Economics of Good and Evil: The Quest for Economic Meaning from Gilgamesh to Wall Street

An interesting and valuable perspective on the profound flaws of the dismal science. As an economist himself, though, there is a bit too much in the way of sympathy and apologetics for a field characterized by hubris and error. One of the most telling comments is on the last page, where he describes how students are 'indoctrinated' with mainstream economic dogma for TWO YEARS, before alternative views are broached. No wonder they can't make progress. I find the first two hours of economics texts to be so full of propaganda that I can hardly continue, so a certain type of nerd is required to get through the years. This book, however, provides a refreshing historical look at how interpretive flaws and the lure of mathematical abstractions have stymied the field. The author insists there are no other mature formalisms, hence mainstream is all they've got, but seems to miss the point that the fidelity of the math can be significantly improved by accounting for group membership, vices and virtues, and so on rather than staying mired in the shamanism of utility maximizing humans. There seems to be a lot of 'missing the point' by economists, possibly due to two years of indoctrination. Adam Smith's famous self-loving baker who aids society via the invisible hand is a case in point. No one ever comments on the economic system and the fact that it has a niche called 'baker, which the man was trained for as a way to make a living, meaning that his self-love was always directed toward a benevolent purpose by a very visible hand. The obvious fallout of this is that niches for unethical bankers, greedy CEOs, activist environmentalists, corrupt politicians, workaholics, charity workers, and self-serving economic gurus exist in our system, but don't have to. As the author indicates much of the good and evil of our system is a consequence of the economists' approach that good and evil (morality) has no part to play. Sedlacek shows unequivocally that morality needs to be, should be fundamental to the discussion. As an insider he's forced to be polite and circumspect, but the underlying points are clear.

Sedlacek's book on the Economics of Good and Evil is a thoughtful and largely readable attempt to place economics and ethics in the framework within which he claims they have always been, that is, the framework of moral philosophy. This issue becomes critical in our modern day American capitalist environment, deriving from the neo-liberal philosophies of the Chicago School, espoused by Milton Friedman, who believed that economics was a morally neutral science that describes the world as it is, not as it should be. This view placed Adam Smith's Capitalism in a realm where individual self interest should naturally be left to play out in a realm unfettered by government regulation. Friedman's search for Smith's "invisible hand" that would inevitably harness greed for the betterment of society, sent his students at Chicago on a quest for the underlying Newtonian laws of economics, which they believe underlie this invisible hand. They have never found them and have been rewarded in their efforts only by numerous statistical models.Sedlacek's sense that the interweaving of ethics and economics is as old as recorded history begins with civilization's oldest extent written document, The Epic of Gilagmesh, in which Gilgamesh is found building a wall around his city, employing workers laboring under the most dire conditions of existence. At the end of the story, Gilgamesh abandons this effort, realizing the the search for happiness within the realm of human friendship is more important than wall building drudgery. This foundation points Sedlacek's survey forward to include surveys of Greek, Jewish and Christian economic philosophies, moving inexorably to the time of Adam Smith and beyond, culminating in Fukuyama's faith, in his "End of History", in the climactic victory of democratic capitalism as the final form of world government. Even in Adam Smith, who was a moralist before he was an economist, Sedlacek clearly points out that moral concerns enter into Smith's "Wealth of Nations", a reality with which the economic moral neutralists have found it difficult to deal.For all those readers who are concerned with the current political and moral conflict between defenders and critics of the current growing economic inequality in the U.S., an issue, which will undoubtably affect the outcome of the 2012 Presidential election, the reading of Sedlacek's book is a must. It is not always an easy go in reading, but it is a lot more readable and enjoyable than many philosophical surveys. I highly recommend it.

The reviews of this book were brilliant. As a layman I wanted to expand my knowledge of the social science of Economics, having read just one other. This wasn't exactly the right book for me as it plodded along with quite a lot of biblical references to the subject but it certainly was a good history lesson. It was still excellently written and I did profit from the text, learning more about the Renaissance period to the writings of Adam Smith. I'm not about to read him as it would be too technical but I'd love to read about him.

The author does a good job contracting the origins of economic thinking in ancient writing such as the chronicles of Gilgamesh. And he provides an excellent discussion of economics as a moral science. His discussion of Mandeville and Adam Smith, and the notion of corporate good coming from individual evil is insightful and well argued. As is his discussion of insatiable wants and the dependence on economic growth.But his arguments about the limitations of economic research are much weaker, primarily because he ignores the contributions of modern microeconomics. This field has produced important empirical evidence, such James Heckman's evidence about the significant economic value of early childhood education for disadvantaged children. There is a great deal of economic research that leads to the improvement of human welfare. There is also economic theory, like principal-agent theory, that produces insidious results.

I'm not going to go into a detailed analysis, but it is a very interesting book to read. I'm not studying economics or anything, but I definitely recommend it. Anyone who understands the basics of philosophy/sociology/psychology as well as economics can enjoy it. It raises alot of moral/ethical questions about whether it pays to be good. There aren't any complicated economics terms, and if there are, it is explained in the footnotes. The book broken down into small sections so it's easy to read.

An intellectual romp, lots of grist for the heuristic mill, a very wide ranging and interesting read - though it was borrowed by a friend before I could finish it & not returned yet.

Excellent

This is an inspiring analysis of much that needs to be said concerning current economic theory and practice. There are many valuable insights expressed in a friendly and undogmatic language. I can thoroughly recommend this book.

A very well written and interesting book, best read in complete silence to stay with the thread of the inquiry. I would also encourage reading on a e reader for the dictionary facility!