Economics: The Users Guide by Ha-Joon Chang

Economics: The Users Guide Reviews

• 
  Trevor

  This is a really good book. A couple of years ago I decided it would be a good idea to get a better idea about what all the excitement was with this economics stuff. So, I set about reading some books. I also decided that I ought to read some books I was likely to disagree with, to get a better idea of the full spectrum of thought around this topic. Some of the threads under the reviews of the books I read that supported free market economics still occasionally flare up. I’m much more likely to be called an idiot under those reviews than just about any other I have written. Generally that is all the people do say, though – “McCandless, you’re an idiot”. Which is fine, and pretty close to the level of ‘debate’ I would expect.
  
  But I also read books with titles like Economics for people that don’t like Capitalism or Filthy Lucre – you know, books I sort of thought might give me a more ‘left wing’ perspective on economics. But generally these books were written by people who fully accepted that the only way to understand the economy was from the perspective of neoliberal economics and that if your view differed in any way from this perspective then you were simply wrong. They quietly asserted that economics is a science and that that science is completely settled. The problem I had with this was that neoliberal policies have dominated the world economy for decades and, well, in a word (number?) 2008. You know, we ended up being fried in the GFC and from the outside that did look a bit like being the fault of neoliberal policies. I’d have thought that anyone who even pretended to be even a wee bit objective might think that the GFC could, perhaps, offer a bit of a challenge to the neoliberal orthodoxy. I know, I can be incredibly naïve.
  
  This is the book that I wish I’d read close to first. It really is a lovely introduction to economics. Firstly, it tells you that the GFC really does present a challenge to the major economic orthodox theory of today – neoliberalism. It also says that there are other economic theories and that these have been far too often completely ignored by authors who have been far too partisan in their views. It then goes on to outline the major economic theories and to highlight their main assumptions and concerns. For the summary he provides of these on the pages following 165 in an appendix to the chapter on the subject really the book is a must have.
  
  But this is so much more than merely an attack on neoliberal economic theories – in fact, it could be argued that it isn’t even really that. The author sees economic theories as essentially a series of tools that can be used to help understand economic phenomena. As such, each theory provides a different way to understand these phenomena and each theory is therefore somewhat limited in its scope and applicability. The problem arises when people are ideologically committed to only one theory – he quotes that saying about to the guy with a hammer everything looks like a nail – and so that is where problems arise. As someone who likes the idea that the world is complicated and difficult to understand and that having as many candles available to help light the world from different perspectives as one can is about our only hope to understand the world at all – this is all pretty well someone singing my favourite song. But it won’t be all that well liked by the kinds of people who tell me how much they hate me under those reviews I mentioned before of neoliberal economics texts I’ve read.
  
  One of the things I really liked about this book is that chapters end with ‘real world numbers’ and this is such an important thing. He talks about things we all know to be true – we live in a globalised world, we are deindustrialising, education makes us more productive – and then he provides the numbers and muddies these waters in ways they really should be muddied.
  
  He ends this book by saying that economics is too important to be left to the professional economists and that it isn’t all that hard to learn the basics and therefore to have a better chance of knowing when you are being taken for a ride. This really is a worthwhile book to read, highly recommended.
  
• 
  Kevin

  I revisit this every few years as an accessible refresher; always engaging, real-world ECON 101 to reference and critique.
  
  The Good:
  --A worthy State Capitalist reformer (with specialty in real-world Development Economics) to engage with, it is fascinating to see how Chang organizes "Economics" for a wider public audience.
  --This User's Guide on how to think (as opposed to what to think) about Economics has some sound principles:
  1) Political Economy: Economics cannot be a science as the issues it addresses are political, immersed in social values and power relations. So, when faced with various subjective perspectives, it is prudent to consider cui bono? (to whom does it benefit?)
  2) Schools of Thought: Economic theories are ideological and start from different philosophical assumptions, with "mainstream economics" being mostly just one school (Neoclassical); Chang presents 9 "schools" and recommends not using only a hammer (and seeing everything as nails).
  3) Real World Economics: Economics is not just "the Market", as if every economic activity is a market exchange between strangers seeking to maximize individual gain and this all sums up to a utopic equilibrium. Ex. what happens inside a company is outside the market; activities are run by hierarchical social relations. This should be significant in the age of sprawling transnational corporations that dominate the global economy.
  
  The Bad:
  --Chang is a useful bridge to cross (and not get stuck on), so make sure you get to the other side to read deeper structural critiques/alternatives! TL;DR: 4 must-reads:
  1)
  Talking to My Daughter About the Economy: or, How Capitalism Works—and How It Fails
  2) alternatives:
  Another Now: Dispatches from an Alternative Present
  3)
  Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st-Century Economist
  4)
  Less is More: How Degrowth Will Save the World
  
  --As with his previous books, Chang's emphasis on State Capitalist economic development focuses on extracting lessons from isolated nation-state winners/losers of capitalist development. Thus, he has less to say about the totality of the capitalist system (geopolitical economy, ecology, etc.) and its systemic contradictions:
  
  1) Structural Crises:
  --The most compelling critics of capitalism engage with this paradox: capitalism's dynamism is at the same time its volatility; capitalism's engine is its coercive social mobilization for endless private accumulation (growth), where the anarchy of the market (war-like competition) forces capitalists to grow and externalize costs while the dispossessed are forced into wage labour to survive. Sources of crises include:
  
  i) Private debts: mobilizing capital for modern capitalism's scale starts with massive private debts (i.e. private banks borrow money from the future with the expectation of growth to pay, with interest), thus ever-greater private banks.
  ...Power shifts to the "rentier" class (income from ownership rents rather than wage labour/competitive profits; short-term speculation rather than long-term productive investments). Thus, capitalist property rights increasing serves to protect elite parasitism, draining productive dynamism:
  Killing the Host: How Financial Parasites and Debt Bondage Destroy the Global Economy
  ...Chang's "better regulation" (without challenging the capitalist property rights of money/labour/land markets) always seems many steps behind in missing the structural contradictions (why not consider structural changes in money/debt creation?) and power relations (regulatory capture).
  -for intros, see the top recommendations above.
  -details:
  The Bubble and Beyond
  -
  The Public Bank Solution: From Austerity to Prosperity
  -
  Debt: The First 5,000 Years
  
  ii) Privatize and Externalize (costs/risks): social wealth and nature's wealth are first privatized (think Enclosures privatizing the Commons, creating artificial scarcity and dependency).
  ...Next, survival in the war of market competition requires externalizing costs/risks to outside the market, i.e. shifting the burden onto the vulnerable (socializing risks, privatizing rewards): poor people (i.e. global division of labour), the environment (i.e. outsourcing pollution), the State (public spending/taxing labour for the costs of physical and social infrastructure, clean-up/bailouts, property rights enforcement, research & development), women/households (i.e. unpaid social reproduction), weaker companies (e.g. subcontracting the risks of production while relying on intellectual property rent), etc. See:
  The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power.
  “Capitalist production, therefore, develops technology, and the combining together of various processes into a social whole, only by sapping the original sources of all wealth - the soil and the labourer.” -Marx,
  Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Volume 1
  ...The other tactic of automation culminates in structural unemployment (rather than more leisure time for everyone) and thus "overproduction" (i.e. the newly-unemployed lack the wages to purchase the automated goods, creating a profit squeeze).
  ...Once again, Chang's "better regulation" pales in comparison with the necessary changes in property rights (money/labour/land/technology/information etc.) explored in the aforementioned "Another Now" and "Doughnut Economics".
  
  iii) Infinite growth on a finite planet: in the age of the Anthropocene/Capitalocene, we must move beyond Chang's productionist "economic development" (see below).
  -
  Less is More: How Degrowth Will Save the World
  -
  Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st-Century Economist
  -
  The New Economics: A Manifesto
  
  2) "Golden Age of Capitalism" and U.S. empire:
  --Next, let's add some geopolitical economy to structural crises. I always find this a stunning omission: Chang's much-praised post-WWII "Golden Age of Capitalism" (basically the recycling of U.S. war-time production surpluses to rebuild Western Europe, Japan, and other satellites) was the result of WWII, the most destructive war in human history. WWII's creative destruction rescued global capitalism from its structural crisis of the Great Depression (the New Deals were hardly sufficient), resulting in the U.S. Military Industrial Complex.
  --In fact, Chang's South Korean rapid industrialization was aided by military contracts for the U.S.'s genocidal war on Vietnam/Cambodia/Laos (
  Drums of War, Drums of Development: The Formation of a Pacific Ruling Class and Industrial Transformation in East and Southeast Asia, 1945-1980)! South Korea was born as a U.S. Cold War satellite (
  https://youtu.be/3-TzxY50Spk), a U.S. military occupation where Japanese fascists were initially revived and then a series of dictators... and South Korea is considered the beacon of pro-West development(!), especially compared to the rest of the Global South seeking decolonization:
  -
  Washington Bullets: A History of the CIA, Coups, and Assassinations
  -
  The Jakarta Method: Washington's Anticommunist Crusade and the Mass Murder Program that Shaped Our World
  -
  Killing Hope: U.S. Military and C.I.A. Interventions Since World War II
  --The contradiction of Social Democracy (political "democracy" + capitalist economy) is that during economic booms (i.e. post-WWII "Golden Age of Capitalism") the political democracy part is allowed to coexist in a class compromise with a rollback of the Enclosures by reviving the non-market Commons (i.e. welfare social services, to catch up to the USSR).
  --This compromise falls apart during economic downturns, as the capitalist class (which owns the means of production) resort to "accumulation by dispossession" (renewed Enclosures by dismantling social services + privatization) and take power out of the public political sphere to hide it in the private corporate/financial sphere (ex.
  A Brief History of Neoliberalism).
  --Chang omits such geopolitical structural crises and stays with surface observations (ex. Finance becoming too complex thus difficult to regulate). And we didn't even get into the geopolitical contradictions of U.S.'s post-WWII Bretton Woods global plan!
  -
  Super Imperialism: The Origin and Fundamentals of U.S. World Dominance
  -
  The Global Minotaur: America, the True Origins of the Financial Crisis and the Future of the World Economy
  -
  And the Weak Suffer What They Must? Europe's Crisis and America's Economic Future
  --The mask is lifted; there cannot be meaningful "democracy" without economic democracy in the enterprise (
  Democracy at Work: A Cure for Capitalism), finance (
  The Public Bank Solution: From Austerity to Prosperity), and geopolitics (
  The Darker Nations: A People's History of the Third World). Without economic democracy, those dependent on wage labour instead of capital ownership will always be cast aside when convenient; busts lead to more dispossession, while booms can ruin sectors and regions (structural unemployment from automation/outsourcing, gentrification speculative bubbles). Capitalism's boom/busts cycles means social dislocation is a feature.
  
  3) "Economic Development"?:
  --Chang's focus with "economic development" is on trade and national policy (esp. industrial), in particular moving up the ladder of higher-productivity production vs. those at the top "kicking away the ladder" (basically, "imperialism", although Chang avoids this term; see Chang's
  Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism).
  ...In Chang's context of living through South Korea's rapid development (the suddenness of affording refrigerators, washing machines, digital watches, etc.), it's understandable how significant these market commodities are to everyday living standards. However, too much focus on this leaves behind:
  
  i) The Commons: we really need to take a step back and look at the historical rise of capitalism. The Enclosures (privatization of the Commons) was a crucial process to create the land market and labour market (dispossessed serfs), while colonialism expanded this globally. It took some 350 years of violent Enclosures/satanic mills/New World colonialism/Slave Trade before European class struggle managed to revive (their own) living standards, by leaving for settler colonialism! This revival was not primarily from affordable commodity goods, but the revival of the Commons, in particular public health (sanitation infrastructure).
  -intro:
  The Divide: A Brief Guide to Global Inequality and its Solutions
  -dive:
  Capital and Imperialism: Theory, History, and the Present
  -dive:
  Perilous Passage: Mankind and the Global Ascendancy of Capital
  -
  Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action
  --Of course, Chang appreciates the Institutional school, where this "Commons revival" is probably framed within the welfare state. And in his more academic works, we can assume Chang recognizes how crucial "social capacity" is in economic development (ex. China/East Asia didn't simply develop via market liberation to open their cheap labor to global capitalist exploitation; a competitive labour-force required socialized Commons of health/education/welfare/land reforms etc.).
  
  ii) The Environment: as mentioned in the above "Infinite growth on a finite planet", it is stunning how this entire topic is absent. Commodity fetishism/growthism/metabolic rift (fun jargon to look into) are rampant; we need to cross this productionist bridge to renew our social imagination for balance/holism/resilience.
  
  
  Highlights:
  --Chang popularizes "heterodox economics" by describing 9 schools (including orthodox Neoclassical) as ingredients to be mixed in various "economic cocktails" to deal with particular economic problems:
  

  Health warning: On no account drink only one ingredient – liable to lead to tunnel vision, arrogance and possibly brain death.
  
  -Ingredients:
  Austrian (A)
  Behaviouralist (B)
  Classical (C)
  Developmentalist (D)
  Institutionalist (I)
  Keynesian (K)
  Marxist (M)
  Neoclassical (N)
  Schumpeterian (S)
  
  [...] On diverging views of the vitality and the viability of capitalism, take CMSI.
  If you want to know why we sometimes need government intervention, take NDK.
  To discover different ways of conceptualizing the individual, take NAB.
  In order to learn that there is a lot more to the economy than markets, take MIB.
  If you want to see how groups, especially classes, are theorized, take CMKI.
  To study how technologies develop and productivities rise, take CMDS.
  To understand economic systems, rather than just their components, take MDKI.
  If you want to find out why corporations exist and how they work, take SIB.
  If exploring how individuals and society interact is your thing, take ANIB.
  For debates surrounding unemployment and recession, take CK.
  For various ways of defending the free market, take CAN.
• 
  Mark Lawry

  We all have our conversational biases. Mine is a belief in limited government, free trade, and market economies. Chang’s is a belief in a larger state, regulation, and a lack of faith in markets. That’s fine, we can all continually read and learn from each other. However, Chang tries to walk a fine line between being governed by his own biases while yet being continually wrong. There are just too many examples of this in this work. I will name just a couple. He claims “Only Chile did well out of Neo-Liberal policies (think Reagan and Thatcher) of the 1980s and the 1990s.” I’m not going to write a book about how foolish a statement this is. Then on page 166 he claims that several rich countries of Europe had maintained less than 1% unemployment during the Golden Age (post WWII until Reagan era of deregulation.) It was the disastrous unemployment and inflation that ushered in Reagan.
  There is one place where Chang and I probably agree. He says that one should read as extensively as possible opinions from as many as possible. For this reason I will probably read a couple other books of his. The problem with this book is it is nothing more than an encyclopedia of economic terms with his opinion mixed in. I’m willing to read his evidence or argument that expands on what he claims in this book.
  Perhaps a useful book to add to an undergrad Econ 101 reading list.
  
• 
  Simon Wood

  TOO IMPORTANT TO BE LEFT TO ECONOMISTS
  
  Ha-joon Changs "Economics: The User's Guide" is the first title in the newly resurrected Pelican imprint. Chang himself is best described as a heterodox economist, firmly outside the mainstream where neoclassical economics (not to mention neoliberalism) is the reigning creed. But given the multiple failings of orthodox economics the heterodox Chang with his cheerful style, wide learning and a clear and concise authorial voice make him the ideal candidate for writing an introductory book on economics. He doesn't dissapoint.
  
  The book itself is divided into twelve chapters exploring a range of economic issues including asking what exactly economics is, exploring the role of the state, inequality and poverty, work and unemployment, finance and production. Sixty odd pages are devoted a brief history of capitalism, giving the reader a pretty good understanding of two and a half centuries of capitalisms global progress.
  
  It's a brilliant introduction for those who have encountered the economy watching the news, through history or political books, and want to find out what this vitaly important aspect of our lives is about. The further reading guides at the end of each chapter are a valuable resource for those whose interests have been aroused. More seasoned students of economics should find the scope of the book (both intellectually and geographically), and it's easy and succinct style ample reward for the effort spent reading. One quibble I have: important terms (privitisation, capital controls, etc) are printed in bold in the text at the point where they are explained, but the index of the defined terms allowing easy reference is absent.
  
  This is a book which along with his "23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism" and "Bad Samaritans" I'd strongly recommend reading, not least because (as Chang himself notes) a widespread knowledge of economics is essential to understanding our societies and democraticising our political life.
• 
  Prerna

  This book is divided into two parts - the first part provides a very accessible introduction to the various schools of economics and a brief history of capitalism. I particularly liked the chapter on Keynesian economics. However, I got increasingly bored with the second part which focused on learning to use economics. Ha-Joon Chang has a tendency to oversimplify important concepts and to use humour where it's absolutely unnecessary.
  
  And for all its emphasis on the importance of international trade, I found that there was next to nothing on trade embargos and its effects on developing countries and the global economy. Also, there are barely any mentions of climate change, the military industrial complex, international wars, the refugee crisis, US and European imperialism which are all very pertinent to the current economic scenario.
  
  I also got very annoyed with all the pop-culture references, perhaps more so because I read this book twice, consecutively. However, it's a really accessible primer on economics and Ha-Joon Chang offers various ways of reading it. You don't even have to read it in its entirety. I'm sure I'll revisit this whenever I need to refresh my knowledge on certain aspects of economics.
• 
  Elizabeth

  I really wanted to like this, but I felt like looking at economics this way was more disjointed than helpful. Instead of presenting a textbook approach to economics, Ha-Joon Chang tackles it more conversationally. After digging into the history of economic thought he explores a variety of current events and shows their ties to economics. Readers may take away a greater appreciation for what economics can tell us, but they probably won't get an understanding of how to "do" economics.
• 
  Maru Kun

  ...when faced with an economic argument, you must ask the age-old question 'Cui bono?' - Who benefits?...

  
  
  Or in other words, "follow the money".
  
  So says Ha-Joon Chang in the epilogue to this excellent introduction to economics which shows how economic questions cannot be separated from political questions and which helps explain how politicians hide behind smokescreens of economic theory and economic jargon to advance policies that favour particular interest groups - more often than not the rich - instead of policies that reflect the democratic will of their electors.
  
  This is important as recent years have seen many professional economists turn into little more than paid shills preaching "trickle down economics" and the "supremacy of the market" for the benefit of rich patrons. This book will help you put your finger on exactly where and how the work of these shills is based on faith or fantasy rather than on objective evidence about how economies actually work.
  
  If only Queen Elizabeth had had a copy of this book at hand when she asked why no economists foresaw the financial crisis of 2008. She would have learnt that the "neo-classical" economics that dominates economic discussion in the media is based on a series of assumptions - hyper-rationality, perfect knowledge and efficient markets - that are almost farcically different from conditions that actually apply in the world. She would also have learnt that there are many other schools of economic thought that provide much better frameworks for analysing economics and a better job of answering her question as well as learning about a range of economic issues - production, inequality, the reality of globalization, immigration - that are swept under the carpet by economists who, whether they admit it or not, have a political agenda.
  
  

  ...economics is far more accessible than many economists would have you believe...

  
  
  Ha-Joon Chang's book is a reminder that the future of our democracy is in doubt if we don't educate ourselves to tell the difference between the economic propaganda spouted by vested interests and the economic and political truth we can observe in the world around is if we spend the time to try and understand it. This book is a great step towards such an understanding.
• 
  Katia N

  3.5/5
  
  Ha-Joon Chang is the economist from Cambridge. He broadly specialises in the field of development economics, but famous for his books “23 Things They Don’t Tell You About Capitalism.”  (I have not read that book).
  
  I picked up “the Manual” with the idea of refreshing my knowledge of basic economics. For this purpose, I think, the book is not the best source, but I found a few very interesting and useful parts and ideas in the book nevertheless.
  
  He splits the book in two parts. It is the second part, “Doing economics” i've had problems with. Mainly, because it did not add too much to what i already knew. He would not go farther than the knowledge of a layperson with good grasp of the current affairs. And very often his point of view is a bit too obvious. In this part, he discusses the following Macroeconomic areas: Measurement of Growth, Production, Work and Unemployment, the Role of the Government, Globalisation. It would be useful, if one does not know anything about how modern economy function. But if you do, you can skip this bit or read just headings.
  
  However, I enjoyed the first part of the book and his views on the subject of the economics per se. He defines the economics as a study of economy (money, work, technology, trade, taxes and other things which we have to do to distribute the incomes generated in the process and consume what it produced.) As opposed to study of rational decision making within the constraints of scarcity.
  
  And as a second step, he postulates that the economy could not be separated from the politics, or at least that the boundary is very blur. “Because the boundary of the market and economy is determined by politics. Not by the economics theory of whatever variety.” He argues that the politicians (and sometimes the society) decide what is subject to market and what is not. For example, the human beings are used to be subjects of the market transactions during the slavery. And current emission limits trading is something which was never defined as the market before. Further he argues that “a political argument often presented as a science.” by all involved.
  
  Also he argues that the markets might be detrimental to democracy:
  
  “Markets run according to the one-dollar-one-vote rule while democratic politics run on the principle of one person one vote. Thus the proposal for greater depoliticisation of the economy in the democracy is in the end an antidemocratic project that wants to give more power in the running of the society to those with more money.”
  
  It is a very interesting point worth considering. I personally can see where he is coming from, but do not entirely agree with the view “one dollar one vote” automatically benefits the rich - mass consumption fuelled by the debt is only thing which “trickled down” successfully. So the economy is relying on the masses to buy stuff. If they would stop for whatever reason, their economic vote would be very tangible. But this discussion is very interesting and relevant and should be continued.
  
  The book also includes the brief history of capitalism which summarises the economic development up to current time. It is by definition sketchy, and i found it too selective to be helpful. But another chapter is devoted to the history of economic thought. He identifies 9 different schools of economic theories (from Adam Smith to Austrians, Keynesian, institutionalises etc.) and presents their main ideas, strengths and weaknesses. I found this analysis invaluable, the most interesting and unbiased part of the book. The chapter I would come back to reread. As a conclusion, he claims if the economist says to you “there is no alternative”, he cannot be right and not to be trusted.
  
  PS:
  
  The interview with him about this book and other stuff:
  
  
  https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...
  
  
• 
  howl of minerva

  The second of these Pelican Introductions that I've read. They seem to nicely split the difference between Oxford UP's Very Short Introductions (great but obviously only toe-dipping) and heftier academic texts.
  
  Chang provides a broad overview of different schools of economic thought and argues sensibly that economics should not be considered an empirical science but a social and political one. This should be obvious but it's not. Dominant ideologies love to appropriate the mantle of science. That's as true for 'scientific socialism' as for the TINA-ism of the neoliberal age. God said, "Let Hayek Be!" and all was light.
  
  If you're familiar with Chang's work, his own positions here will come as no surprise: 'free-market' economics means de-development for the global south; some regulation is a good thing etc. He situates these views in the field of competing opinions.
  
  His plea at the end for a more engaged public that is willing to doubt experts is problematic. Chang writes from Britain. Should the public there ignore experts in favour of their gut feelings? That's probably contributed to the current woes. But if we do need experts, which ones are trustworthy? It surely takes expertise to know. The average member of public has to pick one and/or try to become one and/or be swept up by demagoguery. My preference for economists like Chang, Stiglitz and Piketty realistically has more to do with my overall political sympathies than my knowledge of economics. Bernays examines this dilemma in detail in Propaganda and I think there's no simple solution. (Education, you say? Who will do the educating?). Perhaps Piketty's forthcoming monster opus on Capital and Ideology will provide clues.
• 
  Ed

  This is a brilliant book that dismantles the current fetishism that tries to turn economics--a study of human behavior and its consequences with all the uncertainty and rough edges that any investigation of people and the way they act must contain--into a materialistic science like physics or chemistry with the same rigor and exactitude. The basic assumptions of classical, neo-classical, neo-liberal and most economic thought are based on some core principles which, when looked at apart from the ideology in which they are embedded, become risible. Unless, of course, one takes seriously that individuals are perfectly selfish, always act perfectly rational and are able to create perfect markets by acting in her own interests.
  
  This isn't a Jeremiad against the profession. Chang is much too entertaining and too good a writer for that. He is interested in the spirit of political economy, a concept so fitting that one wonders how it could have fallen so far out of fashion. Instead of a faux-hard science with page-long equations that generally describe nothing, he is interested in getting (back) to the real thing, the study of political management of the economy.
  
  There is a lot to recommend in all of Chang's work and "Economics: The User's Guide" is as good a place to start as any. My only quibble is with its page design and layout--there are so many terms in bold type (often several per page) and so many italic summaries that it become distracting. Other than those typographical complaints though, this book is a masterpiece worth reading by anyone interested in how the profession of economics works.
• 
  Phil

  There are lots of books about economics and the economy, but Chang's books is quite unique. I would not consider this an introduction to the discipline of economics, although it could serve as such, but rather a bird's eye view of the discipline and how it has evolved over time. The first section (part I and II) provides an excellent history of economic thought and economic history in a very condensed, accessible fashion. Yes, Chang omits a lot of nuance, but he discusses several schools of economic thought an just how they make sense of the economy and its relationship to the state. Further, this is largely a critique of the neoclassical/neoliberal stance of TINA-- e.g., there is no alternative to our current status quo.
  
  All that stated, the last part, (section III), is not quite as strong. After Chang elucidates several schools of thought and how they focus on different aspects of the economy (individual actors, classes, etc.), he then considers several 'hot' topics, like international trade, poverty, and income inequality and considers how we can make sense of them from an economist's view, or rather, several different schools of thought. Yet, he is not very explicit about which school would say what. Classical and neoclassical economists have very little to say about income inequality, for example, but he does not make that explicit. What he does do a good job of here, however, is to show the various ways these issues/topics can be considered. Is income inequality a problem? We, it depends on who you ask, and even if they consider it a problem, it may be for different reasons.
  
  Overall, a badly needed book that provides a decent critique of the 'orthodox' neoclassicals and the neoliberal political position, but it is rather shallow as it tries to do a lot in very little space. Well written and at times quite funny, hopefully it may spur some interest in the various hot topics he discusses and let people approach them in a more critical way. A big take away is that there are many voices in economics and they do not all agree.
  
  Finally, I should note that I am an economist and am very familiar with the various schools of thought discussed here, but I am an outlier in the profession (like Chang himself). For many other 'orthodox' economists, they may be an eyeopener. I would consider this a mid-level undergraduate text and certainly one with a largely successful attempt to make the topics/ideas accessible to a broader public. Kudos Chang!! 4 stars.
• 
  Tanvika

  Irresistable, likeable introductory book to Economics. I can say that as being a economics student,have struggled quite a bit with the lame,dry, scientific, imaginary diagram prone idealistic neoclassical way of learning. The subject was also taught very very mechanically as a means to maximize our grades and careers.
  
  The first thing the writer does is to break the ' hoax of being a science to be known only by specialist'. You don't need to be a genius to know what people do, why the price keeps on jumping around, the net output made, the income disparities and the high level of unemployment in the world. The layman when aware can also keep a check on the experts,the government before another 2008 crisis knocks at our door.
  
  Again, the writer doesn't directly cut short history,society,pschyology as is general in a standard eco textbook. History of capitalism is elaborated (economic history is much neglected these days).
  There is a respect for various schools of thought like keynesian,Marxian,austrian, institutional, schumpeterian etc. These various schools contains some diverse views to look at our economy. There is just no one explanation.let hundred flowers bloom,hundered schools contend. Let's cross fertilize and understand the reality more better.
  
  There are then various chapters beautifully laying the basics ; the economic actors,the output, percapita income, happiness index, unemployment, inequality reasons and trends, poverty, development,finance,trade etc. There is a multiple vantage point view followed. The themes have witty titles like ' Boris goat should drop dead' ,'dramatis persona'. there is a practical way of presenting data and it's interpretation. Cross country comparisons are also very well explained. It is also pointed out clearly,that data isn't that perfect and supreme. For instance, gross domestic product excludes house work,care for elders, informal enterprises etc. Data collecting is itself a very challenging task in developing economies.
  
  As a introductory text,i wish this book had been referred to me way earlier. It does do a fairly good job to demystify and connect economics to the ground. But, I was disappointed, by the passing mention to environmental damages caused in the name of economic growth.
  
  
  
  
• 
  Makmild

  นี่เป็นหนังสือที่เราตามหามานานค่ะ (แต่มีอยู่บนเชลฟ์นานแล้วแค่ยังดองไม่ได้ที่แค่นั้นเอง ฮือๆ เลยเพิ่งได้หยิบมาอ่านช่วงปลายปีที่แล้ว/จบปีนี้) มีคำถามตลอดเลยว่า เศรษฐศาสตร์คืออะไรกันแน่ ทั้งๆ ที่อ่านหนังสือเศรษฐศาตร์เยอะมาก แต่ไม่รู้ตัวเลยว่าที่ว่าอ่านเยอะมากน่ะ มันก็แค่เศษเสี้ยวเดียวเท่านั้น เพราะเศรษฐศาสตร์มีอยู่หลายสาขามาก (ปกติอ่านแต่ behavior ซึ่ง เศรษฐศาสตร์พฤติกรรมเป็นอีกหนึ่งแนวคิดที่เพิ่งเกิดมา) ไม่ว่าจะเป็น คลาสสิก, นีโอคลาสสิก, มาร์กซิสต์, พัฒนานิยม, ออสเตรีย, ชุมเพเทอร์, เคนส์, สถาบันนิยม และ พฤติกรรมนิยม ซึ่งแต่ละสาขาก็มีวิธีการมองโลก, ตลาดไม่เหมือนกัน จุดอ่อนจุดแข็งไม่เหมือนกัน Economics: The User's Guide พาเราไปรู้จักแต่ละสาขาอย่างละนิดละหน่อยเหมือนชิมค็อกเทลแล้วในช่วงที่สอง ฮาจุงชานก็จะเขย่ามินิค็อกเทลพวกนี้ผสมกันพาเราไปใช้ในชีวิตจริง และมองโลกอย่างที่นักเศรษฐศาสตร์แต่ละสถาบันมอง
  .
  ฮาจุนชางพาเราไปตอบคำถามยากๆ อย่างเรื่องความเหลื่อมล้ำ, ความยากจน, ดุลการค้า, ปัญหาการว่างงาน, วิกฤตการเงินเมื่อปี 2008 (และปี 1999 - ต้มยำกุ้ง - สำหรับประเทศไทย) ว่าง่ายๆ ก็คือ คำถามหรือคำยากๆ อย่าง GDP (ยากแล้วสำหรับดิฉันที่เรียนเศรษฐศาสตร์มาตอนมอปลายเท่านั้น), NDP, GNP, FDI คำพวกนี้แต่ก่อนเป็นยาขมสำหรับเราเลยค่ะ แต่ตอนนี้คือ อ้อ (ถ้าไม่ลืม) และเวลาฟังนโยบายเศรษฐกิจหรือฟัง��วกวิเคราะห์แนวโน้มเศรษฐกิจก็เข้าใจขึ้นเยอะ เห็นความเชื่อมโยงของภาพใหญ่ว่าเรื่องพวกนี้มาเกี่ยวข้องยังไงกับชีวิตเรา มันสำคัญต่อชีวิตเราจริงๆ เพราะเศรษฐศาสตร์กับการเมืองเป็นสิ่งที่แยกออกจากกันไม่ขาด ทั้งคู่เกี่ยวเนื่องกัน และการเมืองก็เกี่ยวข้องกับชีวิตเรา เพราะงั้นการที่เราจะเข้าใจการเมืองในอีกทางหนึ่งก็ต้องเข้าใจเศรษฐศาสตร์ด้วยเหมือนกันค่ะ
  .
  ��ล่มนี้ทำให้เราเห็นเศรษฐศาสตร์มหภาคแบบเข้าใจง่ายมากจริงๆ จากใจคนอ่านเศรษฐศาสตร์มหภาคแล้วงงมาตลอด (เช่นงานของ tyler หรือ tim อ่านแล้วยังมึนๆ เพราะไม่มีแกนจากเล่มนี้ พออ่านเล่มนี้แล้วเข้าใจงานของ tyler cowen หรือ tim harford มากขึ้นมากๆ) แนะนำมากๆ สำหรับคนที่อยากเข้าใจเรื่องเศรษฐศาสตร์ค่ะ
  
• 
  Ed Erwin

  Pretty darn good. Dry in places, but that is probably inevitable.
  
  I suppose the main take-away is "Economics is a political argument. It is not – and can never be – a science; there are no objective truths in economics that can be established independently of political, and frequently moral, judgements."
  
  Whenever some politician says "There is no alternative," they are wrong. Looking at the world from one framework there may be only one right option. But there are multiple frameworks, and none of them is proven, nor applies in every situation.
• 
  Maria

  Ура, я добралась до конца этой книги!
  
  Ожиданий не оправдалось. Возможно проблема была в ожиданиях - я думала. это такая экономика на пальцах для чайников. Оказалось, что нихрена - это вполне себе учебник по экономической теории, написанный языком учебника по экономической теории. Термины разъясняются плохо и сложно, примеров и аналогий совсем мало, ну и язык тоже из учебника - канцелярский, многоэтажный, когда к концу предложения уже не помнишь, с чего все начиналось. Но возможно это проблема переводчика, а не автора - переводчик-то явно гнал по привычке, как будто учебник переводил.
  
  Обогатила ли меня эта книга? Очень мало. Какие-то термины, которые я давно знала, разъяснились, пара историй запомнилась. Но читать ради них всю книгу явно не стоило.
  
  Не знаю, кому ее можно посоветовать. Разве что реально студентам, которые изучают экономику и им нужно что-то вроде сборника "всего обо всем"
  
• 
  Tirdad

  اقتصاد، یک استدلال سیاسی است
  
  دیده‌اید برخی اقتصاددان‌های وطنی راه «حل» مسائل اقتصادی موجود را رجوع به «علم اقتصاد» می‌دانند؟ اگر قرار است همهٔ مسائل مربوطه با کاربست یک موجودیت واحد به نام «علم اقتصاد» حل شود، پس چرا در دنیا این‌همه مشکل اقتصادی وجود دارد و همه با هم سر آن دعوا می‌کنند؟ اصلاً مگر ماهیت اقتصاد چیزی مثل ریاضیات است که هر پرسشی پاسخی یگانه داشته باشد؟ حتا در بنیادی‌ترین شاخه‌های علم طبیعی مانند فیزیک ذرات بنیادی هم چارچوب‌های مختلف نگریک وجود دارد و کسی مدعی نگره‌ای واحد نیست. پس چرا دوستان این‌قدر با اعتماد به نفس از علمی واحد سخن می‌گویند؟ پاسخ ساده است: بی‌سوادی!
  
  اقتصاد در نهایت علمی است انسانی و کمی‌شدن آن هم صرفاً برای ساده‌سازی پدیده‌هایی به‌شدت پیچیده و فهم‌پذیر ساختن ‌آن‌ها است. اگر اقتصاددانی این پیچیدگی‌ها را درک نکرده باشد، با اقتصاد مانند مهندسی رفتار می‌کند. از پیچیدگی‌های توصیفی که بگذریم، اقتصاد وجه‌ای هنجاری هم دارد؛ یعنی پس از شناخت پدیدارها انتظار آن می‌رود که به ما بگوید «باید» چه کار کرد. پای هنجارها که به میان می‌آید، رجوع به سیاست و اخلاق گریزناپذیر می‌شود. درون علم اقتصاد هیچ‌چیزی وجود ندارد که به ما بگوید چه‌چیز خوب است و چه‌چیزی بد، چرا که همواره می‌توان پرسید «برای چه کسی خوب؟» و ریشه‌ای‌تر از آن «چرا این خوب است و نه آن؟». حیرت‌انگیز است که کسی خودش را اقتصاددان بنامد و هیچ درکی از این مبانی پیشاعلمی نداشته باشد. چانگ ۹ مکتب/گفتمان اقتصادی را برمی‌شمرد که هم پاسخ‌های مختلفی به «چه باید کرد؟»ها می‌دهند و هم مسیر رسیدن‌شان به آن پاسخ از هم متمایز است.
  
  هدف چانگ در کتاب این است که اقتصاد را از دریچه‌ای گشوده‌تر معرفی کند. روایتی که چانگ ارائه می‌کند با این که روایت جریان اصلی اقتصاد نیست، اما روایت درست‌تری است. درست به این معنا که نقایص رویکردهای پرطرفدار را بیان کرده و با عدد و رقم و ارجاعات تاریخی می‌کوشد نادرستی‌شان را نشان دهد. بینش عمیق و فرا-اقتصادی چانگ دگم‌های رایج اقتصادی را برنمی‌تابد و هر کلیشه‌ای را به باد انتقاد می‌گیرد. غالب چپ‌های وطنی در نقد رویکرد نئوکلاسیک به اقتصاد واکنشی جز تمسخر، تحقیر و فحاشی نداشته‌اند. اگر به دنبال نقدی مستدل و علمی از رویکرد نئوکلاسیک می‌گردید، خواندن این کتاب خالی از لطف نخواهد بود.
  
• 
  Dr. Tobias Christian Fischer

  A classic to read to understand economics by hard. It’s not that simple written but it’s a book that should be used in courses.
• 
  Tam

  This book serves well as an introduction to Economics and its different schools of thought. This is a welcoming effort since underlying assumptions are not so often spelled out clearly and examined. Admittedly, this is only an introduction and thus the examination is brief (to my taste), yet it would be a very useful one for people not in the field, baffled by the seemingly too complex economic issues, yet who wish to know more.
  
  This is somewhat similar to Chang's other books in the author's criticism of neo-liberalism. The bonus is his overall deconstruction of the view that Economics is a "science" in the sense of natural sciences are with, well, 'universal laws' and free of value judgments/politics. Some natural scientists would have something to comment on the latest developments in their fields about the existence of universal laws" and complete objectivity, which I wouldn't discuss. Nevertheless, surely I agree with this message.
  
  Chang presents some major schools of thoughts in Economics, about which I was very excited. Again his presentation is cursory and I'm not totally satisfied. But more than that, my expectation was of something larger, about the overall methodologies in the field: the 'overus'e of maths, stats, (I think) etc. and thus the failure to employ other tools. It fell short of my expectation, therefore 3 stars.
• 
  รพีพัฒน์ อิงคสิทธิ์

  รวบรวม concept ทั่วไปเกี่ยวกับเศรษฐศาสตร์ แต่ก็ยังมี jargon เต็มไปหมด ผมเห็นความพยายามของผู้เขียนในการทำแนวคิดที่ยุ่งยากซับซ้อนให้ง่าย ซึ่งผู้เขียนประสบความสำเร็จในระดับหนึ่ง
  
  สิ่งที่ชอบที่สุดของหนังสือคือบทสุดท้ายที่ย้ำชัดว่าเศรษฐศาสตร์เป็นกึ่ง Social Science ที่ไม่มีใครทราบว่าวิธีการหรือแนวคิดไหนดีที่สุดและถูกต้องที่สุด หัวใจของ Social Science คือการถกเถียงด้วยเหตุผลจนตกผลึก มากกว่าการที่บอกว่าใครมีประสบการณ์มากกว่า หรือเรียนจบมาสูงกว่าต้องถูกต้องเสมอ
  
  ชวนอ่านไว้มาเถียงกันครับ :)
• 
  Kanin Nitiwong

  เขียนสนุก น่าติดตาม และมองโลกในแง่ดี เหมาะเป็นหนังสือสำหรับคนที่อยากเริ่มศึกษาเศรษฐศาสตร์อย่างแท้จริง
• 
  Jaka Haris Mustafa

  Buku bagus banget. Harusnya jadi buku wajib anak sekolah di Indonesia.
  
  Jadi ingat komentar orang (di Facebook) yang bilang Jokowi plin-plan, gara-gara...:
  dulu waktu di Jakarta, serapan anggaran rendah dibela dan argumennya "daripada korupsi". Tetapi begitu 2015 kemarin, serapan anggaran rendah dan pemerintah malah disuruh splurge.
  
  Sebenarnya argumen (pembantunya) Jokowi itu bagus: mereka pakai paham Keynesian. Ketika pasar tidak dapat berfungsi dengan baik a.k.a pertumbuhan melemah, itulah saatnya pemerintah ambil kendali dg belanja sebanyak2nya. Tujuannya supaya ekonomi tetap bergairah.
  
  Sementara waktu masih di Jkt, argumen "drpd korupsi" ya sah-sah saja. Lha wong waktu itu ekonomi masih oke, ngapain splurge?
  
  Ya itu salah satu contoh lah. Masih banyak lagi yang menarik.
  
  Oh iya, buku ini enggak cuma membahas tentang "uang", karena ekonomi sendiri pada hakikatnya bukan sekedar tentang uang. Tetapi social science yang mencoba memahami perilaku orang banyak terhadap sesuatu.
  
  Buku bagus, wajib baca supaya bisa memahami orang perseorangan maupun lembaga dengan lebih baik dan lebih jelas.
  
  P.S. Harusnya diterjemahkan di dalam bahasa Indonesia.
• 
  Piyush Bhatia

  An excellent source to get useful insights into Economics.
• 
  Otto Lehto

  A decent overview of the subject of economics, written by the "maverick" Cambridge economist Ha-Joon Chang, whose books have challenged the status quo in a witty way. This book, however, is a bit flimsier. It doesn't really know what it wants to be: an introduction to the layman, or a critical commentary on the present state of the science? Therefore, it ends up being a bit of both.
  
  It is full of good advice: "the willingness to challenge professonal economists and other experts should be the foundation of democracy."
  
  I was particulary impressed by Chang's advice that we should all acquiant ourselves with the different schools of economics - from the Neoclassical to the Behaviouralist via the Keynesian - and use them freely, like a Swiss knife, depending on the needs of the circumstances. This is very encouraging of pluralism, and all good advice.
  
  Unfortunately, there are some boring sections that are written in a pedantic and teacher-like manner. This contrasts sharply with some of the more energetic bits of writing, full of wit and fun.
  
  Overall, a mixed bag, but probably worth reading if you have any questions about economists. And you should. If you think you don't have any questions, you probably need to read this book all the more! Economics is a tough subject full of easy misconceptions and hidden political agendas. An overview of the general facts and theories becomes a weapon with which to shatter sacred cows.
• 
  Luke McCarthy

  Very readable and very accessible run-down of some basic ECON 101 concepts, from popular schools of thought to the function of banks, stocks and trade. Chang's writing is concise, and his ability to articulate economics in relation to the 'real-world' is greatly appreciated (I even enjoyed the lame but endearing pop-culture references sprinkled throughout).
  The faith here in a kind of regulated, 'tamed' capitalism makes some of the solutions he poses less radical than I'd like, and the discussions surrounding the supposed 'golden age of capitalism' seem somewhat naive. A golden age for whom? Chang seems very cogent of capitalism's inability to deal with externalities in the negative sense, yet never suggests that the post-war 'boom' was itself an anomaly born from the externalities of WW2 (ie, something that was bound to eventually crash).
  Shines most whenever Chang explores the many myths surrounding 'free trade', systematically unpacking every assumption argued for and perpetuated by liberals and neo-liberals alike. A market - like all economics - is inherently political, and similar to liberalism generally, 'free trade' supposes that people, countries and companies are independent actors making decisions completely separate from the power structures in which they inhabit. His dissection of transfer pricing was similarly illuminating and well-articulated. Had a great time with this.
• 
  David

  After overdosing on Poulantzas it was very good to reconnect with a book that is actually about something. Very useful intro on the different schools of economic thought and the general parameters of a national economy. Chang is not a marxist himself, but one wonderful specific contribution is his debunking of the international free market as 1) a playing field that tends towards equilibrium or 2) an engine a country can simply hook itself up to to get rich. Not everything is fleshed out equally (would have liked a layman's explanation of the economic crisis of 2008) but it does what it promises.
• 
  Philipp

  Absolutely marvellous overview of where the 'science' of economics is now at - what are the different schools of thoughts, what are the terms, numbers, and statistics we use to measure economics and compare them, what are the drawbacks of each measurement and what are we missing out on, how do we measure inequality and how does that work, it's a very-well written introduction to economics.
  
  

  Economics is a political argument. It is not – and can never be – a science; there are no objective truths in economics that can be established independently of political, and frequently moral, judgements. Therefore, when faced with an economic argument, you must ask the age-old question ‘Cui bono?’ (Who benefits?), first made famous by the Roman statesman and orator Marcus Tullius Cicero.
  

  
  
  Chang insists that no economic school (neoclassical, Marxist, etc.) is 'right' or 'wrong', but that instead learning about each school and its drawbacks gives you a toolset to think about any economic conundrum. I'm currently reading Crooked Cucumber, a biography of Shunryu Suzuki who popularised Zen Buddhism in the West, and he has this great and fitting quote on schools of Buddhism which fits here too: 'A single piece of thread is not useful until we make a beautiful cloth with it. So each single school of Buddhism is meaningful as part of the overall religious life.'.
  
  Chang is a bit of a sneaky one. He keeps on telling you that he's not trying to tell you what to think, but rather how to think, but he's obviously not a fan of neoliberalism:
  
  

  
  Markets run according to the ‘one-dollar-one-vote’ rule, while democratic politics run on the principle of ‘one-person-one-vote’. Thus, the proposal for greater depoliticization of the economy in a democracy is in the end an anti-democratic project that wants to give more power in the running of the society to those with more money.
  

  
  
  There's a lot of interesting stuff on how neoliberalism isn't really a science, but more an ideology which is written to justify power by the rich, points which are echoed in books like David Harvey's A Brief History Of Neoliberalism, or Anand Giridharadas' amazing Winners Take All (reviews for all of those to follow!).
  
  But why care about arguments of neoliberalism?
  
  

  
  Until the 1980s, many people believed that the ‘miracle’ economies of East Asia, such as Japan, Taiwan or Korea, were paragons of free-market policies on the grounds that they had small governments (measured by their budget). However, being small did not mean that these governments were following a laissez-faire approach. During the ‘miracle’ years, they exercised a huge influence on the evolution of their economies through economic planning, regulation and other directive measures. By looking at only the budgetary numbers, people had come to seriously misunderstand the true nature and significance of the government in these countries.
  

  
  
  Funny enough, I've been dipping in and out of Studwell's How Asia Works, and the above is more or less the central argument of Studwell, too - countries like Japan which put strong controls on farming lands and the economy in the early days after WW2 have all done tremendously well, while countries in the same region with similar starting conditions who haven't exercised strong economic control (i.e., Malaysia) haven't done well.
  
  

  
  My aim in this book has been to show the reader how to think, not what to think, about the economy.
  

  
  
  It's not all bashing of neoliberalism like my text suggests, this particular critique makes maybe 5 to 10% of the book - the rest is so interesting! Let me show you: One thing I've been doing more and more during my career as a biologist is to start any answer to a question with 'It depends.'. I've lost all capacity to be definite. The same thing goes for economics - are free trade agreements good? It depends. Are both countries at similar levels of development? Then maybe! Is one country severely under-developed? Then it's likely to lose in the long run, as it does not have a local market to build up its own technologies. And so on. Protectionist policies can be useful, and Chang shows this using the Tudors in the UK, and how their protection of the woollen textile industry laid the foundation for the UK's wealth, contrary to the popular story that the UK is rich because of free trade.
  
  

  Behind every economic policy and corporate action that affects our lives – the minimum wage, outsourcing, social security, food safety, pensions and what not – lies some economic theory that either has inspired those actions or, more frequently, is providing justification of what those in power want to do anyway.
  

  
  
  Highly recommended if you want to dip your toes into the waters of economics, and you want a critical view at commonly held assumptions.
• 
  Tammam Aloudat

  Who reads a book about economics on a holiday? I did and I have enjoyed every part of it immensely. Chang makes his book entertaining as one would expect from a novel. This is not to say that this is not the serious work of economy, it just address is a different audience. Those of us who aren't versed in the science and art of economics but still want to learn about it so to navigate our world.
  
  I have always struggled to understand what economics are about and I hope the world of finance works. This has become less of a problem for me after reading the book. The book explains the schools of thought and the applications off economy in our modern world. It goes into a surprising level of detail given how small the book is in reality. And it gives a visit view of what we have governing our world today; money and economic interest.
  
  Some of the reviewers gave this book a poor review just because they do not agree with its findings. I must admit that I lean towards Chang's views on economy, his distaste for that new neoliberal view on economics, and his desire for a world that is more just and less governed by corporate interest. That being said, I do not think that the author has injected too much of his opinion into the book. I feel that he was careful enough to put both points of view on almost all matters.
  
  I was particularly happy to do either chapter about poverty and inequality as well as the one on labor, work, and unemployment.
  
  I highly recommend the book for anyone who wants to know more about the world.
• 
  Thomas

  A concise and sometimes witty overview. Chang's leftist tendency is apparent mostly by contrast to the conservatism running rampant in the world today, an attitude which dismisses the economic success of a county like Norway out-of-hand because it isn't based purely on market-based neoclassical economics. In other words, not American. Because I am an American with an American education and consume American news, I was a little surprised by Chang's holistic approach. Economics considers more than just money: a job is not just a means for generating an income, and happiness is a legitimate economic concern. Asset backed securities and collateralized debt obligations play a role in human happiness, especially if they are unregulated and fail in a spectacular way, but the markets alone do not make up the whole of economics.
  
  Which is not to say that Chang doesn't cover the basics, because he does, from both an historical and a practical perspective. He just does it in a way that is far more palatable and interesting than I expected.