Hunter Lewis · Great economic arguments
Are the Rich Necessary?
Eight questions that sit underneath almost every argument about the economy. Both sides of each one, as strongly as their own supporters would put them. Nobody here will tell you which side is right.
Most economics textbooks downplay arguments. They do not want to leave an impression that nothing is settled, that the entire field is in a state of chaos. In contrast, this book will present a series of fundamental economic arguments. These arguments are fundamental in the sense that they underlie many other, perhaps most other economic quarrels.
In presenting these fundamental economic arguments, the author of this book has tried to avoid taking sides. But, in every case, both sides of the argument are covered, first one side, then the other.
The object has been to “teach it flat and teach it round” and then let the reader choose.
Hunter Lewis, chapter two
Some of the debating points may appeal to our emotions, some to logic, some to “common sense,” which usually reflects our practical experience. Some may be simple, others complex. If a point of view is complex, it may get more space. As a general rule, the side with simpler arguments has been presented first.
People tend to be very passionate about the issues related to economics. It is easy, in the midst of all the passion, to conclude that one’s opponents are “dumb,” selfish, or evil. Look beneath the surface of clashing ideas and you will generally find, on most sides, ideals that are inspiring, and others that are at least worthy of respect.
What happens on each page
Every question works the same way, so once you have done one you know the shape of all of them. A lesson takes about twenty minutes and nothing is graded.
The eight questions
In his order. Each one opens with the case against, then the case for, then asks you to choose. Where the book returns afterward to say where the argument actually stands, that comes at the foot of the same page.
Part two · The Rich
1Are the rich necessary?
Parasites living off other people’s work, or the only people left who can afford to save?
StartPart three · The Rich in a Democracy
2Are the rich compatible with democracy?
One person, one vote, against one dollar, one vote. Can a country run both at once?
StartPart four · Profit-making
3Are private profits necessary?
An unnecessary charge on the price of everything, or the most useful number in the economy. Ends with his own answer, written after both cases.
StartPart five · Glaring Inequality
4Should we accept inequality?
Sharing is simply a better way to live, against liberty and equality being logical opposites. The argument between them runs longer than either case.
StartPart six · Greed
5Should we accept the market glorifying greed?
The only question with five answers rather than two, because his second chapter here is a ladder where each rung says the one below it got it wrong.
StartPart seven · Government
6Can government protect us from the excesses of the profit system?
An argument first held in a Chinese court in the first century BCE, where the man who took one side was castrated for it.
StartParts eight and nine · Depressions and Central Banks
7Can central banks protect us from depressions?
The longest lesson, and it starts somewhere else: whether the profit system causes depressions at all. Six exchanges before the two doors open.
StartPart ten · The Global Trade System
8Does global free trade destroy jobs?
Where the work goes when the borders open, and whether it comes back. Both sides end by claiming the poor, and neither is faking it.
StartPart eleven · Choosing Sides
●Choose and rank
Answer eight questions and a pattern appears. This page reads your answers back, shows which set of ideals kept winning them, and then gives you four good reasons not to trust it.
FinishAnd at the end, why you answered the way you did
The book finishes by setting out four ways of thinking about how people should live together, each with the ideals underneath it, described sympathetically enough that somebody who disagrees would still recognize what is being valued.
None of them is presented as the right answer. The point is to see which one your own answers have been pointing at all along, and then to notice which of the four never got to argue a single one of the eight questions.
