具体描述
Blazoned across the front cover of The Economist in the Summer of 1997 was the title of its editorial: 'The Puzzling Failure of Economics'. The occasion for this frank admission was the publication of a new edition of Samuelson's Economics, probably the most widely used textbook in universities according to The Economist and now, in 2010, in its 19th edition. The article concluded that it 'is not a failure of economics, in fact, but of modern (one might say Samuelsonian) economics.' More than ten years later, modern economics has still proved a 'failure' and offered no viable solutions to the causes and consequences of the recent financial crash. The authors argue there is nothing puzzling about this failure. They document how the integrity of economics as a discipline was compromised towards the end of the nineteenth century with the rise of neo-classical economics. Classical economists like Adam Smith had described wealth as the product of three factors - land, labour and capital, whereas the neo-classical school reduced this to two - labour and capital, subsuming land within capital. While this paradigm change was a successful political ploy at the time, undermining arguments in support of the controversial economic reform called for by Henry George in Progress and Poverty, the authors point out it deprived professional economists in the capitalist world of the ability to diagnose problems, fore-cast trends and prescribe solutions, thereby condemning the 20th century and beyond to protracted periods of economic failure. Socialist and Marxist economists were no better: they too failed to recognise the significance of land in the economy, leading to even worse levels of environmental degradation. If the full potential of the market economy, the economics of abundance, is to be enjoyed by everyone, the authors argue, taxes must be transferred from the production and consumption of wealth onto the rent of land. This tax reform would lead to a more efficient economy, a more equitable distribution of wealth and greater protection for the environment. This book is for those who know there is something wrong with our current system and want to discover more about what this is and what can be done to put it right.
作者简介
目录信息
读后感
用户评价
这本书的篇幅浩大，内容密度极高，初次阅读时可能会感到信息量过载，需要反复查阅和梳理人物关系图。然而，正是这种百科全书式的丰富性，赋予了它非凡的深度和广度。作者似乎将自己毕生的研究和思考都倾注在了这部作品之中，涉及的专业领域之多令人惊叹，但奇妙的是，所有的专业知识都被巧妙地融入到故事的血肉之中，丝毫没有生硬的“知识灌输感”。我特别欣赏作者在描绘底层人物命运时的细腻笔触，那些小人物虽然在宏大的历史洪流中显得微不足道，但他们的抗争、他们的坚持，却构成了理解整个时代变迁的最有力的注脚。这本书不适合快速浏览，它要求读者慢下来，像考古学家一样，小心翼翼地挖掘每一个埋藏的线索和隐喻，才能真正体会到这部作品经得起时间考验的价值。
坦率地说，这本书的语言风格初看有些晦涩，大量的古典引用和略显冗长的描述，起初差点让我望而却步。然而，一旦适应了这种独特的韵律和节奏，便会发现其中蕴含的巨大能量。作者的文字功力深厚，很多句子本身就可以被单独摘出来，作为对某种特定情绪或哲学观点的精准提炼。它不像当下流行的快餐式阅读那样追求即时的刺激，而是更像是在品鉴一坛陈年的老酒，需要时间去感受其复杂的层次感。我尤其佩服作者处理宏大叙事与个体命运之间关系的技巧。在广阔的历史背景下，个体的悲欢离合被描绘得尤为触动人心，两者之间形成了一种张力，使得故事既有史诗般的厚重感，又不失人性的温度。对于那些追求深刻内涵和文学美感的读者来说，这本书无疑是一次值得投入精力的挑战，收获也将是巨大的。
这本书的叙事节奏把握得极佳，每一个章节的转折都出人意料，却又在回望时感到水到渠成。作者在构建这个复杂的世界观时，没有急于将所有信息一股脑抛出，而是像一位耐心的向导，逐步引导读者深入迷雾。人物的塑造尤其立体，主角的每一次挣扎和妥协，都让人感同身受，仿佛能触摸到他们内心深处的矛盾与渴望。我特别欣赏作者对于细节的打磨，无论是某个特定时代背景下人们的衣着习惯，还是街头巷尾流传的那些似是而非的谣言，都透露出一种严谨而迷人的气息。这种沉浸式的阅读体验，让人完全忘记了时间的流逝，只想一页接一页地往下翻，去探寻那个隐藏在表面之下的真相究竟是什么。读完后，那种意犹未尽的感觉持续了很久，脑海中不断回放着那些关键的场景和对话，每一次回味，似乎都能从中咂摸出新的意味，这是优秀文学作品才有的生命力。
我必须承认，这本书的内容极具挑战性，它探讨的主题非常尖锐和复杂，涉及了权力、道德边界以及系统性失序的多个层面。作者没有提供任何简单的答案或“正确”的立场，而是将读者置于一个道德的灰色地带，迫使我们去直面那些令人不安的现实。我特别喜欢作者在处理冲突时的那种冷静和克制，他没有诉诸廉价的煽情，而是通过严密的逻辑推导和无可辩驳的场景描绘，让读者自己得出令人不寒而栗的结论。这种“让读者自己去感受痛苦”的处理方式，比任何说教都来得更有力量。这本书更像是一面镜子，反射出的不仅仅是故事中的世界，更是现实世界中那些被我们习惯性忽略的阴暗面，读完后，世界观在某种程度上被颠覆了，带着一种清醒的、略带悲观的现实主义色彩。
这部作品在结构上的创新令人耳目一新，它打破了传统线性叙事的窠臼，采用了多重时间线和不同叙事者视角的交错进行。这种碎片化的叙事方式，初期需要读者付出更多的注意力去拼凑线索，但正是这种“主动参与”的过程，极大地增强了阅读的乐趣和成就感。每当两条看似不相关的线索在某个意想不到的交叉点猛然碰撞时，那种“原来如此”的顿悟感是无与伦比的。作者似乎在故意设置迷局，让读者不断地自我修正对情节的判断，这种智力上的博弈让人欲罢不能。此外，书中对特定社会现象的批判性观察，虽然没有直接点明，但其讽刺的力度和精确度，让人读后深思良久，引发了对我们所处时代某些不合理现象的重新审视，其后劲十足。
