"We cannot solve a crisis without treating it as a crisis.
To all of you who choose to look the other way every day because you seem more frightened of"We cannot solve a crisis without treating it as a crisis.
To all of you who choose to look the other way every day because you seem more frightened of the changes that can prevent catastrophic climate change than the catastrophic climate change itself.
Your silence is almost worst of all.
The future of all the coming generations rests on your shoulders.
Those of us who are still children can’t change what you do now once we’re old enough to do something about it.
So please, treat the climate crisis like the acute crisis it is and give us a future.
Economics runs on images. The language of economics is built upon the iconic imagery of supply and demand curves, circular flow models, GDP growth curEconomics runs on images. The language of economics is built upon the iconic imagery of supply and demand curves, circular flow models, GDP growth curves and IS-LM models. Raworth seeks to change the language of economics. How? By changing the fundamental images that define economic models.
So what ails Modern Economics? Raworth is not exactly correct in saying that modern economics still runs on the rational-actor model and hence is limited by it. Not when we have Nobel laureates sitting pretty with bestselling books and superstar ideas about behavioural economics that tears down the old models. The problem in fact is not that the models are flawed or that economists are unaware of their own limiting assumptions built into the models. The real problem is that the aims, the end goals, of modern economics are still perhaps out of sync with reality. The neo-liberal idea that everything can be left to the market is only a pipe-dream - no serious policymaker depends on it today. Much of economic progress, just like much of political and societal progress have been made, as Pinker says, by the gradual pushing of the left-right boundary further and further towards the left. What was once marxist is now neo-liberal. The good fight goes on, but trusting the market is not the real problem of the day. That is not the reform needed in economics.
The next big reform has to focus on the overriding goal of all economics - GROWTH! Economic Growth is the assumed solution to all ills. Raworth takes this to be a case of an almost religious belief in a 'Kuznet's Curve of Everything' (in fact a good marker to test if any argument is in part belief-based is to see if there is an assumed Kuznet's curve present in the argument). Almost every argument and every policy seems to assure us that it will get worse now, but it will get better tomorrow as long as Growth continues. Growth must go on.
This is the core paradigm that Raworth really wants to shift. Raworth asks: “What if we started economics not with its long-established theories, but with humanity’s long-term goals, and then sought out the economic thinking that would enable us to achieve them?” How spectacular is that question? Instead of chasing growth and assuming it will give us the things we value, can economics chase the things we value directly?
To be honest, there is nothing particularly new in Raworth's attempt. This is exactly what has been the attempt since the radical 'Limits to Growth' intellectual movement took root. What Raworth is doing differently though is that here the revolution is waged, not using speeches and big ideas, but using images. And in economics nothing is as powerful as images!
Enter the Doughnut: a sort of miracle diagram that is apparently going to change the world. The inner ring represents the “social foundation”, the situation in which everyone on the planet has sufficient food and social security. The outer ring represents the “ecological ceiling”, beyond which excess consumption degrades the environment beyond repair. The aim is to get humanity into the area between the rings, where everyone has enough but not too much – or, as Raworth calls it, “the doughnut’s safe and just space”. [image] Thus the Doughnut is the image Raworth uses to represent the limits to growth, and to rub in the fact that we cannot rely on the processes of growth to redress inequality and solve the problem of pollution. Now, the doughnut is a powerful image and Raworth is a great ambassador for it, but it might not be enough, especially because Raworth clearly pitches her camp on the left as far as economic arguments are concerned - and as we know by now, that is often enough for whole ideas to be rejected unilaterally by the rest of the political and economic community... Reading the book, one feels that she seems a bit overoptimistic about the possibility of changing the predominant neoliberal/conservative mindset, essentially through persuasion, as if she is not fully aware of how deep the fault-lines lie in these things. The doughnut may not be powerful enough an image to pull this off...
But, the main point of the book is not just about the Doughnut, it is that there is a fresh new path towards changing the economic orthodoxy that is built into all political debates - most of the simplistic economics debates are possible because the right has access to some basic ideas and concepts that can be visualised easily - 'Economics 101', as they keep repeating.
Raworth's attempt at providing a powerful counter, and hence a possibility of rebuilding the imagery of economics textbooks is commendable, and could eventually be a game changer - not because of the idea of the doughnut, but because of the approach it represents. A truly significant modern economics book, for a change....more
Take a fun book and add calculus to it. You might expect that to ruin it. Well, no. It 'supplements'. This is the supplementary book to back up the CaTake a fun book and add calculus to it. You might expect that to ruin it. Well, no. It 'supplements'. This is the supplementary book to back up the Cartoon Intro to Economics by the same author. Here we get a summary of the cartoon stuff in plain english, just in case we were not able to follow illustrated examples and adds algebra and plenty of problems and detailed solutions. Together these two books, do make a pretty good text book. But the structural issues pointed out in the review to the original book still stands.
Bauman is fun as always and has the knack for picking the right pirate analogy for the right skirmish. Bauman, however, skips most of the traditional Bauman is fun as always and has the knack for picking the right pirate analogy for the right skirmish. Bauman, however, skips most of the traditional basics from most microeconomics textbooks, and instead gives a lot of space to game theory and strategic interactions, things normally reserved for the later chapters of an introductory textbook, or for an intermediate text.
The structure of the book overall is interesting, for an introductory work: Economics is about interactions, Bauman establishes first and then takes us through the progression: first one to one, then one to some and finally one to many, with Part two being taken up with detailed discussion of Game Theory, Pareto Efficiency, Auctions, etc., laying the ground work for larger scale interactions like Tragedy of the Commons in the final section, but surprisingly not much discussions about Nash Equilibriums and stuff. But there is one area where the book stays conventional: just like most introductory books these days, this one also teaches skepticism of the species Homo Economicus, and, of course, ends with Kahneman. [image] Overall, it is an unconventional book and I am not sure students turning to this to seek an introduction would be helped much, instead it might be the seasoned student seeking to get some fresh energy late into a final semester who might find this sort of a treatment invigorating.
Forder attempts an introduction to and a defence of economics, rolled into one. Gets a bit muddled for the most part, but there were areas where genuiForder attempts an introduction to and a defence of economics, rolled into one. Gets a bit muddled for the most part, but there were areas where genuine insight jumped at the reader. But one thing is for certain, this is no beginner’s guide. The structure of the book and the arguments in defence of economics, all make it clear that the author is talking to someone who is well versed in economics in general, but is a bit skeptical of it, perhaps post-2008. In other words, Forder’s audience is the Economics grad student, who is on the verge of disillusionment. This defence aims to pull the unfaithful back, but it will take more persuasive prose, I am afraid....more
Dawkins fanboy tries to dress up an ideological book as a scientific one. Tries to show that Darwin's theory of evolution is just a byproduct or a speDawkins fanboy tries to dress up an ideological book as a scientific one. Tries to show that Darwin's theory of evolution is just a byproduct or a specific version of the general theory of evolution proposed by Adam Smith about the emergent order that will prevail bottom-up in any free society of selfish actors. In the process ends up unwittingly using just another"skyhook" - that of benevolent evolution - throughout, by arguing endlessly that all the good things happened bottom-up and all the bad things happened top-down.
Except that, as per the core argument, all top-down things also must have been products of evolution. If Everything Evolves, all things good or bad, bottom-up or top-down evolved too. Hence the concept of evolution cannot in itself justify just let everything play out - including economics, institutions and even climate change, for that matter. There is really no guarantee things will always play out well if 'bottom-up' - just look at the latest elections!
Just "Let Everything Be" can't be the ultimate policy outlook unless Ridley truly believes The Invisible Hand to be the Hand of God directing everything as if by providence towards the good of mankind. And if that is not so and Evolution indeed is blind, then perhaps the occasional nudges in the right direction may work too?
As with most left vs right debates, the book only enforces for me the fact that pure free market is not the solution, nor is a command economy - evolution can take us to either side and we need to intervene to keep the balance, and that continuous self-correction is part of our social evolution too, as is the occasional over-correction. No Skyhooks needed, we just need to be less in thrall of 'Men of System'.
There, I have used enough pointed references for one review. Now enjoy the historic day.
Loading...
