Michael Goodwin (1)

I enjoyed reading this comic book with a message. I thought that, especially early on, the author did an excellent job of illustrating his points. Increasingly through the book, it becomes quite political, with the author admitting this himself in the middle. I feel that a left leaning person will identify with this book very well (I picture them saying something like "Give it to them!" or "Tell it like it is"). So why did I enjoy this, as I consider myself at times conservative or show more libertarian? Well, first off, the illustrations are quite good, with many of them illustrating the point very well. Secondly, I found myself reconsidering some points of my own economic thought.

Now, this opening of my viewpoint became less as I read on. The tone became more shrill and partisan. Many times blame was laid on the conservative side with nary anything said well, but the liberal side is showered with compliments or a shrugging of shoulders (they did the best they could with what they had).

One of the first things that I heard in my economics classes was that Presidents have little to do with how well the economy works. Now, with my understanding of economics - that human activity is economic activity, I quite agree with this position. Consider - we elect one man to control the destiny of 300 million? Really? However, the President is given the lions share of the credit or blame in this book, at least for the 20th and 21st centuries.

Some of the major economic points that are not discussed well or at all include comparative advantage (which does have some discussion early on), the law of unintended consequences, and a discussion of how destruction does not bring economic gain (for example, creation of war implements only bring destruction, not economic gain - the author focuses on how big business gets wealthy from this, but that is tangential). Touching on this, it is not explored how spending (especially governmental spending) distorts or redirects spending on something else (for example, if you were not taxed $100.00, what would you spend it on). This relates to the law of unintended consequences.

One of the major things I took from this book is that government does have a place, a position that I have had for some time, but it was quite vague. Now I agree that somethings the government does quite well, with proper over site from the citizens. I appreciate both city public parks and the national park system that we have, which I believe would not exist (at least not in the form we have today) without governmental support.

Overall, I found this to be a mixture of a delightful and frustrating read, which doesn't surprise me as the author's viewpoints are almost directly in opposition to my own in regards to economics and politics. If the author could have taken a more neutral viewpoint throughout the book, I would hope that the book would have been more enlightening and enjoyable. show less

An extremely well-written, well-illustrated, and generally well-put-together history of the economy -- primarily the US economy, that is, although with a fair amount of global context included -- from the 17th century right up to the current mess. I found it absolutely fascinating. Seriously, fascinating, to the point where I resented having to put it down so I could sleep or go to work. Who would have ever, ever thought a book about economics could be a page-turner? But this volume managed show more to painlessly explain things to me that I have never before been able to read about without my eyes glazing over, and actually made the driest parts of American history class -- all those economic acts whose names I memorized just long enough to pass the test without ever really understanding what they were -- seem exciting and relevant. Certainly the last couple of chapters, covering recent history and the present, are extremely relevant, even if their main effect was to make me want to run screaming from the whole horrible mess and set up housekeeping on the moon.

It should be noted that this is not a politically neutral take on the subject. Goodwin has some very pointed (and, in my estimation, generally very sane) things to say about wealth inequality and the problems that arise when huge corporations exert too much influence on the economy and the government. If there is a central idea here, it's that both completely unrestrained capitalism and absolute top-down control are truly terrible ways to run an economy. And it's an idea that's argued remarkably well.

Heartily recommended, whether you think you're actually interested in economics or not. show less

Невероятно, но факт: в формате комикса можно рассказать историю мировой экономики, не низводя ее до лубка. Впрочем, некоторые действующие лица по силе воздействия на глобальные события вполне себе супергерои. Знакомство с чередой отцов-основателей «унылой науки» (Смит, show more Рикардо, Маркс) перемежается с малоизвестными событиями и фактами: так, голландцы, оказывается, в 1672 году попросту убили и съели премьер-министра. Ближе к нашим дням автор оставляет нейтрально-повествовательный тон и его личные пристрастия начинают проступать: корпорации необходимо держать в узде, а Occupy Wall Street и щелчок по носу банкам от исландцев — правильные и своевременные ответы общества.

Бреттон-Вудс, ФРС, МВФ, мыльные пузыри и кризисы — масса поводов получить широкую картину в доступном виде и/или вовлечь ваших детей в увлекательный мир финансов и кредита так, чтобы они сами просили почитать про этого «гадкого Милтона Фридмана». show less

It's rare for me to be deeply engaged with nonfiction, and rarer for me to seek out more on the topic, so this graphic novel was a pleasant surprise. I only wish there he had written a companion volume to expand on contemporary economic theory. I'm wiser about economics in general (especially the disconnect between wall St and the economy in general) but I'm still drifting on a sea of jargon when I dip in to the Financial Times, etc. Still, this is a great primer, and I appreciate that the show more author wears his bias on his sleeve. show less