epub or PDF The Big Three in Economics author Mark Skousen – Kindle, eBook or Book Download


Free download The Big Three in Economics

The Big Three in Economics

History comes alive in this fascinating story of opposing views that continue to play a fundamental role in today's politics and economics The Big Three in Economics traces the turbulent lives and battle of ideas of the three most influential economists in world history Adam Smith representing laissez faire; Ka. This author is completely duped by right wing folly I am amazed that he supports supply side economics in light of the failed Reaganomics era See pages 48 49 Supply creates its own demand Really Does anyone even from Reagan s administration still believe in trickle down economics Then he goes on to try supporting him with misunderstood business statistics He blames 3rd World countries inept economies on Marxism and anticapitalist attitudes while citing a theory of imperialism and colonialism see pages 86 87 Wow maybe he should look into the United Fruit Company and the CIA just for starters He might learn something about failed 3rd World economics and politics not to mention external forces that made them feeble puppets Yet another example of his naivete or total lack of understanding Page 94 He says capitalismhas liberated the worker from the chains of poverty monopoly war and oppression Geez maybe he should heed Dwight Eisenhower s warning of the coming military industrial complex ie Lockheed Martin and then see if capitalism doesn t thrive on war Or how about our capitalist big wigs starting wReagan who eradicated the import tariff from 30% to 2% thus enabling the export of all of our manufacturing jobs overseas so they could earn higher profits Now we get to buy our favorite goods from Walmart and see little tags that say Made in China on almost everything How about those wages and benefits for Walmart employees anyway How does this guy believe himself Microeconomics the theory of supply demand vs Macroeconomics the theory of money and aggregate economic activityKeynes has my vote for best economic model based on free markets being kept in check by the government the way it should be It s hard to argue with 3 decades of unprecedented prosperity based on his model from 46 until 80 when Reagan turned everything upside down However Keynes put too much emphasis on consumption and not enough on saving I also didn t like his disregard for monetary policy and wanted to spend and spend creating deficits But we have spent our way out of depressions but never in the history of the world has any country gotten out of a depression by means of tax cuts But Smith is too anteuated and the invisible hand is too far outdated but does merit some basic truth Marx is too far to the left and doesn t allow people to follow their individual spiritI think different times and different technologies call for different economies so each theory has some merit at a certain time Considering the economic havoc that 30 years of Reaganomics Clintonomics and BushCo have wreaked pure Adam Smith style Laissez faire clearly does not help a middle class economy thrive It needs some regulations and government intervention to keep it under control Where would General Motors and Chrysler and their entire supply chain be without the government bailout Now they are profitableAgain Skousen goes on to defend Say on page 184 Thus we return to the truism of Say s law Supply production is important than demand consumption Consumption is the effect not the cause of prosperity Production saving and capital formation are the true cause Wow is this wrong When people demand your product what do you do You produce of it sell then reinvest your savings to credit him a little here in your company hire people and stimulate the economy You don t engage in Reagan voodoo supply side economics and produce a lot of something hoping people buy it Why is there a drug war on our borders Because the cartels know there is so much demand in the US that they kill each other for the market Demand creates supply plain and simple Capital formation investments etc are merely shifting money around not actually creating wealthDid Milton Friedman have a little bit of Socialism in him On page 194 he said about the Great Depression The government had acted ineptlyfailing to counter deflationery forces and bank collapsesSo in other words he would have supported Bush s socialism when he rescued the too big to fail banks Then Friedman says Far from the depression being a failure of the free enterprise system it was a tragic failure of government So if he refers to Bushco s cronies at Goldman Sachs and Wall Street all in bed together you could say that big money and bought off politicians mostly republicans are an example of government acting to create a depression In that sense Friedman is only right if you interpret government not pulling the reins at all on a market that was allowed to be way too free causing the rich to hoard their in Swiss bank accounts and sueezing the rest of us thanks to Reagan and Bush tax cuts Just as Do nothing Calvin Coolidge did in the 20s and Bush did in the 00s letting Laissez faire just run its course is a sure way to failure crash burn Milton Friedman advised Augusto Pinochet of Chile to privatize social security which helped lead to his fascist state similar to what republicans want to do in the USGeez I was going to highlite and disect the passages toward the end and criticize them but to save time I will simply declare that the last chapter is one total lie I was going to give it 2 stars just for the history of the evolution of economics but in the last paragraph where the author gloats about the endless benefits of free trade and privatizing Social Security I had to demote this book to 1 star only Thank God it s over

Summary ç PDF, eBook or Kindle ePUB free ´ Mark Skousen

Mith's invisible hand model has gained the upper hand and capitalism appears to have won the battle of ideas over socialism and interventionism But author Mark Skousen shows that even in the era of globalization and privatization Keynesian and Marxian ideas continue to play a significant role in economic policy. If uninspired to much The Big Three In Economics is a university level summation of major economists Instead of taking a scientific approach that dictates which views are correct ie Horowitz and now Stieglitz Skousen deals with the differing schools of economics and only briefly asserts which view holds most weight He puts the major three Smith Marx and Keynes into a progressive timeline Basically Smith the economic market is in constant progression to perfection eliminating defects and imperfections surrogate world leader Alexander HamiltonMarx the economic market is in a constant progression into oppression of the masses and must be replaced by a communal system surrogate world leader StalinKeynes the economic market is indifferent and must be shaped by outside governing bodies to keep it in a constant progression in either direction surrogate world leader FDR and ReaganAlso basically Smith was correct in establishing basic capitalism but incorrect in asserting that the market would always work for the good of its massesMarx was correct in understanding that capitalism has defects that produce slavery wage slavery disturbing poverty inflation deflation and the modern human capital markets to exploit labor but incorrect that communal forms of government reduce real human hardship and oppression ie the Soviet Union in macrocosm and Jonestown in microcosmKeynes was correct in his belief that government can influence the economy ie the Depression being caused by the Federal Reserve lowering interest rates but also defective as his views that the government running a deficit to create a welfare system as a temporary measure would stay temporary or reduce real human oppressionThis meansSmith s lasting legacy is that his invisible hand capitalist society decreased working hours and increased wages and freedom but didn t curtail what Keynes later called involuntary unemployment Marx s lasting legacy is the failure of the Soviet Union and his influence on KeynesAnd Keynes s lasting legacy was his hybridization of government and the economy which worked out well for some generations Truman through Kennedy and disastrously for others namely 2008 on Keynes also created his own rival in Milton Friedman who advocated the hybridization of the market and government in the opposite that Keynes did where government works for business as opposed to the public which created corporate welfare in the same sense that Keynes created welfare for the poor ie the Detroit bailoutsThis brings economists to modern times 2008 Stieglitz and the World Bank Do any of the three work in the modern framework of1 America now being a service and capital banking economy instead of a goods economy 2 the prevalence of an interconnected world market that uses American capital as the stabilizing point for other currencies and foreign governments 3 the acceptance of hybrid government economies being reliant on socialized economies that in turn don t produce enough capital to sustain themselves ie the modern Nordic countries often sourced in the modern pro socialist movement and borrow endlessly from American capital to sustain themselves even as the United States has difficulty sustaining its own capital ie 2008 In other words in a modern America propped up on interest returns from hybrid socialist countries that endlessly borrow and can t repay their own principals much less their interest 4 Duel welfare systems that support both non working poor and also prop up failed business5 ineuality between classes that has become akin to that of a past century British economy namely due to points 3 and 46 the Euro Brexit China America gross product relations the World Bank and the economically unstable socialist countries becoming major world forces In his memoir on the financial crisis former Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner argues that his reaction to 2008 was the opposite of Mellon s during the Depression He refused Smith letting the market recover organically and Marx there were no mass socialized payments for the struggling American population and only somewhat embraced Keynes the largest bailout in history is government action to be sure but he never advocated for major policy changes to stabilize markets in the years after the crash Geithner in a very real way rejected the work of the most important economists And during the crisis his structure not only held but survived This wasn t an economic system to replace those of peacetime it was a reactionary measure to a crisis and can only be seen as such Also the recovery process after 2008 has left the world economy with thousands of defects but in a small way Geithner still made it clear that rejecting old solutions to new problems is a viable option and perhaps the only option In opposite Stieglitz a modern day rebuttal to Friedman and a key figure in the creation of the World Bank is the most outspoken of the modern economists He argues for a continuation of Keynes that would include not only welfare for the poor but also a Marx ish though not Marxist redistribution of wealth This seems to be the policy stance of most progressive politicians and is uite popular among many voting constituencies It is also unfortunately as simple minded of a solution as one would expect from an economist working through modern data with ideas that are nearly a century oldEconomics sits aside health and governance as one of the most dictating factors of a person s life Freedom is filtered through one s economic status and that dictates their actions and interactions from birth to death As important as a nation s and world s economy is then I find it disturbing that the basis for our modern economic structure rests in arguments as weak as those presented by the big three At best all three contributed framework for a stable economy but none answered for an economy s defects in a way that has lasted beyond that economists own immediate generation Smith still haunts modern corporate America but he doesn t understand why it progressed so poorly 2008 being the biggest blow to his body of work yet Marx still echoes through rhetoric of socialist politicians but he would be disturbed to see the duel welfare states propping up both poor and rich while the working class labors under similar problems that he advocated against Keynes with his belief that markets are indifferent would inevitably find modern America fascinating namely because he created it through FDR and Reagan Still Keynes realized at the time of his own death in 1946 that there was little else he could do to shape the world He was intellectually bankrupted by the Depression WWII and FDR Like Smith had he lived to see 2008 his own faith in his life work would likely have collapsed entirely The main point that can be taken from a study of the past two centuries of major economists is this they were products of their times and an answer to the problems of their times The world can be changed and it changed constantly but only by original ideas It is unfortunate to hear modern economists and their surrogate politicians argue for policy that only somewhat worked a hundred years ago isn t working now and is even less likely to work in the future In economics as with medical science old answers rarely make new advancements There is likely to be no direct answers in antiuated pre WWII forms of government and economics The big three only found their status as such because they answered the uestions of their times with new answers not old ones They built off their predecessors but their concepts were original to their times and their worlds If there is hope for a post 2008 economy that is as interconnected as ours that hope won t be in looking to the past but to using the past as inspiration for originality Dont Try This At Home years after the crash Geithner in a very real way rejected the work of the most important economists And during the crisis his structure not only held but survived This wasn t an economic system to replace those of peacetime it was a reactionary measure to a crisis and can only be seen as such Also the recovery process after 2008 has left the world economy with thousands of defects but in a small way Geithner still made it clear that rejecting old solutions to new problems is a viable option and perhaps the only option In opposite Stieglitz a modern day rebuttal to Friedman and a key figure in the creation of the World Bank is the most outspoken of the modern economists He argues for a continuation of Keynes that would include not only welfare for the poor but also a Marx ish though not Marxist redistribution of wealth This seems to be the policy stance of most progressive politicians and is uite popular among many voting constituencies It is also unfortunately as simple minded of a solution as one would expect from an economist working through modern data with ideas that are nearly a century oldEconomics sits aside health and governance as one of the most dictating factors of a person s life Freedom is filtered through one s economic status and that dictates their actions and interactions from birth to death As important as a nation s and world s economy is then I find it disturbing that the basis for our modern economic structure rests in arguments as weak as those presented by the big three At best all three contributed framework for a stable economy but none answered for an economy s defects in a way that has lasted beyond that economists own immediate generation Smith still haunts modern corporate America but he doesn t understand why it progressed so poorly 2008 being the biggest blow to his body of work Who Was Seabiscuit yet Marx still echoes through rhetoric of socialist politicians but he would be disturbed to see the duel welfare states propping up both poor and rich while the working class labors under similar problems that he advocated against Keynes with his belief that markets are indifferent would inevitably find modern America fascinating namely because he created it through FDR and Reagan Still Keynes realized at the time of his own death in 1946 that there was little else he could do to shape the world He was intellectually bankrupted by the Depression WWII and FDR Like Smith had he lived to see 2008 his own faith in his life work would likely have collapsed entirely The main point that can be taken from a study of the past two centuries of major economists is this they were products of their times and an answer to the problems of their times The world can be changed and it changed constantly but only by original ideas It is unfortunate to hear modern economists and their surrogate politicians argue for policy that only somewhat worked a hundred My Big Book Of Sewing years ago isn t working now and is even less likely to work in the future In economics as with medical science old answers rarely make new advancements There is likely to be no direct answers in antiuated pre WWII forms of government and economics The big three only found their status as such because they answered the uestions of their times with new answers not old ones They built off their predecessors but their concepts were original to their times and their worlds If there is hope for a post 2008 economy that is as interconnected as ours that hope won t be in looking to the past but to using the past as inspiration for originality

Mark Skousen ´ 5 review

Rl Marx reflecting the radical socialist model; and John Maynard Keynes symbolizing big government and the welfare state Each view has had a significant influence on shaping the modern world and the book traces the development of each philosophy through the eyes of its creator In the twenty first century Adam S. I was very happy to discover this book In recent years it has been way too popular to write sensationalist reactionary or critiue books so it was delightful to find a book that goes through the economiclifesociety thinking and actions of the last couple of centuries with a focus on what works and constructive thinking I usually dislike in books passages about the actual daily lives of thinkersshakers of history but here they were brief and they actually had relevant points One could however be excused if after going through it they felt that economics was uite a mess so I wouldn t advise this one to somebody who hasn t gone through at least 3 fundamentals books but then again by doing that people might risk being exposed to popular sensationalist thinking so on second though yes it would be okay P As for the constant and cyclical debates it s funny how they keep coming back how different sides use the same event to argue contrary things The bottom line is that these are really huge scale things and ones hard to test in human experience Thomas Sowell s A conflict of vision comes to mind as touching on the deeper issue of the sides but that s even tougher reading P As for my personal side I tend to lean on the original core economics concepts the power of many people to make wise choices without somebody telling them from a top what to do I share Adam s Smith s amazement at how markets seem to produce goods than those who state they want to and after many books and thinking about it I lean and away from very complex arguments which seem to be endlessly debated and towards simple ones such as this one every individual has information that no centralized powergovernmentgroup can reasonably assimilateuse and by his small every day activity he truthfully reveals his values than even his own words and together people produce a truthful direction than even the most well intended global intentions


10 thoughts on “The Big Three in Economics

  1. says:

    This author is completely duped by right wing folly I am amazed that he supports supply side economics in light of the failed Reaganomics era See pages 48 49 Supply creates its own demand Really?? Does anyone even from Reagan's administration still believe in trickle down economics?? Then he goes on to try supporting him with misunderstood

  2. says:

    Has anyone who have read this book been surprised to know that the author was a Trump voter?

  3. says:

    For a book that claims to be objective the big three in economics is decidedly biased against Marxism and portrays it in a very unflattering light Devil imagery often used whilst depicting Adam Smith as a saint

  4. says:

    “The first human was Adam The first economist was Adam Smith”I feel fortunate to have prior knowledge of political spectrum especially in the US before reading this book Clearly Skousen is biased to the right as he described Smi

  5. says:

    I was very happy to discover this book In recent years it has been way too popular to write sensationalist reactionary or critiue books so it was delightful to find a book that goes through the economiclifesociety thinking and actions of the last couple of centuries with a focus on what works and constructive thinking I usually dislike in books passages about the actual daily lives of thinkersshakers of histor

  6. says:

    Very clear and very informative until I got to the Keynesian section and then I was just bottled by margins and other jargon I think the author made a case against Keynesian economics at the end but I'm not sure I understood correctlyDespite that this book provided the essential background information that I wanted and I'd recommend it to any other jack of all trades interested in a smidgen of economics

  7. says:

    This book actually delivers than it promises not only profiles of the life and economic thought of Smith Marx and Keynes but also an adeuate

  8. says:

    I read Alliance The Inside Story of How Roosevelt Stalin and Churchill Won One War and Began Another and John Maynard Key

  9. says:

    If uninspired to much The Big Three In Economics is a university level summation of major economists Instead of taking a scientific approach that dictates which views are correct ie Horowitz and now Stieglitz Skousen deals with the differing schools of economics and only briefly asserts which view holds most weight He puts the major three—Smith Marx and Keynes—into a progressive timeline Basically Smith the economic market i

  10. says:

    Skousen's book is openly biased against Marx and Keynes and in favour of an idealized version of Adam Smith in a way that makes som

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *