Brett’s Big Book

You may also like...

1 Response

  1. A.J. Sutter says:

    I concede I haven’t yet read the book as a whole; and I recognize that the law-and-economics literature is even more reactionary than the neoclassical economics literature, and that therefore even a minuscule challenge to the latter could, in some circumstances, be a bold rebellion from the former; but judging at least from the passages discussing economic growth, I am skeptical that any challenge to conventional economics thinking in the book could be called profound. That growth is a Good Thing is neither questioned nor justified, but merely taken for granted, and Paul Romer’s “new growth theory” is frequently mentioned admiringly, even though Romer himself acknowledged that its “conclusions” are actually assumptions and Charles Jones showed in a series of papers that its factual predictions are false. (I discuss Romer’s theory in some detail here.) If I’ve been misled by my limited sample, and the book is actually more critical toward both growth and growth theory than I’ve described, I would only be happy to hear of my error.