Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

Yo - funny, I read this when I started to figure out that economics was taking over the world and I should understand it a bit, before I had much of a systemic analysis. Now that I've taken a Macro-Econ class and read a whole bunch of other stuff, I can't say I really recall much of "Naked Economics." Have you read Herman Daly's stuff in the 2008 year-end Adbusters? Much better =)

Haven't read that piece by Daly specifically, though I've read short things by him elsewhere.

My goal in reading Wheelan is much more in the vein of 'know the opposition' than in simply grounding myself in econ.

Great!

What's up with the title, "Naked Economics"? Is the idea that the "dismal science" is only dismal insofar as it wears shabby clothes, and that it's actually smoking hot undressed? Or is it fairly dismal underneath its clothes too?

I ask because Marx recognized that re: capitalism, classical economics, while dead wrong in the final instance, was actually right about surprisingly much. Wouldn't an honestly "Naked Economics" look a lot like Marxism?

"But sometimes - like for many people who work for close to little pay - a job does not in fact help one gain access to this, and instead traps one into a cycle of ever-tightening dependency on your employer while you live an increasingly impoverished and increasingly controlled life. Is this better than being impoverished but independent? I tend to think not."

what's the alternative solution? I'd love it if there were one.

"Is this better than being impoverished but independent? I tend to think not."

If it were not better, then people would not choose to work in sweat shops, and would instead choose to be impoverished and independent.

Obviously what little money people get out of working in sweatshops is, to them, superior to a life of impoverished independence.

I say what "little money," but, of course, sweat shops very often pay higher wages to people than they could make in other jobs in their area - they are miniscule wages to those of us who have the lesiure to read pop economics books and search the internet, to be sure, but that does not mean they are miniscule wages in the eyes of those who earn them. They are horrible conditions to us, but they may not be as horrible conditions as the alternatives - which, in most cases, is prostitution.

None of this is to say that we should not give generously to those in need and work for better working conditions for the poor, but it is to say that such problems are not so easily solved as many seem to believe, with boycotts that shut down sweat shops and turn over the people who worked for them to greater poverty and worse conditions of life.

I'm also curious... where does food and shelter come from if not money?

A bit late in the discussion here, but here it goes.
I liked your review because it hit all the central problems, not only of this book, but also the blind hype surrounding neoliberal economics.
I only differ on two points. First, the rating. I think Wheelan has done a superb job in presenting the position. So I ranked the book higher. Secondly, while I concur that what a human needs is not a job but food, shelter, and a decent quality of life, I would add labor to that list of things which enhances life. But only added as a clarification, to your statement, not in opposition.
Thanks for your review. I found it complete and insightful.

Thank you Megan for your spot on review of this stinking pile of neoliberal propaganda.

If you're going to give the author flack for his argument that people need jobs, at least back it up with an alternative solution. As other people have mentioned, I have to ask: how are people supposed to gain access to food and shelter without a job/money? Your admission that you haven't finished the book because you considered some of the author's arguments "too annoying" further underlies your entire review since you didn't review the book as a whole.

For most of human history, people have supported themselves without jobs; that's a fairly new social invention, historically speaking. And not something I needed to finish Wheelan's book to know about, nor a point that he seemed willing to address. There are lots of histories one can read about the ways in which the autonomy of those who used to be able to provide for themselves via farming and communal support has been destroyed by the taking of common or public land, forcing them to then rely on jobs by the very corporations or wealthy who have taken that land away by force.
If you're thinking with a much longer historical view, providing for oneself without depending on a paycheck is not an 'alternative,' it's much more the norm, really.

They may not of had a "job" with AT&T but they sure as heck worked longer and harder than we do today.

Those new modern jobs allow all of us to live longer, healthier, and better than folks did generations before us. This book does a great job of explaining why that is.

Personally I disagree. Whilst the working conditions are often awful in sweatshops, there is a reason why there seems to be a never-ending pool of labour to feed them. That is to say, that working in a sweatshop provides more income that the workers could receive elsewhere. Economic laws tell us that firms look to make things at the lowest possible cost and sell them at a profit maximisation point.

Is it possible that that labor pool exists because populations have violently had their land taken away from them and forcefully been pushed into the labor market? Again, historical context is important; these so-called economic 'laws' don't exist outside a history of violent state action. At one point in time it was a choice individuals could make, if they wanted to make a living through an income or through other means; that choice has been taken away.

For any of you interested in learning about an alternative perspective to Wheelan, a more historically minded one, I recommend the writings of Silvia Federici, who has done research both on the seizure of land and the institution of various laws forcing once-free peasants in Europe into situations where they are required to work, and on current (violent) land grabs in Africa and elsewhere, in which populations who previously chose to remain outside of the cash/job economy have been (often illegally) forced into it.

Only those at the bottom want equality. Men seek to maximize their utility and firms seek to maximize profits. If men in sweatshops aren't equal to us is because they have been that way even before they were born when wealthy individuals and nations rose. Now they reap the benefits of them maximizing utility and profit while losers get crushed. Sorry, but it is men's nature. If men were compassionate and altruistic since our advent, then we wouldn't even be here.

Only those at the bottom want equality. Men seek to maximize their utility and firms seek to maximize profits. If men in sweatshops aren't equal to us is because they have been that way even before they were born when wealthy individuals and nations rose. Now they reap the benefits of them maximizing utility and profit while losers get crushed. Sorry, but it is men's nature. If men were compassionate and altruistic since our advent, then we wouldn't even be here.

Read the last chapter. Essentially what you're saying is that we should only give direct aid, forcing developing countries into a negative dependency loop where they will never be able to improve their human capital. Under your 'altruism' lurks the true evil.

Not only people at the bottom want equality.

I would like the security to be able to work less hard and actually live rather than surviving. I also would like my child to grow up in a world where people have intrinsic value.

I think a world that is so bad that sweatshops are the best possible solution for large groups of people is a world we should not idly accept or birth more people into.

While we are currently the privileged who have jobs with reasonable income there is no way of assuring our children or even ourselves will have it as good as we do now.

Personally if my investments tanked and I was disabled I would like to be able to be treated as a noble human being (like we all are capable of being) and allowed to live not merely survive.

I think you critique was misplaced, considering the timeline author has presented. The job phenomenon, he says, is predominant factor in the relatively new economy of the world. Yes he failed to draw line the of transformation from autonomy to dependency. However, it would be unfortunate for the author if a critique is given for this mistake, because he never intended to focus on history or in the transformation of world economics i different eras.

I'd like to disagree with your review and reference to historical belief of farming and etc.. In a growing population If we still lived in sedentary conditions today we wouldn't be safe if no one gave the property rights and safety that many governments duly provide, the luxury to come up with new ideas that have spearheaded the evolution of our society in such a way that would've only been accomplished through incentive and through government reassurance. There is a reason why countries like England, Germany, the US all had such innovators as compared to somewhere like Zimbabwe for the reason that the government secured their patent rights. In Zimbabwe wherein inflation and social inequality just keeps increasing, even after much international bodies such as the UN try to help, is a result of the sheer amount of political power that their leader holds even after liberating their country from colonizers. Furthermore your reference to countries that have been colonized and have been subject to land grabbing and slavery is definitely disheartening but after these countries became independent their leaders have still had the audacity to expropriate more. If we lived in a world where systems and governments did not exist we would not have the pleasure of even being able to comment on these certain apps cause no one would've pushed for the innovations that have brought us to where we are today. You should refer to the book "why nations fail". The free market and security of property rights given by the government is exactly what was needed for people to have some form of reassurance to create what they believe benefited the society

Some extremely liberal socialist views here. We would be in the dark ages still...... If here at all.

Socialist and command economies never work. "That includes ideologies that transfer ever larger amounts from the productive to the needy. "As Margaret Thatcher observed, eventually you run out of other people’s money to give away"

Perhaps the reason that "Socialist and command economies never work" is that people never live up to their potential.

People make a big deal about being different than animals (placing rules that regulate animal like behavior like public urination, rape, etc.) but remain entrenched in selfishness and fear actually very much like animals.

Hopefully we will have a change in culture/consciousness that makes a universal quality of life attainable.

I'm not sure that socialism (at least as it historically presents itself) is the best way of govt. However, I would call out confirmation bias if one puts down socialism without either giving it a fair shake (e.g. not going to war with socialist countries, but instead working with them under the condition that they stop abuses) or critiquing cultural norms that make socialism not work. For example, if we put future generations first in our cultural messaging and stopped advertising for unnecessary products perhaps socialist leaders having being raised in this fashion would not feel driven to acquire so much wealth/power.

Finally, as we very well maybe moving towards a society in which there will be massive unemployment (as automation makes human workers cost prohibitive) it would be advisable to start being compassionate now.

If you want people lucky enough to work not to share with you why don't you create a website adding your name to a list of people who don't want help.

The points Wheelan was making about sweatshops were far more nuanced than you make them out to be. He did not explicitly condemn or condone buying anything from sweatshops. He was explaining the economic realities at the heart of the issue which are represented by the fact that cutting trade with sweatshop manufacturing is often economically damning to the people in the sweatshop and as a result, very unpopular with them. So in an attempt to make people in poor countries "better off" by cutting trade, we actually make them worse off. He does not address the historical factors that led to these people being poor in the first place, and which you rightly claim are important, because that is not what economics is about. Economics is about the bare, unadorned, unpolitical fact that by cutting trade, you are in fact making many people poorer, all else equal. These trade-offs are realities that liberal and conservative economists agree with, and in no way does this reality exclude the possibility of direct aid like you mentioned or some other factor contributing to the economic plight of poor groups. It just describes the reality of the effects of removing trade, all else equal. You might hear this and scoff because it suggests right wing politics to you, but this demonstrates that you did not read the book carefully, as many far left economists read that, agree, and still come up with a solution based in socialistic ideology. Economics is about the facts of trade-offs, not what's "better". This is all in the first chapter of the book.

Much of what you frame as "Wheelan's" is literally just textbook economics 101. He definitely has a perspective, but the principles he is describing are not politically-biased. The only reason you are seeing problems with his descriptions of sweatshops is because his delivery is very casual rather than academic and thus his preferences are being reflected. But he is not ultimately arguing for or against buying products produced in sweatshops. He is in the end just describing the economic realities that result in people actually wanting sweatshop jobs and being unhappy when they are no longer available. You might have a better solution, but that doesn't change the economic facts for which a solution may or may not be proposed.

The book explains all this quite clearly at the outset.

Thanks Megan for your review. When I ran into his analysis of "sweatshop" labor utility for workers, I was astounded by the lack of depth in his perspective. This book does come off as a thinly, barely, veiled support system for the false dichotomies often proposed in association with so-called conservative neoliberal politics. As you point out, there is so much more to economics and the behaviors of people and markets than what is presented here. It's worth a read for basic principles, but don't fool yourself that it's comprehensive enough to inform your opinions, unless you're only interested in using economic jargon to reinforce preexisting right-wing ideology. If you're looking for a book that argues income tax structure is anti-feminist, that you should be able to smack other people's kids on airplanes and that sweatshop workers exploited in the global labor market should be grateful, this is your book. If that's the case, you might also think you have a degree from Prager U.

Thank you. I wanted to see if this was a reasonable effort and it looks like this is just more nonsense like Henry Hazlitt's famous travesty.

Very few professional economists are willing to acknowledge that amount of goods bought = amount of goods sold, and yet this is the most fundamental law of economics.

People of the libertarian bent, of which unfortunately includes Mankiw and some of his cronies at places like Harvard, come up with brilliant arguments for the benefits of simultaneously increasing goods produceable and decreasing goods buyable in a closed economy and then write QED underneath these fantasies and pat themselves on the bat.

It is good to know that Charles Wheelan is in that crowd so I can avoid supporting that nonsense.

I've found this in a brazilian bookstore by the price of R$ 15,00 - something about 4 american dollars - very expensive for this bullshit full of ideological stuff hidden as a introduction to economics. Some of the arguments are an insult for every person who lives beneath the blindeness of developed nations. There is a whole paragraph saying that workers from unhealthy asian factories overlooked other better jobs when they went to work in those places and I would not be surprised if the author has written that lying down on his sofa while watching a big and flat TV.

The funny thing is that economics really worked and there were dozen of stuck copies of this garbage in that bookstore. The cover says is an US best-seller, however. OMG, is it serious that americans aren't aware of what really happen's in the world?

"For most of human history, people have supported themselves without jobs; that's a fairly new social invention, historically speaking. And not something I needed to finish Wheelan's book to know about, nor a point that he seemed willing to address. There are lots of histories one can read about the ways in which the autonomy of those who used to be able to provide for themselves via farming and communal support has been destroyed by the taking of common or public land, forcing them to then rely on jobs by the very corporations or wealthy who have taken that land away by force."

And never before have people been so wealthy and had it as easy as we do now. The poorest today are richer than the rich hundreds of years ago in many ways. Jobs allow us to concentrate on what we are best at and what maximizes our utility. Wheelan goes over this toward the end of the book, which I presume you didn't get to. By everyone focusing on what maximizes their utility and then trading with others, everyone wins. The pie grows, thereby even the smallest slice growing with it. Autonomy is not the answer. Globalization, trade and innovation is.

Hobey, so what you're saying is you actually read books on history and economics. Good plan. For those who don't enjoy books on such subjects there is great little book with big print and lots of pictures: "The Good Old Days, They Were Terrible." There are others that enumerate how terrible life was before our modern comfortable jobs and longer lives but this one is short and an easy read.