Imperfect on its politics (it really is too short a book to take up all the issues it casually throws around in the second half), its economics (which it doesn't engage with substantively), and even its storytelling (the book really could have ended with one summary chapter after the death of keynes - not 5), this book is nonetheless great fun, sheds light on the personal backgrounds and interconnections between economists, and - in so doing - reveals the small size and social inbreddedness of the coterie in charge of our world.

This book is written by a journalist and both gains from the emphasis on narrative craft and suffers from the emphasis on (usually biographical) colour that are the mark of books written by journalists. The (first half of the) book's methodological individualism is at once predictable and deadening - and yet also the reason why this book is good fun.

Ultimately, once the fun has been had, one is left with the beginnings of a structure for developing a history of contemporary economic thought. This is no useless thing, given a world of economics instruction that teaches theories in isolation from the context that produced them or even, indeed, competing theories. It is, of course, only a beginning. ( )

The prose is good and it is interesting learning about these pillars of 20th-century economics. ( )

Excellent chronicle of the most important intellectual clash of the 20th and 21st century, and one that will undoubtedly rage for some time. It is a battle over the size and role of government in our lives and has powerful implications for individual liberty. As we have seen, it often transcends party lines. Nixon, George W. Bush were more Keynesian while Reagan tilted toward Hayek. Interestingly, Trump may be more Keynesian (advocating a huge infrastructure package) but is considering a Hayekian (Kudlow) as his Chairman of Economic Advisors. Well written and important book and not too technical for those that lack economic training. ( )