David and Goliath by Malcolm Gladwell
I am a reader, or at least I use to be, but in the last couple of years I have found it hard to read. It could be that personal matters and writing books made me too jittery to sit and comprehend the written page. Reading became a chore. In order to relax at the end of long day, I switched to the less demanding activity of watching seasons of TV shows (Bones, Suits, White Collar, Newsroom, The Good Wife, Downton Abby, Persons of Interest, to name a few and I do mean a few). Unlike watching TV shows, reading requires a slowing down of the heart rate and the eye speed in order to grasp the material. I couldn’t seem to do it. That is, until I picked up David and Goliath. Then, all the old habits, which made reading such a pleasure, flooded back. I have to say, Gladwell has made me glad read again.
Gladwell writes the way a good preacher preaches. He tells familiar stories but always injects a surprise. He repeats his themes often so you don’t have to take notes to remember them. Finally, he engages the emotions as well as the intellect. I have read all his books and they are all great but this one is special. Even though it isn’t autobiographical, it feels personal–as if he really wants to tell these stories.
Some of those stories include the ideas of economists. Indeed, after reading his body of work, he seems to like to popularize the work of academics. This book covers the research of economists who Gladwell thinks got it right and those he thinks got it wrong. As an economist, I have to say that when we are wrong in our predictions, it isn’t usually the model that is incorrect (ie marginal benefits and marginal costs) but that all of the costs and benefits including externalities weren’t accounted for. (In the real world, this is very easy to do.) Overall, one of Gladwell’s major themes–that disadvantages can actually be helpful–speaks to the economic idea that people are optimizers–doing the best the can with what they’ve got. This book very much has an economic undertone.
He also tells stories which are sympathetic to people who live by faith. I found this refreshing in an intellectual climate that treats religion as ‘fundamentally’ suspect. I am a woman of faith and I felt safe in Gladwell’s presence.
My only criticism of the book is that it ends too abruptly. David and Goliath needed more to finish things off. I kept turning the last page to make sure I hadn’t missed something but it wasn’t there.
I eagerly look forward to Gladwell’s next book both as an economist and a christian.
(We don’t just put up with our limitations; we celebrate them, and then go on to celebrate every strength, every triumph of the truth in you. 2 Corinthians 13:9b)
“Economics shapes our everyday lives,” he says, “but the notion of value in the economic domain doesn’t come close to defining what is really valuable in life: things like love, family, career.” What does the economic system value? Profit. Russon acknowledges that the economic set-up we have is essential in our society. “We need banks, we need money, we need to participate in the marketplace,” Russon says. “However, although economics is important, it must be subordinate. It can’t be in charge. When the marketplace sets the terms for our lives, we’re in trouble.” John Russon
I just can’t help myself. When I read this piece on the University of Guelph’s homepage (my university), I just had to respond somehow. It is clear to me that Russon’s thinking about what economics says or doesn’t say is muddled.
1) Economics is fundamentally about people. It is the study of how people behave given a world of scarcity. One of the assumptions we find useful is that businesses try to maximize profits. It turns out to be a pretty good assumption about how they really behave which helps us make predictions. But businesses (or firms as we like to call them) are only half the story. The other half of the market are the households who are made up of families who love each other and face the world with their value system. They supply inputs such as labour (which makes for a career) and savings (which banks turn into loans) into the market place. Households also buy the goods and services that firms produce. People do not think about profits per se but about their happiness (or utility–which is a concept developed by a philosopher by the way). Ultimately, everything goes back to households who care about being happy. It turns out that when their stock portfolio or savings (at the bank) makes positive returns due to profits made by firms who borrowed the money, it makes them happy. When companies make profits and pay their workers, it makes them happy. When people use money instead of barter to pay bills or buy things, it saves so much time that it makes them happy. Institutional market-less poverty is truly miserable as the Great Leap Forward showed us.
2) All economists acknowledge that markets can fail. In the case of the environment, it is precisely because it lies outside the market system that it is failing. The environment has what we call externalities associated with it. Thus the market does not capture all of the costs associated with firm activities. We acknowledge that this is a problem which requires a solution. But not all solutions are created equal. We would argue that the best ones work inside the market to get the right results. For example carbon taxes are one solution to the problem and one that many economists think works better than environmental regulations. However, either solution imposes a cost on the firm when they pollute. They can no longer treat the environment as if were free. After all free is really a price. At the other extreme when a price becomes infinite (which is what I assume priceless means in this case) then there should be no activity at all. No heat in our homes, no food on our tables, and no clothes on our backs because consumption of each of these degrade the environment to some degree. Not a happy place for households.
3) Ipso facto we need prices somewhere between zero and infinite to help households make good choices. In econ-speak we say that people maximize utility (which contain their preferences) subject to constraints, constraints that create prices. For example when my children were young I worked and with my income I bought things like toys because it made me happy because of the pleasure it gave my children. I didn’t buy every toy available because I was on a budget. I chose things like books and Lego rather than items with batteries because I thought these toys were educational and I hate noise. Clearly, I entered the market-place a person with love, family and a career and found what I was looking for. The important stuff.
But apart from this contemporary mood, the ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Taken from The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money pg 383 by John Maynard Keynes
As far as I am concerned what you are about to read can only be described (in the British vernacular) as ‘brilliant’. Brian manages to bring to life the times and importance of Keynes in his introduction to The General Theory taught as a 4th year seminar course at the University of Guelph. It should be read by all who love or hate Keynesian economics. (Those who don’t really care are of course exempt.) If you are interested at all, you will find this text a pleasure to read.
See SSRN downloads for all of his lectures
Lectures on Keynes’ General Theory by Professor Brian Ferguson winter 2013:
Lecture 1: Chapter One, Background and Historical Setting
John Maynard Keynes’ General Theory of Employment, Interest and Prices is one of those rare books which actually deserves to be labeled revolutionary. Regardless of one’s take on Keynesian macroeconomics, the publication of the General Theory marked a major change in the way economists thought about macroeconomic issues. Indeed, Keynes can be credited with (or slammed for) creating the concept of macroeconomics. Arguably, prior to the General Theory, most professional economists thought of the macroeconomy in a general equilibrium sense, as an aggregate of a large number of individual markets, and they assumed that the analysis of how individual markets behaved could be carried over pretty much unchanged to the collection of markets which constituted the economy as a whole. There was, it seemed, no need to think of the economy as anything other than the sum of its parts, and an understanding of how those parts worked was sufficient to understand how the economy as a whole worked. After the General Theory, that no longer held. Economists started to think in terms of aggregates.