Economics Without Illusions and over one million other books are available for Amazon Kindle. Learn more
Have one to sell? Sell on Amazon
Flip to back Flip to front
Listen Playing... Paused   You're listening to a sample of the Audible audio edition.
Learn more
See this image

Filthy Lucre: Economics for People Who Hate Capitalism Hardcover – April 30, 2009

ISBN-13: 978-1554683956 ISBN-10: 1554683955 Edition: 0th

8 New from $14.90 13 Used from $3.93
Amazon Price New from Used from
Kindle
"Please retry"
Hardcover
"Please retry"
$14.90 $3.93

Free%20Two-Day%20Shipping%20for%20College%20Students%20with%20Amazon%20Student


--This text refers to the Paperback edition.

NO_CONTENT_IN_FEATURE

Kindle Business Book Daily Deal
Today only, Al Pittampalli's "Read This Before Our Next Meeting" is on sale for only $1.99. Shop now

Product Details

  • Hardcover: 338 pages
  • Publisher: Harpercollins Canada (April 30, 2009)
  • Language: English
  • ISBN-10: 1554683955
  • ISBN-13: 978-1554683956
  • Product Dimensions: 6.3 x 9 inches
  • Shipping Weight: 1.2 pounds
  • Average Customer Review: 4.1 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (15 customer reviews)
  • Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #2,388,966 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

Editorial Reviews

About the Author

JOSEPH HEATH is an associate professor at the University of Toronto, where he teaches in the Department of Philosophy and the School of Public Policy and Governance.   He is the author of three previousbooks: Nation of Rebels: Why Counterculture Became Consumer Culture (with Andrew Potter); Communicative Action and Rational Choice, which won the Canadian Philosophical Association Book Prize for 2003; and The Efficient Society, a Maclean's and Globe and Mail bestseller selected by the Globe as one of the best books of 2001. He writes a monthly column for the journal Policy Options and is a frequent contributor to The Montreal Gazette. --This text refers to the Paperback edition.

Excerpt. © Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved.

Chapter 1
Capitalism Is Natural
Why the market actually depends on government

People often complain about the absence of “big ideas” in contemporary political debate. There is some truth to this. Politics in the twentieth century was often characterized by sharp disagreements over fundamental issues, with various factions wanting to completely overhaul society in all sorts of dramatic ways. In the 1920s, for instance, eugenics—the selective breeding of human populations—was all the rage in political circles. Winston Churchill, an enthusiastic proponent, thought it was essential to stem what he called, with a candor typical of his era, “the unnatural and increasingly rapid growth of the feeble-minded and insane classes.”

Then, of course, there were fascism and the “world communist revolution”—both of which involved what were, in retrospect, rather unlikely proposals. Consider V. I. Lenin, in 1918, still confi dently predicting the “withering away of the state” under communism. Getting rid of the market economy and replacing it with central planning would be no big deal, he thought—a matter of “watching, recording and issuing receipts,” tasks that were “within the reach of anybody who can read and write and knows the fi rst four rules of arithmetic.”

In the ’50s, it seemed there wasn’t a problem in the world that couldn’t be solved by “science.” Women in the United States stopped breastfeeding en masse, figuring that baby formula had to be better—after all, it was made by scientists! How much longer could it be before they solved other social problems, like crime or disease? John F. Kennedy spoke for many when he predicted that technocracy, not democracy, was the future. “Most of the problems that we now face,” he claimed, “are technical problems, are administrative problems” best dealt with by experts.

This technocratic consensus lasted long enough for Daniel Bell to publish his famously ill-timed book, The End of Ideology, in 1960. The ink was barely dry on the page before things went completely haywire, ushering in one of the most intensely ideological periods in Western history. The ’60s counterculture arose, promising no less than a complete transformation of both human civilization and consciousness. Sex, drugs, and rock and roll were presented not just as entertaining distractions from the serious business of life, but as forces that would fundamentally transform the family, the economy, the state, and the geopolitical system.

While the boomers didn’t exactly deliver on these promises, one must admit that they gave it a college try. To take just one tiny example, by the early 1970s there were thousands of communes across the United States engaged in various forms of collective child rearing, trying to render the nuclear family obsolete through communal parenting. (A friend of mine in grad school had, in his youth, belonged to an ill-starred venture of this sort. He wound up with a dozen or so “kids” from this period, some of whom would occasionally drop by to visit him. Only one was his biological daughter.)

The point is this: There was a time, not so long ago, that when people talked about changing society, they generally had Big Plans. These plans were big in the sense that, had any of them worked, the world we live in would have been changed almost beyond recognition. Things are different now. People may complain just as loudly, but they generally
lack big ideas about how things should be redone. Or to speak more precisely: The big ideas that do remain are so obviously bad ideas (such as Islamic theocracy) that almost no psychologically well-balanced individual feels tempted by them. There is a stark difference between this ethos and a time when mild-mannered, middle-class people actually thought it might be helpful to tear down various pillars of Western civilization and rebuild everything from the ground up.

Nowadays, the disagreements that do remain tend to be over matters of detail. Political protest still carries the trappings of radicalism, but when you scratch the surface a bit, ask people what they really want, you typically end up with some fairly modest proposals. Antiglobalization protesters may still call for the overthrow of capitalism, but they’re
usually willing to settle for an environmental protection rider or an amendment to the arbitration mechanism of the next free trade agreement. In France, activists have even insisted upon using the term altermondialisation to describe the movement, rather than antimondialisation, to emphasize the fact that they are not opposed to globalization—they
would just like to see it done a bit differently.

Where have all the radicals gone? The movie The Corporation, after more than two hours of bluster about the “psychopathic” pursuit of money and power on the part of the modern business enterprise, ends with a call not for workers to seize control of the means of production or for the state to nationalize big business. Instead, it celebrates the outbreak of “grassroots democracy” in the town of Arcata, California (pop. 16,651), where citizens got together to—brace yourself—limit the number of franchise-operated fast food restaurants in the town to nine.

It’s a reminder of the old joke about a Fabian socialist rally, where the protesters chant, “What do we want? Gradual change! When do we want it? In due course!”

In a sense, we are all Fabians now.

This state of affairs has been described in a variety of ways. Francis Fukuyama referred to it as the “end of history.” Jürgen Habermas, in a slightly less upbeat mood, described it as “the exhaustion of utopian energies.” The central element is the fact that liberal democracy has emerged out of the twentieth century as the only credible form of political organization, alongside some sort of regulated capitalism as the only plausible form of economic organization. As a result, all the serious participants in the political process—and even a fair proportion of the wacky ones—find themselves espousing what are essentially variations on the same basic blueprint for society. Everyone winds up defending—or, better yet, presupposing—some version of welfare-state capitalism. Of course, the welfare state has all the characteristics that a woman typically seeks in a husband, not a lover. It’s safe, reliable, and a good provider. As a result, it tends to generate a fairly steady stream of grievances. But as everyone knows, there’s a big difference between complaining about your husband and actually leaving your husband. Suffice it to say that, right now, divorce does not look imminent. --This text refers to the Paperback edition.

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

4.1 out of 5 stars
5 star
8
4 star
4
3 star
1
2 star
0
1 star
2
See all 15 customer reviews
Recommended for every person that votes or ever wants to vote.
Ian McHenry
It's one thing to add nuance to a book by explaining why a popular explanation is wrong; it's quite another to just speak out of both sides of one's mouth.
James R. Maclean
Sure, there are goods and services that are best procured at an universal level so the State is best equipped to tax and fund them.
WiltDurkey

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

45 of 49 people found the following review helpful By Herbert Gintis on July 28, 2009
Format: Hardcover Verified Purchase
Joseph Heath is a philosopher who has studied a lot of economics. His exposition of economic principles is highly accurate, and he delivers his message with a rare sense of humor. Heath's natural tendencies are towards left-wing anti-capitalism, but experience has taught him the pitfall of the proposed alternatives to the capitalist market-place. He wants us all to get the message not so we will stop seeking a better world, but rather so that we will seek a possible rather than an impossible world.

"Economic illiteracy on the left," says Heath, "leads people of good will to waste countless hour promulgating or agitating for schemes and policies that have no reasonable chance of success or that are unlikely to actually help their intended beneficiaries.'' (p. 5) He gives the example of a documentary on worker cooperatives in Argentina. "While the material is quite affecting and some of the footage is remarkable, the events of the film are presented in what can only be describes an intellectual vacuum...You would never know, watching the film, that there is an extensive economic literature on the subject of cooperatives---written by socialists and nonsocialists alike---dating back over a century, that raises serious doubts about the possibility of structuring an economy along these lines." (p. 5)

Heath begins by asserting that there has been a real "end of ideology" narrowing-down in the past several decades of substantive disputes concerning how an economy should be run. "There is a stark difference," he notes, "between [the current] ethos and a time when mild-mannered, middle-class people actually thought it might be helpful to tear down various pillars of Western civilization and rebuild everything from the ground up." (p. 23) This is precisely the case, in my estimation.
Read more ›
11 Comments Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback. If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
28 of 31 people found the following review helpful By R. N. Shaw on June 22, 2009
Format: Hardcover
Joseph Heath is a Canadian philosopher at the University of Toronto. He wrote this book because he feels that economics is important and that those on the left have not spent enough time coming to grips with it. As a result they cannot spot the fallacies in the arguments of the right and they "waste countless hours ... agitating for schemes ... that have no chance of success or that are unlikely to help their intended beneficiaries."

Don't be put of by the sub title "Economics for those who hate capitalism". This book is excellent and deserves to be widely read by everyone with an interest in economics which, as Heath points out, should be all of us.

Heath deals to six 'right wing' fallacies and then subjects six 'left wing' fallacies to what he calls sympathetic testing of their economic plausibility. He discusses the role that governments play in setting the scene for markets, looks at incentives, competition, taxes, free trade and personal responsibility. He then examines pricing, profit, the impending 'collapse' of capitalism, equal pay, wealth disparities and leveling down.

His discussions of the Peacocks tail as an argument against the market is flawed although his use of game theory payoff tables is excellent. He overstates the case for state as opposed to contract based intervention in market creation and enforcement of breaches of contract. However, in my opinion these are minor issues.

His discussion on free trade is masterful and he has the grace to admit that he changed his mind on this from youthful opposition to free trade.
Read more ›
1 Comment Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback. If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
7 of 7 people found the following review helpful By Jim Preston on September 24, 2010
Format: Paperback
Economics, as a profession, has done a poor job of communicating to a wider audience in recent years. By far the best exporters of economic thought have been non-economists like Gladwell, Ariely, and to a smaller extent Daniel Pink. Joseph Heath is more rigorous than those writers because he is a trained philosopher, but he is also thankfully free of philosophical or economic jargon that often contaminates the writing of most from the dismal science.

"Economics without Illusions" is one of those rare works of political and economic thought that has intellectual honesty as its guiding ideal, exposing and cutting down the worst economic fallacies of both the left and the right. And while Heath notes very early that "everyone has some moral intuitions that are implicitly if not explicitly anti-capitalist," he shows how that sentiment often leads to sloppy thinking such as "just price," "future discount," "compositional" and other fallacies.

While "Economics without Illusions" is admirably honest and even-handed it is also free of solutions to many of capitalism's inherent contradictions. To his credit, Heath does not try to whip up some sort of nostrum in the closing pages, and the lack of a clear new direction may be disappointing to some, but for me this was a welcome intellectual tune-up that I will no doubt be revisiting every few years or so.
Comment Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback. If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
14 of 17 people found the following review helpful By WiltDurkey on November 8, 2009
Format: Hardcover
I am socially liberal, very conscious of global warming and generally don't mind Canadian level of taxes to effect some level of universal access to education and health care. But I despair of Left/Green parties being able to manage a complex economy. So I mostly vote right, trusting that our checks and balances will keep the right from rolling back social liberties.

I highly welcome this book, though I doubt it will have much effect on its intended audience, the Left. And I also doubt that the average Right voter will read it. Both would gain, though this book is an uneven effort.

In each of his 12 chosen subjects, Mr. Heath mostly has the correct basic idea and addresses popular and distressing misconceptions (6 on the right, 6 on the left). He makes his point quickly and points out what is dangerous about those false beliefs.

Where he gets in trouble, most of the time, is his analogies and his detailed opinions. Strangely, he seems better at dissecting holes in socialist dogmas rather than capitalist ones. Maybe because he is more familiar with them?

His chapter on wage analysis is brilliant and so is his analysis of consumption. Contrast that with the chapter on taxes. Sure, there are goods and services that are best procured at an universal level so the State is best equipped to tax and fund them. Not necessarily to provide those services, but he doesn't see that (you can have publicly funded health or education, delivered competitively by non-governmental entities, for example). But he makes it seem as if governments stick to only those services that need to be purchased and provided collectively. If only.

Still in the tax section, a rather silly statement that "no one cares about their taxes, only their gross relative salary".
Read more ›
4 Comments Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback. If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again

Customer Images

Most Recent Customer Reviews

Search

What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?