|
| Economic Facts and Fallacies | 
 enlarge | Author: Thomas Sowell
Publisher: Basic Books
Category: Book
List Price: $26.00
Buy New: $12.95
You Save: $13.05 (50%)
New (39) Used (12) from $9.00
Avg. Customer Rating:  53 reviews
Sales Rank: 394
Media: Hardcover
Number Of Items: 1
Pages: 272
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.9
Dimensions (in): 9.2 x 6.2 x 0.9
ISBN: 0465003494
Dewey Decimal Number: 330
EAN: 9780465003495
ASIN: 0465003494
Publication Date: December 31, 2007
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
|
| Also Available In:
|
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
Economic Facts and Fallacies exposes some of the most popular fallacies about economic issues-and does so in a lively manner and without requiring any prior knowledge of economics by the reader. These include many beliefs widely disseminated in the media and by politicians, such as mistaken ideas about urban problems, income differences, male-female economic differences, as well as economics fallacies about academia, about race, and about Third World countries. One of the themes of Economic Facts and Fallacies is that fallacies are not simply crazy ideas but in fact have a certain plausibility that gives them their staying power-and makes careful examination of their flaws both necessary and important, as well as sometimes humorous. Written in the easy-to-follow style of the author’s Basic Economics, this latest book is able to go into greater depth, with real world examples, on specific issues.
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 48 more reviews...
 Sowell Has the Facts and the Theory, but not the Answers January 29, 2008
263 out of 364 found this review helpful
I preface my review of Thomas Sowell's Economic Facts and Fallacies with two semi-personal accounts. First, many years ago my young wife and I took the subway to Boston Common to a Fair Play for Cuba demonstration (this was before we drove Castro into the USSR's arms with a trade embargo and other hostilities). Pete Seeger sang a Spanish Civil War freedom song, and when he was done, he said "We might have lost the war, but we had all the good songs." The crowd laughed, but I was dumb-struck. I swore that I would never be satisfied having good songs, especially if this got in the way of winning the battle for human rights and dignity. The point is not to be a Good Person with High Ideals. The point is to contribute to making a better society.
Second, all my life I have been a strong admirer of John Stuart Mill (I wrote a chapter of my Ph.D. dissertation on his model of individual utility). One of his most courageous acts was to be arrested for distributing birth control information in the poor neighborhoods of London. Why did he do this? Well, at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution in England, numerous "utopian socialists" had devised plans for human betterment, especially for the elimination of poverty through intentional communities. The great economist Thomas Malthus' Essay on Population purported to show the futility of poverty relief, arguing that increasing the consumption of the masses would simply lead to a higher birth rate, hence more pressure on food sources, leading to a return to poverty, only with a larger population. We know now that Malthus was wrong (Google "demographic transition" and "agricultural productivity"), but his argument seemed cogent at the time. Indeed, economics was called the "dismal science" because economists like Malthus and Ricardo continually developed ingenious arguments as to why social betterment was impossible. However, John Stuart Mill saw the fallacy in Malthus's argument: if increased consumption were accompanied by a means for birth control, then the masses could enjoy a higher standard of living. I admire Mill because he accepted a dismal economic analysis because he thought it correct, and then tried to solve the social problem involved (poverty) even given the veracity of the economic argument.
Thomas Sowell is a serious economist and a fine writer. There is not a single argument in this book that I think is either incorrect or even disingenuous. Everyone interested in economic and social policy should read this, and his other writings. Sowell is best as showing how statistics can mislead. For instance, he says "It is an undisputed fact that the average real income...of American households rose by only 6 percent over the entire period from 1969 to 1996...But it is an equally undisputed fact that the average real income per person in the United States rose by 51 percent over that very same period." (p. 125) Both are true because average household size decreased dramatically over the period, with more elderly couples and fewer children per married couple in the later period.
Nota bene: commentators who give the household change while ignoring the individual change are slimebags. You may say that they are well-intentioned, but that does not change the fact that they are liars out to mislead the uniformed. Sowell often manages to reveal the liars and slimebags for what they are. Moreover, this is a service to us all, for how are we to identify and solve social problems if we do not know what they are?
My only serious criticism of Sowell is that he is rather more like Thomas Malthus than like John Stuart Mill in temperament. He repeatedly attempts to say that a social problem is less serious than liberals believe, or that a problem cannot be solved by a social intervention. Sowell's deep understanding of the capitalist system is not deployed to generate novel, effective, solutions to problems. In this, he differs from his mentor, Milton Friedman, whose Capitalism and Freedom contained numerous creative interventions, including the negative income tax and school vouchers.
To whet the reader's appetite, here are a few of Sowell's positions. (1) Rent control is a stupid way to help the poor, because it drives down the supply of affordable housing; (2) Racial discrimination is not the cause of income differences between blacks and whites, which are virtually equal when correcting for IQ, education, experience, and other demographic variables; (3) the same is true for the role of gender discrimination in accounting for the lower incomes of women as opposed to men; (4) Slavery, racism, and discrimination are not the cause of the social pathologies associated with poor black inner-city neighborhoods; rather the causes lie in a variant of black culture inherited from traditional southern poor white culture; (5) Poverty in the third world is not caused by imperialism or wealth in the rich countries.
In each of these, and several other areas, I think Sowell's arguments are correct, and should be take serious when proposing vigorous social policies for creating a more equal and fair distribution of the world's resources and produced wealth.
 Excellent Reference... January 22, 2008
108 out of 116 found this review helpful
I got this book to check out Sowell's take on the "Vanishing Middle Class." In just a few paragraph's he is able to completely turn that notion on it's head... and show why the oft repeated claim is jibberish. I now know this book will be an excellent resource for fighting commonly held economic fallacies. Yesterday I read the chapter on Men vs. Women pay. The commonly held belief is that women don't make as much as a man because of discrimination. While keeping an open minded view that discrimination could come in to play, Sowell delivers an extremely convincing alternative argument for the discrepancy in pay. This book really is an eye opener.
Willful Error...Forever. February 14, 2008
96 out of 109 found this review helpful
Economic Fallacies is the third book by Thomas Sowell I've read this year and it continues to illustrate why he is one of the most important conservatives in America today. His writing beams with scholarship and clarity. There are no wasted words and the work is an arsenal of information. These chapters should be read and reread as they thoroughly refute the positions of those who irrationally regard America as being a racist, sexist and corrupt state.
Sowell debunks the myth of female oppression by highlighting the way that statistics are jiggled in the hopes of morphing the USA into a patriarchy. Indeed, in my opinion, our nation is closer to being a matriarchy than it is anything else. The old 74 cent to the dollar feminist canard is refuted after he teases out the example of unmarried, childless women. They oftentimes are anything but oppressed. Indeed, in many cases they make even more money than their male age-mate peers. Much of the difference between the sexes, in terms of wage, is a result of personal choice. Women work fewer hours and are more likely to choose stability over cash when deciding on a career. Women also select less dangerous jobs than do men as indicated by the statistic he cites showing that 92 percent of those who die in job-related accidents are male.
In terms of class, all of us who ever have tried to debate the left comprehend the error in their perceptions--as does Sowell who eliminates their positions with ease. Unfortunately, it's a serious challenge to ever get them to come around as they would feel contaminated should they ever try to examine world events through the eyes of a conservative. Rife among our opposition is the belief that only a finite amount of money exists in the world, and, if you have lots of it, that automatically means that thousands have none of it. While pseudo-liberals appear to have heard of "economic growth" they have yet to internalize its meaning. This is why they are so enamored with redistributing the rest of population's wealth. They dub this larceny "social justice" despite real social justice embodying the practice of letting people keep what they earn. Tragically, without a basic understanding of economics the left will continue to hike taxes until...the welfare state collapses along with the nation as a whole. Once they eradicate the rich there will be no one left to fund the dole.
With race, Sowell tears apart [yet again] the notion that blacks make less due to discrimination. He refers to an argument here I never heard elsewhere--but greatly appreciate--which is that when a particular group's mean age is lower, as is the case with blacks, they generally have lower incomes than do groups with higher mean ages. This makes perfect sense as a group of 20-year-olds never make as much as those nearing the end of that particular decade; although, his insight matters little as the mainstream media has no use for nuance. They crusade against injustice even though, most often, they are ones who perpetuate it.
If this is anything like December 28, 2007
31 out of 81 found this review helpful
I'm a regular reader of Thomas Sowell's online columns & a huge fan of any of his writings. I'd recommend to anyone interested that they read the reviews of "Basic Economics"(or better yet, the book itself!) and/or see any of Sowell's columns/essays (easy to find w/ any online search) to get a good idea of the author's reasoned, grounded, and wise philosophy. Mr. Sowell possesses a truly great mind, accompanied by an honest character, and an academic integrity second to none. Were I ever to meet this man, I'd prostrate myself before him with a Wayne & Garth-like, "I'm not wor-r-r-rthy!". "Basic Economics" is a truly readable primer & I cannont wait to see "Economic Facts and Fallacies"!
 Check for the Appropriateness of Comparisons Before Drawing Conclusions March 17, 2008
23 out of 33 found this review helpful
Economists are driven crazy by the misleading conclusions that journalists and politicians draw from using numbers in the wrong way. Dr. Sowell uses this book as an opportunity to challenge some of the conclusions that abound concerning cities, male-female incomes, academia, middle-class incomes and size of the group, racial differences, and characteristics of the third world versus the developed countries. It also points out that these errors have consequences in misallocating resources that could be better applied elsewhere.
If you have never sat through a class on what it takes to make a valid comparison, this book is one long essay on that point. That's the meta-message.
The micro-messages relate to suggesting that problems aren't as large and serious as they seem from frequently quoted statistics. I thought that Dr. Sowell was at his best in describing mismeasurements about middle class income in Chapter 5.
In several of the other chapters, especially Chapter 3, it seemed to me like he was over arguing about statistics at the expense of drawing the right conclusion from looking at the context of what is going on. There seemed to be a desire to show virtuosity that appeared to get in the way of answering the question posed in the chapter. Of course, it's absurd to say that if half of an employer's employees are women that management positions should also be 50 percent female. But if the management positions are only held by women 13 percent of the time, it does seem like something else might be going on (including possible discrimination against women). Dr. Sowell would prefer to leave the argument at the apples and oranges stage.
Some of the historical comparisons are interesting (such as how the number of highly educated women in the workforce has changed in the last 110 years). Parents who resent the high tuition their children's colleges charge will resent those charges even more after understanding more how those high prices are reached and maintained.
The book would have been a lot better if it had included a more solid description of what questions we should be asking and answering in each of these areas to understand what's going on. Without that fully developed foundation, even after reading this book many will be at sea in understanding what's going on in society and the world.
|
|
|
Powered by Associate-O-Matic
| |
