Rating: 
Summary: A Gem!!
Review: I first read "The Worldly Philosophers" in an economics class in college and enjoyed it so much that I've read it a couple times since. Heilbroner does a wonderful job explaining the basics in economic thought from the Pre Adam Smith world through David Ricardo, John Stuart Mill, Karl Marx, Henry George, John M. Keynes, and Joseph Schumpeter. This is a gem!
Rating: 
Summary: Mixed Bag
Review: I have read books on the history of economics and economic thought before, and this one is a mixed bag. The chapters on Smith, Ricardo and Malthus are well written and informative. Heilbroner brings Smith's basic ideas to life in well formulated prose and clear exposition. He also lays to rest the myth that Smith is simply an apologist for the capitalist class. However, with few exceptions, one gets the impression after reading this book that the history of economic thought is nothing but the apologetic bourgeoisie professoriat versus the ignored socialist saviors. His chapter on Marx leaves much to be desired; I expected more depth and a less equivocal discussion. Marx's system is more than economic and does not just have problems with an inadequate theory of value. Considering the inclusion of a chapter on Thorstein Veblen, whose works are clearly more sociological than economic, it is odd to omit a more thorough discussion of Marx. I found the discussion of Mill to be simply misleading. If my reading of Mill is correct, then he did not come to have socialist leanings until late in his life. Indeed, Mill is usually cited as a defender of laissez-faire. Mill was not consistently supportive of any specific economic system. He opposed a progressive income tax yet favored a limit on inheritance. He favored nationalization of the railways yet also the existence of private joint-stock corporations. One cannot claim Mill as a socialist without qualification, and Heilbroner is guilty of serious misrepresentation of Mill's actual beliefs. There are other problems, for example, his discussion of the Great Depression. To claim that economists of the day had no idea what to do is simply false. The economists who vehemently protested government interventions such as the Smoot-Hawley Tariff certainly did something. Indeed, there were more than 1,000 of them from 179 institutions who urged Hoover not to enact the Tariff; the Tariff is thought to be an important factor in causing the Depression. The worst omission, and by far the least forgivable, is that of marginalized schools of economic thought. One would think a man with socialist tendencies would want to bring the less heard voices of economics to the light. They certainly merit at least a mention in the book's reading list, yet they get none. For example, no mention is made of the contributions of the Austrian school. I realize this is a general book for the non-specialized reader. That does not excuse Heilbroner from painting a one-sided portrait of economics. As a brief discussion of some important historical figures this book only moderately satisfies. As an introduction to economic history or thought it is generally poor. "A History of Economic Thought" by Lionel Robbins would be a much better choice.
Rating: 
Summary: Please read this
Review: I have seen the reviews here and feel obligated to tell prospective readers of this book the truth. If you do not have a decent background in at least the principles of micro and macroeconomics you would be better off watching the grass grow for intellectual stimulation. Not to detract from the book; it is quite interesting, but only if you can discern what would be the strongest points of the work which the author so carelessly left out in his effort to concentrate on history. What was he doing writing about "economic thinkers" when he couldn't effectively illustrate what their ideas have evolved into? There is another problem with Heilbroner: his writing style/ word choice. His use of overly inflated vocabulary makes the book c ho p py. At countless points in the book it seems as though he was trying too hard to sound intelligent. (Some of the words he chose actually made me laugh because they were such a stretch for the context.) Perhaps, in part, this book was intended to be a review for the vocabulary section of the SAT. In summary, for The Worldly Philosophers to be of any use, you should be a strong reader and have a fairly solid background in economics. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
Rating:
Summary: Best book I've read about economists and theories
Review: I read Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations" back in college my senior year, all 1200+ pages of it. I've read parts of Communist Manifesto and Capital by Karl Marx and some Joseph Schumpeter. I loved it all (especially Smith and Schumpeter) but it was BRUTAL as the dialects in those days varied so much from today's. If you are new to economics or want summaries/insights into the greatest economists in history this book is for you. Mr. Heilbroner's book, the Worldly Philosophers, is the best books on economics I have come across and I have endured graduate level economic courses, both macro and micro (along with the undergraduate courses.) This book provides readers with a nice summary and analysis of the great Economic thinkers from Adam Smith, Karl Marx, David Ricardo, Mill, Keynes, Schumpeter and others. I found the book to be very general and not extremely analytical/scholarly if you will. The summaries of each man's economic concepts and life/times in which he lived were extremely accurate. Additionally, I thoroughly enjoyed the fact that the author tries to explain the multi-disciplined nature of economics and how it is a combination of sociology, history, political science and philosophy all rapped into one. If you look at the London School of Economics graduate program you will find over 30 unique Masters Programs in economics as the field is increasingly becoming applied and specialized into different parts of the society. Mr. Heilbroner asks a question at the end such as "are we seeing the end of Worldly Philosophers?" as the field is increasingly getting more specialized and very few economists are tackling the "big picture" anymore and how the various components of an economy (land, labor and capital) are intertwined with each other. Definitely something to think about..... I found myself sitting down and reading a chapter at a time, 50-60 pages, with no problems at all. Mr. Heilbroner doesn't give you everything but perhaps enough to chomp your teeth into the works of each philosopher on your own. At the end of the book he has a list of suggested readings for those seeking more information on any of the economists/subjects mentioned but, frankly, I don't think many can handle 99% of the stuff.
Rating:
Summary: An interesting contrast
Review: I recently assigned Heilbroner along with New Ideas from Dead Economics (by Todd Buchholz) in a college course and found them a useful contrast. Buchholz is a bit to the right of the mainstream and Heilbroner is far to the left, so they usually give different perspectives on the economists of the past. If I were to use only one, Buchholz would be the clear choice. Heilbroner is a better writer than he is an economist, while Buchholz is both a gifted writer and a sound economist. Perhaps because he is unhappy with most of what has happened in the past half century in economics, Heilbroner ends his book with Schumpeter in the 1940s. In contrast, Buchholz believes that the past half century has been a creative and exciting time in economics and, hence, one gets from him a better sense of what is happening in economics today.
Rating:
Summary: Economics - interesting? Whodathunkit....
Review: I'll say it... I'm a politics major who hates math, but needs to know economics. This book won't get you out of Macro 101, but it provides a refreshing, intelligent, well-written synopsis of major economic thinkers from Adam Smith to Joseph Schumpeter. It is excellent at placing these theories in their historical context. Heilbroner acknowledges what a dry subject economics can be, and seeks to engage the reader by providing ample information about the economists' personal lives (very entertaining, all). This book should be passed out, along with a copy of the Constitution, to every American citizen when they turn 18. It is by no means a comprehensive volume, but it doesn't try to be, and it provides a laundry list for more extensive reading. It's best used as a base reference and a guide to which economic thinkers you should be familiar with.
Heilbroner manages to make economics seem impressive and important... no small feat. The initial chapter on the history of economics and the chapters on Marx and Veblen are the best.
Highly recommended... very informative and an enjoyable read!
Rating:
Summary: read New Ideas From Dead Economists instead
Review: I've read both Worldly Philosophers by Robert Heilbroner and New Ideas From Dead Economists, by Todd Buchholz. I wanted to get a good rounded layperson introduction to great economists in the past. However, I found Heilbroner's book to be neither useful to the layperson nor to people who have a good background in Economics. Let me explain. Heilbroner spends a LOT of time in awe of these economists and spends a great deal of time explaining how great they were, how revolutionary, how brilliant, how much of a genius, how wonderful these men were, ad nauseum. Ok, I get the point. Unfortunately, all this fawning and fan worship clouds what should've been the more interesting and more important part of the book, which are the central economic ideas put forward by these thinkers. In fact, there's a lot of emphasis on putting their economic ideas in perspective to the prevailing moral philosophical thought at the time. It's almost as if this books is written for people who have already taken Economics 101, and know all the basic economic principles and can nod, "yes, uh huh, I didn't know those personality quirks or their moral philosophical outlook about these economists - good to know. By the way, it's great that he didn't go over his economic ideas since I already know them." For example, the entire chapter devoted to David Ricardo fails to mention the theory of Comparative Advantage anywhere in the chapter. Isn't that a MAJOR omission? That's just one example. Omissions such as this are everywhere. So the layperson is stuck getting a vague feeling that these people were wonderful people, but that a little less fuzzy on their ecnomic ideas. It also leaves a person with economics background feeling like this is less a book about economics and more a book about Heilbroner's fan worship. Neither audience is served. I can't recommend this book. Right after I read this book, I read Todd Buchholz's New Ideas From Dead Economists. Where Heilbroner failed, Buccholz succeeds in so many ways. He puts the central ideas of these economists as the main focus of each chapter. When talking about David Rircardo, the theory of Comparative Advantage is front-and-center. When talking about Marx, Heilbroner meanders and throws a lot of Marx's ideas around and you don't get a sense of how they all fit together in Marx's mind or why modern economists find fundamental flaws in his reasoning. In Buccholz's book, the central point is Marx's ideas, how they fit together and it's very clear why most economists (and the reader) will find Marx's basic premise wrong in light of emperical evidence. This goes on and on. I initially thought Heilbroner would be a good read, since it was recommended by econ majors when I was in college and they'd never heard of Buccholz's book. I'm glad I read both. Do yourself a favor and don't waste your time/money - read the better book.
Rating:
Summary: A Great Intro to Economic Theory and History
Review: In my 20th Century American Literature class we recently read Steinbeck's "The Grapes of Wrath." In conjunction with the book we watched "Roger and Me," a film by Michael Moore. The film chronicles the social collapse of Flint, Michigan, after General Motors closed several factories there in the late 1980's during a time of record profits. How ironic, then, that I should find myself reading a history of economics during a three-hour layover in an airport in Detroit, the Motor City. I picked up a copy of Robert L. Heilbroner's The Worldly Philosophers for next to nothing at the Salvation Army. The cover suggests a retail price of a mere $..., a more significant sum back in 1961 when the revised edition was published. Heilbroner's book, however, is not weakened at all by its age. He sets out not to explicate his contemporary economy, but rather to recount the history of political economy by examining its greatest thinkers, beginning with Adam Smith and ending with John Maynard Keynes. Before any of the biographies, however, there is a wonderful section on the origins of the market system. Heilbroner explains that until the 18th century, capitalism and the market system did not exist as we know them today. The lack of national unity and universal weights, measures, and currency made trade cumbersome. In addition to these impediments, the idea of seeking personal profit was not socially or religiously condoned. (Heilbroner cites an amusing case before the Boston courts in 1644 where a man was charged with making a "sixpence profit on the shilling, an outrageous gain.") Moreover, the economic concepts of Land, Labor, and Capital did not exist. Things began to shift radically in the 18th century, however, spurred along by the Industrial Revolution. As the free market system began to emerge, so did political economists. They form a most interesting pantheon: some pragmatic, some pure geniuses, nearly all eccentric in some way. ("One of them-who was very rich-urged the abolition of riches; another-quite poor-disapproved of charity.") Heilbroner humanizes these philosophers and paints a vivid picture of the worlds in which they lived. By providing such insightful biographical information he gives greater meaning to the economic theories espoused by each. I highly recommend this book for anyone who has an intellectual curiosity about economics but is discouraged at the thought of aggregate supply curves or equations like Sa+M+T = Ig+X+G. Heilbroner is able to explain the theories of Marx, Malthus, Keynes, and the rest in a purely theoretical, yet non-mathematical, way. I do not mean to suggest, however, that the book is a simplistic read. It has a scholarly (but entertaining) style and I found it quite handy to have a dictionary nearby. (Heilbroner graduated summa cum laude from Harvard.) This book contains the perfect blend of economic theory, history, and intriguing biography. Perhaps none of these men directly swayed the fates of nations, but their collective school of thought could hardly be more influential throughout history. In the words of Heilbroner: "A man who thinks economics is only a matter for professors forgets that this is the science that has sent men to the barricades. A man who has looked into an economics textbook and concluded that economics is boring is like a man who has read a primer on logistics and decided that the study of warfare must be dull."
Rating:
Summary: Snapshot views of the major economists
Review: In the title to the review I mean to suggest that the book, in the jargon of the day, takes the dry subject of economics and presents information on the topic in an extremely reader-friendly fashion. In the introduction to the book the author notes that it was the result of a suggestion from a publisher friend of his and followed him, through various editions, his entire scholarly career. It was surprising to him that the book would be popular with readers.
In the market system there is the lure of gain, not dominance by authority or tradition. Custom and command are simple. Economists are needed to explain the market system. Land, labor, and capital are requisites of a market system. These are the elements of production. Enclosure laws in England were a sort of expropriation.
Adam Smith lectured at Glasgow on Moral Philosophy. In 1776 THE WEALTH OF NATIONS was published. Smith had an encyclopedic mind. The argument is full of detail and observation. Self-interest and competition form the laws of the market. Society had a problem of the unprofitable poor. Smith noted the gain derived from the specialization of labor. The markets were driven by the laws of accumulation and population. Smith believed the division of labor increased universal opulence. THE WEALTH OF NATIONS is a program for action, not a description of Utopia. Smith's doctrine leads to laissez faire. The great enemy to Smith's system is monopoly. Adam Smith shared the 18th century belief in the triumph of rationality. Smith anticipated Veblen. He was much more than just an economist.
Thomas Malthus wrote on the principles of population in 1798. The essay stated population could outstrip subsistence. David Ricardo wrote of the competition of the classes. Industrialists fought for cheap food to reduce the cost of labor. Malthus was the first professional economist. He urged the abolition of poor relief and moral restraint. For his efforts he was abused. His position was not hard-hearted, it was logical. Thinking on the population problem has always swung between poles of opinion. Malthus worried about the general glut of food--commodities without buyers. Malthus stumbled upon the problem of boom and depression.
England in the 1820's was gloomy. Robert Owen was responsible for New Lanark. At age twenty he became the boy wonder of the textile world. Owen had suggested the solution to poverty was to make the poort productive. Saint-Simon loved democracy. Charles Fourier lacked a program. Fourier was an adventurer in imagination. At one time there were over forty phalansteries in the U.S. The Utopian Socialists were economic reformers.
The greatest economist of the age was John Stuart Mill. Mill pointed out the true province of economic law was production, not distribution. Marx and Engles began to collaborate in 1844. They wrote a philosophy of history. The new theory was dialectical and materialist. They saw the base of industrial production was bound to clash with the superstructure of private property.
A quality of Thorstein Veblen was his alienation from society. He was a stranger and nonconformist. Following a PhD program at Yale, Veblen underwent seven years of isolation. Then he went to Cornell for a year and moved on to Chicago. Veblen's THEORY OF THE LEISURE CLASS was a sensation.
John Maynard Keynes had a Victorian boyhood. He flourished in his schooling at Eton and Cambridge. The cure for Depression, he asserted, was for the government to open the valve of public spending. Joseph Schumpeter, an Austrian, presented a static view of capitalism to determine the source of profits. He wrote of the impact of innovations. Contrary to Marx, Schumpeter stressed the bourgeois side of capitalism.
Rating: 
Summary: Fantastic Writing, but Beware of Bias
Review: In this justly famous volume, first written more than fifty years ago and now in its seventh edition, Robert Heilbroner brings to life the great practitioners of the dismal science. Starting with Adam Smith and ending with Joseph Schumpeter, Heilbroner shows the sparkle and variety and even the romance of these social scientists that many readers might think of as boring. By humanizing them, he illustrates that economists ask questions and search for answers which are too important to be dull. "The Worldly Philosophers" weaves the details of the economists' lives into their work, making it easy for the reader to remember their important ideas. Thorstein Veblen's idiosyncratic work, so different from the concerns of most economists, is shown to be of a piece with his idiosyncratic life. John Maynard Keynes iconoclastic (and yet discriminating) mind, completely at odds with his mentor Alfred Marshall's straightforward analytical approach to the discipline, is described as crucial to his understanding the underlying reasons for the Great Depression. Economics and economists are rarely presented with such style. And yet, ultimately, it is Heilbroner's fascination and focus on style that undoes some of the greatness in this book. Heilbroner is at home with the old political economists of yesteryear that wrestled with the great questions and used a few simple models in their books. He despises, however, the recent turn by the modern economics profession away from its literary roots towards a more mathematical approach. His unwillingness to come to terms with why economists use more math is the only flaw in an otherwise wonderful book.
| 
