288 pages
Published May 30, 2021 by Feltrinelli.
Ventitré miti economici, quelli che gli economisti neoliberisti ci propongono da decenni e i cui risultati disastrosi sono sotto gli occhi di tutti. Ha-Joon Chang, uno dei più rispettati economisti al mondo, li individua, li analizza e li sfata uno per uno, mostrandoci come funziona davvero il sistema e quali sono gli interessi che vi si nascondono. Perché non sono entità astratte come i mercati a far andare le cose nel modo in cui vanno, ma le decisioni umane, specialmente quelle prese da chi stabilisce le regole. Qualche esempio? “I mercati devono essere liberi.” – No, il libero mercato non esiste. “Il mondo è cambiato da quando c’è internet.” – No, l’introduzione della lavatrice ha avuto conseguenze più significative. “Dobbiamo creare la ricchezza prima di distribuirla.” – No, rendere le persone ricche ancora più ricche non ci rende ricchi a nostra volta. “L’Occidente è più intraprendente per natura.” – No, …
Ventitré miti economici, quelli che gli economisti neoliberisti ci propongono da decenni e i cui risultati disastrosi sono sotto gli occhi di tutti. Ha-Joon Chang, uno dei più rispettati economisti al mondo, li individua, li analizza e li sfata uno per uno, mostrandoci come funziona davvero il sistema e quali sono gli interessi che vi si nascondono. Perché non sono entità astratte come i mercati a far andare le cose nel modo in cui vanno, ma le decisioni umane, specialmente quelle prese da chi stabilisce le regole. Qualche esempio? “I mercati devono essere liberi.” – No, il libero mercato non esiste. “Il mondo è cambiato da quando c’è internet.” – No, l’introduzione della lavatrice ha avuto conseguenze più significative. “Dobbiamo creare la ricchezza prima di distribuirla.” – No, rendere le persone ricche ancora più ricche non ci rende ricchi a nostra volta. “L’Occidente è più intraprendente per natura.” – No, i paesi poveri sono più intraprendenti di quelli ricchi. In questo libro dai toni ironici, ricco di spiegazioni accessibili a ogni tipo di lettore sul funzionamento dei mercati e del mondo del lavoro, sull’uguaglianza e la globalizzazione, Chang distrugge i più ingombranti di quei miti. E ci spiega come non esserne schiavi, aiutandoci a capire quali possano essere i modi per plasmare un capitalismo con fini più umani.
Fantastic! It presents numerous examples that challenge the dominant free-market ideology—not by outright debunking it, but by introducing counterpoints that encourage a broader, more nuanced perspective. It’s reminiscent of a left-wing Thomas Sowell.
People tend to rate books of this kind according to whether or not they agree with what they imagine to be their underlying politics--that is, instead of evaluating the book, they vote for or against the writer as a candidate. This is less a matter of capitalism, since the votes don't actually count for anything, than a matter of identity--one identifies with certain points of view and doesn't want to be seen as an advocate of certain other points of view. That makes both the ratings and the accompanying reviews of these books less than useful. I would like to promise you that this review would not be one of those and indeed I will do my best to avoid it but I also fear I may not succeed but maybe that isn't my call to make.
I was suspicious of the title because it seemed very conspiracy theory-ish. Who, …
People tend to rate books of this kind according to whether or not they agree with what they imagine to be their underlying politics--that is, instead of evaluating the book, they vote for or against the writer as a candidate. This is less a matter of capitalism, since the votes don't actually count for anything, than a matter of identity--one identifies with certain points of view and doesn't want to be seen as an advocate of certain other points of view. That makes both the ratings and the accompanying reviews of these books less than useful. I would like to promise you that this review would not be one of those and indeed I will do my best to avoid it but I also fear I may not succeed but maybe that isn't my call to make.
I was suspicious of the title because it seemed very conspiracy theory-ish. Who, after all, is the "they" that isn't telling you? But the first few "things" were explained so well and not steeped in ideology that I relaxed. In fact it made it extra clear that poor explanation is the rule outside of this book—that the every day language of economics is often set up to force a conclusion that has more to do with politics than with logic. The very term "free market" makes it sound as if the only alternative is authoritarian. (It is also interesting to see how the highly authoritarian China manages to make capitalism work very well indeed all the while pretending it's communist.)
I found some of the later chapters harder to follow (too technical for the level of study I was willing to put in) and some arguments less compelling than they might be. An example of the latter was the one (#20) about equality of outcome needing to be pursued rather than stopping at equality of opportunity. His argument is that equality of opportunity doesn't really work the way we think.
Actually, his examples show something a bit different. The way I would explain it is that equality of opportunity is difficult to measure because of hard to quantify (or agree upon) lumps in the presumed to be level playing field. To put it another way, privilege (and its opposite) exist. For me, this would translate into doing better to implement equality of opportunity rather than jumping to equality of outcome, reserving the latter more as just one more test of how well you're doing in implementing the former. My phrasing also makes the conclusions less contentious.
The "things" that I found most relatable were: 5 and 16 because they were the most psychological. 5 asserts that people behave in accordance to how they're expected to, and 16 asserts that they're not as rational as they think they are. Number 5 was meant to argue that treating people as greedy makes them greedier and I believe this has a lot of truth to it but I feel it's even more applicable in general. If you have low expectations for people and communicate that to them, they're not likely to be ambitious, for example. The culture tends to be self-perpetuating because of its feedback. My own experience of this phenomenon is that I found that treating me as a criminal (giving me a $100 fine) when I improperly recycled my refuse actually turned me into a criminal. In practice I found it easier to violate the law deliberately and not get caught than to attempt further to comply and get hit with fines (sometimes incorrectly!) when I was judged to have failed. That is, treated as a criminal, I became one. Number 16 was meant to support some kind of limitation to how incomprehensible economic instruments could be, but I also think there's a general tendency for people to not notice the limits of their abilities to understand the universe and behave accordingly. In addition they are unaware of emotional forces warping their ability to be logical. This is part of why people argue ideologically in the first place. They start from the premise that they sufficiently understand what they don't but really are just stuck defending a simplified version which resonates with them and which they find too scary to abandon because then they will have to feel stupid.
For someone who slept through his economics classes (they met at 8AM!) this book is close enough to what I needed to read and you may find that true for you too if you're trying to get beyond the climate of ideology-based logic. It may help to understand that this guy is a capitalist and he's trying to fix capitalism, not instigate a proletarian revolution like some other reviewers seem to think. One of his more startling conclusions is that there might be a place for tax breaks for the rich if they are then legally compelled to reinvest the money they are getting back. (In other words, trickle-down economics might be made to work--but it sure isn't working now.)
I finished this a few days ago, but I was a bit slow updating here. I will say right away that this is a book that I would strongly recommend to almost anyone. Chang looks at capitalism via, well, 23 things that the powers that be, namely free market capitalists, conveniently fail to tell you. It is not that capitalism is bad per se. That is not the problem. The problem is in how it is currently practiced given massive inequalities, bad social conditions and even the bad economy. These things can certainly be fixed, but the drive has to be there (and that would be a whole other conversation). Chang offers a useful, informative, and accessible critique of capitalism and how it works. Though there are some dry passages (the reason I did not give this book five stars), as a whole the book is a very easy read. …
I finished this a few days ago, but I was a bit slow updating here. I will say right away that this is a book that I would strongly recommend to almost anyone. Chang looks at capitalism via, well, 23 things that the powers that be, namely free market capitalists, conveniently fail to tell you. It is not that capitalism is bad per se. That is not the problem. The problem is in how it is currently practiced given massive inequalities, bad social conditions and even the bad economy. These things can certainly be fixed, but the drive has to be there (and that would be a whole other conversation). Chang offers a useful, informative, and accessible critique of capitalism and how it works. Though there are some dry passages (the reason I did not give this book five stars), as a whole the book is a very easy read. If you are a reader worried that this is an "economics book," don't be. Chang explains everything clearly and uses a lot of examples that illustrate his points well. What we have here is a good economics book for the lay reader. I think this may even be a good textbook for classes in introductory economics; it certainly is a book that invites discussion. For me, at least, it was a book worth reading.
