moments. They target the events in our lives when love (or other motivations) trumps our budgetary caution. For some, this is an annual Christmas potlatch. For others, it occurs at rites of passage: such as weddings (where the wedding mags assure brides that the 鈥榓verage wedding鈥� costs almost one half of annual per capita GDP); funerals (where the parlour director carefully lays out the caskets to induce the choice, for example, of the Monaco 鈥榳ith Sea Mist polished finish, interior richly lined in 600 Aqua Supreme velvet, magnificently quilted and shirred鈥�); or births (where Babies 鈥淩鈥� Us will give a 鈥榩ersonal registry advisor鈥�).鈥�
So many examples are given that can have the effect of hitting you in the face with a hammer. How health clubs 鈥榤anipulate鈥� us to savings that cost us more, how we stuff nearly a third of our daily calorific intake in a single snack, how we felt adding an egg to a mix made is creative and how statistics can be presented to appear to show one thing whilst carefully ignoring what they should be telling. Remember all those wonderful statistics and ratings showing how securities are a slam-dunk investment? Remember how Enron was wallowing in profits? Statistics, accountancy sleight of hand, and much more besides. Who is the fool?
Overall the authors have put together a very good book. In an ideal world there鈥檇 be no need for such warnings, but our world is not ideal. It is a book that is capable of giving a lot and leaving many lasting impressions; albeit sadly for the wrong reasons (but that鈥檚 the purpose of this book, so don鈥檛 shoot the messenger).
Autamme.com
September 7, 2021
I have to say I am very disappointed with this book even though I already got some (mostly negative) ideas when reading the prologue. Authors, both are Nobel laureates, try to develop a new theory based on "phishers" and "phools" by replacing the "suppliers" and "consumers" which are the focal points of the mainstream economic theory. However, they repeat the usual, impertinent, falsified and misleading arguments against free markets. Probably, at some point towards the end of the book, they realized that they are not suggesting anything new and tried to convince readers that their ideas are different and more systematic than the market failures that have already been documented/discussed for decades. Pathetic...
The problem of these highly intelligent and influential economists is that no matter how smart and wise they are, they do not understand the essence/nature of the markets. This is not a surprise for most American economists (apologies to the exceptions) who think of the supply and demand phenomenon as just analytical tools that mathematically express consumer and producer behaviours without understanding the underlying philosophy and what they actually imply. (This is less of a problem for Europeans who mostly turn their attention to the intellectual/philosophical implications of economic ideas/systems. They have their own problems but that's another topic of discussion.) You may object to this by stating that they both are behavioural economists but that's the tragicomic part. Although they built a career by finding obvious weak/ignored points of mainstream economics (which also distorts the market notion), they filled those points with the same analytical tools. For instance, mainstreamers assume rationality in their mathematical models and these guys develop the same model by just modifying that assumption. However, the analytical tools and the equilibrium concept are the same in both theories. This fundamental flaw is the result of ignoring the uncertainty, dynamism and role of actual economic agents in a perpetually evolving environment.
I fully understand that this is the problem of dominant economic theories and not specific to the authors. In the end, if you assume that you have all the information about the product that is being traded, that you know everything that happened and will happen that affect the price of the product, that there are limitless alternatives and all the agents in this transaction are fully rational and act for their own benefits, of course, you can build a static model that has an optimum combination of supply and demand what is called equilibrium. However, the better/developed/realistic version of this framework is not imposing certain mathematical limitations on one of these assumptions. By doing so, you only move the equilibrium point to somewhere else in a hypothetical supply-demand graph. Both of these methods are delusional as they both draw a static picture of the state of the market at some point, which is subject to change with any small act of suppliers or consumers. So there's no equilibrium, neither market nor phishing... There are, however, constantly moving supply/demand curves that are impossible to be estimated beforehand as the consequences of market participants' conscious actions to make their life better.
The other and more arrogant problem of the authors is that they think the regulators are (and themselves) more intelligent/rational/wiser than the ordinary "phishable" people. And because of that, regulators (they) have the right to decide for you. In fact, the whole conflict between mainstream free marketers and interventionists is a matter of "who is more rational" discussion. This is also the outcome of the above-mentioned delusional view on markets. There are actually more fundamental/urgent problems than the discussion of who is more rational in the above-outlined setting. In real life, no one knows better than others about all this stuff, no one has the full knowledge, no one knows the future, no one is rational (especially the regulators!), etc. Actually, that's why we need markets in the first place. The markets act as mediators in which consumers and suppliers who have imperfect information come together for exchange in ever-changing external conditions. There will be mistakes, phishings, adverse selections from which market participants learn. While consumers learn from their mistakes, some producers/entrepreneurs will exploit the gaps of ignorance and new markets will emerge that serves to reduce this ignorance gap. There are endless possibilities of evolvement unless blocked by interventionist policies.
I can write hundreds of pages to refute the arguments in this book and the underlying ideas of authors, however, the only thing I need to say is that instead of wasting your time with this book, go read Friedrich von Hayek's "The use of knowledge in society" and Israel Kirzner's "Competition and Entrepreneurship" to learn more about the free market notion.
The problem of these highly intelligent and influential economists is that no matter how smart and wise they are, they do not understand the essence/nature of the markets. This is not a surprise for most American economists (apologies to the exceptions) who think of the supply and demand phenomenon as just analytical tools that mathematically express consumer and producer behaviours without understanding the underlying philosophy and what they actually imply. (This is less of a problem for Europeans who mostly turn their attention to the intellectual/philosophical implications of economic ideas/systems. They have their own problems but that's another topic of discussion.) You may object to this by stating that they both are behavioural economists but that's the tragicomic part. Although they built a career by finding obvious weak/ignored points of mainstream economics (which also distorts the market notion), they filled those points with the same analytical tools. For instance, mainstreamers assume rationality in their mathematical models and these guys develop the same model by just modifying that assumption. However, the analytical tools and the equilibrium concept are the same in both theories. This fundamental flaw is the result of ignoring the uncertainty, dynamism and role of actual economic agents in a perpetually evolving environment.
I fully understand that this is the problem of dominant economic theories and not specific to the authors. In the end, if you assume that you have all the information about the product that is being traded, that you know everything that happened and will happen that affect the price of the product, that there are limitless alternatives and all the agents in this transaction are fully rational and act for their own benefits, of course, you can build a static model that has an optimum combination of supply and demand what is called equilibrium. However, the better/developed/realistic version of this framework is not imposing certain mathematical limitations on one of these assumptions. By doing so, you only move the equilibrium point to somewhere else in a hypothetical supply-demand graph. Both of these methods are delusional as they both draw a static picture of the state of the market at some point, which is subject to change with any small act of suppliers or consumers. So there's no equilibrium, neither market nor phishing... There are, however, constantly moving supply/demand curves that are impossible to be estimated beforehand as the consequences of market participants' conscious actions to make their life better.
The other and more arrogant problem of the authors is that they think the regulators are (and themselves) more intelligent/rational/wiser than the ordinary "phishable" people. And because of that, regulators (they) have the right to decide for you. In fact, the whole conflict between mainstream free marketers and interventionists is a matter of "who is more rational" discussion. This is also the outcome of the above-mentioned delusional view on markets. There are actually more fundamental/urgent problems than the discussion of who is more rational in the above-outlined setting. In real life, no one knows better than others about all this stuff, no one has the full knowledge, no one knows the future, no one is rational (especially the regulators!), etc. Actually, that's why we need markets in the first place. The markets act as mediators in which consumers and suppliers who have imperfect information come together for exchange in ever-changing external conditions. There will be mistakes, phishings, adverse selections from which market participants learn. While consumers learn from their mistakes, some producers/entrepreneurs will exploit the gaps of ignorance and new markets will emerge that serves to reduce this ignorance gap. There are endless possibilities of evolvement unless blocked by interventionist policies.
I can write hundreds of pages to refute the arguments in this book and the underlying ideas of authors, however, the only thing I need to say is that instead of wasting your time with this book, go read Friedrich von Hayek's "The use of knowledge in society" and Israel Kirzner's "Competition and Entrepreneurship" to learn more about the free market notion.
March 29, 2016
I found this to be an excellent book on the subject of how institutions and industries use the 'levers' of human biases and frailties to motivate or otherwise convince people to act against their own best interests. This subject gives it a lot of ground to cover, as this sort of thing plays out in everything from food manufacturing to pharmaceuticals, and beyond. A well-written and engaging book on a serious (and at times upsetting) topic.
April 19, 2025
many of our problems come from the nature of the economic system itself.
Despite the above admission right off the bat in para1 of the intro, followed by 150 pages documenting how the 鈥榝ree-market system,鈥� formerly known as Capitalism, is rotten to the core and inherently incentivizes the worst behaviors, Shiller and Akerlof can鈥檛 imagine any alternatives.
Instead they wrote this brief apology for the deceivers, heartless manipulators, soulless exploiters and would-be demagogues who rise to the top of society under this corrupt system. Along the way, they suggest a few survival tactics for the rest of us phools, such as 'stick to your budget.' Thanks.
It鈥檚 a shame, as Shiller himself, as I gleaned from a couple of 2016-17 chats around his data-based sneer at runaway financial capitalism in , is a closeted Socialist who apparently lacks the courage of his own convictions.
The furthest he and Akerlof go here is a sidelong look at neoliberalism, dubbed the 'New Story' and weakly reprimanded for its cult's calls to privatize US Social Security from 2004 onwards, the renewed push to abolish the thin film of securities market (self) regulations, and the disastrous Citizens United ruling by a short-sighted and hard-right SCOTUS majority that grants more rights and liberties to intangible legal entities than are available to 98% of the living population.
Despite the above admission right off the bat in para1 of the intro, followed by 150 pages documenting how the 鈥榝ree-market system,鈥� formerly known as Capitalism, is rotten to the core and inherently incentivizes the worst behaviors, Shiller and Akerlof can鈥檛 imagine any alternatives.
Instead they wrote this brief apology for the deceivers, heartless manipulators, soulless exploiters and would-be demagogues who rise to the top of society under this corrupt system. Along the way, they suggest a few survival tactics for the rest of us phools, such as 'stick to your budget.' Thanks.
It鈥檚 a shame, as Shiller himself, as I gleaned from a couple of 2016-17 chats around his data-based sneer at runaway financial capitalism in , is a closeted Socialist who apparently lacks the courage of his own convictions.
The furthest he and Akerlof go here is a sidelong look at neoliberalism, dubbed the 'New Story' and weakly reprimanded for its cult's calls to privatize US Social Security from 2004 onwards, the renewed push to abolish the thin film of securities market (self) regulations, and the disastrous Citizens United ruling by a short-sighted and hard-right SCOTUS majority that grants more rights and liberties to intangible legal entities than are available to 98% of the living population.
November 19, 2018
础笔沤痴础尝骋础
Ar esate kadanors buv臋 apgauti? M奴s懦 pinigai da啪nai nepastebimai viliojami i拧 ki拧en臈s, pinigin臈s, banko s膮skait懦. Kod臈l, kada ir kaip mes tampame tokiais "kvailiais", kuriuos "啪vejoja", norintys pasipelnyti, 拧ioje knygoje pasakoja ekonomistai George A. Akerlof ir Robert J. Shiller.
Knyga para拧yta moksliniu stiliumi, su i拧samiais pavyzd啪iais, statistikomis, skai膷iais, nuorodomis bei i拧na拧omis pabaigoje. Neverta steb臈tis, kad j膮 su ilgomis pertraukomis skai膷iau ger膮 pusmet寞. Nors ir bandyta ra拧yti, kad ir ne ekonomistai suprast懦, knyga tikrai nemenkas i拧拧奴kis. D啪iaugiuosi pagaliau j膮 寞veikusi.
Manau, kad 寞gavau daugiau suvokimo apie pasaul寞 ir gyvenim膮 i拧 ekonomin臈s pus臈s, kaip kartais mulkinami ir apvagin臈jami 啪mon臈s, nors toli gra啪u ne visk膮 supratau. Turb奴t "Kvaili懦 啪vejon臈" apskritai vienintel臈 knyga ekonomikos tema, kuri膮 iki 拧iol esu perskai膷ius taip.
Ar rekomenduo膷iau? Galb奴t, kurie ir taip m臈gsta dom臈tis ekonomika, rinka ir pan. temomis, skaityti mokslinius straipsnius ji bus 寞domi. Kitu atveju, vargu ar verta jos imtis.
3/5
Ar esate kadanors buv臋 apgauti? M奴s懦 pinigai da啪nai nepastebimai viliojami i拧 ki拧en臈s, pinigin臈s, banko s膮skait懦. Kod臈l, kada ir kaip mes tampame tokiais "kvailiais", kuriuos "啪vejoja", norintys pasipelnyti, 拧ioje knygoje pasakoja ekonomistai George A. Akerlof ir Robert J. Shiller.
Knyga para拧yta moksliniu stiliumi, su i拧samiais pavyzd啪iais, statistikomis, skai膷iais, nuorodomis bei i拧na拧omis pabaigoje. Neverta steb臈tis, kad j膮 su ilgomis pertraukomis skai膷iau ger膮 pusmet寞. Nors ir bandyta ra拧yti, kad ir ne ekonomistai suprast懦, knyga tikrai nemenkas i拧拧奴kis. D啪iaugiuosi pagaliau j膮 寞veikusi.
Manau, kad 寞gavau daugiau suvokimo apie pasaul寞 ir gyvenim膮 i拧 ekonomin臈s pus臈s, kaip kartais mulkinami ir apvagin臈jami 啪mon臈s, nors toli gra啪u ne visk膮 supratau. Turb奴t "Kvaili懦 啪vejon臈" apskritai vienintel臈 knyga ekonomikos tema, kuri膮 iki 拧iol esu perskai膷ius taip.
Ar rekomenduo膷iau? Galb奴t, kurie ir taip m臈gsta dom臈tis ekonomika, rinka ir pan. temomis, skaityti mokslinius straipsnius ji bus 寞domi. Kitu atveju, vargu ar verta jos imtis.
3/5
May 25, 2017
Other books by the duo are better. There is nothing radical in here, if you have a well rounded knowledge of the world, you will just amass some anecdotes maybe find a new perspective or two on things you kind of knew.
February 26, 2020
(The English review is placed beneath Russian one)
袩芯 褋谢芯胁邪屑 邪胁褌芯褉芯胁, 芯薪懈 褏芯褌械谢懈 薪邪锌懈褋邪褌褜 胁 屑械褉褍 薪邪褍褔薪褍褞 懈 胁 屑械褉褍 写芯褋褌褍锌薪褍褞 泻薪懈谐褍 写谢褟 褕懈褉芯泻芯泄 邪褍写懈褌芯褉懈懈. 袩芯谢褍褔懈谢芯褋褜? 袧械 写褍屑邪褞. 孝褍褌 泻邪泻 胁 蟹薪邪屑械薪懈褌芯泄 锌芯褋谢芯胁懈褑械 锌褉芯 写胁褍褏 蟹邪泄褑械胁. 袗胁褌芯褉褘 薪械 褋褌邪谢懈 褍谐谢褍斜谢褟褌褜褋褟 胁 芯写薪褍 泻芯薪泻褉械褌薪褍褞 褌械屑褍, 薪芯 懈 褌邪泻卸械 薪械 褋褌邪谢懈 芯锌褍褋泻邪褌褜褋褟 写芯 锌褉芯褋褌芯谐芯 懈谢懈 谢褞斜懈褌械谢褜褋泻芯谐芯 褍褉芯胁薪褟. 袙 懈褌芯谐械 锌芯谢褍褔懈谢芯褋褜, 褔褌芯 芯写薪懈 锌褉芯褔懈褌邪谢懈 懈 屑邪谢芯 褔褌芯 锌芯薪褟谢懈, 褌.泻. 褌械屑褘 褋胁褟蟹邪薪薪褘械 褋 褎懈薪邪薪褋芯胁褘屑 屑懈褉芯屑 邪胁褌芯褉褘 褋芯胁械褉褕械薪薪芯 薪械 褍锌褉芯褋褌懈谢懈, 邪 写谢褟 褌械褏 谢褞写械泄, 泻褌芯 锌芯薪懈屑邪械褌 懈 褉邪蟹斜懈褉邪械褌褋褟 胁 胁芯锌褉芯褋械, 邪胁褌芯褉褘 褌芯卸械 薪懈褔械谐芯 薪械 锌褉械写谢芯卸懈谢懈, 褌.泻. 薪邪锌懈褋邪谢懈 泻褉邪泄薪械 锌芯胁械褉褏薪芯褋褌薪褍褞 泻薪懈谐褍. 袠 械褋谢懈 褋泻邪蟹邪褌褜, 褔褌芯 泻薪懈谐邪 斜芯谢褜褕械 胁褋械谐芯 薪邪锌芯屑懈薪邪械褌, 褌芯 褟 斜褘 锌褉械写谢芯卸懈谢, 褔褌芯 褝褌芯 谐邪蟹械褌薪邪褟 懈谢懈 卸褍褉薪邪谢褜薪邪褟 褋褌邪褌褜褟 懈蟹 泻邪泻芯谐芯-薪懈斜褍写褜 褎懈薪邪薪褋芯胁芯谐芯 懈蟹写邪薪懈褟 (褌械屑褘 胁 泻薪懈谐械 薪懈泻邪泻 薪械 褋胁褟蟹邪薪薪褘 写褉褍谐 褋 写褉褍谐芯屑, 锌芯 屑芯械屑褍 屑薪械薪懈褞).
袙芯-锌械褉胁褘褏, 薪邪褔邪谢芯 懈 泻芯薪械褑 泻薪懈谐懈. 校 邪胁褌芯褉芯胁 褔褍褌褜 谢懈 薪械 锌芯谢芯胁懈薪邪 泻薪懈谐懈 芯褌写邪薪芯 薪邪 芦胁胁械写械薪懈械禄 懈 芦蟹邪泻谢褞褔械薪懈械禄. 协褌芯 褟胁薪褘泄 锌械褉械斜芯褉. 袥褞写懈 薪械 胁褋械谐写邪 褔懈褌邪褞褌 褝褌懈 谐谢邪胁褘, 褌.泻. 胁 锌械褉胁芯屑, 褌.械. 胁 胁械写械薪懈懈, 褔邪褖械 胁褋械谐芯 芯斜褖懈械 褋谢芯胁邪, 泻芯褌芯褉褘械 薪懈泻邪泻 薪械 胁谢懈褟褞褌 薪邪 芯褋薪芯胁薪芯械 褋芯写械褉卸邪薪懈械, 薪邪 械褢 锌芯薪懈屑邪薪懈械, 锌芯褝褌芯屑褍 蟹邪褔邪褋褌褍褞 屑芯卸薪芯 薪械 褌褉邪褌懈褌褜 薪邪 褝褌芯 胁褉械屑褟. 袗 蟹邪泻谢褞褔械薪懈械, 褔邪褋褌芯 褋芯写械褉卸懈褌 懈褌芯谐, 泻褉邪褌泻懈泄 锌械褉械褋泻邪蟹, 泻芯褌芯褉褘泄 褌邪泻卸械 屑芯卸薪芯 锌褉芯锌褍褋褌懈褌褜, 械褋谢懈 锌芯薪褟褌薪邪 懈写械褟 泻薪懈谐懈 懈 胁褋械 械褢 写械褌邪谢懈.
袙芯-胁褌芯褉褘褏, 胁 薪邪褔邪谢械, 邪胁褌芯褉褘 写芯谢谐芯 锌懈褕褍褌 芯 锌褉芯斜谢械屑邪褏 褋胁芯斜芯写薪芯谐芯 褉褘薪泻邪, 褔褍褌褜 谢懈 薪械 锌芯写胁芯写褟 褔懈褌邪褌械谢褟 泻 屑褘褋谢懈, 褔褌芯 芯薪 薪械 褌邪泻芯泄 褍卸 懈 褋胁芯斜芯写薪褘泄 (胁 芯锌褉械写械谢褢薪薪芯屑 褋屑褘褋谢械, 褉邪蟹褍屑械械褌褋褟). 效褌芯 谢褞写懈 褋褌邪谢懈 锌芯泻褍锌邪褌褜 (懈谢懈 懈屑 褋褌邪谢懈 褍褋锌械褕薪芯 薪邪胁褟蟹褘胁邪褌褜) 屑薪芯卸械褋褌胁邪 薪械薪褍卸薪芯谐芯 斜邪褉邪褏谢邪. 袧褍, 褝褌芯 胁械褉薪芯, 薪芯 褌邪泻卸械 懈 芯褔械胁懈写薪芯.
袠写褢屑 写邪谢褜褕械. 肖懈薪邪薪褋芯胁褘泄 泻褉懈蟹懈褋 2008 谐芯写邪 褋 芯锌懈褋邪薪懈械屑 褌芯谐芯, 泻邪泻 谢芯锌邪谢褋褟 屑褘谢褜薪褘泄 锌褍蟹褘褉褜 薪芯胁褘褏 褎懈薪邪薪褋芯胁褘褏 懈薪褋褌褉褍屑械薪褌芯胁, 泻芯褌芯褉褘械 斜褘谢懈 褋芯蟹写邪薪褘 胁 褝褌芯褌 锌械褉懈芯写 懈 泻芯褌芯褉褘械 褋胁褟蟹邪薪褘 褋 泻褉械写懈褌邪屑懈 薪邪 锌芯泻褍锌泻褍 薪械写胁懈卸懈屑芯褋褌懈. 袩芯 屑芯械屑褍 屑薪械薪懈褞, 邪胁褌芯褉褘 薪械 褋懈谢褜薪芯-褌芯 懈 褍锌褉芯褋褌懈谢懈 屑邪褌械褉懈邪谢 懈 薪械 锌褉械写谢芯卸懈谢懈 褔械谐芯-褌芯 薪芯胁芯谐芯 懈/懈谢懈 懈薪褌械褉械褋薪芯谐芯, 褔褌芯 薪械 斜褘谢芯 褋泻邪蟹邪薪芯 胁 褋邪屑芯泄 蟹薪邪屑械薪懈褌芯泄 泻薪懈谐懈 薪邪 褝褌褍 褌械屑褍 芦袘芯谢褜褕邪褟 懈谐褉邪 薪邪 锌芯薪懈卸械薪懈械禄 (The Big Short) 懈谢懈 胁芯 胁褌芯褉芯泄 蟹薪邪屑械薪懈褌芯泄 泻薪懈谐懈 薪邪 褝褌褍 褌械屑褍 芦小谢懈褕泻芯屑 斜芯谢褜褕懈械, 褔褌芯斜褘 褉褍褏薪褍褌褜禄 (Too Big to Fail). 袙 懈褌芯谐械 薪械锌芯薪褟褌薪芯 - 蟹邪褔械屑? 袠, 褔褌芯 胁邪卸薪芯, 邪胁褌芯褉褘 锌芯褋胁褟褖邪褞褌 锌芯写芯斜薪褘屑 褎懈薪邪薪褋芯胁褘屑 懈褋褌芯褉懈褟屑 械褖褢 写胁械 谐谢邪胁褘 (褍褔懈褌褘胁邪褟, 褔褌芯 懈褏 懈 褌邪泻 薪械屑薪芯谐芯, 褝褌芯 褟胁薪褘泄 泻褉械薪 胁 褋褌芯褉芯薪褍 褎懈薪邪薪褋芯胁芯泄 褋褎械褉褘, 胁 泻芯褌芯褉芯泄 薪械 泻邪卸写褘泄 褔懈褌邪褌械谢褜 褉邪蟹斜懈褉邪械褌褋褟 褋 谢褢谐泻芯褋褌褜褞).
孝褉械褌褜褟 谐谢邪胁邪 屑械薪褟 锌褉芯褋褌芯 芯褕邪褉邪褕懈谢邪. 袣 芯斜屑邪薪薪褘屑 褌褉褞泻邪屑 邪胁褌芯褉褘 芯褌薪械褋谢懈 薪械 褔褌芯 懈薪芯械, 泻邪泻 褉械泻谢邪屑褍 泻邪泻 褌邪泻芯胁褍褞. 袧械 薪械褝褌懈褔薪褍褞 褉械泻谢邪屑褍, 薪械 褉械泻谢邪屑褍, 泻芯褌芯褉邪褟 褋谢褍卸懈褌 褑械谢褜褞 芯斜屑邪薪褍褌褜 锌芯泻褍锌邪褌械谢褟, 锌褉械写褗褟胁懈胁 械屑褍 薪械褌芯褔薪褍褞 懈谢懈 写邪卸械 谢芯卸薪褍褞 懈薪褎芯褉屑邪褑懈褞, 邪 褉械泻谢邪屑褍 胁芯芯斜褖械. 袛谢褟 褝褌芯谐芯 芯薪懈 褉邪褋褋泻邪蟹褘胁邪褞褌 芯 褌褉褢褏 褌懈褌邪薪邪褏 屑懈褉邪 褉械泻谢邪屑褘, 写胁芯械 懈蟹 泻芯褌芯褉褘褏, 褝褌芯 袣谢芯写 啸芯锌泻懈薪褋 懈 袛褝胁懈写 袨谐懈谢胁懈. 袠 懈褏 褝褌懈 芦褝泻褋锌械褉褌褘禄 芯斜芯蟹薪邪褔懈谢懈 泻邪泻 褕褍谢械褉褘? 校卸械 锌芯褋谢械 褝褌芯谐芯, 泻薪懈谐褍 屑芯卸薪芯 胁褘泻懈写褘胁邪褌褜 薪邪 锌芯屑芯泄泻褍, 褌.泻. 褝褌懈 写胁芯械 胁褋械谐写邪 懈屑械谢懈 胁芯 胁褋褢屑 屑懈褉械 斜械蟹褍锌褉械褔薪褍褞 褉械锌褍褌邪褑懈褞, 懈 褟 薪懈 褉邪蟹褍 薪械 胁褋褌褉械褔邪谢 (邪 褟 锌褉芯褔懈褌邪谢 锌褉邪泻褌懈褔械褋泻懈 胁褋械 泻薪懈谐懈 锌芯 褉械泻谢邪屑械 懈 屑邪褉泻械褌懈薪谐褍, 褔褌芯 斜褘谢懈 懈蟹写邪薪褘 胁 袪芯褋褋懈懈 薪邪 褉褍褋褋泻芯屑 褟蟹褘泻械 懈薪芯褋褌褉邪薪薪褘褏 邪胁褌芯褉芯胁), 褔褌芯斜褘 泻褌芯-褌芯 芯斜胁懈薪褟谢 懈褏 胁 芯斜屑邪薪械 锌芯泻褍锌邪褌械谢械泄. 效褌芯 泻邪褋邪械褌褋褟 褉械泻谢邪屑褘, 褌芯 芯薪邪 斜械褉褢褌 褋胁芯褢 薪邪褔邪谢芯 械褖褢 褋 写褉械胁薪懈褏 斜邪蟹邪褉芯胁, 泻芯谐写邪 锌褉芯写邪胁褑褘 (屑褟褋邪 谢懈, 褕褢谢泻邪 谢懈, 胁懈薪邪 谢懈) 泻褉懈褔邪谢懈 锌芯褌械薪褑懈邪谢褜薪褘屑 锌芯泻褍锌邪褌械谢褟屑, 褔褌芯斜褘 褌械 锌芯褋屑芯褌褉械谢懈 懈褏 褌芯胁邪褉 懈 胁芯蟹屑芯卸薪芯, 褉械褕懈谢懈 懈褏 泻褍锌懈褌褜. 袣邪泻 锌褉械写锌褉懈薪懈屑邪褌械谢褜 屑芯卸械褌 褋褍褖械褋褌胁芯胁邪褌褜, 薪懈泻芯屑褍 薪械 褉邪褋褋泻邪蟹褘胁邪褟 芯 褋胁芯褢屑 斜懈蟹薪械褋械 (邪 褝褌芯 鈥� 褟写褉芯, 褋褍褌褜 褉械泻谢邪屑褘 泻邪泻 褌邪泻芯胁芯泄)?
袛邪谢褜褕械 - 薪械 谢褍褔锟斤拷械. 袗胁褌芯褉褘 锌懈褕褍褌 芯 芦褌邪斜邪泻械禄, 芯斜 邪谢泻芯谐芯谢械, 胁 锌谢邪薪械, 褔褌芯 芯写懈薪 锌褉懈胁芯写懈褌 泻 褉邪泻褍, 邪 写褉褍谐芯泄 鈥� 泻 邪谢泻芯谐芯谢懈蟹屑褍. 小褌芯懈褌 谢懈 芯斜 褝褌芯屑 锌懈褋邪褌褜 胁 锌芯写芯斜薪芯泄 泻薪懈谐械? 袛邪 鈥� 懈 褝褌芯 械写懈薪褋褌胁械薪薪褘泄 锌谢褞褋 鈥� 邪胁褌芯褉褘 芯锌懈褋褘胁邪褞褌, 泻邪泻 褌邪斜邪褔薪褘械 泻芯屑锌邪薪懈懈 褋褌褉械屑懈谢懈褋褜 褋芯泻褉褘褌褜 懈薪褎芯褉屑邪褑懈褞 芯 胁褉械写械 褌邪斜邪泻邪. 袠谢懈 泻邪泻 褎邪褉屑邪褑械胁褌懈褔械褋泻懈械 谐懈谐邪薪褌褘 胁薪械写褉褟褞褌 褋胁芯懈 薪芯胁懈薪泻懈, 锌褍褌褢屑 锌芯写泻褍锌邪 胁褉邪褔械泄. 袧芯 芯锌褟褌褜 卸械, 邪胁褌芯褉褘 褍写械谢褟褞褌 褝褌懈屑 胁芯锌褉芯褋芯屑 泻褉邪泄薪械 屑邪谢芯 褋褌褉邪薪懈褑 懈 写械谢邪褞褌 褝褌芯 泻褉邪泄薪械 锌芯胁械褉褏薪芯褋褌薪芯. 袩谢褞褋, 褋芯胁褋械屑 褋屑械褏芯褌胁芯褉薪芯械 泻芯谢懈褔械褋褌胁芯 锌褉懈屑械褉芯胁.
袠 锌芯褋谢械写薪械械. 袗胁褌芯褉褘 胁泻谢褞褔懈谢懈 胁 泻薪懈谐褍 谐谢邪胁褍 芦懈薪薪芯胁邪褑懈懈禄, 谐写械 褉邪褋褋泻邪蟹褘胁邪械褌褋褟 芯 褌芯泄 蟹邪胁懈褋懈屑芯褋褌懈, 褔褌芯 懈屑械械褌 薪邪 薪械泻芯褌芯褉褘褏 谢褞写械泄, Facebook 懈 锌褉芯褔懈械 褋芯褑懈邪谢褜薪褘械 褋械褌懈. 袦-写邪.鈥π⊙傂拘感恍� 谢懈 锌懈褋邪褌褜 泻薪懈谐褍 褉邪写懈 胁褋械谐芯 褝褌芯谐芯?
According to the authors, they wanted to write a reasonably scientific and reasonably accessible book for a wide audience. Did it work? I don't think so. It's like a famous proverb about two hares. The authors decided not to go deep into one specific topic, but they also decided not to go down to the simple or amateur level. As a result, it turned out that some people have not understood much, because the authors have not simplified the topics related to the financial field, and for those people who understand and understand the issue, the authors have not offered anything either, because they have written an extremely superficial book. And if you ask what the book reminds me most of all, I would suggest that this is a newspaper or magazine article from some financial publication (the topics in the book are not related to each other, in my opinion).
First, the beginning and the end of the book. The authors have devoted almost half of the book to "introduction" and "conclusion". This is an obvious mistake. That's too much. People do not always read these chapters, because the introduction most often contains common phrases that do not affect the main content, its understanding, so one can often not waste time. And the chapter "conclusion" often contains a summary, a brief paraphrase, which can also be skipped if you understand the idea of the book and all its details.
Second, in the beginning, the authors write a lot about the problems of the free market, almost leading the reader to the idea that it is not so free (in a certain sense, of course). People began to buy a lot of unnecessary junk. That's true, but it's obvious.
Let's move on. The financial crisis of 2008, with a description of how the bubble of new financial instruments that were created during this period burst and that are related to real estate loans. In my opinion, the authors did not simplify the material and did not offer anything new and/or interesting, which was not mentioned in the most famous book on the subject "The Big Short" by Michael Lewis or in the second famous book on the subject "Too Big to Fail" by Andrew Ross Sorkin. As a result, I don't understand, why did the authors include this chapter in their book? And, importantly, the authors devote two more chapters to such financial stories (given that there are few chapters, it's a clear tilt towards the financial sphere, in which not every reader can easily understand).
The third chapter simply stunned me. The authors considered the deceptive tricks to be nothing but advertising as such. Such tricks the authors have included not unethical advertising, not advertising that is intended to deceive the buyer by providing inaccurate or even false information, and advertising in general. To do this, they talk about three titans of the advertising world, two of whom are Claude C. Hopkins and David Ogilvy. Already after such a statement, the book can safely be thrown to the trash, because these two have always had an impeccable reputation throughout the world, and I have never seen anyone accuse them of deceiving customers (and I have read almost all the books on advertising and marketing that were published in Russia in the Russian language of foreign authors). As for advertising, it dates back to the ancient bazaars, when sellers called on potential buyers to see their goods and maybe decide to buy them. How can an entrepreneur exist without telling anyone about his business and his goods/services (which is the core, the essence of advertising as such)?
Next - not better. The authors write about tobacco, about alcohol, in terms of the fact that one leads to cancer and the other to alcoholism. Is it worth writing about in a book like this? Yes - and this is the only plus - the authors describe how tobacco companies have sought to hide information about the harm caused by tobacco. Or how pharmaceutical giants implement their novelties by bribing doctors. But then again, the authors do not pay much attention to this issue and do it very superficially. Plus, it's a ridiculous number of examples.
And lastly. The authors have included in the book a chapter on "innovation", which tells about the addiction that some people have in relation to Facebook and other social networks. Well... Was it worth writing a book for all this?
袩芯 褋谢芯胁邪屑 邪胁褌芯褉芯胁, 芯薪懈 褏芯褌械谢懈 薪邪锌懈褋邪褌褜 胁 屑械褉褍 薪邪褍褔薪褍褞 懈 胁 屑械褉褍 写芯褋褌褍锌薪褍褞 泻薪懈谐褍 写谢褟 褕懈褉芯泻芯泄 邪褍写懈褌芯褉懈懈. 袩芯谢褍褔懈谢芯褋褜? 袧械 写褍屑邪褞. 孝褍褌 泻邪泻 胁 蟹薪邪屑械薪懈褌芯泄 锌芯褋谢芯胁懈褑械 锌褉芯 写胁褍褏 蟹邪泄褑械胁. 袗胁褌芯褉褘 薪械 褋褌邪谢懈 褍谐谢褍斜谢褟褌褜褋褟 胁 芯写薪褍 泻芯薪泻褉械褌薪褍褞 褌械屑褍, 薪芯 懈 褌邪泻卸械 薪械 褋褌邪谢懈 芯锌褍褋泻邪褌褜褋褟 写芯 锌褉芯褋褌芯谐芯 懈谢懈 谢褞斜懈褌械谢褜褋泻芯谐芯 褍褉芯胁薪褟. 袙 懈褌芯谐械 锌芯谢褍褔懈谢芯褋褜, 褔褌芯 芯写薪懈 锌褉芯褔懈褌邪谢懈 懈 屑邪谢芯 褔褌芯 锌芯薪褟谢懈, 褌.泻. 褌械屑褘 褋胁褟蟹邪薪薪褘械 褋 褎懈薪邪薪褋芯胁褘屑 屑懈褉芯屑 邪胁褌芯褉褘 褋芯胁械褉褕械薪薪芯 薪械 褍锌褉芯褋褌懈谢懈, 邪 写谢褟 褌械褏 谢褞写械泄, 泻褌芯 锌芯薪懈屑邪械褌 懈 褉邪蟹斜懈褉邪械褌褋褟 胁 胁芯锌褉芯褋械, 邪胁褌芯褉褘 褌芯卸械 薪懈褔械谐芯 薪械 锌褉械写谢芯卸懈谢懈, 褌.泻. 薪邪锌懈褋邪谢懈 泻褉邪泄薪械 锌芯胁械褉褏薪芯褋褌薪褍褞 泻薪懈谐褍. 袠 械褋谢懈 褋泻邪蟹邪褌褜, 褔褌芯 泻薪懈谐邪 斜芯谢褜褕械 胁褋械谐芯 薪邪锌芯屑懈薪邪械褌, 褌芯 褟 斜褘 锌褉械写谢芯卸懈谢, 褔褌芯 褝褌芯 谐邪蟹械褌薪邪褟 懈谢懈 卸褍褉薪邪谢褜薪邪褟 褋褌邪褌褜褟 懈蟹 泻邪泻芯谐芯-薪懈斜褍写褜 褎懈薪邪薪褋芯胁芯谐芯 懈蟹写邪薪懈褟 (褌械屑褘 胁 泻薪懈谐械 薪懈泻邪泻 薪械 褋胁褟蟹邪薪薪褘 写褉褍谐 褋 写褉褍谐芯屑, 锌芯 屑芯械屑褍 屑薪械薪懈褞).
袙芯-锌械褉胁褘褏, 薪邪褔邪谢芯 懈 泻芯薪械褑 泻薪懈谐懈. 校 邪胁褌芯褉芯胁 褔褍褌褜 谢懈 薪械 锌芯谢芯胁懈薪邪 泻薪懈谐懈 芯褌写邪薪芯 薪邪 芦胁胁械写械薪懈械禄 懈 芦蟹邪泻谢褞褔械薪懈械禄. 协褌芯 褟胁薪褘泄 锌械褉械斜芯褉. 袥褞写懈 薪械 胁褋械谐写邪 褔懈褌邪褞褌 褝褌懈 谐谢邪胁褘, 褌.泻. 胁 锌械褉胁芯屑, 褌.械. 胁 胁械写械薪懈懈, 褔邪褖械 胁褋械谐芯 芯斜褖懈械 褋谢芯胁邪, 泻芯褌芯褉褘械 薪懈泻邪泻 薪械 胁谢懈褟褞褌 薪邪 芯褋薪芯胁薪芯械 褋芯写械褉卸邪薪懈械, 薪邪 械褢 锌芯薪懈屑邪薪懈械, 锌芯褝褌芯屑褍 蟹邪褔邪褋褌褍褞 屑芯卸薪芯 薪械 褌褉邪褌懈褌褜 薪邪 褝褌芯 胁褉械屑褟. 袗 蟹邪泻谢褞褔械薪懈械, 褔邪褋褌芯 褋芯写械褉卸懈褌 懈褌芯谐, 泻褉邪褌泻懈泄 锌械褉械褋泻邪蟹, 泻芯褌芯褉褘泄 褌邪泻卸械 屑芯卸薪芯 锌褉芯锌褍褋褌懈褌褜, 械褋谢懈 锌芯薪褟褌薪邪 懈写械褟 泻薪懈谐懈 懈 胁褋械 械褢 写械褌邪谢懈.
袙芯-胁褌芯褉褘褏, 胁 薪邪褔邪谢械, 邪胁褌芯褉褘 写芯谢谐芯 锌懈褕褍褌 芯 锌褉芯斜谢械屑邪褏 褋胁芯斜芯写薪芯谐芯 褉褘薪泻邪, 褔褍褌褜 谢懈 薪械 锌芯写胁芯写褟 褔懈褌邪褌械谢褟 泻 屑褘褋谢懈, 褔褌芯 芯薪 薪械 褌邪泻芯泄 褍卸 懈 褋胁芯斜芯写薪褘泄 (胁 芯锌褉械写械谢褢薪薪芯屑 褋屑褘褋谢械, 褉邪蟹褍屑械械褌褋褟). 效褌芯 谢褞写懈 褋褌邪谢懈 锌芯泻褍锌邪褌褜 (懈谢懈 懈屑 褋褌邪谢懈 褍褋锌械褕薪芯 薪邪胁褟蟹褘胁邪褌褜) 屑薪芯卸械褋褌胁邪 薪械薪褍卸薪芯谐芯 斜邪褉邪褏谢邪. 袧褍, 褝褌芯 胁械褉薪芯, 薪芯 褌邪泻卸械 懈 芯褔械胁懈写薪芯.
袠写褢屑 写邪谢褜褕械. 肖懈薪邪薪褋芯胁褘泄 泻褉懈蟹懈褋 2008 谐芯写邪 褋 芯锌懈褋邪薪懈械屑 褌芯谐芯, 泻邪泻 谢芯锌邪谢褋褟 屑褘谢褜薪褘泄 锌褍蟹褘褉褜 薪芯胁褘褏 褎懈薪邪薪褋芯胁褘褏 懈薪褋褌褉褍屑械薪褌芯胁, 泻芯褌芯褉褘械 斜褘谢懈 褋芯蟹写邪薪褘 胁 褝褌芯褌 锌械褉懈芯写 懈 泻芯褌芯褉褘械 褋胁褟蟹邪薪褘 褋 泻褉械写懈褌邪屑懈 薪邪 锌芯泻褍锌泻褍 薪械写胁懈卸懈屑芯褋褌懈. 袩芯 屑芯械屑褍 屑薪械薪懈褞, 邪胁褌芯褉褘 薪械 褋懈谢褜薪芯-褌芯 懈 褍锌褉芯褋褌懈谢懈 屑邪褌械褉懈邪谢 懈 薪械 锌褉械写谢芯卸懈谢懈 褔械谐芯-褌芯 薪芯胁芯谐芯 懈/懈谢懈 懈薪褌械褉械褋薪芯谐芯, 褔褌芯 薪械 斜褘谢芯 褋泻邪蟹邪薪芯 胁 褋邪屑芯泄 蟹薪邪屑械薪懈褌芯泄 泻薪懈谐懈 薪邪 褝褌褍 褌械屑褍 芦袘芯谢褜褕邪褟 懈谐褉邪 薪邪 锌芯薪懈卸械薪懈械禄 (The Big Short) 懈谢懈 胁芯 胁褌芯褉芯泄 蟹薪邪屑械薪懈褌芯泄 泻薪懈谐懈 薪邪 褝褌褍 褌械屑褍 芦小谢懈褕泻芯屑 斜芯谢褜褕懈械, 褔褌芯斜褘 褉褍褏薪褍褌褜禄 (Too Big to Fail). 袙 懈褌芯谐械 薪械锌芯薪褟褌薪芯 - 蟹邪褔械屑? 袠, 褔褌芯 胁邪卸薪芯, 邪胁褌芯褉褘 锌芯褋胁褟褖邪褞褌 锌芯写芯斜薪褘屑 褎懈薪邪薪褋芯胁褘屑 懈褋褌芯褉懈褟屑 械褖褢 写胁械 谐谢邪胁褘 (褍褔懈褌褘胁邪褟, 褔褌芯 懈褏 懈 褌邪泻 薪械屑薪芯谐芯, 褝褌芯 褟胁薪褘泄 泻褉械薪 胁 褋褌芯褉芯薪褍 褎懈薪邪薪褋芯胁芯泄 褋褎械褉褘, 胁 泻芯褌芯褉芯泄 薪械 泻邪卸写褘泄 褔懈褌邪褌械谢褜 褉邪蟹斜懈褉邪械褌褋褟 褋 谢褢谐泻芯褋褌褜褞).
孝褉械褌褜褟 谐谢邪胁邪 屑械薪褟 锌褉芯褋褌芯 芯褕邪褉邪褕懈谢邪. 袣 芯斜屑邪薪薪褘屑 褌褉褞泻邪屑 邪胁褌芯褉褘 芯褌薪械褋谢懈 薪械 褔褌芯 懈薪芯械, 泻邪泻 褉械泻谢邪屑褍 泻邪泻 褌邪泻芯胁褍褞. 袧械 薪械褝褌懈褔薪褍褞 褉械泻谢邪屑褍, 薪械 褉械泻谢邪屑褍, 泻芯褌芯褉邪褟 褋谢褍卸懈褌 褑械谢褜褞 芯斜屑邪薪褍褌褜 锌芯泻褍锌邪褌械谢褟, 锌褉械写褗褟胁懈胁 械屑褍 薪械褌芯褔薪褍褞 懈谢懈 写邪卸械 谢芯卸薪褍褞 懈薪褎芯褉屑邪褑懈褞, 邪 褉械泻谢邪屑褍 胁芯芯斜褖械. 袛谢褟 褝褌芯谐芯 芯薪懈 褉邪褋褋泻邪蟹褘胁邪褞褌 芯 褌褉褢褏 褌懈褌邪薪邪褏 屑懈褉邪 褉械泻谢邪屑褘, 写胁芯械 懈蟹 泻芯褌芯褉褘褏, 褝褌芯 袣谢芯写 啸芯锌泻懈薪褋 懈 袛褝胁懈写 袨谐懈谢胁懈. 袠 懈褏 褝褌懈 芦褝泻褋锌械褉褌褘禄 芯斜芯蟹薪邪褔懈谢懈 泻邪泻 褕褍谢械褉褘? 校卸械 锌芯褋谢械 褝褌芯谐芯, 泻薪懈谐褍 屑芯卸薪芯 胁褘泻懈写褘胁邪褌褜 薪邪 锌芯屑芯泄泻褍, 褌.泻. 褝褌懈 写胁芯械 胁褋械谐写邪 懈屑械谢懈 胁芯 胁褋褢屑 屑懈褉械 斜械蟹褍锌褉械褔薪褍褞 褉械锌褍褌邪褑懈褞, 懈 褟 薪懈 褉邪蟹褍 薪械 胁褋褌褉械褔邪谢 (邪 褟 锌褉芯褔懈褌邪谢 锌褉邪泻褌懈褔械褋泻懈 胁褋械 泻薪懈谐懈 锌芯 褉械泻谢邪屑械 懈 屑邪褉泻械褌懈薪谐褍, 褔褌芯 斜褘谢懈 懈蟹写邪薪褘 胁 袪芯褋褋懈懈 薪邪 褉褍褋褋泻芯屑 褟蟹褘泻械 懈薪芯褋褌褉邪薪薪褘褏 邪胁褌芯褉芯胁), 褔褌芯斜褘 泻褌芯-褌芯 芯斜胁懈薪褟谢 懈褏 胁 芯斜屑邪薪械 锌芯泻褍锌邪褌械谢械泄. 效褌芯 泻邪褋邪械褌褋褟 褉械泻谢邪屑褘, 褌芯 芯薪邪 斜械褉褢褌 褋胁芯褢 薪邪褔邪谢芯 械褖褢 褋 写褉械胁薪懈褏 斜邪蟹邪褉芯胁, 泻芯谐写邪 锌褉芯写邪胁褑褘 (屑褟褋邪 谢懈, 褕褢谢泻邪 谢懈, 胁懈薪邪 谢懈) 泻褉懈褔邪谢懈 锌芯褌械薪褑懈邪谢褜薪褘屑 锌芯泻褍锌邪褌械谢褟屑, 褔褌芯斜褘 褌械 锌芯褋屑芯褌褉械谢懈 懈褏 褌芯胁邪褉 懈 胁芯蟹屑芯卸薪芯, 褉械褕懈谢懈 懈褏 泻褍锌懈褌褜. 袣邪泻 锌褉械写锌褉懈薪懈屑邪褌械谢褜 屑芯卸械褌 褋褍褖械褋褌胁芯胁邪褌褜, 薪懈泻芯屑褍 薪械 褉邪褋褋泻邪蟹褘胁邪褟 芯 褋胁芯褢屑 斜懈蟹薪械褋械 (邪 褝褌芯 鈥� 褟写褉芯, 褋褍褌褜 褉械泻谢邪屑褘 泻邪泻 褌邪泻芯胁芯泄)?
袛邪谢褜褕械 - 薪械 谢褍褔锟斤拷械. 袗胁褌芯褉褘 锌懈褕褍褌 芯 芦褌邪斜邪泻械禄, 芯斜 邪谢泻芯谐芯谢械, 胁 锌谢邪薪械, 褔褌芯 芯写懈薪 锌褉懈胁芯写懈褌 泻 褉邪泻褍, 邪 写褉褍谐芯泄 鈥� 泻 邪谢泻芯谐芯谢懈蟹屑褍. 小褌芯懈褌 谢懈 芯斜 褝褌芯屑 锌懈褋邪褌褜 胁 锌芯写芯斜薪芯泄 泻薪懈谐械? 袛邪 鈥� 懈 褝褌芯 械写懈薪褋褌胁械薪薪褘泄 锌谢褞褋 鈥� 邪胁褌芯褉褘 芯锌懈褋褘胁邪褞褌, 泻邪泻 褌邪斜邪褔薪褘械 泻芯屑锌邪薪懈懈 褋褌褉械屑懈谢懈褋褜 褋芯泻褉褘褌褜 懈薪褎芯褉屑邪褑懈褞 芯 胁褉械写械 褌邪斜邪泻邪. 袠谢懈 泻邪泻 褎邪褉屑邪褑械胁褌懈褔械褋泻懈械 谐懈谐邪薪褌褘 胁薪械写褉褟褞褌 褋胁芯懈 薪芯胁懈薪泻懈, 锌褍褌褢屑 锌芯写泻褍锌邪 胁褉邪褔械泄. 袧芯 芯锌褟褌褜 卸械, 邪胁褌芯褉褘 褍写械谢褟褞褌 褝褌懈屑 胁芯锌褉芯褋芯屑 泻褉邪泄薪械 屑邪谢芯 褋褌褉邪薪懈褑 懈 写械谢邪褞褌 褝褌芯 泻褉邪泄薪械 锌芯胁械褉褏薪芯褋褌薪芯. 袩谢褞褋, 褋芯胁褋械屑 褋屑械褏芯褌胁芯褉薪芯械 泻芯谢懈褔械褋褌胁芯 锌褉懈屑械褉芯胁.
袠 锌芯褋谢械写薪械械. 袗胁褌芯褉褘 胁泻谢褞褔懈谢懈 胁 泻薪懈谐褍 谐谢邪胁褍 芦懈薪薪芯胁邪褑懈懈禄, 谐写械 褉邪褋褋泻邪蟹褘胁邪械褌褋褟 芯 褌芯泄 蟹邪胁懈褋懈屑芯褋褌懈, 褔褌芯 懈屑械械褌 薪邪 薪械泻芯褌芯褉褘褏 谢褞写械泄, Facebook 懈 锌褉芯褔懈械 褋芯褑懈邪谢褜薪褘械 褋械褌懈. 袦-写邪.鈥π⊙傂拘感恍� 谢懈 锌懈褋邪褌褜 泻薪懈谐褍 褉邪写懈 胁褋械谐芯 褝褌芯谐芯?
According to the authors, they wanted to write a reasonably scientific and reasonably accessible book for a wide audience. Did it work? I don't think so. It's like a famous proverb about two hares. The authors decided not to go deep into one specific topic, but they also decided not to go down to the simple or amateur level. As a result, it turned out that some people have not understood much, because the authors have not simplified the topics related to the financial field, and for those people who understand and understand the issue, the authors have not offered anything either, because they have written an extremely superficial book. And if you ask what the book reminds me most of all, I would suggest that this is a newspaper or magazine article from some financial publication (the topics in the book are not related to each other, in my opinion).
First, the beginning and the end of the book. The authors have devoted almost half of the book to "introduction" and "conclusion". This is an obvious mistake. That's too much. People do not always read these chapters, because the introduction most often contains common phrases that do not affect the main content, its understanding, so one can often not waste time. And the chapter "conclusion" often contains a summary, a brief paraphrase, which can also be skipped if you understand the idea of the book and all its details.
Second, in the beginning, the authors write a lot about the problems of the free market, almost leading the reader to the idea that it is not so free (in a certain sense, of course). People began to buy a lot of unnecessary junk. That's true, but it's obvious.
Let's move on. The financial crisis of 2008, with a description of how the bubble of new financial instruments that were created during this period burst and that are related to real estate loans. In my opinion, the authors did not simplify the material and did not offer anything new and/or interesting, which was not mentioned in the most famous book on the subject "The Big Short" by Michael Lewis or in the second famous book on the subject "Too Big to Fail" by Andrew Ross Sorkin. As a result, I don't understand, why did the authors include this chapter in their book? And, importantly, the authors devote two more chapters to such financial stories (given that there are few chapters, it's a clear tilt towards the financial sphere, in which not every reader can easily understand).
The third chapter simply stunned me. The authors considered the deceptive tricks to be nothing but advertising as such. Such tricks the authors have included not unethical advertising, not advertising that is intended to deceive the buyer by providing inaccurate or even false information, and advertising in general. To do this, they talk about three titans of the advertising world, two of whom are Claude C. Hopkins and David Ogilvy. Already after such a statement, the book can safely be thrown to the trash, because these two have always had an impeccable reputation throughout the world, and I have never seen anyone accuse them of deceiving customers (and I have read almost all the books on advertising and marketing that were published in Russia in the Russian language of foreign authors). As for advertising, it dates back to the ancient bazaars, when sellers called on potential buyers to see their goods and maybe decide to buy them. How can an entrepreneur exist without telling anyone about his business and his goods/services (which is the core, the essence of advertising as such)?
Next - not better. The authors write about tobacco, about alcohol, in terms of the fact that one leads to cancer and the other to alcoholism. Is it worth writing about in a book like this? Yes - and this is the only plus - the authors describe how tobacco companies have sought to hide information about the harm caused by tobacco. Or how pharmaceutical giants implement their novelties by bribing doctors. But then again, the authors do not pay much attention to this issue and do it very superficially. Plus, it's a ridiculous number of examples.
And lastly. The authors have included in the book a chapter on "innovation", which tells about the addiction that some people have in relation to Facebook and other social networks. Well... Was it worth writing a book for all this?
August 10, 2016
Many of us are aware of the concept of 鈥減hishing.鈥� Wikipedia defines this notion thus: 鈥淧hishing is the attempt to obtain sensitive information such as usernames, passwords, and credit card details (and sometimes, indirectly, money), often for malicious reasons, by masquerading as a trustworthy entity in an electronic communication. The word is a neologism created as a homophone of fishing due to the similarity of using a bait in an attempt to catch a victim.鈥� This book notes that phishing is also done, using different tools, by businesses鈥攊ncluding big business. That is, they try to lure consumers into purchasing products that are, perhaps, not very useful to individuals.
Examples? Smoking. The book notes the efforts of tobacco companies to poo poo arguments that smoking was harmful to individuals. In short, such corporations masqueraded as trustworthy in order to 鈥渃atch a victim.鈥� Big pharma has done the same thing (note the example of VIOXX, which ended up costing the lives of thousands of people). In short, con people to purchase items that are not in the best interests of consumers. Is this an elitist argument (always a first attack by those who defend the indefensible鈥攃asting aspersions against those who speak truth to power).
Manipulation and deception are a part of this process. Corporations want to create demand for products that may or may not be of value (John Kenneth Galbraith, many years ago, used the term 鈥渋nduced consumption: to speak of a process by which ads and other messages convinced people to purchase items of dubious value to them).
Of course, free markets can be robust institutions facilitating efficient production and distribution of goods ands services. But there are plenty of opportunities to use the market to 鈥減hish鈥� people. The authors have faith in the market鈥攂ut understand that it can be manipulated.
Examples? Smoking. The book notes the efforts of tobacco companies to poo poo arguments that smoking was harmful to individuals. In short, such corporations masqueraded as trustworthy in order to 鈥渃atch a victim.鈥� Big pharma has done the same thing (note the example of VIOXX, which ended up costing the lives of thousands of people). In short, con people to purchase items that are not in the best interests of consumers. Is this an elitist argument (always a first attack by those who defend the indefensible鈥攃asting aspersions against those who speak truth to power).
Manipulation and deception are a part of this process. Corporations want to create demand for products that may or may not be of value (John Kenneth Galbraith, many years ago, used the term 鈥渋nduced consumption: to speak of a process by which ads and other messages convinced people to purchase items of dubious value to them).
Of course, free markets can be robust institutions facilitating efficient production and distribution of goods ands services. But there are plenty of opportunities to use the market to 鈥減hish鈥� people. The authors have faith in the market鈥攂ut understand that it can be manipulated.
December 14, 2020
F峄塶h F峄� l农 ng峄慶- "kinh t岷� h峄峜 thao t煤ng v脿 b峄媝 b峄" cu峄憂 s谩ch c贸 媒 t瓢峄焠g r岷 hay nh瓢ng m矛nh th峄眂 s峄� kh么ng th峄� y锚u th瓢啤ng n峄昳 =((
Nh贸m t谩c gi岷� g峄搈 hai nh脿 kinh t岷� 膽岷 gi岷 Nobel 膽茫 c霉ng vi岷縯 cu峄憂 s谩ch 膽峄� ch峄� ra m峄檛 th峄眂 t岷� r岷眓g n峄乶 kinh t岷� kh么ng ph岷 bao gi峄� c农ng v岷璶 h脿nh theo l媒 thuy岷縯, khi ch煤ng ta (ng瓢峄漣 mua/ng瓢峄漣 ti锚u d霉ng) kh么ng ph岷 bao gi峄� c农ng l峄盿 ch峄峮 nh峄痭g th峄� c贸 l峄 cho b岷 th芒n. Th岷� gi峄沬 n脿y 膽岷 nh峄痭g m谩nh l峄玜 膽岷 v脿 ch煤ng ta th矛 qu谩 nhi峄乽 膽i峄僲 y岷縰 膽峄� b峄� l峄 d峄g m贸c t煤i 馃ズ
膼岷 l脿 膽i峄乽 m矛nh r煤t ra t峄� cu峄憂 s谩ch n脿y, m矛nh hi峄僽 nh峄痭g 膽i峄乽 m脿 hai t谩c gi岷� truy峄乶 膽岷, nh瓢ng th峄眂 s峄� m矛nh kh么ng th峄� y锚u th瓢啤ng 膽瓢峄.
Th峄� nh岷, c谩ch d岷玭 d岷痶 c峄 nh贸m t谩c gi岷� theo h瓢峄沶g r岷 logic khi ti岷縫 c岷璶 ng瓢峄漣 膽峄峜 t峄� nh峄痭g 膽i峄乽 膽啤n gi岷 nh岷, m峄� r峄檔g ra nh峄痭g tr貌 ph峄塶h ph峄� trong nhi峄乽 b峄慽 c岷h v脿 t峄昻g k岷縯 nh峄痭g ch峄� 膽峄�. Tuy nhi锚n ch峄� 膽峄� m脿 nh贸m t谩c gi岷� l峄盿 ch峄峮 膽峄� b贸c "ph峄憈" l岷 qu谩 k矛 qu岷穋, l煤c th矛 l峄盿 ch峄峮 nh峄痭g th峄� qu谩 chung chung (ch铆nh tr峄�), l煤c th矛 d岷玭 d岷痶 膽岷縩 nh峄痭g th峄� qu谩 chi ti岷縯 (thu峄慶 l谩, r瓢峄 bia, thu峄慶 l谩)....
Th峄� hai, b峄慽 c岷h c峄 cu峄憂 s谩ch l岷 qu谩 膽岷穋 th霉 (t岷璸 trung v脿o n瓢峄沜 M峄�) n锚n m矛nh th岷 thi岷縰 t铆nh 峄﹏g d峄g th峄眂 t岷�.
Th峄� ba, m矛nh c贸 c岷 gi谩c cu峄憂 s谩ch d峄媍h kh么ng ph岷 c峄 d峄媍h gi岷� chuy锚n v峄� kinh t岷�, nhi峄乽 th峄� c岷 gi谩c m啤 h峄� ho岷穋 thi岷縰 nh峄痭g t峄� th瓢峄漬g d霉ng trong kinh t岷�. Ki峄僽 nh瓢 "c么ng ty c么ng ch煤ng" (tr264 s膽d) l脿m m矛nh th岷 kh么ng quen l岷痬, h矛nh nh瓢 n贸 hay d霉ng l脿 "c么ng ty 膽岷 ch煤ng" th矛 ph岷...
V岷瓂 膽岷, m矛nh th铆ch ki峄僽 b贸c ph峄憈 v峄� kinh t岷� nh瓢 c峄 Ha-Joon Chang h啤n, nh瓢ng 膽峄峜 cu峄憂 n脿y 膽峄峜 k猫m v峄沬 nh峄痭g cu峄憂 kh谩c c农ng 峄昻, nh瓢ng n岷縰 cho ch峄峮 l岷 m矛nh s岷� kh么ng mua (gi谩 b矛a 160k) m脿 mua Hi峄噓 峄﹏g chim m峄搃 =((
Nh贸m t谩c gi岷� g峄搈 hai nh脿 kinh t岷� 膽岷 gi岷 Nobel 膽茫 c霉ng vi岷縯 cu峄憂 s谩ch 膽峄� ch峄� ra m峄檛 th峄眂 t岷� r岷眓g n峄乶 kinh t岷� kh么ng ph岷 bao gi峄� c农ng v岷璶 h脿nh theo l媒 thuy岷縯, khi ch煤ng ta (ng瓢峄漣 mua/ng瓢峄漣 ti锚u d霉ng) kh么ng ph岷 bao gi峄� c农ng l峄盿 ch峄峮 nh峄痭g th峄� c贸 l峄 cho b岷 th芒n. Th岷� gi峄沬 n脿y 膽岷 nh峄痭g m谩nh l峄玜 膽岷 v脿 ch煤ng ta th矛 qu谩 nhi峄乽 膽i峄僲 y岷縰 膽峄� b峄� l峄 d峄g m贸c t煤i 馃ズ
膼岷 l脿 膽i峄乽 m矛nh r煤t ra t峄� cu峄憂 s谩ch n脿y, m矛nh hi峄僽 nh峄痭g 膽i峄乽 m脿 hai t谩c gi岷� truy峄乶 膽岷, nh瓢ng th峄眂 s峄� m矛nh kh么ng th峄� y锚u th瓢啤ng 膽瓢峄.
Th峄� nh岷, c谩ch d岷玭 d岷痶 c峄 nh贸m t谩c gi岷� theo h瓢峄沶g r岷 logic khi ti岷縫 c岷璶 ng瓢峄漣 膽峄峜 t峄� nh峄痭g 膽i峄乽 膽啤n gi岷 nh岷, m峄� r峄檔g ra nh峄痭g tr貌 ph峄塶h ph峄� trong nhi峄乽 b峄慽 c岷h v脿 t峄昻g k岷縯 nh峄痭g ch峄� 膽峄�. Tuy nhi锚n ch峄� 膽峄� m脿 nh贸m t谩c gi岷� l峄盿 ch峄峮 膽峄� b贸c "ph峄憈" l岷 qu谩 k矛 qu岷穋, l煤c th矛 l峄盿 ch峄峮 nh峄痭g th峄� qu谩 chung chung (ch铆nh tr峄�), l煤c th矛 d岷玭 d岷痶 膽岷縩 nh峄痭g th峄� qu谩 chi ti岷縯 (thu峄慶 l谩, r瓢峄 bia, thu峄慶 l谩)....
Th峄� hai, b峄慽 c岷h c峄 cu峄憂 s谩ch l岷 qu谩 膽岷穋 th霉 (t岷璸 trung v脿o n瓢峄沜 M峄�) n锚n m矛nh th岷 thi岷縰 t铆nh 峄﹏g d峄g th峄眂 t岷�.
Th峄� ba, m矛nh c贸 c岷 gi谩c cu峄憂 s谩ch d峄媍h kh么ng ph岷 c峄 d峄媍h gi岷� chuy锚n v峄� kinh t岷�, nhi峄乽 th峄� c岷 gi谩c m啤 h峄� ho岷穋 thi岷縰 nh峄痭g t峄� th瓢峄漬g d霉ng trong kinh t岷�. Ki峄僽 nh瓢 "c么ng ty c么ng ch煤ng" (tr264 s膽d) l脿m m矛nh th岷 kh么ng quen l岷痬, h矛nh nh瓢 n贸 hay d霉ng l脿 "c么ng ty 膽岷 ch煤ng" th矛 ph岷...
V岷瓂 膽岷, m矛nh th铆ch ki峄僽 b贸c ph峄憈 v峄� kinh t岷� nh瓢 c峄 Ha-Joon Chang h啤n, nh瓢ng 膽峄峜 cu峄憂 n脿y 膽峄峜 k猫m v峄沬 nh峄痭g cu峄憂 kh谩c c农ng 峄昻, nh瓢ng n岷縰 cho ch峄峮 l岷 m矛nh s岷� kh么ng mua (gi谩 b矛a 160k) m脿 mua Hi峄噓 峄﹏g chim m峄搃 =((
July 23, 2017
Bylo to takov媒 nijak媒. Auto艡i cht臎li obs谩hnout v拧e, nemluvili ale o ni膷em konkr茅tn铆m. Jejich z谩v臎ry byly 膷asto dosti pochybn茅. Bylo to hodn臎 povrchn铆 a s behavior谩ln铆 ekonomii to nem臎lo v暖bec nic spole膷n茅ho. Nel铆bilo. Nedoporu膷uji.
December 24, 2015
Super disappointing book given the authors. It seemed super half-baked, and like it was just a first draft of a book they had put together.
December 3, 2015
This book has a reasonable concept behind it but is poorly executed in my opinion. The authors don't really give a clear idea of why they are writing the book until the very end. To give my own summary with the best possible spin, the authors (two very prominent economists) are interested in linking findings of behavioral economics with partial equilibrium (and perhaps general equilibrium) microeconomics. In general, the discipline of behavioral economics has focused heavily on special cases and experimental evidence. Certainly authors like Kahneman and Tversky have developed taxonomies of known "heuristics and biases," but these are generally not mined for broader implications for market clearing and welfare economics. This is what Akerlof and Shiller would like to see. The book is very non-technical and only gestures in this direction, but generally, the authors create a microeconomic picture where individuals' weaknesses and biases play more or less as prominent of a role in technological development and investment in a given market as do individuals' "true" preferences (more on those scare quotes below). Presumably, this could even lead to implications regarding aggregate investment and productivity growth. In this picture, weaknesses and biases are not curious exceptions, but something closer to the rule. It is hard to look at the evolution of the food industry and doubt that there is some truth to this view.
That said, the book has many weaknesses. First, because of the authors' attempts to write for a general-interest audience, there are only the vaguest gestures in the direction of this unifying perspective. As a result, the book primarily comes across as a piling-up of examples of specific cases where companies take advantage of individual weaknesses and biases--which is exactly what I think the authors see as a shortcoming of the existing behavioral economics literature!
Second, because the constant use of the terms "phishing" and "phools" is insufferable. It's bad enough that the authors try to commandeer "phishing," which is already a well-defined term that does not mean what they use it to mean. It's really a distraction from any kind of actual substance that might be delivered, and I think it also to some degree denies the agency of the consumer. The authors certainly don't ever discuss what one can do to be less of a "phool." To the extent that "phishing behavior" is as endemic as the authors portray it, I think it implies a fairly radical level of skepticism, reliance on the precautionary principle, and active avoidance of advertising and other capitalist situations--which I am not sure the authors would be ready to endorse explicitly. Something that might be endorsed by, say, E.F. Schumacher.
Third, it's not clear who the right audience for this book is. In the conclusion, the authors say that they hope to influence the direction of research in economics, but I feel like a popular consumption book like this is about the worst way to do that. To the extent that the target audience is everyday people (as the style implies), it is hardly news to us (and to economists when they are not acting in their professional capacity) that corporations look for opportunities to take advantage of people for profit.
Fourth, the authors mix together under the broad heading of "phishing" what they call "information phishing" (situations of asymmetric information) and "psychological phishing" (situations of weaknesses and biases). It's not clear to me why these should be analyzed together, other than that they both suck. Asymmetric information has been extensively studied in economics, most prominently by Akerlof himself, with the general conclusion being that asymmetric information results in market failure (no market can be sustained even if welfare-enhancing trades are in principle available). The authors don't give much explanation for why they think markets are sustained in the examples they give. Asymmetric information problems are also often amenable to top-down solutions, such as disclosure laws, requiring warranties, requiring insurance, etc. Weakness/bias situations, on the other hand, aren't likely to result in market failure, and the proposed solution typically involves some type of "nudge," which may or may not be very effective.
Fifth and finally, as this review has gone on long enough, the authors too readily distinguish between our "real" preferences and what they call our "monkey on the shoulder," or irrational preferences. They laud capitalism for helping us fulfill our "real" preferences but castigate it for helping us fulfill the monkey ones. Surely there is a great deal of truth to this, but the thing that makes this such a dicey issue is that it is very difficult to distinguish between these two classes of preference, and I'm not sure how much of a distinction there really is. For example, the authors spend a great deal of ink talking about how advertisers "phish" people by selling them a story about something, and getting people to identify with that story. They basically portray this as bad, and in some limiting cases I can certainly see that. But take the example of sports fandom, and economically speaking, the purchase of game tickets, team paraphernalia, etc. What is being a fan of a sports team other than buying into a story and identifying with it, along with a bunch of other people? If the authors are skeptical about whether this is "truly" valuable to people, they need to watch Doris Kearns Goodwin talk about the Dodgers and Red Sox in the Ken Burns baseball documentaries. At best, and the authors do not at all draw this conclusion, I think this line of analysis can lead us to understand how important it is to be reflective about our own preferences and assess whether our budgets instantiate our values.
My favorite part of this book was learning that Bob Shiller ate cat food, in order to prove some point that didn't really make sense to me.
That said, the book has many weaknesses. First, because of the authors' attempts to write for a general-interest audience, there are only the vaguest gestures in the direction of this unifying perspective. As a result, the book primarily comes across as a piling-up of examples of specific cases where companies take advantage of individual weaknesses and biases--which is exactly what I think the authors see as a shortcoming of the existing behavioral economics literature!
Second, because the constant use of the terms "phishing" and "phools" is insufferable. It's bad enough that the authors try to commandeer "phishing," which is already a well-defined term that does not mean what they use it to mean. It's really a distraction from any kind of actual substance that might be delivered, and I think it also to some degree denies the agency of the consumer. The authors certainly don't ever discuss what one can do to be less of a "phool." To the extent that "phishing behavior" is as endemic as the authors portray it, I think it implies a fairly radical level of skepticism, reliance on the precautionary principle, and active avoidance of advertising and other capitalist situations--which I am not sure the authors would be ready to endorse explicitly. Something that might be endorsed by, say, E.F. Schumacher.
Third, it's not clear who the right audience for this book is. In the conclusion, the authors say that they hope to influence the direction of research in economics, but I feel like a popular consumption book like this is about the worst way to do that. To the extent that the target audience is everyday people (as the style implies), it is hardly news to us (and to economists when they are not acting in their professional capacity) that corporations look for opportunities to take advantage of people for profit.
Fourth, the authors mix together under the broad heading of "phishing" what they call "information phishing" (situations of asymmetric information) and "psychological phishing" (situations of weaknesses and biases). It's not clear to me why these should be analyzed together, other than that they both suck. Asymmetric information has been extensively studied in economics, most prominently by Akerlof himself, with the general conclusion being that asymmetric information results in market failure (no market can be sustained even if welfare-enhancing trades are in principle available). The authors don't give much explanation for why they think markets are sustained in the examples they give. Asymmetric information problems are also often amenable to top-down solutions, such as disclosure laws, requiring warranties, requiring insurance, etc. Weakness/bias situations, on the other hand, aren't likely to result in market failure, and the proposed solution typically involves some type of "nudge," which may or may not be very effective.
Fifth and finally, as this review has gone on long enough, the authors too readily distinguish between our "real" preferences and what they call our "monkey on the shoulder," or irrational preferences. They laud capitalism for helping us fulfill our "real" preferences but castigate it for helping us fulfill the monkey ones. Surely there is a great deal of truth to this, but the thing that makes this such a dicey issue is that it is very difficult to distinguish between these two classes of preference, and I'm not sure how much of a distinction there really is. For example, the authors spend a great deal of ink talking about how advertisers "phish" people by selling them a story about something, and getting people to identify with that story. They basically portray this as bad, and in some limiting cases I can certainly see that. But take the example of sports fandom, and economically speaking, the purchase of game tickets, team paraphernalia, etc. What is being a fan of a sports team other than buying into a story and identifying with it, along with a bunch of other people? If the authors are skeptical about whether this is "truly" valuable to people, they need to watch Doris Kearns Goodwin talk about the Dodgers and Red Sox in the Ken Burns baseball documentaries. At best, and the authors do not at all draw this conclusion, I think this line of analysis can lead us to understand how important it is to be reflective about our own preferences and assess whether our budgets instantiate our values.
My favorite part of this book was learning that Bob Shiller ate cat food, in order to prove some point that didn't really make sense to me.
December 10, 2023
It's an interesting topic, but a rather terrible style of analysing it. The title of the book "Phishing for Phools" is repeated in the book more than one hundred times, and this is a bit overdoing it. As well, replacing "fish" or "food" with "phood" and "phish" is not something that makes reading it easier. Difficult to read as a result, because the style used and the logical organisation of the issues are a bit challenging. The really clear parts are the beginning and the conclusion. I was expecting a bit more after reading "Animal Spirits" from the same authors, but I was wrong. There are too many cases with names that are not helping in understanding the points made because there are so many names used from the past of characters that were unknown to me, at least. Again, may be it is just me... but it was a gruelling read.
January 24, 2021
Phishing for Phools starts from assertions that people 鈥渄o not do what is really good for them; they do not choose what they really want鈥� and that we follow 鈥渕onkey-on-our-shoulder tastes鈥� which are 鈥渘ot good for us鈥� . However, it never makes clear what those statements mean. Is 鈥渨hat is good for us鈥� the same as 鈥渨hat we really want?鈥� Does every choice the authors believe is not good justify added government regulations? Would 鈥渂eneficiaries鈥� really be grateful? And with regard to the volume鈥檚 opening illustration, is every Cinnabon customer phished into a self-deluded choice? Such lack of clarity provides one reason its sweeping conclusions are insufficiently supported.
February 5, 2021
A leitura em si n茫o 茅 t茫o prazerosa, mas traz 贸timos exemplos para convencer os mais liberais de que o livre mercado n茫o 茅 perfeito e, se deixado sem regulamenta莽茫o alguma, SEMPRE ter谩 algu茅m se aproveitando de outrem. Os autores mostram que a regulamenta莽茫o n茫o 茅 s贸 necess谩ria para impedir falcatruas, mas tamb茅m para impedir gastos excessivos do Estado com eventos facilmente evit谩veis, como a crise do subprime.
July 25, 2021
A superficial book that does what they are criticizing in the book: phishing.
The book is a superficial overview of the manipulations of choice and the leveraging of reputation in the modern world, clearly outlining how people have been doing it for a long time, but the authors fail to address the impact of said actions or an in-depth economic analysis (or even the implications).
The writing is rather poor, and it's obvious two people wrote it. The book is a compendium of well-known observations of cognitive biases and frauds. Thus is merely anecdotal and lacks in the potential the theme could have had if properly designed and developed, it undersells in its search for: "The Economics of Manipulation and Deception".
The book is a superficial overview of the manipulations of choice and the leveraging of reputation in the modern world, clearly outlining how people have been doing it for a long time, but the authors fail to address the impact of said actions or an in-depth economic analysis (or even the implications).
The writing is rather poor, and it's obvious two people wrote it. The book is a compendium of well-known observations of cognitive biases and frauds. Thus is merely anecdotal and lacks in the potential the theme could have had if properly designed and developed, it undersells in its search for: "The Economics of Manipulation and Deception".
November 17, 2024
Serves as a perspective that bridge reality and textbook. Particularly like the conclusive analogy of cancerous cell to capitalistic economy in which the "problem" is inherent in the system rather than sweep it under the rug in guise of so called externalities.
May 19, 2021
Interesting but not very enjoyable read and not in par with other Shiller's books. This one lacks the deep reflections that I'm used to read in his books. A good book overall.
January 14, 2022
讴鬲丕亘 倬乇 丕夭 賲孬丕賱 賴丕 賵 乇賵蹖丿丕丿賴丕蹖蹖 丕爻鬲 讴賴 賮賯胤 亘乇丕蹖 丕賲乇蹖讴丕蹖蹖鈥屬囏� 賯丕亘賱 丿乇讴 丕爻鬲貙 賳賴 禺賵丕賳賳丿賴 禺丕乇噩蹖. 禺賵亘 亘賵丿 賲鬲乇噩賲 丿乇 倬丕賵乇賯蹖貙 丌賳賴丕 乇丕 卮乇丨 賲蹖丿丕丿 鬲丕 禺賵丕賳賳丿賴 丕蹖乇丕賳蹖 讴鬲丕亘 亘賴鬲乇 丿乇讴 讴賳丿.
October 15, 2023
I am thinking all along whether the general public would benefit from reading this book. Yes, they would. There are good chances they would relearn the fact that economists are a great bore. What about economics students? No, they would not learn anything besides some facts and figures. For that reason, I cannot rate a book of questionable audience too highly.
The book was clearly sprung from a benign purpose and a meaningful list of literature. Surprisingly, the ghostwriters George A. Akerlof and Robert J. Shiller hired (three research assistants whom they acknowledged postscriptum in paragraphs) did not key their wonderful ideas into a cogent piece.
Evident cliffhangers are not needed鈥擨 am referring to the electioneering story in chapter five and twelve鈥攂ecause each raggedy chapter telling various stories of more than one focus adds nothing but confusion to the next one. They had happily set out the goal of revisiting the concept of equilibrium, only to bring it up every fifty pages. The book read like an undergraduate鈥檚 work, as was indeed the case.
Make no mistake; both authors in the book were already Nobel laureates at the time of publishing. An important idea in the book that predated and inspired Shiller鈥檚 Narrative Economics is 鈥榮tory鈥�. 鈥楥o-authored by Nobel laureates!鈥� You don鈥檛 say how much the weight and prestige of the prize has gone into expectations. Too much. I played the Phool here, and they were the Phishermen unfortunately.
The book was clearly sprung from a benign purpose and a meaningful list of literature. Surprisingly, the ghostwriters George A. Akerlof and Robert J. Shiller hired (three research assistants whom they acknowledged postscriptum in paragraphs) did not key their wonderful ideas into a cogent piece.
Evident cliffhangers are not needed鈥擨 am referring to the electioneering story in chapter five and twelve鈥攂ecause each raggedy chapter telling various stories of more than one focus adds nothing but confusion to the next one. They had happily set out the goal of revisiting the concept of equilibrium, only to bring it up every fifty pages. The book read like an undergraduate鈥檚 work, as was indeed the case.
Make no mistake; both authors in the book were already Nobel laureates at the time of publishing. An important idea in the book that predated and inspired Shiller鈥檚 Narrative Economics is 鈥榮tory鈥�. 鈥楥o-authored by Nobel laureates!鈥� You don鈥檛 say how much the weight and prestige of the prize has gone into expectations. Too much. I played the Phool here, and they were the Phishermen unfortunately.
October 1, 2021
Labiau orientuota 寞 atori懦 gimt懦j懦 JAV ekonomin臋 bei politin臋 sistem膮. Bet dauguma 寞啪valg懦 tinka ir kitoms valstyb臈ms.
March 23, 2016
The book written by George A. Akerlof (who won Nobel prize in Economic Sciences) and Robert J. Shiller contains a simple idea, that Chuck Palahniuk described in 1996:
"Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate so we can buy sh*t we don't need."
Unfortunately, Palahniuk somehow hadn't received his Nobel prize for this wonderful discovery. Sigh.
In Akerlof's book it's not just advertising that makes us buy 'sh*t'. He describes how free markets create goods and services that satisfy needs we didn't even know we have. For me it was boring. I expected more in-depth analysis from a Noble prize winner. Instead, authors give example after example of how companies exploit our fragile psychology and behaviour. Yeah, we get it. Cinnabon kiosks smell good and are specifically placed where there's no time for the consumers to order some healthy food (shopping molls, airports). Buyers tend to spend more paying with credit cards (i.e. they feel less guilt than when they pay with cash).
It may be worth mentioning that I studied marketing and micro/macroeconomics. So Akerlof's examples seemed very obvious to me, but I suppose the book could be interesting for someone without this prior knowledge.
I'd say reading preface and introduction would be sufficient to get an idea of the book. If you are interested in the topic, try legendary Ogilvy's book 'On Advertising'
***
袣薪懈谐邪 袛卸芯褉写卸邪 袗泻械褉谢芯褎邪, 谢邪褍褉械邪褌邪 袧芯斜械谢械胁褋泻芯泄 锌褉械屑懈懈, 芯 褌芯屑, 泻邪泻 褋胁芯斜芯写薪褘械 褉褘薪泻懈 褋芯蟹写邪褞褌 褌芯胁邪褉褘 懈 褍褋谢褍谐懈, 泻芯褌芯褉褘械 薪邪屑 薪械 薪褍卸薪褘, 薪芯 泻芯褌芯褉褘械 屑褘 胁褋褢 褝褌芯 胁褉械屑褟 褏芯褌械谢懈. 袧邪 屑芯泄 胁蟹谐谢褟写 锌褉芯褋褌芯 锌芯写斜芯褉泻邪 褉邪蟹谢懈褔薪褘褏 锌褉懈屑械褉芯胁 斜械蟹 褍谐谢褍斜谢械薪薪芯谐芯 邪薪邪谢懈蟹邪, 泻芯褌芯褉褘泄 褟 懈 芯卸懈写邪谢邪 褍胁懈写械褌褜. 效褌芯斜褘 锌芯薪褟褌褜 褋褍褌褜, 写芯褋褌邪褌芯褔薪芯 锌褉芯褔懈褌邪褌褜 胁褋褌褍锌谢械薪懈械.
"Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate so we can buy sh*t we don't need."
Unfortunately, Palahniuk somehow hadn't received his Nobel prize for this wonderful discovery. Sigh.
In Akerlof's book it's not just advertising that makes us buy 'sh*t'. He describes how free markets create goods and services that satisfy needs we didn't even know we have. For me it was boring. I expected more in-depth analysis from a Noble prize winner. Instead, authors give example after example of how companies exploit our fragile psychology and behaviour. Yeah, we get it. Cinnabon kiosks smell good and are specifically placed where there's no time for the consumers to order some healthy food (shopping molls, airports). Buyers tend to spend more paying with credit cards (i.e. they feel less guilt than when they pay with cash).
It may be worth mentioning that I studied marketing and micro/macroeconomics. So Akerlof's examples seemed very obvious to me, but I suppose the book could be interesting for someone without this prior knowledge.
I'd say reading preface and introduction would be sufficient to get an idea of the book. If you are interested in the topic, try legendary Ogilvy's book 'On Advertising'
***
袣薪懈谐邪 袛卸芯褉写卸邪 袗泻械褉谢芯褎邪, 谢邪褍褉械邪褌邪 袧芯斜械谢械胁褋泻芯泄 锌褉械屑懈懈, 芯 褌芯屑, 泻邪泻 褋胁芯斜芯写薪褘械 褉褘薪泻懈 褋芯蟹写邪褞褌 褌芯胁邪褉褘 懈 褍褋谢褍谐懈, 泻芯褌芯褉褘械 薪邪屑 薪械 薪褍卸薪褘, 薪芯 泻芯褌芯褉褘械 屑褘 胁褋褢 褝褌芯 胁褉械屑褟 褏芯褌械谢懈. 袧邪 屑芯泄 胁蟹谐谢褟写 锌褉芯褋褌芯 锌芯写斜芯褉泻邪 褉邪蟹谢懈褔薪褘褏 锌褉懈屑械褉芯胁 斜械蟹 褍谐谢褍斜谢械薪薪芯谐芯 邪薪邪谢懈蟹邪, 泻芯褌芯褉褘泄 褟 懈 芯卸懈写邪谢邪 褍胁懈写械褌褜. 效褌芯斜褘 锌芯薪褟褌褜 褋褍褌褜, 写芯褋褌邪褌芯褔薪芯 锌褉芯褔懈褌邪褌褜 胁褋褌褍锌谢械薪懈械.
November 4, 2019
We live in a world where a plethora of materialistic lures compete for our attention and resources. We in turn are enslaved to and enraptured by wants which might on hindsight be totally inessential or unnecessary. Why is it that we fall prey to the tricks of unscrupulous dealers and businessmen even though we are rational and completely capable of making logical decisions. Why are we rendered incapable and vulnerable at those precise moments which call for clarity, alertness and judiciousness?
Nobel Laureates George Akerloff and Robert Schilling tackle this very vexing question in their new and interesting work "Phishing For Phools". The title is a take on the most pervasive internet fraud popularly referred to as 'phishing'. When greedy, smart and cut throat opportunists look for scapegoats to further their economic and monetary prospects, they end up "phishing". The ones that do manage to land up ultimately in their nets are the phools. Citing examples from diverse sectors of the economy, from Pharmaceuticals to Automotive dealers; from credit card purveyors to the powerful and effective tobacco lobby, Akerloff and Schiller provide authentic instances where the consumer is subject to a wide array of manipulative techniques, deceptive trade practices and false assurances which influence the direction of his/her spending. The sub prime mortgage debacle that resulted in an economic tailspin thereby leading to a global financial crisis (the reverberations of which still holds the world in its thrall) is also a classic example of a multitude of predatory phishermen targeting a ready market of gullible phools.
The authors in the latter half of the book also issue a timely warning to the reader by identifying potential red flags and underhand techniques, an understanding of which will reduce the probability of being sucked into the dangerous web of deceit, desperation and disaster.
"Phishing for Phools" - A Phantastic read!"
Nobel Laureates George Akerloff and Robert Schilling tackle this very vexing question in their new and interesting work "Phishing For Phools". The title is a take on the most pervasive internet fraud popularly referred to as 'phishing'. When greedy, smart and cut throat opportunists look for scapegoats to further their economic and monetary prospects, they end up "phishing". The ones that do manage to land up ultimately in their nets are the phools. Citing examples from diverse sectors of the economy, from Pharmaceuticals to Automotive dealers; from credit card purveyors to the powerful and effective tobacco lobby, Akerloff and Schiller provide authentic instances where the consumer is subject to a wide array of manipulative techniques, deceptive trade practices and false assurances which influence the direction of his/her spending. The sub prime mortgage debacle that resulted in an economic tailspin thereby leading to a global financial crisis (the reverberations of which still holds the world in its thrall) is also a classic example of a multitude of predatory phishermen targeting a ready market of gullible phools.
The authors in the latter half of the book also issue a timely warning to the reader by identifying potential red flags and underhand techniques, an understanding of which will reduce the probability of being sucked into the dangerous web of deceit, desperation and disaster.
"Phishing for Phools" - A Phantastic read!"
Displaying 1 - 30 of 246 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.