The Financial Times Business Book of the Year longlist has just been published, and most of the titles sit in my two favourite categories: economics and technology. Even better, I’ve read five of the books already, and they are all excellent candidates, although I have my preferences. If I had to pick from these, I’d be torn between Lo and Tirole. But there are lots on the longlist still to read… quite a few of these are very tempting.
Here are the shortlisted books I’ve reviewed on this blog.
The Wisdom of Finance by Mihir Desai
[amazon_link asins=’1788160045′ template=’ProductAd’ store=’enlighteconom-21′ marketplace=’UK’ link_id=’09eceed8-7fff-11e7-a7d4-0bcc1040a822′]
[amazon_link asins=’0691135142′ template=’ProductAd’ store=’enlighteconom-21′ marketplace=’UK’ link_id=’406e7c9d-7fff-11e7-9214-c945e126918f’]
Grave New World by Stephen King
[amazon_link asins=’0300218044′ template=’ProductAd’ store=’enlighteconom-21′ marketplace=’UK’ link_id=’650e8df4-7fff-11e7-aead-cb3a97a7be8a’]
The Great Leveler by Walter Scheidel (I don’t seem to have written a review of it, though I cite it here)
[amazon_link asins=’0691165025′ template=’ProductAd’ store=’enlighteconom-21′ marketplace=’UK’ link_id=’b6131034-7fff-11e7-98b2-e306b5666937′]
The other title I’ve read, having had the privilege of helping prepare the English edition, is
Economics for the Common Good by Jean Tirole; out in October, with superb insight into using economics in public policy, and also into the strengths and limits of economic research
[amazon_link asins=’0691175160′ template=’ProductAd’ store=’enlighteconom-21′ marketplace=’UK’ link_id=’dad2424a-7fff-11e7-95f3-5fcb61484d6e’]
Regarding Adaptive Markets: you endorse that analysis. You also endorsed that of Seabright’s War of the Sexes, http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9654.html. Yet you reject it when it comes to conclusions you temporarily dislike, such as in the Google memo case. Is that rational?
Cryptic question. What ‘it’ or aspect of the analysis do you mean?
I agree. I wanted to give your preconceptions [not necessarily pejorative] room.
Evolutionary theory, natural and sexual selection. (By the way, if you haven’t yet, The Darwin Economy is worth reading.) It appears to me you embrace evolutionary analysis when it comes to natural and social evolution, but (temporarily) rejected it when it came to sexual selection. Am I mistaken? Additionally, the “relationship” of the sexes is a complex system, replete with trade-offs and co-evolution. I’d be rather reluctant to assign power, oppression, and injustice.
Regarding the Google memo, I find this an excellent and entertaining exchange: http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07/contra-grant-on-exaggerated-differences/
Further suggestions: http://dornsifecms.usc.edu/assets/sites/545/docs/Wendy_Wood_Research_Articles/Gender_Differences_in_Social_Behavior/eagly.wood.2013.nature-nurture_debates.pdf ; https://heterodoxacademy.org/2017/08/10/the-google-memo-what-does-the-research-say-about-gender-differences/ ; sexual economics: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016748701630277X
I don’t reject evolutionary theory in any context. Don’t see any contradiction at all in noting role of culture and socialisation in addition – includingnin financial markets. Idea that it’s either/or no longer credible.