Grand Pursuit: The Story of Economic Genius
Unlike mathematicians, economists don鈥檛 excel at solving problems.
Some open questions: Did the New Deal work, or did we need World War II to escape the Great Depression? Did the Soviet Union鈥檚 collapse prove Marx wrong? Should we return to the gold standard? Post-Bear Stearns, does America need stimulus or austerity? If free markets are superior to command economies, why is the US teetering at the brink of a double-dip recession and the Eurozone in crisis?
Economics: It can鈥檛 be a dismal science if it鈥檚 not even science.
Why don鈥檛 economists know more? Sylvia Nasar鈥檚 Grand Pursuit: The Story of Economic Genius sidesteps this elephant in the Fed鈥檚 Board Room by, well, focusing on what they do know. 鈥淣obody debates any longer whether we should or shouldn鈥檛 control our economic circumstances, only how,鈥� Nasar writes. 鈥淩ather than a history of economic thought, the book in your hands is the story of an idea that was born in the golden age before World War I.鈥�
Like Robert L. Heilbroner鈥檚 1953 classic 鈥淭he Worldly Philosophers,鈥� 鈥淕rand Pursuit鈥� traces the evolution of economics through personalities, or 鈥減rotagonists who were instrumental in turning economics into an instrument of mastery鈥�: Friedrich Engels, Joseph Schumpeter, Irving Fisher and other theoretical all-stars who helped policymakers understand that poor people might not have to be poor. As she鈥檚 shown before, Nasar is good at finding a compelling story amid academic drudgery. Author of the John Nash biography 鈥�A Beautiful Mind,鈥� Nasar turned a schizophrenic, allegedly anti-Semitic mathematician into Russell Crowe. 鈥淕rand Pursuit鈥檚鈥� triumphant thinkers get a similar treatment 鈥� not hagiography, but dramaturgy.
For Nasar, Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek, a lonely critic of government intervention just as Europe was gearing up for World War II, is an exile in Cambridge where his 鈥渄eafness epitomized his isolation.鈥� 鈥淭he Accumulation of Capital鈥� by Joan Robinson, who defended John Maynard Keynes鈥檚 鈥淕eneral Theory鈥� as well as Chairman Mao鈥檚 totalitarian regime, is the unlikely work of a debutante 鈥渂eing groomed to support a husband鈥檚 career rather than to pursue one of her own.鈥� And Bengalese economist Amartya Sen鈥檚 complex theoretical innovations are more remarkable because of his brutal colonial childhood.
鈥淭he landlady of his rooming house, who had begged the college not to send her 鈥楥oloreds,鈥� fussed at him about such things as drawing the curtains at night,鈥� Robinson writes of Sen鈥檚 journey to Cambridge from Calcutta, where he survived primitive treatment for oral cancer. 鈥淭he effects of the radiation appeared: weeping skin, ulcers, bone pain, raw throat, difficulty in swallowing.... the misery lasted for nearly six months.鈥�
Keynes, however, is 鈥淕rand Pursuit鈥檚鈥� superman. A closeted homosexual 鈥渞ecognized as a genius in adolescence,鈥� Keynes was reviled for speaking out against burdensome reparation payments in the Treaty of Versailles after World War I. 鈥淜eynes blasted the treaty as a rank betrayal by the older generation of political leaders,鈥� Nasar writes. 鈥淣ot only had the Big Four done nothing to restore the prewar European economy, but they had not seriously considered the need to do so.鈥�
After a great depression and another world war, the Marshall Plan would show the power of Keynes鈥檚 once-heretical belief that victors shouldn鈥檛 charge vanquished, but help them rebuild. 鈥淏y 1941, Keynesians were scattered around the wartime bureaucracy in Washington like raisins in a cake,鈥� Nasar writes.
But Nasar鈥檚 focus on big names means she overlooks smaller ones. At 77, Sen is the youngest economist she profiles. Prominent Keynesian John Kenneth Galbraith wrote almost 50 books; Nasar gives him three pages. Post-Marxist Jean Baudrillard, whose 鈥淪ymbolic Exchange and Death鈥� offers a damning theoretical indictment of capitalism, doesn鈥檛 merit a mention. Quibbles over who鈥檚 left out of this who鈥檚 who aside, 鈥淕rand Pursuit鈥檚鈥� grander problem is that it鈥檚 a good book that comes at a bad time.
鈥淜eynes and Hayek never fully resolved their long-running debate over how much and what kind of government intervention in the economy is compatible with a free society,鈥� Nasar writes. Yet, this unresolved debate, dismissed in an aside, is the root of President Obama and Republicans鈥� inability to compromise on the national deficit, the trade deficit, entitlement reform, tax reform, health care and climate change. (Ron Paul and Michele Bachmann take note: Nasar offers a more nuanced view of Hayek, who claimed 鈥淲e cannot seriously argue that the government ought to do nothing.鈥� ) A history of an almost century-old ideological feud is interesting, but doesn鈥檛 pick a winner. In 2011, as European markets tumble and China challenges the West for economic dominance, a winner is what we need.
Justin Moyer is a freelance writer in Washington, D.C.
Join the Monitor's book discussion on and .
