What do you think?
Rate this book
Ten Great Economists from Marx to Keynes
The ideas and the personalities of eminent men in the field of economics are described by a modern economist
305 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1951
4 people are currently reading
199 people want to read
About the author
Joseph A. Schumpeter
159 books297 followersPeople know Moravian-born Joseph Alois Schumpeter, an American, for his theories of socioeconomic evolution and the development of capitalism.
This political scientist briefly served as finance minister of Austria in 1919. Of the 20th century, the most influential Schumpeter popularized the term "creative destruction."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_...
This political scientist briefly served as finance minister of Austria in 1919. Of the 20th century, the most influential Schumpeter popularized the term "creative destruction."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_...
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
July 4, 2020
This is a book of two faces. On the one hand, there are good to brilliant essays (Marx, Keynes, Böhm-Bawerk) in there, but I found most of the other essays to be quite dull. I can’t say I really enjoyed reading those.
The section on Marx was a gem, so I’ll elaborate a little on it. Schumpeter attempts to review Marx’s achievements in several fields. As far as his economics go, JAS tried to separate the wheat from the chaff. Let’s just say there’s quite a lot of chaff to be found. He goes on to gently tackle most of Marx’s main fallacies by softly prodding them with a healthy dose of logic and economic insight. Nevertheless, Schumpeter’s admiration for Marx as an intellectual is evident and he emphasizes the fact that Marx did in fact produce some groundbreaking work in some respects (which remains relevant to this day. Linking surplus value to colonialism or, more recently, offshoring, provides for some very interesting contemplations on the nature of capitalism).
In the end, I’d rate the book at a 3/5. The rating is mainly due to the few good to brilliant essays (which do make up the bulk of the book). I’d only recommend the book if you’re interested in either Marx or Böhm-Bawerk though.
The section on Marx was a gem, so I’ll elaborate a little on it. Schumpeter attempts to review Marx’s achievements in several fields. As far as his economics go, JAS tried to separate the wheat from the chaff. Let’s just say there’s quite a lot of chaff to be found. He goes on to gently tackle most of Marx’s main fallacies by softly prodding them with a healthy dose of logic and economic insight. Nevertheless, Schumpeter’s admiration for Marx as an intellectual is evident and he emphasizes the fact that Marx did in fact produce some groundbreaking work in some respects (which remains relevant to this day. Linking surplus value to colonialism or, more recently, offshoring, provides for some very interesting contemplations on the nature of capitalism).
In the end, I’d rate the book at a 3/5. The rating is mainly due to the few good to brilliant essays (which do make up the bulk of the book). I’d only recommend the book if you’re interested in either Marx or Böhm-Bawerk though.
December 7, 2024
قرأت الترجمة العربية
May 2, 2022
An insightful read, less because of the subject of the book - more so because of the insights into the brilliant mind of J. A. Schumpeter.
Schumpeter is reviewing the work of these great economists much deeper than any standard textbook would, with little interest in comprehensiveness (like a textbook).
The chapters vary in depth and focus, but Schumpeter typically combines biographical sketches with discussions of key insights of the economists' work.
My highlights were: Marx, Menger, Böhm-Bawerk, Keynes
Schumpeter is reviewing the work of these great economists much deeper than any standard textbook would, with little interest in comprehensiveness (like a textbook).
The chapters vary in depth and focus, but Schumpeter typically combines biographical sketches with discussions of key insights of the economists' work.
My highlights were: Marx, Menger, Böhm-Bawerk, Keynes
May 18, 2014
Great, though uneven, collection of essays.
The chapter on Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk is absolutely brilliant and worth the price of entry alone. Originally composed as a necrology to his esteemed teacher in 1914, it is here translated into English. (Wish I had known this before reading the German version!) It may well be one of the best things ever written on Böhm.
The chapter on Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk is absolutely brilliant and worth the price of entry alone. Originally composed as a necrology to his esteemed teacher in 1914, it is here translated into English. (Wish I had known this before reading the German version!) It may well be one of the best things ever written on Böhm.
September 17, 2021
Ten essays in this book put forth such a brilliant evaluation of economic ideas. Although Pareto's contributions and Irving Fisher's work could have got a little more space.
November 11, 2024
King of purple prose and i love it
December 23, 2019
Most of the essays in here aren't that great... who really cares how competent of a pedagogue Frank William Taussig was? More hagiography than just exposition of their understandings. The two main essays in here are on Marx and Bohm-Bawerk as being the most abstract and pure theorists who aimed at expounding on the issue of a general rate of return in value terms. Schumpeter embraces an economic interpretation of history like Marx but denies class to be the central factor. His understanding of the marginal utility theory as more being more "right" seems to be premised upon the notion that it's more appropriate for analysis of a highly monopolistic economy which he saw as being the realist perspective in his day... but the degree of competition may have just been momentary? The claim that Marxs value theory was just an extension of Ricardo is wrong and leads him to misunderstanding Marxs concepts like immiseration and what exactly Marx was getting at about primitive accumulation which Schumpeter solves by claiming the entrepreneur never really saved but borrowed from bank reserves then saved after investing. The essay on Bohm-Bawerk is particularly the best in here on actually expounding on their theories.
He positions Menger as the first to really radically break with the classics on the conceptualization of value. It's strange that the essay on Walras is one of the shortest when he's claiming him to be the most methodologically genius in the history of modern economics for carrying out the mathematization of the central problematic. Also essiently claims Keynes can't be liked by the middle class because he pointed out their piggy banks were a source of unemployment.
He positions Menger as the first to really radically break with the classics on the conceptualization of value. It's strange that the essay on Walras is one of the shortest when he's claiming him to be the most methodologically genius in the history of modern economics for carrying out the mathematization of the central problematic. Also essiently claims Keynes can't be liked by the middle class because he pointed out their piggy banks were a source of unemployment.
As a picture of reality this model becomes most nearly justifiable in periods of depression when also liquidity preference comes nearest to being an operative factor in its own right. Professor Hicks was therefore correct in calling Keynes’s economics the economics of depression. But from Keynes’s own standpoint, his model derives additional justification from the secular stagnation thesis. Though it remains true that he tried to implement an essentially long-run vision by a short-run model, he secured, to some extent, the freedom for doing so by reasoning (almost) exclusively about a stationary process or, at all events, a process that stays at, or oscillates about, levels of which a stationary full-employment equilibrium is the ceiling. With Marx, capitalist evolution issues into breakdown. With J.S.Mill, it issues into a stationary state that works without hitches. With Keynes, it issues into a stationary state that constantly threatens to break down. Though Keynes’s ‘breakdown theory’ is quite different from Marx’s, it has an important feature in common with the latter: in both theories, the breakdown is motivated by causes inherent to the working of the economic engine, not by the action of factors external to it. This feature naturally qualifies Keynes’s theory for the role of ‘rationalizer’ of anti-capitalist volition.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews