When Robert Heilbroner passed away a few years ago, obituaries reported the death of a prominent American economist and sociologist. But millions of grateful readers around the world knew him primarily as the author of "Philosophers of this World" - an amazing story about the fate and ideas of the titans of economic thought. It is also surprising because the total circulation of Heilbroner's book amounted to several million copies, clearly disproving the myth that economics is a gloomy and uninteresting science. In the pages of the Philosophers, great theories are side by side with descriptions of the bizarre antics of their authors; figures that seemed to be characters of historical works acquire their own unique outlines. Eternally absent-minded Adam Smith and grouchy Karl Marx, the brilliant David Ricardo and John Maynard Keynes changed our world, and the story about them is unlikely to leave indifferent both students and those who all their lives wanted to learn more about economics, but were afraid to look into fat, stuffed with volume formulas.

On our website you can download the book "Philosophers of this World" by Robert L. Heilbroner for free and without registration in fb2, rtf, epub, pdf, txt format, read the book online or buy a book in an online store.

This is the seventh edition of the book, first published in 1953. It turns out that today "Philosophers of this World" is much older than I was when I was working on the text. Given the absolutely amazing vitality of this adventure, undertaken back in my student days, I will allow myself to briefly outline the history of the book's appearance, after which I will move on to important changes made specifically for this latest and, I think, the last reprint.

In the early 1950s, I was in graduate school and earned a living by publishing in various publications, and, if necessary or convenient, moved away from economic topics. After reading one of my texts, Joseph Barnes, then a senior editor at Simon & Schuster, invited me to have a bite to eat, and at the same time to discuss possible topics for the book. None of my suggestions were outstanding. When the salad arrived, I realized that my first lunch with a publisher would not get me a contract to publish a book. But Barnes was not so easily confused. In response to his question about the classes at the New School for Social Research, I began to enthusiastically describe the work of a wonderful seminar led by the inimitable Adolph Low, about which the reader will learn more in the future. So I found my item - it became clear to both of us before the waiters had time to bring dessert. Immediately after the end of the next session, I hastened to tell Professor Low about my decision: I was going to write a history of the development of economic thought.

Lowe - a typical representative of the breed of real German scientists - was horrified. "You can't do this!" he announced in such a tone that there was no doubt that he was right. But I was absolutely convinced that in fact I could very well - as I have written elsewhere, this feeling was an amazing product of that mixture of self-confidence and self-deception that is the hallmark of graduate students. Finding time between writing for various journals and studying, I produced the first three chapters and, not without apprehension, showed them to Professor Lowe. To give credit to this great man (he was my most sympathetic critic right up to the very end - and he died at 102) - when he finished reading, he said: "You must do it!" What I - with his help - and did.

When the book was ready, it became necessary to name it somehow. I was well aware that the word "economy" on the cover would immediately scare away potential buyers, and desperately sorted out alternative options. While I was tormented by doubts, a second fateful dinner took place, this time with Frederick Lewis Allen. Allen was the editor-in-chief of Harper's magazine, with whom I regularly contributed, and his extraordinary kindness to me, coupled with his desire to help, I will never forget. I mentioned my difficulties in passing and added that I was considering calling the book The Philosophers of Money, even though I felt that “money” was not quite the right thing. "You meant to say, 'Philosophers of this world,'" Allen corrected me. “I pay for dinner,” was my reply.

The publishers were much less pleased than I was, and after the book, to their great amazement, began to sell well, they suggested renaming it The Great Economists. Fortunately, the name has remained the same. Probably, they were driven by doubts about the ability of buyers to digest the words “of this world” (indeed, in thousands of student papers this expression was distorted in one way or another). Or maybe they foresaw difficulties like the one that I did not learn about until many years later. A student who entered his college bookstore wanted to find one book. The name of the author flew out of the young man's head, but if memory serves him right, it was called Lobsters from the Sea.

Years passed, and the circulation of "Philosophers of this World" exceeded the wildest expectations. The book is said to have caused thousands of unsuspecting victims to take a course in economics to study. I am not ready to take responsibility for all the suffering he caused, but I was extremely pleased to hear from many economists that it was my book that first aroused their interest in the subject of their current passion.

The new edition differs from all previous editions in two ways. First, as before, a fresh look at my own text allowed me to catch errors that inevitably occur at the manuscript stage or become apparent as a result of recent research in this area. I also took the opportunity to change the emphasis in order to reflect the development of my views on certain issues. By themselves, these changes are rather insignificant and most likely will be noticed only by specialists. Their significance is not so great as to require a new edition. But another change is very, very important. For a long time, I wondered if the lack of a cross-cutting theme harmed my book, whether it was possible to connect individual chapters in a more convincing way, relying not only on the chronological sequence of the appearance of remarkable people and their interesting ideas. Finally, a few years ago, I became firmly convinced that such a link should be a change in the concepts or "visions" that underlay the analysis of the past functioning of our society by great minds. In the middle of the 20th century, a similar idea occupied the imagination of Joseph Schumpeter, one of the most inventive philosophers in the world. Until recently, I did not even think about such an approach to the subject. Perhaps the fact that Schumpeter himself, for one reason or another, did not use his find in the study of the history of economic thought, can also serve as an excuse for me.

I will not enter into a discussion of a new view of the evolution of philosophy from this world directly in the preface - in the same way, the author of detective stories does not announce the name of the murderer on the first pages of the book. In the course of our story, we will talk more than once about the role of worldview individual people, but only when we reach the last chapter can we properly discuss the relevance of this approach to our time.

In this regard, I would like to make a final remark. The reader who has already glanced at the table of contents could be perplexed to find that the concluding chapter is called: “The end of philosophy from this world?” The question mark indicates that this is not a gloomy prognosis, but also ensures that changes in the nature of our subject matter are inevitable. We will talk about possible options for such changes in the final part of the book, which I mention here at all in order to pique the reader's interest. The fact is that only at the end of the road, in other words - today, these changes have a significant impact on the subject and meaning of economic thought as such.

But let's not get ahead of ourselves. Let me conclude by thanking my readers, especially the students and teachers, who have studied the book so thoughtfully that they sent many letters with additions and corrections, as well as expressions of support or disagreement. Both are equally valuable to me. I hope that Philosophers of the World will continue to serve as a ticket to the exciting world of economics for those who will later become book publishers or lobster fishermen, as well as for the brave individual who dares to join the ranks of economists.

Robert L. Heilbroner New York, NY

July 1998

Introduction

This book is dedicated to a handful of people whose fame is of a strange kind. From point of view school textbooks history, they were nothing: they didn’t command armies, they didn’t send people to their deaths, they didn’t rule empires, and they rarely participated in decisions that influenced the course of history. Some of them achieved a certain fame, but none became a national hero; some were openly attacked, but none were considered an enemy of the state. And yet, what they did often turned out to be more important for history than the deeds of statesmen basking in the rays of glory, shocked the world more than the crossings of huge armies across borders, brought more blessings and misfortunes than royal decrees and laws.

Philosophers of this world. Great Economic Thinkers: Their Lives, Times, and Ideas Heilbroner Robert Louis

10. End of philosophy from this world?

The preface contained a warning about what might not be the most pleasant ending to our journey. It may seem that the title of this chapter only confirms these fears. But I would like to remind the reader that the word "end" can be understood in two ways: as completion something or goal achievement. When we start talking about the usefulness and prospects of a subject whose title was so aptly suggested to me at the moment when I finished the book, but did not know what to call it, we must not for a moment forget this duality.

How to approach a difficult task? I think the wisest thing to do is to go back to the beginning and remind ourselves and the reader of the true subject of economics. Of course, this is not just a discussion of figures, forecasts and official statements of the authorities, which are filled with daily newspapers. In addition, economics is not only supply and demand curves familiar to any student. At its core, economics is a body of knowledge whose purpose is to shed light on the principles of operation, and therefore on the problems and future of the complex social mechanism that we call the economy.

Until now, perhaps the main distinguishing feature of such attempts at explanation has been their amazing diversity. The mercantilist-led monarch and Marshall clerk, Adam Smith's Perfect Liberty Society, and Veblen's industrial sabotage society can hardly be seen as links in the same chain. However, in the final chapter, I will try to look at the apparent confusion from a different angle and, instead of noticing superficial differences, I will focus on identifying a common structure.

It does not hurt us to recall the problems discussed in the second chapter. We have said that humanity managed to survive for the first 99% of its time on earth thanks to the traditions embedded in the practice of hunting and gathering, but it is hardly possible to call this set of rules and taboos "economy". The same applies to the much more complex and inventive systems that emerged in the third and fourth millennium BC, societies that built cities, irrigation systems and great pyramids. As we have seen, now everyday life man was governed not only by time-tested traditions, but also by a hitherto unknown power of planning.

Perhaps there has never been a more dramatic era in history, but is it necessary to invoke "economic" ideas to explain or understand the upheaval brought about by the emergence of the plan? Don't think. For example, one of the central elements of the economic apparatus has always been prices and their changes, but the blocks hewn in the time of the pharaohs had no price, and it is hardly possible to stick a price tag on the pyramids themselves. Indeed, the planned organization of life has led to many striking changes. But it did not give rise to absolutely new forms of organization of production and distribution, for the analysis of which we might need economic science.

What preceded the emergence of this way of perceiving the life and functioning of society? In the same chapter, we talked about how medieval traditions and feudal planning gave way to a new public order, and it was difficult to explain its essence using the available methods. After a certain time, this order will be called capitalism, a way of organizing our material activities - economy, and the new explanation is economics.

I won't go into too much detail about the changes that capitalism has brought about. First, the organization of production and distribution of the necessary wealth now depended positively on people's desire to get rich. The reader may note to himself that never before has the desire for enrichment been considered worthy, and even more so has it not met with universal approval. In the case of kings - yes, of course, with sailors - maybe, but with representatives of the lower strata of society - in no case.

Second, capitalism has given the market the ability to dictate the direction of production and distribution, using both the stick and the carrot. Such a practice was absent not only in the days of hunters and gatherers, but also in cases where the direction of society was determined from above. The emergence of commodities necessary for life as a result of the competitive process of buying and selling has no analogues in other social arrangements.

Thirdly, capitalist society for the first time voluntarily submitted to two sources of power, private and public, and the power of each had its own limits. The power of society, that is, the state, has the power of coercion and makes laws, but does not take over the daily chores associated with the production and distribution of goods. These troubles are the prerogative of profit-hungry individuals who produce what they want, hire those who are willing to receive appropriate remuneration under given working conditions, and do without everyone else, but cannot command the labor force in the same way as the pyramid builders, or physically punish negligent workers, which the feudal lord often did.

It is these three historical innovations that underlie the worldview of each of the great economists. Descriptions and prescriptions change as an ever more fluid economy sheds the yoke of tradition and deprives planning of the right to command its own activities, but, however different Smith from Keynes, and Keynes from Schumpeter, the defining element of every thinker's view of life is a concrete social - economic formation. Philosophy of this world was born by capitalism and cannot exist outside of this system.

What does all this have to do with the two connotations of the title of this chapter, namely, the probable end of science and the attainment of the goal of economics as such? To deal with the first possibility, it is necessary to note a major change in the way economists present their thoughts. It first showed itself in the fact that more and more often the process of buying and selling was depicted in abstract terms; perhaps it all started with Edgeworth, his discussions of pleasure, pain, and the Arithmetic of Happiness, and also with Thunen and his "honest reward" - the heroes of the seventh chapter. By the time Marshall entered the arena, there were pretty graphics staring back at us from the pages of many books; Keynes used algebra extensively to describe his findings.

Surprisingly, the ever-increasing role of mathematics is not the main distinguishing feature of our current stage of economic development. In the context of the latest technologies, data in numerical form occupy a special place. The industrial economy produces and needs a volume of quantitative data that was unimaginable before the advent of high-speed manufacturing and instant communications. Today, the economies of individual countries depend on each other more than the workers in Adam Smith's pin factory, and with this dependence, both existing volumes and the demand for new information grow at an unprecedented scale. That is why modern economic science is not able to do without statistics and mathematics. Without them, we could hardly reduce the output of millions of individual firms to one number - Gross Domestic Product, or calculate another indicator of interest to us - the Price Level, in other words, the average price of the myriad goods and services provided in the economy. This does not mean at all that mathematical models help to make the best decisions in the light of the streams of information falling on our heads: if econometrics - a combination of statistics and economic theory that has recently become fashionable - is famous for what, then at least it is not for the accuracy of its forecasts. In any case, we have no choice but to use mathematics in its various manifestations to simplify the analysis for which, in general, economics exists.

There has been a lot of talk about it lately, but mathematization is not the major change that this chapter is about. Mathematics fills the economy, formalizes its conclusions and becomes established as its favorite way of expressing thoughts, but the two disciplines can hardly be confused with each other. In my opinion, the recognition of a fundamentally different concept as central to the entire economic science and, consequently, the departure from the stage of the old concept should be considered a much deeper and more important change. In the new vision, economics is a Science, and its seemingly inseparable connection with Capitalism remains in the past.

Let me reinforce this point with excerpts from two recently published textbooks, Principles of Economics by N. Gregory Mankiw and Economics by Joseph Stiglitz. Both authors enjoy the well-deserved respect of their colleagues in the profession, and their books are not only the richest sources useful information but also examples of clarity and accessibility. Let's look at them from the point of view of my assumption. Here is a quote from the introduction to Mankiw's book:

Economists try to treat their subject with the objectivity of other scientists. They approach the study of economics in the same way that a physicist approaches the study of matter and a biologist approaches the study of life around it: they build theories, collect data, and then analyze this data in an attempt to confirm the validity of their own theories.

We will definitely talk about the desire for science, but first we will figure out whether the economy really does not have to be inextricably linked with capitalism from now on. For an answer, let us turn to Stiglitz's two-volume work. His answer is extremely simple: the word "capitalism" does not appear on any of the 997 pages. There is simply no place for Capitalism in a two-volume introduction to economics.

Selective quoting often raises suspicions of bias, and deservedly so. Well, I could direct the skeptical reader to the nearest library for issues of the American Economic Review, the flagship journal of the American Economic Association, or the Economic Journal, its British counterpart. I think if a skeptic were to compare issues before the 1950s and the last ten years, he would find that in recent times there has been a marked increase in references to the "scientific method" and the word "capitalism" appears less and less frequently. It is possible to argue endlessly about the details, however, I will venture to put forward several explanations for the changes that have occurred.

Let's talk about science. There are at least several reasons why the very concept of science has gradually become an integral part of the economist's baggage. The first and rather convincing reason is this: students of economics, just like those who study nature, first of all look around for patterns in behavior that would lead to the discovery of "laws" - apparently, the crown of any scientific activity. In the absence of the laws of attraction, we could hardly explain (or predict) the orbits of the planets or the trajectories of aircraft. A natural question arises: is it possible to find some kind of laws of economic behavior?

I specifically say "kind of laws" because the behavior of individuals is certainly much more complex and less predictable than the whims of objects moving in space. If clothes go up in price, in all likelihood, the volume of purchases will decrease, but this will not happen if colorful advertising attracts our attention. However, few would deny the existence of a general relationship between product prices and demand from buyers: when prices change, the quantity demanded also changes, and, as a rule, in the opposite direction.

Moreover, a similar relationship between incentive and result can be found in the case of our income and expenditure on commodities or in the change in the rate of interest and investment expenditure of a business. It turns out that economic behavior is marked by a pattern that is unthinkable for other spheres of public life, such as politics. It is no less surprising that, depending on whether we act as sellers or buyers, the same changes lead, as a rule, to diametrically opposite consequences. This is what distinguishes economic interactions from any other. The dual effect of changes in price on the behavior of market participants makes it a successful way of organizing society, a unique mechanism in which economic behavior can be seen as a natural and balanced process.

Therefore, it is hardly surprising that people assumed quite early that the market system was related to the natural processes studied by science. Why such a comparison was extremely attractive, and no need to explain. If economics became a real science, our ability to predict the course of events, as well as to influence it, would increase markedly. Of course, economics would no more help us master our own future than physics can control the force of gravity, but there is no doubt that we would have a better understanding of the consequences of changes in the workings of the economic system, and therefore we could choose more reasonable options. Why, then, is the increasingly clear desire to see economics as a science not in our favor?

There are two reasons for this. Marshall drew attention to one of them. Highly appreciative of the scientific nature of some aspects of economics, he nevertheless warned that "economics cannot be compared with exact sciences like physics, since it deals with a subtle and constantly changing subject - human nature". We speak with confidence about the existence of chemical and physical laws that explain the behavior of electrons and mesons, but we must not forget about the tangible difference between the "behavior" of these natural elements and living people who are the subject of study of the social sciences. When, when explaining the phenomenon of light, scientists refer on the behavior of electrons, no one assumes that each electron "makes a decision" about whether to move or not.On the contrary, speaking of the phenomenon of price changes, economists also analyze the behavior of sellers and buyers and cannot but admit that what happened is a consequence of that all individual market participants have decided to do so, and not otherwise.In short, apart from purely physical reflexes, behavior cannot be considered in isolation from the concept of "own desire" and the associated completely unpredictable tendency to change decisions on the fly. to the elements of physical nature, they "behave" in a certain way for many reasons, but we know one thing for sure: the behavior of these particles is not due to their own "decision".

Therefore, inaccurate use of the word "behavior" can lead to confusion of two fundamentally different things - base element our conscious existence and that which has nothing to do with conscious existence. If economics were a science, then we would be relegated to the role of mere robots, no more able to choose to react to rising prices than a particle of iron can choose to react to a nearby magnet.

The second objection, although it seems quite different, is in fact the other side of the same coin. But the thing is that the social life of mankind, by its nature, is very dependent on politicians. In other words, moving from hunting and gathering to living according to a plan, each society creates various kinds of categories in accordance with the presence of privileges: aristocracy and slaves, classes and castes, the rights of owners and the lack of rights of the have-nots arise. From which it clearly follows that capitalism is no exception to general rule. What decides the fate of such an important economic process as the distribution of wealth and income - the contradictions in society or the force of attraction? Taxes, inheritance rights, the existence of sweatshops - are they all manifestations of irrefutable laws of nature? Or is it still extremely changeable products of the socio-political environment in which we live?

This question is closely related to Mankiw's assertion that economists "tend to treat their subject with the objectivity of other scientists." But what does it mean to be "objective" about inherited wealth or severe poverty? Does this mean that such situations only reflect the fundamental properties of society and therefore should be taken into account in the same way that a scientist takes things that are visible through a telescope or microscope as a given? Or maybe, having accurate information about our own preferences regarding the functioning of society, we could step back enough to take a neutral position? In this case, is it permissible to call discoveries "scientific", despite the fact that the objects of our study are generated not by nature, but by society?

Of course, this cannot be done. Of course scientific methods find their application in economics, especially when it comes to the problem of the most conscientious way of collecting and analyzing the data necessary for economic research. But when it comes to practical recommendations, it would be strange to present our advice as something predetermined by the structure of society - it, unlike nature, does not obey iron laws. Moreover, if we accept the existence of power and obedience in all stratified societies, we automatically deprive our explanations of the objectivity inherent in the study of nature. At best, we will offer an analysis of the processes going on in society in terms that are usually used to describe nature. If such pseudo-science really prevails in economics, then it must be admitted: in this case, the era of philosophy from this world will come to an end.

It's time to return to the interpretation of the word "end" as a destination, the final goal of any discipline. If economics is not the science of society, then what can it finally give to this society?

My answer is that the purpose of economics is to help us better understand the reality of capitalism that surrounds us. It is most likely that it is in this environment that our common foreseeable future will take place. For many years I have championed the benefits of democratic socialism, and it is not easy for me to make such a claim. Nevertheless, given the experience of building socialism in the twentieth century, it is difficult to expect it to degenerate into a more attractive form in the next century. It seems that the coming decades will become a rather difficult period in the history of mankind, which means that even the possibility of building socialism in less developed countries (where its onset is most likely) carries the potential for political megalomania, bureaucratic inertia and ideological intolerance.

Without a doubt, capitalist societies will also suffer from various conflicts and live in tension. Environmental threats, and above all global warming, oblige us not only to resist climate change in the world's poorest countries, but also to take on a much more difficult task: to reduce the emissions into the atmosphere of the substances that these hazards create, and here we are talking about developed countries. Add to this, on the one hand, the alarming proliferation of nuclear weapons, and on the other, ethnic, racial and religious hatred, and it becomes clear that the capitalist system is far from protected from everything. Finally, globalization is gaining momentum; born within individual economies, it reaches the supranational level and threatens the independence of the wealthiest of them. In short, the rich capitalist world should look to the near future with the same apprehension - but perhaps less desperation - as the poor pre-capitalist and pre-socialist countries.

If all this is so, then why do we need those pictures of the world and the analysis that accompanies them, which economists offer us? Obviously, the economy has nothing to offer in terms of political leadership, diplomatic intrigues and uplifting the morale of the population - and it is these factors that will play a major role in warding off the threat of collapse from a capitalist society. Despite this, the philosophy of this world has a unique ability: by sharing its vision of the world, it is able to help some capitalist countries to go through the coming decades with minimal losses.

I want to draw your attention to the word "some". Let me briefly remind you again distinctive features capitalism: the pursuit of capital, which imposes limits on the dominance of the market, as well as the distribution of power between two interconnected but independent sectors, private and public, which can be very useful, but can also be harmful. To this list, however, it is worth adding the ability to adapt and innovate, which creates a whole range of opportunities for capitalism - depending on the intensity of capital accumulation, the degree of freedom allotted to the market to carry out its activities, and also on the place where the border between private and public is drawn. . Therefore, despite their external similarity, we are dealing with a whole set of capitalist societies. To be convinced of the truth of this statement, it is enough to look at the enormous gap between the socially successful (more than economically) Scandinavian countries and the economically exemplary, but catastrophic, from the point of view of the ordinary person, American capitalism. Thus, payments to the leaders of the largest American corporations are twice as high as those in France and Germany, while the social mobility of the poor in America is almost half that of French and German, and almost three times that of Sweden. The first part of the comparison indicates a culture built around greed, the second - the degree of indifference of society to its problems. This combination shows a lack of flexibility needed by any country that would like to be as safe as possible from surprises in the coming decades, and even more so for one that tries to set an example for everyone else.

A newly born philosophy of this world is able to find its usefulness precisely for these social aspects of capitalism. Economic analysis alone cannot serve as a torch to light our path, but an economic view of things is quite capable of revealing ways to increase the sense of purpose, increase the flexibility and develop the social responsibility that is so necessary for any capitalist structure. In a word, in the face of the coming difficulties true purpose philosophy from this world is the realization of such a need, and then the search for possible options for capitalism, successful both in the economic and social dimensions.

Undoubtedly, it will be objected to me that the implementation of such a comprehensive program will require the emergence of new, unusually strong politicians. I will also be told that the knowledge necessary to form the picture of the world that interests us actually belongs to other areas - from psychology and sociology to political science.

Yes, of course, all this is true. The economy will not save the country in the absence of serious leaders, but leaders will not do anything alone, without the help of economists, no matter how clearly defined the scope of their subject. It is clear that the new economy will have to borrow a lot from other areas of the study of society. If we want worldly philosophy in the 21st century to hold the bar set by it in the 19th and 20th centuries, it must become deeper and expand the range of its own interests, especially compared to its current, frankly sad state. Keeping in mind that the word "end" in the title of this chapter has two meanings, I dedicate my book to this hopeful image of tomorrow's philosophy from this world.

From the book Who Said Elephants Can't Dance? The Resurgence of the IBM Corporation: An Inside Look author Louis Gerstner

CHAPTER 10 Changing the pay philosophy The old IBM had very strict pay policies; I think most of them stemmed from the management philosophy of Tom Watson, Jr., the man who created the great IBM company in the 1960s and 970s. Because

From the book Doomsday of American Finance: A Mild Depression of the 21st Century. by William Bonner

End This file was createdwith BookDesigner [email protected]/6/2009

From the book Ethics of Freedom author Rothbard Murray Newton

CHAPTER 5 THE OBJECT OF POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY It is not the intention of this book to expound or defend the philosophy of natural law or to develop an ethic based on natural law and intended for the personal morality of man.

From the book Jack. My years at GE author Byrne John

From Warren Buffett's book. How to turn 5 dollars into 50 billion. The strategy and tactics of a great investor author Hagstrom Robert J

The Essence of Warren Buffett's Investment Philosophy The rational allocation of capital is the main driver of Warren Buffett's investment strategy. The decision on the distribution of company profits is the most important of all decisions that have to be made.

From the book Methodology of Economic Science author Blaug Mark

Part I WHAT YOU ALWAYS WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT THE PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE BUT YOU WERE AFRAID

From the book Trading based on intuition. How to make money on the stock exchange, using the full potential of the brain. by Face Curtis

Foreword by Van K. Tharp, Ph.D. If I relied on intuition, you might not be reading this foreword You see, intuition is a concept that I am very familiar with. I did my PhD in psychology with a focus on biological psychology,

From the book Who owns the power in consumer markets: the relationship of retail chains and suppliers in modern Russia author Radaev Vadim Valerievich

Development of the initial concept of the law on trade (end of 2006 - end of 2007) The initial concept of the law on trade was openly discriminatory towards retail chains. Thus, in the draft Concept dated January 29, 2007, discussed at the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade of Russia, there was

From the book World in 2050 author Andrews John

Oh, this is the fall of the powers that be ... The decline in the activity of the former monopolists can be illustrated in several ways, but the most interesting is the falling share of calls made from telephone numbers. Since 1990, international voice traffic has grown

From the book General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money author Keynes John Maynard

CHAPTER 24 social philosophy, to which the general theory can lead I The most significant vices economic society in which we live are its inability to provide full employment, as well as its arbitrary and

From the book The Crisis of Capital 2.0 [Towards a New Reality] author Kurpatov Andrey Vladimirovich

The funeral of the world known to us - the world of "Capital 2.0". Liturgy http://snob.ru/selected/entry/85091We continue to publish Andrey Kurpatov's text on new economic relations. In the second part, read about Baudrillard's paradox and Fukuyama's optimism, and how trust has become

From the book Get Rich! A book for those who dared to earn a lot of money and buy a Ferrari or Lamborghini author DeMarco MJ

The impotence of the "get rich slowly" philosophy If you have chosen the "get rich slowly" strategy, I can make an assumption: you are not rich and will never be rich. How do I know? Very simple. This strategy is based on the principle of uncontrolled limited influence, or

From the book Managers are not born. Difficult lessons in achieving real results the author Switek Frank

End of the Day An effective manager's day should end with a final meeting with team members to discuss any specific issues or concerns that may be necessary. The end of the day is the time to make plans for tomorrow. By setting goals and making sure in advance that for them

From the book Achieving Goals: A Step-by-Step System author Atkinson Marilyn

Marilyn Atkinson, Ph.D. Marilyn Atkinson is the principal author of The Science and Art of Coaching trilogy. She created a number of concepts, processes, and tools that you will encounter throughout the books. Atkinson is an internationally recognized coach and developer

From the book Impressions of Soviet Russia. Should the state manage the economy author Keynes John Maynard

Remarks on the Social Philosophy to Which a General Theory Can Lead The most significant vices of the economic society in which we live are its inability to secure full employment and its arbitrary and unfair distribution.

From the book The whole truth about IKEA. What lies behind the success of a megabrand the author Stenebu Johan

Commercialism Raised to Philosophy In this chapter, I have tried to describe how IKEA turned tacking, in the best sense of the word, into a philosophy. When planning each sales area, the smallest details are given the closest attention. Every detail is necessary