Here is one review of Bryan Caplan from the Amazon.co.uk site:
The reality is a book written for the university educated and the class of society who never have to fear unemployment. The university style of writing makes it difficult to understand what he is going on about, since you have to keep looking up a dictionary. It is also rather boring, which makes it difficult to hold your concentration. The basic theme of the book is that economists think that the ordinary voter is irrational when it comes to politics and voting. The economist argues that because the economy keeps getting stronger; they are always right, and the public always wrong. Trade protectionism, mass immigration of cheap labour, downsizing which causes mass unemployment are all supported by the economist and not supported by the voter.
Here are his other reviews, he likes Sidney Bechet but doesn’t say whether or not he votes. Thanks to Bryan for the pointer.
The key test is “does he like Jelly Roll Morton?”
I believe said reviewer is attempting to turn a phrase. Economists accuse countries of being protectionist of certain industries. Our reviewer is characterizing the economist position as being actually protective of trade (rather than protective of industries). Hence, “trade protectionism.”
I like how the reviewer says that any book that doesn’t include conspiracy theories isn’t “really trying”. Clearly, information on how the government actually works is inadequate. What people really need to know about is the Illuminati, aka the REAL power brokers of the world, not that Prime Minister stuff.
I actually had a neighbor who saw me reading MRV say to me, “Hey, I saw that guy’s article in the WSJ. He’s right; special interests are messing everything up.”
The full review reads as follows:
2.0 out of 5 stars a bit of a dud, 3 Nov 2007
By Mr. J. Hudson – See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)
This book is very badly described; the general presentation gives the impression that the book would be amusing as well as controversial. The reality is a book written for the university educated and the class of society who never have to fear unemployment. The university style of writing makes it difficult to understand what he is going on about, since you have to keep looking up a dictionary. It is also rather boring, which makes it difficult to hold your concentration. The basic theme of the book is that economists think that the ordinary voter is irrational when it comes to politics and voting. The economist argues that because the economy keeps getting stronger; they are always right, and the public always wrong. Trade protectionism, mass immigration of cheap labour, downsizing which causes mass unemployment are all supported by the economist and not supported by the voter. It is easy to support the economic argument when you don’t have to cope with unemployment for the rest of your life. Here and there you will find the odd bit of humour and some interesting points of discussion and argument. There is also a section which looks at the way politicians exploit the votering behaviour of the voter. If you read the first chapter and then the last two; you will probably get the general flow of the book. A bit of a dud.
this man is irrational in the same way that voters are: he has the gall to disagree with tyler cowen.
holding up a stranger for ridicule is always the classy way to blog. way to go, marginal revolution.
Alan,
I’ll allow that the man did open himself up to criticism, but I maintain that it’s, as josh wrote, mean-spirited and low to single him out as evidence of the “irrational” (here, stupid) consumer. Yes, it’s fun to poke fun at a stranger for misuse of the phrase “trade protectionism,” especially when said stranger gave your colleague’s book only 2 out of 5 stars, but it’s also just another form of self-congratulatory, and, in the case, self-consoling “Look how much smarter I am than everybody else!” (Which might also be the problem with the book in question.) Not productive, not classy.
“Economic man” never gets a hang-over, if he doesn’t decide that the advantages of acquiring it exceed the draw-backs.
Nevertheless Ivy League game theory professors sometimes bludgeon their wives to death.
Nobel Prizes have been won for theories of why economic actors are not rational.
Does that mean economics is based on a fallacy?
Not really, the rational economic actor is a sometimes useful simplification.
Perhaps the best you can say about real economies, real democracies, and (perhaps optimistically) academic orthodoxies, is that their most outrageous mistakes are self-correcting.
I think it’s pretty awesome how he finds a new angle in nearly everything he reviews which is irrelevant.
Seems like Caplan is spending a lot of time trolling the Internet for reviews of his own book. The myth of the rational author?
“Not really, the rational economic actor is a sometimes useful simplification.”
You might want to add that in many instances “the rational economic actor is the marginal consumer, reaping arbitrage profits while driving situations back towards equilibrium”
Of course this leads to inequality, which I have been told is evil.
I’d say the reviewer’s summary of the thrust of Caplan’s argument and his style is dead-on accurate. What I found so entertaining about the review wasn’t that it made the reviewer look dumb, but rather that he was able to so accurately capture Caplan’s argument despite his clear distain for it. (And for the record: no, I do not share that distain.)
I kinda think the review is accurate. Caplan’s book describes voters, and advocates a kind of oligarchy (of the speaker and his friends), in a way familiar to any reasonably bright high school student in their Camus/Violent Femmes phase. Most people grow out of that stuff, but Caplan tries to rescucitate the dessicated corpse of “enlightened despotism” with hocus pocus jargon and benighted observations. Yawn.
Its not only cartel thinking, but its flat wrong to assume that an cabal of economists would run this country better then its currently run, regardless of how widely or narrowly you circumscribed their jurisdiction, or how you appointed or elected them or how you enforced their decisions.
Tyler Cowen: “He said lots against Caplan, I might add. Some of you criticized me. I didn’t criticize anybody!”
Titling the post “The Myth of the Rational Amazon Book Reviewer” comes close to “criticism”. I find the post to be a bit too elitist.
“……..Something stopping him from posting here?……..”
Was he intimated? Also, protocol seems to dictate that authors don’t enter into shoving matches over such run-of-the-mill criticism. Point out flaws in reasoning but spare us the ridicule and sarcasm. Pick on your equals guys! I don’t mind you poking fun at Sachs or Stiegletz for example.
@bartman:
How would he know of this?
I thought the Amazon reviewer made a lot of good points, or at least points I’m glad to see made. I also think that Bryan is showing some class in showing off a review critical of his book, and I can’t see how anyone could think that Tyler is making fun of this Amazon-reviewer guy. Tyler’s using the guy and his comments to keep the “rational voter” debate alive. What’s not cool about that?
“This has to be Tyler’s snobbiest post.”
Not even close…
Jacqueline suggests “When deciding whether or not to buy a book, I always sort the reviews from lowest to highest and judge the apparent intelligence of the people who didn’t like it.”
A brief test of this method on books I’ve read and liked/disliked suggests this is likely to work.
Paul seemed to be suggesting a contest for Tyler’s snobbiest post. That could be a fun way for Tyler to fill in a slow news day.
Comments on this entry are closed.