Acheter d'occasion
EUR 1,68
+ EUR 2,99 (livraison en France métropolitaine)
D'occasion: Très bon | Détails
Vendu par -betterworldbooks-
État: D'occasion: Très bon
Commentaire: Ancien livre de bibliothèque. Peut contenir des étiquettes de bibliothèque Condition très bonne pour un livre d'occasion. Usure minime. Sous garantie de remboursement complet. Plus de plus d'un million clients satisfaits!
Vous l'avez déjà ?
Repliez vers l'arrière Repliez vers l'avant
Ecoutez Lecture en cours... Interrompu   Vous écoutez un extrait de l'édition audio Audible
En savoir plus
Voir les 2 images

The Darwin Economy – Liberty, Competition, and the Common Good (Anglais) Relié – 16 août 2011

3,6 étoiles sur 5
5 étoiles
4 étoiles
3 étoiles
2 étoiles
1 étoile
3,6 étoiles sur 5 35 commentaires client

Voir les formats et éditions Masquer les autres formats et éditions
Prix Amazon
Neuf à partir de Occasion à partir de
"Veuillez réessayer"
EUR 35,95 EUR 1,68
click to open popover

Offres spéciales et liens associés

Descriptions du produit

Présentation de l'éditeur

Who was the greater economist--Adam Smith or Charles Darwin? The question seems absurd. Darwin, after all, was a naturalist, not an economist. But Robert Frank, New York Times economics columnist and best-selling author of The Economic Naturalist, predicts that within the next century Darwin will unseat Smith as the intellectual founder of economics. The reason, Frank argues, is that Darwin's understanding of competition describes economic reality far more accurately than Smith's. And the consequences of this fact are profound. Indeed, the failure to recognize that we live in Darwin's world rather than Smith's is putting us all at risk by preventing us from seeing that competition alone will not solve our problems.

Smith's theory of the invisible hand, which says that competition channels self-interest for the common good, is probably the most widely cited argument today in favor of unbridled competition--and against regulation, taxation, and even government itself. But what if Smith's idea was almost an exception to the general rule of competition? That's what Frank argues, resting his case on Darwin's insight that individual and group interests often diverge sharply. Far from creating a perfect world, economic competition often leads to "arms races," encouraging behaviors that not only cause enormous harm to the group but also provide no lasting advantages for individuals, since any gains tend to be relative and mutually offsetting.

The good news is that we have the ability to tame the Darwin economy. The best solution is not to prohibit harmful behaviors but to tax them. By doing so, we could make the economic pie larger, eliminate government debt, and provide better public services, all without requiring painful sacrifices from anyone. That's a bold claim, Frank concedes, but it follows directly from logic and evidence that most people already accept.

Biographie de l'auteur

Robert H. Frank is an economics professor at Cornell's Johnson Graduate School of Management and a regular "Economic View" columnist for the "New York Times", and a Distinguished Senior Fellow at Demos. His books, which have been translated into 22 languages, include "The Winner-Take-All Society" (with Philip Cook), "The Economic Naturalist", "Luxury Fever", "What Price the Moral High Ground?", and "Principles of Economics" (with Ben Bernanke).

Aucun appareil Kindle n'est requis. Téléchargez l'une des applis Kindle gratuites et commencez à lire les livres Kindle sur votre smartphone, tablette ou ordinateur.

  • Apple
  • Android
  • Windows Phone
  • Android

Pour obtenir l'appli gratuite, saisissez votre numéro de téléphone mobile.

Détails sur le produit

Commentaires en ligne

Il n'y a pas encore de commentaires clients sur
5 étoiles
4 étoiles
3 étoiles
2 étoiles
1 étoile

Commentaires client les plus utiles sur (beta) 3.6 étoiles sur 5 35 commentaires
2 internautes sur 3 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
4.0 étoiles sur 5 Insightful but with Gaps 9 décembre 2011
Par Dick_Burkhart - Publié sur
Format: Relié Achat vérifié
Robert Frank's book has some delightful insights, yet his thought experiments and simple numerical tradeoffs come across as a bit academic. The book is addressed to the mythical "rational libertarian", to persuade him or her by logical reasoning that taxes are not only necessary but can actually be good for both the economy and society. The Darwin part is a bit of a stretch, as it refers not to Darwin's primary thesis of evolution by natural selection, but to a secondary observation that individual survival of the fittest is not always best for the group.

This failure of individual selection happens when individuals compete, not to achieve an absolute standard of success, but success relative to others. Such a competition, as in an arms race, knows no bounds unless some force, such as an agreement or regulation intervenes to dampen the competition, to prevent a dangerous or wasteful use of resources. Since mainstream economics is based on the thesis that encouraging individual self interest ends up maximizing group welfare, Frank is mounting a direct challenge to economic orthodoxy.

So he develops several simple examples to illustrate how the overall welfare of two parties can be improved when each subjugates his or her immediate self-interest to process that involves rewards, or taxes, or cash transfers. A well known example is when an airline offers increasing compensation to passengers to wait for another flight when their flight is overbooked: a poorer passenger is well compensated for waiting and so does not resent richer passengers for getting the contested seats. In the same way the poorer members of society may be compensated by the provision of governments serviced financed by taxes on the richer members. Moreover Frank shows that this instinct for justice is well-founded: unequal societies simply do not function as well, either economically or socially, and the extravagant wealth of some in a winner-take-all society comes more from luck than superior talent or harder work.

A classical example of how taxes may outperform rigid regulation is Prohibition - better to tax and control liquor sales than totally outlaw them. In fact Frank has a strong preference for sin taxes of all sorts, as better than heavy handed ways to reduce harm, which puts him squarely in the camp of the rational libertarian. For Frank this includes not just hard liquor but also green house gas emissions. He would also institute a progressive tax on consumption (= income minus savings), noting that excessive luxury is harmful to society, as it diverts resources away from the many and toward the few. Better of course to define consumption as income minus charitable donations and investment, broadly conceived, and to add on a substantial estate tax. Yet this scheme is still troubling because vast fortunes could still be accummulated and these fortunes would likely be invested in activities that yield short term profits more than in activities that develop the long term welfare of society. This is another Darwinian example where individual self interest may not promote the overall welfare of the group, especially of future generations, who in today's world are already facing limits-to-growth and possible ecological overshoot and collapse.

Frank also misses the boat by citing with approval Adam Smith's mistaken claim that modern wealth is due to division of labor. Actually division of labor is natural to humanity, practiced even by the most primitive tribes, such as gender roles, and more so in all large-scale endeavors. What are more fundamental are the combinations of resources, especially energy, available to a society, the resilience of the ecosystems, and the technology and social structures that have been developed to exploit those resources in that environment. Without cheap fossil fuel energy there would have been no industrial revolution. Factory-like division of labor is just a social structure that works efficiently with the kind of reliable and high capacity supply and distribution networks that fossil fuels can support.

Another point: Most progressives would be as startled as I was by Frank's claim (p. 11) that "Critics on the left attribute market failure to insufficient competition". Actually today's progressives correctly point to inadequate regulation as a key cause of market failure, not competition. It was the deregulation of the financial industry that led directly and predictably to the financial meltdown of 2008. Without good regulation monopolists or swindlers soon take over, so regulation comes first. And a progressive would agree whole heartedly that a wasteful arms races or social competition should be constrained by good regulation, whether it be an international arms control agreement or higher taxes on expensive homes or other luxuries.

Overall an insightful book, yet with some gaps due to a lack of a comprehensive understanding of some key fundamentals. And most libertarians, who themselves lack such an understanding, will not be able to evaluate how well academic arguments apply to a very complicated world. Some on the left and in the middle may learn more from this book.
2 internautes sur 3 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
4.0 étoiles sur 5 Positional goods perverts the market 19 juillet 2012
Par Brendan K. O'Rourke - Publié sur
Format: Relié Achat vérifié
Those who have been lulled into thinking that libertarians have the answer to our economic woes will be awakened from their slumber by Frank's The Darwin Economy. Sticking to the economists' concern with efficiency and applying the insight that many goods are positional (for example, only a few children can be sent to the best schools), Franks argues persuasively that efficiency needs the state to control the excessive waste of our efforts to gain positional goods. This waste is one that more competition will exacerbate rather than control. Libertarian fundamentalists may value individual independence over both efficiency and greater freedom, but most will have to accept that The Darwin Economy shows enthusiasm for decentralization has to be tempered by a state. Left-wingers may be more disappointed that Frank does not take into account their valuing of equality for its own sake, and may feel his love for the market denies society's structural inequalities but they too will be challenged too by just how a state could improve the efficiency of the market.
0 internautes sur 1 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
4.0 étoiles sur 5 The Darwin Economy | Liberty, Competition, & the Common Good | Robert H. Frank 10 mai 2014
Par Joseph J. Leandri - Publié sur
Format: Relié Achat vérifié
Without question, Adam Smith's invisible hand was a genuinely groundbreaking insight. Producers rush to introduce improved product designs and cost-saving innovations for the sole purpose of capturing market share and profits from their rivals. In the short run, these steps work just as the producers had hoped. But rival firms are quick to mimic the innovations, and the resulting competition quickly causes prices to fall in line with the new, lower costs. In the end, Smith argued, consumers are the ultimate beneficiaries of all this churning.

But many of Smith's modern disciples believe he made the much bolder claim that markets alwaysharness individual self-interest to produce the greatest good for society as a whole. Smith's own account, however, was far more circumspect. He wrote, for example, that the profit -seeking business owner "intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was not part of it [emphasis added].

Smith never believed that the invisible hand guaranteed good outcomes in all circumstances. His skepticism was on full display, for example, when he wrote, "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. To him, what was remarkable was that self-interested actions often led to socially benign outcomes.

Like Smith, modern progressive critics of the market system tend to attribute its failings to conspiracies to restrain competition. But competition was much more easily restrained in Smith's day than it is now. The real challenge to the invisible hand is rooted in the very logic of the competitive process itself.

Charles Darwin was one of the first to perceive the underlying problem clearly. One of his central insights was that natural selection favors traits and behaviors primarily according to their effect on individual organisms, not larger groups.

Sometimes individual and group interests coincide, he recognized, and in such cases we often get invisible hand-like results. A mutation that codes for keener eyesight in one particular hawk, for example, serves the interests of that individual, but its inevitable spread also makes hawks as a species more successful. In other cases, however, mutations that help the individual prove quite harmful to the larger group.
0 internautes sur 1 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
4.0 étoiles sur 5 The Darwin Economy 8 décembre 2013
Par Jim Fromm - Publié sur
Format: Format Kindle Achat vérifié
A unique perspective of capitalism. At once, a celebration of it's success, and an ominous warning of its potential. In our country capitalism is often portrayed as being inseparable from democracy. It could be a fatal misconception. A thought provoking revelation.
2 internautes sur 4 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
2.0 étoiles sur 5 A bit disappointed 15 mai 2012
Par Marcellus Nancy - Publié sur
Format: Relié Achat vérifié
Central to the argument of this work is Dr. Frank's persuasive argument that the solution to many of our economic problems is a highly progressive consumption tax -- one with a reasonable standard deduction for all -- enacted to replace tax on income. Yet after reading nearly 200 pages of his build-up to that, he stops short. He doesn't flesh out details of how such a tax would be structured in his ideal world. Which was all the more maddening inasmuch as he did that to a tantalizing extent in his 2007 book "Falling Behind: How Rising Inequality Harms the Middle Class," which is half the length of this book. And while no book on economics is easy reading, Frank and his editors should strive to use more easy-to-comprehend examples to illustrate his points and more concreted language, as Paul Krugman does in his "The Return of Depression Economics and the Crisis of 2008" and his newest, "End this Depression Now." The complexities of modern economics demands clear, graceful and vivid writing for a reasonably well read readership but one that lacks advanced degrees in economics.
Ces commentaires ont-ils été utiles ? Dites-le-nous

Rechercher des articles similaires par rubrique

Où en sont vos commandes ?

Livraison et retours

Besoin d'aide ?