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

The Secret Sins of Economics Paperback – August 1, 2002


See all formats and editions Hide other formats and editions
Amazon Price New from Used from
Paperback
"Please retry"
$38.88 $37.24
Best%20Books%20of%202014
NO_CONTENT_IN_FEATURE

Best Books of the Year
Best Books of 2014
Looking for something great to read? Browse our editors' picks for 2014's Best Books of the Year in fiction, nonfiction, mysteries, children's books, and much more.

Product Details

  • Paperback: 58 pages
  • Publisher: Prickly Paradigm Press; 1St Edition edition (August 1, 2002)
  • Language: English
  • ISBN-10: 0971757534
  • ISBN-13: 978-0971757530
  • Product Dimensions: 7.1 x 4.5 x 0.2 inches
  • Shipping Weight: 2.1 ounces
  • Average Customer Review: 3.8 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (4 customer reviews)
  • Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #3,409,312 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

Editorial Reviews

About the Author

Deirdre N. McCloskey is Distinguished Professor of Economics, History and English at the University of Illinois at Chicago and the Tinbergen Professor of Economics, Philosophy, Art and Cultural Studies at the Erasmus University, Rotterdam.

More About the Author

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

Customer Reviews

3.8 out of 5 stars
Share your thoughts with other customers

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

6 of 6 people found the following review helpful By Theoni Lussos on September 22, 2011
Format: Paperback
McCloskey's style is very tongue in cheek. It actually reminds me of Jonathan Swift, using absurd metaphors to attack those who want to dumb down economics and remove the maths and make a quantiative science like Physics and Psychology a qualitative humanity like English or Philosophy. She does make some great analogies to make her point: without math it's impossible to compare Cuba prior and post Castro, and without statistical significance counting cars on a sunny afternoon has no meaning other than wasting time. Highly enjoyable with a lot of erudite metaphors and implications. I really enjoyed reading it. Thanks. /TKL
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
12 of 16 people found the following review helpful By Omer Belsky on May 14, 2004
Format: Paperback Verified Purchase
Are Economists sinners? And if they are, what are their sins? In this tiny booklet (at 58 pages of text, this must be one of the worst ratios of words per cents available on Amazon), Dierdre McCloskey argues that they are, but that their sins are not what most humanistic critiques think.
I've recently praised a Paul Krugman book as the best written book about economics I've read - I already rue my words, because it hasn't been three months yet, and Professor McCloskey, an artist of prose, surpasses him. Even if you disagree with everything McCloskey says, reading this book is a delight. When satirizing quantification in economics (which she approves, by the way):
"And the economists, oh, the economists, how they counted, and still count. Take any copy of The American Economic Review (Surely you subscribe?) and open it at random. To perhaps Joel Waldfogel, "The Deadweight Loss of Christmas" (No Kidding: December 1993; Waldfogel is arguing that since a gift is not chosen by the recipient it is not worth what the giver spent, which leads o a loss compared with merely sending cash. Who could not love such a science of Prudence?)" (p.6)
You could be mistaken into thinking that McCloskey is against quantification, statistics or mathematics, but she merely cannot resist some highly amusing cheap shots. McCloskey is in favor of Quantification, use of mathematic models, and of the libertarian bias of economists (not very convincingly in the case of the latter, in my opinion).
There are some other, minor sins which are not really the target of McCloskey, but to which she devotes a great deal of her time. So by the time we get to "The Two Real Sins, Almost Peculiar to Economics" it is already page 37.
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
19 of 30 people found the following review helpful By David Creelman on September 23, 2002
Format: Paperback
Short, funny, earth shattering. Most thinking people know in their hearts there is something seriously wrong with economics. Dr. McClosky shows what is wrong clearly and with rigor.
In particular any one with a science background will delight in her demolition of the bad science that characterizes so much of economics.
This is one of the best pieces I've read on any topic in the past decade.
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 16 people found the following review helpful By Michael Emmett Brady on June 22, 2005
Format: Paperback
McCloskey has correctly identified a significant problem in the econometric practice of the last 70 years.That problem is the misuse and misinterpretation of the meaning and relevance of statistical significance levels and the corresponding failure to discuss and/or identify the economic significance of a hypothesis.However,McCloskey has been making this same point in numerous publications for 25-30 years.Unfortunately,she ignores the much,much greater problem -econometricians simply assume the applicability of a normal probability distribution to whatever data set they are analysing without first applying a chi-square goodness of fit test.Both J M Keynes(see his exchange with Jan Tinbergen in the 1939-40 issues of the Economic Journal based on his analysis contained in chapters 17,29-32 of the 1921 A Treatise on Probability) and B Mandelbrot(his work in this area starts in 1955;see his 2004 The (Mis)Behavior of Markets)have demonstrated theoretically and empirically that the assumption of normality is a gross error.There is not a word about this problem anywhere in this book or in any article or book written by McCloskey in her lifetime.Finally,her attempt to blame Paul Samuelson for the failure of economic theorising and the statistical significance fiasco is not convincing at all.Samuelson has made two mistakes in his lifetime.The first error was to accept the false Macbethian claims of Joan Robinson and Richard Kahn that they were Keynes's secret collaborators.This prevented Samuelson from generalizing his correct Principles Keynesian model of the GT (constant returns to labor)to Keynes's main chapter 20 model of decreasing returns to labor.His second mistake was to make an "as if" assumption about the ergodic hypothesis as applied to economics.McCloskey's claims that Samuelson is responsible for the twin sins of qualitative economic theorising and the misuse of the concept of statistical significance in econometric practice is not substantiated.
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

What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?