Rating: 
Summary: Weird view of economic behavior.
Review: After reading just a few chapters into Reisman's treatise, it's hard not to pick up on the following assumptions:(1) Wealth creation for the purposes of personal hedonism is the only rational way to live. (2) Anyone who decides he has "enough" wealth must be either irrational, stupid or mentally ill. (3) People are immortal and don't have children. I realize that social scientists have to make simplifying assumptions when they construct their models, but this set fundamentally conflicts with the real world. Consider: Plenty of reasonable people have values that don't require much wealth for their fulfillment, ranging from intellectual inquiry to social service to quests for "spirituality," whatever that means. (I don't understand the last value, but I do acknowledge its existence.) Empirical research into the nature of "happiness" reveals that the correlation between wealth and happiness breaks down once basic needs are easy to come by. That is, wealth correlates strongly with happiness in places like India, where starvation is a genuine danger, but much less so in the utopia of obesity called the United States. Reisman seems oblivious to the whole spectrum of human behavior and values beyond his rationalistic scheme. He does acknowledge intellectual inquiry, but only to the extent that it serves the purposes of creating more wealth. We've seen a whole social movement in the U.S., usually referred to as "Voluntary Simplicity," comprising people who want to pursue values in life other than the rather mindless getting and spending that seems to dominate American culture. (As George Carlin complains, Americans are herded to the market like cattle, not to be sold, but rather to buy.) These skeptics about the current standards of "success" seem rational in making the choices they do. I find it ironic that Reisman's standards of "freedom" and "individualism" apparently don't apply to people who pursue noncoercive values his philosophical mentor Ayn Rand wouldn't have supported. Moreover, books documenting the strategies of financially successful people (e.g. the "millionaires next door") reveal that they buy little more than necessities and generally live well below their means, despite all the commercial harassment in our environment trying to get us to spend money on unneeded gizmos promising instant gratification. Reisman doesn't seem to understand the conflict between the two strategies of seeking financial independence (and thus control over one's time) versus seeking pleasure via consumption (which tends to leave one financially subjected to others' good will). And, of course, we have the human life cycle to contend with. In the real world, people can work for only so many years before retirement and death, whichever comes first, so this fact places hard limits on how much wealth a person can consume, no matter how wealthy he can become. Also, people with children have to renounce a great deal of material gratification to rear them, especially considering the costs of college education these days. You wouldn't know from reading Reisman that people have these kinds of limits on their economic horizons. Defenders of economic freedom would do better than asserting the kinds of extreme beliefs that Reisman does in this book.
Rating: 
Summary: Excellent
Review: An outstanding treatise on economics. Unfortunately marred by references to the supposed "insights" of pseudo-philosopher Ayn Rand.
Rating:
Summary: The "Das Kapital" of Liberalism
Review: Capitalism, which appeared in 1998, is the life work of George Reisman, an economist unfortunately hardly known, who teaches at a private American university. This work can rightly lay claim to being one of the most comprehensive and intelligent defenses of capitalism that has ever been written. In over 1,000 closely printed pages, Prof. Reisman not only deals with all conceivable economic subjects, but places special value on demonstrating the errors of anti-capitalistic doctrines - from Marx, to Keynes, to the environmental movement. His foundation is, on the one side, the Austrian school, above all von Mises, with whom he studied, and, on the other side, the Objectivism of Ayn Rand, with whom Reisman was also acquainted and - together with Rothbard - debated. On this foundation he places a crystal clear, convincing structure of thought; in its totality a stirring plea for Laissez-Faire capitalism as the only system that is consistent with the nature of man and a free society. Rothbard and Reisman, incidentally, seem to have become estranged after their studies together. While in the case of Rothbard, to my knowledge, Reisman is never mentioned, Reisman in Capitalism shows Rothbard among others to have accepted the fundamental tenet of the Marxian exploitation theory, namely, that in reality the workers are the producers of goods. If Reisman deals with Rothbard this way, then one must not be surprised when he deals with the real anti-capitalists in such a devastating way that only tatters remain. All this without ever becoming abusive or polemical, for he is concerned with ideas, not persons. Drawing the conclusion that only irrational dolts could hold the erroneous doctrines just refuted is always left to the reader. And, indeed, I admit it, not a few chapters made me ashamed. I was ashamed of what nonsense I myself had partly believed, had partly simply never questioned. All the more, as after working through a chapter of Reisman's, everything seems very simple and logical. "You too could have gotten there yourself if you had only thought for a moment," one says to oneself. Later the shame gives way to the good feeling of having mined an intellectual treasure. Reisman devotes special attention and its own chapter to the environmental movement, which he conceives as the ideological heirs of the socialists and for the present the most dangerous enemies. Socialism in its time set out as a movement which claimed reason and rationality for itself alone and proclaimed itself as the only scientific world view. After the catastrophic failure of the socialist experiment, this anticapitalistic movement did not inquire into the rational and economic causes of the failure, but preferred to throw reason as such overboard. The result was a green movement dangerous for freedom, which, for example, in all seriousness and partly with success, can declare inhospitable frozen wilderness in Alaska to be "sacred ground, which must never be desecrated by oil derricks and pipelines."
In view of the new bugbear of the anti-globalization movement, this view seems to be out of date. Nevertheless, one will discover rather that the philosophical foundations of the environmental movement, which Reisman elaborates, appear much more open in the case of the enemies of globalization. Here they also erupt in concrete acts of violence, while in the case of the Greens they are rather obscured, present in the background. They include hatred of the free, productive human being, who applies his reason for the improvement of his condition and sees himself as well as his equals as the only instance constituting value. The anti-globalization scene uses indiscriminately the arsenals of socialists, statists, nationalists, and environmentalists in order to recommend to us mankind, state, nation, or mother earth, indeed, even "animal rights" as the highest, sacred values. The point being, "my concerns shall never be my concern," as Stirner said.
Politically, Reisman is an advocate of the minimal state. In the last chapter of Capitalism, titled "Toward the Establishment of Laissez-Faire Capitalism," a strategy is outlined for achieving the minimal state. This is also certainly worth reading by those anarcho-capitalists who are realistic enough to seek the way to their ideal in the gradual weakening of the state. Hopefully, they will do so in common, up to a point in time who knows how remote, with the advocates of the minimal state.
In short, the approximately 200 marks which I spent for Capitalism have been the best investment of my life in books. One cannot recommend the purchase only to people who enjoy reading the daily newspapers: after the reading of Capitalism, the fallacies of the untaught and the unteachable jump out at one in thick, fat letters, day in and day out-and not only out of the economics section.
Rating:
Summary: I learned from the master
Review: During my MBA program I had the privledge of having Dr. Reisman for two semesters in which we covered the entire book. Only after this experience did I feel confortable discussing economics. Do yourself a favor - buy this book and commit yourself to studying it.
Rating:
Summary: A masterpiece, a must-buy for every Capitalist.
Review: George Reisman has basically written the largest, most detailed book on economics I have ever come across. His book covers every aspect, every subject, and every political issue one could imagine. I'm an economics major, and this book has come in very helpful on numerous occasions. If you're doing a term paper, essay, or preparing for a speech where you wish to defend the free-market views, this book will always come in helpful.
Rating:
Summary: The greatest book on economics of all time
Review: I agree with all the praise that has been lavished on GeorgeReisman's Capitalism. I actually think this is the greatesttreatise on economics of all time, greater even than The Wealth of Nations or Human Action. An achievement of this kind is always an integrated whole. But if I were to single out one insight as the greatest one, it would be the "primacy of profits" principle, the insight that wages are a deduction from profits, not vice versa. This lays the ground for the most thorough and fundamental refutation of the Marxist exploitation theory that is possible; it also lays the ground for what actually constitutes economy-wide profit (the "net consumption" theory of profits) and the actual relationships between profits, wages and investment, and for many other things as well. To make a comparison, I think this discovery ranks with Adam Smith's original discovery of the principle of division of labor, or the early Austrians' discovery of marginal utility. I sincerely hope that this principle gets thoroughly understood by economists in the future. Some other highlights I could mention merely because they have not been mentioned by the other reviewers: The demonstration that the rise in the average standard of living rests entirely on lower prices for goods and services (a fact which is merely obscured by the presence of inflation). Understanding the extent of the gulf between a precapitalist, non-division of labor society and a modern division of labor society. (E.g.: understanding why a rise in population would be a threat in the former kind of society, but a source of great benefit in the latter kind.) The demonstration that one of the things capitalism is regularly accused for - the concentration of great fortunes in relatively few hands - is actually to the benefit of everybody, not merely the owners of those fortunes. Plus much, much more. After reading the book review guidelines, I will refrain from a spiteful comment I wanted to make to an earlier reviewer. But I will say this: Reisman's monumental achievement would not have been possible without a thorough understanding of all his predecessors, from Smith to Mises. But I do not think it would have been possible without a thorough understanding of Ayn Rand's philosophy either. Arguing this point would lead to far, so I will leave it at that - except for saying that the "primacy of profits" principle is the economic implementation of the idea that Atlas carries the world on his shoulders.
Rating:
Summary: Capitalism breaks new theoretical ground.
Review: I expected "Capitalism" to be a worthy successor to Ludwig von Mises' Human Action, as the best single-volume treatment of economics, but was delighted to be treated, in addition, to major theoretical advances. Advances, for example, like Dr. Reisman's concept of invariable money, i.e., of a money of invariable value. He identifies the essential characteristic of invariable money as a constant economy-wide volume of spending for products. This concept of invariable money works rather like a conservation law in physics: a dollar extra spent here means a dollar less spent there. It leads to a quantitative explanation of the average rate of profit, a new system of economy-wide accounting, a deeper understanding of the effects of inflation, and much, much more! In Chapter 12, Section 5, Dr Reisman lists more than a dozen crucial findings which rest on analysis in terms of his novel concept of invariable money. Until you've read and absorbed Reisman's "Capitalism," your economic thinking is behind the state of the art.
Rating:
Summary: Capitalism breaks new theoretical ground.
Review: I expected "Capitalism" to be a worthy successor to Ludwig von Mises' Human Action, as the best single-volume treatment of economics, but was delighted to be treated, in addition, to major theoretical advances. Advances, for example, like Dr. Reisman's concept of invariable money, i.e., of a money of invariable value. He identifies the essential characteristic of invariable money as a constant economy-wide volume of spending for products. This concept of invariable money works rather like a conservation law in physics: a dollar extra spent here means a dollar less spent there. It leads to a quantitative explanation of the average rate of profit, a new system of economy-wide accounting, a deeper understanding of the effects of inflation, and much, much more! In Chapter 12, Section 5, Dr Reisman lists more than a dozen crucial findings which rest on analysis in terms of his novel concept of invariable money. Until you've read and absorbed Reisman's "Capitalism," your economic thinking is behind the state of the art.
Rating:
Summary: Maybe the best economics book ever.
Review: I found this book an easier read than Rothbard's Man Economy and State. I also enjoyed and was often inspired by Dr. Reisman's fighting spirit. Here is a perfect example of one of my favorite and most inspiring parts:
"The solution to the present problem of massive, overwhelming poverty is nothing other than the science of economics. As should be increasingly clear, economics is a science which can make possible the construction of a social and political system in which human success is a feature of normal everyday life everywhere. It is truly the humanitarian science, and only those who have studied it well and who are prepared to implement its teachings deserve to be called friends of mankind. The most important charity that true friends of mankind can pursue is to disseminate knowledge of this vital subject as widely and as deeply as they know how."
Human beings have evolved to do what is in our best interest. The reason why most of us don't make a conscious effort to strive for a capitalist society is because we simply don't know how capitalism is in everyone's best interest. If someone offers to give you a nice free dinner for pushing a button. It is trivial to realize how pusing the button is in your best interest. Unfortunately understanding how capitalism is in our best interest is not as trivial, but fortunately it's really not hard at all. The survival of mankind depends on capitalism. Read this book and do as Dr. Reisman said above. If you are looking for a short intro read Economics in One Lesson by Hazlitt.
Rating:
Summary: Taborrak is really wrong
Review: I found this book extraordinary. It is the first textbook on economics I can understand. I have read a lot of stuff by Adams and most economists and I find when the issues get complex their work gets confusing. I feel revitalised - I feel like an economist - I feel I can come to grips with the real world and make policy. I see he has been criticised for not understanding the dynamics of people seeking capital - gosh what rubbish. I love the purity of the work. For me I did not really need all the contectual stuff that tried to interpret and pick the eyes out of the old Austrian economists or Marx or Keynes etc.. although I had got really stuck intuitively with the Weralth of Nations and the idea about the value of labour. I must say that while I have a degree in economics most of what I have learnt is from the ground up as an "academic" investment banker that has refused to become too specialised and seen my environment as a capitalist cauldron. Everything Reisman says is appealing and intuitive and born out in the real world I have operated in for the last 20 years.
|
